Seeking Environmental Justice

Seeking Environmental Justice At the Interface Series Editors Dr Robert Fisher Dr Nancy Billias Advisory Board Dr A...

Author: Sarah Wilks

33 downloads 1847 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Seeking Environmental Justice

At the Interface

Series Editors Dr Robert Fisher Dr Nancy Billias

Advisory Board Dr Alejandro Cervantes-Carson Professor Margaret Chatterjee Dr Wayne Cristaudo Dr Mira Crouch Dr Phil Fitzsimmons Dr Jones Irwin Professor Asa Kasher

Owen Kelly Dr Martin McGoldrick Revd Stephen Morris Professor John Parry Professor Peter L. Twohig Professor S Ram Vemuri Revd Dr Kenneth Wilson, O.B.E

Volume 46 A volume in the Probing the Boundaries series ‘Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship’

Probing the Boundaries

Seeking Environmental Justice

Edited by

Sarah Wilks

Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008

The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-2378-9 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2008 Printed in the Netherlands

Contents Preface Section 1:

Theories in Environmental Management Search for a Theory Linking Environment and Society Doriana Dariot and Luis Felipe Nascimento Gaia: The Politics of Love and the Globe’s Future: Orientations in Perverse Ecologies Serena Anderlini D’Onofrio

Section 2:

Section 3:

9 33

Framework Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope Kendal Hodgman

53

Voluntary Agreements in Queensland, Australia: Contributing Factors and Current Incentive Schemes Jo Kehoe

77

Class and Conflict Global Environmental Governance: Mapping Unequal and Contested Terrain Andrew Deak Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management Tania Sourdin

Section 4:

1

97

121

Information Management The Public Debate on Genetic Modification (GM) - Varieties of Understanding Linda Hadfield

143

Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap Between Experts and Laymen Kim Loyens

159

Section 5: Environmental Activism

Section 6:

Section 7:

Promoting Environmental Citizenship? A Critique of the Moral Persuasiveness of Direct Action Environmental Protest Belinda Clements

179

How many Koalas are there on Kangaroo Island? Sarah Wilks

203

Education Environmental Education in a Course on Ethics and International Development Judith Andre

227

Carbon Justice? The Case Against a Universal Right to Equal Carbon Emissions Derek R. Bell

239

Professionals and Corporations The Final Frontier: Free Trade, Corporate Capitalism and International Environmental Law Kristy J. Buckley

261

Empowerment of Professionals as a Strategy for Effective Sustainability of the Built Environment Joseph Akin Fadamiro

281

Notes on Contributors

293

Welcome to a Probing the Boundaries Project Seeking Environmental Justice emerges from a larger inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research project which aims to explore the role of ecology and environmental ideas in the context of contemporary society, international politics and global economics, and to begin to assess the implications for our understandings of fairness, justice and global citizenship. The project will develop a focus on four interlocking areas; Area 1: will examine the changing relationship between nature, culture, and society and will look at the impact of environmental thinking and ethics on issues such as animal/species welfare and rights, conservation and preservation, sustainable resources, food and feeding, space and air space, present and future needs, human ‘rights', and our obligations to future generations. Area 2 will examine the ethical and political impact of environmental thinking, looking at its emergence and role in political contexts, the factors which influence the formation of environmental policy, what (if any) is the place of economic methods and considerations, differing perspectives on the interpretation of scientific data, and the ability of national and international communities to successfully implement environmental policies. Area 3 will examine the international nature of environmental issues and look at the problem solving processes which are or might be employed particularly in light of globalisation. Themes will include how environmental negotiation works in the context of international relations, the responsibilities of multinational companies, the feasibility of establishing environmental ‘laws’, and the future of ecological ‘business’. Area 4 will examine the themes of justice, community and citizenship, looking at the tensions present in ecological debates, the influence of cultural values, the meaning of ethical business practice, the assessment of what counts as environmental equality, inequality, and justice, and our responsibilities toward the world in which we live. Dr Robert Fisher Inter-Disciplinary.Net http://www.inter-disciplinary.net

Preface Welcome to this volume, which contains developed versions of presentations made to the 5th conference on Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship, held in Oxford, UK in July 2006. This interdisciplinary conference included perspectives from traditionally widely divergent disciplines. Within this forum, the carbon auditor and the conflict management specialist met, the environmental lawyers met those more concerned with the role of environmental education, the Gaia theorist and the zoologist met, mixed, and came away enriched. While the very different paradigmatic viewpoints and modes of work employed by such a disparate group of workers necessitated special efforts to communicate, understand and assimilate the ideas being proposed, this challenge was by and large not too difficult to overcome and left all participants the better for the experience. Various themes surfaced, dived, resurfaced, and came to permeate the conference. As might be expected from the title of the conference, issues relating to environmental justice were prominent. Other themes explored included wider theoretical perspectives of the environment in a greater sense; policy and framework issues as both barriers and possible facilitators; knowledge and information, and in particular whose knowledge and information was most to be heeded; environmental activism in its various guises; and class and equity issues, amongst others. Some of the participants from less developed countries offered particularly valuable contributions, reminding us once again that we should strive not to be ‘white middle class male Tarzans.’1 The chapters in this volume were chosen by the Steering Group with great care and after consultation with the conference participants, as a wide ranging sample of the breadth and depth of the ideas heard at the conference. Inevitably it was not possible to include more papers; however, an eBook of the working conference papers contains most if not all of the actual conference presentations and the reader is referred to this resource. Necessarily, in a book, contributions have to be arranged in some sort of order which inevitably imposes - or implies - some sort of structure. However, this structure is not intended to constrain. The chapters in this volume are arranged in couplets; it is intended that they speak to each other as well as to the broader themes. Several of them in particular take up themes presented in other duets. The resulting structure of the book then, is not a linear listing of bifurcations on particular circumscribed topics but more a multidimensional network of interconnectedness and opportunities to take new pathways through this network. It is our hope that some of these new pathways through the network will be explored by others after reading our works in this book.

2

Preface

The book opens with two different ‘takes’ on theories of environmental management. Opening with the statement: “The connection between nature and society configures a field in which nature, society and economy must be studied together,” Doriana Daroit and Luis Philipe Nascimento looked at some different theories of the environment, analysing them from management economy and sociology perspectives, and finding that all the presented theories had something to offer in different manners to the comprehension of nature-society relationships. In the following chapter, from a Gaian perspective, Serena D’Anderlini proposes a radically different way of looking at love and loving, arguing that a reconfiguration of the (Modern) distinction between Eros and other forms of love would assist the endeavour towards a more ecologically sustainable future. The next section examines the subject of frameworks. Kendal Hodgman has developed a whole of government template for communicating and evaluating sustainability issues, which is successfully and extensively deployed by the largest State administration in Australia (the New South Wales Government). This chapter shows how, by breaking things into do-able, bite sized pieces, and by providing an adequate scaffold, the hopelessness of a seemingly large and overwhelming problem can be reduced; importantly, this approach has the capacity to enroll employees at all levels into sustainable thinking and a considerable educative capacity. Still within Australia, but in another State (Queensland), Jo Kehoe considered the part voluntary conservation agreements between private landholders and governments can play with respect to the protection of biodiversity, well demonstrating some of the problems inherent to voluntary approaches, not least historical/contextual issues (in this instance mutual distrust between landholders and the Queensland government), and the balance that must be struck between how sharp the ‘fangs’ of such an agreement must be in order for it to work effectively, but how toothless it must be for any sane landowner to enter into it voluntarily. We then turn to issues relating to class and conflict. Examining global environmental governance, taking a trans-national class analysis view, Andrew Deak questions the likelihood of many environmental initiatives originating from the ‘middle class’ to be any more than weakly effective, due to a fundamental linkage of this class with capitalist imperatives, which need to be readjusted prior to effective action on environmental degradation; and stressing the need of non government organisations to resist being indirectly co-opted into capitalism-based philosphies. Tania Sourdin then looks at the different mechanisms available to apply to environmental conflict resolution. The pros and cons of facilitative conflict resolution as opposed to adversarial or other processes are examined, with the finding that although facilitative

Sarah Wilks

3

processes have potential merits, the nature of environmental conflicts, which often involve very value-laden positions, incurs a need to look particularly carefully at planning and resourcing issues, lest this approach fails to deliver satisfactory outcomes. ‘Information management’ is the broad heading of the next couplet. Linda Hadfield undertook a qualitative analysis of a large number of responses to a (UK) Government sponsored website which canvassed public opinions about Genetically Modified foods. This work is a blueprint for the potential application of this approach in many other fields; the power of the methodology employed, and the detailed underlying attitudes teased out through its high powers of resolution make for a highly interesting and informative read. Still looking at knowledge and information management, Kim Loyens considered to what extent, (if at all), the gap between expert knowledge and layman’s knowledge could be bridged. By studying three models for expert-layman participation, she found that this was not necessarily an easy endeavour and neither were the models foolproof; however, where experts are willing to make the effort to translate their expert knowledge into forms more comprehensible to non experts, this gap can be bridged. Section Five, on environmental activism, considers two forms of the many manifestations of environmental activism, (while still running along the theme of different knowledges and ways of knowing). Belinda Clements examined the discourses of environmentalists engaged in ‘direct action’ campaigns, seeking connectivity with (academic) environmental ethicists. Sarah Wilks’ chapter examined the progress of a single issue animal rights group, which was striving to protect an animal from perceived endangerment in the face of evidence that in places the animal was in fact overabundant and threatening not just itself but other species due to high numbers and over browsing of vegetation. Both chapters come up against the issue of how representative these forms of environmental activism are of other people’s opinions. In the Clements chapter, it was seen that some local people did not support the efforts of ‘imported’ activists to save bits of their locality for them, and in the Wilks chapter, the injustice felt by the local people, subject to the effects of a high-profile anti- animal control campaign run by an overseas funded organisation based two states away was clearly demonstrated. In Section Six, (titled Education), Judith Andre vividly describes some of the reasons why American youth may lack connectedness with the environment and considers the role a well structured educational course in environmental ethics, with an especial stress on assisting students to gain an awareness of the environmental context2, has partially redressed this situation. Derek Bell’s chapter considers some of the arguments for and against the equal right of all to pollute (in the form of equal rights to emit carbon) within the context of climate change justice.

4

Preface

While on the surface, carbon egalitarianism is an appealing notion, he questions if there should in fact be ‘equal rights’ in this respect, arguing that this assumption is an oversimplification of a very complex issue. In the final section, Professionals and Corporations, Kristy Buckley delivers an account of how the actions of multi-national corporations are essentially without effective legal regulation when these entities operate in Nation-states with weak or failed legislations; leading frequently to adverse environmental impacts and penalties paid by local inhabitants to beneficiaries in wealthy countries, where the corporations are based. She argues that international law needs to ‘catch up’ with the activities of these corporations in order to protect exploited people and environments worldwide. Joseph Fadamiro’s chapter pulls together issues of contextuality, education, and social justice and needs; he discusses some of the past pressures within his native country, Nigeria, which may have been responsible for this nation’s past failure to realise full potential economically and socially. He then proceeds to outline some of the implications these considerations have for those who create the built environment, i.e., builders, architects and the like; and what the needs of these professional in training, in context, are, and how these needs could be met. It is my sincere hope that readers of this volume will find it worthwhile and thought provoking. Frequently, when faced with very big and complex issues such as global justice and the world environment, just looking at the issue can be overwhelming and intimidating. The sheer magnitude and complexities of these issues make it hard to get a conceptual ‘hook’ into them, let alone figure out a way to examine a part without losing the connectedness and context of the whole. By and large, the papers in this book have done both these things; and not a few of them embody positive messages. As a whole, this collection of work lights some paths and leaves promising avenues well signposted for others. Enjoy exploring! Finally, I would like to thank all the contributors to this volume not just for their timely submission of manuscripts which were (mostly!) so well prepared that little editing was required, but also for the width, breadth and depths of their perspectives, so ably communicated, making this an enjoyable learning experience for us all. Sarah Wilks. Sydney, May 2007 [email protected]

Sarah Wilks

5

Notes 1

A response from a Papuan New Guinean woman to a presentation (NOT at the present conference) by an environmental activist condemning mining companies’ involvement in PNG. The activist was a sincere man who had given up his time, money and energy in this pursuit. The woman, from an undeveloped area, had only been educated and offered health care (and given the infant mortality rates in the district, very possibly owed her life to this) as a direct result of the mining company’s presence. The ensuing, lengthy, ding-dong exchange was illuminating for the audience and for each of the speakers. 2 And how not to be ‘white middle classTarzans...’

Section 1 Theories in Environmental Management

Search for a Theory Linking Environment and Society Doriana Daroit Luis Felipe Nascimento Abstract The connection between nature and society configures a field in which nature, society and economy must be studied together. Such a relationship unveils different approaches and interpretations about environmental questions and their management in organisations. In order to understand this field, one must move beyond descriptions into studies that promote questioning, thus leading to transformations in management and production regimes. This study discusses environmental management from management, economy and sociology perspectives. Data were collected from ISO9000 companies, in the Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. The literature review highlights the efficiency criteria used by the Scientific Management and in the works of Herbert Simon, the concept of Transaction Costs Economics derived from Coase, Williamson and North, and discusses the importance of conflicts and power in environmental decision making and action implementation. Data analysis shows that all presented theories may contribute in different manners to the comprehension of nature-society relationships. Key words: Environment, organisational theory, efficiency, transaction costs, environmental discourse, power. 1.

Introduction The use of nature is at the base of human economic and social organisation. To human-developed techniques, the scientific method was added, generating knowledge that was further transformed into technologies, thus resulting in further “discoveries.” The exploitation of natural resources leads to the existence of food, clothing, computers, and spaceships. Nature is subordinated to our economic interests. However, how are such relationships established? Can such a complex set of relationships be solely driven by economics? Some approaches to organisational management seem to enhance the economic view, without discussing its implications for nature-society relationships. By denying questioning of the subject, and of which relationships are desirable, some studies become descriptions of what already exists, immune to thinking that could transform production management and generate positive consequences to the environment and to society. This work aimed to discuss the contribution of organisational and

10

Search for a Theory Linking Environment and Society

economic theories to environmental management. A survey, followed by case studies, was conducted in ISO9000 companies in Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. Data analysis was conducted using different and wellestablished theories in the management and economics fields: scientific management, Simon’s research on decision making and efficiency, and the studies on transaction costs performed by Coase, Williamson and North. In addition, work by Foucault and Hardy and Phillips were considered as inspirations for the power analysis used in the definition of environmental practices. 2.

Environmental Quality in Rio Grande do Sul State Companies In 2000, a survey was conducted in ISO9000 companies in the Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil. The study’s objective was to identify the main negative environmental impacts generated by companies and the respective counter-measure responses adopted. The population was composed of 188 companies, out of which 33 collaborated in the survey. The 33 companies were from the following sectors: metal-mechanic, plastics and rubber, chemical and petrochemical, and electro-electronic. Five were selected for in-depth interviews according to environment harm reduction criteria, scope of environmental measures and financial quantification of such measures. These five companies belong to the secondary sector. Survey results detected as the most prominent environmental problems, the generation of solid waste, energy consumption and effluent generation. Although production processes varied considerably among sectors, energy consumption and solid waste generation presented problems for most respondents, across all sectors. This was not true in the case of liquid effluents, since no company from the plastic-rubber sector indicated the presence of liquid effluents as a significant negative environmental impact of their production process. Another highlight was the small number of companies that pointed to consumption of non-renewable resources as one of their main environmental impacts. This might mean that most respondents did not consider the whole lifetime of their products in their production process analyses. Such was the case even for the metal-mechanic sector, whose raw materials were minerals, or petrochemical and plastic-rubber sectors, whose raw materials are fossil fuel. Case studies showed that companies were concerned with the environmental quality of their suppliers, requiring them to have an operations licence from the Environmental Protection State Agency (FEPAM), although the licence alone does not guarantee environmental quality. Two companies were more strict concerning recycling and storage services provided by their suppliers. One of the companies had an audit

Doriana Dariot and Luis Felipe Nascimento

11

team to verify the adherence of its contractors to its environmental policy. Such relationships with suppliers might indicate the start of better environmental practices dissemination through the production chain. Regarding environmental impacts, gaseous emissions were not an oft nominated factor. The greatest number of quotations of this factor derived from petrochemical companies. The case studies demonstrated that, for companies in this sector, emission control (and thus air quality control) was performed by a neighbouring company, without the direct intervention of the studied company. Another company from the petrochemical sector was starting emissions characterisation, but even those companies were not intensively acting on this specific aspect of their processes. In accordance with the main environmental impacts pointed to by companies themselves, the environmental measures adopted translated into actions aimed at reducing waste generation instead of directing it appropriately. Companies acted strongly on outflows, and on projects and processing. Through the interviews with the best practices companies it was verified that all of them tried to act over the whole process, since this would imply not only avoiding waste disposal but also the generation of environmental impacts. Such conduct is in line with the literature, i.e. independently of the program used - ISO14000, Cleaner Production, Responsible Action or even practices that are not connected to those acting over the whole process is seen as the most efficient manner of elevating the company’s environmental quality. One opinion held by interviewees that drew attention throughout the research was that, for all of them, environmental quality represented an issue of efficiency of the production process. Technological enhancements aimed at waste reduction, minimisation of energy, water and raw material consumption, as well as adequate disposal of waste represent opportunities for cost reduction. When businesspeople become aware of this economic dimension of environmental practices, support and investments are facilitated. For that reason, it is important to quantify the economic benefits of these environmental measures. All enterprises responsible for best practices consider knowledge on costs and returns of environmental measures to be important, since it helps raising business peoples’ awareness, besides showing the efficiency of the Environmental Management System (EMS). Most interviewees chose to point out as the main environmental measure1 the process of culture change that takes place in the enterprise as soon as environmental activities are developed. Changes in attitude and behavior among employees were seen as necessary to continue the process of environmental improvement; and therefore, as crucial for the development of an efficient EMS.

12


The interviews showed that there is need for better organisation and formalisation of the EMS, so that an enterprise has a system of indicators that reflects its environmental performance, i.e., that measures the efficiency of its activities. The most commonly used indicators correspond to energy, water and raw material consumption, production and recycling of solid wastes, and compliance with the law. Specific indicators, which are adequate to the enterprise’s production process, are added to those indicators. These indicators represent process stages or activities that need to be controlled in order to measure the impacts and efficiency of developed activities. With regard to indicators of environmental performance related to manufactured products, none of the interviewed enterprises had indicators that allowed us to assess issues related to use and final disposal. The enterprises that had a structured system of indicators defined and performed their activities based on the results expressed by these indicators. The results were discussed and presented to the board as a way to demonstrate the efficiency of actions, results of investments and to encourage higher investments. In addition, these results were disclosed to the other employees to encourage more participation. Judging by the in-depth interviews carried out in all five enterprises, one cannot say that there is a necessary link between quality systems and environmental quality as a requisite so that assessed enterprises can develop environmental practices and improve their environmental performance. But it can be said that environmental practices are inserted in routine activities carried out by the enterprises, as well as in their strategic planning. Although there was a concern about improving the environmental quality of products, processes and services, none of the enterprises pointed market demands as motivation. This is particularly valid for the national market. The demands these enterprises were expecting to cope with were consequences of the international market, mainly represented by Europe and the USA, and of future situations. Such future situations could be increased environmental awareness by consumers, who, according to the viewpoint held by assessed enterprises, would start demanding less impacting products and services, as a consequence of processes with better environmental performance. The enterprises under investigation were preparing themselves, by adopting practices that were less aggressive to the environment, with the aim of increasing competitiveness due to their current position as exporting enterprises or according to their expectations of future market demands. It was possible to identify the integration of environmental quality to the enterprise’s business strategy, e.g. by forming partnerships to develop products that are less aggressive to the environment. Two enterprises in the case studies exemplified this, one partnered with


13

universities, and another that had a strong link to CNTL. Sale of wastes represented the main source of one new environmental businesses; one enterprise had set up a unit in the city of Rio Grande to export wood chips unused in its own processes. Therefore, the result of this study indicated that the enterprises under investigation presented different methods for improving the environmental quality of their products, processes and services. The existence of an organised SGA allows enterprises to be treated in a more comprehensible manner, i.e., the whole production process is considered for the development of their environmental practices under a proactive perspective. Based on the answers given to proposed objectives, some considerations and operational recommendations can be made. The analysis of the whole production process is crucial to identify the environmental impacts caused by the enterprise. This leads to a deeper knowledge of the production process, allowing the identification of activities that may be enhanced. The results are not only better environmental performance, but also cost reductions, and generation of innovation. More intensive work regarding suppliers of raw materials, whose environmental impact on the enterprise’s activities cannot be disregarded, is also indicated. The development of a system of environmental indicators to express as reliably as possible the enterprise’s environmental performance promotes the increase in efficiency of developed activities, thus resulting in better practices from the environmental standpoint. However, if the final destination of products is not adequately measured, the environmental impacts that could be avoided by a change in the project or product formulation, or even by guiding consumers about proper disposal, are not known. Because the environmental quality of products and services as a consequence of processes that are less aggressive to the environment is not exploited in promotional advertisements, there is no encouragement to develop the market of environment-minded consumers. Environmental practices are only seen as cost reductions and not as market opportunities; therefore, it is recommended that these enterprises adopt more aggressive strategies to promote the environmental quality of their products, processes and services. Now the data have been presented, we now analyse them, considering some organisational theories that may contribute to the economic treatment of environmental issues.

14


3.

The Criterion of Efficiency Since its early days, administration has been characterised by the search for efficiency. Taylor, by studying times and movements, aimed at the best way to perform a task. Ford organised the production process so that it would accelerate productivity through the assembly line. Theories of human relationships focus on employees’ well-being so that they become more efficient. More recent aspects of administration, such as total quality and information technology, represent forms of increasing administrative efficiency and, therefore, of production processes. Engineering considers efficiency as the rate between factor consumption and production obtained, and can be measured in terms of energy. But, after all, what is efficiency? A. Efficiency in Scientific Management According to Taylor, efficiency referred to the relationship between real performance in a given task and the standard set for its accomplishment. The study of times and movements represented an attempt of elevating workers’ efficiency levels via the rationalisation of the work, thus leading to greater productivity. Efficiency was achieved through the standardisation of movements and tools.2 The initial trend in management was to consider administrative questions as engineering problems.3 According to March and Simon,4 this is explained by Taylor’s background and by the situations he and his collaborators experienced. One of the goals of the time and movements study was to describe the characteristics of the human body as if it were a simple machine performing an equally simple task. This is aligned with the view of organisations as machines. Taylor’s method requires detailed observations and precise measurements of routine tasks, enabling one to find the optimal manner of performing them. The impact of the method on myriad organisations is clear nowadays and its use boosted labour performance, i.e. efficiency.5 According to Taylor,6 maximum company performance, and, consequently maximum employee success, is achieved through the maximum productivity of those responsible for company functions, in turn achievable via training. Therefore, efficiency and productivity are interwoven concepts. Through time and movements studies, human problems associated with production defects and productivity became reasonably simple to address, particularly after the integration of the studies with the assembly line. Ford, in his turn, was concerned with the organisation of the production process, bringing standardisation to all stages. Labour division and specialisation, in the standardised assembly lines, raised labour efficiency considerably, generating a productivity increment; this allowed industry growth. Ford believed so much in division and specialisation that he extended the concept to managerial levels, thus


15

creating specific activities such as quality management. Production efficiency still is the main goal of many programs that combine process management with environmental management. ISO 14000 and Clean Production are the main examples of popular programs in the environmental area. B. Taylor, Ford, and the Environment Although the presentation of scientific administration was condensed, its effects on the management of organisations were extensive. Production coordination and organisation principles are still broadly used, a situation that is not different in environmental management. Through interviews, it became evident that preoccupation had moved from end-of-pipe solutions to process modifications that minimise wastes and costs.7 This is especially noticeable in the Cleaner Production program, whose main appeal is cost reduction through modifications in the procedures and in production technology. ISO14000 privileges the standardisation of production and administrative practices so that they become correctly executed, i.e. efficient. This is achieved through workers’ training in new practices that are less environmentally aggressive. Concerns related to measuring the results of environmental management systems, particularly through waste generation and energy consumption indicators, reflect concerns with achieving established performance standards. The presentation of indicators to the board of directors has demonstrated the importance of production efficiency as a factor in the maintenance or expansion of environmental investments. Since efficiency and productivity concepts are strongly related, greater production efficiency may lead to greater productivity. On the one hand, attention to the method employed in task execution leads to resource savings, be they labour, energy, raw materials or equipment usage; on the other hand, such greater efficiency, when allied to greater productivity, may result in greater resource consumption due to the increase in the company’s productivity. Although the company’s activities might be considered less environmentally aggressive from a process-based standpoint, they might not result in a reduction of the company’s environmental impacts from a global perspective. C. Simon: Criteria of Efficiency According to Simon,8 social sciences do not have as precise mechanisms as those owned by natural sciences. Efficiency in administrative decisions is a concept “almost identical to the concept of utility9 maximization in the economic theory.”10 Efficiency is related to the existence of scarce resources, and the activities involve the comparability of reference values. Therefore, “the efficiency criterion

16


determines the choice of alternatives that lead to the maximization of results when scarce resources are applied.”11 However, alternatives cannot be exhausted because the decision maker does not have the necessary computational power and only owns incomplete information; besides many alternatives do not represent an adequate solution. Therefore, in order to be effective and economical, the search for an alternative must be based on previous knowledge about the domain at stake. The decision is made when one of the alternatives presents a satisfactory item, achieving an expectation level formed on the basis of past experiences, and one that allows a judgment on decision quality. However, the expectation level must be adjusted as a function of the parameters found in the domain and during the unfolding of the situation, parameters that do not refer to utility only.12 The efficiency criterion consists of a common denominator among the values considered in decision making and corresponds to the predominant criterion in rational decisions. However, the efficiency criterion is neutral: it does not solve the value comparison problem. Rationality allows the choice of the alternative that is most aligned with the organisational objectives. A predefined set of values allows the evaluation of the impacts of such choice. Simon considers objectives as value premises that serve as the basis for decision making, whereas reasons represent the causes that lead individuals to selecting a few of the objectives as premises for their decisions. In the every-day function of an organisation, decision situations cannot be related to a single objective, but to a set of them, related to the requirements and barriers that bound the decision situation. Objectives are used to define action pathways toward the creation of alternatives and the evaluation of satisfactory ones. This implies that the manager must exercise judgment. Since administrative activity is a group function, its identification with the values of an organised group, or an organisation, orients it according to the organisational objectives, not according to myriad human values. Ethical premises of the organisation constitute the organisation’s objectives. The organisational roles assumed by individuals connect them to organisational objectives, which can be independent from personal objectives.13 The individual differences explain the different behaviours during the execution of a given role and during the decision-making process. When the organisation provides the decision maker with fundamental values, it restricts his or her choices. Therefore, for commercial organisations (using an expression used by Simon14), the fundamental premise corresponds to profit and decisions are oriented to maximise income or minimise cost. Money corresponds to the common denominator that allows the choice of one alternative among the many available. As described by Simon, rationality is limited since:


17

On the one hand, the individual is limited by capacity, habits, reflexes, which do not belong to its conscious mind. Its performance can be limited, for example, by its dexterity, reaction time, or physical force. Decision processes can be limited to the speed of its mental processes, its elementary arithmetic knowledge and so forth. On the other hand, the individual is limited by its values and its concepts of achievement, which influence its decision-making. If its loyalty to the organisation is intense, its decisions will expose a sincere acceptance of the organisation’s objectives; if loyalty is not present, however, personal reasons may interfere on administrative efficiency. 15 According to this view, the administrative man operates in a complex world, but his perception is simple. Therefore, he compromises, since he cannot maximise. Decisions seek a satisfactory action course, for previous examination or knowledge of all alternatives is not doable. Thus, efficiency is related to the satisfactory action course. D. Simon and Environmental Management Efficiency according to the scientific view of management has been exposed. However, when companies adhere to ISO14000, employee well-being16 and the establishment of environmental policies and values enter the scene. Thus one has the starting point of the understanding of environmental management according to the efficiency criterion discussed by Simon. The environmental management activities present in a company are directed by the values and policies established by the company. According to Simon, pre-established values serve to limit decision makers’ choices, since such values represent the organisation’s objectives. Their clear establishment hinders the decision maker from considering all values that are present in a community or in his memory. Thus decision is made on the basis of a more restrict number of alternatives. Alternatives are further restricted when one deals with profitoriented commercial organisations. Organisational objectives are established via authority and communication channels. In general, quality programs require as a fundamental step, the commitment from the top management, not only for the liberation of investments, but also for the establishment of an environmental policy, the latter based on a set of values, i.e., organisational objectives. This was verified in the studied companies. Since they were profit-seeking organisations, it is natural to

18


have profit as the decision-guiding factor. This partly explains why environmental activities in the studied companies are directed to costs minimisation or to the discovery of business opportunities, practices that not necessarily transform polluting programs. For example, the petrochemical and plastic-sector companies visited used a non-renewable raw material, oil; in addition, the latter companies produce building materials from PVC, a chemical compound that is already banned in Europe for hospital and toy applications. Therefore, environmental decisions represent an adequacy of means to the ends, i.e. one chooses the technological alternative (be that equipment or managerial) that assures the minimisation of cost and the maximization of revenue. These decisions do not involve questioning whether the goals are ethical or not, for this was pre-established during the discussion of organisational values and the environmental policy defined by top management; as referred by Simon, management is concerned with de facto judgment. However, decisions are made on the basis of limited rationality. Choices are satisfactory. Therefore, decisions are also guided by intrinsic values learned by each one of the decision makers. In the case studies, it was observed that all companies went through an initial phase, in which employee culture change is attempted. Training was used not only as a means of teaching new procedures but also to highlight the importance of the environment, health, safety and the well-being of employees, the company and the community itself. The preoccupation described as production efficiency places economic gains derived from new practices and opportunities at the centre of environmental management. The emphasis on competitiveness is evident; as quoted in more than one interview: national and international markets may require a proof that the company is seeking impact reduction. This means that the profit dimension governs environmental management. The question that cannot be answered by this study is whether organisations would maintain their environmental practices to the detriment of profit reduction, thus revealing an influence of environmental values that are not linked to profitability. 4.

The New Institutionalism From the 70’s, institutionalism has undergone a set of transformations in its economic, sociologic and political realms. According to Carvalho, Goulart and Vieira, the political approach started to emphasise the autonomy of political institutions and institutional policies that lead to international cooperation instead of legal and governance structures. The sociological area had its emphasis on power relationships and focused on adherence to legitimated standards and organisational homogeneity. The economic vein focused on the analysis of


19

endogenous micro-processes.17 A. Transaction Costs Economics Cost transaction economy represents one of the most recent developments in theory of the firm, inaugurated by the classical theory but reconfigured by the work of Ronald Coase, in 1937: The nature of the firm.18 Before Coase’s work, the costs of buying and selling were considered negligible and production costs were the key to define the production quantity that maximised the firm’s profit.19 In order to answer why firms exist and what determines their actions, Coase introduced the concept of transaction costs. These correspond to research and information costs, bargaining and decision costs and control costs, present in a transaction. According to Coase, the economy traditionally considered the price mechanism as responsible for the coordination of the economic system. Firms were islands of conscious power in a sea of unconscious cooperation. However, if the coordination is effected by the price mechanism, Coase asked why firms would exist; what was the need for firm existence. For him, inside the firm, market transactions are eliminated and replaced by the entrepreneur-coordinator, who directs the production, i.e. there is no intervention of the price mechanism. The only reason for the establishment of a firm is the existence of costs of use of price mechanisms: price identification costs, negotiation costs and contracting costs. The contracts for the conduct of firm activities via process mechanisms are replaced by a smaller number of contracts inside the firm, e.g. contracts among the employer and his employees. They are long-term contracts in order to avoid negotiation and renewal costs. Under these conditions, the buyer (owner) becomes responsible for the resource allocation and avoids market costs. This allows the appearance of the firm, i.e. one may say that firms are alternative forms of organisation and that they only exist when such organisation is cheaper than another that would be achieved through market mechanisms. Uncertainty is another essential condition for firm creation. Absence of uncertainty means that information is perfect for all individuals, without opportunities for the coordination of production activities. If all individuals knew all about a given situation there would be no leeway for an alternative organisation format, for there would be no differential costs to effect a transaction. In addition, the mutability of factors involved in the organisation of markets and firms renders the resource organisation process a dynamic endeavour, beyond the static analysis offered by the neoclassic theory. In a different work entitled The problem of social cost20 in 1960, Coase deals with firms’ actions that harm others, such as pollution. These negative effects of one firm on another entity are called externalities.

20


Within the neo-classic economic theory, externalities are solved according to the work of Pigou:21 through the responsabilisation of the producer via taxes and fines in proportion to the harm caused. For Coase, the pollution problem is reciprocal in nature. If A provokes a nocive effect on B, avoiding B’s problem may harm A. Coase describes the analysis via price mechanisms and via an example involving a cattle raiser and a farmer with the neighbouring property.. The absence of a fence separating the properties allowed the cattle to destroy the farmer’s produce. If the cattle raiser increases his herd, so does he increase the farmer’s losses. Since the cattle raiser is responsible for the damage, he should build the fence. However, he will only do so if the cost is lower than the additional damage to the crops. Alternatively, the cattle raiser might pay the farmer to abandon his harvest, if the forfeit equalled or exceeded production costs. The situation is analogous to that of a company emitting pollutants in a populated neighbourhood. The costs associated with dealing with the company’s emissions might be extremely high and governmental regulation might be a manner of establishing property rights and what may or may not be done. However, government administration is not free of problems and costs. Thus, efficiency of the economic system is not guaranteed and the optimal solution may be no action regarding pollution. Coase believes that inside the firm, opportunity costs and a comparison between revenues from a certain combination of production factors to make decisions should also be an option when dealing with issues such as pollution - avoiding tax mechanisms and comparing the whole product generated from alternative social arrangements. The works of Coase started the new institutional economy. According to Scott, the new institutional economy is concerned with systems of governance and rules developed to regulate or manage economic exchanges.22 In fact, the new institutional economy considers four levels of analysis that are related and under mutual influence: 1) informal institutions, costumes, traditions, rules, and religion; 2) institutional environment: game rules and property; 3) governance: unfolding of the game and agreements; and 4) resource allocation and employment. The main concern of the new institutional economy focuses on levels 2 and 3.23 According to Williamson, The problem of social cost has given rise to studies on institutional environment, on the rules of the game; whereas The nature of the firm has favoured the development of studies related to governance and to the unfolding of the game. 24 During the early work, these two trends received the same treatment; however, as the work progressed, they became autonomous but not isolated fields. Following Coase’s work on transaction costs and property rights, Oliver Williamson developed the Transaction Cost Economy (TCE) maintaining the emphasis on the importance of firm coordination


21

activities, the market and property rights. According to Fiani, transaction costs are significant due to limited rationality, uncertainty, complexity, opportunism and asset specificity. Limited rationality, previously discussed, gains importance when the environment is complex and not predictable, i.e. when uncertainty is present. These factors create the conditions for opportunistic behavior by agents, through the selective transmission of information, distortion and false commitment. Asset specificity reduces the number of agents who can participate in a transaction, generating dependence relations that are mutual or unilateral. This may facilitate the development of opportunistic behavior; thus, the preoccupation of TCE with contracts. For Williamson, the firm is a governance structure. 25 In the TCE, firms and markets represent alternative forms of governance and the distribution of activities among them stems from the institutional environment. What is governance, however? According to Williamson: Governance is the means by which to infuse order, thereby to mitigate conflict and to realise ‘the most fundamental of all understandings in economics,’ mutual gain from voluntary exchange.26 Since governance structure and institutional environment are not isolated fields, Williamson follows North’s definition of institutions: “institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more formally, are the humanly devised constrains that shape human interaction.”27 Therefore, the institutional environment and governance institutions play a very important role in the industrial organisation: the environment is taken as provided and the economic agents may work their transactions and governance structures so as to achieve higher income levels. In order to succeed, the organisation needs to adapt itself to the environment, ether via autonomous parts that respond to market opportunities or via cooperation, maintaining a complex equilibrium through management. This also influences vertical integration, since transactions differ in their attributes and governance structures differ in costs and competencies, transactions must be aligned with appropriate governance structures. Limited rationality directly influences the elaboration of contracts, which are naturally incomplete. This occurs because individuals are limited in their abilities to plan the future - due to lack of knowledge, or capacity to foresee contingencies. Even if a perfect forecast were possible, the parties would have problems in negotiating. Those problems are mostly related to difficulties associated to the development of a common language to describe the actions and the states of a world where both have little previous experience. Moreover, if one assumes that the parties are able to negotiate and renegotiate a whole executory contract, it

22


is still difficult to communicate the exact plans to a third person who will judge and support the development of the plan.28 Besides Coase’s influence, TCE resorts to Simon’s notion of limited rationality. The latter directly influences the elaboration of contracts, which are considered intrinsically incomplete. Apart from the problems associated with the impossibility of foreseeing all situations associated to a transaction during contract closure, one must consider the opportunistic behavior of the agents. Ex ante governance is essential to avoid ex post opportunism problems. Instead of the satisfying, derived from limited rationality, TCE seeks the economising. Economising refers to reducing waste, bureaucracy and other types of adaptation losses; it aims at better contractual alignment, organisation, incentives and controls. Therefore, for Williamson the solution involves an evolution of administrative transaction practices directed at economising, i.e. to results maximization; the coordination of the transaction is coordinated by hierarchy (the firm) or by the market according to the largest reduction in transaction costs.29 TCE presents three levels that transact and are responsible for the firm’s governance structure. The institutional environment, which influences the form and its governance structures and which, in its turn, affects the individual. The reverse path is also valid for the TCE.30 This is clear in the description by North: Institutions, together with the standard constraints of economic theory, determine the opportunities in a society. Organisations are created to take advantage of those opportunities, and, as the organisations evolve, they alter the institutions. The resultant path of institutional change is shaped by (1) the lock-in that comes from the symbiotic relationship between institutions and the organisations that have evolved as a consequence of the incentive structure provided by those institutions and (2) the feedback process by which human beings perceive and react to changes in the opportunity set. Transaction costs derive not only from the inefficiency of property rights stemming from the institutional environment, but also from the imperfect mind models of the agents when they try to understand the complexity of routine problems; Long-run economic change is the cumulative consequence of innumerable short-run decisions by political and economic entrepreneurs that both directly


23

and indirectly (via external effects) shape performance. The choices made reflect the entrepreneurs’ subjective modeling of the environment. Therefore, the degree to which outcomes are consistent with intentions will reflect the entrepreneurs’ models are true models. North considers human motivation as more complex than the utility maximization model and states that culture change is necessary to define the path representing greater efficiency. B. Transaction Costs and the Environment? Something not so Strange… The influence of institutions on the economic system in the TCE is well developed by North. Regarding environmental management, the question is: what are the game rules in regard to the environment? There are two main components here: making money, the objective of any capitalist enterprise, and being concerned with the environment. However, according to the practices described by the studied companies, both are intrinsically connected. The presence of environmental inspection bodies, like FEPAM, and the consequent possibility of fines for bad environmental behavior prod companies towards the adoption of environmental management processes. However, following Coase's reasoning on social cost, taxes and fines are not enough to curb negative externalities such as pollution. Even governmental administration has its costs and the system efficiency can be affected. Therefore, market mechanisms aimed at the inclusion of environmental norms have been increasingly preferred - ISO14000 is a clear example; others are carbon credits, green stamps for specific sectors or products such as the Forest Stewardship Council. This reasoning privileges the economic view both from the active and from the passive subjects, avoiding fines, reducing costs or improving the company's image. The value that guides environmental preoccupation is income maximization, from which the need of clear property rights regarding the environment stems. This generates a conflict with the views regarding the environment as a public good.31 Even after the clear establishment of property rights, they may influence environmental preferences and direct transactions, affecting the final allocation of resources:32 the lowest total cost alternative may not be selected and other policies and controls may be chosen by the authorities. The profit component seems to have a greater importance as a “game rule,” since the adoption of practices that stretch beyond what is required by law may meet the objective of saving resources and meeting present and future market demands. The market assumes a capital importance, because it considers the existence of consumers who value

24


products and services that are less environmentally aggressive. This involves not only purchase relationships but also the company's image as environmentally non-aggressive, a fact that may avoid transaction costs. The existence of such environmental values in society may change the institutions, the rules of the game, and, consequently, the focus of environmental management in the organisations. Changes within organisations and institutions may reinforce the values of the individuals themselves, that is, a higher number of less aggressive environmental practices possibly raises new values in the community; those values, in turn, may influence the administrative decisions. Partnerships developed with universities, and with the National Center of Clean Technologies, may represent a step towards a more effective insertion of environmental values in organisations. In their relationship with suppliers, some companies attempt to demand environmental responsibility, a requirement of the ISO14000 standard. Complying with such demands becomes easier if the environmental body issues an operation licence; warranting that the company will meet the requirements of the legislation. Other actions developed in partnership with raw material or packaging suppliers are also employed with the aim of increasing profits or reducing costs. The improvement of environmental performance is an additional consequence. Different governance structures were found within the studied companies; they are also ruled by the economising principle. The hierarchy (firm) commands the environmental measures as a way to measure and control environmental indicators for process activities. Waste disposal and part of the planning and implementation of environmental programs, however, including training and process improvement, are ruled by third party agreements. One of the companies, for example, sought long-term contracts, actively participating in suppliers’ environmental audits, whereas others simply controlled their suppliers through a set of pre-established requirements, like operations licences issued and renewed by FEPAM, as a means of avoiding control costs. The common denominator to all companies where in-depth interviews occurred is the existence of an engineering staff responsible for the environmental area, in hierarchically distinct levels. The engineers worked with human resource and product development professionals, indicating an adaptation to the complex institutional environment represented by ecological requirements. Opportunistic behaviours were occasionally noticed. For example, a PVC producer stated its product was recyclable, but did not reveal that PVC has carcinogenic properties (the reason for the ban on PVC toys and medical products in Europe). In general, environmental concern regarding the production process is a manner of avoiding transaction costs that stem from ex post governance, e.g. fine negotiation, conduct codes required by the public power.

Doriana Dariot and Luis Felipe Nascimento 5.

25

Discourse, Power and Environment Discourse promotes and reflects power relations. It is simultaneously a text, a discursive practice and a social practice. The text dimension refers to linguistic analysis; the practical dimension is related to the nature of production processes and textual interpretation, namely, the types of discourse and their combinations; the social practice dimension refers to the institutional and organisational context and its influence on the discursive practice. The discursive practice focuses on the concepts of ideology and hegemony that are produced, reproduced and transformed in the discourse.33 For Foucault, discourse involves procedures of exclusion: interdiction - one cannot say whatever one wants in any situation (prohibited words); separation and rejection which generate oppositions in our society such as reasoning and madness, true and false.34 Discourses also possess procedures of control, such as the principle of classification, ordination, distribution, and the determination of conditions of functioning that allows one to become qualified to pronounce a discourse. The position of a subject and his subjectivity constitute the discourse itself which influences the way the discourses are received, interpreted, developed, disseminated. Springett states that the environmental discourse has been highly controlled.35 It emerges from the business discourse like the green business, which does not analysis the exploitation of people and resources. The participants of her research do not seriously question the growing paradigm as the basis for a sustainable future. Growing is seen as necessary to sustain environment and not as its dependent. For Foucault, power is not found in a single aspect, but in power correlations that generate different ever-unstable states of power.36 Power means a multiplicity of forces that belong to the domain that they organise. These forces oppose themselves, design strategies and the institutional framework, and shape power mechanisms that don’t come from a central point like State.37 These relations of power are expressed and constituted in the discourse. Therefore, discourse is the power that is to be seized. For Hardy and Phillips, discourse produces concepts that are ideas that represent our view of the world.38 Concepts can be transformed in time and with respect to the situation producing them, disseminated and interpreted by different social agents. These concepts do not live in harmony. Much to the contrary, they are source of disputes among the agents seeking their legitimacy and hegemony. Different concepts evoke different objects and involve different practices to deal with this object. According to Olivo and Misoczky, in the environmental discourse presented in the Brundtland report, there is a predominance of economic logic to determine the concept of sustainable development and strategic actions of sustainability.39 The logic of life preservation was left

26


in second place. Springett points out that the term ‘sustainable development’ is confused with other concepts. Government members, NGOs and companies use concepts such as triple bottom line, sustainability, sustainable management, sustainable growth, and ecoefficiency as synonyms. The confusion is also a reflection of the dispute among agents. Therefore, environmental discourse and its different interpretations and uses involves the understanding of environmental practices not only as efficient ones, but also as those that are better situated in the power space involving governmental agencies, NGOs and society. A. Power Sighs During in-depth interviews, it was possible to identify the green business discourse and a lack of questioning about the ecological limits, since environmental questions were considered efficiency issues linked to processes and profitability. Companies’ preoccupations with their image is also clear in the discourse; the companies under study participated in meetings, seminars, expositions, so as to demonstrate their practices and be seen as environmental leaders, adopting similar strategies for the dissemination of the environmental discourse. Internal dissemination of the discourse is formal, through training, policies, indicators and references, such as boards and sketches placed in a visible spot; it is also accomplished in an informal manner by the environment personnel both within and outside the company. It was possible to observe clashes between FEPAM and companies, companies stating that FEPAM does not participate in the solution of environmental problems, only inspecting and fining. Although not explicitly mentioned by the interviewees, clashes also exist inside companies, between environmental staff and the board, between different departments and different job positions. In such situations it is possible to notice the influence of cultural and local issues related to environmental management. For example; one of the studied companies adopted a closed system of water consumption to respond to pressure from the community and from the public powers. Cultural issues are crucial in country likes Brazil where the choice between economic success and environmental preservation usually involves difficult choices that are to be made in a situation of constant financial difficulties and ideological clashes. Pressure to get a good shortterm financial result usually renders environmental investments unviable. The economic growth and free market ideologies are not questioned in the company, nor by the company representatives, and the environmental discourse is one of transformation and responsibility towards future generations.

Doriana Dariot and Luis Felipe Nascimento 6.

27

Final Considerations It is important to stress that this work has not aimed at presenting complementary theories, but different views of the same question. Moreover, the economic approach was favoured because it still is a cornerstone in the environmental practices of companies. This does not mean that the sociological and political approaches are not interesting. On the contrary, their use in the development of new studies is essential to widen the understanding of the relationships among society, economy and environment. Organisational theories that are directed to economic explanations such as those discussed in this study, reveal the importance of the economic aspect in environmental issues, but also point to its limitations. As already mentioned in the introduction, nature-society relations have a complexity that stretch beyond economic explanations. Nevertheless Scientific Management and Simon’s works bring about practices to reduce resources consumption and recognise the need for values, politics, and environmental objectives to be defined; and TCE notice environmental costs and governance structures to give a adequate answer to institutional exigencies, one is led into inquiring whether management practices based on efficiency or economising, such as ISO14000, PML and other market mechanisms, may lead to sustainable development or may represent the maintenance of old environmentally aggressive management practices, especially when profitability levels are at stake. These economic explanations and their associated management practices do not seem to respond to the necessary changes in naturesociety relations as pointed out by the World Bank at World Development Reports and the Worldwatch Institute, and seem to represent global practices based on the Anglo-Saxon management model. However, this model and its intended universality do not satisfy the set of local requirements and characteristics that affect decisions, actions and organisational objectives. Other theories need to be mobilised, together with other viewpoints, so that nature-society relations are understood. Power approaches open perspectives for the understanding of local relationships and their influence on nature-society and on more adequate development options. The power approaches allow us to discuss new environmental values and other questions that are not economic. It was difficult to analyse the data obtained, because they were collected without considering the different theories presented herein. This was particularly relevant during the analysis of the agents’ opportunistic behavior and the environmental discourse and associated power relations. Finally, as stated by Simon, decisions are embodied by values. The choice of theories stemmed from the authors’ need to question environmental practices and their relation to the organisational theory and the economy. The richness of the field seems to open the doors to new

28


views that aggregate different understandings about the subject, in the construction of a discussion space where new elements are constantly added. Each element, individually, and their associated relationships, can be responsible for the reconfiguration of the field and a different understanding of nature-society relations.

Notes 1

The culture change could be understood as an effect from training or as an expression from an ancient knowledge set. It could be also a motivation for the next actions. 2 Antonio C. A. Maximiano, Introdução à administração. (5 ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2000). 3 Bertram M Gross, Organizations and their managing ( New York: The Free Press, 1968). 4 J.G. March, H.A. Simon, Les organisations (12 ed. Paris : Dunod, 1969). 5 Gareth Morgan, Images de l’organisation (Canada: Université Laval et Éditions ESKA, 1989). 6 Frederic W Taylor, La direction scientifique des entreprises (Paris : Dunod, 1971). 7 In the situation described was important also the exigencies from the environmental agency and ecological conscience of the community. 8 Herbert A. Simon, Comportamento administrativo (Rio de Janeiro: USAID, 1965). 9 Utility is the satisfaction level a person experiences when using goods or services. 10 Ibid, 207. 11 Ibid, 209. 12 Herbert A. Simon, “Methodological foundations of economics,” Praxiologles and the philosophy of economics 1 (1992): 25-41. 13 Herbert A. Simon, “Rationality in psychology and economics,” Journal of Business 59 (1986) 209-224. 14 Herbert A. Simon, “On the concept of organizational goal,” Administrative Science Quarterly 9 (1964) 1-22. 15 Simon, 1965. 16 The welfare of the employee could be related to productivity and loyalty to the organization. 17 Cristina A. Carvalho et al., “A inflexão conservadora na trajetória histórica da Teoria Institucional,” CD ROM do XXVIII Encontro Anual da Associação dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Administração (Curitiba, 2004). 18 Ronald H Coase, “The nature of the firm,” in: The firm, the market, and the law (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988).


29

19

Ronaldo Fiani, “Teoria dos Custos de Transação,” in: Economia Industrial: fundamentos teóricos e práticas no Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 2002). 20 Ronald H Coase, “The problem of social cost,” in: The firm, the market, and the law (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988). 21 A. C Pigou, The economics of welfare, (London: Macmillan and Co., 1960). 22 23

Oliver E. Williamson, “ The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2000) 595-613. 24 Oliver E Williamson, “ Transaction costs economics: how it works; where it is headed,” The Economist 146 (1998). 25 Oliver E Williamson, The mechanisms of governance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 26 Oliver E. Williamson, “The theory of the firm as governance structure: from choice to contract,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (2002) 171-195. 27 Douglass North, Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990). 28 Christopher S. Boerner, Jeffrey T. Macher, “Transaction costs economics: an assessment of empirical research in social sciences,” Working paper (2005). 29 Thomas Kemp, “Of transactions and transaction costs: uncertainty, policy, and the processes of law in the thought of Commons and Williamson,” Journal of Economic Issues 40 (2006) 45-58. 30 The institutional environment is take-for-granted, which difficult the interaction of the levels. 31 Garret Hardin, “The tragedy of the commons,” Science 162 (1968) 1243-1248. 32 Alessandra Arcuri, “A different reason for “de-coasing” environmental law and economics,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 20 (2005) 225–246. 33 Norman Fairclough, Discurso e mudança social (Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2001). 34 Michel Foucault, A ordem do discurso. (São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2004). 35 Delyse Springett, “Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical theory,” Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (2003) 71-86. 36 Michel Foucault, Histoire de lq sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. (Editions Gallimard, 1976). 37 Michel Foucault, Microfísica do poder. (Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal, 2002).

30


38

Cynthia Hardy, Nelson Phillips, “No joking matter: discursive struggle in the canadian refugee system,” Organization studies 20 (1999) 1-24. 39 Vania M.F Olivo, Maria C. A. Misoczky, “As estratégias discursivas presentes na origem do referencial para o desenvolvimento sustentável: uma análise crítica do Relatório de Brundtland. CD ROM do Encontro Nacional sobre Gestão Empresarial e Meio Ambiente (São Paulo, 2003).

Bibliography Arcuri, Alessandra. “A different reason for “de-coasing” environmental law and economics,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 20 (2005) 225–246. Boerner, Christopher S., Macher, Jeffrey T. “Transaction costs economics: an assessment of empirical research in social sciences,” Working paper (2005). Carvalho, Cristina A., Goulart, Sueli, Vieira, Marcelo M. F. “A inflexão conservadora na trajetória histórica da Teoria Institucional,” CD ROM do XXVIII Encontro Anual da Associação dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Administração.(Curitiba, 2004. Coase, Ronald H. “The nature of the firm,” in: The firm, the market, and the law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. Coase, Ronald H. “The problem of social cost,” in: The firm, the market, and the law. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1988. Fairclough,Norman. Discurso e mudança social. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 2001. Fiani, Ronaldo. “Teoria dos Custos de Transação,” in: Economia Industrial: fundamentos teóricos e práticas no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 2002. Foucault, Michel. Histoire de lq sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Editions Gallimard, 1976. Foucault, Michel. Microfísica do poder. Rio de Janeiro: Edições Graal, 2002. Foucault, Michel. A ordem do discurso. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 2004.


31

Gross, Bertram M Organizations and their managing. New York: The Free Press, 1968. Hardin, Garret “The tragedy of the commons,” Science 162 (1968) 12431248. Hardy, Cynthia, Phillips, Nelson. “No joking matter: discursive struggle in the canadian refugee system,” Organization studies 20 (1999) 1-24. Kemp, Thomas. “Of transactions and transaction costs: uncertainty, policy, and the processes of law in the thought of Commons and Williamson,” Journal of Economic Issues 40 (2006) 45-58. March, J.G., Simon, H.A. Les organisations. 12 ed. Paris : Dunod, 1969. Maximiano, Antonio C. A. Introdução à administração. 5 ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2000. Morgan, Gareth. Images de l’organisation. Canada: Université Laval et Éditions ESKA, 1989. North, Douglass. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Olivo,Vania M.F., Misoczky, Maria C. A. “As estratégias discursivas presentes na origem do referencial para o desenvolvimento sustentável: uma análise crítica do Relatório de Brundtland. CD ROM do Encontro Nacional sobre Gestão Empresarial e Meio Ambiente. São Paulo, 2003. Pigou, A. C The economics of welfare, 4 ed. London: Macmillan and Co., 1960. Scott, W. Richard. Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 1995. Simon, Herbert A. Comportamento administrativo. Rio de Janeiro: USAID, 1965. Simon, Herbert A. “Methodological foundations of economics,” Praxiologles and the philosophy of economics 1 (1992): 25-41. Simon, Herbert A. “Rationality in psychology and economics,” Journal of Business 59 (1986) 209-224.

32


Simon, Herbert A. “On the concept of organizational goal,” Administrative Science Quarterly 9 (1964) 1-22. Springett, Delyse. “Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical theory,” Business Strategy and the Environment 12 (2003) 71-86. Taylor, Frederic W. La direction scientifique des entreprise. Paris : Dunod, 1971. Williamson, Oliver E. The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Williamson, Oliver E “ Transaction costs economics: how it works; where it is headed,” The Economist 146 (1998). Williamson, Oliver E. “ The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead,” Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (2000) 595-613. Williamson, Oliver E. “The theory of the firm as governance structure: from choice to contract,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (2002) 171-195.

Gaia: The Politics of Love and the Globe’s Future: Orientations in Perverse Ecologies Serena Anderlini D’Onofrio Abstract A politics of love for an ecologically sustainable future is based on two main ideas: there is an erotic element in all forms of love; and, as in Gaia theory, the biota, or sum of biosphere and atmosphere, is a live being in which humans feature as mere cells. The modern concept of sexuality has resulted in a societal view of selfless forms of erotic love as diseased. The argument proposed here is that the medicalisation of love is in itself a pernicious disease for it places erotic expression under the tyranny of scientific normativity. The healing arts have buffered the effects of this tyranny by relying on imaginativeness and creativity, as well as practice, tradition, and experience. Accordingly, a politics of love that envisages a Gaian post-modernity involves a transmigration of tropes from the healing arts to the loving arts, whereby the semantic realm that modernity describes as sexuality is reconceived as the realm of the arts of loving. In this realm, alternative lovestyles, including those practiced in gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and polyamorous communities are valued for their sustainability; their emphasis on pleasure, caring, and sharing resources is a boon in the project of containing the dangerous effects of excessive human impact on Gaia. Key Words: Gaia hypothesis; the arts of loving; ecology; erotic expression; biopolitics; sexuality; healing; bisexuality, Polyamory. 1.

Introduction: Selfish and Selfless Love Western modernity’s biopower assumes that there are two distinct kinds of love, one selfless and one selfish. Selfless love includes affection for family members, friends, and fellow travelers in one’s affinity groups; care for the elderly and sick; and the responsibility of selfcare. This allegedly selfless love is also constructed as sexless, and as such it can extend to the concern for one’s communities; it can find a patriotic dimension in the care for one’s homeland; a sacred dimension in the worship of one’s deities; and an ecological dimension in the care for one’s planet. Part of the reason why this love can pass for both selfless and sexless is that it can multiply for as many people as those who need it, for example, a parent’s love multiplies for whatever number of children s/he happens to have. The more selfish counterpart to this allegedly selfless type of love does include a sexual element, with its accompanying romance and erotic expression. This sexual love is often understood as

34

Gaia: The Politics of Love and the Globe’s Future

selfish because its multiplication is viewed as aberrant and incompatible with this type of love’s very intent. The bio-politics of love I propose exposes this dichotomy as both deluded and self-defeating. Since it hinges on the cultural notion of sexuality, this dichotomy, I propose, may very well only denote the epistemological limitations of Western modernity; such limitations, unfortunately, tend to be in the way of creating an ecologically sustainable Gaian post-modernity. I claim that the dichotomy is deluded because affectional types of love are necessary for our survival as a species, and, therefore, not as selfless as they are believed to be. It is self-defeating because all forms of love have an erotic component the denial of which causes unhappiness and produces substantial amounts of hatred, often enough to defeat the forces of love. 2.

“Sex” Among the Protists: Margulis’ take on Gaia Theory In presenting this bio-politics of love for a Gaian post-modernity, I propose to revisit the concept of sexuality, which, notably in Foucault’s work, has been seen as a social construction of modernity, and which, at this juncture, I claim, is more part of the problem than it is part of the solution. Hence, I direct my attention to new ways to create emotional and erotic sustainability that are not “sexual” in conventional terms. These ways, I suggest, have the merit of empowering people to navigate the postmodern fluxes of today’s globalizing world, and thus generate plateaus of tantric elation, vitality, and creativity. In this context, I invoke the work of Lynn Margulis, a bioscientist whose take on the Gaia hypothesis comes from the perspective of microorganism. Her rigorously scientific argument is both challenging and intriguing. To begin with, Margulis, who often writes with her son Dorion Sagan, and was at one point married to the famous astronomer Carl Sagan, puts human love and life in perspective by reminding us that “the global community of bacteria” which is where the first sex happened, “is four billion years old.”1 This reminder advises humility for the human species. After all, we are the new kids on the block and could very well be the first ones to go too. Bacteria, Margulis explains, have sex when they pick up from, and donate genes to, their neighbours.”2 This form of sex is called mitosis. Bacteria are also promiscuous, and many of them, such as protists, have a natural tendency to engage in “massive org[ies]” in which they “[m]istak[e] food for sex and sex for food.”3 So the perspective presented by Margulis emphasises that in nature sex is neither exclusive nor necessarily related to reproduction. The alleged selfishness of romantic and erotic love that is often used to justify its exclusivity appears to be a mere human invention, not a natural thing, and one would do well to question how attuned to Gaia’s sensibility this invention might be.

Serena Anderlini D’Onofrio

35

Margulis also emphasises that evolution happens just as much by symbiosis as it does by selection, something Darwin was well aware of but has tended to get lost in the dissemination of his theories. Meiotic sexuality is the sexuality of conjugating haploid cells, namely cells whose genetic information combines when they mate.4 Just as the promiscuity of bacteria is pervasive, as they have sex with any of their neighbours whenever necessary, so the different evolutionary stages of sex occur in organisms at many levels. For example, in men meiosis occurs throughout life as they produce meiotic sperm cells. In women, it only occurs during life in the womb, for at birth all of our meiotic cells, or ova, have already been produced. Sexuality, Margulis further claims, is very similar to symbiosis.5 Indeed, symbiogenesis, or “the formation of new organs and organisms through symbiotic mergers” is as natural in evolution as is socalled natural selection. 6 In her definition of sex, Margulis emphasises that from an evolutionary viewpoint what we moderns know as sexuality is not necessary. As she argues, in the biological sense [sex] . . . is not intrinsically related to reproduction or gender . . . [I]t is a genetic mixing in organisms that operates at a variety of levels . . . and occurs in some organisms at more than one level simultaneously . . . By this definition . . . an influenza virus infecting humans is engaging in sex by inserting its genetic material into the cells of its host. 7 In other words, it is not just the famed “bees” and “flowers” we often use to answer our kids’ questions about where babies come from that are having sex. Sex is happening all the time in our very bodies, with or without our cooperation, thanks to the activities of the orgiastic microorganisms that constitute them. “In this evolutionary side show of odd sex lives,” we are, Margulis argues, “oddly coupled, colossal collections, an orgiastic, if organised, intermingling of beings,” a biological site for bacteria to engage in “advanced sex.”8 Microorganisms, including human cells, bacteria, protists, viruses, and others, engage in “sex” to rejuvenate themselves and to inject new life energy in their species. This happens even as the process often implies death for its individuals, as when a sperm reaches an ovum and both individual cells die to give birth to the embryo. 3.

The Disease of Turning Love into a Disease Even as, by her own admission, Margulis’ views have a history of controversy,9 the notion of sex she proposes, an all-pervasive activity that is neither selfish, nor exclusive, nor necessarily related to

36


reproduction, is by now enough accepted in biology as to be the basis for textbooks. I propose that from the humanities isle, those of us who theorise about cultural notions of gender, sexuality, and erotic expression, take notice. Margulis’ biological notion of “sex” is not unrelated to Freud’s psychological notions of an all pervasive eros, or love’s vital energy, which comes with its counterpart, thanatos, a memento mori within the wider life cycles Freud envisaged as a participant in the last fringes of idealist philosophy. These notions can be traced back within the Western tradition to late nineteenth and early twentieth century notions of vitalism, and they also reflect the more recent influence of alternative Eastern traditions, like Tantric Hinduism, which emphasises sacred embodiment and transformation, as well as the notions of a universal life energy embodied in the Buddhist concepts of prana and chi. However, Margulis’ concept of sex is based on the symbiotic love of two Gaian cells ready to die to become one. I would argue that this is the kind of selfless, yet highly erotic love, that, when happening in humans, modern psychoanalytical practices have constructed as a disease a dysfunction of one’s self-preservation system variously classified as enmeshment, codependence, or both. To construct human love as a disease, is, I claim, pernicious to our species and, given the power that humans now have on Gaia, to the whole biota. This construction, not the love therein, is, I submit, the disease. At this end of modernity, I suggest, the whole concept of human sexuality is based on an implied notion of heteronormativity that emphasises its reproductive function, and has recently expanded to include homosexual practices that conform to its alleged monosexual exclusivity. But this expansion is too supervised and puny compared to the more symbiotic and inclusive bio-politics of love Gaia needs. Hence, I want to argue that it is best to envisage the whole concept of sexuality, with the possible, but not granted, exception of bisexuality, on which I will return later, as a construct of modernity whose semantic area stands to gain by being recuperated under a more humanistic aegis, as a pre-modern realm of “the arts of loving,” which is both Gaian and postmodern too. Indeed, as humans we have amply fulfilled the biological impulse to “populate the earth,” which might, at one point, have propelled the reproductive heterosexist imperative of our species. It now becomes us to prove that we can also be considerate of this imperative’s effect and its dangerous impact on Gaia’s global ecosystem. In a Gaian post-modernity, I’d like to suggest, “sex” is erotic expression, the joy of taking and giving, the orgiastic revitalizing pleasures of bacteria. It is the art of loving that lives is the wider space of the arts of healing, and, as an art, is shy of any normativity. This, I submit, is the politics of love that will usher a Gaian post-modernity in and will rehabilitate us as a species that, unlike viruses that do kill their hosts, is


37

capable of living in harmony with its hostess, the biota teeming with life that planet Earth now still is. 4.

Tough Love and the Absurd This notion of the biota as a mantle teeming with life whose will is the sum total of all the wills of its interdependent cells is popular in the imagination of countercultural groups like Neopagans, Wiccans, and others who practice living as if the earth was a being with a life and will of its own. The Gaian awareness generated therein implies a large dosage of tough love and a good sense of the absurd. If we are mere cells in Gaia’s superorganism, we can neither be Darwin’s endpoint of biological evolution, nor the special creatures made “in god’s image” suggested by the proponents of creationism. In Gaia, the proponents of this hypothesis further imply, we humans are the scourge of the planet that risks turning its mantle teeming with life back into a rock. One has to admit that it is not very pleasant to think that we might be the virus whose degenerate form of symbiosis eats up the host and thus destroys the virus too. A certain amount of tough love is necessary to come to this unflattering recognition. The pollution we humans produce, the climate changes that ensue, and the indiscriminate use of non-renewable sources of energy that causes it, cannot destroy the hard-rock planet that lies under the biota. But they can kill the biota and us, who are a part of it. Hence the absurdity of our position, when we know that we must love Gaia to love ourselves, even as loving Gaia may imply allowing her to get rid of us. I submit that the biopolitics of love necessary to invent a Gaian post-modernity preside over the vitality and mobility of the cells in Gaia’s body that we are and the exchanges of erotic and affectional energies therein. To return to the macroscopic aspects of this proposition, let me rehearse here that when James Lovelock was part of the first Mars expedition as a probe was sent on that planet to find out if there was water on it, he compared pictures of Mars, Venus, and Earth, all taken from a distance. Both Mars and Venus have atmospheres with 95 percent carbon dioxide, even though Mars is closer to the Sun than Earth, and Venus is more distant. Also both Mars and Venus look a greysh brown, while Earth still looks a bright blue and white, due to the 21 percent oxygen in its atmosphere. Contrary to what previous scientists believed, Lovelock observed, the difference between Mars and Venus on the one side, and Earth on the other, cannot be attributed to Earth’s being just at the “right” distance from the Sun, for that would not explain why its neighbours on opposite sides of the Sun look so alike. It is rather due, Lovelock hypothesised, to the different ages in the biological development of these three superbeings. Mars and Venus have already concluded their respective life cycles, while Earth is still in it. This inscribes the whole of our species into the wider life cycle of the superorganism that hosts it -

38


hence the awareness that there are no intrinsic reasons why Earth and its neighbours should be so different. This sense of the absurd makes us humans look so little - perched on a precarious biota that could disappear. It also gives new meaning to Western modernity’s relentless effort to achieve the mastery of nature it believes to be necessary - an effort that, predictably, has turned out to be deluded. 5.

Un-Mastering Nature and Surrendering one’s Anxieties to It Feminist discourses that reflect the perspectives and understandings of women in a variety of situatednesses, now include ecological feminism, which, with its emphasis on gender as ecology and on the ecology of gender, has made significant contributions to correcting western modernity’s self-serving and dangerous belief system. Its more gnoseological view of nature can be traced back to pre- and early-modern times in the Western system and still prevails among indigenous people. Hence, in the perspectives proposed by Val Plumwood, Karen Warren, Carol Adams, Shamara Shantu-Riley, Paula Gunn Allen, and many other voices, the idea that humans can master nature is but a myth of modernity that became more prominent with secularism and the scientific and industrial revolutions. Their view of nature includes humans and emphasises modes of knowledge that are both secular and spiritual and aspire to sustainable, harmonious forms of coexistence rather than mastery. The reality, these theorists affirm, is that humans cannot master nature and there is no reason why they should. Indeed, the more intent we become in this effort, the more the ever changing body of nature becomes elusive, with us deluded about a control impossible to achieve, and unable to benefit from the more realistic project of supporting nature and aligning our intents with hers. The belief that one can master nature implies reducing those who do not fit in the Cartesian category of res cogitans to mere resources. Historically, this category technically reserved to things has often included humans, conveniently redefined as racially or otherwise inferior slaves, as uncivilised savages, as incomplete or otherwise deficient women, and in general as people who, in one way or another, fall short of some or another basic human characteristics. Traditionally, the category of mere resources has also of course included animals raised for food, as well as most forests, bodies of water, gases, and minerals. In a Gaian perspective the concept of ‘mere resources’ becomes useless, for in Gaia there are no mere resources, and everything has purpose, intention, meaning. This is the secular spirituality we humans need in order to create the sustainable other possible worlds of the future. The main claim in the new bio-politics of love I propose is that the accepted view that reduces parts of Gaia’s body to mere resources is the actual source of today’s global anxieties, for the current consumption


39

of resources this anxiety produces is unsustainable and this undertow of incongruity is anxiety producing at the global level - with the West’s most overdeveloped countries most severely affected. The energy crisis the system is in requires a new balance in biopower. The unfortunate reality is that non-violent alternative views are scarcely accessible to most people due to a barrage in the mainstream media and polarisations in the educational systems.10 As most people with a sound sense of ecology and a peaceful spirit will agree, oil wars will not resolve the energy crisis. I submit that a different way of thinking about ‘mere resources’ will. I believe that the political problem of today is a problem of love because only hatred and fear can cause people to construct enemies that do not exist - while they ignore the most serious and impending issues. I propose holism as an ecologically-sound approach to bio-political issues that heals the thought system that causes anxiety, rather than attacking the enemies this system constructs. Love is therefore the problem which is also the solution of modernity’s diseases and the absurd position these diseases put us humans in. In homeopathic terms, love is the disease which is the cure. Indeed, if as humans aware of being mere cells in Gaia’s organism, we could love as selflessly as the two unicellular organisms who die to merge into one larger symbiotic being, we could perhaps cure ourselves of modernity’s diseases. 6.

Eros and the Arts of Loving In today’s ecological debates, a Gaian awareness indicates that love is the issue. Therefore one must explore what is problematic in the current cultural construction of love. Sexuality is that particular aspect of love that western modernity constructs as exclusive, and therefore ‘selfish,’ and which, unlike the supposedly ‘selfless’ types of love, is governed by the incest taboo. Historically, the concept of sexuality came into being with modernity to bring under scientific jurisdiction knowledge about what had theretofore been thought of as ars erotica, ars amatoria, pleasure, and ‘sin.’ The modern concept of sexuality freed erotic love and the art of its expression from the dogmatic jurisdiction of organised religions like Christianity, which, in its various forms, concurred in defining it as sin, unless practiced under its aegis and rules. To the extent that it did, the concept of sexuality is of course part of the cure. But the side effect of this cure is that love is no longer an art or a gift, but rather a dysfunction. Love has turned out to be the disease ‘sexuality’ set out to cure. Hence, the semantic area that modern discourses designate as sexuality is the solution which is the problem, the cure which is the disease. Indeed, with Freud, psychoanalysis has been configured as the study of ‘sexuality,’ a process that turns the ars erotica and ars amatoria

40


celebrated by Ovid and other classical authors into a field of scientific inquiry, free of religious dogma and the stigma of ‘sin.’ But with ‘sexuality’ these ‘arts’ ceased to be viewed as artistic, and became objects of scientific investigation at a time when the objectivity of science was not disputed and when science was intent in establishing universal laws. Hence, ‘sexuality’ subjected the former arts of love to the scientific tyranny of normativity. Furthermore, it reduced sex to ‘nature’ in the modern sense: a ‘mere resource,’ a utility for the achievement of material happiness as defined by modernity’s secularism. This placed erotic expression under a new and perhaps worse tyranny, all of which has produced the impasse in which western discourse about eros is now mired. The bio-politics I propose envisage a solution. It describes sexuality as that which connotes a pleasure from without. It is that which induces desire, and the desire to desire what others desire Girard has so aptly theorized in his work on mimesis.11 This process abets capitalistic production and its accompanying excessive consumerism. On the other hand, I propose that eros connote that which can be described as a pleasure from within, with this pleasure being what enables cognitive, epistemological explorations of a person or group of persons’ unique needs, based on intimate connectedness with others and with one’s inner being. In this perspective, it is easier to envisage new bio-political conceptualisations of that cure/disease that erotic and romantic love can be. 7.

Pleasures, Gnosis, Plateaus, and Love’s Wisdom Inasmuch as it is a reaction to modernity, post-modernity tends to question what modernity takes for granted. For example, theorists of postmodernity like Deleuze and Guattari propose paradigms that enable the global peace and justice movement to envisage the “other possible worlds” we need to survive western modernity as a planet and species - with many activists in the global peace and justice movement eagerly referring to them. An important area in which this reaction is happening is the healing arts, whose practitioners are reclaiming the ability to restore health and offset disease as an art that relies on imaginativeness and creativity, and therefore lies outside the realm of a merely secular, scientific normativity. They effectively use clinical evidence, indigenous knowledge, practices of the body, touch, food, ritual, and tradition as part of their healing-arts repertoire. I claim that a similar move is necessary in the realm of erotic expression. If the cultural construct of sexuality is in the way of a successful exit from the tunnel of modernity, I propose the solution of getting rid of it, and replacing it with an expanded concept of the healing arts that includes the arts of loving and lives in the interstitial zone between epistemology and hermeneutics. This ‘knowledge in the making’ is based on practice and intuition, and, I claim, is very similar to what the


41

French feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray calls theosophy, namely a knowledge of the sacred inspired by love. It is also what inspires scientists whose genius dares to challenge the status quo our system of knowledge is mired in, including, of course, James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. After all, if, as Margulis implies, everything is “sex,” then it may as well be said that nothing is. In this context, the trajectory I propose here for a bio-political theorisation of the arts of loving as a Gaian concept begins with Michel Foucault’s pre-modern nostalgia and arrives at Luce Irigaray’s eastern turn via the alternative globalisation theories proposed by the two male duos most respected in the global peace and justice movement, the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and psychoanalysts Felix Guattari; and the north American Italianist Michael Hardt and Italian political theorist Antonio Negri. In his well known History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Foucault makes an important claim about eros. As he explains, In the erotic art, truth is drawn from pleasure itself, understood as a practice and accumulated experience [and] evaluated in terms of intensity, its specific quality, its duration, its reverberation in the body and the soul. 12 In this important passage, the theorist clearly establishes a semantic space for erotic love which lies outside any religious or scientific jurisdiction. The measure of erotic love is pleasure, a pleasure that has a spiritual dimension and is enhanced by one’s skilful practice of it, a practice that presumably banks on experience. It is precisely this spiritual dimension of erotic pleasure that Foucault’s pre-modern nostalgia seeks to recuperate for modernity, and, I claim, actually ends up projecting into a postmodern direction. On the other hand, Irigaray’s ‘eastern turn’ marks her decision to seek answers to modernity’s problems in a supposed outside to the Western tradition. In her recent book, The Way of Love, she directly confronts the issue of what love is or can be in modernity by having love, and the ways in which it finds its expressions, be the topic of her book. Her central claim is that philosophy is not merely “the love of wisdom,” but also, and perhaps more importantly, “the wisdom of love.” In her etymological discussion of how the word philosophy came to be, she suggests that “[t]he wisdom of love is perhaps the first meaning of the word ‘philosophy’.”13 With this rather bold statement, Irigaray stands all of western philosophy on its head. She shows that all of the canonical white male philosophers who were animated by a generic ‘love for wisdom’ have looked everywhere is search of this wisdom but in the very love that animated that search to begin with. Foucault’s and Irigaray’s

42


propositions reflect distant yet interconnected perspectives and positions, and I propose that the theoretical, historical, and cultural space between them is where the concept of the arts of loving lives. Foucault’s stance reflects the pre-modern nostalgia that pervades his work, with its soft-spot for aristocratic refinement and indulgence - the cultural niche where pleasure supposedly had citizenship, as in the lives of those who lived on the fringes of the Ancien Régime. On the pre-modern side Foucault aligns pleasure, ars erotica, the practices of the body he often indicates as the most effective antidotes to modernity, and the reverberations in the soul that accompany them. On the other hand, he aligns with modernity the very concept of sexuality, with its attendant science of psychology, both of which result in the forms of surveillance he execrates so vehemently elsewhere in his work, and the ensuing enforcement of a scientifically-based normativity. I don’t have trouble imagining the semi-closeted gay man indulging his pleasures and eschewing surveillance and normativity, but also seeking in these pleasures redemption from modernity’s secular materialism. On the other hand stands Irigaray’s eastern turn, with its emphasis on the Tantric tradition, and its parallel search for alternative models of masculinity in An Ethics of Sexual Difference. As Simone Roberts aptly comments, for the French feminist philosopher, Western masculinity emphasises control over intimacy. As she explains, Irigaray’s eastern turn points to a situation in which control has become a central characteristic of masculinity under patriarchy . . . which fuels fear (of losing control, or seeming to be out of control), competition and aggression (in order to get control), and has the effect of cutting men off from the possibility of emotional intimacy (out of control) (26-29). . . A dominant person who creates their sense of control and safety with the tools of fear and (potential) violence must live paranoid that the repressed group or person will rebel and undermine their control and authority. 14 If control acts like a cultural imperative that dominates modern philosophical discourse, this is reflected in Western modernity’s obsession with the mastery of nature, and the inherently self-destructive masculinity ecofeminism so eloquently points to. Roberts suggests that Irigaray’s interest for Eastern philosophy is a way to evade this control and tap into sources less contaminated by it. As she explains, the Tantric tradition is seen as oppositional within Hinduism, even as it is included in the system. The Vedantic tradition emphasises asceticism, sees the world as an illusion and embodiment as a defeat, and constructs each reincarnation as


43

a further deferment of the final and desired unity with the divine. The Tantric tradition, on the other hand, emphasises embodiment and constructs the world as a body of multiplicity that loves in divine unity. Pleasure is in the making and/or doing of this ongoing multiplicity, where plateaus of tantric ecstasy are reached when control is released. In a string of books since the 1990s, Irigaray has tapped Eastern philosophy in search of answers to the questions left open by the Western tradition. This quest seems to have culminated in the design of The Way of Love and claims therein. After 3000 years of alleged love for wisdom and vain searching for it, when Irigaray comes along philosophy discovers that its name actually means “the wisdom of love” and not simply “the love of wisdom.” Thereby, Irigaray points out, one finds that it is in love that wisdom resides. The irony here is that all the philosophers, who have been looking for wisdom by elaborating discursive mastery and control systems, are now faced with the proposition that what they sought was in the very unconditional, control-free love for it they were unable to offer. This symbiotic love is both selfless and selfish, and that is its wisdom. The pink heart-shaped image filled with tree branches and leaves on the cover of Irigaray’s book symbolizes this surrender to a mode of knowledge that has love as its path and medium. And precisely because the wisdom of love is a form of knowledge that has love as its path and medium, as its goal and means, The Way of Love can be seen as a manifestation of what Mignolo presents as gnosis in his postcolonial theory. Indeed, the wisdom of love, namely Irigaray’s philosophy, is a knowledge-in-the-making based on practice and intuition that corresponds to it. If bacterial orgiastic tendencies and promiscuity are “advanced sex,” and if they have been welcome guests of Gaia’s body for four billion years, then maybe at this juncture we humans can learn something from bacteria too. The gnosis implied in Irigaray and Mignolo’s vision is another facet of the erotic dance whose mystery Margulis and Sagan propose to unveil by going at evolution backwards, by turning one’s face towards the past as in a Navajo metaphor for history. 15 When pursued under the aegis of the arts and humanities, this gnosis can thrive for the following reasons: in the arts and humanities, erotic expression can be understood as an art that can be learned; as in the fine arts, there is no normativity, but creativity and originality are the gist of it; and, as in the healing arts, practice, style, sensibility, taste, and variety are all but encouraged. 8. Ecological Orientations of the Erotic In this context, all non-normative forms of erotic expressions, including homosexuality, lesbianism, fetishism, transgenderism, bisexuality, and polyamory can be seen as ecological orientations that contribute to creating the “other possible worlds” advocated by the global peace and

44


justice movement. The alternative lovestyles that in Krafft-Ebing’s sexological times were categorized as ‘perversion’ have since made a concerted effort to be included into an expanded realm of normativity. I propose that they can now be reconceptualised as part of a realm that defies regulation to begin with, and that there is, therefore, a recognizable ecological intention in them. Indeed, as arts, the arts of loving can only thrive in the wider space of imaginativeness and creativity, a realm that extends to include all genuine erotic expressions involving humans. Most gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activists and sympathisers agree that queer people can make good parents and are prepared to support LGBT rights in this area. Nonetheless, queer communities are aware that same-sex couples are less likely to contribute to the globe’s overpopulation, which is, ecologically speaking, a very good thing. With the count of humans on the planet now at six billions, the creationist mandate to ‘go and multiply’ has clearly been fulfilled. The new ecological imperative is that of containing the excessive spread of our species. This bio-politics of love privileges the erotic arts that emphasise pleasure, health, care, affection, and well being, over those that obey the impulse to provide continuity for one’s individual genes. To the unaccustomed liberal observers for whom these styles of love occur as orientations in perverse ecology, I suggest learning from them, since they often encourage an ethos of racial and cultural hybridism that offsets most damages of racial, ethnic, and cultural competition. Some of these orientations in perverse ecology have already accessed the realm of desire; they have already acquired a certain legitimacy. Others are still more purely in the erotic realm. For example, civil unions of same-gender couples are now legal in some states of the union, but polyamorous communities in the US have not yet staked their claims for plural marriages. In bi and poly activist communities, the homophobic paranoia of the “red states,” which brought the fundamentalist vote to the polls in the recent US election, is read as proof that the inevitable is occurring. Why would the Christian Coalition be so concerned if not because more and more people question sanctified sex and its alleged normativities? Indeed, when one learns that in Spain, home to the infamous Inquisition and traditionally one of the most conservative countries in Europe, the current progressive government has approved of gay civil unions, one may very well believe them, even though many US bi and poly activists feel that same-gender unions must be more widely accepted before the legalization of group marriage can be proposed. 16 As they have accessed the realm of desire, the newly admitted lovestyles have also changed the rules that govern it. For example, male homosexuality’s successful claims to legitimacy have expanded the modern scope of erotic expression to include the reproduction-free and erotically rich anal pleasure. Lesbianism has legitimated women’s desire


45

to desire other women, and our multiple styles of pleasure, including the unreproductive labial and clitoral pleasures. Bisexuality busts the modern divide between straights and queers while it enhances the gnoseological value of erotic expressions inclusive of both genders and the specific pleasures that reside in each, both simultaneously and sequentially. It is a portal between modernity and its dichotomous construction of sexuality as either hetero or homo, and a Gaian post-modernity where the pre-modern returns through the persistent notion of bisexedness implied in it; the idea that, as Betty Dodson puts it, by just touching our genitals, by making love to ourselves, “we are all quite queer.”17 Polyamory expands bisexuality’s emphasis on plural erotic experiences to the exploration of plural amorous relationship that happen in the context of one’s families and communities. Both these lovestyles are barely on the threshold of making a move toward establishing their own legitimacy.18 Polyamory’s focus on parenting contributes to legitimating alternative family styles. Fetishism has made no major claims to legitimacy yet, yet it is practiced in different guises and in a variety of erotic communities. The new spin it puts on “things” points to the awareness implied in the idea that, in Gaia, there are no “mere resources,” but only objects of love and affection. Transgenderism, whose claims to legitimacy often align with the logic of the conventional twogender medical system, defeats gender binarisms and emphasises the eroticism of the “in-between.” Reconfigured as ecological erotic orientations, the lovestyles that correspond to former perversions are found to have a positive effect on Gaia’s health for various reasons: they multiply the possibilities of love; they help to expand the boundaries of the loving arts; and they contribute to establishing regimes of love that help in the sharing of resources and the creation of sustainable emotional communities. In view of post-modern theory, these reconfigurations, I claim, are essential to a Gaian postmodernity. For Deleuze and Guattari, resilent life is rhizomatic, it is made of a multiplicity of elements in a free-range order, with each element different from the next, yet all recognizably part of the whole. The two theorists further claim that post-modernity is characterized by the fluxes of energy that emanate from the deterritorialisations and reterritorialisations globalisation produces. When navigated adeptly, these fluxes produce the plateaus that help people find purpose and meaning. Their plateau theory suggests that by navigating fluxes with intentions that may be at odds with those of corporate globalisation forces, the communities that share these intentions can produce tantric plateaus that anticipate the “other possible worlds” auspicated by the global peace and justice movement. The theories about community formation that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri present in Multitudes expand on Deleuze and Guattari’s intuitions. These authors describe the postmodern multitudes that become empowered to effect change as the ones that organise in rhizome-shaped

46


“distributed networks”; these non-territorially based communities are often organised in cyberspace via digital technology. The digital waves of “swarm intelligence” that traverse these groups allow them to operate in respectful, de-centered, ways and come together occasionally in concerted unison. When pranic forces are at play, the group enhances the strength of its individuals. As for Margulis’ microbes, the principle applies that “being with others is good for you.” Being deprived of pleasure is bad for immunity, while a moderate exposure to “others” is only good for one’s defense system. Love rejuvenates the system. Understanding love as an art helps to see longevity as a virtue, for as one learns more one becomes a better teacher. It also helps young people look forward to a beautiful and joyous future when they will be older too. Love is free and it can be multiplied at will. It is a renewable resource that saves one from the trappings of useless consumerism. One only has to participate in a few bisexual and/or polyamorous support group meetings, community conferences, and discussion groups to become aware of how close to these descriptions the group dynamic therein can be. In my experience as a bi and poly community member, facilitator, and activist I have participated in several editions of the poly conferences LovingMore and Poly Living, and I have also been a cocoordinator of the San Diego based bisexual community association known as Bi Forum. Because of the confidentiality of these experiences, I do not report directly about them here. I feel a need to protect my communities from the risk of exposure to the mainstream, a risk enhanced by the current conservative climate and by their being still largely outside of the desire zone, at least with respect to the narrow screen of American academic discourse. It is this narrowness that I want to pierce through, so that the connections between ecology and eros can be seen. Some academics, even in queer studies, still wonder whether bisexuals really exist. In a conference in Italian Studies I presented a reading of Hamam, an Italian film by Ferzan Ozpetek, a director from Turkey. Its climactic scene shows a bisexual kiss in which a gay man and a woman in the process of becoming queer imagine the late male lover they shared. To represent this fantasy, the director inserts two split-second cuts of the dead bisexual man kissing his male lover and his now widowed wife. In my presentation, I isolated the cut so everyone could see it. It was technically difficult, because the director had made it so brief as to be almost invisible. It was intended to operate subliminally. But it was there. The panel organiser asked me, “how did you see it?” The answer was simple, “I knew it could be there because I know that bisexuality exists.” It is as a person who straddles the ground between the ivory tower and my beloved communities that I present my biopolitical propositions, as a theorist who refuses to be locked in and takes on the responsibility of


47

finding out what is rather than serving the interests of preconceived notions of being. 9.

Conclusion A politics of love that envisages a Gaian post-modernity involves a transmigration of tropes from the healing arts to the loving arts, whereby the semantic realm that modernity describes as sexuality is reconceived as the realm of the arts of loving. In this realm, erotic and affectional expressions of love commingle and share legitimacy, as they do in the Cuddle Parties my bi and poly friends and I go to. The healing arts emphasise practices of the body that, in Foucault’s vision, redeem people from modernity’s secular materialism. They are effective through the empowerment of healing persons and communities, and this effectiveness can be measured via practice, experience, and tradition. They treat the mind and body as a unit and consider meditation and self-awareness as keys to healing Irigaray’s focus on love as philosophical wisdom allows the shift from the healing-arts practices to the arts of loving. An examination of how these arts feature in alternative lovestyles communities reveals their intentional ability to organise as Deleuzian rhizomes and plateaus where the principles that govern the healing arts extend to the erotic and affectional realms. In this context, erotic expression is a practice of the body attuned to Foucault’s theory. While the sexuality invented by Western modernity presumes that each sexual player has an innate, instinctual truth to be found in the process of becoming who this person was meant to be, erotic expression is about imagination, energy fluxes, adaptability, and resilience. It is a fine-arts skill that improves with experience. In both persons and groups, it gets better with age for we become more knowledgeable of it. The bio-politics of love I propose may not instantly resolve all global problems, but the perspective it puts things in does encourage better global ecologies. Good health is conducive of good erotic activity and the pleasures it brings, and the lovestyles that ecological orientations encourage are also conducive of good body ecology and the health benefits it brings. The body is nature’s temple and the erotic expressions it participates in worship its beauty, knowledge, and experience. In a Gaian post-modernity, the arts of healing and loving are manifestations of affectionate and erotic love in a space of Gaian awareness where the sacred is present. Every time a loving reciprocity occurs, Irigaray’s “I love to you” manifests Gaia’s healing erotic energy in the cells of Gaia’s body that this reciprocity engages. An “I” makes love to the divine in a “you.” It turns out that Foucault’s nostalgic ars erotica is also an ars amatoria and an ars sacra.

48


Notes 1

Margulis, 1991: 27. Margulis, 1997: 285-86. 3 Margulis, 1991: 189-90 (quotation), 2001-2 and passim. 4 Margulis, 1997: 295-306 and 289. 5 Margulis, 1991: 190 and 303. 6 Margulis, 1998: 33. 7 Margulis, 1997: 285. 8 Margulis, 1991: 190 and 202. 9 Margulis ,1998: 13-32. 10 One notable attempt to break though this barrage is Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, on the facts of global warming and the political interests that make it difficult to face its threats. 11 Girard 1990: passim. 12 Foucault, 1990: 57. 13 Irigaray, 2002: 1. 14 Roberts, 2004, par. 9. 15 Margulis, 1991: 29. 16 For poly marriage see Aviram 2005; for gay marriage in Spain see Zapatero 2005. 17 Dodson, 2005. 18 The HBO new serial Big Love is about a family of lapsed Mormons who practice a woman-friendly yet asymmetric form of polygamy. The serial has brought the issue of enforced monogamy to the attention of a wider public, even though the show has so far avoided women’s non-monogamy and bisexuality issues. Polyamorist groups, who practice forms of responsible non-monogamy inclusive of both genders and often of bisexual expression too, discuss its effects in and out of their communities. 2

Bibliography Adams, Carol ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Continuum, 1993. Big Love. Playtone Producers, 2005-06. Casanova, Giacomo. The Story of My Life. Sartarelli, Stephen and Sophie Hawkes trs. London: Penguin, 2001.


49

Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Tr. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Tr. Robert Hurley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. Dodson, Betty. “We Are All Quite Queer.” In Plural Loves. (155-164.) Serena Anderlini D'Onofrio ed. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, 2005. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon, 1977. Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Tr. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage, 1990. Girard, René. Deceit, Desire, and the Novel. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Guggenheim, Davis. An Inconvenient Truth. (Film with Al Gore.) Laurie David, Lawrence Bender and Scott Z. Burns Producers: 2005. Gunn Allen, Paula. The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions. Boston: Beacon Press, 1986. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. Irigaray, Luce. The Way of Love. London: Continuum, 2002. Lovelock, James. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press, 1979. Lovelock, James. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1988. Margulis, Lynn. “Big Trouble in Biology.” In Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution (266-282). New York: Copernicus, 1997.

50


Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. New York: Basic Books, 1998. Margulis Lynn and Dorion Sagan eds. Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution. New York: Copernicus, 1997. Plumwood, Val. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge, 1993. Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. London: Routledge, 1992. Roberts, Simone. “Irigaray’s Eastern Turn: The Tantra of An Ethics of Sexual Difference.” Rhizomes: 9 (Fall 2004): http://www.rhizomes.net/issue9/issue9.htm Shantu Riley, Shamara. “Ecology is a Sistah’s Issue Too.” In Carol Adams ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. Carol Adams ed. New York: Continuum, 1993. Warren Karen ed. Ecological Feminist Philosophies. Bloomington: Indian University Press, 1996. Zapatero, José Luis. “La ley de matrimonios gay.” Speech delivered to the Spanish Congress on June 30th, 2005.

Section 2 Framework

Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope Kendal Hodgman Abstract This paper tells the story of Sustainability1 in action. It is a story of hope, celebration and co-operation in a major public administration in Australia. So often the message of Sustainability is overshadowed by the seeming hopelessness of the enormous environmental, social and economic problems facing the planet. This paper looks at how the effective communication of established Sustainability knowledge and practice can act as an inspirational and empowering change agent in a whole of government context. The paper outlines the Sustainability Analysis Framework (SAF). The SAF is a novel whole of government mechanism for evaluating and communicating Sustainability initiatives, issues, practice and models. Moreover, it identifies best practice and innovation, along with the wisdom gained from service delivery within Sustainability thinking. It also has a powerful educative capacity, in that public administrators, through their interaction with the simple whole of government mechanisms, are given a practical understanding of the importance of integrating social, economic and environmental considerations in their decision-making. The SAF has now been deployed across thirty-eight agencies in the largest State administration in Australia, the Government of New South Wales, but has general applicability. Key words: Communication; Knowledge; Language; Visualisation; Economic Rationalism; Whole of Government. 1.

Preamble If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

Antoine de Saint-Exupery (quoted above) was a master of capturing imaginations. His Little Prince, first published in 1943, is reputedly the third most widely sold book on the planet after The Bible and Das Kapital. The simple story of interplanetary adventure and the little prince’s yearning for his beloved rose delivers a compelling message of the paramount importance of love, home, togetherness and care. Its tender message, “What is most important is invisible…”2 has touched the

54

Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope

hearts of millions, yet, sadly, it seems often forgotten in the hurry of life on Earth, where time and value are now bound up with money and power. Understanding our inter-connectedness with all of life, past, present and future and the importance of care in all our relationships is fundamental to Sustainability philosophy. It is this philosophy which has guided the author in devising the Sustainability Analysis Framework, the structure and deployment of which is the focus of this paper. It is, thus, timely to briefly outline the principles of Sustainability thinking.

2.

The Fragmentation of Knowledge We are living in a world of increasing complexity. The natural systems upon which we rely for survival are depleting, collapsing and transforming at a rate never before experienced.3 Additionally and simultaneously, as our natural world’s components have been splintering under the pressure of humanity’s demands upon it, so have our social frameworks. Social fragmentation has increased exponentially with the onset of the industrialisation, mechanisation, globalisation and corporatisation of the world’s economic systems. This, in turn, has resulted in an ever increasing compartmentalisation of knowledge and action. With this specialisation of knowledge we have lost our sense of interconnectedness with the larger whole. We have stopped thinking about the myriad consequences of our behaviour. Sustainability thinking aims to address this imbalance. Sustainability’s overarching philosophy links social, economic and environmental aspects in the decision-making process. Sustainability thinking remembers that for every cause there is an effect. Sustainability thinking acknowledges that we are responsible for our actions and for the cumulative impact of our choices. Sustainability thinking understands that we are responsible for the life we choose to live and how that impacts on the lives of others, human and otherwise, alive or, as yet, unborn. Sustainability thinking realises that life on Earth is in jeopardy. 3.

Thinking with ‘The End’ in Mind The sad fact is that Sustainability thinking is not new. Indeed, the sounding of the alarm about the earth’s inability to withstand the modern human assault has been growing louder over the last fifty years. For decades, eminent scientists have been presenting data asserting the urgency of the emergency. The global community’s demand for a change in human attitude and behaviour towards the earth and each other has been reverberating since the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and more particularly the Rio Earth Summit of 1993. Yet, so many political and corporate leaders, armed with this knowledge, have continued to throw caution to the wind. They have, on the whole, acted too slowly, if at all. Instead, they have ignored the message or decried it as being alarmist propaganda from the enemies of the prevailing political and

Kendal Hodgman

55

economic orders. Otherwise, they have sheltered on the sidelines of scientific debate, waiting for an unequivocal statement from the scientific community that human activity is the major contributor to the current and impending crises. That unequivocal statement was finally made this year by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the working group of around 3,000 of the world’s leading experts in the field, from 113 countries. Launching the 2007 IPCC Report in Paris, the co-chair of the working group Susan Solomon stated: “Warming of the climate system is now unequivocal… There can be no question that the increases in these greenhouse gases are dominated by human activity.” Hitherto, the political stalling has taken advantage of natural scientists’ reluctance to issue definite statements apportioning blame or to forecast predictions when they are dealing with such complex systems as biology, ecology, climatology, hydrology, oceanography and the like. Economics, on the other hand, which has proven itself to be an inaccurate social science, is not nearly as shy in asserting its predictions of the complex systems of human and market behaviour. In much of the world, economic predictions and data continue to drive the political agenda, in spite of economists’ dismal record of inaccurate forecasts and inappropriate direction, which often have had devastating effects. Nevertheless, the natural scientists’ hesitancy in issuing edicts about the deteriorating state of the environment has been convenient for the prevailing neo-conservative economists and politicians who advocate the universal capacity of the globalised, ‘free’ markets, generally known as ‘The Market’, to deal with any crisis. Yet, we are now in the midst of, arguably, the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced and so far, ‘The Market’ has failed to deal with it. Indeed, Sir Nicholas Stern, one of the world’s most respected economists, has stunned the sceptics by stating that: “Climate change…is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”4 The author would argue that biodiversity loss, along with other phenomena such as deforestation, desertification, the consequences of human alteration of land and water scapes, are equally devastating consequences of market failure. Such argument aside, ‘The Market’ has not proved itself up to the task of rectifying the natural balance, necessary to avert what is acknowledged as the Sixth Species Extinction Event in the Earth’s history.5 It is glaringly obvious that united and urgent action is needed now and that a power system with economics at the helm is not the answer. Sustainability posits an alternative, holistic approach to stewardship and decision-making. It suggests that trade-offs are the last resort and that, instead, social, economic and environmental considerations should be given equal weighting in decision-making and policy direction. However, given the ascendancy of economic rationalism in the current governance paradigm, we need to ask how can social and environmental considerations gain equal standing in the negotiating space?

56


The SAF is a model, albeit a fledgling one, which goes towards providing part of the solution. The SAF has been implemented across thirty-eight agencies in the largest State Government in Australia, the Government of New South Wales (NSW). It has demonstrated that a whole of government perspective for evaluating and communicating Sustainability initiatives, issues, practice and models is achievable. 4.

Positioning Sustainability in Governance in NSW The full gamut of the Australian governance structure in respect of Sustainability is outside this paper’s scope. However, it is important to understand that the Commonwealth of Australia is a Federation of States. Each State Parliament has the constitutional authority to make laws on any subject of relevance to that State, meaning that, to a great extent, the States are, in many areas, stewards of their own destiny. NSW is Australia’s most populous state, with more than 6.6 million residents. Sydney, Australia’s only global city, is the NSW capital. Boasting the largest and most diverse economy in Australia, the NSW economy, alone, is larger than the national economies of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines and New Zealand. With a Gross State Product of A$250 billion, NSW is undoubtedly the powerhouse of the Australian economy, which is the fifteenth largest in the world.6 The NSW Government has, for the past decade and a half, committed itself, in its rhetoric and in a legislative and policy sense, to the principles of Sustainability. Despite this, NSW, like Australia and the world generally, continues to slide backwards in its quest for Sustainability.7 Sustainability is an emerging area of administrative endeavour, with little global experience or wisdom to guide its process. It is to this end that the NSW Government commissioned the author, in 2004, to evaluate its extensive and diverse Sustainability practice in the report entitled: Sustainability: A New South Wales Whole of Government Approach (‘The Report’).8 The level of the NSW Government’s commitment to this process is evidenced by the fact that it was coordinated at the highest levels of the administration and engaged highlevel input from a comprehensive portfolio of its agencies. It is notable that the project was undertaken through the NSW Premier’s Department and was given high priority status. The request for data, entitled The Sustainability Survey of NSW Government Agencies (‘The Survey’) was sent from the Director General of the Premier’s Department to other Directors-General or Chief Executive Officers. The project’s high status was critical in obtaining timely responses and gave the author extensive access to the Government’s Sustainability data. The Survey had requested selected agencies to submit all legislation, policies, strategies, projects and experience relevant to Sustainability practice and thinking. The agencies’ responses were

Kendal Hodgman

57

voluminous and unstructured. Thus, the author’s first task was to evaluate the common Sustainability issues facing the disparate arms of government. From the data submitted to ‘The Survey’ the following ten prevailing issues were identified: Conservation of Biological Diversity, Conservation of Resource, Partnerships & Synergies, Pollution Minimisation, Research and Development, Social Equity & Education, Social Equity as a Regional/Spatial Driver, Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Trade-offs, and Sustainable Quality of Life. Once these commonalities were identified, two processes had to be undertaken. Firstly; the definition of the Sustainability issues, in order that a common vocabulary was established. Thereafter, a uniform and conceptually accessible frame was constructed, through which the accumulated sustainability knowledge could be managed and communicated. The next sections of the paper will outline the development of this shared Sustainability language and form. 5.

A Common Sustainability Language The lack of such a common Sustainability language was identified by the author as one of the key hindrances to Sustainability knowledge transfer and understanding in the NSW Government’s organisational context and beyond. The importance of ‘right language’ in the administration of important affairs is as ancient as it is modern. This is evidenced by the following summary of one of the two and a half thousand year old Analects, attributed to the Chinese philosopher, Confucius: If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said, is not what is meant, then what ought to be done, remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate and justice goes astray. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. 9 For the purposes of ‘The Survey’ the Premier’s Department had adopted the following definition of Sustainability: “Meeting the needs of current and future generations through an integration of environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity.”10 To date, however, in the NSW public sector, there has been no statutory direction given as to how the social, economic and environmental considerations are to be integrated in decision-making processes. Indeed, the NSW statutory direction is limited to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), which integrates only environmental and economic considerations. This definition was first enunciated in NSW in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW), s 6(2):

58

Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope (a) ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes. Ecologically sustainable development can be achieved through the implementation of the following principles and programs: (a) the precautionary principle—namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options, (b) inter-generational equity—namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations, (c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity—namely, that conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration, (d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms—namely, that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as: (i) polluter pays—that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement, (ii) the users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste, (iii) environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

It is obvious, however, that the NSW Government accepts the need to integrate the three social, economic and environmental

Kendal Hodgman

59

considerations in delivering sustainable outcomes for the State. It has demonstrated this in many policy arenas. The most cogent articulation of this aspiration is contained in the NSW Government’s Four Key Commitments,11 which, for the purposes of ‘The Survey’ and ‘The Report’, define the Core Sustainability Principles in the NSW Context: x x x x

Integrating environmental protection into all activities Encouraging economic development and sustainable employment Achieving greater social justice for all members of the community Delivering more financially responsible programs that reduce public debt and unfunded liabilities.

The processes for evaluating and reporting on economic and financial impacts are well established, and procedures for environmental impact assessment have been developing over recent decades. However, a review of the NSW statutory and policy literature reveals that evaluating and reporting on social impacts of decisions and defining social justice/equity lags in comparison. Given ‘The Survey’ questions’ emphases on impacts on communities and the social aspects of Sustainability, it was necessary to discern how Social Justice/Equity is defined in the NSW context. For the purposes of ‘The Survey’ and ‘The Report’ the definition was extrapolated from the intent contained in the NSW Social Justice Budget Statement 2003-04: We want all of the people of this State to have a fair go: a fair chance in life, a fair share of public resources, and a fair say in the decisions that affect their lives. Our social justice agenda has two foundations: a strong economy to provide jobs and opportunity for all, and social spending for those who need support. 12 Within the statutory context, the NSW Government has embraced the Sustainability imperative for social inclusion and equity in s 3(1) of the groundbreaking Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 (NSW). Indeed, NSW was the first Australian state to enshrine into law the principles of multiculturalism. This Act provides the framework for a broader, more inclusive concept of NSW community relations. The author anticipates that, as the NSW Government progresses its whole of government approach to Sustainability, there will be future discussion and consideration of the concepts of Social Sustainability and community impact in the NSW statutory and policy contexts. The author, thus, provided the Government with a number of

60


definitions which were suggested to provide guidance for such future discourse. 6.

Rationale for Sustainability Issues Selection In the discharge of their functions, agencies face various Sustainability challenges depending on their roles, operations and statutory responsibilities. This is, indeed, the case within the NSW Government context. Agencies in an overarching sector (e.g. electricity utilities, land development agencies, etc.) share similar Sustainability issues, yet, they will also face individual challenges which arise from their specific locale, service community and economic position. Thus, relevant Sustainability issues were evident from agency responses to ‘The Survey’. These various issues were broadly categorised and then detailed in subcategories. This method allowed for major commonalities to be defined, as well as detailing the challenges specific to agencies. Ten prevailing Sustainability issues emerged from the data. Definitions for these issues were then derived from an extensive survey of the international Sustainability literature. These definitions were then employed by the author for the analysis of ‘The Survey’ submissions. As noted previously, a comprehensive definition of such Sustainability issues had not been, hitherto, undertaken in the NSW Government context. The definitions were employed as principles for data analysis and do not seek to limit or define the scope of agency practice. Moreover, the author does not wish to limit to ten the number of common Sustainability issues facing NSW Government agencies. The ten issues identified and subsequently defined arose directly from ‘The Survey’ submissions, which were influenced by ‘The Survey’ questions. Thus, it is likely that some other issues may arise from different questions and data sets. 7.

Defining the Sustainability Issues The ten prevailing Sustainability issues are: Conservation of Biological Diversity, Conservation of Resource, Partnerships & Synergies, Pollution Minimisation, Social Equity & Education, Social Equity as a Regional/Spatial Driver, Sustainability Reporting, Sustainability Tradeoffs, and Sustainable Quality of Life.

A. Conservation of Biological Diversity Australia has ratified the international Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program.13 NSW Government decision makers are directed that “conservation of biological diversity should be a fundamental consideration.” 14 The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, (NSW) s. 4, defines “Biological diversity” as the diversity of life and is made up of the following three components: (a) genetic diversity - the variety of genes (or

Kendal Hodgman

61

units of heredity) in any population, (b) species diversity - the variety of species, and (c) ecosystem diversity - the variety of communities or ecosystems. The Objects of the TSC Act are: (a) to conserve biological diversity and promote ESD, and (b) to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and (c) to protect the critical habitat of those threatened species, populations and ecological communities that are endangered, and (d) to eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and (e) to ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological communities is properly assessed, and (f) to encourage the conservation of threatened species populations and ecological communities by the adoption of measures involving co-operative management. B. Conservation of Resource Resources are categorised as: Material flows - Natural capital and Man-made capital; and Human Resource - Human capital and Social capital: Natural capital refers to renewable and non-renewable natural resources, and ecosystem services, that make possible all economic activity, indeed all life. These services are of immense economic value; some are literally priceless, since they have no known substitutes. Failure to take into account the value of these limited assets results in natural capital being degraded and liquidated by the wasteful use of such resources as energy, materials, water, fibre, and topsoil. Other types of capital that sustain well-being - because of their levels and distribution - include man-made capital (e.g. machinery, equipment, structures and infrastructures), human capital (e.g. knowledge, skills and competencies), and social capital (eg networks of shared

62

Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope values and understanding that facilitate co-operation within and between groups).15

And in the words of a large NSW agency: Human impact on the environment is largely associated with material flows into and out of an economy. As economic activity increases, there is an expansion in exploitation of resources, and a corresponding increase in waste. A primary objective of Sustainability is to reduce the material flows and decouple increases in resource usage and waste with economic activity. This can be achieved in three ways: Minimise the use of resources; Reduce waste generation; Recycle waste to be used again as a resource. 16 C. Partnerships and Synergies Synergy is defined as production by two or more agents whose combined effect is greater than the sum of their separate effects.17 Partnerships should integrate the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development in their design and implementation. They should be consistent, where applicable, with sustainable development strategies… and foster discussion, including sharing lessons learnt, progress made and best practices… Partnerships should have a multi-stakeholder approach and preferably involve a range of significant actors in a given area of work. They can be arranged among any combination of partners, including governments, regional groups, local authorities, non-governmental actors, international institutions and private sector partners. 18 D. Pollution Minimisation Pollution Minimisation aims to protect the environment through a range of initiatives to halt global warming (by reducing greenhouse gas emissions), ozone depletion, and the contamination of land, water and air. It also encompasses the management of effluent and other wastes, as well as noise and visual impacts.

Kendal Hodgman

63

E. Research and Development States should co-operate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies.19 F. Social Equity and Education Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of people to address environment and development issues. It is critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective participation in decision making.20 G. Social Equity as a Regional/Spatial Driver Social Equity as a Regional/Spatial Driver recognises that social and economic development are dependent on the health of individuals, communities and the environment. Thus regional/spatial strategies must promote initiatives that enhance productivity, community safety and identity, accessibility, transport, urban amenity, diversity and socioeconomic well being, through design and maintenance of the natural and built environment. H. Sustainability Reporting Sustainability Reporting provides a public account of an organisation’s performance against social and environmental indicators as well as the more traditional economic/financial measures. This process seeks to elevate social and environmental reporting to the same level of rigour, comparability, credibility, and verifiability expected of financial reporting. It also serves the information needs of a broad array of stakeholders and is built on the pillars of inclusiveness, transparency, and technical excellence. 21 I. Sustainability Trade-offs Whilst the aim of Sustainability is to integrate social, economic and environmental considerations in the decision making process, the author recognises that in some instances at least one of the three considerations suffers a loss at the expense of the others’ gain. It is useful

64


in such instances of conflicting interest to separate Sustainability into its economic, environmental, and social components: An economically sustainable system must be able to produce goods and services on a continuing basis, to maintain manageable levels of government and external debt, and to avoid extreme sectoral imbalances which damage agricultural or industrial production. An environmentally sustainable system must maintain a stable resource base, avoiding over-exploitation of renewable resource systems or environmental sink functions, and depleting nonrenewable resources only to the extent that investment is made in adequate substitutes. This includes maintenance of biodiversity, atmospheric stability, and other ecosystem functions not ordinarily classed as economic resources. A socially sustainable system must achieve distributional equity, adequate provision of social services including health and education, gender equity, and political accountability and participation.22 J. Sustainable Quality of Life The real aim of development is to improve the quality of human life. It is a process that enables human beings to realise their potential, build self-confidence and lead lives of dignity and fulfilment. Economic growth is an important component of development, but it cannot be a goal in itself… Although people differ in the goals that they would set for development, some are virtually universal. These include a long and healthy life, education, access to the resources needed for a decent standard of living, political freedom, guaranteed human rights, and freedom from violence. Development is real only if it makes our lives better in these respects.23 Following this categorisation and definition phase, a visually accessible and structured mode of communication was devised, in order that the highlighted Sustainability practice could be shared across the whole of government. 8.

Creating the Frame At the heart of this paper is the author’s contention that one of the key problems jeopardising our common future on Earth is the lack of

Kendal Hodgman

65

effective tools to communicate Sustainability thinking and practice. In the course of the project, upon which this paper is based, the author identified the need for a visually and conceptually accessible mechanism to accelerate the uptake of Sustainability practice in a whole of organisation context. In designing the SAF the author employed two of humanity’s fundamental learning tools - the diagram and the story. The power of story is inestimable. It is a universal mode of human communication. It is through the sharing of stories across millennia that the cultures and technologies of humanity have grown. Civilisations have come and gone but their wisdom has remained in the annals of history. Yet, story is as modern as it is ancient. We still receive and give our news in the form of story and we conceptually communicate about the world, both imaginary and real, in story form. Thus, the central importance of deploying story, as a Sustainability knowledge communication tool in the SAF was identified at the outset. The framing of these Sustainability stories within a visually accessible form was, however, a challenge. The challenge of visualisation in complex problem solving is not new, as this observation by physicist Richard Feynman, whilst working on the Manhattan Project in 1945 attests: “The single biggest problem we face is that of visualisation.” Therefore, the importance of creating a framework which was visually accessible and simple conceptually was deemed an imperative in the SAF design process. Conceptually, the SAF is based upon communications and cognitive research, which concurs that, visually, readers are most likely to access and engage with single page documents, rather than lengthy reports. Thus, the two mechanisms comprising the SAF, the Sustainability Review Matrix and the Sustainability Issue and Practice Table, are modelled to fit on either A4 or A3 single page formats, depending upon the nature and scope of the agency submissions. The diagrams are templates which illustrate the flow of data and knowledge through the SAF. Figure 1 depicts the SAF in full, figure 2 the agency specific, Sustainability Review Matrix, and Figure 3 the whole of government tool, the Sustainability Issue and Practice Table.

66


Figure 1. Sustainability Analysis Framework

Kendal Hodgman

67

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TITLE I N I T I A T I V E S

SOCIAL

ECONOMIC

Project Title Project Title Project Title Project Title Project Title Project Title Project Title

Title of Sustainability Issue I S S U E S

Title of Sustainability Issue Title of Sustainability Issue

ENVIRONMENT



Project Title (s) Story of Project (aims, objectives etc.) Synopsis of the Issues and Processes addressed Sharing of the Sustainability Lessons Learned



INTEGRATED OUTCOMES AND MODELS Title of Sustainability Issue

Selected case studies are utilised to showcase innovation & integration & agencies’ experience of sustainable service delivery.

Title of Sustainability Issue

Selected case studies are utilised to showcase innovation & integration & agencies’ experience of sustainable service delivery.

Title of Project (s) Story of Project (aims, objectives etc.) Synopsis of the Issues and Processes addressed Sharing of the Sustainability Lessons Learned


Figure 2. Template of Sustainability Review Matrix.

68


TITLE OF SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE AGENCY

PRACTICE

Title of Agency 1


Title of Agency 2


Title of Agency 3


Title of Agency 4


Title of Agency 5


Case Study The case study is given more space in order that more details of the successful practice can be showcased. Title of Agency Project Title (s)

Story of Project: (aims, objectives etc.) Synopsis of the Issues and Processes addressed Sharing of the Sustainability Lessons Learned Figure 3. Template of Sustainability Issue and Practice Table

Kendal Hodgman

69

9.

The Sustainability Analysis Framework The SAF consists of two related parts, namely the Sustainability Review Matrix (SRM), which is the agency specific assessment tool and the Sustainability Issues Practice Tables (SIPT), which are the whole of government communications tools. To aid visualisation of the SRM method, the SRM conceptual template is detailed in Figure 2 and the SIPT conceptual template is detailed in Figure 3. The Sustainability Review Matrix (SRM) provides a world first model for integrated analysis of Sustainability initiatives, issues and practice. As a matrix in both the mathematical and literal senses, it treats each Government agency/organisation as an entity, comprised of various Sustainability components. These components are outlined in three sets, namely Initiatives, Issues and Integrated Outcomes and Models. x x x

Initiatives are categorised into the Sustainability considerations of Social, Economic and Environment. Issues are categorised into the Sustainability issues arising from the full data set analysis. How the agency addresses a prevailing challenge is then detailed. Integrated Outcomes and Models highlight innovation and notable practice in how the agency is dealing with a prevailing Sustainability issue. This set of the SRM serves to demonstrate integration of social, economic and environmental considerations as well as when an activity has a net Sustainability benefit.

The Sustainability Issues and Practice Table (SIPT) is the whole of government mechanism. In the full execution of the SAF Methodology, each of the prevailing Sustainability Issues identified from the full data set analysis would be allocated a SIPT. Drawing from the SRM analysis; best practice models and case studies of how agencies deal with the Issue are selected for inclusion in the SIPT, and; selected case studies are utilised to showcase innovation and integration and agencies’ experience of sustainable service delivery. A.

Rationale for Practice Model and Case Study Selection While the NSW Government has underscored its commitment to Sustainability with core directives, it has also allowed for a flexible and evolutionary approach to Sustainability. This has enabled agencies to determine what Sustainability means to them. This has resulted in the development of innovative practice models, which have been selected for inclusion in the SIPT on the basis of the following criteria:

70

Sustainability: Framing a Shared Vision of Hope x x x x x

innovation; integration of the core Sustainability principles; development of performance indicators; processes of reporting and evaluation; and general applicability.

Case studies selection was made on the basis of successful implementation, innovation and general applicability of the Sustainability Practice Model. 10.

Findings There is a wealth of Sustainability knowledge, enthusiasm and practice within the NSW public sector. The author considers it vital that this priceless resource be shared, encouraged and harnessed. Whilst it is outside the scope of this article to include the thirty-eight SRMs and the related SIPTs, created during the research project, these provided a snapshot of what each of the sampled agencies, and thus the Government generally, was doing in regard to Sustainability practice. It is the author’s opinion that this service effort and accomplishment is considerable and is worthy of appreciation, support and encouragement by the NSW Government’s central administration, and by the public at large. The extensive scope and agency specific experience of Sustainability initiatives, issues and practice across the significant sample of the NSW public sector were distilled in the SRMs, yet other significant generalised findings can be condensed into the following points: x x x

x

x

All of the analysed NSW Government agencies were delivering Sustainability outcomes, through initiatives, policies and programs. Many of these agencies were delivering world-class Sustainability outcomes and the wisdom gained from their practice and development is worthy of widespread promotion. The opportunity to share the challenges and difficulties of delivering Sustainability outcomes was not widely embraced by ‘The Survey’ submissions. The author believes there is much wisdom to be gained from pursuing such a line of inquiry. ‘The Survey’ questions did not specifically ask for submissions about how agencies were engaging or hope to engage the private sector and the wider community in their Sustainability endeavours. The author believes there is much wisdom to be gained from pursuing such a line of inquiry. The concept of ESD in the NSW statutory context is limited to integrating only the environmental and economic considerations. There is a need to provide legislative direction to embrace the

Kendal Hodgman

x

x x

x

x

11.

71

internationally accepted understanding of Sustainability, which adds the social dimension to the integrated decision-making process. Across the sampled agencies there was not a comprehensive or coherent understanding of the prevailing and internationally accepted definition of Sustainability. The responses to ‘The Survey’ indicated that there is a widespread belief that Sustainability is limited to environmental protection. There is, therefore, a need for a Sustainability education campaign to be undertaken across the Government. There had, hitherto, been no established co-ordinated approach to communicating Sustainability approaches across the Government. The SAF proved effective in this regard. The employment of the SAF revealed the breadth and innovative capacity of the whole of government approach to Sustainability and the ability of this simple communications tool to broadcast Sustainability best practice. Many agencies were committed to working with others to synergise Sustainability outcomes and expressed a desire for greater engagement with others in Sustainability partnerships. The author would encourage the fostering of such synergies and partnerships. It is inappropriate for the author to detail the process findings and recommendations contained in ‘The Report’, as these were provided to the department for its own information. However, it is notable that the Government of NSW is acting upon a number of the key recommendations. Information in this regard is available at the NSW Premier’s Department Web site.24

Outcomes The value of ‘The Report’ and its recommendations has been publicly acknowledged at the highest levels of the NSW administration. It has merited favourable mention in the NSW Parliamentary Hansard; has been cited as one of the Government’s major achievements in Sustainability, in evidence submitted to the Parliament of NSW Public Accounts Committee;25 and has been endorsed by the (then) Chairman of the NSW Environment Protection Authority as part of a recommendation to Government that the SAF be adopted as the whole of NSW Government model of Sustainability communication. From 2004 to the present the author has been invited to conduct seminars on the Framework to all levels of government in Australia namely, State, Federal and Local governments. These seminars have demonstrated the educative capacity of the SAF. This is evidenced by the

72


fact that a number of agencies were empowered to submit for analysis comprehensive and completed SRMs. What is particularly encouraging is that most seminar participants have responded to the extensive Sustainability practice demonstrated by the SAF, with exclamations of amazement and enthusiasm at the breadth and scope of what is being done to tackle the Sustainability challenges facing NSW. They indicated that within such a large public administration and within their own departmental organisations they had often felt isolated and disconnected. They stated that having seen how their work interwove with the work of others across the government, a rich tapestry of effort and accomplishment was obvious and achievable. This was a cause for celebration and empowerment. Moreover, the fact that they could witness, within the Framework, that the various social, economic and environmental aspects of their work were interlinked, enabled them to see holistically the context of their decision-making and project deployment. The combination of the SAF’s visual and story-telling aids educated the public administrators that they are part of a larger whole which has the capacity to work synergistically towards achieving the NSW Government’s Four Key Commitments, which enshrine the principles of Sustainability thinking. 12.

Conclusion The Government of NSW, through its rhetoric and statutory, policy and program delivery, appears to be committed to progressing Sustainability. This commitment has been translated into considerable Sustainability achievements in various sectors. However, ‘The Report’, upon which this article is based, identifies that continued and accelerated progress is necessary if New South Wales is to sustainably deliver a healthy environment, a dynamic economy and a society, which nurtures its citizens. ‘The Report’, alone, is a significant advance. It suggests definitions and principles for a common Sustainability language, the lack of which is identified as a key hindrance to achieving sustainable outcomes. It provides the novel SAF, through which Sustainability initiatives, issues, practice, and models are identified and communicated. The successful deployment of the SAF across a significant bureaucracy shows that this mechanism is effective in the collation of data, the sharing of information, the organisation of knowledge and the communication of wisdom in a whole of government context. This generally applicable framework acknowledges the enormous value of experience to organisations. It has demonstrated within a sample of only one government that much Sustainability experience has already been gained and that this knowledge is ready and possible to be shared. Furthermore, this knowledge can be simply stored and thereafter utilised for the whole of organisation’s benefit and beyond. The simplicity of its form and method gives the SAF the flexibility to be deployed in most

Kendal Hodgman

73

organisational contexts, to assist in the collection, maintenance, re-use, access and sharing of Sustainability knowledge not only in particular instances but to aid in broader problem solving. It is the author’s contention that the communication and sharing of successful Sustainability experience, practice and wisdom will help to accelerate the dynamism of cultural change necessary to ensure a sustainable world. The SAF offers a method for doing this. It does not profess to be the answer to all the world’s woes, far from it! However, it does demonstrate that through a simple framework we can individually and together start to implement Sustainability and share in ‘the solutions’. By so doing we can move forward with an understanding that what matters most we may not live to see, but we will know that it was created amidst a spirit of good will and a vision of hope. Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love…. Rienhold Niebuhr

Notes 1

The terms Sustainability, Ecologically Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development refer to the same concept generally defined as: ‘Development that meets the needs of present generations while not compromising the ability of future generations to also meet their needs.’ as per World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Australian Edition, (Melbourne Oxford University Press, 1987), 87. 2 Antoine de Saint Exupery, The Little Prince, (London, William Heinemann Ltd, 1977), 74. 3 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Synthesis Reports (Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org//en/Products.Synthesis.aspx viewed 14/5/2005). 4 Nicholas Stern, Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, (U.K., Cambridge University Press, 2006), (i). 5 S.L. Pimm and T.M. Brooks, The Sixth Extinction: how large, how soon and where? in P.H. Raven and T. Williams (eds.), Biodiversity (National Academy Press, 1999), 46-62. 6 Government of New South Wales (NSW), Competitiveness Report, (Sydney, Department of State and Regional Development, 2003), see generally.

74 7


International Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II, Fourth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Summary for Policymakers, ( Available at: www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07 viewed 22/4/07); and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, see generally. 8 Kendal Hodgman, Sustainability: A New South Wales Whole of Government Approach, (Sydney, Government of New South Wales, Premier’s Department, 2005). 9 Attributed to Confucius, Book XIII Analects; cited in C.H.A.O.S.S.: An Essay and Glossary for Students and Practitioners of Global Environmental Governance, Saunier, R., and Meganck, R., (U.K., A.A. Balkema Publishers, 2004), 27. 10 Government of Western Australia, Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy, Hope for the Future, (Perth, Government of Western Australia 2003), 12. 11 These principles are generally known within the NSW Government context as ‘The Four Pillars’. They were first enunciated in 1998 in the Urban Infrastructure Management Plan, which was developed by the then Ministry of Urban Infrastructure Management, (Available at: http://www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/our_library/infrastructure/uimp98.pdf ). 12 Government of New South Wales, NSW Social Justice Budget Statement 2003-04, Foreword, (Sydney, Government of NSW, 2004), 2. 13 The Convention on Biological Diversity, otherwise known as the Bratislava Convention, came into force legally in December 1993. 14 Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1992 (NSW), s. 6(2)(c). 15 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Creating our Future: Development for New Zealand, (Available at: www.pce.govt.nz ), 39 Also see Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Policies to enhance sustainable development: meeting of the OECD council ministerial level, (Paris, OECD, 2001); and OECD Sustainable development: critical issues, (Paris, OECD, 2001). 16 Based on Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Waste Reduction & Purchasing Plan 2002, (Sydney, Government of NSW, 2002), 8. 17 Guiding Principles for Partnerships for Sustainable Development (‘type 2 outcomes’), World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. (Available at: http://www.iisd.ca/wssd/download%20files/annex_partnership.pdf ) 18 The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993). 19 United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED), Principle 9, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: The Principles of Agenda 21, (Paris, United Nations, 1992). 20 Ibid., Chapter 36, 2.

Kendal Hodgman 21

75

This definition blends ideas from Landcom Sustainability Report 2003, (Sydney, Government of NSW, 2003), 4, and the 2002 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, (Global Reporting Initiative Available at: www.globalreporting.org viewed 22/4/07), 1. 22 J. Harris, Basic Principles of Sustainable Development, (Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Working Paper 00-04. June), 5-6. (Available at: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae viewed 22/4/07). 23 International Union for Conservation of Nature, Caring for the Earth; A Strategy for Sustainable Living, (Gland, Switzerland, United Nations Environment Program, World Wide Fund for Nature, 1991), 9-12. 24 Government of New South Wales, Premier’s Department, Website, (Available at: http://www.premiers.nsw.gov.au/WorkAndBusiness/WorkingForGovernm ent/SustainabilityInitiatives.htm viewed 22/4/07). 25 The Public Accounts Committee is the Parliament of NSW’ bipartisan committee charged with evaluating the NSW Government’s efficacy in key areas of responsibility. .

Voluntary Agreements in Queensland, Australia: Contributing Factors and Current Incentive Schemes Jo Kehoe Abstract Biodiversity continues its unrelenting demise on vast areas of privately held land within Australia, particularly in the state of Queensland. One means towards solving this problem is by voluntary conservation agreements between the agricultural community and the government. To date such agreements are yet to be fully utilised, despite their potential to play an increasingly essential role in natural resource management. Varieties of voluntary agreements are currently being tested, for example, the vegetation incentives program in Queensland. The aim of this paper is to explore some of the factors which contribute towards the utilisation of voluntary conservation agreements in Queensland together with a consideration of some current incentive schemes. There are important lessons to learned from the initial implementation stages that may be usefully employed by interested stakeholders. Keywords: conservation agreements, voluntary agreements, contributing factors, incentive schemes, Queensland, Australia. 1.

Introduction Voluntary conservation agreements represent a dynamic and evolving policy area in environmental law. They range from covenants in perpetuity binding successors in title, to short-term contracts binding only on parties to the agreement. The agricultural community in Queensland under-utilises such agreements. Nonetheless, effective long-term conservation of natural resources on private land requires that landholders become an integral part of the resolution to biodiversity loss. Voluntary agreements alone are not a solution; but they present an important aspect of the move towards sustainable agricultural management. 2.

Voluntary Agreements - An Under-utilised Policy Option Within Australia, and particularly in the state of Queensland, biodiversity continues its unremitting decline.1 While some sectors of the agricultural community routinely take account of biodiversity conservation in their management strategies, there is much room for improvement.2 There is scope, arguably imperative, that private landholders and government utilise voluntary conservation agreements to promote sustainable management of natural resources. To date such agreements are an under-utilised policy option and this is particularly so in Queensland. Such agreements should complement and be supported by traditional command and control legislation. Here is an aspect of

78

Voluntary Agreements in Queensland, Australia

environmental policy making which highlights the overarching philosophical dilemma of “balancing the collective against the individual interest”3 and of the intrinsic tensions of public approaches to sustainable land management on private property owners.4 Agriculture is the most extensive form of land use in Australia accounting for 58 per cent of the total land area, or 447 million hectares, of which 141.4 million hectares is devoted to agriculture in Queensland. 5 Much of the agricultural activity is centred on livestock grazing with relatively small pockets of the state currently under nature conservation or managed resource protection.6 In Queensland, land tenure is primarily divided into private freehold ownership and Crown leasehold or pastoral leases.7 3.

Types of Voluntary Agreement Voluntary agreements may encompass various types of arrangements from the most extensive; being a covenant in perpetuity registered on the land title, to the least extensive being, for example, a one-off payment to a landholder for a particular task such as fencing an area. In between these two ends of the spectrum lie various contractual and non-contractual arrangements including combinations of both covenants and contracts. For example, a covenant may run in perpetuity alongside a contractual management plan that runs for a five-year period with annual payments. Generally, covenants run with the land and bind successors in title. Because of the doctrine of privity, a contract only binds the original parties to the agreement. Agreements may contain provision for the landholder to encourage a successor in title to take over the contract; but the limitation of this type of arrangement is that it is directly linked to the current owner of the land. This paper will consider voluntary agreements that are the result of direct bargaining between individual landholders and Queensland government agencies. Initial consideration is given to the centralised approach to natural resource management currently taken by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). This is followed by a discussion of the factors likely to contribute towards the adoption of a voluntary agreement. The paper then provides a brief analysis of the statutory framework for voluntary agreements and, as Australia has a federal system of government, both federal and state legislations are considered, noting that Commonwealth legislation is not utilised at all. In order to provide a perspective on Queensland the paper then focuses on two current incentive schemes both statutory and non-statutory. Finally, the contributing factors will be re-visited in relation to the two incentive schemes examined in order to assess the extent to which voluntary agreements are utilised in the state, particularly by the agricultural community.

Jo Kehoe

79

4.

The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council Meaningful employment of voluntary agreements requires a centralised and consistent approach; the latest body established to do this in Australia is the NRMMC. According to the NRMMC, there are indications that voluntary agreements with landholders have the potential to play an increasingly important role in natural resource management within Australia.8 Equally, the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), National Markets Based Instruments (MBI) Pilots Program is a recent example that is likely to encourage utilisation of voluntary agreements.9 Varieties of MBIs are currently being tested, for example, the bush tender in Victoria and the vegetation incentives programme in Queensland.10 These instruments are heralded by the NRMMC as being more cost effective than legislation and more flexible in that participants negotiate an agreement which, in turn, encourages innovation and changes in behaviour.11 5.

Utilisation of Voluntary Agreements - Contributing Factors Future use and likelihood of success with voluntary agreements is very much dependent on various contributing factors. 12 A. Economic incentives The success of voluntary agreements is liable to depend upon accessible and worthwhile incentives and, importantly, the availability of sufficient funding. Significant steps in fiscal commitment were taken in 1997 in Australia, when the Commonwealth government established the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) the purpose being to restore and preserve the environment and natural resources.13 This financial obligation was extended in the 2004 Federal budget to provide funding until 2007-2008 making the overall NHT investment $3 billion.14 This is in addition to $1.4 million from the NAP. Both the NHT and the NAP will combine an integrated delivery of management of natural resources at a regional level.15 The NRMMC oversee the implementation of natural resource management programs. Adequate funding therefore does not appear to be an issue. B. Design and implementation of voluntary agreements Effective utilisation of any instrument will be more readily facilitated and acceptable to potential parties if their rights, duties and obligations are clarified. It is possible with a voluntary agreement to enter into an oral contract or an arrangement lacking the basic legal requirements of a contract. However, a basic standard form incorporating the relevant criteria ensures certainty and need not be legally overwhelming. The following criteria are accordingly set down which incorporate the basic requirements, not only of an agreement, but also to assist in focusing the direction of negotiations: 16

80

Voluntary Agreements in Queensland, Australia x x x x

x

x x

x x

x x

Parties - to the agreement. Property - a description of the land, title number and plan. Recitals - background to the conservation target/goal the agreement is set to achieve. Landholder obligations - if a financial incentive is to be paid the amount and details of how payment is to be made. The contractual consideration here would be the landowner’s obligations under the agreement in return for the incentive payment. Term - the period during which the agreement will run, either for a fixed term or in perpetuity to bind successors in title. If the agreement is a perpetual covenant, the remaining criteria may be included in a management plan. The advantage of a management plan being that it can be adapted to changing circumstances and landowners. Target/goal - should be clearly outlined after prior consultation with the landholder. Monitoring - regulator or non-government body inspection of conservation land to be at agreed intervals, for example each year. Prior notice should be given of the inspection and assistance should be provided, if necessary, if the target/goal is falling short. Breach - details of what will constitute a breach. Some flexibility should be included here to take account of, for example, drought or climatic changes beyond the control of the landholder. Enforcement - may be set down in statute. In the absence of regulation potential penalties must be clearly articulated. At the very least the landholder should be obliged to return any incentive paid for failing to comply with the contract obligations. Provision for modification, extinguishment and release - of the agreement should be included. Mediation - in the event of any dispute arising under the agreement the parties should have the option to refer the matter, at least in the first instance, to mediation. This would be in keeping with the voluntary aspects of these arrangements and may promote their use

C. Motivation Motivation to enter into voluntary arrangements may be restricted to the conservation minded. The reality for many landholders, particularly those operating on a smaller scale, renders conservation an ideal often difficult to incorporate into daily subsistence. For many, “everything comes down to the dollar and trying to make a living. In the sugarcane area at the moment we are struggling to stay afloat, so conservation is the last thing on our minds.”

Jo Kehoe

81

Equally, many “are keen on conservation, but time and costs are a problem when we are flat out trying to survive.” These comments came from farmers as part of a state wide survey to determine landholder issues of importance for nature conservation on rural properties.17 This survey concluded that the main areas of concern for farmers were feral animals, weeds and problems with wildlife. Management for nature conservation did not rate highly.18 Moreover, it is clear from the Queensland Farmers Federation that Queensland farmers currently have more immediate and pressing concerns in order to operate a viable business, such as drought assistance and exceptional circumstances relief.19 D. Is the Target Group Accessible and do they have a Strong Representative Body? One of the prime difficulties in dealing with the agricultural community in Queensland must surely be the geographical isolation of many landholders. Nonetheless, this is a close knit and supportive community, internet access is commonplace, word of mouth prolific and the rural press reinforces solidarity.20 Landholders in Queensland have, primarily, two representative bodies: Agforce21 and the Queensland Farmers Federation.22 Agforce is the larger organisation and, despite being at variance politically with the current government, recent collaboration has been facilitated by schemes such as Agforward. Agforward came about as part of the Queensland government’s financial commitment to landowners when announcing the land-clearing moratorium. The financial pledge of $150 million included $8 million to support rural industry groups to promote best management practices in sustainable agriculture.23 This $8 million went to Agforce and started Agforward. This initiative is set to run for four years, the primary aim appears to be to assist landholders in understanding the various regulatory regimes brought about by changes to the vegetation management legislation. The Agforward team is presently touring the state presenting workshops. The Queensland Farmers Federation is a smaller body than Agforce. This body is developing a working relationship with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They have a committee on environment and natural resources and cite this as a key policy area. However, none of their natural resource management issues includes any information on voluntary agreements. 24 Their latest conference on enhancing sustainable agriculture is supported by the EPA.25 The Minister’s welcoming speech at this conference abounded with motherhood statements, such as, “Farmers and environmentalists have not always been friends in Queensland, but the time is right for a new partnership.”26 The conference was however, the outcome of a two-year project developed in partnership between the Federation and the EPA’s

82


sustainable industries division. The Minister urged farmers “to approach the EPA for practical advice, assistance or partnerships.”27 E. Mutual Respect and Trust The complicated dynamics of the relationship between the current Queensland government and the agricultural community mean that there are currently barriers to mutual respect and trust. Current unrest amongst the rural community in Queensland may well be hampering the willingness of landholders to tap into the potential of conservation agreements. This is particularly the case when the proposed partnership for a voluntary agreement lies with the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) who administer the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA). Recent times have seen the introduction of unpopular amendments to this legislation, such as the phasing out of broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation by the end of December 2006. In providing the statutory framework for the government’s moratorium on land clearing, this Act has played a pivotal role in the tension that exists within some sectors of the agricultural community. Despite, and probably because of, the strained relations between the farmers and the state, attempts have been made to foster a better working relationship. In February 2005 the ‘Blueprint for the Bush’ project was founded.28 The Blueprint is a 10 year plan to work in partnership. During the first stage (to gather input from the agricultural community about their concerns), it was estimated some eight hundred people attended in various rural centres around the state.29 After these meetings, the President of Agforce said: The overwhelming message we heard from the bush from Hughenden to Emerald, from Nebo to Dalby was resounding - the bush believes the government does not trust them and is favouring a big stick approach to legislative compliance over extension and advice.30 There are indications of a willingness to rectify this as the President subsequently noted; despite being mistrustful of the government, landowners were: …willing to give the Blueprint concept a go. They appreciate that a resolution to many of the issues facing rural Queensland will require a genuine partnership and a rebuilding of the trust which seems to have been lost on both sides.31 From the initial Blueprint consultation process core areas of importance and areas where key initiatives need to be addressed have been

Jo Kehoe

83

formulated by Agforce. These key initiatives include: “Land and environment initiatives to support land management practices that are both productive and environmentally sound.”32The Blueprint further elaborates by articulating the need “to develop economic incentives for rural producers to manage and maintain the land in a sustainable manner.”33This particular key initiative may be a useful vehicle to promote the utilisation of voluntary agreements but the Blueprint makes no specific reference to them. The current climate is hardly conducive to the promotion of voluntary negotiated agreements. The current Labor government has much to do to build confidence in the farming community. The existing government lacks the affinity of the rural lobby and they, in turn, lack the influence they held under the (non-Labor) Bjelke-Peterson administration. Both sides have much ground to cover to reach a stage whereby voluntary agreements may be negotiated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. The Blueprint, however, is a long term 10 year project and may provide the momentum to start the journey. F. Soft Effects The soft effects of voluntary agreements cannot be underestimated.34 This must particularly be the case for smaller farming bodies. Soft effects include shared forms of knowledge and learning and best practice methods, the dissemination of information and general support; not only from the relevant regulator but also from other participants in a given scheme. In 2002, a national survey was undertaken of landholders with conservation covenants.35The general findings of this survey were that landholders received more assistance during the setting up of the covenant than after.36Schemes varied in the levels and types of assistance made available.37 During the establishment phase over 90 per cent of landowners regarded as important a property visit, advice on assessing remnant vegetation and wildlife habitat, together with guidance on funding and funding assistance.38 Once the covenant had been established, funding was still the most significant aspect, with over 90 per cent declaring financial assistance and rebates important.39 This was followed by the need for access to technical experts; labour for on ground works, field days, publications and links with other covenant holders.40 The legal implications of a covenant in perpetuity do not appear to have been addressed in this survey. It would be interesting to see if all respondents had independent legal representation and if the regulator advised them to seek such representation. This would avoid any element of potential unconscionability in the negotiations and completion of the agreement. This survey provides a useful lens into conservation minded landholders already participating in a voluntary scheme. It is the

84


landowners who are currently not inclined to consider voluntary programs that need to be targeted, particularly as they are the majority group. Empirical data collected from this majority group may provide useful insights into the current barriers preventing landholders from utilising voluntary agreements. Commonwealth Legislative Provision: The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The potential role for Federal government in the voluntary agreement domain lies with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth, ‘EPBC’). This statute commenced in 2000 and initial analysis generally described this law as a major and key reforming agent to existing environmental law.41The Act brought Australia into line with the international environmental arena and signalled an important role for the Commonwealth. The objects of the EPBC are wide-ranging and make provision, amongst other things, for the promotion of ecologically sustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity.42One particular vehicle for the conservation of biodiversity is by means of conservation agreements. 43 To date no agreements have been made.44This would appear to be a policy decision as Commonwealth funding in natural resource management is currently unparalleled. Voluntary agreements may however lend themselves more readily to regional bodies and non-government organisations where local knowledge is invaluable. 6.

State Legislative Provision: The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) In Queensland, provision is made under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA) for landowners to enter into voluntary conservation agreements. The EPA administers this statute and deals with negotiations on the agreements. The object of the Act is the conservation of nature. 45 There are twelve classes of protected areas under the Act, which include nature refuges.46 The emphasis is on community participation in the administration of the NCA.47 Within Queensland, there are currently 182 nature refuges covering 412,700 hectares.48The first nature refuge was declared in 1994.49 This was the Berlin Scrub refuge and covered some 41.9 ha.50 Total areas for each refuge vary enormously, for example, most recently the range is from less than one hectare to 215,454 hectares.51 This latter refuge, declared in 2005, is the Mulligan River refuge and is the largest in Australia.52 This refuge alone amounts to just over half of the total area devoted to refuges in the state. Importantly, in terms of utilisation of this type of agreement by the agricultural community, this refuge was made with the North Australian Pastoral Company.53Ordinarily, information on 7.

Jo Kehoe

85

the landholder entering into the agreement is not in the public domain, this particular refuge however received much publicity within the state. Available information on each refuge includes the name of the refuge and description of the land, the significant cultural and natural resources and values of the area, the proposed management intent and use and the duration of the agreement. This information therefore does not provide any indication of the land usage and it is therefore impossible to determine if the nature refuges are situated on areas otherwise used for agriculture and in particular, if farmers are entering into these voluntary agreements. At present landowners entering into this scheme range from primary producers to eco tourism ventures.54 To what extent are nature refuges utilised on agricultural land in Queensland? The total area of agricultural activity in the state amounts to 141.4 million hectares.55 The total current area of 412,700 hectares devoted to nature refuges therefore amounts to 0.29%. This extremely low percentage does not reflect the true picture, as the 412,700 figure also incorporates nature refuges that are not on agricultural land. It is apparent that nature refuges are utilised and that their use is growing, but there is much room for expansion. One means to encourage utilisation is to target particular areas, which the vegetation incentives programme has recently done. 8.

Non-statutory Voluntary Agreements — The Vegetation Incentives Programme The Queensland government has committed $12 million towards a vegetation incentive programme. Under this scheme a voluntary conservation agreement may be negotiated between the DNRM and landholders. Originally, this programme envisaged using a perpetual covenant registered on the land title and a management plan. The covenant was particularly onerous and restrictive. The management plan was a contract intended to run for five years with periodic payments during the term. It was not clear what would happen at the expiry of the management plan or if further funding would be available. Landholders were invited to submit an expression of interest. The DNRM then assessed each application and invited applicants with suitable land to submit a tender. The state was divided into regions and the first round, which targeted the southern region, saw 21 expressions of interest; of these, 16 were invited to submit a tender and eight did so.56 Ultimately, the bids were high from this final group and not regarded by the DNRM as good value: the tenders were not accepted.57 This scheme has evolved and landholders may now choose to enter into a perpetual covenant as part of the nature refuge scheme run by the EPA, a limited term covenant, or a declaration, in which the landholder declares the vegetation as remnant and therefore protected by applicable legislation.58 An important lesson was learned from round one -

86


the very strict covenant probably contributed to the low participation rate and inflated bids.59 Utilisation may also be encouraged by providing more assistance towards the difficult task of collating a bid. The second round of this scheme covered the remainder of the state with the exception of southeast Queensland.60 Of the 87 expressions of interest 46 were invited to submit a tender and 38 took the opportunity to do so. 61The North Coastal region accounted for 31 of those 38 tenders.62 This area includes the Atherton Tablelands and is characterised by smaller non-farming properties, the average size of the applications being 11.55 hectares.63 9.

Voluntary Agreements in Queensland — The Impact of Contributing Factors

A. Economic incentives Financial incentives are the most significant and direct means to promote utilisation of voluntary agreements.64 Australia is currently experiencing an unprecedented availability of financial resources, nonetheless voluntary conservation agreements appear to primarily attract the conservation minded. Are current economic incentives sufficient to be meaningful to property owners? Such incentives have been denounced, in the past, as inappropriate for failing to take account of the long-term requirements of sustainable land management.65 The provision of permanent financial incentives may generate more interest in voluntary agreements; but this must be weighed against the reality that enduring fiscal commitments are beyond the scope and political life of governments. There is a general view that landholders ought not to receive monetary assistance in return for environmental compliance.66 A voluntary conservation agreement however is arguably beyond requisite compliance. The dilemma appears to be in deciding the amount of financial tender and here the government is shifting the onus on to the landholder. The most recent voluntary schemes in Queensland have made use of a competitive tender system. The NRMMC have found this to be a significant cost saving in terms of the delivery of such instruments.67 It is clear however, from the vegetation incentives program, that landholders need more assistance in the complicated task of developing a financial bid and taking part in a tender process. B. Design and implementation of voluntary agreements The implementation and design of voluntary agreements is enhanced by a statutory framework as presently exists for perpetual covenants under the NCA. To be as effective as possible voluntary agreements need a legislative under pinning to cover matters such as

Jo Kehoe

87

obligations under the covenant and how incentives are to be paid and repaid in the event of breach. Such matters are set down in the NCA.68 Moreover, voluntary agreements require a multi-discipline approach that incorporates economics, ecology and law. In the absence of legislation, guidelines and a basic standard form contract covering the essential contractual requirements could be provided by, and are within the terms of reference of, the NRMMC. This would be an important strategy for developing a national approach to the conservation of Australia’s natural resources. Equally, it would ensure - in view of the funding that is provided - that non-statutory voluntary agreements are legally binding. C. Motivation It is difficult to motivate landholders to engage in voluntary agreements when the prime concern (particularly for the smaller organisations) is economic viability. Queensland remains in the grip of prolonged drought. It is apparent that, for some landholders, natural resource management is not at the top of the priority list. Nature refuges amount to 0.29% of the privately held land in Queensland. The majority of private landholders in the state apparently lack the motivation to engage in voluntary agreements. The recent declaration of the Mulligan River refuge is promising; and publicity from this refuge may motivate others to follow. Landholders motivated to enter voluntary agreements under the second round of the vegetation incentives scheme came primarily from the North Coastal region of the state. The main area of success to date therefore has not been with the agricultural community, but in conservation conscious and non-farming communities where this programme is likely to be preaching to the converted. D. Is the target group accessible and do they have a strong representative body? Queensland farmers have two main representative bodies in Agforce and the Queensland Farmers Federation. Agforce are recently in receipt of substantial funding of $8 million; the purpose of such funding being to ‘support rural industry groups in promoting best management practices in sustainable agriculture.’69 Agforce should consider making provision to incorporate voluntary agreements as part of their promotion of best management practices. Both representative bodies are strong and frequently lobby the government on behalf of their members. For example, Agforce has recently been successful in persuading the government to freeze rural rents for two years. The recent Blueprint partnership is a positive initiative, but it lacks any clear emphasis on effective and sustainable natural resource management nor includes any mention of voluntary conservation agreements. Collaboration with the current Labor government represents a significant shift and pragmatic step on the part of

88


the Agforce President. His position is an elected one and time will tell if he can carry the support of the members. The President of the Queensland Farmers Federation is less forward looking, but possibly more representative of landholders, in his recent comment that farmers “want to see less of the government not more.”70The pathway to environmental public and private partnerships has the potential to be facilitated by each representative body, particularly by Agforce. E. Mutual respect and trust The government and the agricultural community have much ground to cover to reach a stage whereby voluntary agreements may be negotiated in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. The Blueprint for the Bush partnership project may be one avenue to provide the impetus to start the journey. As perpetual conservation covenants are now dealt with solely by the EPA a great deal rests on the nature refuge officer assigned to any given district to engage with and build trust with landholders. Moves towards partnership have recently been made with the EPA and the Queensland Farmers Federation. F. Soft effects A perpetual covenant requires perpetual maintenance. The provision of adequate support after the agreement has been finalised requires sufficient resources and time from the relevant agencies and this ongoing cost should be factored into the overall costing of a scheme. Covenant holders under the NCA have nature refuge officers assigned to their area to assist with technical expertise and advice; provide information on natural resource management and, in short, general support and regular updates on biodiversity management.71 The assistance received by covenant holders after the establishment phase has been found wanting.72 On-going maintenance is clearly a resource issue, particularly in the remote regions of Queensland. This may be an area in which nongovernment bodies such as Greening Australia could be engaged. The vegetation incentive scheme promises networking with other landholders, peer support and management information.73 10.

Conclusion The focus of this paper has been on voluntary agreements that are the result of direct bargaining between private landholders and public government agencies in the state of Queensland. Such agreements range from covenants in perpetuity to short term contracts and combinations of both covenants and contracts. Utilisation of voluntary agreements will be aided by a centralised approach to natural resource management. The potential role therefore of the NRMMC is crucial for consistency and knowledge transfer. An

Jo Kehoe

89

emphasis on practical aspects, such as the provision by the NRMMC of an adaptable standard form contract, would ensure consistency and legality. The dilemma is that sustainable agriculture requires long-term solutions which, in terms of voluntary agreements, are best suited to perpetual statutory covenants. Such instruments, however, tend to include very limiting land use restrictions and are less likely to be taken up by landholders. Contracts appear more acceptable to property owners and may promote the transition to more sustainable natural resource management. Such agreements however, are bound to the original owner by the doctrine of privity and potentially bound to a five-year term if further funding is not forthcoming. Consideration was given to two voluntary schemes: the nature refuge scheme and the vegetation incentives programme. Nature refuges are growing but they are generally under utilised. The total area of land devoted to refuges amounts to 0.29 per cent of the state and more than half of this area is taken up by one refuge. The vegetation incentive program has, to date, attracted primarily the conservation minded non-farming property owners in the North Coastal region of Queensland. Very little of the $12 million financial package has been distributed. An examination of factors contributing to the uptake of voluntary agreements by the agricultural community indicate that, despite financial incentives being available, more thought needs to be invested into design and implementation, particularly of non-statutory agreements. Farmers, primarily at the smaller end of agricultural production, appear to lack motivation. This is exacerbated by an agricultural community which has some way to go to negotiate with the government in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust which the utilisation of voluntary agreements necessarily requires. To date voluntary agreements remain under-utilised by the agricultural community in Queensland.

Notes 1

Australia State of the Environment Report, Biodiversity Theme Report, CSIRO,2001, (15 /2/06 ) http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/biodiversity/index.html 2 Ibid. 3 Tim Bonyhady, “Property Rights” Environmental Protection and Legal Change, ed. Tim Bonyhady (Sydney: Federation Press, 1992) p30. 4 Gerry Bates, Environmental Law in Australia (Sydney, Butterworths, 2002) p362. 5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 24 March 2006, (15 February 2006). http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c4700 25ff87/F7635B38F792374BCA256DEA000539DA?opendocument

90

6


See, for example, the national land use map in Australian Natural Resource Atlas, 2001, (14 March 2006) http://audit.deh.gov.au/anra/agriculture/gifs/ag_report/section_1/figure1_2 .gif 7 For a map depicting land tenure within Australia see Australian Government, Geosciences Australia (13 March 2006) http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/images/tenure1.gif 8 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council Communiqué, October 2005,(14 February 2006) http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/nrm-mbi/mbi.html#what 9 Australian Government, Management of natural resources, “Managing our natural resources: can markets help”? 26 August 2004, (14 February 2006) http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/nrm-mbi/mbi.html#what 10 In Victoria, the bush tender incentive scheme has had much success, 2006, ( 23 March 2006) http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/ 11 Australian Government, n 9. 12 Neil Gunningham, “Voluntary and Negotiated Agreements in Agriculture: Towards a partnership approach to Resource Management” The Australasian Journal of Natural resources Law and Policy 8 (2003) p25 - 28. Gunningham cites contributing factors which European evidence suggests are crucial to public-private partnerships, these include: the degree of mutual respect and trust; the accessibility of the target group and their representative body; and soft effects. These contributing factors have been considered in the light of the state of Queensland. 13 Natural Heritage Trust, 23 May 2006,(14 March 2006) http://www.nht.gov.au/index.html 14 Ibid. 15 Australian Government, Natural Resource Management, 12 January 2005 ( 27 March 2006) http://www.nrm.gov.au/about-nrm.html 16 Commentary on the criteria for the content of voluntary agreements is also considered in the following: Gunningham, n 12, p23-25, who cites the OECD criteria. Alexander Danne,” Voluntary environmental agreements in Australia,” Environmental Planning & Law Journal 20 (2003) p291 who collates the criteria of other commentators. Patrick Ten Brink P “Future Use: Tools for developing agreements” in “Voluntary Environmental Agreements: process, practice and future use.” ed. Patrick Ten Brink ( UK:Greenleaf Publishing, 2002) reproduces the European Commission Guidelines on voluntary agreements. 17 Miller J, Chew C, Tarrant P & Walsh D, “Listening to Landholders, Community Nature Conservation Market Research 2000” Queensland Government, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. In this survey 2000 rural businesses were contacted and elicited 716 responses. 18 Ibid p 2 & p6.

Jo Kehoe

19

91

Queensland Farmers Federation, Hot Issues: http://www.qff.org.au/hot.asp (accessed 13/03/06). 20 One such newspaper is the weekly Queensland Country Life. Available at: http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/home.asp (accessed 27/3/06).Anecdotally this paper is known as “The Bible of the Bush.” In Queensland, it is used as a vehicle by both Agforce and The Queensland Farmers Federation and is politically and often vehemently opposed to the Beattie administration. The paper distributes 41,000 copies per week and core readership is primary producers – e-mail confirmation of figures was provided by Queensland Country Life dated 29/3/06. 21 Agforce. Available at: http://www.agforceqld.org.au/ (accessed 13/3/06). 22 Queensland Farmers Federation. Available at: http://www.qff.org.au/ (accessed 13/3/06). 23 Hon. S Robertson, Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland Parliamentary Hansard, Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill , Second Reading, ,18/5/04, p 63. Available at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/ (accessed 13/3/06). 24 Queensland Farmers Federation, Core Business: Environment & Natural Resources: available at :http://www.qff.org.au/core.asp?dbcat=2 (accessed 13/3/06). 25 Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture Conference, March 2006: http://www.qff.org.au/hot.asp?dbid=21 ( accessed 13/3/06). 26 The Honourable Desley Boyle, Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women Wednesday, 22/3/ 2006 “Partnerships benefit farmers and the environment” Media release, available at:http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx ?id=45217 (accessed28/3/06). 27 Ibid. 28 Blueprint for the Bush: consultation report, Phase 1, September 2005. Available at:http://www.agforceqld.org.au/PDFs/Blueprint%20Consultation%20repo rt%20Phase%201%20Final%20(2).pdf (accessed 14/3/06). 29 Blueprint for the Bush. Available at: http://www.agforceqld.org.au/blueprintforthebush.htm (accessed 14/306). 30 Blueprint Tour, Peter Kenny, President, Agforce Queensland, July 2005. Available at: http://www.agforceqld.org.au/blueprintforthebush.htm p2. (accessed 14/306). 31 Ibid p2. 32 Blueprint for the Bush, Discussion paper – Agforce Champion Initiatives. Available at: http://www.agforceqld.org.au/PDFs/AgForce%20Blueprint%20initiatives. pdf p2 (accessed 14/3/06).

92

33


Blueprint for the Bush, Discussion paper n 114, p7. Gunningham N, n 12, p28. 35 Stephens S, “Landholders views on conservation covenants” (2002) Australian Landcare. 1141 survey forms were distributed and 466 (41%) returned. 36 Ibid. 37 Stephens S, n35. 38 Stephens S, n35. 39 Stephens S, n35. 40 Stephens S, n35. 41 Lisa Ogle, “The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth): How Workable is it?” Environmental Planning & Law Journal 17 (2000) 468; Sophie Chapple, “The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth): One year Later” Environmental Planning & Law Journal 18 (2001) 523. 42 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) s3 (1) (a) (b) (c). Volume 1:(6 February 2006) http://www.frli.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/B958A 90F4DB0AAF3CA2570000009230A/$file/EnvProtBioDivCons99Vol1W D02.doc 43 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(Cth) Part 14, Volume 2. (6 February 2006) http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/legislation/actcompilation1.nsf/0/400 F5C3D07430F99CA25700000094F3A/$file/EnvProtBioDivCons99Vol2 WD02.do 44 Australian Government, Department of Environment & Heritage, Notices.14April2004,(8March2006)http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/publicnot ices/species/index.html#making-agreements This was confirmed as at 8 March 2006 by e-mail correspondence from the Database and Internet Management Section, Approvals and Wildlife Division, at the DEH. 45 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) s4, (15 March 2006)http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/N/Nature ConA92.pdf . 46 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) s 14 (a) to (l). 47 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) s6. 48 The Hon. Desley Boyle MP, Environment, Local Government, Planning & Women, “Queensland native refuge network continues to grow” Media release, 8 March 2006, ( 20 March 2006) http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/ 49 It is possible to track all declared nature refuges by going through the superseded to current versions of the Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulation 1994. (26March2006) http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/SL_AsMade/SL_AsMade.htm 34

Jo Kehoe

50

93

Nature Conservation (Declaration of Nature Refuges) Regulation 1994.(26 March 2006) http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/SLS/1994/94SL135.pdf 51 Environmental Protection Agency, Annual Report on the administration of The Nature Conservation Act, 2004-2005. (27March2006) http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/register/p01702ar.pdf 52 Nature Conservation (Declaration of Nature Refuges) Regulation (No 1) 2005.(14March2006)http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/SLS/2 005/05SL137.pdf 53 Environmental Protection Agency, Nature Refuges. (14 March 2006) http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/nature_refuges/ The ABC Landline coverage on the Mulligan River refuge is available at this site. 54 E-mail correspondence with the state wide nature refuge coordinator, EPA, Brisbane,13 February 2006. 55 See Australian Bureau of Statistics, n 5. 56 Emma Commerford & Jim Binney, “Lessons learned to date from the Queensland Vegetation Incentives Program in moving from a conceptual ideal to practical reality” paper presented to the Sustainable Agriculture State Level Investment Program, Resource Economics Workshop, Department of Primary Industries, Rockhampton, Queensland, 28 October 2005. 57 Ibid. 58 Commerford & Binney, n 56, p 2-6. 59 Commerford & Binney, n 56, p 2-6. 60 Emma Commerford & Jim Binney “ Lessons learned from the Queensland Vegetation Incentives Program – applying auction theory to vegetation protection” (2006) unpublished paper. 61 Ibid. 62 Commerford & Binney, n 60, p3-4. 63 Commerford & Binney, n 60, p3-4. 64 Carl Binning & Michael Young, “Motivating People: Using management agreements to conserve remnant vegetation,” (Australia: Land & Water Resources, Research & Development Corporation, 1999), p33. 65 Neil Gunningham and Peter Grabosky, Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) p287. 66 Bates, n4, p35 cites a wealth of commentary in support of this view. 67 NRMMC, Resolution, Market based instruments – Agreement for round two funding. 15 April 2005, (5 April 2006) :http://www.mincos.gov.au/pdf/nrmmc_res_08.pdf 68 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) s44. 69 Hon. S Robertson, Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland Parliamentary Hansard, Vegetation Management and Other

94


Legislation Amendment Bill , Second Reading, ,18/5/04, p 63. Available at: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/ (accessed 10/4/06). 70 Sansom G, “Govt Blueprint Needs to get the Basics Right For Rural Revival” QFF (Media release 14 November 2005). Available at: http://www.qff.org.au/media.asp?dbid=29&dbdate=Past (accessed 9/4/06). 71 EPA,NatureRefuges,http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p01316aa.p df/Nature_refuges.pdf (accessed 27/3/06). 72 Stephens S, n 35. 73 Australian Government, DEH, “Bush.” October 2005.Available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/land/vegetation/bush/index.html (accessed 6/4/06). This edition contains details of the various voluntary covenant programs available in each state.

Section 3 Class and Conflict

Global Environmental Governance: Mapping Unequal and Contested Terrain Andrew Deak Abstract This essay seeks to use a transnational class analysis to get at the complexity of the global environmental governance. This analysis abstracts three main groups from the global political economy: the ruling ‘capitalist’ class, the managerial cadre class in the middle and those on the receiving end of the global governance processes. My first task will be to expound on this social ontology. My second task will be to explain the assumptions adopted in this paper regarding the contradictory nature of modernity and capitalism, and environmental degradation as the routine exploitation of nature. From this class perspective, I will consider responses to environmental degradation seen in current forms of global environmental governance. The response is largely orchestrated by the middle ‘cadre class’, which is organically linked to both the imperatives of the ruling class to protect private property as well as grassroots movements emanating from those on the receiving end of the global governance process - the ‘masses’ to put it crudely. The response will be seen as largely split along reformist and more radical lines. The former sees capitalism as sustainable and requiring better regulation and marketbased solutions; the latter has a tendency to question the sustainability of capitalism and pushes for greater change. I will conclude that a future deepening of ecological crises - which at this rate seems unavoidable - will provide the conditions for a convergence of the various cadre factions into a movement away from neoliberal market solutions. Keywords: global environmental governance; global political economy; transnational historical materialism; World Bank and social movements 1.

Introduction “Be Worried. Be very worried.” Time Magazine, Front cover, April 2006.

There is an ever-increasing sense of urgency surrounding environmental problems such as climate change. Furthermore, issues of global environmental governance are perplexing. This is because one might assume that everyone has a vested interest in global environmental issues, as we are all situated within one global environment. Because we should all be equally concerned, it is all too often considered a “non-class issue.”1 The issues, however, are much more complex due to systemic tendencies of capitalism, the contradictory nature of modernity,

98

Global Environmental Governance

geographical location, issues of gender and race, and subsequent understandings and interpretations of the global governance process and environmental degradation. This essay seeks to use a class analysis to try and get at the complexity of the subject matter, while also placing classes within an understanding of capitalism and modernity. I will try to capture both differences in class and geo-political location by applying a transnational class analysis, which abstracts three main groups from the global political economy: the ruling ‘capitalist’ class, the managerial cadre class in the middle and those on the receiving end of the global governance processes. My first task will be to expound on this social ontology. My second task will be to explain the assumptions adopted in this paper regarding the contradictory nature of modernity and capitalism, and environmental degradation as the routine exploitation of nature. From this class perspective, I will consider responses to environmental degradation seen in current forms of global environmental governance. The response is largely orchestrated by the middle ‘cadre class’, which is organically linked to both the imperatives of the ruling class to protect private property as well as grassroots movements emanating from those on the receiving end of the global governance process - the ‘masses’ to put it crudely. The response will be seen as largely split along reformist and more radical lines. The former sees capitalism as sustainable and requiring better regulation and market-based solutions; the latter has a tendency to question the sustainability of capitalism and pushes for greater change. I will conclude that a future deepening of ecological crises - which at this rate seems unavoidable - will provide the conditions for a convergence of the various cadre factions into a movement away from neoliberal market solutions. 2.

Social Forces Involved in the Global Governance Process As noted, I will be approaching the central question from the perspective of three classes. Before explaining these classes, I will justify the adoption of this framework. This paper takes as a given; …that the contemporary nature and possible future of global environmental governance are heavily shaped and circumscribed by the organization of the global economy…then production has to assume a central role in our analysis.2

Capitalism is the dominant mode of production. To be specific, modern capitalism “involves the generalised production of commodities on the basis of wage labour.”3 This generalised production is production for a world market. People organise along the dominant mode of

Andrew Deak

99

production; that is, they form the social relations of production. It is out of these social relations, then, that we can abstract our three classes. At the global level, the dominant social interests are large business and powerful states. They are the owners of capital. But under what sort of imperatives and assumptions does this class operate? In a word, the protection of private property. This is because they retain wealth and resources within the dominant capitalist mode of production which is based on the liberal idea of private property rights. In their description of the current phase of capitalism as the second financial hegemony, dated from the 1980s onwards, and which refers to “the authority and control that the wealthiest owners of capital and financial institutions exercise over the economy and society in general”, Duménil and Lévy highlight the internal differentiation of this class and its relation to the others: Finance prevails over the other fractions of ruling classes - this is where internal contradictions are at issues in a democracy - and these classes, in turn, dominate the rest of society. Within this configuration, the upper middle classes occupy an intermediate position between ruling classes and the classes which are straightforward victims of the neo-liberal order.4 This upper middle class is part of what Kees van der Pijl and others have called the ‘managerial cadre class’. In addition to the classic notions of a (ruling) bourgeois class and the (subordinate) working class, we have this; …new class taking shape in conditions of late capitalism…The cadre are a class of mediators who execute directive tasks for the ruling class, but like the workers, they are simultaneously a salaried stratum dependent on the sale of labor power.5 According to van der Pijl, “planning and the propagation and monitoring of social norms have historically evolved into a special category of functionaries subordinate to the ruling class - the cadres.” 6 Furthermore, …the cadres represent modernity, but the definition of what modernity is, the momentary code of normalcy inscribed in a hegemonic concept, derives from the balance of class and fractional forces deciding the thrust of overall development rather than any inherent outlook of the cadres.7

100


Along with this preference for modernity there is an implicit leaning towards a specific form of rationality. Another “problematic characteristic” is that of the preference for democratisation (ibid.). This runs against the assumption of technocracy which the cadre adopts; that is, problems are best solved by the experts. Different segments of the cadre will take on these characteristics in different ways, making their responses to societal problems contradictory. Overall, the cadre mind is framed by systems analysis, so there are points of convergence during times of system wide crisis.8 As for those on the receiving end, little can be said but that they are an amalgamation of various working classes and marginalised peoples that lie under the process of global governance - characterised by the current financial hegemony that Duménil and Lévy speak of - and while they can mobilise to fight for their interests, they largely bear the brunt of the various crises induced by and within capitalism; especially ecological crises. As O’Brien notes: …it has always been the case that much environmental damage, whether it is radiation leakage from nuclear power stations, asbestos poisoning or polluted water, has a disproportionate affect on those people working the industries themselves and their communities.9 We must be careful, however, not to reduce these three classes to homogenous groups. In relation to environmental issues, this third ‘oppressed’ class would include groups that do not have access to resources, are victims of environmental injustice, as well as those who are outside of the key decision-making processes10. This latter faction can overlap with the cadre class as many within this middle class are fully employed and enjoy the benefits of global circuits of capital. In short, the lines are blurry, and the more you try to ‘look’ at a particular class the less you ‘see’ it. It should be noted that even though this paper adopts a transnational class perspective, it is by no means suggesting that the role of nation states is diminished or negligible. What makes this perspective particularly useful is that we are considering global environmental problems vis-à-vis a global capitalist economy which is in a neoliberal era. As Craig Murphy puts it: the social forces that have continued to back the neoliberal agenda are truly transnational, which implies that to understand contemporary global governance we need to develop a class analysis that transcends national boundaries.

Andrew Deak

101

Yet he also notes, Global governance is not simply a superstructure responding to the needs of an already differentiated global ruling class. It is more a site, one of many sites, in which struggles over wealth, power and knowledge are taking place.11 Similarly, Peter Newell and Matthew Paterson effectively demonstrate the decisive role of the state in mitigating the scope of international climate change regimes.12 They also show how one aspect of capital - namely the energy sector - has come to be seen as representative of ‘capital-in-general’, and as such the state systemically tends to favour their interests over other fractions of capital vis-à-vis discussions on climate change.13 In sum, we ought to keep the role of the state in mind, as well as the differentiated and complex nature of both capital and class. 3.

Ecological Degradation, Modernity, and Capitalism. The central issue which this paper addresses is how the classes outlined in the pervious section both perceive, and mobilise in response to, ecological degradation. Before looking at specific responses, we need to better understand what is meant by environmental degradation. First of all, it needs to be understood in relation to both modernity and capitalism which must not be conflated, but seen as historically linked. Environmental degradation “arises out of the normal and mundane practices of modernity and not from the accidental or abnormal.”14 Global environmental problems are a result of normal practices of modernity. To put this in Marxist terms, it is the routine exploitation of nature. A further consequence, according to Julian Saurin, is that “Knowledge of degradation is severely restricted and substantially mediated.”15 Drawing from an ecological Marxist account of capitalism, we see another organic link to environmental degradation. As James O’Connor argues, most Marxists “accept the premise based on the real conditions of capitalist exploitation that capitalism is a crisis-ridden system.”16 When considering the environment, this would lead to an emphasis on the “way that combined power of capitalist production relations and productive forces self-destruct by impairing or destroying rather than reproducing their own conditions.”17 A clear example: “the warming of the atmosphere will inevitably destroy people, places, and profits, not to speak of other species life.”18 In sum, I am adopting two different, though not entirely incompatible, assumptions: (1) environmental degradation is a result of modernity, which in turn obfuscates our understanding of the origin of degradation; and (2) one of the crises of capitalism is seen in its disregard

102


for the environment and the exhaustion of the society-nature nexus. An important consequence of the second assumption is that “crisis forcibly causes capital and state to exercise more control or planning over production conditions.”19 This helps provide us some insight into the material conditions at the base of the cadre response. Below is the theory behind such planning, as well examples of how this can occur in the global political economy. 4.

Ecological Modernisation The cadre’s response should not be conceived as mechanistic, or as part of a deterministic functionalist system. Rather it involves the (re)production of ideology to make sense of the problems with which they are confronted. The dominant ideology taken up by the reformist aspects of the cadre class in lieu of environmental degradation is that of ecological modernisation. Much like the original modernisation ideology, the ecological version views progress through the lens of economic growth, except now with more explicit considerations for the environment. There have been calls for a “new type of industrialism,”20 which involves investment into ‘natural capital’. Vlachou sums up the position well: In particular, mainstream ecological modernisation sees environmental degradation as a structural problem of capitalism and advocates the restructuring of capitalism along more ecologically sound lines. It takes capitalist economies for granted, that is it does not require an altogether different organization of society. The key argument for ecological modernisation is that there is money in it for business. This is the driving force that induces industry to modernise in ecologically compatible ways. State regulation can strengthen the incentives for business to expand their focus beyond short-terms profits to long-run competitiveness and profitability. In this sense, ecological modernisation legitimizes the intervention of the state. Ecological modernisation also makes efforts to include major middle-class environmental groups in aspects of policy formation. It thus implies a partnership in which governments, businesses, moderate environmentalists and scientists cooperate in the ecological restructuring of capitalism.21 The latest rendition of this argument can be seen in Jonathon Porritt’s Capitalism As if the World Matters.22 He makes two observations in the book: first, “Capitalism is basically the only economic game in

Andrew Deak

103

town, and the vast majority of people (in both the rich and poor world) are content for it to remain so for the definable future”; and second, Learning to live sustainably on the only planet we’ve got is a non-negotiable imperative if we want to avoid an accelerating descent into resource wars, collapsing eco-systems and traumatic social and economic decline.23 These quotes nicely capture the tensions in recognising and acting on environmental degradation from the more institutionalist cadre perspective. There is acknowledgement that major changes need to occur, and yet more radical reorganisation of society is “off-limits.”24 Critics of this perspective note “it would be reckless to underestimate the full lifeforce of capitalism, with its beating heart of capital accumulation which in turn depends on the cycle of commodification and monetisation.”25 And as Vachlou points out, “mainstream ecological modernisation takes for granted capitalism, thus embracing capitalist exploitation and its social ills.”26 We will consider these critical perspectives more in depth later on in this essay. Ecological modernisation is what lies behind a more conservative or reformist response of the cadre that seeks to incorporate ecological principles into the regulation of the market. As we will see below, there are contradictory attempts to build what Sklair calls a “sustainable development historic bloc.”27 This refers to a Gramcian concept, which can be defined as follows: An historical bloc refers to an historical congruence between material forces, institutions and ideologies, or broadly, an alliance of different forces politically organised around a set of hegemonic ideas that gave strategic direction and coherence to its constituent elements. Moreover, for a new historic bloc to emerge, its leaders must engage in ‘conscious planned struggle.28 In the current neoliberal era, the congruence is around protecting private property rights and most solutions proposed are essentially market based. To gain better understanding, we can turn to some real-life manifestations of market-based solutions to environmental problems. We can consider two examples: (1) the proposals for a World Environment Organisation; (2) new sustainable development approaches adopted by the World Bank and other development agencies. The first example will show the tensions within the cadre as to how to define the problems and what solutions to propose; the second will illustrate how the real-life response that this segment of the cadre is pursuing is contradictory in that it furthers

104


privatisation as well as tries to meet demands for a democratised and truly sustainable modus operandi of the World Bank. 5.

Case Study 1: The World Environmental Organisation: By Who and for Whom? The World Environmental Organisation is an example of a series of proposals for a large institution of comparable status to other institutions of global governance such as the WTO. I will focus on a particular version presented by Whalley and Zissimos29 and the subsequent critique by Newell.30 The WEO that Whalley and Zissimos are after would “address the underlying causes of ineffective international action on the environment.”31 Much of this is in reference to shortcomings of how the UN has addressed global environmental issues. This particular proposal would seek to focus on the issue of “internationalisation” which is “traditionally understood to mean internalising the cost of environmental degradation at source and removing ‘spill over’ effects”. The assumptions underlying this approach is “that market failures are responsible for poor levels of environmental protection and that creating markets for environmental goods is the most efficient and effective way to provide them.”32 The WEO would achieve internationalisation via “engaging in deal brokering, whereby environmental commitments are exchanged for financial payments” which it would then oversee.33 For this to work, issues of property rights would have to be resolved. Newell critiques the proposals saying that it is the ‘wrong solution to the wrong problem’ and that it is “unlikely to make much progress in delivering…because of misplaced assumptions about the existing political order and the ability of a deal-brokering WEO to remedy the problems they identify.”34 For Newell, it is an impractical solution that amounts to “institutional tinkering.”35 How can we conceive of this proposal within the class analysis? Segments of the cadre class would oppose increased public regulation, as that implies likely restrictions on wealth and capital (re)generation and thus challenge the status quo. In a memo leaked from the World Bank, the chief economist advocates “shifting polluting industries to the Third World on grounds that this was in line with their comparative advantage in capacity to absorb pollution.”36 However, as Sklair points out, the capitalist class always faces a challenge from below37, and I would argue that environmental problems are a part of that challenge, but also are more all encompassing - they can both contribute to class antagonism as well as affecting the conditions of production out of which the ruling class extract their profits. Thus, it is conceivable that some factions of the cadre class acting (or in many cases, just speaking) on behalf of the ruling class would agree with the establishment of a global institution that regulates the environment on the condition that it would reinforce property rights, as

Andrew Deak

105

well as bolster market efficiency. The proposal of the WEO outlined above seems compatible with this, as it would free up the WTO’s resources to focus on liberalising world trade.38 The WEO is a typical incarnation of the cadre class. We can conceive of it as an effort to carve out a space where effective mediation can take place. The mobilisation around environmental issues is analogous (or a macrocosm) of the movement for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s. Here the pressure that the ruling classes felt from the leftist social movements of the 1960s set the backdrop for the cadre to mobilise and generate substantive discussions around the formation of a NIEO in which states would assert their sovereignty over corporations.39 Similarly, during the 1980s the environmental movement gained prevalence throughout the world, but especially in the US.40 Thus, the push in the 1990s for something like the WEO is a result of shifts in the political climate. Much like the NIEO, the cadre push for global environmental governance has failed thus far to generate any concrete results in the form of the creation of large regulatory institutions like the WEO. Nonetheless, we can still understand how the WEO represents a moment of heightened cadre activity, as it tries to both solve problems while understanding the ‘existing reality’ - that is, among other things, the current institutional make-up of the global governance process with all its limitations - and also pushing for increased democracy. In short, they are both aspirational and practical. But as Newell points out, from a criticalleft cadre perspective, the proposed WEO would not improve the undemocratic forms of global governance. In his words: It would do little to address the exclusionary nature of global policy-making on the environment, which means that Southern countries concerns are rarely adequately represented. Under the WEO scheme, the allocation and exploitation of global commons resources would be privatised.41 This brings us to consider the perspective of those at the receiving end of the global governance process. One of the main issues that this subordinate class would have is the bypassing of the existing channels through which they have traditionally expressed their views, namely the UN fora.42 A likely reaction of the global south would probably be analogous to their refusal to support the Global Environment Facility (GEF), an initiative of the World Bank that would provide grants to developing countries for implementing activities that “generate global environmental benefits.”43 As a result the GEF is having difficulty in meeting its mandate. As Skair notes “ecological demands were

106


problematically translated and drafted into the service of the transnational capitalist class.”44 Others have termed such a phenomenon “green imperialism.”45 I will further explore this in the next section. 6.

Case Study 2: Development Organisations as Proponents of ‘Green neo-liberalism’ “All environmental problems can be mitigated by microeconomic tools…That’s how we find the true value of nature” - a Senior World Bank Official.46

As Vachlou tells us, there is much evidence highlighting the “significant problems, limitations and setbacks in the greening of capitalism.”47 One of the key avenues for such greening has been through development agencies and their projects. Two important studies are Michael Goldman’s study of the World Bank’s response to pressure from environmental movements as well as Zoe Young’s critical assessment of the GEF, the offshoot of the World Bank mentioned above. When Young shows that the GEF acts as a kind of greenwash to the Bank’s programs, Goldman sees the Bank’s greening “neither simply window dressing, nor mere public relations, as many critics argue. It is rather the Bank’s latest and most profound discursive framework, producing a power/knowledge regime of green neoliberalism.”48 What is interesting from our class perspective, is that Goldman details how the bank responded to strong social movements and the subsequent pressures to properly address environmental problems in a democratic and participatory way. One well-known example is the social movement against the displacements caused by the construction of the Narmada dam in India: the Bank’s executive directors had little choice but to vote to pull out of the project. This episode was important not only to social activists around the world, who could now see their potential power, but for the World Bank Itself. The ‘Narmada effect,’ as it has come to be called, is invoked regularly inside the Bank and reminds staff that the Bank must ‘reform or die.’49 Because of the success of the World Bank’s social-movement critics, they have been forced to “enlist scores of social actors and institutions to help generate its green neoliberal regime”. Furthermore, “while activists and academics build their case against a World Bank that they see as ecologically and socially destructive, the Bank plugs away at greening its works, engaging more ecosystems and populations in its loan portfolio, and involving ever more partners and populations from the

Andrew Deak

107

private and public sectors.”50 The result is that now the World Bank is one of the powerful - if not the most powerful - environmentalist institutions in the world. It has been able to cleverly carve out its own green agenda, taking its newly developed tools, finances, environmental policies and applied environmental science and training professionals in borrowing countries to implement and “indigenize” it.51 The response from the World Bank can then be viewed as a process of incorporating - or better yet, co-optation of environmental critics, and reproducing its hegemony. This is by no means an innocent process either, as Goldman notes one of the dangerous consequences of green neo-liberalism is further accumulation by dispossession52, which is said to: Include the commodification and privatisation of land and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; the conversation of various forms of property rights (common, collective, state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights; the suppression of rights to the commons; the commodification of labour power and the suppression of alternatives (indigenous) forms of production and consumption; colonial, neo-colonial, and imperial processes of appropriation of assets (including natural resources); the monetization of exchange and taxation, particularly of land; the slave trade; and usury, the national debt, and ultimately the credit system, as radical means of primitive accumulation.53 So much for effective solutions for environmental problems. If we take this as a consequence of the actions of the more conservativereformist cadre, than it seems that further environmental degradation is inevitable, leading to further social instability, and as such, more resistance from below. Although the World Bank is a dominant force within the development industry, it is not the only actor. This green neo-liberalism can be seen elsewhere in the development field, albeit in more nuanced and subtle forms. We need only turn to the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development to see that they had adopted an explicitly market-based approach to the environment: Government policy which promotes economic growth and private sector development should adequately promote sustainable resource use and good environmental management through appropriate regulation, property rights and market-based instruments.54

108


Together, these institutions only comprise of one facet of the cadre class, and their efforts to manage the environment. There are a plethora of radical movements in the midst of the global political economy, such as the movements against the Narmada damn in India, that reach similar conclusions to Goldman, namely that the World Bank needs to be shut down and radical alternatives should be independently sought. We will consider some of these in the next section. 7.

Radical Movements Away from the Neoliberal Market Solutions As Newell points out, the idea of a sustainable development historic block “implies a division between reformers and radicals within the environmental movement that hold opposing views of the compatibility of neo-liberal capitalism with sustainable development.”55 There are more radical movements, generally neglected by the media.56 There are, however, important and should be considered as part of the cadre response. For example, the landless movement in Brazil, known by the acronym MST, have a distinctly environmentalist agenda that goes hand in hand with their challenges to property rights. 57 This means that they can conceive of radical possibilities beyond those bounded by the neo-liberal paradigm. There are also several radical movements in the North, such as efforts at localisation and establishment of local currency that valorises goods and services within a particular community or set of communities independently of the world market. 58 What is more pertinent for the analysis being conducted in this paper is the congealing of these movements. Indeed, There is also evidence of connections increasingly being forged in the North between environmental groups and organisations that are traditionally assumed to represent the working class, such as trade unions, in the context of broader campaigns for fair trade or anti-globalisation protests.59 This was demonstrated at the protests against the WTO Seattle, 1999, with the apt slogan “Teamsters and turtles, together at last.”60 By distinguishing between the different waves of environmentalism, Newell helps us gain a more nuanced view. Second wave environmentalism, that is generally “white and middle class in its staff, membership and perspective,” and the third wave of grassroots environmentalists that are mostly “working class people, many of whom are people of colour”. Importantly, …the latter bring different histories and experiences to the table because of their backgrounds and often have

Andrew Deak

109

less faith in the law and more experience with non-legal strategies than mainstream environmentalists having uncovered through their on experience ‘the hidden power of pollution and environmental laws’61 The split between second and third way environmentalism is analogous to the split between the reformist and radical factions of the cadre, respectively. Generally speaking, those who are second wave view capitalism as compatible with sustainability, and the third wave consider contemporary capitalism as the source of the problem. Something that has not been considered thus far has been whether capitalism is ultimately sustainable or not from the perspective adopted in this paper. Earlier I explained how the current phase of neo-liberal phase of capitalism carries with it the tendency towards crises, which identified long ago by Marx.62 Can ecological crises be overcome under the auspices of capitalism? And if so, what sort of implication does that have for more radical strategies? As Vachlou notes, Interestingly, the possibility of a sustainable capitalism can be clearly derived from a Marxist analysis of the changes and adjustments made in capitalism in response to the ecological problems the latter creates. Such an analysis offers new empowering insights to radical movements regarding the workings of contemporary capitalism and the risks of incorporation; hence it should not be readily discounted as a ‘justifier of corporate environmentalism’.63 This is significant as it allows for convergence between the reformist and radical factions, while empowering the latter to not become absorbed and neutralised by the former. While the outlook is bleak from a more conservative wing of the cadre response, David Law does indicate some transformative possibilities within the global political economy that might be the basis for a more fundamental approach to ‘greening’: NGOs, including co-operatives like the Spanish Mondragon group, self-help community-based movements like Sarvodaya Sharmadana and people’s banks like the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, might make people and governments less dependent on big business and capital markets This would serve to limit the ‘structural power’ of capital both economically as it institutionalises and exemplifies an to total reliance on markets and profit-seeking enterprises. A true greening

110

Global Environmental Governance of the Bank would be one supportive of democratization and the development of civil society, where the latter is much more than the private business sector.64

Indeed, the sort of alternatives Law highlights would allow for indigenous knowledges to emerge and for more awareness and detection of environmental degradation would potentially increase. Furthermore, they are less capitalistic and would be less prone to contributing to a system that both causes and is extremely susceptible to ecological crises. Law goes on to conclude: Above all, GROs [grass-roots organisations] and NGOs need to build up sources of structural power including knowledge defined broadly to include local environmental expertise and skills in networking. Perhaps then, especially with a deepening environmental crisis in the future, multilateral institutions like the World Bank, will have to engage in some radical ‘structural adjustment’ themselves.65 Real ‘solutions’ to the problem have to come from those who possess knowledge that lies outside modern rationality, namely among the oppressed classes; as well as those with access to resources, namely radical factions of the cadre class which are open to reinterpreting understandings of modernity and can broaden their systems analysis to include the possibility of radical alternatives. “[In] order to affect radical social transformation, emphasis should be given to the articulation of these different struggles through a united coalition able to challenge capitalism.”66 Making a similar argument, Lucy H. Ford notes: A collective global consciousness would bring insiders and outsiders together in a symbiotic strategy. Some radical movements are point out the dangers of cooptation through global civil society, as well as the dangers of adopting orthodox discourses. They are recognising the need for the engagers to retain links with grassroots in the battle over the agency of global society and attempts to radicalize and expand it…Similarly, grassroots movements that “think globally” while resisting locally, nationally, and transnationally across the globe can remain in dialogue with the institutionalized environment organisations, keeping them alert and keeping the radical message of ecology and social justice alive by challenging the arbitrary limits of social reality and social practice. 67

Andrew Deak

111

8.

Fundamental Obstacles, Possibilities for Change and Some Concluding Remarks The proposition of the WEO is one institutionalist way that the cadre class is responding ecological crisis, yet we also saw the current proposals are not feasible from a critical-cadre perspective. The sustainable development frameworks articulated by the likes of Porritt and adopted by the World Bank, DFID and other agencies can be chalked up to a form of green neo-liberalism. How are we to explain these institutionalist and market-based responses and their tendency to provide only partial solutions at best? The cadre are impeded because of the tendency of modernity to mask the origins of degradation. The “restorative, but ultimately ineffective, efforts” of the cadre are a distraction for the real causes of environmental problems inherent in the capitalist system itself.68 Furthermore, the environmental movements that have been incorporated into the cadre class are often made up of the typical middle-class population that is reluctant to challenge property relations or questions of access to land, and thus; …the political interests of the class they represent make it unlikely that anything other than a weak sustainability reformist agenda can be pursued given the extent to which they benefit, directly and indirectly, from the status quo.69 However, we also saw significant movement from the critical-left segment of the cadre, which is willing to push the envelope in terms of broad systemic changes - such as a move from ideologies of globalisation to localisation. There is a case for the convergence of the conservative, reformist and radical elements of the cadre class. The ideology of the reformist, ecological modernisation, does legitimise the role of the state, which can then be a tool for comprehensive and democratic regulation of the environment. But also, it is possible to conceive of a sustainable capitalism from a radical, and even Marxist, ecological perspective. Surely, the deepening of ecological crises will provide a precedent for such a convergence. In order to effectively nudge the cadre trajectory on a path away from neoliberal solutions, the radical movements and criticalNGOs need to hold onto their radical perspectives that challenge the fundamentals of capitalism. That way they avoid the risks of incorporation and the stymieing of the broader movement in the name of capital.

112


Notes 1

David Harvey, “The Nature of Environment: Dialectics of Social and Environmental Change” in Socialist Register: Real Problems, False Solutions., eds. Miliband, R. and Pantich, L. (London: Merlin Press, 1993). 2 Peter Newell ‘Race, Class and the Politics of Environmental Inequality’, Global Environmental Politics (2005): 81 3 Derek Sayer, Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber. (London: Routledge, 1991), 24. 4 D. Duménil and D. Lévy ‘Neo-liberal Dynamics – Towards a New Phase?’ in Global Regulation: Managing Crises after the Imperial Turn., eds. van der Pijl, K. et al. (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 31. 5 Kees van der Pijl. ‘Globalization or Class Society in Transition?’ Science and Society. 65(4) (2001): 499. 6 Kees van der Pijl, Transnational Classes and International Relations. (London: Routledge, 1998), 138. 7 ibid., 142 8 van der Pijl, 2001, 498 9 Obrien (2001) cited in Newell (2005): 83 10 Hardt and Negri make a similar point: “In a previous era the category of the proletariat centered on and was at times effectively subsumed under the industrial working class, whose paradigmatic figure was tha make factory worker…Today that working class has all but disappeared from view. It has not ceased to exist, but has been discplaced from its privileged position in the capitalist economy and its hegemonic position in the class composition of the proletariat…The fact that under the category of proletariat we understand all those exploited by and subject to capitalist domination should not indicate that the proletariat is a homogenous or undifferentiated unit.” Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 52-3. 11 Murphy (2002) cited in Newell (2005): 81. 12 Peter Newell and Matthew Paterson ‘A climate for business: global warming, the state and capital’. Review of International Political Economy, 5(3) (1998): 679-703. 13 For further discussions on these themes, consult the Levy, D. and Newell, P (eds.) (2005) The Business of Global Environmental Governance. 14 Julian Saurin ‘Global Environmental Degradation, Modernity and Environmental Knowledge’, Environmental Politics. 2(4) (1993): 46-64. (Saurin, 1993, p.62).

Andrew Deak

113

The reader is reminded of van der Pijl’s definition of modernity: ‘the momentary code of normalcy inscribed in a hegemonic concept’. 15 ibid. 16 J. O’Connor, ‘Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. A Theoretical Introduction’, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. 1(1) (1989): 11-37. 17 ibid., 25 18 ibid. 19 ibid., 29 20 Paul Hawkins et al, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1999). 21 A. Vlachou, ‘Capitalism and ecological sustainability: the shaping of environmental policies’, Review of International Political Economy. 11(3), (2004): 926-952. emphasis added 22 Jonathan Porritt, Capitalism as if the world matters. (London: Earthscan, 2005). 23 Jonathan Porritt, “As if the world matters”: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism” openDemocracy, November, 30, 2005. 24 Vachlou, 2004, 943 25 Simms, 2005, “The debt to pay” openDemocracy, December, 6, 2005. 26 Vlachou, 2004, 943 27 Leslie Sklair, The Transnational Capitalist Class. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001) 28 Stephen Gill, Power and Resistance in the New World Order. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003) 29 Whalley and Zissimos, 2002 30 Peter Newell ‘A World Environment Organisation: The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem’, World Economy. 25(5) (2002): 659-671 31 ibid. 32 ibid., 661 33 ibid 34 ibid., 660 35 ibid., 670 36 D. Law ‘Global Environmental Issues and the World Bank’ in Globalisation, Democratisation and Multilateralism., ed. Gill, S. Basingstoke, Tokyo: Macmillan; United Nations University Press, 1997). 37 Sklair, 2001. 38 Newell, 2002, 660 39 R.W. Cox (1978) ‘Ideologies and the New International Economic Order: Reflections on Some Recent Literature’, International Organization. 33(2), (1978): 257-302. 40 Zoe Young, A New Green Order? The World Bank and the Politics of the Global Environmental Facility. (Stirling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2002). 41 Ibid., 667 42 ibid.

114

43


ibid., 664 Sklair cited in Young, 2002, 15 45 L. Pratt and W. Montgomery “Green Imperialism: Pollution, Penitence, Profits” in Socialist Register, ed. Leo Panitch (London: Merlin Press, 1997). 46 Micheal Goldman, Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005) 47 Vlachou, 2004, 945 48 Young 2002, 5 49 ibid.,152-3 50 ibid., 182 51 ibid., 156-7 52 ibid., 290 53 David Harvey, The New Imperialism. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 145. also cited in Susanne Soederberg, Global Governance in Question: Empire, Class and the New Common Sense in Managing North-South Relations, (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 48. For more on ‘accumulation by dispossession’, see Harvey (2003) or alternatively consult the following piece online: http://titanus.roma1.infn.it/sito_pol/Global_emp/Harvey.htm 54 DFID website, 2006, emphasis added. 55 Newell, 2005, 84 56 Derek Wall, Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Globalist and Radical Green Movements. Pluto Press, 2005; Mueller, Tadzio. Other Worlds, Other Values: Alternative value-practices and the European Anticapitalist movement. Phd Thesis, University of Sussex. 2006. 57 Peter Houtzager (2005). ‘The Movement of the Landless (MST) and the juridical field in Brazil’ IDS Working Papers (2005). G. Meszaros, ‘No ordinary revolution: Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement’ Race and Class. 42(2) (2000): 1-18. 58 Edward Goldsmith and Jerry Mander, The Case Against the Global Economy. (San Fransisco: Sierra Club Books, 2001). See also Mueller, 2006, for an account of the Escanda, a nascent eco-community that operates using alternative value-practices, which also serves as an important node in the broader European anticapitalist network. V. Bennholdt-Thomsen, and M. Mies, The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy. (New York: Zed Books, 1999). De Sousa Santos, B. ed., Another Production is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon (London: Verso, 2006). 59 Obach, 2004, quoted by Newell, 2005, 84 60 ibid., 85 61 Ibid; Cole, 1992. p.643 44

Andrew Deak

115

62

K. Marx, Capital – Volume 3. (London: Penguin, 1981) .Vlachou, 2004, 948 64 Law, 1997, 187-8 65 ibid., 193 66 Vlachou, 2004, 948 67 Lucy H. Ford, ‘Challenging the Global Environmental Govrenance of Toxics: Social Movement Agency and Global Civil Society’ in The Business of Global Environmental Governance. 68 Julian Saurin, ‘Global Environmental Crisis as the ‘Disaster Triumphant’: The Private Capturing of Public Goods’ Environmental Politics. 10(4) (2001): 63-84. 69 Newell, 2005, 84 63

Bibliography Bennholdt-Thomsen, V., Faraclas, N. and von Werlhof, C. (eds.) There is an alternative: Subsistence and Worldwide Resistance to Corporate Globalization. New York: Zed Books, 2001. Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. and Mies, M. The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy. New York: Zed Books, 1999. Cole, L. “Empowerment as the Key to Environmental Protection: The Need for Environmental Poverty Law.” Ecology Law Quarterly 19 (1992): 619–683. Cox, R.W. “Ideologies and the New International Economic Order: Reflections on Some Recent Literature” International Organization. 33(2) (1978): 257-302. DFID (2006). DFID’s Approach to the Environment. February. Downloaded from http://www.dfid.gov.uk/mdg/environment.asp April 4, 2006. Duménil G. and Lévy, D. (2004). “Neo-liberal Dynamics - Towards a New Phase?” in Global Regulation: Managing Crises after the Imperial Turn. Edited by van der Pijl, K., et al. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 Gill, S. Power and Resistance in the New World Order. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

116


Goldsmith, E. and Mander, J. The Case Against the Global Economy. San Fransisco: Sierra Club Books, 2001. Goldman, Michael. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005 Goldman, Michael. “The birth of a discipline: Producing authoritative green knowledge, World Bank-style” Ethnography. 2(2) (2001): 191-217 Houtzager, P. “The Movement of the Landless (MST) and the juridical field in Brazil” IDS Working Papers. 2005. Downloaded April, 3 2006 from: http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp248.pdf Hardt, M. and Negri, T. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Harvey, David “The ‘New Imperialism’: on spacio-termporal fixes and accumulation by dispossession”, 2003. Downloaded from http://titanus.roma1.infn.it/sito_pol/Global_emp/Harvey.htm May 30, 2006. Harvey, David “The Nature of Environment: Dialectics of Social and Environmental Change” Socialist Register: Real Problems, False Solutions. Edited by Ralf Miliband and Leo Panitch. London: Merlin Press, 1993. Law, David. “Global Environmental Issues and the World Bank” in Globalisation, Democratisation and Multilateralism. Edited by Stephen Gill. Basingstoke, Tokyo: Macmillan; United Nations University Press, 1997. Levy, D. and Newell, P (eds.). The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. Marx, K. Capital - Volume 3. London: Penguin, 1981. Meszaros, G. “No ordinary revolution: Brazil’s Landless Workers” Movement’ Race and Class. 42(2) (2000): 1-18

Andrew Deak

117

Mueller, Tadzio. Other Worlds, Other Values: Alternative value-practices and the European Anticapitalist movement. Unpublished Phd Thesis, University of Sussex. 2006 Murphy, C. “Why Pay Attention to Global Governance?” in Global Governance: Critical Perspectives. Edited by R. Wilkonson and S. Hughes. London: Routledge, 2002. Newell, P. “Race, Class and the Politics of Environmental Inequality” Global Environmental Politics. (2005): 70-94. Newell, P. “A World Environment Organisation: The Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem” World Economy. 25(5) (2002): 659-671. Newell, P. and Paterson, M. “A climate for business: global warming, the state and capital” Review of International Political Economy, 5(3), (1998): 679-703. O’Brien, M. “Labour” in Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement. Edited by E. Bircham and J. Charlton. London and Sydney: Bookmarks Publications, 2001. O’Connor, J. “Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. A Theoretical Introduction’” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. 1(1) (1988):11-37. Obach, Brian. Labour and the Environmental Movement: The Quest for Common Ground. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004 van der Pijl, K. “Globalization or Class Society in Transition?” Science and Society. 65(4) (2001): 492-500. van der Pijl, K. Transnational Classes and International Relations. London: Routledge, 1998. Porritt, J. “As if the world matters”: reconciling sustainable development and capitalism” openDemocracy, November, 30, 2005. Downloaded March, 15: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationclimate_change_debate/capitalism_3074.jsp Porritt, J. Capitalism as if the world matters. London: Earthscan, 2005. Pratt, L. and Montgomery W. “Green Imperialism: Pollution, Penitence, Profits” Socialist Register. Edited by Leo Panitch. London: Merlin Press, 1997.

118


Sayer. Derek Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber. London: Routledge, 1991. Saurin, Julian. “Global Environmental Crisis as the ‘Disaster Triumphant’: The Private Capturing of Public Goods” Environmental Politics. 10(4) (2001): 63-84. Saurin, Julian. “Global Environmental Degradation, Modernity and Environmental Knowledge” Environmental Politics. 2(4) (1993): 46-64. Simms, A. “The debt to pay” openDemocracy, December, 6, 2005. Downloaded March, 15: http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationclimate_change_debate/replies_porritt_3093.jsp Sklair, Leslie. The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Soederberg, Susanne. Global Governance in Question: Empire, Class and the New Common Sense in Managing North-South Relations, London: Pluto Press, 2006. De Sousa Santos, Bouventrua (ed.) Another Production is Possible: Beyond the Capitalist Canon London: Verso, 2006. Time. “Special Report on Global Warming” Time, April 3, 2006. Vlachou, A. “Capitalism and ecological sustainability: the shaping of environmental policies” Review of International Political Economy. 11(3) (2004): 926-952. Wall, Derek Babylon and Beyond: The Economics of Anti-Capitalist, AntiGlobalist and Radical Green Movements. London: Pluto Press, 2005. Whaller, J. and Zissimos B. “An internationalisation-based World Environment Organisation” World Economy. 25 (2002): 650-658. Whitelegg, J. “Beyond Capitalism” openDemocracy December 6, 2005. Downloaded March 15, 2005:http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationclimate_change_debate/replies_porritt_3093.jsp Young, Zoe. A New Green Order? The World Bank and the Politics of the Global Environmental Facility. Stirling, Virginia: Pluto Press, 2002.

Andrew Deak

119

The author would like to acknowledge the comments from Lilian Yap and Dr. Peter J. Newell; their feedback has been essential in refining the arguments put forth in the paper. I am of course, responsible for any oversights or mistakes in the paper.

Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management Tania Sourdin Abstract It is now relatively common for facilitative dispute resolution processes to be used in many countries where public policy disputes arise. Such processes are often supported by government agencies and may vary according to the individual dispute and the facilitators involved. Public issue disputes or “disputes which affect members of the public as well as the principal parties”1 can be divided into three main categories: enforcement disputes (relating to compliance with laws and regulations); permitting disputes (relating to planned construction of new facilities); and policy or law-making disputes (related to the establishment of new policy or standards in management). There are few guidelines available to assist in the development of approaches to deal with complex public disputes.2 These disputes can present environmental, economic and social dilemmas. Wootten divides these categories into “site-specific disputes and policy-related matters.”3 Increasingly, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes are being used to help plan and manage discussions about these disputes. This approach is a departure from the ‘Commission’ or ‘Inquiry’ approach where recommendations appear to be largely unimplemented and the discussions often feature positional rather than interest- or needs- based approaches. In many public disputes there appears to be some reluctance to use ADR processes, particularly among those in the conservation movement.4 On the other hand, such processes can be viewed as encouraging more participatory decision making. This paper discusses the use of facilitative dispute management processes in managing environmental conflict and focuses on system design issues that include broader definitional issues, negotiation dilemmas as well as framework constraints. Key words: Dispute resolution, conflict negotiation, environment, sustainable outcomes 1.

resolution,

mediation,

Introduction Facilitative dispute management processes have emerged in response to a growing recognition that adversarial approaches to environmental conflict resolution do not ordinarily address underlying interests (as they focus on positions), promote lasting outcomes, compliance with outcomes or support the development or maintenance of relationships. However facilitative processes have been the subject of

122 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management criticism in the environmental area for a range of reasons. Lack of ‘court’ oversight, suggestions about ‘secret’ deals, concerns about the impartiality or credentials of ‘facilitators’ as well as concerns about outcomes and compliance with core environmental principles are primary issues where facilitative processes are used in environmental conflict management.5 These criticisms have been mostly related to mediation processes, rather than the full range of facilitative processes. Horn has stated: On balance, mediation is not suited to environmental conflicts where the risk of damage to the environment is serious because there is no certainty that the environment will be protected. More progress is needed to establish an appropriate institution which can monitor standards, consider complaints and enforce accountability on the part of mediators. There are also no means of ensuring that environmental policies and legislation are taken into account when the mediated settlement is agreed to. The practice of mediation of environmental conflicts is not adequately monitored to ensure that the process is ethical and that the outcome prevents degradation to the environment and protects the interests of present and future generations.6 Are such concerns valid when the entire range of facilitative processes is considered (rather than mediation only)? And, if they are valid, can such concerns be addressed by ensuring that conflict resolution and management processes are adequately planned and considered prior to and during their use? Many conflict resolution theorists and practitioners consider that mediation may not be the ‘answer’ to complex environmental conflict but that carefully facilitative structured processes may assist in most so called ‘intractable’ disputes.7 On the other hand, mediation has clearly played a major role in the resolution of many complex national and international conflicts over the past two decades. However, in complex environmental disputes most commentators suggest that the broader range of facilitative processes, which may incorporate mediatory aspects, are of greater assistance. A. The Nature of Conflict Questions about the utility of facilitative processes cannot be considered without considering why this fuller range of conflict resolution processes has developed in recent years. Perhaps it is not surprising given the abundance of conflict in many societies, particularly those with an individualistic focus. Clearly, conflict exists at all levels of society. Humans fight, go to war, injure each other, compete, avoid, submit and use other more cooperative or peaceful processes when in conflict.

Tania Sourdin

123

Conflict can exist between states, at home, at work and in the neighbourhood. Conflict is ubiquitous. As one eminent conflict theorist, G Tillett, has noted: “It can focus on trivia or the future of life on earth.”8 Strategies to deal with the resolution of conflict (even in the environmental arena) have included reference to principles of justice, morality and divine guidance.9 Conflict is a constantly changing phenomenon. Perceptions and interpretations are used to translate the past, present and future. Small, seemingly irrelevant actions (or a lack of action) by one party in conflict have the capacity to shape large changes in the perceptions of others and to influence outcomes in significant ways. It is probable that many conflicts grow out of disputes after events, actions and responses have been interpreted, re-interpreted, exaggerated and in part distorted or ‘hallucinated’ by the perceptual filters of all those concerned. Conflict is as individual as those who are involved in it. Conflict has also been described as the product of unmet needs (physiological and/or psychological) and of differences that remain unrecognised and unacknowledged. Conflict is a normal product of our interaction as humans. The effects of conflict vary; conflict produces change that can be viewed as positive or negative. Arguably, without conflict our society could not change and develop. B. Conflict Management Individuals and groups can deal with conflict in a range of ways. The most common way of describing variations in terms of conflict approaches is by reference to power based, rights based or interest based strategies. A further description is related to processes used: they can be facilitative, advisory or determinative or may be hybrid processes (that is, a mixture of processes). Within Australia, the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) has closely examined definitions and descriptions of conflict resolution processes, and in particular Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes, that provide alternatives to traditional adversarial or inquisitorial court-based determinative approaches.10 NADRAC has suggested that dispute resolution processes may be classified as facilitative, advisory or determinative:11 Facilitative processes involve a third party, often with no advisory or determinative role, providing assistance in managing the process of dispute resolution. These processes include mediation and facilitation.12 Advisory processes involve a third party who investigates the dispute and provides advice on the facts and possible outcomes. These procedures include investigation, case appraisal and dispute counselling. Determinative processes involve a third party investigating the dispute, which may include a formal hearing, and the making of a

124 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management determination which is potentially enforceable. These processes include adjudication and arbitration13 and may be binding or non-binding. In the environmental context, advisory and determinative approaches (rather than facilitative approaches) were widely used in the first half of the 20th century. More recently, there has been a shift to use more facilitative approaches. This shift has occurred with little evaluation and has been based, in part, upon the success of facilitative and collaborative processes in other areas where conflict occurs, such as in community and commercial conflict. In respect of the broad range of disputes that occur in many Western societies, facilitative processes are often viewed as faster, cheaper, promoting compliance with outcomes and capable of encouraging more appropriate options for resolution. ADR literature refers to ‘win–win solutions’, options for mutual gain and integrative bargaining.14 There is also reference to the capacity of facilitative processes to promote “wise”15 agreement. Parker has suggested that it is appropriate for ADR practitioners to set standards for parties in conflict; options should be “mutually beneficial”.16 Parker also suggests that any defined outcome should be realistic as well as mutually beneficial. One of the most widely known facilitative processes is mediation. The use of mediation has tended to be related to court processes or the potential for court action. In particular, mediation has been used in enforcement disputes (relating to compliance with laws and regulations) and permitting disputes (relating to planned construction of new facilities). In mediation, there has been an attempt to force parties to negotiate in a “good faith” manner to support the creation of wise and informed agreements. Within the Australian context there are many legislative examples of good faith statutory requirements. In NSW, for example, the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) states that it is the duty of parties who have been referred to mediation under the Act to participate in good faith has a similar provision in relation to both mediation and neutral evaluation.17 Policy makers in this context have considered how minimum standards of behaviour can be set and courts have supported an interpretation of what these minimum standards mean.18 And a number of commentators have indicated that there is some difficulty in supporting such requirements even where there is legislative or contractual support for such processes.19 In the non domestic context such concepts are not well developed. What ‘good faith’ may mean in an international dispute will often be determined by parties, often by reference to their own cultural contexts. The lack of guidelines regarding behaviour in facilitated processes, or confusion over their meaning has the potential to produce outcomes that are not measured by reference to objective criteria or informed by a discussion that involves disclosure and openness. There is therefore a likelihood that negotiations and outcomes reached through the use of facilitative processes in the international environmental context can

Tania Sourdin

125

be adversely affected unless clear expectations and guidelines in respect of the style and approach used in negotiations are defined and clarified from an early stage. Broader conflict focusing on land use, water use and other environmental issues has been addressed by a combination of facilitative and ad hoc approaches, which, as is noted above, are often not well examined or explored or supported by appropriate frameworks. This Chapter explores the evolution of conflict resolution processes before considering variables that can impact upon the resolution of environmental conflict through the use of facilitative conflict resolution processes. 2.

Evolution of Processes The extent to which there has been uptake of facilitative processes to deal with environmental conflict, rather than advisory or determinative processes, is largely related to cultural variations in different countries and regions. In some societies there has been a far greater emphasis on collaborative problem-solving approaches and the facilitated resolution of disputes (rather than the determination of disputes by a third party). While this emphasis appears to stem in part from a greater emphasis upon social harmony and the role of the society (rather than the individual’s rights), the approach also stems from some fundamental differences in communication, negotiation patterns and cultural contexts that have become more apparent as our world has become more globalised. Human society in its early and emergent forms was required to be mobile and required little infrastructure to hunt or gather. Structures that dealt with conflict related to the relationships that existed between parties and family members as well as early religious structures. Structures that involved adjudicative processes and formal environments such as courts and tribunals did not exist. Law making and enforcing was often related to seniority or the power base of an individual and punishment was determined according to the family composition and relationships. As societies increased in size, villages and tribes began to support religious structures and early religious figures were often responsible for punishment as well as for processes designed to support consensus and agreement.20 Cooperation and trust were required to support early forms of society. Relationships needed to be maintained and the risk of social expulsion and size of community mean that processes used to manage and resolve conflicts were required to foster long-term and lasting relationships. Larger community structures required additional processes to combat issues relating to dishonesty and power imbalance. The evolution of more complex, hierarchical structures was a direct result of an increased community size as well as a stable, non-mobile population base. Such structures were formal, complex and designed to establish and

126 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management preserve the power and control ordinarily held by a ruling class or elite and more complex and hierarchical court systems were established. For example, more than two thousand years ago, the Ancient Greeks perceived that difficulties in the capacity of determinative processes to deal with conflict. In short, they established arbitration, a determinative form of ADR, to deal with the rigidity of a litigation process. Barrett notes that: Both Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Cicero (106-43 BC) made it clear that arbitration was an alternative to the courts. Aristotle said arbitration was introduced to “give equity its due weight, making possible a larger assessment of fairness.” … Cicero said a trial is “exact, clear-cut, and explicit, whereas arbitration is mild and moderate.”21 Facilitative ADR processes have largely been derived from communitybased and informal elements of dispute resolution processes and techniques that have been used for centuries by older societies to build consensus-oriented approaches to conflict resolution and to deal with the inadequacy of rights-based processes in terms of their formality and restricted range of outcomes that were often designed to punish. Modern ADR, in this sense is not new.22 However modern processes build and are often a conglomerate of processes that have existed since the evolution of early society. However these developments are not uniform. In much of Europe the dominant decision-making processes are determinative and inquisitorial. In other countries the decision making processes may be more facilitative or advisory. The dominant decision-making processes and point of evolution of these processes impacts upon the acceptability of facilitative processes in respect of internal environmental conflict. A lack of sophistication in terms of understanding and use of facilitative processes can for example mean that collaborative and facilitative processes, when used to resolve or manage environmental conflict, are doomed to fail. 3.

The Impact of Organisations and Institutions There are other factors which will also impact upon the success of collaborative efforts. One social conflict theorist, John Burton, has stated that a “major source of social conflict at all levels is within institutions and structures, and not within the discretion of the individual, or the identity groups to which individuals look for support.”23 This approach assumes that in tribal communities and societies ‘natural law’ operated so that there was a high level of conformity with traditional norms.24 When authoritative systems developed, positive law systems were created and supported so that those who held power in the society

Tania Sourdin

127

declared and enforced rules.25 The emergence of analytical and complex problem-solving processes in this context is a challenge to more conventional structures and processes.26 At the same time it has been noted,27 that in the modern era, the insight that “cooperative conflict behaviour” can elicit favourable responses by the parties in conflict has been fundamental in spawning the creation of much new conflict resolution and dispute resolution theory. This factor may mean that approaches to facilitative models of conflict resolution are very much determined by a dominant cultural view. This dominant cultural view is also affected by the way in which institutions and management approaches function within any society. The creation of hierarchical management structures that has occurred in response to societal changes has produced micro societies where formal and defined roles may be adopted, and where initiative and individuality is viewed as disruptive and consistency is the driving force. Conflict in such organisations occurs between the individual and the controlling structure.28 Changes in technology, education and social patterns and expectations have challenged such structures. Management approaches have emerged that suggest that intelligent, modern organisations should be run “by persuasion and consent”29 where individuality, joint problem solving and creativity is supported. These approaches mean that ‘soft skills’ or human and communication skills need to be developed at all levels of an organisation. This evolution has impacted upon the way conflict is dealt with at all levels of some societies and has reshaped individual notions and expectations about what processes will be used to resolve conflict. In terms of environmental conflict, the maturity and character of the organisations and institutions involved in the conflict will impact upon the way in which they are able to engage in collaborative arrangements. The underlying organisational values and nature of the organisation may mean that the organisation can only model adversarial or inquisitorial behaviour and that attitudinal change (required if facilitative behaviour is called for) will be difficult to achieve. The nature of the relationships between those involved in the conflict can impact upon the likelihood of success of the environmental conflict resolution process. For example, if the group involved in the conflict is not cohesive and there are few opportunities for trust or relationship building, then it may be more difficult to promote cooperative behaviour. With groups who display such ‘distance’, facilitators may use techniques to encourage and support the development of relationships and shared understandings. Such techniques can include using shared interestbased negotiation learning strategies, ensuring groups have social opportunities and paying adequate attention to group dynamics.

128 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management 4.

Negotiation Theory Development A greater emphasis upon negotiation strategies and theories began to emerge in the early half of the 20th century. By the 1970’s interest-based negotiation was supported as a viable and appropriate option in complex disputes (particularly where continuing relationships were present) by a number of negotiation theorists. 30 Negotiation theory achieved popular exposure with the publication of Fisher and Ury’s text Getting to Yes.31 In that text, a practical method and processes of negotiation were developed. Movement from distributive and compromisory bargaining could be achieved by using a method that Fisher and Ury called principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits. In Getting to Yes, the fundamental elements to achieve a successful negotiation were distilled as follows: x x x x

People: separate the people from the problem. Interests: focus on interests, not positions. Options: generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do. Criteria: insist that the result be based on some objective standard.32

These basic approaches were used to promote a different and more collaborative or interest based approach to negotiations. Approaches to any negotiation can be categorised as follows: x x x x x

Avoidance - where the issue, dispute or conflict is avoided in an environmental dispute, this could be characterised by a lack of contact. Submissive - where a party “gives in” and decides not to pursue an issue. Compromise - where the options that are suggested are “give and take” options. Competitive or positional - where one party seeks to “win” and adopts a “position” without exploring needs or interests. Collaborative or cooperative - where parties’ needs and interests are explored and the options that are developed address those needs and interests.33

Variations in ADR processes are essentially reflections of these different styles of negotiation and most theorists note that in any given negotiation, disputants, their representatives and experts may use all or some of the approaches. The approach that is adopted will depend upon the negotiation circumstances as well as the skill level and expertise of the negotiator.34 In multi-party and complex negotiations the impact of

Tania Sourdin

129

different styles, values and approaches can be magnified. Arguably much of the bi-party negotiation theory has limited applicability. The extent to which participants in environmental conflict resolution processes understand negotiation variations, style differences and are sophisticated in terms of negotiation technique will undoubtedly impact upon the success of a negotiation process. 5.

The Emergence of the New Paradigm Throughout the latter part of the 20th Century, negotiation theorists drawn from a variety of disciplines expanded upon many of the notions contained in Fisher and Ury’s model of the 1980s and 1990s. The basic premise that evolved was that conflict resolution could be based on human needs (rather than positions) and that this would lead to variable sum or win-win outcomes as no basic needs would be compromised in conflict.35 It was said that Fisher and Ury’s interest-based approach tended to lead to fixed sum outcomes where parties had to compromise some of their interests and that compromisory negotiation was not as effective as interest-based and more sophisticated negotiation approaches that supported multiple option development, particularly in complex multidimensional negotiations. Many theorists suggested that conflict transformation could be achieved by using additional approaches or through processes designed to support empowerment and recognition. This extension was said to lead to individual and group transformation through a process of empowerment and recognition. It was said that: …merely cooperating to generate win-win solutions to conflict does not change underlying attitudes, which may easily resurface and fuel other conflicts ... [M]erely providing parties with more effective tools to communicate and develop win-win solutions to conflicts is seen as no long-term solution by advocates of conflict transformation. The conflict, therefore, has to be taken as an opportunity to transform the parties’ perceptions and feelings to prevent future conflicts. What is needed is a more radical attempt to change the underlying emotions and perceptions that influence the behaviour of parties in conflict. This means effort is needed in systematically getting parties to acknowledge and identify the respective feelings, needs, and perceptions of one another and to seek to improve these.36 Improving communication and negotiation strategies has therefore been seen by many theorists and practitioners as an essential step

130 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management in achieving and supporting more cooperative or collaborative behaviour. In the United States, Canada and Australia, there has been interest and trialling of these approaches to conflict resolution and a renewed focus on how conflict resolution theory is changing and emerging.37 However, some practitioners and theorists have expressed concern regarding the overlap with therapeutic practices and others have suggested that such processes require facilitative dispute resolution practitioners to have a counselling skills base and legal rather than the entirely different skills base that may be required in advisory and determinative processes. Decisional models of dispute and conflict resolution - where one party made a decision that could be accepted by the parties to a dispute increasingly have been replaced in many countries by conflict resolution models where a third party intervenes in a variety of different ways that are often not determinative but are likely to be facilitative and focus on surface interests rather than rights. Although decisional models are still in place within court structures, within Australia they are increasingly viewed as a ‘last resort’ option with an increasing focus on the use of mandated participation in facilitative forms of ADR. Burton and Parker38 have approached what is said to be a ‘new paradigm’ by reference to evolutionary trends or by reference to the need to prevent problems from escalating into damaging conflict, or an increased need to support and maintain long-term relationships and structures that promote interactive collaborative processes and more sustainable outcomes. Arguably that need is more acute in an internationalised setting where domestic structures may be perceived as partial or ineffective. In environmental conflict, the extent to which these notions are well developed will be essential in determining the likely fate of a facilitative process. In a cultural context where the primary modes of decision-making are advisory or determinative (rather than facilitative), it is probable that facilitative processes will be of benefit only when blended with fact finding or ‘hearing’ processes. Notably however, in most societies where indigenous participants are involved in the environmental conflict, the use of facilitative processes may be culturally more appropriate. This means that if blended processes (for example, facilitative and advisory) are to be used, careful explanation and planning of the process steps needs to take place. 6.

Individual and Group Responses to Conflict Maslow has said that conflict relationships within society can be related to individual strengths and skills as well as societal behaviours that can display differing wealth distribution systems, use and ownership patterns and whether the religious institutions are benevolent or “frightening”.39 This approach assumes that many natural societies approached conflict differently; some viewed the world with aggression, others with affection. In this context, the recent growth in ADR processes

Tania Sourdin

131

can be viewed as a response to changing dynamics within societies and individuals, thus changing the way in which they respond to conflict. Individual responses to conflict are also shaped by early exposure to conflict and through the development of mechanisms used to deal with perceived threats. Reactions to conflict develop from an early age when individuals react to fear or anxiety with a primitive fight-or-flight response. Some individuals may develop an ‘overdeveloped’ stress response if confronted by damaging conflict (or fears regarding conflict) from a young age. Such individuals may be more inclined to respond to a situation of conflict in an aggressive manner and others may learn to respond through aggression as a result of drug, alcohol or personality features. Individual responses to conflict are also derived from family and societal-group learning, and these styles and approaches can also be manifested as cultural differences to approaching conflict (for example using low context or high context cultural contexts). Individuals in conflict may also approach conflict in a predetermined manner without considering the use of integrative strategies that may assist in meeting interests and needs. Cornelius and Faire stated that: As soon as we’re in a conflict or see one looming up, we can choose our approach. But sometimes we fail to choose and revert to a knee-jerk reaction. We might think of our reaction as natural, but many of our natural reactions are actually habits, some of them acquired early in life. If you handle conflict much the same way each time, you have fallen into one of several “conflict habits”.40 An individual response to conflict is determined in part by how we perceive comments, actions or the inactions of another. Perceptual filters may encourage an individual to respond in a certain way. It may also be that the context of a situation leads one individual to determine an event in a manner that is entirely different from others. The response of one person to an issue can also determine or heighten the response of another individual. For example, if the approach that is adopted is unconditionally constructive, despite great aggravation and irritation, it is less likely that the process used to deal with the conflict will involve violence or a competitive process. On the other hand, if the response includes a raised voice, a heightened sense of stress and an approach where personal insults are traded, it is less likely that the process used to deal with the conflict will be collaborative or cooperative. Responses and reactions to conflict are therefore a reflection of personality, preferences, experiences, values, education and training, and responses are also

132 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management determined by health (mental and physical). Other differences may be gender and age related. As noted previously, in complex environmental conflict that involves many parties, these differences can be magnified. Conflict management processes (facilitative or advisory) must therefore devote considerable time to assist to create understanding between parties and to manage responses so that the process can remain collaborative. Where numerous groups are involved in conflict there is now a considerable shift in the way in which collaborative processes are used to manage the conflict. Simplistic facilitative approaches that focused on individual differences are no longer seen as optimal. Approaches based on broader facilitative processes, mapping of past conflict, and communication and value differences are seen as essential. In the complex environmental conflict areas there is also a greater focus upon determinative and advisory processes and using blended processes. Simplistic and unplanned approaches to conflict resolution in the environmental area will not produce sustainable outcomes. Elix has noted that: The adoption of collaborative approaches in taking on a political or policy role has occurred with little, if any evaluation and arguably, without appropriate strategies being put in place for managing the “people” aspects. Such collaborative processes can for example combine large numbers of disparate individuals in a room with an untrained chairperson, a controversial agenda to develop a plan for a region, an unrealistic timeframe, and an inadequate level of resources. Under such circumstances agreement may be unlikely and subsequently concepts of partnership and collaboration may be discredited.41 In short, as Elix has noted, it is essential to pay attention not only to the group dynamics (the nature of the groups) which can be supported by reference to dialogue work42 but also to the characteristics and skills of the facilitator, the individuals involved, and the resources available to support the process and individuals involved. 7.

Conclusion Within most Western societies, mediation, facilitation and other ADR processes have emerged as part of a response to the lack of effectiveness of informal structures. In addition, the rigidity and complexity of formal structures has meant that courts, tribunals and other rights-based structures are often inaccessible to all but a few within the society. The incapacity of these structures to resolve conflict, although

Tania Sourdin

133

they may determine rights, has also been a relevant factor in the development of ADR. A lack of skill in negotiation and the reliance upon positional negotiation (usually an approach adopted in one-off relationships) is another reason why alternatives to unassisted negotiation have continued to flourish over the past 20 years. In the environmental context they have also been extended because of their capacity to encourage wise or beneficial outcomes. Concerns arise however about ‘secret’ deals and deals that represent the interests of the participants involved in the environmental conflict, rather than the interests of the environment (which may be broader, non-site specific and different to those put forward by the groups and individuals in conflict). There are many ways in which these concerns can be alleviated. Facilitative processes can be public, reporting can take place, “approval” mechanisms can be inserted and strategies for ensuring representation can all assist to alleviate these concerns. Another strategy, borrowed from the family dispute resolution sector where the ‘voice of the child’ has been introduced in child inclusive mediation, is to introduce a ‘voice of the environment’ process. However there are issues about who would provide that voice. In the family dispute resolution sector, a child psychologist may interview children and report to parents involved in the mediation, thus providing a voice that is impartial and can inform parents in their decision-making process. In the environmental context there is a role for environmental scientists, who are not engaged as “duelling experts” to provide a voice. In the environmental global context there are considerable variations between groups and individuals in terms of negotiation learning, cultural preferences for processes and the availability of rights-based frameworks. Arguably, the absence of a rights based process and system ‘shadow’ may prevent facilitative processes from working effectively in the environmental context particularly if the relationships between conflict participants are ‘distant’ and not well formed. In the global and local contexts there is also a need to carefully consider the system design aspects. The development of facilitative processes to manage intractable environmental conflict has arguably not been ‘successful’ in a range of contexts for a range of reasons. Elix in citing Eckersley comments that: ...many of the new and widely-heralded experiments in community participation in natural resource management have not achieved their full potential owing to the failure on the part of the political executive to relinquish sufficient control to, or to adequately empower, fund and resource/support and publicise or continue these new initiatives.43

134 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management This comment is of interest if one considers standards and environmental guidelines. Elix has noted that system design is particularly relevant in the environmental context as such conflicts are likely to involve significant differences in values among the many conflict participants. They are also unlikely to result in outcomes that are satisfactory to stakeholder groups. This means that unless careful planning and adequate resourcing takes place it is likely that facilitative process will be unsuccessful.

Notes 1

Peter Condliffe, “The Mediation of Public Issue Disputes: Seven Key Issues,” Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 9 (1998): 257-264. 2 Jane Elix (PhD thesis, 2005, La Trobe University). 3 Hal Wootten, “Environmental Dispute Resolution,” Adelaide Law Review 47 (1993): 65-66. 4 Rob Fowler, “Environmental Dispute Resolution Techniques - What Role in Australia?,” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 9 (1992): 122-131. 5 Laura Horn, “Mediation of Environmental Conflicts,” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 22 (2005): 369-384. 6 ibid. 7 Jane Elix, “New Approaches in Adversarialism and Politics – Three Facilitative Tools in use in Australia,” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17 (2006): 105-112. 8 Gregory Tillett, Resolving Conflict (Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1991), 1. 9 Michael Emin Salla, “Conflict Resolution, Genetics and Alchemy – The Evolution of Conflict Transmutation,” The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution 3.3 (2000). 10 National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions (Canberra: AGPS, 1997). 11 Adopting the terminology used in National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions (Canberra: AGPS, 1997) see also originating Standards Australia, Australian Standard 4269-1999: Complaints Handling. (Australia: Standards Australia, 1999). 12 NADRAC, (1997). 13 Adopting the terminology used in National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions (Canberra: AGPS, 2003). 14 James Gillespie and Max Bazerman, “Parasitic Integration: Win–Win Agreements Containing Losers,” Negotiation Journal 13 (1997) 271-282. 15 Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton, Getting to Yes – Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In (Sydney: Random House, 1991). Note

Tania Sourdin

135

that “a wise agreement is one which meets the legitimate interest of each side to the extent possible, and takes community interest into account”. 16 Allan Parker, The Negotiator’s Toolkit (Sydney: Peak Performance, 1998), 156. 17 Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW), s 61E. 18 Justice Giles in Hooper Bailie Associated Ltd v Natcon Group Pty Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 194 at 206, indicated how the obligation to negotiate in good faith could impact upon a mediation. His Honour indicated that to meet a good faith requirement a party must ‘subject oneself to the process of negotiation or mediation, to have an open mind in the sense of a willingness to consider such options for the resolution of the dispute as may be propounded by the opposing party or by the mediator, as appropriate, and a willingness to give consideration to putting forward options for resolution of the dispute.’ He also indicated that the obligation to participate in good faith does not require a party ‘to act for or on behalf or in the interests of the other party or to act otherwise than by having regard to self-interest.’ 19 John Lande., ‘Why a good-faith requirement is a bad idea for mediation,’ Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 23 (January 2005) 1, p 8. 20 Tania Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2nd Ed (2005, Law Book Co, Sydney) at p5. 21 Jerome Barrett and Joseph Barrett, A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution (San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 2004), 8. 22 Ibid. 23 John Burton, Conflict: Resolution and Prevention (USA: St Martins Press, 1990), 147. 24 ibid, 83. 25 ibid. 26 This view can be contrasted with that of Paul Bohannan, We, the alien: an introduction to cultural anthropology (Illinois: Waveland Press, 1992), 151. 27 Salla. 28 Robert Heller, Charles Handy (London: Dorling Kindersley, 2001), referring to Handy’s view that these cultures that are defined as “Apollonian” are over-tightly designed and can be “hijacked” by dissatisfied cogs or work units who may withhold labour. 29 Charles Handy, Gods of Management (London: Arrow, 1995). 30 Nadja Spegal, Bernadette Rogers and Ross Buckley, Negotiation Theory and Techniques (Sydney: Butterworths, 1998), referring to Mary Parker Follet in Albie Davis, “An Interview with Mary Parker Follet,” Negotiation Journal 5 (1989) 223-235.

136 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management

31

R Fisher, W Ury, B Patton, Getting to Yes – Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In (2nd ed, Random House, Sydney, 1991), originally published 1981 (Fisher and Ury). 32 Fisher, Ury and Patton. 33 Sourdin, at 8. 34 For example, children who are aged two years are often said to inhabit a world where positional negotiation is the most favoured approach. 35 Salla. 36 ibid. 37 See Micheline Dewdney, ‘‘Transformative Mediation; Implications for Practitioners’’ Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 12(1) (2001) 2026. 38 Peter Fritz, Allan Parker and Sherry Stumm, Beyond Yes (Sydney: Harper Publishing, 1998). 39 Abraham Maslow and L Gross, “Synergy in the Society and in the Individual,”Journal of Individual Psychology 20 (1964) 153-164. 40 Helena Cornelius and Shoshana Faire, Everyone Can Win – How to Resolve Conflict (Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 1989), 15. 41 Elix. 42 William Isaacs, Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together (USA: Currency, 1999). 43 Robyn Eckersley, “Politics and Policy,” in Managing Australia’s Environment, ed. Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2003), 485-500.

Bibliography Barrett, Jerome and Barrett, Joseph. A History of Alternative Dispute Resolution. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 2004. Bohannan, Paul. We, the alien: an introduction to cultural anthropology. Illinois: Waveland Press, 1992. Burton, John. Conflict: Resolution and Prevention. USA: St Martins Press, 1990. Bush, Robert and Folger, Joseph. The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994. Condliffe, Peter. “The Mediation of Public Issue Disputes: Seven Key Issues,” Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 9 (1998): 257-264.

Tania Sourdin

137

Cornelius, Helena and Faire, Shoshana. Everyone Can Win – How to Resolve Conflict. Sydney: Simon and Schuster, 1989. Davis, Albie. “An Interview with Mary Parker Follet,” Negotiation Journal 5 (1989): 223-235. Dewdney, Micheline. “Transformative Mediation; Implications for Practitioners,” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 12 (2001): 20-26. Eckersley, Robyn. “Politics and Policy.” In Managing Australia’s Environment, edited by Stephen Dovers and Su Wild River, 485-500. Sydney: The Federation Press, 2003. Elix, Jane. PhD thesis, 2005, La Trobe University. Elix, Jane. “You can lead a horse to water… overcoming impasse in consensus building group processes,” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 15 (2004): 59-69. Elix, Jane. “The meaning of success in public policy dispute interventions,” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 14 (2003): 113123. Elix, Jane. “New Approaches in Adversarialism and Politics – Three Facilitative Tools in use in Australia,” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17 (2006): 105-112. Fisher, Roger, Ury, William and Patton, Bruce. Getting to Yes – Negotiating an Agreement Without Giving In. Sydney: Random House, 1991. Fritz, Peter, Parker, Allan and Stumm, Sherry. Beyond Yes. Sydney: Harper Publishing, 1998. Folger, Joseph and Bush, Robert. “Transformative Mediation and Third Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice,” Mediation Quarterly 13 (1996): 263-278. Fowler, Rob. “Environmental Dispute Resolution Techniques - What Role in Australia?,” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 9 (1992): 122– 131. Gillespie, James and Bazerman, Max. “Parasitic Integration: Win–Win Agreements Containing Losers,” Negotiation Journal 13 (1997): 271-282. Handy, Charles. Gods of Management. London: Arrow, 1995.

138 Sustainable Outcomes through Effective Conflict Management

Heller, Robert. Charles Handy. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2001. Horn, Laura. “Mediation of Environmental Conflicts,” Environmental and Planning Law Journal 22 (2005): 369-384. Lande, John, “Why a good-faith requirement is a bad idea for mediation,” Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 23 (January 2005): 1. Isaacs, William, Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together. USA: Currency, 1999. Johnson, Barry. “The Role of Adaptive Management as an Operational Approach for Resource Management Agencies,” Conservation Ecology 3 (2003): 302-318. Maslow, Abraham and Gross, L. “Synergy in the Society and in the Individual,” Journal of Individual Psychology 20 (1964): 153-164. National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions (Canberra: Alternative Dispute Resolution Definitions, 1997). National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC), Dispute Resolution Terms (Canberra: AGPS, 2003). Parker, Allan. The Negotiator’s Toolkit. Sydney: Peak Performance, 1998. Salla, Michael Emin. “Conflict Resolution, Genetics and Alchemy - The Evolution of Conflict Transmutation,” The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution 3.3 (2000). Sourdin, Tania Alternative Dispute Resolution 2nd Ed (Sydney, LawBook Co, 2005). Spegal, Nadja, Rogers, Bernadette and Buckley, Ross. Negotiation Theory and Techniques (Sydney: Butterworths, 1998). Standards Australia, Australian Standard 4269-1999: Complaints Handling. (Australia: Standards Australia, 1999). Tillett, Gregory. Resolving Conflict. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1991. Wootten, Hal. “Environmental Dispute Resolution,” Adelaide Law Review 47 (1993): 65-66.

Tania Sourdin

139

The Author would like to acknowledge the work of Jane Elix, whose PhD she supervised and referred to in this Chapter. Also, this Chapter draws upon ideas and concepts developed by the author in Alternative Dispute Resolution (2005), 2nd Ed., LawBook Co, Sydney, and earlier papers relating to conflict transformation.

Section 4 Information Management

The Public Debate on Genetic Modification (GM): Varieties of Understanding Linda Hadfield Abstract The genetic modification of crops and foodstuffs (GM) is one of the most contentious issues of public science policy. In 2002, the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) organised a public debate on GM, which included the creation of a website to which members of the public could post comments between August 2002 and May 2003. The research described in this paper entails analysis of the responses to this consultation, using qualitative social science techniques, aimed at identifying both the range of views which exist on the substantive issue of GM technology, and the ways in which they are understood by the participants. An earlier stage of the research found that differences of perspective may embody differing assumptions concerning degrees of belief, time and the types of criteria on which truth claims may be made. The present paper extends the understanding of these dimensions by using them to classify and interrogate the contributions further. The research has implications for other issues characterised by controversy and polarisation of views; for the effectiveness of public policy on such issues; and for the relationship between science, the public and government. Key words: Public understanding of science; GM; environmental perceptions. 1.

Introduction The last quarter of the twentieth century, and the early years of the twenty first, have witnessed widespread controversy over the impacts of technological development. In the UK, one of the most contentious new technologies which came to public attention in the 1990s is the genetic modification of crops and foodstuffs (GM). In September 2001 the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission published a report, “Crops on Trial”, which called for a major debate on the future use of GM, to which the lay public would be invited to contribute.1 In response to this report, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) organised a public debate on GM, which began in November 2002 with a series of nine workshops, leading to a programme of public meetings and discussion from May to July 2003, and the creation of a website to which members of the public could post comments.

144

The Public Debate on Genetic Modification

The e-mail responses to the debate, which are in the public domain and available on the Internet, constitute a valuable resource containing a cross section of opinions.2 The on-going research described in this paper uses transcripts of these responses to construct a database of issues, arguments and perceptions. The transcripts are analysed using qualitative social science techniques to identify both the range of views which exist on the substantive issue of GM technology, and also the ways in which those views are understood, justified and contested by the participants to the debate. 2.

Public Understanding of Science Science and technology develop over time within a constantly changing political, economic, social and cultural context. Historically, the introduction of new technologies has been greeted with suspicion, uncertainty and controversy, the classic example being the Luddite riots of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in response to the introduction of mechanical looms.3 Over time, such innovations become accepted and subsumed into the ideology of “progress” as the world moves on. However, as negative side-effects of the technologies become more apparent, controversy may arise once more, for example over the impact of air pollution.4,5 The technological developments and controversies of the second half of the twentieth century are familiar to us because of their proximity in time, the all-pervasive and taken-for-granted nature of modern technologies, and the vast amounts of documented evidence available. In the Western developed nations, at least, universal education and the availability of mass communication media, including the Internet, have led to the possibility of a wide (if sometimes rather shallow) awareness and understanding of such controversies. This awareness, particularly of the negative impacts of past technologies, has led to scepticism among sections of the public towards the further development of technology. This may lead to action against specific technologies, for example in the form of consumer boycotts of products, or more direct action, extending even to civil disobedience.6 The effective development and implementation of public policy aimed at encouraging or controlling the introduction of new technology must contend with both these actions and the perceptions underlying them. The public understanding of science and technology, and the public’s trust (or lack of it) in science and scientists, have become issues of great concern for policy makers. In the words of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology: Science’s relationship with United Kingdom society is under strain, and…this is of the greatest importance to

Linda Hadfield

145

both the scientific community and the nation as a whole.7 The Committee’s main recommendations for improving this situation were: through "public understanding of science" activities; by improved communication of uncertainty and risk; and …by changing the culture of policy-making so that it becomes normal to bring science and the public into dialogue about new developments at an early stage.8 Debate on the public understanding of science has in the past conceptualised the relationship between “Science” and “the Public” as one in which knowledge is a commodity to be transferred between the two (the “deficit model”). In its most extreme forms, this polarisation may lead to a model in which the problem is conceptualised as “public ignorance” which must be addressed by education, or, at the other extreme, as a situation where “scientists” are dangerously unaware of the needs and priorities of “the public”, and must be held to account. However, this simplified approach is both a poor description of the true underlying relationships between science and the public, and unhelpful for the development of policy. In particular, it disregards two facts: that often dispute exists between experts; and that there may be legitimate reasons for lack of trust. The public’s perceptions are relevant, because they affect people’s behaviour, whether or not they are “objectively” justified, and lack of trust makes the implementation of policies difficult. A more nuanced understanding of the complexities of the public’s perceptions of scientific issues is therefore needed both to help improve communication and demonstrate why it is that policies fail.9 3.

Discourse and Appreciation In order to improve the relationship between the public and science, it is necessary to develop a deeper understanding of public attitudes than the deficit model. Issues of science policy are often portrayed by concerned individuals and groups as clear cut and selfevident, leading to polarisation and a tendency for those with strong views to vilify the holders of different perspectives. While opposing views are often sincerely held, the terms of debate become starkly polarised, the “story” is often portrayed in simplistic and emotive ways, and an understanding of the true underlying complexity is lost. Discourse analysis has developed since the 1980s as a way of recognising, defining and understanding multiple perceptions of an issue. It is based on a social constructionist approach, which understands the external world as being partly determined by our beliefs and perceptions.10 Knowledge on a particular issue may be described by a number of

146


different “discourses”, defined as the relatively coherent and consistent systems of knowledge and belief which exist externally to, and interact with, our individual personal knowledge systems. Multiple discourses may exist and compete for dominance within a broader terrain of meaning which can be referred to as “the order of discourse”.11 The concepts of “discourse” and “order of discourse” give us a way of describing relatively fixed, coherent and shared patterns or sets of beliefs, and the relationships between them. However, we also need an equivalent terminology to describe the ways in which these discourses affect individuals. The behaviour of individuals is a function of their beliefs, perceptions, needs and desires within constraints imposed by their environment.12 Vickers defines the process by which individuals understand their context, set priorities, make choices and act on them as the process of “appreciation”, and the factors contributing to that process as an “appreciative system”.13 Discourses and appreciative systems may be seen as complementary phenomena, which exist in a constant state of interaction with one another. The existence of multiple discourses within a given order of discourse contributes both to the appreciative systems and hence behaviour of individuals within a society, and also to the political and cultural processes within the society, and the construction of the social world itself. As discourses are constantly developing, with the acquisition of new knowledge and concerns, and the re-evaluation of existing knowledge, thus the social world is also in a constant state of flux, as also are individual appreciative systems. However, this flux is not completely random, but contains relatively fixed patterns and (apparent) structures, which may change over time, and are always contingent upon an existing set of circumstances. At a given time and place, a given discourse may lead to a closing down of speculation and a limitation of thought upon a topic. Where an individual has found a coherent and consistent explanation for an issue within a specific discourse, this may lead to a perception of that particular explanation as “the objective truth”, and reluctance to consider explanations outside that discourse. Evidence is sought, and is interpreted, in such a way as to confirm the existing explanation, and evidence which falls outside that discourse is dismissed or explained away as exceptional.14,15 There is an unwillingness to accept explanations from outside the discourse, and inability to understand the apparent “failure” of people with alternative views to recognise the “truth” of propositions supported by the discourse. This leads to conflict and a failure to generate consensus.

Linda Hadfield

147

4.

Methodology The methodology of the research, which has been described in more detail elsewhere, entails the application of qualitative social science techniques, based on discourse analysis and grounded theory approaches, to the analysis of responses made by members of the public to the GM debate.16 The responses cannot be considered as a representative sample of public opinion, because the respondents constitute a self-selected sample, of individuals who are both familiar with the Internet, and also sufficiently concerned about the issue of GM to make such a contribution. On the other hand, they can be seen as “naturally occurring material”, free from the prior influences of question framing and survey design which may be imposed by the researcher in more conventional research contexts.17 Each response was subjected to a detailed content analysis as a transcript taken from the website for contributions to the debate. The transcripts were broken down into phrases and analysed phrase by phrase. “Phrases” were taken to be grammatically coherent groups of up to approximately twenty words in length, which express a single concept. Table 1. Sample extract as held on the database Response Phrase Text R011 21 My grounds for objecting to GM technology is, in summary, R011 22 condensed to the fact that it is dominated by a few multinational companies (mainly US-owned) R011 23 which will mean that the farmers will be caught in a vicious cycle, R011 24 increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals R011 25 to provide the very essence of life itself (i.e. seeds from which crops are grown). In coding, each response was given a three-digit reference number, prefixed by “R”, and phrases were numbered sequentially within the response. An example of the way in which responses are held on the database is shown in Table 1. Extracts from the responses are referred to in the paper by reference number followed by the range of phrases included in the extract, e.g. (R011, 21-25). The analysis of the transcripts is based on the principles of “open coding” (an initial stage in which the data are scrutinised to identify as many potential meanings as possible)18 and “constant comparison” (the exploration of similarities and differences across the data).19 The method is iterative. At each stage of the analysis, comments are coded in terms of categories determined by the researcher. Content

148


analysis is carried out to count the numbers of comments falling into these categories, and to identify the most frequently occurring, and hence most significant. The categories are then reviewed in turn, by referring back to the original comments and the context in which they occur. This generates a new linked set of comments, which are once again coded and classified. In this way an overall picture of issues arising from the transcripts and comments linked to those various issues is gradually built up, and patterns begin to emerge. This combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is contentious, with critics arguing that the use of numeric measures imposes a spurious objectivity on the results of the analysis.20 However, in this case the frequencies are not presented as final results of the analysis, but are used to identify significant categories which are then returned to their context through a re-examination of the original transcripts. A previous paper has described the early phases of the research, using a sample of 14 transcripts and focussing on the conflicting views generated around the issue of “Using GM to end world hunger”.21 Detailed analysis of the sample identified a set of dimensions for classifying statements in terms of: the basis of their claim to “truth” (e.g., personal experience, externally verifiable evidence); degrees of belief; and the time at which they apply, i.e. whether they refer to historical events which have already occurred, present events, or forecasts about the future. The present paper describes a further stage, in which the analysis was extended to a larger sample of 25 transcripts. The detailed approach to analysis generates an enormous amount of data, even for a restricted sample. The focus has been shifted to a wider area of interest: the understanding of the potential impacts of GM. The usefulness of the previously identified dimensions has been challenged in consideration of this different sample. 5.

Perceptions of Impacts of GM All phrases identified in the first stage of analysis as relating to potential impacts of GM were re-visited and re-evaluated within the context of each response. Individual phrases proved to have too narrow a focus for analytical purposes, so most were expanded to include phrases from either side. Such a group of sequential phrases with a coherent theme is referred to as a “comment”. The comments were then re-classified according to content. Table 2 shows all categories identified from this secondary analysis which occurred in four or more responses. Some issues were referred to in several comments within a single response, while others were referred to in several responses. “Comments” gives the overall number of comments which refer to the category, while “Responses” gives the number of different responses which contained comments referring to the category.

Linda Hadfield

149

Table 2. Frequencies of categories relating to “impacts”. Category Responses Comments 8 19 Control 7 20 Environment Uncertainty 7 9 Health 6 6 Food chain 5 8 Organic 5 6 Progress 5 8 Choice 5 6 World hunger 4 7 4 Economic 4 8 Agriculture 4 Reviewing this classification system again suggested that the comments referring to the impacts of GM fall into two broad categories: those relating to substantive areas which may be impacted by GM (environment, health, agriculture etc) and more general issues surrounding those impacts (e.g. issues of control, uncertainty and choice), as illustrated in Figure 1. The two most frequently occurring categories were “Control” and “Environment,” each of which falls into one of these two broader areas. The remainder of this paper will focus on these two categories, analysing comments using the three dimensions of “degrees of belief,” “time” and “basis of truth claim”. A. Degrees of belief The first dimension, “degrees of belief,” refers to uncertainty, as indicated by the use of qualifiers such as “potential,” “possible” and “likely”. These comments can be regarded as “judgments of credibility,” expressing varying degrees of belief, of which “certainty” may be seen as a special case.22 Most of the comments were straightforward assertions of belief, rather than assessments of possibilities, particularly in the area of “Control.” The “Control” category concerned both the physical control which can be exerted over GM crops, and issues of political, legislative and economic control. Comments relating to political and economic control were stated in terms of certainty, with little scope for variation in belief: My grounds for objecting to GM technology is… the fact that it is dominated by a few multinational companies (mainly US-owned) which will mean that the farmers will be caught in a vicious cycle,


150

increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals (R011, 21-25). Uncertainty occurred where the focus was on the control of the physical crops themselves: “In marginal and wild situations, genes do not seem to get out easily,” (R022, 64-65); “Animals are highly mobile and would provide possibly the most efficient means of dispersing GM materials,” (R002, 06-07) (emphasis added).

Substantive areas potentially impacted by

General issues relating to impacts of GM Environment

World hunger Organic sector

Control

Uncertainty Impacts of GM

Agriculture

Progress

Choice

Food chain

Economy

Health

Figure 1. Conceptual map of issues relating to impacts of GM arising from the analysis

Linda Hadfield

151

While most of the comments on “environmental impact” were also asserted, some included degrees of belief: “…the Government did not give sufficient weight to the potential impacts of GMOs on biodiversity,” (R001,08-10). “Is there a risk of significant damage to the world ecosystem? Clearly there is,” (R013,07-13). These comments suggest that respondents may be more sure of their ground with respect to political and institutional arrangements, and less so with respect to the physical world. This is a hypothesis which could be explored further. B. Time Considering the sample comments in terms of the “time” dimension showed a range of perceptions of past and present experience, and future projections. Many took the form of statements about past experience, which were then used to project future outcomes. Once out of the bottle, the genie will not be able to be caught when things wrong, as they will do, going by past human efforts of tinkering with the environment (R019, 13-15). Crops and their wild relatives have grown side by side for thousands of years, yet are still distinct, so clearly they don't contribute much to each other (R022, 75-80). These comments depend on an implicit assumption: that the past is a good predictor of the future. This is an understandable assumption, given that past experience is all we have to make sense of the world. Certain trends can be projected forward with a reasonable degree of certainty. However, the complexity of interactions may lead to emergent effects and unintended consequences. Future possibilities are not infinite, but they are in a sense unknowable. C. Basis of Truth Claims The third dimension identified previously as indicating differences between perceptions is that of the sources of information on which those perceptions are based, and the criteria on which their claim to “truth” is based. (see Table 3).

152


Table 3. Types of criteria for justifying truth claims. Basis of Example truth claim Assertion “Neither the Government nor the GM industry has the ability to adequately control the release of GM products to the environment and their subsequent dispersal.” Statement “I believe that genetically modified crops will of belief adversely affect the delicate balance of nature in innumerable ways.” Personal “Since the trials started I have suffered from experience severe hayfever during the flowering of these crops.” Appeal to “Linda Hall… quoted a saving of 6,000 tons of external herbicide and 32 million litres of fossil fuel authority that would have been used for conventional spraying.” Verifiable “Studies of ‘organic crops’ and wild maize in claim South America now show contamination by GM.” Syllogism “GM technology … is dominated by a few multinational companies … which will mean that the farmers will be … increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals.” Analogy “We have seen … the consequences of meddling with nature's way of growing food. Question “What is being done about the discovery that genes are moving into the environment outside the crop boundaries?”

Reference R001, 22-24

R024, 14-16

R023, 03-04

R022, 92-94

R012, 15-21

R011, 21-25

R020, 75-79 R012, 15-23

The most frequently occurring value of this dimension in the sample is the straightforward assertion, or statement of personal belief. Other types of truth claim identified previously, i.e. “personal experience,” “external authority” and “externally verifiable statement” were also identified in this sample. “External authorities” cited by the different respondents ranged from specific citations of named individuals, and references to specific organisations, such as the Soil Association and Oxfam, to more generic references to types of organisations, for example “multinational companies (mainly US-owned),” (R011,21-25) and “charity leaders,” (R011, 40-51). The ways in which these bodies were cited suggested implicit judgements of their trustworthiness. Some sources for some

Linda Hadfield

153

respondents evidently held negative connotations in terms of trust, as in the following statements: These companies developed GM crops not as an answer to world hunger, but as an answer to the fact that their patents on pesticides such as Roundup were expiring and they needed to protect their source of income from pesticides (R011, 26-33). … collusion between the green anti-capitalist movement and European agribusiness to use the GM scare as a protectionist tool to keep American produce out of the European market (R022, 216-220). The analysis of this extended sample suggested ways of extending the classification. The three new categories of truth claim: “Syllogism,” “Analogy” and “Question”, each embody a further assumption about causality, equivalent to the assumption mentioned in the section on time, that the past is a good predictor of the future. A syllogism is a logical argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion that follows necessarily from them. The statement “GM technology… is dominated by a few multinational companies… which will mean that farmers will be increasingly dependent on a small number of giant multinationals,” (R011; 21-25) is more properly described as an enthymeme, “an informally-stated syllogism which omits either one of the premises or the conclusion”.23 In the first example shown in Table 4, the implicit premise is that “Market dominance causes dependence among farmers”, which the reader is expected to take as given.

154


Table 4. Implicit assumptions in justification of truth claims. Ref Stated premise Implicit premise Conclusion “GM technology … is Market dominance Farmers will be … R011, dominated by a few causes dependence increasingly dependent 21-25 multinational among farmers on a small number of companies … “ giant multinationals “We have seen … the DDT and BSE are The outcomes of DDT R020, consequences of good analogies for and BSE were bad, so 75-79 meddling with nature's GM will the outcome of way of growing food GM. DDT and BSE some of the more extreme.” “What is being done Genes are moving Something should be R012, about the discovery that into the environment done 15-23 genes are moving into outside the crop the environment outside boundaries the crop boundaries?” “Farmed varieties, What has happened GM varieties will soon R022, GMO or conventional, in the past is a good go extinct in the wild 66-74 soon go extinct in the indicator of what will wild.” happen in the future The criteria “analogy” and “question,” together with the assumption about time, can also be regarded as enthymemes. Use of an analogy assumes that the analogy is valid, and that causal assumptions can be drawn from that. Asking a question embodies an implicit assumption that the grounds on which the question is asked are correct, i.e. in the example, that genes have in fact been discovered to be moving across crop boundaries. The use of such statements to justify truth claims may deflect attention from the premises on which the statements are made, by implicitly suggesting that the reader will be in agreement with the underlying premise. Another interesting issue which emerged from the analysis was that such implicit premises or values may be used to justify different conclusions. An example can be seen in the pair of statements shown in Table 5. Both respondents are concerned about the threat to wilderness areas from agricultural practices and the demand for land for agriculture, but while the first sees the potential spread of GM materials as a threat to these areas, the second sees GM as a means to intensify production from existing agricultural areas, and hence preserve wilderness areas.

Linda Hadfield

155

Table 5. Contradictory Conclusions from Parallel Implicit Assumptions.

Stated premise “The spread of GM materials … has a potential consequence … the destruction and loss of the few remaining areas … unaffected by man and his influences.” “If we are to feed the growing population of the world without using ever more wild spaces, we must intensify our agriculture.”

Ref R002, 13-17

Implicit premise We must retain areas unaffected by man

Conclusions We must not allow GM materials to spread

We must retain wild areas

We must use R014, intensive methods of 01-03 agriculture, including GM.

A similar contradiction can be seen within the sample around the issue of consumer choice. While the first and third comments shown in Table 6 regard GM as a threat to consumer choice, because of the perceived impossibility of ensuring that no GM materials will contaminate conventional or organic crops, the second comment suggests that denying consumers the right to choose to buy GM products in itself violates consumer choice. A somewhat different contradiction is illustrated in the comments shown in Table 7 around the issue of the impacts of farming on biodiversity. The first comment concludes that as conventional farming methods already disrupt habitats, GM is a minor issue by comparison, while the second argues that it is wrong to impose additional stresses. This demonstrates two different approaches to environmental risk, which can be characterised as comparative and cumulative.

156


Table 6. Contradictory conclusions based on consumer choice Ref Statement Implicit premise Conclusions “I want to retain for the Consumer choice is GM threatens the R001, future the ability to good consumer’s right to 37-38 choose an entirely GMchoose organic free organic honey, for products. example.” “Personally, I would Consumers should R022, Consumer choice is like free choice. Please, good have the right to 249-250 Tescos, bring back my choose GM products. GM marshmallows and FlavrSavr tomato puree.” “Consumers will not Consumer choice is Consumer choice will R024, have the ability to good be compromised 11-12 choose not to eat GM because it will be products because they impossible to will have infiltrated separate GM from almost everything that non-GM products. we wish to eat.” Table 7. Contradictory conclusions concerned with impacts on wildlife Conclusions Ref Statement Implicit premise “Farming methods have Existing methods GM will not make a R022, far more impact on already affect wildlife. significant difference. 18-19 wildlife than whether the crops are organic, conventional or GM.” “Genetically modified Existing methods GM will make a bad R024, crops will adversely 15-17 already affect wildlife. situation worse. affect … the lives of insects, birds and mammals. These creatures are already suffering as a result of loss of habitat.”

Linda Hadfield

157

6.

Conclusions and Further Work This paper has described the further application of a qualitative methodology to responses to the online debate on GM. The application of the dimensions of “degrees of belief,” “time” and “basis of truth claims” has proven robust, and generated new insights when extended to a larger sample of responses. From the analysis, it has emerged that many of the comments embody implicit assumptions, including the specific assumption that the past is a good basis on which to predict the future. These assumptions may be used to justify contradictory conclusions. The data also suggests that greater uncertainty exists over physical relationships than institutional relationships, and this hypothesis can be tested in further analysis. Other issues arise around the question of trust. Where external authorities are cited by respondents, implicit judgements are being made about the trustworthiness of those sources. Authorities whose word is automatically taken as correct by some respondents are questioned by others, while the statements of some authorities are automatically regarded as suspect in some cases. The detailed analysis of the often contradictory statements made by the different respondents has led us to consider the assumptions on which these first-order statements may be based. Other, broader issues are also beginning to emerge - unifying themes in some responses around deeper issues, such as “scientific progress” and “profit motives,” which reflect deeper ideological currents. The analysis suggests that, behind the surface comments and explanations put forward by participants in the GM debate, there lies a level of “second order” explanation, which warrants further investigation. Further investigation of these underlying assumptions may allow us to generate further insights into the relationships between individual perceptions and the formation of broader discourses around scientific issues.

Notes 1

Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, Crops on Trial: A Report by the AEBC, 10 September 2001 (30 October 2006). http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/pdf/crops.pdf. 2 GM Nation? The Public Debate, (30 October 2006). http://www.gmnation.org.uk/. 3 Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962). 4 Peter Brimblecombe, The Big Smoke: A History of Air Pollution in London Since Mediaeval Times, (London: Methuen, 1987) 5 Anthony S Wohl, Endangered Lives: Public Health in Victorian Britain, (London: Methuen, 1983).

158

6


BBC News online, Protesters wreck GM crops, 29 June 2003 (30 October 2006)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3029948.stm. 7 UK Government House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science and Society Third Report, 23 February 2000 (30 October 2006) 1.19 8 Ibid 9 Alan Irwin and Mike Michael, Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003). 10 Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, (London: Penguin, 1971). 11 Louise Phillips and Marianne W Jorgensen, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002). 12 Roger Seaton, “Policy and Decision Relevant Science Research: Multidisciplinary and Integrative Approaches,” In Environmental Perception and Policy Making: Cultural and Natural Heritage and the Preservation of Degradation-Sensitive Environments in Southern Europe; 2nd Interim Report on EU DGXII Contract EV5V-CT94-0486, S.E. van der Leeuw (ed), (Paris: Université de Paris (Panthéon-Sorbonne), 1996). 13 Sir Geoffrey Vickers, The Art of Judgement, (London: Harper & Row, 1965). 14 MG Marmot, “Epidemiology and the art of the soluble,” The Lancet 19April 1986, 897-900. 15 Alan Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science?, Third Edition, (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1999). 16 Linda Hadfield, 2005, “Modifying Perceptions: The UK Public Debate on Genetic Modification (GM),” Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, Vol VII(1), June 2005, pp56-66 17 Louise Phillips and Marianne W. Jorgensen, Discourse analysis as theory and method, (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002). 18 Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, (London: Sage Publications, 1990). 19 Christina Goulding, Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers, (London: Sage Publications, 2002). 20 Julienne Ford, Paradigms and fairy tales: An Introduction to the Science of Meanings (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975). 21 Hadfield 22 AJ Ayer, “Chance,” In Risk & Chance: Selected Readings, Jack Dowie and Paul Lefrere (eds), (Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England, 1980), pp33-51 23 Harris, Robert A, 2005, A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices, 06 April 2005 (30 October 2006). .

Environmental Justice: Bridging the Gap between Experts and Laymen Kim Loyens Abstract Sustainable Development deals with highly technological issues (e.g. genetic manipulation, brain science, environmental protection, etc.). The decision making process therefore tends to be very complex. The task for policymakers is extremely difficult due to the involvement of different stakeholders, such as experts, public organisations and unorganised citizens. The importance of lay knowledge in technological and complex policy domains is often underestimated. Opponents of citizen participation use arguments related to NIMBY (Not In My Backyard), lack of interest, and knowledge deficiencies. Nevertheless, obtaining public support for policy decisions in the domain of Sustainable Development is essential. In this chapter we will examine if and how integration of expert and lay knowledge is possible in complex policy issues and how we can reduce the gap between experts, policymakers and citizens. The main focus will be on the integration of expert and lay knowledge in design and policymaking processes. We first describe the (dis)advantages of citizen participation and then consider the conditions for successful citizen involvement in policymaking, distinguishing between participants in lay and in professional roles. We then focus on a model to determine whether public involvement is opportune in a specific situation: Thomas’ ‘Effective Decision Model of Public Involvement.’ We discuss some specific techniques and international initiatives for citizen participation in the domain of Sustainable Development. Finally, we focus on three best practices of citizen (lay), expert, and organisational participation in highly technological or complex issues. In Belgium the King Baudouin Foundation is specialised in dialogue with citizens and experts about Brain Science and Food Safety. In the Netherlands we examine the policy programme ‘Policy with Citizens’ of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (2005). The third case is the Danish Board of Technology, specialised in active citizenship in technological issues. Key words: citizen participation, participatory methods, public involvement, risk escalator, Effective Decision Model of Public Involvement, King Baudouin Foundation, VROM, Danish Board of Technology.

Environmental Justice

160 1.

Introduction Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future1

It deals with highly technological issues. ‘Genetic manipulation,’ ‘brain science,’ ‘food safety,’ ‘nanotechnology’ and ‘environmental protection’ are all complex issues that are relevant in sustainable development policy. Policymakers often lack the competence to deal with those topics.2 New developments in science… put public authorities under stress as they are faced with uncertainty about the consequences of these developments.3 Therefore the involvement of diverse stakeholders is extremely important. Both experts and public organisations try to increase their influence on public policy in the domain of sustainable development. And their expertise definitely means an enrichment of policy decisions. 2.

Arguments pro and contra citizen participation The importance of lay knowledge in technological and complex policy domains is often underestimated. There is scepticism whether unorganised citizens can make a valuable contribution to policymaking4. The most fundamental counter-arguments to citizen participation refer to the fact that citizens lack the knowledge and skills to contribute to the decision process and the fact that citizens are only after their own profit, without regard for the public interest.5 Moreover, citizen participation in highly technological issues would be - according to certain literature impossible, given the complexity. Professor Lieve Goorden, however, considers those well-known arguments ‘mythical’. In her work, she opposes three ‘myths’6: x

‘Citizen participation is impossible in highly technological issues.’ According to Goorden, citizen participation is possible in highly technological issues. Moreover, Goorden states it is essential and even more pertinent. After all, experts can not offer all the answers, because of the existing scientific and social uncertainties in those issues. Individual citizens can definitely play an important role in answering ethical questions about the acceptability of certain developments in science. Through social debate, policy decisions become more and more legitimate.7

Kim Loyens

161

x

‘Citizens cannot deal with the uncertainties in highly technological policy domains.’ Although experts and policymakers often assume that citizens can not deal with those uncertainties, Goorden states they can. Citizens are well aware of the fact that risks and uncertainties are a part of our way of life. They do have a problem, though, with the fact that policymakers do not reckon the existence of those uncertainties in the decision process.

x

‘Not In My Backyard.’ According to Goorden, citizens are not only after their own profit. Based on some concrete participation initiatives, she states that people attach great importance to the public interest. When they are involved in a participation project they manage to look at the issue from another angle, so they can see the broader perspective.

Other disadvantages are;: the possible excavation of the representative system, the risk of broadening the gap between citizens and policymakers when the ‘advice’ of citizens is not implemented, delay of decision-making, and citizens getting tired of participatory initiatives.8 Despite these disadvantages, the benefits of citizen participation are very convincing. In the literature, we see a distinction of three main arguments pro citizen participation.9 First, there is the instrumental point of view. Citizen participation often leads to more public support for policy decisions, and thus an increase of legitimacy and acceptance. By making citizens feel (in part) responsible for the results of a policy process, the likelihood of opposition and resistance is reduced, because citizens participating in the process experience a certain ‘ownership’ of the decision. The second argument is somewhat related to morality. Participation can be considered a purpose in itself, because it strengthens democracy and equality. The final pro citizen participation argument focuses on the intrinsic advantages of citizen participation. The contribution of citizens can often be very valuable for policymakers, because it can contain innovative ideas and knowledge based on personal experience, which can enrich and improve policy decisions. There are other advantages of which I will only mention a few: increased policy efficiency by using (lay) expertise and resources, increase of effectiveness when policy plans are connected to the needs of citizens and stakeholders, emancipatory effects for certain target groups that do not participate often, increased transparency of policies, and reduction of the gap between policymakers and citizens. 3.

Conditions for successful participation of citizens and experts In this part we analyse the conditions for successful citizen participation in policymaking concerning highly technological issues. We

162


focus on those conditions that are important when involving participants in both lay and professional roles. A first and very important remark is the fact that there is no single issue that can a priori be determined as too complex or too complicated to involve individual citizens. The essential question is: “How do you translate the complex and technological issue into a topic that is relevant for the everyday life of the public?” The willingness and capability to participate increases as the theme is more connected with the everyday life of the general public.10 A second condition for success is that one has to bear in mind to not underestimate the “the wisdom of the crowds,” because: Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few no matter how brilliant - better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.11 It is essential to have confidence in the capabilities and expertise of individual citizens. Nevertheless, beware of attempting to transform them into experts. There has to be a clear distinction between participants in lay and professional roles. Obviously, individual citizens require certain information about complex topics, in order to make a valuable contribution. The main role of individual citizens, however, is not to solve complex and technical problems, but to make a judgement about the acceptability of certain developments. Therefore a balance between expertise and value judgement is essential. This determinant of success is closely connected to the ‘Risk Escalator’ of Ortwin Renn. His model consists of three characteristics of risks, including complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity.12 According to Renn, the ‘nature’ of a policy issue is the most important factor when determining target groups for participation. When a problem is only complex, the involvement of experts is the best option. When dealing with ‘uncertainty,’ expertise alone cannot solve it; one has to broaden the group aimed at. Then all stakeholders and directly affected groups should be involved, because they are familiar with the interests, values and uncertainties in their specific domain of expertise. According to Renn, the involvement of the general public is necessary when dealing with ‘ambiguity’. Developments in science often lead to ethical questions about acceptability and social values. In that case, citizens can make a value judgement and determine whether certain policy plans are acceptable and/or desirable. Although reality can not be easily subdivided into categories, this model can certainly be a guiding principle in citizen participation.

Kim Loyens

163

Figure 1.“The Risk Escalator”13 (Renn) A third determinant of success deals with the fact that the organisation of a participatory initiative must be done with caution.14 One has to determine whether the policy issue is suitable to involve the broad public. The topic must attract the attention of the broad public, as a result of its importance or intriguing character. That way, citizens are motivated and stimulated to participate. Another condition is the precise connection between purpose, design, and target group of a specific participation project. Techniques of citizen participation described in manuals should not be applied blindfold like a recipe. Contrary, those manuals should be used as a source of inspiration, because they offer merely guidelines for the involvement of citizens: “It offers suggestions and ideas rather then specific formula”.15 Furthermore, to obtain the desired results, a mix of instruments can be necessary in a particular situation.

164

Environmental Justice No one size fits them all. No single tool or approach will be suitable for every country or each situation, often a mix of tools and approaches will be needed.16

Finally, the exact moment citizen participation is organised is crucial. On the one hand policymakers must determine which moment is most suitable for the involvement of citizens and experts, but on the other hand the participants must still be able to have an impact on the eventual decision. Otherwise, citizen participation is useless and only leads to frustration and decrease of trust in government. Clear information and feedback are also important to avoid frustration. 4.

Is Public Involvement Opportune? Before taking the first steps in the organisation of a participatory project, it is necessary to determine whether the involvement of citizens and experts is opportune in that particular situation. Thomas’ ‘Effective Decision Model of Public Involvement’ of offers an interesting framework when making this decision.17 His theoretical model consists of seven steps, starting with the need of certain quality requirements the decision must correspond to. In some cases there are such legal, budgetary or technical restraints, the involvement of others than policymakers (i.e. citizens or experts) is either not permitted, feasible or opportune. A second question is: “Do policymakers have sufficient information to make a quality decision?” When they do, the necessity of public involvement diminishes. Of course, the decision to determine whether policymakers have sufficient information (consisting of lay and expert knowledge) to deal with a policy issue is a difficult one. The next question is only relevant if policymakers are sufficiently informed. It focuses on the ‘structuredness:’ is the policy issue structured such that alternative solutions are not open to redefinition? If the solutions policymakers postulate are fixed and can not be discussed, public involvement is of course completely pointless. The necessity of public acceptance of the decision is the fourth step in the model. That may or may not be critical to effective implementation. In the former case, public participation becomes more and more relevant. Otherwise, another question arises: will the public accept the decision taken by policymakers without being consulted? The decision should be taken autonomously if citizens and experts will accept the decision nevertheless. A modification of the autonomous decision is necessary in the case that policymakers need more information to make a qualitative decision (step 2) but the acceptance of the public is not crucial to successful implementation. In the fifth step Thomas points out the importance of stakeholder selection. Policymakers should list and approach all relevant stakeholders,

Kim Loyens

165

i.e. those with interesting lay and expert knowledge or practical experience. This is a delicate exercise, because: Focusing on too broad a public can unnecessarily complicate decision making, while overlooking an important group risks later failure if that group mobilises around the issue.18 The next question is about the sharing of goals. Do our relevant stakeholders share the goals policymakers postulate? An affirmative answer leads to the approval of ‘public decision.’ If policymakers expect more resistance, consultation is a better option, because then the possible influence of the public decreases. To determine how the consultation should be organised, a final question must be answered: is conflict likely within the relevant public on the preferred solution? If disagreements are likely, the public at large can be involved (unitary consultation). Segmented consultation (with separate groups) is recommended if there is no conflict on the preferred solution. In that case, policymakers risk being confronted with stakeholders who oppose as a group because they do not share their goals.

Figure 2. Thomas’ Effective Decision Model of Public Involvement19

166


5.

Methods for citizen participation When the decision is made to organise a participatory project involving certain target group, the next step is the choice of one (or more) particular participatory method(s). One can distinguish between many techniques of stakeholder participation in policymaking.20 Some methods are suitable for the participation of individual citizens, in particular focus groups, Deliberative Polling®, Open Space Technology and World Café. Some other techniques can be used to collect expertise from social organisations and leading experts in certain areas. The Delphi method, expert panel and advisory committees are useful tools in this case. However, we are mainly interested in participatory methods that allow the integration of expert and lay knowledge. In this paragraph we will concentrate on those techniques unorganised citizens and experts can be engaged in. For each method we will give a brief description and indicate how the integration of expert and lay knowledge can be accomplished. A. Citizen’s Jury The ‘citizen’s jury’ participatory method was developed in America and England. It is a tool for including citizens’ attitudes in the political decision making process and technological debate. The idea behind a citizen’s jury is to let a small group of citizens - who as far as possible are representative of the population - participate in a process in which they are comprehensively informed about a technological issue. That way, policymakers can acquire an informed, wellconceived and constructive expression of citizen’s opinions and gain an insight into the values, attitudes, priorities and ideas of citizens in relation to a current technological issue.21 A jury is composed of 12 to 20 lay citizens, carefully composed so that it represents a cross-section of the public in terms of age, gender and employment.22 During several days (4 or 5) they act as some kind of ‘court’ that is charged with the assignment to make a decision in a complex matter. Because the members of the jury only have lay knowledge, leading experts in the field play the role of ‘witnesses’.23 They are summoned and then questioned by the citizen’s jury about the ‘evidence,’ i.e. expert knowledge about the issue at hand. The members of the jury decide independently which questions will be asked and which ‘witnesses’ will be selected. After deliberation the lay jury makes a final decision, in which they may or may not achieve consensus. Alternatively they can vote on different possible answers. On the last day of the citizen’s jury a concluding conference is held with an official presentation and distribution of the jury’s final document. Key stakeholders, policymakers

Kim Loyens

167

and the press are invited to comment on the jury’s findings and discuss them with the members. Finally, policymakers hold a short presentation in which they give their feedback to the work of the citizen’s jury. According to the Danish Board of Technology: The method is particularly well suited to current subjects of relevance to society, from which politicians and interested parties require an indication about the direction the population wishes a particular technological development to take.24 B. Fish bowl discussion A fishbowl discussion is an interesting method for the participation of the broad public concerning complex and controversial issues. First, a small panel of experts presents different positions or point of views in a figurative ‘fishbowl,’ i.e. the fact that all the other (lay) participants gather around the panel. After the presentations and short debate, those laymen can enter the ‘fishbowl’ and emphasise their own opinion. All perspectives are noted down. Later, they form small discussion groups (8 to 10 persons a group with at least one expert included in each group) to analyse the issue in detail. Every group focuses on one specific perspective and lists the advantages and disadvantages. Eventually all these viewpoints are integrated so the issue can be discussed entirely in a plenary session. Based on this debate the participants formulate conclusions and recommendations.25 C. Consensus conference The ‘consensus conference’ - or citizen’s panel - originally is a Danish participatory method, specially designed to integrate lay and expert knowledge. The Danish Board of Technology uses it frequently as A method which involves citizens and gives them the central role in assessing a technological problem or problem area.26 Citizens can participate without any specific relationship of interest in the issue of the conference. In other words, they only need lay knowledge, because the main focus of a consensus conference is dialogue between ‘ordinary people’. Their contributions mainly consist of visions, concerns, values and everyday experiences. This method is based on the premise that policymakers need more than professional knowledge of experts when dealing with highly technological issues. For example, lay citizens can give their opinion about what new technologies (e.g. brain science, genetic testing, nuclear power, etc.) must and should be used in the future. That way, the debate about technological policy issues is

168


enriched and developed. Of course, participants of a consensus conference need some ‘basic expertise’ to maintain the conversation. That is where the real experts appear. First, in the preparation phase, a group of 15 to 20 lay participants receives introductory material about the issue at hand. This brochure is compiled by experts who provide comprehensible basic information about the issue.27 Moreover, the lay participants attend two preparatory weekend sessions where they can broaden their knowledge of the issue and receive a training ‘how to pose qualitative questions’. The citizens are also informed about the purpose and planning of the consensus conference. When the conference, which usually lasts 2 to 4 days, commences, they can question experts, professionals, stakeholders, politicians, interested parties, etc. Different kinds of experts with opposing views are summoned to answer the panel’s questions. That way, the experts bring their technical insight and overview to bear onto the topic. Often the organisers provide a budget that the participants can use as desired, for example to arrange excursions, invite leading experts or visit certain organisations. This phase is public and open to the press and other interested citizens. Next, the participants debate the issue. In the deliberation process a diversity of opinions, experiences and alternative solutions is discussed. The members, however, need to achieve consensus, because only advice and suggestions everyone agrees upon will be integrated in the final report that is compiled in the next phase. At last, policymakers give feedback about the implementation or rejection of those policy recommendations. Since 1987, the Danish Board of Technology has held a number of consensus conferences in Denmark, and over the years has acted as inspirer and consultant for conferences based on the Danish model held in countries as Holland, England, France, Switzerland and Norway, but also in non-European countries as Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea and Israel.28 6.

Best Practices In this paragraph we focus on three interesting cases concerning participatory methods to integrate expert and lay knowledge. First, we describe the programme ‘Governance’ of the King Baudouin Foundation. Secondly, we turn to the programme ‘Policy with citizens’ of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. Finally, we mention some interactive initiatives of the Danish Board of Technology. A. King Baudouin Foundation: ‘Governance’ The King Baudouin Foundation considers citizen participation to be a multistakeholder dialogue, i.e. an interactive communication process with the involvement of individual citizens, experts and social organisations. In their programme ‘Governance’ (2002-2005), they focused on the development of innovative methods for citizen

Kim Loyens

169

participation considering two topics, namely ‘biomedical science’ and ‘production, consumption and trade’.29 In diverse projects they organised citizen’s panels, focus groups and Deliberative Polling.30 Dialogue and deliberation in small groups were especially important in those initiatives. We will focus on the European project ‘Meeting of Minds,’ an interesting initiative considering the integration of lay and expert knowledge. Brain science was the central topic in the European Citizen’s panel ‘Meeting of Minds’.31 This project was started and coordinated by the King Baudouin Foundation in cooperation with several partner organisations: The University of Westminster (United Kingdom), Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (Belgium), Danish Board of Technology (Denmark), Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (France), Stiftung Deutsches Hygiene-Museum (Germany), Fondazione IDIS - Città della Scienza (Italy), Rathenau Institute (The Netherlands), Science Museum (United Kingdom), University of Debrecen (Hungary), Eugenides Foundation (Greece), University of Liège - SPIRAL (Belgium). This initiative had some essential objectives (KBF): x

x x

To identify differences as well as commonalities between involved citizens from different European national and cultural contexts regarding their attitudes towards, and assessment and expectations of social and ethical aspects of brain science; To invite the citizens involved to assess and consider the scientific-technical possibilities vis-à-vis the social desirability of current and new developments in brain science; To set the issue of brain science on the policy and wider political agenda.

During one year, a European Citizen’s panel of 126 citizens from nine European countries entered into dialogue about the future of our brain, discussing what they think should be done with our new-found knowledge on the brain. Through this process, a great number of experts; researchers, ethicists and stakeholders, were invited to participate in the debate. The usual division of roles between experts and lay citizens was, however, radically turned over. “European Citizens’ Deliberation… put a European public face on areas previously stamped ‘experts only’”.32 The interaction between experts and lay citizens led to interesting in-depth deliberations. After diverse meetings the debate on brain science eventually resulted in a final report consisting recommendations for European research and science communities on the one hand, and policymakers at European, national and transnational level on the other hand.33


170

B. The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment ‘Policy with Citizens’ is an interactive policy programme, created in 2003 by the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM). It aims to increase participation by citizens and other stakeholders in resolving environmental and sustainable development problems. The organisation of Citizen’s Forums is an interesting tool they use to integrate lay and expert knowledge.34 A group of twenty citizens is selected to discuss issues on VROM’s agenda and give advice. Comparable to citizen’s juries this group is carefully composed, so that - as far as possible - it represents a cross-section of the public in terms of age, gender, employment, education, area and world view.35 Because of that there is no real representativeness, but rather a ‘variety under control’.36 A citizen’s forum consists of three meetings: ‘agenda meeting,’ ‘advice meeting’ and ‘feedback meeting’. At the agenda meeting the members of the forum get to know each other and are introduced to policymakers of VROM. They also receive introductory information about the issue - e.g. ‘requirements of nuclear power’ (2005) - that will be discussed. Interestingly, the members can decide independently which specific topics will be dealt with. During the weeks following, they get the chance to gain more in-depth knowledge about the issue, through excursions, documentation and conversations with experts. As a result, a citizen’s forum stimulates the connection between experts, stakeholders and individual citizens. Based on the expertise of several stakeholders, the participants formulate advice at the advice meeting and present the results in front of policymakers. Eventually the authorised Minister provides feedback. C. Danish Board of Technology The Danish Board of Technology disseminates knowledge about technology, its possibilities and its effects on people, society, and the environment. Interaction with individual citizens plays an important role in obtaining this goal. For that reason they develop participatory methods of technology assessment37 while existing methods are constantly being updated and adjusted.38 Furthermore, the Danish Board of Technology already launched several concrete projects of citizen participation in complex policy issues. Prior to setting out on a particular project, the subject is evaluated according to certain parameters: x x x

Does the subject possess a technological content? Is the subject essential to a large number of people democratically, economically or environmentally? Does the subject cause problems or conflicts? Is there a need for decision making?

Kim Loyens x

171

Is the subject of current interest to politicians and citizens?

In several projects lay citizens were involved to deal with ethical dilemmas concerning current and new developments in science. An interesting example is ‘New GM Crops - New Debate’ (2005). For several years now, in Denmark as well as in other European countries, a heated debate has been going on about genetically modified food. The Danish Board of Technology wanted to focus the debate on following issues: x x x

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new GM crops in relation to health and environmental issues? What are the economic prospects and consequences of growing the new GM crops? How will Danish citizens asses these crops and which pros and cons will they focus on?

To examine those issues, the Danish Board of Technology put together a citizen’s jury consisting of 16 lay members. During the spring in 2005 they gave their assessment of the topic. During 5 days, the jury met with invited experts to discuss advantages and disadvantages of GM crops. Informed by this dialogue with many different stakeholders and experts, the members of the jury made up their own minds and subsequently presented their assessments on the 2nd of May in the Danish Parliament.39 7.

Conclusions Integration of expert and lay knowledge is not a utopia. Previous examples of citizen participation in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark prove that it is possible to organise meetings where experts and lay citizens come together and discuss certain dimensions of highly technological policy issues. Even though these complex and scientific areas are often stamped ‘experts only,’ a multi-stakeholder dialogue between participants in both professional and lay roles can enrich the debate. This can be accomplished by using certain methods like citizen’s panel, consensus conference and citizen’s forum. Based on the information of experts and stakeholders, citizens can make a value judgement and determine whether certain developments are acceptable and/or desirable. However, it is essential to translate a complex and technological issue into a topic that is relevant to the everyday life of the public. Therefore experts face the challenge to provide a clear overview of the most relevant and necessary information that is comprehensible for laymen. As a result of this and other efforts the gap between experts and citizens can be bridged… or at least narrowed.

172


Notes 1

Universal Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987). 2 Environmental Protection Agency. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. Lessons Learned, Barriers & Innovative Approaches (Washington DC: Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, 2001); Environmental Protection Agency, Plan and Budget for Public Involvement (Washington DC: National Centre for Environmental Innovation, 2003); R. Howell, M Olsen, and D. Olsen, Designing a Citizen Involvement Program. A Guidebook for Involving Citizens in the Resolution of Environmental Issues (Oregon: Western Rural Development Centre, 1987). 3 M. Nentwich, The Role of Participatory Technology Assessment in Policy-Making (Vienna: Institute of Technology Assessment, 1999). 4 OECD, Citizens As Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making (Paris: OECD, 2001); J.C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions. New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995). 5 K. Loyens, and S Van de Walle, Participatie voor iedereen? Wenselijkheid en haalbaarheid van gelijke participatie in de consultatie over het Federaal Plan Duurzame Ontwikkeling (Participation for all? Desirability and feasibility of equal participation in the consultation on the Federal Plan Sustainable Development) (Leuven: Instituut voor de Overheid, K.U. Leuven, 2006); S. Verba, “Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn Out to Be a Nightmare?,” Perspectives on politics 4 (2003): 663-679. 6 L. Goorden, “Draagvlak of Voedingsbodem? Het hoe en waarom van participatie” (Support or breading ground? The how and why of participation), FRDO - CFDD Symposium: Participatie en beleid DO. Hoe publieke consultaties doeltreffender maken? (2003): 22-27. 7 L. Goorden and J. Vandenabeele, “Publieksparticipatie aan besluitvorming over technologie. Burgers en experts uitgedaagd” (Public involvement in technological decision making. Citizens and experts challenged), Ethiek en Maatschappij 5 (2002): 32-47. 8 K. Loyens and S Van de Walle, Participatie voor iedereen? Wenselijkheid en haalbaarheid van gelijke participatie in de consultatie over het Federaal Plan Duurzame Ontwikkeling (Participation for all? Desirability and feasibility of equal participation in the consultation on the Federal Plan Sustainable Development), (Leuven: Instituut voor de Overheid K.U. Leuven, 2006); 9 B. Dala-Clayton, “Key Experiences in Preparing and Implementing Strategies for Sustainable Development and the Role of Participation.”, FRDO-CFDD symposium: Participatie en beleid DO. Hoe publieke

Kim Loyens

173

consultaties doeltreffender maken (2003); S. Verba, “Would the Dream of Political Equality Turn Out to Be a Nightmare?,” Perspectives on politics 4 (2003): 663-679. 10 T. Beierle and J Cayford, “Designing Public Participation Processes”, in Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions, ed. T Beierle, and J Cayford (Washington DC: Resources for the future, 2002). 11 J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few (New York: Random House, 2004). 12 O. Renn, “Acrylamide: Lessons for Risk Management and Communication,” Journal of Health Communication 8 (2003): 407-32. 13 O. Renn, “Acrylamide: Lessons for Risk Management and Communication,” Journal of Health Communication 8 (2003): 407-32. 14 K. Loyens and S Van de Walle, Methoden en Technieken van Burgerparticipatie: Strategieën voor Betrokkenheid van Burgers bij het Federaal Plan Duurzame Ontwikkeling (Methods and techniques of citizen participation: Strategies for the involvement of citizens in the development of the Federal Policy Plan Sustainable Development) (Leuven: Instituut voor de Overheid K.U. Leuven, 2006). 15 Landcom, Stakeholder Consultation Workbook (Parramatta: Landcom, 2002). 16 OECD, Citizens as Partners. Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making (Paris: OECD, 2001). 17 J.C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions. New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995). 18 J.C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions. New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995). 19 J.C. Thomas, Public Participation in Public Decisions. New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995). 20 We based our analysis on following toolkits of stakeholder participation: OECD, 2001a ; OECD, 2001b; Elliott, Heesterbeek, Lukensmeyer & Slocum, 2005; Ministerie van VROM, 2002; Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1998; XPIN, 2003; VLGA, 2001; Hinshelwood & McCallum, 2001; Raad voor het openbaar bestuur, 2005; CRC, 2006; XPIN/IPP, Gemeente Zoetermeer & Gemeente Dordrecht, 2006; Warringah Council Strategy Unit, 2000; New Economics Foundation & UK Participation Network, 1998; Public Participation Team, 2004; COSLA, 1998; Davis & Vincent, 2005; Lenos & Buurman, 2000; Gemeentebestuur Hengelo, 2005; Howell, Olsen & Olsen, 1987; Landcom, 2002; Keygnaert, 2005a; Keygnaert, 2005b; King, 1999; iPlan, 2006; Vandenabeele & Goorden, 2004.

174

21


The Danish Board of Technology, “The methods of technology assessment,” (http://www.tekno.dk, 2006,). 22 This composition is achieved by sending out a great number of invitations to a randomly selected section of the public. A representative jury is then formed on the basis of the received response. 23 These include professional experts as well as other players and interested parties. There must be a balanced mix of experts to ensure that all relevant aspects of the issue are described and discussed. 24 The Danish Board of Technology, “The methods of technology assessment,” (http://www.tekno.dk, 2006,). 25 More information: http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~bdg/pdf_docs/d/F03. pdf. 26 The Danish Board of Technology, “The methods of technology assessment,” (http://www.tekno.dk, 2006,). 27 i.e. in ordinary language, without using jargon. 28 More information: http://www.tekno.dk. 29 Meeting of Minds Europe, Meeting of Minds. European Citizens' Deliberation on Brain Science. Report on the 1st European Citizens' Convention (Brussels: Meeting of Minds Europe, 2005). 30 This is a combination of a broad opinion poll and in-depth dialogue in small groups. 31 More information: http://www.meetingmindseurope.org. 32 L. Tayart de Borms, Meeting of Minds. European Citizens' Deliberation on Brain Science (Brussels: KBS, 2005). 33 Meeting of Minds Europe, Meeting of Minds. European Citizens' Deliberation on Brain Science. Report on the 1st European Citizens' Convention (Brussels: Meeting of Minds Europe, 2005). 34 Ministry of VROM, Apparent Impenetrability. Can Citizens Participate in Europe? (Delft: Environmental Resources Management B.V., 2005). 35 Based on the ‘Mentality-model’ of Motivaction (http://www.motivaction.nl) or the classification of TNS NIPO Consult (http://www.tns-nipo-consult.com). 36 Ministerie van VROM, Beleid Met Burgers: Publieksagenda (Policy with citizens: citizens’ agenda), (The Hague: VROM, 2006); QA+, Burgerparticipatie in het Milieubeleid. Ervaringen met methoden en instrumenten in het stimuleringsprogramma burger en milieubeleid (Citizen participation in environmental policy. Experiences with methods and instruments of the policy programme citizen and environmental policy) (The Hague: Onderzoek en Adviesgroep. Questions, Answers and More bv, 2003). 37 “Technology assessment is the study and evaluation of new technologies. It is based on the conviction that new developments within, and discoveries by, the scientific community are relevant for the world at large rather than just for the scientific experts themselves, and that

Kim Loyens

175

technological progress can never be free of ethical implications” (Wikipedia). 38 e.g. café seminar, citizen’s jury, future panel, consensus conference, etc. 39 The Danish Board of Technology, “The methods of technology assessment,” (http://www.tekno.dk, 2006,).

Section 5 Environmental Activism

Promoting Environmental Citizenship? A Critique of the Moral Persuasiveness of Direct Action Environmental Protest Belinda Clements Abstract During the 1990s Britain witnessed a rapid growth in what has been termed ‘direct action’ environmental protest. This paper focuses on direct action campaigns where ‘protest camps’ have been set up at the site of a proposed development, and is based on ethnographic data and interviews with activists and local campaigners from two camps in south east England undertaken in 1999 and 2000. At each site, members from the local community had initiated campaigns by forming action groups and engaging with local decision-making processes. When these efforts appeared unsuccessful, activists (from both within and outside the community) set up a protest camp to defend physically the site of the proposed development. While the local campaigning groups were largely focused on halting the particular development in question, protest camp activists were found to have a more complex set of aims. The majority of activists interviewed were also attempting to influence the local community by demonstrating and promoting alternative relationships between both other human beings and with nature. In particular, activists maintained that they could strengthen civil society by encouraging individuals to come together and take direct responsibility for their local environment. The paper examines their attempts to do this both in terms of their moral arguments and discourses and, importantly, their actions. In so doing, this paper engages with the current debate between environmental ethics scholars as to why the majority of their ideas and arguments appear to lack purchase with environmentalists and policy-makers. Several contributors to the debate have suggested that if environmental ethicists were to reflect more on the issues and problems that environmental campaigners actually face, and use activists’ ideas and philosophies as a starting point for study, environmentalists may find environmental ethics more relevant. Key Words: direct action environmental protest, environmental ethics, moral argument, environmental citizenship. 1.

Introduction The human race, it would seem, is in trouble. Despite several decades of environmental campaigning, problems such as biodiversity loss, water supply and climate change appear to be getting worse, rather than better. While some argue that the blame for many of these problems lies with the giants of the corporate world, others maintain that we all, as

180

Promoting Environmental Citizenship?

citizens of the planet, should take personal responsibility for our own actions and lifestyles. A substantial body of literature now exists that questions our current ethical stance in relation to the world around us. Aldo Leopold notably argued more than fifty years ago that instead of seeing ourselves as “conquerors” of the land we should rather see ourselves as “plain members and citizens of it,”1 and in contrast to commonly held economic assumptions, Mark Sagoff argues that we should see ourselves not as consumers of a nature that we can buy and sell, but as citizens that should protect it.2 While not all environmental philosophers speak in terms of ‘environmental citizenship,’ the underlying message is often analogous - we should expand our current circle of ethical consideration beyond the consideration only of other human beings to include part (or all) of the non-human world. However, despite the wealth of literature proposing alternative approaches to our relationship with nature and the apparent urgency of the need to alter our behaviour, some environmental philosophers are becoming increasingly concerned that their ideas have little impact on environmental decision-making and that ‘environmental ethics’ (if recognised at all) remains a minority discipline in universities.3 The problem, some argue, is that environmental philosophers are not applying themselves to problems and issues that are central concerns for environmentalists and policy-makers.4 Light and de-Shalit5 therefore suggest an alternative approach to the study of environmental ethics. Philosophers have traditionally, they argue, reflected on ideas from within the academic community. Why not take these reflective skills, and use them to consider actual problems faced by and theories expressed by environmentalists? This, they stress, is more than simply ‘applied philosophy.’ Rather than merely using case studies to illustrate pre-defined philosophical arguments, environmental philosophers could instead use the ideas expressed by environmentalists as a starting-point for study. This paper takes this approach, which Light and de-Shalit term Public Reflective Equilibrium (PRE), and applies it to the notions of environmental citizenship expressed by two particular groups of environmental activists. According to de-Shalit, philosophical reflection should not only use ‘internal criteria’ (such as consistency, coherency and simplicity) to examine ideas, but also ‘external criteria,’ that is, Whether the theory explains what must be done, whether it relates to actual problems, and whether the intuitions tie in with other, moral and metaphysical beliefs about policies.6 In the analysis that follows the intention has therefore been to examine not only the consistency of the activists’ intuitions or theories within themselves, but also the “practicality of the theory,” i.e. how it

Belinda Clements

181

operates within its socio-environmental context.7 The analysis consequently attempts to “analyse the moral codes and imperatives latent in the practicalities and actual deeds of environmental activists, as well as in the theories they develop.”8 Thus it is not only the words that the activists speak or write that are analysed but also their actions. The paper begins by describing the particular groups of activists studied here and gives some background to the wider environmental direct action movement in Britain to which these two groups belong. In order to begin to provide some comment on their politics and intuitions we then look in more detail at what some of these activists were aiming to achieve through their protest, and discover that some activists are indeed trying to promote what is read here to be a form of ‘environmental citizenship.’ The ways in which the activists attempt to promote these ideas are then considered in more detail. First, some comment is made about the consistency of their arguments in terms of their general persuasiveness. We then look more closely at the question of whether direct action can strengthen civil society. Philosophers who have addressed this question argue that we must consider each action on a case-by-case basis. With this in mind, the two case studies are therefore examined in more detail in order to ascertain whether in each particular socio-environmental context the activists’ arguments and methods of promoting environmental citizenship were successful. 2.

Direct Action Environmental Protest During the 1990s in Britain a particular brand of environmental activism arose that rejected more established campaigning organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who, while once the radical end of the environmental movement, had come to be seen as ineffective and institutionalised by some, particularly younger, activists. Not content with going on marches and waving banners, writing letters to their democratic representatives or raising funds for environmental NGOs, these individual activists came together and took what is termed ‘direct action’ against the environmental destruction that they witnessed. Gaining initial momentum from the support for the campaign against the M3 motorway extension through the chalk downland at Twyford Down in Hampshire (Southern England) in 1992, where activists not only camped at the protest site but also physically put themselves between the bulldozers and the countryside, activists went on to undertake many highprofile (albeit often individually unsuccessful)9 campaigns against other road projects, notably at the Newbury Bypass protests in Berkshire in 1996 and the Fairmile protests in Devon in 1997, from where sprung the media icon ‘Swampy,’ one of the first activists to dig himself into a tunnel under the ground in an effort to thwart road construction. Direct action campaigners diversified to tackle issues such as runways, housing developments and genetically modified crops, but the overall ethos behind

182


the strategies remained the same: directly doing something yourself, rather than relinquishing the responsibility of taking action to an elected representative or to an established environmental campaigning group. This paper focuses on two particular protest camps in Essex (south east England) active during 1999 and 2000.10 The first of these, at Rettendon, was set up in opposition to a bypass of the A130 road that, at the time, ran straight through village, and that in recent years had been the site of a series of road accidents, some fatal. Environmental activists not only argued that the proposed bypass would destroy valuable woodland (in particular stressing the presence of mature oak trees) but were also concerned that the bypass was part of a larger plan to create an outer M25 orbital north-south road link between Chelmsford and Kent, a scheme which would encourage infill development in the area. While there had been some local activity in the form of the MWay NoWay campaign in neighbouring towns, activists living at the protest camp came largely from outside the local area. In Rettendon village itself the bypass was largely welcomed and, with the notable exception of a few very active local residents, the camp had a generally low level of local support in terms of provision of food and other supplies. After a notable eviction in FebruaryMarch 2000, during which five activists stayed in tunnels under the woodland for forty days, the bypass was completed later that year. The second protest camp considered in this paper took place in the nearby village of Hockley. In July 1999, Christina Tugwell (then aged 15) and some of her friends set up a camp in woodland opposite her home in an attempt to protect the site from sixty-six luxury homes due to be constructed by the property developers Countryside Residential. While the site attracted some ‘seasoned’ activists, it remained small, often with only five or six activists living on site. While the adjacent Beckney Woods is ancient woodland, the site of the development itself was scrub of approximately sixty years growth, which made it more unsuitable for treehouse building than more mature woodland.11 Most notable at Hockley were the actions taken by the developers to secure and evict the site. Several weeks before the camp was evicted, Countryside Residential had taken the unprecedented step of fencing off the protest camp, allowing anyone to leave the site if they wished, but not permitting anyone to return. Attempts to impede the supply of food and water to the camp were partially thwarted by the Tugwell’s solicitor, Richard Buxton, who secured a High Court injunction restraining the security staff from preventing the delivery of provisions and, further, from indulging in any form of intimidation or harassment.12 Nevertheless, the activists hold that this injunction was frequently ignored. After an apparent agreement that the activists could remain on site during the work, they were caught off guard and, before anyone could reach the tunnels under the site (although one activist managed to lock-on to a tree for a night), the camp was cleared on 1st March 2000.13 The eviction from the site was later held to be

Belinda Clements

183

unlawful by the Court of Appeal,14 and the activists and local residents maintained that the security services contracted by the developers were extremely heavy handed.15 The fencing in of the activists was widely reported in the local press as a ‘siege’ and appeared to achieve considerable sympathy for the activists.16 While each of these two camps was fighting different issues, there were notable similarities between the two camps. Both ‘failed’ in terms of stopping the particular development. A few of the activists at Rettendon also moved to the camp at Hockley, and activists drew from the environmental direct action tradition, making similar arguments and using similar tactics at each camp. However, in terms of promoting ‘environmental citizenship,’ one camp was arguably far more successful than the other. After considering the general tactics and arguments used by the activists interviewed at both camps, the paper goes on to consider why this was the case. 3.

The Activists’ Aims The aim of protest camp residents may seem obvious - they are trying to halt the particular development they are opposing. However, while there have been a few successes, protest camps are generally ineffective at stopping the particular development they are opposing. Why, then, expend so much time and energy on such a form of protest? Closer inspection of protest camp activists reveals a far more diverse range of aims than solely wanting to stop the particular development in question.17 While tactics used to resist eviction such as locking onto machinery and trees, or burying yourself in tunnels, may well serve a practical purpose by delaying the clearing of the site (and perhaps acting as a financial deterrent against future projects), they also serve to promote the protesters’ ideology. Activists are taking direct responsibility for their negative reaction to the environmental destruction, and are clearly demonstrating to the outside world their strength of feeling against the particular development.18 Doherty describes this practice of purposefully putting oneself in danger as ‘manufacturing vulnerability’ against the state, thereby asserting one’s moral high ground. “If the authorities are not going to use violence on a scale sufficient to shock the public,” Doherty asks, “how can protesters resist in such a way that maximises their effectiveness but also exposes the contrast between the force used by the authorities and protesters’ moral superiority?”19 Activists have developed a range of strategies to accentuate their vulnerability, particularly during eviction. While a few activists firmly maintained that they were there solely to stop the particular development, and that “protest camps are not about changing people’s ideas,”20 a view usually held because the activist doubted her/his ability to influence people’s ideas to any great extent, consistent with other studies of protest camp activists,21 the majority of

184


activists interviewed argued that their main aim was to promote an alternative worldview and lifestyle, and to make people “wake up” to the environmental destruction around them.22 While most were also attempting actually to stop the development, they believed it was more realistic to aim to affect people’s ideas than to ‘win’ the particular campaign. As Roo argued, “For me it’s a public awareness thing. There are cases of protest stopping developments, but the main thing is a public awareness thing.”23 It is on the arguments made by the predominant group of activists that this paper focuses. By attempting to ‘educate’ the public and encouraging people to engage directly with the fate of their physical surroundings, these activists are attempting to promote a form of environmental citizenship not dissimilar to ideas being suggested by some environmental philosophers outlined above. Pinning down any one ‘version’ of the activists’ moral arguments for us to examine is not, however, straightforward. As Seel and Plows note, if direct action environmentalists can be said to share any common philosophy at all, then it is an acceptance of the diversity of ideas within the movement.24 Nevertheless, as Seel and Plows recognise, this itself is an ideology. A recurrent theme expressed by the activists interviewed in this study was the promotion of what they referred to as anarchism, largely in terms of the importance of ‘individual autonomy.’ Activists were keen to stress that the social organisation of the camps was non-hierarchical - no one individual or group of individuals was ‘in charge.’ Wherever possible individuals made their own decisions (for example, about where to build tree defences) and when group decisions were necessary meetings were (in theory) ordered around principles of non-hierarchy. As found in other studies,25 activists emphasised the importance of creating free, autonomous spaces where individuals can flourish and which, as far as possible, were free from state intervention. Such a principle may not, at first glance, seem to say much about citizenship or social cohesion. However, inseparable from the idea of individual autonomy is the notion of individual responsibility. Rather than be led by whatever decisions had been taken by, for example, the headquarters of established environmental campaigning organisations, activists make their own decisions about how to demonstrate their strength of feeling against the environmental destruction. Current decision-making processes, they maintain, are inherently corrupt and while most do not discourage people from engaging in such processes, a two-pronged approach was needed that included local people taking direct action against the development in an attempt to even up the balance of power. By so doing, activists argue, stronger links can be made within the local community, not only in terms of the relationships between people, but also by fostering closer bonds between people and their physical environment.

Belinda Clements

185

Activists, then, hope to promote a stronger sense of environmental citizenship by encouraging people to engage in direct action. But how, exactly, do they hope to achieve this? There has been some discussion of the importance of direct action in terms of ‘image events’ - while the activists might not ‘succeed’ in immediate terms, their action may well increase public consciousness of an issue.26 If successfully captured by the media, DeLuca argues, these events may serve as what he terms ‘mind bombs’ in society by altering public consciousness. However, by the end of the 1990s, the media (certainly at a national level) appeared to have become rather weary of what had arguably become a rather formulaic form of protest. Certainly neither of the camps described here received the level of national press coverage enjoyed by, for example, the protest against the Newbury Bypass in 1996. So if they were no longer gaining much media coverage, then how did the activists hope to promote their ideology? Interestingly, the majority of activists interviewed denied that they were trying to attract the attention of the (national mainstream) media at all, and would have agreed with de-Shalit and DeLuca,27 who argue that the media coverage of direct action rarely scrapes below the surface of the ‘event’ to explore the wider context of the struggle. Instead, activists maintained they were simply attempting to affect people by setting an example for those who came in contact with them to follow. As John argued, “You’ve got to start by changing a few people, and eventually it’ll spread.”28 Activists largely appeared to focus on influencing those with whom they came into direct contact. 4.

Promoting Environmental Awareness By undertaking direct action, the majority of activists therefore hoped to promote a deeper sense of environmental citizenship amongst the local population. A vital step towards achieving this was to highlight the seriousness of environmental problems and the need for people to engage with the process of addressing these issues. In this section we look at the arguments that the activists gave for considering and campaigning on environmental issues. Unlike environmental philosophers, in large part activists did not attempt to do this through rational dialogue. They instead demonstrated their strength of feeling through their actions, both in terms of the more visible resistance to eviction of the camp and through their endurance of day-to-day living in very basic conditions. In interview, activists tended to maintain that it was through witnessing their actions and lifestyles that the local residents could be encouraged to follow their example, rather than through spoken dialogue. Even when asked specifically about the ways in which we value nature and the reasons why the woodland should be saved, most activists wanted to avoid moral debate about the rights of

186


environmental destruction, and instead asserted that we have to do it for the survival of ourselves and the planet. While activists maintained that they were attempting to avoid moral debate, such arguments in themselves do involve assumptions concerning a moral imperative to take action to protect us, other humans, future generations and, perhaps, the non-human world. In order to reflect upon the consistency and coherency of their position, activists’ interviews were therefore scrutinised in an attempt to uncover the discourses and assumptions underpinning their arguments. Johnstone urges us when we analyse discourse to scrutinise the text not only for discourses that are used, but also to consider how the text could have been different.29 What discourses that we might expect activists to have used were omitted, and why might this have been? Much of the literature in environmental ethics journals tends to focus on nonanthropocentric approaches to environmental ethics.30 However, despite the radical nature of their protest and strength of feeling against the destruction of the woodland, the activists studied here did not, in the main, use nonanthropocentric arguments for preserving the woodland, but instead articulated basic instrumental arguments concerning human health and survival. These activists vigorously argued that the main reason we should be saving the woodlands is that people need the environment ‘intact’ in order to survive. Sometimes this was expressed in broad statements such as, “At the end of the day, that’s it. We can’t keep destroying it [nature] and expect to stay alive” (Tara), or a more specific focus on the function of trees, such as from Flo, who argued, “We need more trees to live, we die if there are no trees, as simple as that.” Others were concerned with the more specific local health risks associated with increased traffic from the development. Dales, in addition to discussing the necessity of trees for the survival of the planet, went on to explain that if we carry on destroying woodland, “Pretty soon people are just like, everyone’s going to have asthma”. And, in the main, activists did not use discourses about nature that we would recognise from nonanthropocentric philosophies such as deep ecology, which often focus on the preservation of ‘wilderness’ to the extent that humans are to be excluded from ‘wild’ areas.31 For the activists interviewed here, the emphasis was not on the exclusion of humans from wilderness but on our greater need for connection with such ‘green spaces.’ While Flo, for example, was concerned that “there’s not that much proper countryside, there’s no moors, there’s no real wild places around here,” her concern was not only to conserve wildlife habitat but also that people should have access to it. As she explained, “This is a nice little space, and there isn’t much around here at all for kids to play in safely and stuff.” My argument that this indicates that they are not using ecocentric arguments may be rather simplistic. Central to deep ecology, for example,

Belinda Clements

187

is the notion that we should directly experience our natural surroundings in order to recognise its value. Nonanthropocentric arguments do not preclude human-use values; they additionally extend the consideration of value to the nonhuman world. Nevertheless, for the majority of activists, the value of the woodland was defined largely in terms of the survival (both physically and psychologically) of people. In addition to basic human survival and health concerns, for over half of the activists interviewed the recreational loss to the local community was also an important consideration.32 It was anthropocentric arguments that were most commonly and forcefully used by the activists, and these activists appear to support the contention that environmentalists tend to find such arguments for protecting the environment more compelling than nonanthropocentric ones.33 And where the need for a closer relationship with nature was stressed, this was not presented as a prima facie ‘right’ to have access to the countryside, but was instead expressed in terms of our psychological need to foster closer relationships with nature. Another striking omission was the lack of scientific argument used to back up their claims about the value of the woodland. As Szerszynski notes, in general; The environmental movement, while in many ways hostile to modern science, has at the same time depended for much of its social authority on scientific, seemingly morally neutral, claims about the physical threats produced by present social trajectories.34 In other words, while some environmental groups may bemoan the effect on society and nature of technological progress, expert, scientific knowledge is often seen to give an accurate and unproblematic reflection of environmental problems and is used to legitimate the environmentalists’ claims. However, the activists studied here rarely used scientific discourse or ‘facts’ to make the case for preserving the particular site under threat. Although occasionally the value of the area was defined in part in terms of the presence of rare species, such as at Hockley, where activists and local campaigners both focused on the loss of habitat for the great-crested newt, even broadly scientific terms such as the ‘biodiversity’ of the area were rarely used. Even where activists did speak in terms of what they were doing being the ‘right’ thing to do (and indicated some degree of moral judgement), rather than using reasoned, philosophical argument or emphasising the value of the area with recourse to scientific knowledge, activists instead tended to argue that saving the woodland simply seemed to them to be the most obvious course of action. Activists intuitively felt that “If it’s trashing something beautiful, then it’s not on” (Steph), and Coffee said that he left his post as a security guard at one camp and joined

188


the activists because “I just thought to myself, these people are right in what they’re doing.” Interestingly, this approach does have parallels with deep ecology - the implication is that activists intuitively know the value of the site because they live in and experience its value. But while such intuitionism has a rich philosophical historical legacy in the study of epistemology, 35 several commentators have pointed to failings in the arguments concerning the use of intuitionism by deep ecologists.36 While deep ecologists overcome the problem of explaining why their intuitions are more reliable than, say, the road builders’ by emphasising their direct experience of nature, this argument has a number of flaws. First of all, far from removing any ‘ontological divide’ between people and nature (as deep ecologists purport to do), it instead maintains this divide; implicit within the assumption that we can instead live our lives within nature is the supposition that it is possible to live a life outside nature. Such a position risks failure to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of our socio-environmental relations. Second, even if we loosely define those people who are actively living in and experiencing nature as people who perhaps work and live in remote rural areas, what does this theory say about the people who lead this kind of life, and yet do not share the intuitions of deep ecologists? And as Humphrey asks, is it not likely that; The decision to go and live an active life in nature will itself be the result of, not a cause of, a set of strong intuitions about the value and beauty of nature[?] The process of living in nature would thus be reinforcing, rather than transforming, a set of already extant intuitions37. Such an argument is therefore rather circular. Activists who argue that they have an intuitive urge to save the woodland offer no clear argument to persuade those for whom it is not obvious. Rather than using moral debate or scientific discourse, when arguing that the woodland should be saved activists instead resorted to what Johnstone recognises as a widespread strategy used to circulate or reproduce discourse: assertion.38 Rather than presenting themselves as ‘supposers’ of what is happening in the world, activists instead put themselves forward as ‘knowers.’ The truth-status of their knowledge about the world was presented as irrefutable, as indeed was their ‘knowledge’ of policy-makers’ motivations and the ideas and opinions held by the general public. Activists not only spoke in very certain terms about the “fact that there’s not much countryside left” (Flo), but also that people “know that they’re consuming the planet and poisoning people” (Bob). The general public was presented as, at best, ill-informed about the effects of their actions or, at worst, as knowing but simply not caring.

Belinda Clements

189

Even if members of the general public were presented as ‘dopes’ who could not help but blindly follow the powerful capitalist propaganda, by implication this still makes them more stupid than the activists, who have somehow been able to pull free from this influence and see the ‘true’ way of the world. This notion of the conceptual separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ was perhaps most succinctly manifest in the use of the pejorative term ‘Babylon’ which was used by many of the activists to describe anyone viewed as outside of the activist or counter-cultural community. In general, activists did not use moral discourse of the type promoted by nonanthropocentric environmental philosophers when trying to persuade others of the importance of addressing environmental issues. And, while they stressed the need for people to reengage with nature, neither was this based on any ‘rights’ people had to access to the countryside or with recourse to scientific arguments, rather it was presented forcefully as simply ‘common sense’ necessity. By considering the philosophical basis of this position, some comment has been made about the persuasiveness of this position - in general, the intuitionist argument is unlikely to be credible to those who do not already share the activists’ assumptions about the world, and it is doubtful that the portrayal of themselves as ‘knowers’ in contrast to the public’s blind faith in ‘progress’ will be persuasive to those outside of the counter-cultural community. 5.

Direct Action - Strengthening Civil Society? Highlighting the importance of environmental issues was not, however, the only way in which activists hoped to promote environmental citizenship. A key argument from the activists is that by undertaking direct action against developments that threaten woodland they can demonstrate an alternative politics and way of life to local communities, which in turn can strengthen the position of these individuals to take collective action on future environmental issues and to engage in decision-making about the immediate localities. In this section of the paper we therefore look more closely at the question of whether direct action can strengthen civil society in this way. While there is not a wealth of literature concerning direct action in the environmental ethics literature, some discussion has been undertaken to examine the notion that direct action is ‘good’ for civil society.39 The central argument in support of direct action is that it encourages participation in the democratic process, thereby strengthening democracy. Following the assumption that we do not all have an equal share of power in the democratic process, ‘civil disobedience’ is therefore justifiable and, even, required in order to highlight inequalities and to change unfair laws. While under initial analysis the covert nature of some of the activists’ activities could arguably exclude their actions from standard use of the term, Welchman argues that the currently accepted

190


definition of civil disobedience is too narrow and, if properly revised, would include environmental direct action.40 Martin and Young explore whether ‘ecosabotage’41 can be justified using consequentialist analysis, a philosophical mainstay of accepted notions of utilitarianism in democratic societies.42 A key criticism levelled against ecoactivists, they argue, is that condoning breaking the law can erode the ‘moral fabric’ of society. This, Martin reasons, has little support under consequentialist analysis, largely because there is little evidence to support the claim that such erosion takes place, and he holds that ‘ecosabotage’ can therefore be justified in some instances. Young goes on to consider a further argument that he terms the ‘appeal to moral consistency.’43 Assuming that activists do not wish to support all forms of sabotage from any political or social groups, Young searches for any generalised principles that make ecosabotage justifiable. Environmental activists tend to argue that their goals are of the utmost importance to the survival of the world, and that their form of sabotage can be therefore justified. However, as Young points out, most saboteurs of any political persuasion think their goals are important. Therefore unless all acts of sabotage are to be allowed under the activists’ arguments, then something must be different about ecosabotage that always justifies it. Such a general justification, Young believes, cannot be found. Each act must therefore be judged using a consequentialist analysis, with sufficient evidence that the consequences of not undertaking the act of ecosabotage are worse than if it is undertaken. Like Martin, Young therefore concludes that ecosabotage must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Such approaches to justifying the morality (and thereby defensibility) of the activists are, however, problematic for several reasons. The first is raised by the authors themselves, and is that of determining the criteria for such a calculation. Young argues that it would be unfair to judge such a question solely on whether the protests ‘win’ the particular campaigns.44 It is the nature of democracy that not every challenge to the existing order will be successful - not all legal campaigns ‘win,’ but few deny that such challenges are not vital to the democratic process. As we have also seen in this paper, Young points out that the activists have a range of aims. They may attempt merely to stall a project until other forms of campaigning, such as legal challenges, succeed; they may want to discourage similar developments in the future or, as has been argued in this paper, they may be attempting to promote a stronger sense of environmental citizenship. It is difficult to judge whether the activists have been ‘successful’ if we are not clear on the aim of the campaign. In addition, the complexity of environmental issues should not be underestimated. How to judge whether a campaign has made the environment ‘better’ is an extremely problematic question. Second, it

Belinda Clements

191

should be noted that the basis of these arguments (particularly from Martin and Young) tends to be from an analysis of the written work of a few activists (largely the North American Earth First! activist Dave Foreman) and therefore neglects an analysis of the philosophies of the wider activist community as advocated by the PRE approach adopted here. Furthermore, the arguments in the papers are from a North American (or, in the case of Young, Australian45) perspective and do not take into account the specific nature of the British direct action movement.46 6.

Promoting Environmental Citizenship? The above examination of the moral arguments used by direct action environmentalists at protest camps has not revealed a firm basis from which to promote environmental citizenship and has suggested that their arguments are not likely to be persuasive to those who are not already sympathetic to their perspective. A brief précis of the consideration by other authors of environmental direct action indicates that while in general the authors are positive about the possibility of direct action strengthening civil society, the conclusion that tends to be drawn is that each case should be judged on its individual merits. While, as noted above, this is not an easy task, this section attempts to assess and compare the two protest camps. As we have seen above, activists tend to use anthropocentric arguments for preserving the woodland rather than ecocentric justifications. However, despite this, local residents at Rettendon appeared to resent the activists’ position, and commonly believed that activists held that preserving the woodland was more important than the lives of the children who might be injured or killed if the bypass to the village was not completed. While in interview some activists stressed that theirs was not a ‘no roads anywhere’ message, and had specific concerns about the viability of this bypass, this subtlety seems to have been missed by most local resident interviewees. In the main, local residents who were not already sympathetic to the activists’ cause seemed unmoved by their perspective, and it was not clear that the local community were brought together or empowered in any sense by the protest - those local residents who did support the camp apparently felt significant hostility from some other villagers. The anarchist message of individual autonomy and responsibility appeared to be lost on those interviewed - indeed, the ‘anarchist’ label itself was used negatively by residents who otherwise in favour of the camp, who tended to distinguish between the ‘true ecos,’ who were thought to be “good people,” and the ‘anarchists’ who were thought to be troublemakers who were “not really bothered about the trees.”47 In contrast to this, despite the comparatively low numbers of activists at the camp, local residents at Hockley appeared to have been more positively affected by the activists’ arguments of the wider effects of

192


the destruction of the woodland, and the community appeared to have been brought together by the protest. There could be several reasons for this. First, many villagers at Rettendon were in favour of the bypass for reasons of safety. Few people, however, are likely to be in favour of a housing development adjacent to their property as at Hockley. Second, activists at Rettendon remained more like ‘outsiders’ to the community than at Hockley. The camp at Rettendon was some distance from the village and was only passed by dog-walkers, whereas the camp at Hockley was very close to local houses. Moreover, the camp at Hockley had been started by a local resident, whereas activists at Rettendon appeared to have far fewer links with local residents. However, whether the camp at Hockley promoted the form of environmental citizenship promoted by activists discussed in this paper is debatable. While some locals called for greater accountability of elected representatives, those local residents interviewed rarely picked up on the more radical political message promoted by activists. Where some local residents did profess to have been ‘radicalised’ by their involvement in the campaign and had become disillusioned with current forms of democracy, arguably this was due to their frustration with the planning system and a resulting feeling that ‘the system’ failed to take their ideas on board during the decision-making process, rather than that the protest camp necessarily highlighted these issues. Local campaigners tended to focus in interview on the details of their local campaigns and suspected corruption at the level of the local council, rather than on broader scale environmental or social problems. While they therefore supported the activists’ actions, many felt that ‘protest camp activism’ was not a realistic option for them.48 What reasons can be suggested from the discussions given in this paper for the failure to radicalise most local residents? As we saw above, in the main activists maintained that they were attempting to promote their perspective through their actions, rather than through reasoned argument. At both camps activists utilised tactics that Doherty would see as ‘manufacturing vulnerability.’49 On one level, even at Rettendon such techniques proved productive. The five activists appeared to increase local support considerably by staying underground for forty days - local residents who had previously thought little of the activists expressed some respect for their commitment to the issue, although there was some concern when it was reported in the local press that taxpayers money would be used to foot the £6 million bill for the eviction.50 Similarly, the siege at Hockley before the camp residents’ eviction gained considerable support in the local press.51 Through such actions activists can demonstrate their strength of feeling for protecting the woodland and can suggest some kind of moral high ground over the developers. Nevertheless, while in this sense they may be effective, such actions can also have a negative impact in terms of

Belinda Clements

193

encouraging other local residents to take action. The recurrent image (portrayed both by journalists and by activists themselves) of the brave, fearless ‘eco-warrior’ fighting for the woodland was recognised by some activists to be itself a barrier to participation in the camps. As Tara maintained, on the one hand the image served to highlight the activists’ strength of feeling by …showing people there’s people willing to fight for a site or that particular tree, know what I mean, a hero in a tree you know in a newspaper or something, then someone’s going to think, ‘Bloody hell, they really, really care about that.’ On the other hand, earlier in the interview she had explained that through direct action she hoped to demonstrate a way of tackling issues that other people could emulate, so she wanted to make clear that she was ..no different from anyone else… I’m essentially no different from all the next-door neighbours, all the people who live in the street. I’m not some hero, or some eco-warrior or anything like that. Furthermore, she criticised journalists for putting forward the image of the eco-warrior: They do also have this eco-warrior thing, you know, ‘It’s not your normal person, it’s some special being, completely different to you, so you stay at home now, and leave them to it,’ which is not true. Although activists hope to empower people by showing them ways to create power and fight social and environmental injustice, they are then in danger of creating an image that most people feel unable to follow. The practice of ‘manufacturing vulnerability’ to create a moral high ground necessarily sets the activists apart from the ‘normal’ population. In general, local residents interviewed in this study did describe their gratitude in terms of the activists being there on “their behalf” and “admired them” for doing something that they themselves would not or could not do.52 Moreover, the decentralist style of camp politics frustrated rather than impressed many local residents (and, in fact, some camp residents) interviewed, as they felt that so much more could have been achieved with a little more organisation, and the activists’ counter-cultural image was found off-putting by some residents. The suggestions in this section of the extent to which activists transmitted their ideas and values to local residents are tentative, not least

194


because it was not possible to interview local residents before each camp was in place to make a comparative study. While during interviews with local residents and campaigners the ways in which their attitudes towards the activists had changed were discussed, it is likely that any recollections of their thoughts about activists and the issues they raised would have been tempered by their current attitudes. It is also worth noting that not all of the interviews with local campaigners took place before the camp was evicted. Whether or not the camp was at the time seen as ‘worthwhile’ may have been in large part influenced by whether or not they had ‘failed’ (or succeeded) at the time of interview. Nevertheless, some propositions have been made as to why these particular protest camps did not appear to radicalise those local residents interviewed in this study. 7.

Conclusion What, then, did the activists achieve? The conclusions above may seem rather harsh or unrepresentative to some readers. But the purpose of this paper is not to provide an overt criticism of all direct action environmentalists; far from it. The objective has merely been to examine one aim expressed by some of the activists, and to use the PRE approach outlined at the start of the paper to examine why the activists might or might not have been successful in terms of one, arguably narrow, view of a type of environmental citizenship that some activists maintained they were attempting to promote. But given the parameters of the paper, the general conclusion drawn from the type of methods that the activists use to persuade others to follow their example is that, in the main, their verbal arguments are unlikely to be persuasive to those who are not already sympathetic to their position - it is doubtful the intuitionist argument will be credible to those who do not already share the activists’ assumptions about the world, and the portrayal of themselves as ‘knowers’ in contrast to the public’s blind faith in ‘progress’ is unlikely to be appealing to those outside of the counter-cultural community. Furthermore, the ‘eco-warrior’ style of protest and decentralist forms of decision-making on camp could be a barrier to participation. As we saw, while at Hockley the activists gained more support (as we would expect from the particular circumstances of the camp), the radical political message was not adopted by those locals interviewed. Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that these protests ‘failed.’ The situations at both Rettendon and Hockley have necessarily been simplified for the sake of this paper, and the evidence on which the conclusions are based is far from conclusive. Activists may sow a seed in someone’s mind that may not take effect for many months or years. This research merely hopes to explore the ways in which environmental philosophy could be more useful to environmentalists and policy makers. The question of whether this has been achieved here is left open.

Belinda Clements

195

Notes 1

Aldo Leopold A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there. (London: OUP, 1949). 2 Mark Sagoff The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and Environment. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988). 3 Andrew Light and Eric Katz ‘Introduction: Environmental pragmatism and environmental ethics as contested terrain’ Environmental Pragmatism. ed. Andrew Light and Eric Katz (London: Routledge, 1996) 1-20; Eric Hargrove, ‘After Fifteen Years,’ Environmental Ethics 15(4) (1993): 2912; Eric Hargrove, ‘What’s Wrong? Who’s to Blame?’ Environmental Ethics 25(1) (2003) 3-4; A. Gare, ‘MacIntyre, Narratives, and Environmental Ethics’ Environmental Ethics 20(1) (1998): 3-21; Avner de-Shalit, The Environment - Between Theory and Practice. (Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2000); Kate Rawls , ‘The Missing Shade of Green’ in Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism, ed. D. Marietta and L. Embree (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995), 149-167 4 Ben Minteer and R. Manning, ‘Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics: Democracy, Pluralism, and the Management of Nature’ Environmental Ethics 21(2) (1999): 191-207. Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit, ‘Introduction: Environmental Ethics - Whose Philosophy? Which Practice?’ in Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice. ed. Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit (London: MIT Press, 2000), 1-28; B. Norton, ‘Applied Philosophy versus Practical Philosophy: Toward an Environmental Policy Integrated According to Scale’ in Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism. ed. D. Marietta and L. Embree Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995) 125-148. de-Shalit. 5 Light and de-Shalit. 6 de-Shalit, 31. 7 de-Shalit, 33. 8 Ibid. 9 While individual campaigns may be ‘lost,’ the argument from many activists is that they are nevertheless ‘winning the war’ in that their message is being taken more seriously and wider government policy aims are shifting (see, for example Ben Seel ‘If Not You, Then Who?’ Earth First in the UK’ Environmental Politics 6(4) (1997): 172-179 and Derek Wall Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement (London: Routledge, 1999). For a critique of this argument, see Avner de-Shalit ‘Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign’ Environmental Politics 10(1) (2001): 111-137 and Nick Robinson ‘The politics of the car: the limits of actor-centred models of agenda setting’ in

196


Direct Action in British Environmentalism ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000),199-217. 10 This empirical data for this paper has been selected from a study of four protest camps and is based upon ethnographic and interview data from the four research sites. Activists’ names have been changed. See Bindi Daly Direct Action Environmental Protest in Britain. A Critique of Radical Environmentalism and Environmental Ethics. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 2005. 11 The area had previously been ‘plotlands’ (small plots of land on which town and city dwellers built small cottages and shacks as weekend retreats). Interestingly, this meant that the area was technically classified a ‘brownfield’ site, and therefore an area favourable for housing development for local councils keen to keep development statistics on ‘greenfield’ areas to a minimum. 12 Dated 24th February 2000, Claim No. CBO 90004. 13 The eviction at Hockley was consequently likely to have been less costly to the developer than at Rettendon. Activists at Hockley believed they cost Countryside Residential £3million, although I was unable to corroborate this figure. Reports suggested that the cost of the eviction at Rettendon was closer to £6million, see S. Clow, ‘Eco-Protest Has Cost £6M’ Essex Chronicle, 17 March 2000, 1. 14 R. Macrory, ‘Eco-protesters win test case against developers’ ENDS Report 303, April 2000, 56-67. 15 Activists usually occupy sites under Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which effectively results in the developers having to take the activists to court to prove possession of the land before they can begin eviction, as long as activists can squat the land unnoticed for twenty-four hours and put up a ‘Section 6’ notice. The Court of Appeal, in what Macrory (Ecoprotesters win test case: 57) describes as a “rare legal victory for environmental protesters,” ruled that, because the developers were not in occupation and control of the site, and were merely licensees, they did not have sufficient right of possession to evict trespassers. This decision was in contrast to (and, in fact, sought to distinguish itself from) a decision made at the Manchester Airport evictions, and Macrory does argue that this “indicates that some Court of Appeal judges felt that the Manchester Airport decision was somewhat bullish” (ibid).. 16 See, for example, J. Donovan, ‘Eco-Battle at Hockley’ The Courier, 6 March 2000, 12. 17 See Ben Seel and Alex Plows, ‘Coming live and direct: strategies of Earth First!’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000), 112132; Derek Wall ‘Snowballs, elves and skimmingtons?: genealogies of direct action’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000) 79-93;

Belinda Clements

197

Daly Direct Action Environmental Protest in Britain; and Wall Earth First! and the anti-roads movement. 18 F. Ridley, ‘Crusaders and Politicians’ Parliamentary Affairs 51(3) (1998): 309-313; Brian Doherty ‘Opposition to Road-Building’ Parliamentary Affairs 51(3) (1998): 370-383; Brian Doherty ‘Manufactured vulnerability: protest camp tactics’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000), 62-78. Doherty, B., Seel, B. and Paterson, M (2000) ‘Direct action in British environmentalism’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000), 1-24. Seel ‘If not you then who?’. Wall Earth First! and the anti-roads movement. 19 Doherty ‘Opposition to Road-Building’ 381). 20 ‘Joff’ in interview 21 Wall Earth First! and the anti-roads movement. P. North (‘Save our Solsbury!’: The Anatomy of an Anti-Roads Protest’ Environmental Politics 7(3) (1998) 1-25 22 e.g. ‘Dales’ in interview 23 Fieldnotes 11/02/00 Rettendon. 24 Seel and Plows ‘Coming live and direct’ 25 Ben Seel ‘Strategies of Resistance at the Pollock Free State Protest Camp’ Environmental Politics 6(4) (1997): 108-139; Wall Earth First! and the anti-roads movement. 26 See, for example, Kevin DeLuca Image Politics - The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism (New York: Guildford, 1999); Matthew Paterson (2000) ‘Swampy Fever: media constructions and direct action politics’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000), 151-166. 27 de-Shalit ‘Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign’ and DeLuca Image Politics. 28 ‘John’ in interview. 29 B. Johnstone Discourse Analysis. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002). 30 de-Shalit The Environment - Between Theory and Practice. 31 See, for example, Arne Naess ‘The Shallow and the Deep: Long Range Ecology Movements’ Inquiry 16(1) (1973): 95-100; Bill Devall and George Sessions Deep Ecology - Living as if Nature Mattered (Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1985). 32 That discourses of wilderness preservation were not prevalent should not overly surprise us - the emphasis on a reverence for untouched ‘wilderness’ found in the nineteenth century Romanticism that informed the Preservationist movement has been less prominent in British environmentalism than in other countries, perhaps due to the lack of wilderness left in Britain (see inter alia W. Rudig ‘Between Moderation and Marginalization: Environmental Radicalism in Britain’ in Ecological

198


Resistance Movements ed. B. Taylor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995). 219-240 33 This is an argument commonly made by pragmatist environmental philosophers. 34 Bron Szerszynski ‘On knowing what to do: environmentalism and the modern problematic’ in Risk, Environment and Modernity. ed. Scott Lash, Bron Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (London: Sage, 1996) 104-137 p.112 35 See for example J. McMahan ‘Moral Intuition’ in The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory ed. H. LaFollette (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000): 92-109. 36 de-Shalit The Environment - Between Theory and Practice and M. Humphrey ‘Intuition, Reason and Environmental Argument’ in Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice ed. Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit (London: MIT Press 2003): 45-76 37 Humphrey, 53 38 Johnstone Discourse Analysis. 39 See, for example, T. Young ‘The Morality of Ecosabotage’ Environmental Values 10 (2003) 385-93; J. Welchman ‘Is ecosabotage civil disobedience? Philosophy and Geography 4(1) (2001): 97-107; R. Young ‘‘Monkeywrenching’ and the Processes of Democracy’ Environmental Politics 4(4) (1995): 199-214; M. Martin, ‘Ecosabotage and Civil Disobedience’ Environmental Ethics 12(4) (1990): 291-310. 40 Welchman ‘Is Ecosabotage Civil Disobedience?’ 41 ‘Ecosabotage’ refers to the practice of sabotaging equipment and machinery used, for example, to clear woodland for road building. 42 Martin ‘Ecosabotage and Civil Disobedience’ and Young ‘The Morality of Ecosabotage’ 43 Young ‘The Morality of Ecosabotage’ 44 Young ‘‘Monkeywrenching’ and the Processes of Democracy’ 45 Young ‘‘Monkeywrenching’ and the Processes of Democracy’ 46 Young’s conclusion that ‘ecosabotage’ can strengthen democracy is made from the assumption that the activists “profess no revolutionary goals, only a concern to defend the environment” (Young ‘‘Monkeywrenching’ and the Processes of Democracy’: 201). Whether or not this is indeed true of all environmental activists in either North America or Australia (which is doubtful, although such a question is beyond the scope of this chapter), such an assumption certainly cannot be applied to all activists in the British context. This might suggest that the more radical aims of some activists preclude any assertion that they, in fact, strengthen current democratic processes here. 47 Fieldnotes 27/06/00 Rettendon. 48 See Wall Earth First!, Robinson ‘The politics of the car’ and G. Cathles ‘Friends and Allies: the role of local campaign groups’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism. ed. B. Seel, M. Paterson and B. Doherty (London: Routledge, 2000). 167-182

Belinda Clements

199

49

Doherty ‘Opposition to Road-Building’ Clow ‘Eco-Protest Has Cost £6M’ 51 Donovan, ‘Eco-Battle at Hockley’ 52 Fieldnotes 06/06/00 Hockley. 50

Bibliography Cathles, G. ‘Friends and Allies: the role of local campaign groups’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism. edited by B. Seel, M. Paterson and B. Doherty ,67-182, London: Routledge, 2000. Daly, B. Direct Action Environmental Protest in Britain. A Critique of Radical Environmentalism and Environmental Ethics. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 2005. DeLuca, K. Image Politics - The New Rhetoric of Environmental Activism. New York: Guildford, 1999. de-Shalit, A. The Environment - Between Theory and Practice. Oxford: University of Oxford Press, 2000. de-Shalit, A. ‘Ten Commandments of How to Fail in an Environmental Campaign’ Environmental Politics 10(1) (2001): 111-137 Devall, B. and G. Sessions Deep Ecology - Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, 1985. Doherty, B. ‘Opposition to Road-Building’ Parliamentary Affairs 51(3) (1998): 370-383. Doherty, B ‘Manufactured vulnerability: protest camp tactics’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty. London: Routledge, 2000. 62-78. Doherty, B., Seel, B. and Paterson, M (2000) ‘Direct action in British environmentalism’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, ed. Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty. London: Routledge, 2000. 124. Gare, A. ‘MacIntyre, Narratives, and Environmental Ethics 20(1) (1998): 3-21.

Environmental

Ethics’

200


Hargrove, E. ‘After Fifteen Years,’ Environmental Ethics 15(4) (1993): 291-2. Hargrove, E. ‘What’s Wrong? Who’s to Blame?’ Environmental Ethics 25(1) (2003) 3-4. Humphrey, H. ‘Intuition, Reason and Environmental Argument’ in Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice edited by Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit, 45-76, London: MIT Press, 2003. Johnstone, J. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there. London: OUP, 1949. Light, A. and E. Katz ‘Introduction: Environmental pragmatism and environmental ethics as contested terrain’ in Environmental Pragmatism edited by Andrew Light and Eric Katz, 1-20. London: Routledge, 1996. 120. Light, A. and Avner de-Shalit, ‘Introduction: Environmental Ethics Whose Philosophy? Which Practice?’ in Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice. edited by Andrew Light and Avner de-Shalit, 128, London: MIT Press, 2000. Minteer, B. and R. Manning, ‘Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics: Democracy, Pluralism, and the Management of Nature’ Environmental Ethics 21(2) (1999): 191-207. Macrory, R. ‘Eco-protesters win test case against developers’ ENDS Report 303, April 2000, 56-67. Martin, M. ‘Ecosabotage and Civil Disobedience’ Environmental Ethics 12(4) (1990): 291-310. McMahan, J. ‘Moral Intuition’ in The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory edited by H. LaFollette, 92-109. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. Naess, A. ‘The Shallow and the Deep: Long Range Ecology Movements’ Inquiry 16(1) (1973). North, P. ‘Save our Solsbury!’: The Anatomy of an Anti-Roads Protest’ Environmental Politics 7(3) (1998) 1-25.

Belinda Clements

201

Norton, B. ‘Applied Philosophy versus Practical Philosophy: Toward an Environmental Policy Integrated According to Scale’ in Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism. edited by D. Marietta and L. Embree, 125-148, Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1995. Paterson, M. (2000) ‘Swampy Fever: media constructions and direct action politics’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, edited by Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty, 151-166, London: Routledge, 2000, 151-166. Rawls, K. ‘The Missing Shade of Green’ in Environmental Philosophy and Environmental Activism, edited by D. Marietta and L. Embree, 147167, Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield: 1995. Ridley, F. ‘Crusaders and Politicians’ Parliamentary Affairs 51(3) (1998): 309-313. Robinson, N. ‘The politics of the car: the limits of actor-centred models of agenda setting’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism edited by Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty, 1999-217, London: Routledge, 2000. Rudig, W. ‘Between Moderation and Marginalization: Environmental Radicalism in Britain’ in Ecological Resistance Movements edited by B. Taylor, 219-240, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Sagoff, M. The Economy of the Earth: Philosophy, Law and Environment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Seel, B. ‘If Not You, Then Who?’ Earth First in the UK’ Environmental Politics 6(4) (1997) ): 172-179. Seel, B. ‘Strategies of Resistance at the Pollock Free State Protest Camp’ Environmental Politics 6(4) (1997): 108-139. Seel, B. and Alex Plows, ‘Coming live and direct: strategies of Earth First!’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, edited by Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty, 112-132, London: Routledge, 2000. Szerszynski, B. ‘On knowing what to do: environmentalism and the modern problematic’ in Risk, Environment and Modernity. edited by Scott Lash, Bron Szerszynski and Brian Wynne, 104-137, London: Sage, 1996. Wall, D. Earth First! and the Anti-Roads Movement. London: Routledge, 1999.

202


Wall, D. ‘Snowballs, elves and skimmingtons?: genealogies of direct action’ in Direct Action in British Environmentalism, edited by Ben Seel, Matthew Paterson and Brian Doherty, 79-93, London: Routledge, 2000. Welchman, J. ‘Is ecosabotage civil disobedience? Philosophy and Geography 4(1) (2001): 97-107. Young, R. ‘‘Monkeywrenching’ and the Processes of Democracy’ Environmental Politics 4(4) (1995): 199-214. Young, T. ‘The Morality of Ecosabotage’ Environmental Values 10 (2003) 385-93.

How many Koalas are there on Kangaroo Island? Sarah Wilks Abstract The public debate about the most appropriate way to manage an overabundant population of introduced but highly charismatic animals on Kangaroo Island, South Australia was examined. 18 Koalas were introduced to the island in the 1920s in response to concerns about their survival on the mainland, and in the absence of any population check, increased greatly in numbers. By the 1990s, large, concentrated populations of Koalas had caused extensive tree deaths and resulting environmental damage; there were economic and animal welfare issues associated with this. Using an Actor Network Approach, this study aimed to discover why what could have been a clear cut animal management exercise had become problematic. The ensuing tale of different understandings of the animals, the environment and of other peoples’ motivations, demonstrates how a perverse outcome - no effective measures to address the problem has eventuated; despite the existence of an organisation dedicated solely to serving the interests of all Koalas, everywhere, the Koalas on Kangaroo Island remain overabundant and vulnerable to not just the effects of their own overpopulation (starvation etc) but also to possible informal attempts to limit their numbers by the deliberate introduction of disease or by shooting. Keywords: Actor Network Theory, Koalas on Kangaroo Island, Human dimensions of wildlife management. 1.

Introduction This study aimed to dissect the heated and complex public debate about the management of Koalas on Kangaroo Island. The island is home to approximately 4,000 people who are mainly engaged in primary production and tourism-related activities. Kangaroo Island is a significant destination for overseas visitors and ecotourism activities, reflective of its relatively unspoilt state and considerable ecological capital. Mainly as a result of media coverage and the activities of the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) the issue of Koalas on the island has become a topic of debate nationally and internationally. Public statements and opinion pieces by “experts” abound; “farmers” are periodically reported in the media as illegally killing koalas; the AKF deploys a large support base (many overseas) of letter writers; and the present (State) Government, having made political capital of the issue whilst in opposition, is mindful of the political consequences of any eventual course

204

How many Koalas are there on Kangaroo Island?

of action. Meanwhile, the opportunity to propose expensive high-tech fixes was not lost on some scientists, to the dismay of the local populace who have only two sealed roads. As the debate plays out, a population of over 30 000 introduced herbivores are quietly and steadily chewing the trees to death, spreading silently along riparian zones and remnant vegetation, leaving dead and dying trees behind them. The study explored different actors’ different understandings of Koalas, each other, and the situation on the island. Of particular interest were the ways in which knowledge and information- about koalas, the environment, other groups- became transformed in order to better suit the purposes of the main players, and how these different constructions were then used as devices to influence the management outcomes. 2.

About Kangaroo Island: An Ecological Treasure Kangaroo Island (KI) lies 12 km south west of the Fleurieu peninsula, South Australia. The island was occupied by Aborigines until about 2,250 years ago when it was apparently abandoned.1 KI covers an area of approximately 4,500 square kilometers, almost half still covered by native vegetation, nearly 30% as National Park.2 The island’s flora and fauna is diverse; 1,179 plant species occur on the island, 45 endemic. Eighteen endemic terrestrial mammals and three introduced native species are present (platypus, koala, ring-tail possum). A. Koalas on Kangaroo Island As a response to concerns about the survival of Koalas on the mainland, 18 Koalas were introduced to the Flinders Chase National Park, on the western corner of the island, in the 1920s. The introducees subsequently multiplied rapidly. Koalas were reportedly ‘present in hundreds’ by 1948; the population doubling time indicates that the numbers could have been very large by that time. Eyewitness accounts concur; that Koalas increased in numbers very rapidly but virtually unnoticed except by some Parks Officers and a few landholders on properties adjoining the National Park. Older islanders reported Koalas and concomitant defoliation spreading along riparian zones from one property to the next in considerable detail. The island population is Chlamydia free and there are no dingoes on the island3. The natural history of the Koala is well understood.4 Medium sized arboreal marsupials, Koalas feed on only four or five species of Eucalyptus tree. Koalas are ‘messy’ feeders, damaging more foliage than they consume, and cause tree damage when present at high densities. If subject to continuous long term browsing, a food tree will eventually die. The Eucalypt species on KI succumb more readily than mainland species; they have not been selected for resistance to heavy browsing,5 having existed in an environment free of Koalas until comparatively recently. A

Sarah Wilks

205

complicating factor is the presence of other tree stressors such as edge effects and fertiliser run-off from farming, salinity, Phytopthera6 infections and heavy insect infestations, the susceptibility to which varies between species; therefore assigning blame for tree deaths to Koala browsing is contestable, and is contested. By 1965 severe tree damage in areas containing high densities of Koalas had been reported.7 Small scale translocations from Flinders Chase commenced in the 1950s and continued until official management was suspended in the 1970s. By the early 1990s, overabundant Koala populations and the environmental consequences of over browsing, including widespread tree deaths in some areas, attracted the attention of authorities, scientists and conservationists. Ball estimated that by 2002 the Koalas had entirely eliminated many localised food tree populations and that half the island’s total population of the most favoured (endemic) Eucalypt species had been destroyed by Koala browsing.8 Besides the environmental problems caused by widespread deaths among trees in riparian environments, another threat is posed by uncontrolled Koala browsing. Eucalyptus baxterii is the second or third most common tree species on Kangaroo Island and is the predominant species along roadsides. There is potential for very widespread adverse environmental consequences if Koala populations are allowed to cause significant deaths among this species. In addition, substantial Koala populations using the baxteriis as corridors will inevitably spread further eastwards, eventually reaching the currently unaffected Dudley Peninsula. B. Koala management Koalas are protected by legislation in all jurisdictions, primary responsibility resting with State and Territory Governments. In South Australia, Koalas are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1972), which provides for heavy penalties. The Koala is currently listed as a “rare species.” While provisions exist under this Act for destructive management of Koalas, no such permission has ever been given. All other overabundant native and feral animal populations are managed destructively on Kangaroo Island. Annual destruction permits are issued for tens of thousands of Brush-tailed Possums, Tammar Wallabies and (endemic) Kangaroo Island Kangaroos. Feral cats and pigs can be shot without permits. Permits for the destruction of Corellas and Galahs (parrots) are granted on a case by case basis. In 1996, the Koala Management Task Force was commissioned by the State Minister for the Environment in South Australia, comprising representatives from the scientific, conservation, animal welfare communities, State and Local Government, and Departmental officers.9 The 1994-96 survey estimates of Koala numbers of 3,000 - 5,00010 were

206


vigorously contested by the AKF, which stated at that time that a more accurate count would be in the region of 1,500.11 The Task Force recommended an immediate reduction in numbers via culling, followed by translocations off island and maintenance of low densities. Culling of Koalas had previously been precluded by the SA Government and by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council,12 and the recommendation of the Task Force, when reported, led to very negative national and international responses. The Task Force was told by the State and Federal Governments that the recommendations were unacceptable and was sent back to do the work again. The second time around, with terms of reference that forbade culling, the Task Force was unable to recommend a management strategy that would be both feasible and economic. In 1997, the Koala Rescue Strategy was launched. Aiming to “relieve habitat damage and avoid suffering and starvation of Koalas,” large scale surgical sterilizations, translocations to the mainland, habitat restoration and protection, follow up monitoring and further research were to be funded.13 Initial funding in 1997/98 of over A$600,000 dwindled in subsequent years to A$200,000 per annum. By 2000, only 4,000 sterilizations and 1,100 translocations of sterilized animals had occurred, representing less than the natural increase during the period.14 By 2001, Koala numbers on KI were estimated to be in the region of 27,000, a substantially larger population, and more widely distributed, than had been previously accepted.15 This estimate was also immediately challenged by the AKF, which had in the interim period revised its population estimate upwards to about 5,000, prompting a local veterinarian to crack; “…I must have sterilised some animals twice!” 3.

Actant Network Theory Actant Network Theory (ANT) is a loosely-defined approach derived from the work of Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law in the sociology of science and knowledge.16 ANT-based approaches have been used to study various aspects of environmentalism, sustainability and land use conflicts. Murdoch and Marsden studied political conflicts over land-use proposals where environmentalists had enrolled scientific results to fight against proposed development.17 Woods studied the conflicts associated with recreational stag hunting and attempts to ban the activity.18 Sustainable agriculture and food supply chains were examined by McManus, Marsden et al, and Van der Ploeg & Frouws, while Burgess et al examined different attitudes to the value of wetlands and Bowler scrutinised urban waste disposal.19 ANT is not a theory of anything, despite the name (which is a translation of a French term), but a way to approach an understanding of how things work without adopting a particular paradigm:

Sarah Wilks

207

It was never a theory of what the social is made of… actors know what they do and we have to learn from them not only what they do, but how and why they do it. It is us, the social scientists, who lack knowledge of what they do, and not they who are missing the explanation of why they are unwittingly manipulated by forces exterior to themselves and known to the Social Scientist’s powerful gaze and methods.20 This approach requires a rigorous attempt to objectively construct a narrative from all perspectives, without privileging one viewpoint or source of authority over another, recognising that processes, actions and beliefs drive results rather than inherent properties. No judgement is made as to the ‘truth’ or paradigmatic view of the actors. ANT demands impartiality on the part of the analyst; humans, non-humans, and institutions may all be implicated as actors with power to act. Natural and social entities are explained together, and the power and influence of physical and natural entities are recognised, in contrast to being hidden, dismissed or treated as artificial or subjective constructs. ANT also allows for the formation of ‘hybrid’ associations which may cross conceptual divisions, rather than entrenching the notion that there are purely social or purely natural entities. This approach was critiqued by Woods, who found that ANT could be a useful descriptive approach but could fail to provide full explanations in some circumstances; the reader is referred to this source for a fuller explanation.21 In this study an elastic ANT approach has been applied to the generation of a narrative; in essence, this means a concerted effort to include all entities and pathways through the network in order to generate an account of the different knowledges held by different groups (actors) and the manners in which these groups’ knowledges, efforts and expertise flow and interact. In contrast to writing a purely scientific account, the existence of other sources of information and knowledge is acknowledged and these entities included in the analysis. This analysis was developed after scrutiny of over 500 textual articles including media and internet articles, policy and position statements, letters and emails between stakeholders and to newspapers and politicians, and interview transcripts of semi structured interviews with participants from all stakeholder groups. 4.

Results and Discussion The existence of several distinct groups of actors was discerned. Membership of a group was defined in two ways; self definition and attribution by others. Members recognised themselves and others as part of a group where common beliefs, aims and attitudes were expressed.

208


Members of a group defined other actors as outside their group by expressing their perceptions that other actors were different in some fundamental belief, attitude or aim. Groups included landholders/farmers, scientists, conservationists, tourism operators, land managers/politicians, and activists.22 Space precludes a full description of the groups and alliances of the actors, which is available elsewhere.23 By examining the prevailing situation, outlined above, it is instructive to consider whose chosen solution has prevailed and how this has eventuated. One key to understanding the situation rests with different ideas of what a Koala actually is. These different ideas are discussed below. A. The Conservationists’ Koala: respected, wild animals that deserve to be conserved Conservationists simultaneously wished to preserve all Koalas while conceding if they were overabundant then the population should be controlled, in the interests of all species present in the assemblage. Individual animals could be foregrounded, allowing the species to become a known quantity while preserving the ‘wildness’ of the animals. As one ecotourism operator explained: I think when people come through here, they appreciate the animals more, they respect it more as a species, take a wider view, because they’ve met an individual …they find that pretty special.

B. The Farmers’ Koala: no different from any other animal Farmers’ attitudes to Koalas were founded upon observations of the consequences of overabundance with respect to farm management. Farmers were less likely to see the animal just as cute and cuddly, but as something that certainly appeared cute but had further dimensions. Farmers explained: …appears to be nice and soft and furry and cuddly, but he’s a bony little critter. Got sharp claws! And their revolting habits, they smell, they stink...if one piddled on the roof of your car, it’d lift the paint off. Oh yes, they’re stinking things and they bite and scratch. To farmers, Koalas should be subject to control like any other animal, and it was the responsibility of a land holder to manage the consequences of their land use practices:

Sarah Wilks

209

…we should control the animals grazing, whether it be on pasture in the form of sheep and cattle or whether it be kangaroos, wallabies, possums or koalas or parrots or anything like that, if we wish to keep our environment reasonably intact, it’s up to us to do our bit… C. The Activists’ Koala: cute, cuddly, harmless and loveable According to the AKF website, the Koala is: …absolutely unique… one of the most beautiful marsupials on the planet… Even the hardest human heart melts when it comes into close contact with them…. Sentiments expressed by AKF members defined the Koala as “innocent …amazing…cuddly, harmless, loveable.” Other correspondents underlined the anthropomorphic nature of their view of the Koala, referring to comments advocating culling: “This is murder. Nothing more or less…” The notion that Koalas are cuddly and harmless is powerful, often attributed by farmers and scientists to “ignorant” people overseas but conceded by a senior politician to also have currency within Australia: “…there’s a kind of deep romantic association from childhood. With bears, and childrens’ stories, Blinky Bill, people grow up with an emotional attachment to them….” This iconic status as cute and cuddly is actively exploited by the AKF: as a senior executive commented “…we understand the power of the Koala and we understand its power politically and from a fundraising perspective.” D. The Scientists’ Koala: introduced, inbred and overabundant A body of peer-reviewed scientific literature describes the Koalas on KI as overabundant, prolific breeders. Studies examining genetic variability, and the knowledge that the Koalas on the island were established from a small number of individuals, leads to the scientific definition of the Koalas as “inbred.” Scientists tended to view the Koalas as one part of an ecological whole and had a wider view of the consequences of overabundance than most of the farmers; scientists tending to emphasise the repercussions to the whole island’s ecology. From a scientific standpoint, there is no dissent: Koalas on KI are overabundant, inbred, outside their natural range and problematic. Most

210


scientists did not grant the Koala special status among animals: “If they need to be culled, that doesn’t worry me at all…” However, it is possible to discern additional dimensions in some circumstances. In some grant applications, the animals were portrayed as a regrettably overabundant species that unfortunately must be controlled via high tech (=high price) means because lower cost alternatives are unacceptable, for example: Although many scientists believe these species need to be controlled quickly through lethal means, this approach has become increasingly unacceptable in socio-political terms….When it is clear that overabundance leads to environmental damage there is demand for immediate action. The means to do this without culling currently do not exist…24 These dissident scientists had successfully enrolled the perceptions, promulgated by activists, that the Koala may not be culled, and by doing so had garnered very large sums of funding in order to pursue certain lines of research. Such endeavours were criticized by all other actors, for different reasons. Other (non-dissident) scientists regretted the diversion of funds away from more ‘deserving’ causes: ...there’s only so many dollars within the wildlife management field…to see so much money wasted on ineffective management is a very depressing thing…any money that’s spent on koalas is money that’s taken away from other species… Farmers questioned why large amounts of money were to be spent when a bullet was so much cheaper and there were more pressing needs: ...our local council has to pay interest to borrow money to fix up our roads! …that money would be better spent in a nursing home or a hospital or on the disabled… Activists found the resulting headlines (“Koalas put on the pill!” etc) to be counterproductive to their fundraising, which was predicated on perceptions of rarity and ‘specialness;’ …anywhere in the world I can hear; you’ve got so many koalas you have to put them on the pill or you

Sarah Wilks

211

have to shoot them. That doesn’t help anyone, those media reports, and its very clever and very devious… 5. How do we Decide to Treat Different Types of Animals and which one is a Koala? There is a large body of literature dealing with different concepts of various animals, ranging from the explanatory to consideration of ethical issues.25 For present purposes a division of this body of scholarship is as follows: within Western society, most animals unequivocally fall into one of four categories which will determine how they are treated. No comment is made here as to the ethics of these categorizations; it is merely noted that attitudes and values dictate actions regarding different animals, and accord different types of animals different status, according to which they are treated. A. Pet animals These are intimately familiar animals, including domestic pet species such as dogs and cats, which are frequently anthropomorphised, whose keepers feel able to interpret their behaviour and emotional state, and which will be treated in many households as a member of the family. Animals that are not actually pets, such as lambs, bunnies and teddy bears, move into this division via anthropomorphised representations. Other familiar anthropomorphised animals occur as well-loved characters in books and cartoons, such as Donald Duck, or Blinky Bill. Anthropomorphised representations of food species serve to distance the cute from the cutlet. B. Wildlife Wildlife are a reasonably clear-cut group of animals, best described as ‘worthy of respect because they are wild and beautiful.’ Linked to this concept is the idea of ‘endangered wildlife.’26 Within Australia, ‘Native Wildlife’ is in most cases an uncontested category; and preserving Native Wildlife is almost always the ‘right’ thing to do.27 C. Resource animals Resource animals are managed in order to meet human needs eg for fibre, food, motive power. Most animal species in this category are domesticates. As pointed out by Stephen Jay Gould, and others, pet and domestic species share a common suite of characteristics which have made them amenable to human contact and handling in ways that their wild forebears are not.28 However, they are separated into pet and prey species at least within Western societies; most people will not eat their pets. Despite some dissent, resource animals, with their economic and instrumental value, are treated with far less consideration of their welfare

212


than the ‘pets’ and ‘wildlife’ groups discussed above. While some protests against common animal husbandry techniques are ever present (for example against battery egg farming, mulesing, veal production) the reality is that most people still consume products arrived at via these practices although there is no question such practices would not be found acceptable for their pet species.29 D. Feral, vermin and pest animals The feral, verminous or pest animal is at the bottom of the ladder with respect to concerns about its welfare. Little or no consideration of animal welfare or suffering is in evidence when control measures are being proposed and implemented. Animals unequivocally in this group are rats and mice worldwide, foxes and rabbits in Australia, and possums in New Zealand. It is for example largely acceptable to kill a feral animal by means which would be unacceptable when applied to other animals; imagine for example, the application of rat poison as an agent of euthanasia for pets in suburban veterinary practices!30 How an animal will be treated and managed depends upon which of the categories above it belongs to. As noted above sometimes the boundaries are elastic, but for most animals there is no question. Pet cows are rarities; there is little dissent that cattle are in the resource animal category. If the cost of a proposed veterinary procedure exceeds the value of the cow to its owner, it is culled and the carcass sold at market value (if any). By contrast the remains of the family dog, after exhaustive, expensive veterinary treatments, will usually be treated with some form of burial rites, even to the point of a plot in a pet cemetery. Some animals are more problematic and their categorisations are contested, for example, cats. A familiar member of many Australian households, it is common to hear of several hundred dollar veterinary procedures, and almost as common to hear keepers deny their animals chase native wildlife although the propensity of their animals to chase vermin (mice and rats) is not so often denied and is frequently praised. To many other people, any cat, be it an overbred, flat-faced, manicured and coiffed ball of fluff, or an oversized highly muscled striped feral carnivore, is out of place in Australia; it is an introduced predator that threatens native wildlife. The underlying cause of animal treatment debates, including the present case, lies with disputes over the ‘correct’ category for an animal. The four separate concepts of what a Koala is (discussed previously) indicate empirically that the Koala on Kangaroo Island is subject to contest about its ‘correct’ categorisation. Its status as a uniquely Australian species outside its historical range further colours the way it is viewed in the context of Kangaroo Island. While farmers and land

Sarah Wilks

213

managers seek to manage numbers, other voices are speaking from a preservationist viewpoint. Scientists who recognise the inbred status of the population and thus its equivocal conservation value are inevitably propelled into conflict with activists who recognise the value of each individual of a native wild animal species. While landholders and some scientists describe an animal that is virtually in the pest category, the AKF, reliant on private donations, has fully exploited the potential to present an image of a Koala that maximally harmonises with fundraising imperatives. The use, especially by the AKF, of powerful techniques to ‘iconise’ the Koala, either as loveable, harmless and supremely vulnerable to human bullying, or as an example of breathtakingly special and awe-inspiring wildlife which is simply not being appreciated by thoughtless human actors, are examples of (successful) attempts to manipulate the debate as to what sort of an animal the Koala is and therefore how it should be treated. 6.

Unintended Consequences: Deliberate Infection of Koalas with Chlamydia as a Population Management Tool These image contests have additional dimensions, and potential undesirable (and unforeseeable) consequences. One undesirable consequence would be the possible deliberate infection of the Koalas on the island with Chlamydia,31 either officially sanctioned or otherwise. Such an action, while perhaps being viewed as extreme outside Australia, has in fact several officially sanctioned precedent examples, including the deliberate introduction of Rabbit Calicivirus in an attempt to control rabbit populations (after the previous decline in efficacy of the deliberately introduced Myxomatosis towards the same aim).32 The possible deliberate infection of the Koalas with Chlamydia,33 with the aim of reducing the population’s reproductive rate, has in fact from time to time been suggested as a management option but has received very negative responses. The Task Force Final Report recommended that “…the introduction of Chlamydia to Kangaroo Island be rejected on animal welfare grounds….” 34 although this course has been consistently raised as a possibility by many scientists, farmers, managers and politicians. The Marsupial Society of Australia stated that the Australian Koala Foundation had also advocated this course, adding that such a suggestion was “… outrageous and borders on animal cruelty.” There is however, no record of the AKF ever publicly advocating such an approach despite exhaustive legal attempts to prove or disprove the assertion.35 However, the statement became an entrenched belief in the minds of many stakeholders and was damaging to the credibility of the AKF, with several stakeholders commenting that the AKF “…doesn’t make sense…” on the issue of Koala welfare. The subsequent portrayals of the AKF, by many

214


scientists, farmers, politicians and managers, as “foolish,” “inhumane” and “inconsistent” was accompanied by the demonisation of Chlamydia, which also effectively stifled any prospect of an open discussion of the possible effects of its introduction as a population management tool. It is clearly in the interests of those opposing the activities of the AKF to construct it and similar organisations as discussed above because this facilitates attempts to dismiss the organisation and its activities. Due to its prominence on the issue and the successful mobilisation of significant support from members and the media, both internationally and domestically, the AKF is a wide target. However, this demonisation of Chlamydia and those who might propose it as a management tool has spilled over into other arenas, stifling open discussion of the subject, with some scientists questioning whether there had in fact been a “debate” (in the words of the Task Force Report) on the issue: …you can never get on solid ground with that particular argument, you’ve got; we can’t use Chlamydia because of ethical reasons, but we haven’t actually looked into that too much; we can’t use Chlamydia because we want a Chlamydia free population, but they’re all inbred anyway, and we can’t translocate any unsterilised animals because they might cause genetic problems with the animals on the ground. And: …it’s the unspoken method that everybody just says oh no we can’t do that but I don’t know why we can’t do that and I don’t think its been investigated. The “animal welfare” grounds cited by the Task Force Report were seen to be questionable by several other commentators, who pointed out the illogic of exposing ‘introduced, pest’ rabbit populations to painful and debilitating diseases while refusing to do the same with ‘introduced, pest’ Koala populations on ethics grounds: …a lot of people said no, we won’t release Chlamydia on animal ethics grounds because it’s not nice to present a disease to a population. Now, I haven’t heard anyone say that about rabbits… As if underlining the points made above about the treatment of different types of animals, a land manager commented:

Sarah Wilks

215

“I don’t think introducing Myxomatosis into rabbits is ethical either, a living being is a living being whether its human or animal and it has rights and I think putting myxo or RCV36 into animals is cruel because they suffer. If you make a management decision and say the rabbit shouldn’t be here, and we all agree it should be eradicated, then you have to find a humane way of doing so, but not put out a disease that’s really really cruel…” Members from all groups privately expressed a wish that an unbounded debate about the introduction of Chlamydia could be held. Effectively ruled out as a management option by historical and political circumstances, there was now some reticence about even discussing the matter, not least the fear of also being labelled as an “… ill informed crackpot..” As a prominent scientist explained: “…I think that would be a great way to look at managing Koalas but, every time I’ve raised it I feel like I’m the bogeyman… I would really like to see that issue discussed again because I don’t understand it.” And, from a conservationist: “Well, they talk about it like its smallpox and its ridiculous….” Besides the possibility that a potentially useful means of control has been dismissed out of hand, there is also a potential animal welfare problem associated with the fact that Chlamydia is now a taboo subject. There is a risk that deliberate, but unauthorised introductions could take place; informal attempts to introduce Chlamydia as a population control tool had clearly been considered by some: “…if I was younger I would be off to the mainland to grab every sick Koala I could lay my hands on and pop it back on the island.” Such sentiments were echoed by many islanders and acknowledged by a senior politician, who commented: “I’m just surprised somebody hasn’t done it.” One scientist related the following story: …we met some rangers there…these guys were so desperate to find a solution that one ranger apparently went to another forest and collected droppings from the Chlamydia positive population and forced them down the throats of these Chlamydia negative Koalas. I don’t know whether its just a story, it sounded silly and stupid because the Chlamydia bacteria would most likely be killed through the stomach because it’s a sexually transmitted disease and, but for this desperate and ill informed attempt to happen, the situation must be very desperate. Obviously they were

216

How many Koalas are there on Kangaroo Island? trying to introduce population.

7.

Chlamydia

into

a

naïve

Building the Battlefield The ANT based approach adopted during this study has allowed for an account of the differences between the ways in which farmers, scientists, activists and others view the issue and their accounts of the best way to proceed, without privileging any viewpoint over another. These accounts illustrate that what is ‘right’ from a particular point of view is a complex, involving the construction of not only one’s own group identity but also the identity of other groups. To do this, actors draw upon their own formal or informal knowledge of their situation and their beliefs about the nature of other actors’/groups’ knowledge. It might be considered that landholders would know more about these notoriously cryptic creatures than anyone else. However, the activists’ portrayal of farmers as “…unqualified, ignorant…money grubbing hoons, running mad with a rifle…..only interested in mining their land, who do not care about biodiversity…” is a powerful incentive for others to discount what they have to say. Similarly, scientists, who while enjoying a general legitimacy in society of having the ‘right’ answer, were generally out of favour with activists; “…secretive, cabbalistic…doing research in an ethical and moral vacuum…” and therefore not to be trusted with anything so precious and important as a Koala. These and other portrayals of other groups (for example of activists as “...ill-informed crackpots”), have been employed to great effect as a device to influence the outcome of the debate. While several other studies have found that farmers’ understandings of conservation are at variance with that of scientists,37 in this case farmers and scientists are in agreement, at least to the extent of agreeing that the Koalas are overabundant, that tree damage and adverse environmental consequences result, and therefore it would be desirable to control the Koalas. However, this farmer/scientist alliance and mutual acknowledgement of expertise did not eventually contribute positively to either farmers’ or scientists’ aims. Scientists were given a hearing and granted credibility in the public arena of the debate, whereas farmers were portrayed in a far less flattering light. In the media, scientists were listened to but farmers were the subject of inflammatory reporting. Scientists were looked to by other groups to come up with an answer, but farmers were not; they were to wait and accept the solutions imposed upon them. Although most scientists were acknowledging the farmers’ expertise, other groups, especially the activists, were not. That some scientists understood them and agreed with them was a validation to the farmers; they had Science on their side. Farmers were then angry, frustrated and bewildered that, having enrolled/been enrolled by Science and scientists, other groups

Sarah Wilks

217

still acted against them: farmers viewed Science as a problem-solver and politicians as gutless toadies to the “…general public…,” “...other people in other places” and the “…ill-informed crackpots.” Activists have effectively constructed the soft, fluffy, harmless image of the Koala prominently in the media (domestic and international) and by activist group and internet activities; reaching voters, letter writers, emailers, other environmental and animal rights activists, and potential overseas and domestic visitors. Politicians are very conscious of this. While the current political and managerial leadership are aware of the other images of the Koala, in the media (excepting the very local paper, supported by the advertising and patronage of Kangaroo Islanders) and in many people’s eyes, domestically and internationally, the knowledge of the activists that the Koala is soft, fluffy, harmless and loveable has been enrolled as the prevailing image. In this way the activities of the AKF have created not only the image of the Koala but also the ground within which any debate over management must be confined, assisted in this by the demonisation of Chlamydia. The pieces on the board have been constructed to exist and move in particular ways only; the stupid farmer who mines his property and cares for nothing that will not bring in money; the unethical scientists doing research in a moral and ethical vacuum; the politicians with chronically short (electoral) term outlooks; incompetent National Parks staff, and so on. Within this arena, there is no latitude for any other existence for the actors; a farmer will not suddenly start caring about native wildlife and a scientist will not suddenly develop a conscience. They are as they have been described and will act as they have been described (by the AKF) and it will always be that way. The AKF has effectively, for the time being at least, frozen the network and the result is a stalemate. Dissent by other (non-Koala) actors; usually expressions of utter disbelief and frustration, periodically given prominence in media and other reports, is dealt with swiftly and effectively in ways that permit no meaningful discussion of alternative management solutions. On every occasion that pro-culling sentiments have been expressed publicly, by for example a politician, or a prominent scientist, business or farmer, there has been a ripple effect. Such public statements tend to have great support in the immediate vicinity, but this support decreases with extending geographic range. As the distance increases, extending through the ‘chardonnay sippers’ of the east coast cities of Australia, towards international places such as Japan and the US, support for culling is replaced by condemnation and outrage that the actors, who are as described in the preceding paragraph, could even think about threatening the (soft, cuddly, harmless) Koalas.

218


Dissent by the Koalas - by refusing to be cuddly, harmless and endangered, at least within the confines of Kangaroo Island - has been to date either conveniently ignored or actively obfuscated by the AKF. Scientific population surveys indicating that koalas are overabundant have been immediately challenged and linked to notions of unethical scientists by the AKF. Protests from landholders that their trees are dying due to overgrazing by Koalas have been immediately “rubbished” by the AKF which has countered that the trees are dying from many other causes and that anyway the landholders do not care about wildlife. More ecologically sophisticated concerns about the impacts of large scale tree damage upon the entire species assemblage including honey eating birds, insect life and other plant species, as well as concerns about resulting land degradation, have been raised by scientists and farmers but have been not heard: a message also disregarded along with the speakers. By promulgating its images of the actors, its framing of the debate as outlined above, and by taking the debate to other places, the AKF has lengthened and broadened the network. As is known from other ANT explorations, networks can be very robust indeed. The current State Minister has many times stated his personal belief that excess Koalas should be culled, quickly adding that it is not politically acceptable to his Government to do so, and neither was it to the previous administration. This conclusion - that Kolas cannot be culled because it would be unacceptable in a range of places domestic and internationally - has been reached throughout Australia on several occasions dating at least from the early 1990s, and is reflected in the Task Force Report. This political consensus, from both Labor and Coalition Governments, has further enhanced the robustness and stability of the network because affected constituents cannot even vote them out. The trite explanation in such circumstances; that politicians are gutless and too busy looking after their own seat(s), is both partly true and unsatisfying. 8.

Justice, Democracy and Environmental Activism This case study foregrounds the question: where there is dissent about how best to manage an environmental issue, who gets to decide the outcome, and whose voices are heard? In this case, the people most affected by the consequences of overabundant koalas - the inhabitants of Kangaroo Island - were over-ruled by off-island political determinations which were influenced at the highest political levels by the activities of the AKF. The AKF is an international organisation which derives significant portions of its funding from Japan, Germany and US-based donors and it is based in another state where the ecology of, and problems related to, the koala is in a very different context. Unlike the other case study on environmental activism in this volume (Bindi Clements’ chapter), the underlying ideals and discourse

Sarah Wilks

219

linking the activists’ actions with their world views were not in evidence. As we are reminded in that chapter, it is important to look not just for what is being said but also to ask; what is not being said? The AKF “does not participate in hands-on Koala caring”38 and has not to date evidenced strong commitment to conservation aims wider than the preservation of all Koalas, everywhere. The envisaged means to address this aim are not clearly communicated although the plight of (endangered, harmless, loveable) Koalas is very clearly expressed by AKF activities, media releases, internet and fundraising materials. While habitat destruction is fingered in AKF literature as a major cause of the generally declining Koala numbers, no effective on-the-ground interventions are being conducted by the AKF. With respect to Koalas on Kangaroo Island, the AKF website frames the problem as a vegetative cover issue rather than the effects of an introduced animal with no natural checks ‘using up’ trees: “There are not too many koalas - there are too few trees,”39 and states that the tree deaths seen to date are not due to koala overgrazing but to other causes; yet there are no tree planting programmes in place or presently planned. The organisation does not condone culling, fertility control, translocation or any other means of population reduction on the island but no means to alleviate suffering in cases of visibly stressed and emaciated koalas are proposed. What is missing from the public activities of the AKF is evidence of any rigorous attempt to address the underlying reasons why Koala numbers are in decline in many parts of Australia40 as well as any signs of acceptance that in some places, high Koala numbers merit effective management responses, if solely from an animal welfare point of view; in the words of the AKF website, “….the notion of ‘too many koalas’ is counter-productive to efforts to conserve koalas on mainland Australia where they face serious problems…”41 Such admissions would almost certainly complicate the information flow and would probably also detrimentally impact upon fundraising activities, which have to date been exclusively predicated upon notions of endangerment, cuteness and harmlessness in need of protection. While it is not uncommon to see the interests of capital over-ride the interests of the local populace or the environment in general, it is unexpected to see the activities of an organisation that purports to exist solely to serve the interest and welfare of the Koala as a species actually work against the interest of at least one population of koalas. It has been noted elsewhere that “boutique environmentalism,”42 with narrow, even single issue, focus can produce perverse results even whilst maintaining funding flows. The AKF, by its insistence upon maintaining the KISS principle43 during its fundraising and public activities, has in effect painted itself into a corner when faced with the

220


possibility that Koalas may, in some places, be the opposite of threatened and may even be threatening other species. 9.

Conclusions To answer to the question posed by the title; there are four Koalas on Kangaroo Island: the farmers’ Koala which requires management; the conservationists’ Koala which should be seen - and valued - in a wider ecological context; the Scientists’ inbred Koala; and the Activists’ soft, fluffy, harmless Koala. In practice, it doesn’t matter how many individuals are present becasue the soft, fluffy, harmless Koala must be preserved at all costs. The AKF is to be variously credited or blamed (depending on outlook) for this outcome, where decision making was wrested from the control of statutory authorities and rested instead with an NGO. That one effect of a well-intentioned campaign by a group representing the interests of the Koala (which is indeed threatened in many area of Australia by land clearing, urbanisation and disease) is to consign many Koalas to literally drop dead from denuded trees is surely an unintended by-blow. Great damage is in progress, to the environment of Kangaroo Island, its (human and non human) inhabitants and many observers of the situation. There is scope for the further consideration of the effects of funding flows in case studies of this nature; ANT-based approaches, with the recognition that processes, actions and beliefs drive results rather than inherent properties, preclude assumptions that funding has inherent power and properties. This approach, in this case, has failed to provide a full explanation.

Notes 1

RJ Lampert “Aborigines” in: Natural History of Kangaroo Island, ed. Margaret Davies, Rowl Twidale & Mike Tyler (Richmond, South Australia: Royal Society of South Australia, 2002) 2 David Ball & S Carruthers, “Kangaroo Island Vegetation Mapping technical report,” (Adelaide, Department for Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts, 1998). 3 Chlamydia is a sexually transmitted disease that, amongst other effects, reduces population fertility. Dingoes predate koalas on the mainland. KI Koalas thus are free from predation except by domestic dogs. 4 Roger Martin and Kathryn Handasyde, The Koala. Natural History, Conservation and Management. (Sydney: UNSW Press, 1999). 5 eg by having tough fibrous leaves or by incorporating unpalatable substances 6 A cryptic fungal organism that can cause tree death

Sarah Wilks

7

221

CM Philpott, The ecology of the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss) on Flinders Chase, Kangaroo Island, B.Sc.(Honours) Thesis, (University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 1965). 8 David Ball, “Vegetation” in: Natural History of Kangaroo Island, ed Margaret Davies, Rowl Twidale & Mike Tyler (Richmond, South Australia: Royal Society of South Australia, 2002) 9 Hugh Possingham et al Koala Management Task Force Final Report. (University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 1996) 10 Barbara St John, “Risk assessment and koala management in South Australia,” Australian Biologist 10 (1997): 47-56. 11 Australian Koala Foundation, “Kangaroo Island - the Koala problem can be solved,” Issues (March 1997): 20-26. 12 Government of Australia. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. National Koala Conservation Strategy. Canberra. 1996 13 South Australian Government Department of Environment and Natural Resources Koala Rescue Update. Kensington SA., 1997 14 Pip Masters, Terri Duka, Steve Berris, and Graeme Moss, “Koalas on kangaroo island: from introduction to pest status in less than a century.,” Wildlife Research 31(2004): 267-272. 15 See note 14 16 Bruno Latour, Science in Action: how to follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. (Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1987), and: We have never been Modern, (Hemel Hampstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993). Michel Callon “Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay,” in: Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge, ed. John Law (Routledge, London, 1986). John Law, “Notes on the theory of the actornetwork: ordering, strategy and heterogeneity,” Systems Practice 5(1992): 379-393. 17 J Murdoch and T Marsden, “The spatialisation of politics: local and national actor-spaces in environmental conflict,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(1995): 368-380. (1995) 18 M. Woods, “Researching rural conflicts:hunting, local politics and Actor-networks,” Journal of Rural Studies 14(1998): 321-340. 19 Phil McManus, “Sustaining unsustainability: sausages, actant networks and the australian beef industry,” in: Consuming Foods, Sustaining Environments, ed. S Lockie & P Pritchard ( Bowen Hills, Australian Academic Press, 2001); T Marsden, J Murdoch, & K Morgan, “Sustainable agriculture, food supply chains and regional development: editorial introduction,” International Planning Studies 4(1999): 295-301; J D Van der Ploeg & J Frouws, “On power and weakness, capacity and

222


impotence: rigidity and flexibility in food chains,” International Planning Studies 4(1999): 333-347; J Burgess, J Clark, & C Harrison, “Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme,” Ecological Economics 35(2000): 119-132: I Bowler, “Recycling urban waste on farmland an actor-network interpretation,” Applied Geography 19(1999): 29-43. 20 Bruno Latour. “On recalling ANT,” in Actor Network Theory and After, ed. John Law & John Hassard (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), p. 19 21 M. Woods, “Researching Rural conflicts: Hunting, Local Politics and Actor Networks,” Journal of Rural Studies 14 (1998): 321-340 22 Intended neither pejoratively nor as a political affiliation. This group contained sub-groups; people referred to by some farmers and scientists as “the general public,” “people in the city,” and “foreigners.” These groups, where involved, appeared to overwhelmingly include only people expressing support for activist sentiments. 23 Sarah Wilks, PhD thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney 24 Successful Australian Research Council Linkage Grant application (AUD 1.4 million) 25 see for a wide selection of scholarship, Stephen J Gould, “Reflections in natural history,” (London, Penguin,1993): Jared Diamond, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee,” (London, Vintage Random House, 1991) and: “Guns, Germs and Steel,” (London, Vintage Random House, 1997): Peter Singer, “Animal Liberation,” (London, Pimlico, 1995): Jeffrey Masson & S McCarthy, “When elephants weep,” (New York, Dell, 1996): and Cass Sunstein & Martha Nussbaum, “Animal Rights,” (Oxford, OUP,2004). 26 Such designations are apparent in, for example, National Parks and Wildlife guidelines for ‘distances off’ from marine mammals - to protect the animal from onlookers - and in the heroic efforts expended by volunteers within organizations such as WIRES (Wildlife Information and Rescue Services) who will sit up at nights with injured and orphaned wildlife for as long as it takes with the aim of re-introduction of the animal to the wild; or in the efforts of teams of volunteers who seek to re-float stranded whales. The boundary of this grouping can leak its contents: sometimes, conflicts arise between wildlife and human interests in which case the wildlife usually loses unless the species concerned is very rare and very charismatic, when substantial efforts may then be expended to preserve individuals. Examples of this include translocation of individuals (tigers, lynxes) to deep within large reserves and reintroduction campaigns (wolves) to (remote) areas where the species has previously been hunted to local extinction. Other examples, where conflicts with agribusinesses occur, are discussed below.

Sarah Wilks

27

223

Some isolated but well publicised cases of attempts to control local overabundances of native species, for example large Flying Fox populations in the Botanic Gardens in Sydney, have proved intractable from a public relations viewpoint. Similarly, attempts by agriculturalists to control grazing pressure by native animals still attract negative media attention (for example, on the subject of Kangaroo culling, Sydney Morning Herald 21.10.2005, 28.10.2005). When native animals within their range become pests to agriculturalists in Australia, their disposal is permitted only if they are very abundant, and is strictly governed by permits and animal welfare guidelines (for example Kangaroo Shooters’ Code of Practice). These instances remain public relations liabilities both domestically and internationally. Outside the farm, when conflicts between native species and humans occur, such as is the case in suburban gardens housing possums, which can be very destructive to property and plants, humans are almost always expected to give way and accommodate the wildlife, no matter how much damage and inconvenience is caused or perceived; as reflected in the heavy penalties applicable to offences under various wild animal management statutes. Suburban possums are protected by legislation because they are native wild life. 28 Steven Jay Gould, “Eight Little Piggies,” (London, Penguin Science, 1993), also: Jared Diamond, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee,” (London, Vintage Random House, 1991) and: “Guns, Germs and Steel,” (London, Vintage Random House, 1997) 29 For example, on a body volume basis, to keep a pet budgerigar under similar conditions to a battery layer would mean enclosing the pet bird in a cage measuring less than ten centimeters on all sides, a patently unacceptable proposal. 30 A prominent Australian conservationist’s controversial public appearances whilst wearing the pelt of a feral cat, which he had shot, as a hat, brought much applause and less condemnation (National Wildlife Federation website, 2001) while model Naomi Campbell’s public appearance in a (farmed) sable coat earned her worldwide condemnation in 1999. 31 See note 3 32 Rabbit Calicivirus, ‘RCV’, otherwise referred to as Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease Virus (RHDV) was used in an attempt to minimise the impact of the introduced European rabbit on agricultural production and the environment in Australia. RHDV causes rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD), an acute, highly contagious disease; in most adult rabbits the disease progresses rapidly from fever and lethargy to sudden death within 48-72 hours of infection. The virus causes acute liver damage with resultant blood clotting abnormalities. Death occurs due to obstruction of blood supply in vital organs and/or internal haemorrhages.

224


(Commonwealth Government Department of Environment and Heritage website, 2004) 33 See note 3 34 See note 9 35 The AKF does not advocate the deliberate introduction of Chlamydia to disease free populations but does accept that Chlamydia is part of the natural history of the Koala. According to the AKF website: “When Koalas become upset and worried (“stressed”) by the loss of their homes, they may get a disease called “Chlamydia”. Chlamydia is not the greatest threat to the koala….The greatest threat facing wild Koala populations today is the destruction and fragmentation of their habitat…” and: “The bacterium Chlamydia, of which there are several strains, is endemic in koalas on mainland Australia and acts like a natural population control in koala populations. Chlamydia is mostly benign in populations with unlimited resources, but manifests in times of stress, such as the breeding season, when habitat is cleared and in cases where the carrying capacity of an area of habitat is reached and then exceeded. The weaker animals succumb to the disease, become sick, infertile or die, leaving the genetically stronger animals to continue breeding. Koalas originally introduced to Kangaroo Island were Chlamydia-free, so there isn’t the natural population control which exists in most other koala populations.” 36 See note 32 37 J Burgess, J Clark, & C Harrison, “Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme,” Ecological Economics 35(2000): 119-132; and references therein. 38 AKF website, https://www.savethekoala.com 39 See note 38 40 Web statements to the effect that the koala is under threat because too many people want to live in the areas where Koalas live obscures the underlying issues – population growth – in the same way as tut-tutting over rainforest clearance rates can obscure consideration of the real needs of the populations in those areas. 41 See note 38 42 Sarah Wilks, “The Plastic Baggers. An evaluation of a boutique cause in targeted environmentalism,” Australian Quarterly 78 (2006): 11-19. 43 Keep It Simple, Stupid

Section 6 Education

Environmental Education in a Course on Ethics and International Development Judith Andre Abstract Students from American suburbs grow up in a culture antithetical to genuine appreciation for the environment. Lacking mass transportation, they go from house to school or shopping mall by car, “outside” only for a few minutes a day. Suburban culture is also consumerist: shopping has become, notoriously, an end in itself. Students from this background nevertheless have kind hearts. They respond with passion to certain sorts of issues-the mistreatment of animals, corporate polluters, famines overseas. But they do not recognise the connections between these issues and their own lifestyles. The students need a deeper awareness of their own rootedness in the earth. Our course ‘Ethics and [International] Development’ can move students toward this deeper understanding. One central concept is that of development itself, which consists not in markets or technology, but in the ability of individuals to develop their central human capabilities. One of these capabilities, arguably, is being able to live with concern for and in relation to the earth. The course also addresses the power of global economic systems, in producing or alleviating poverty, and in protecting or destroying the environment. Keywords: environment; education; development; suburbs; students; ethics 1.

The Students I teach at Michigan State University, situated about 90 miles from Detroit, one of the United States’s infamous “rust belt” cities, poor, black and desperate. Many of our students come from its suburbs, whose largely white population fled Detroit decades ago. These suburbs lack mass transportation and ordinarily have no central business districts. The closest equivalent to the central business districts of years past (American ‘downtowns,’ British ‘high streets’) is the shopping mall (possibly called retail parks in Britain): large enclosed sets of stores - clothing, shoes, jewellery, electronics, gifts, restaurants, movie theatres. In place of public space, in other words, there is private commercial space. Professional and government offices are scattered in small clusters along arterials, as are supermarkets and pharmacies. None of this - the mall, the dentist, city government, the supermarket - can be reached except by car. For high school and college students the most frequent destination is the shopping mall. This

228

Environmental Education

residential geography and the pattern of life it encourages prevent their gaining much sense of the natural environment or of its value. First, given the dominance of the automobile, children in these settings may be ‘outside’ only for a minute or two a day, going from house to car to school, doctor, or shopping.1 Furthermore, because of the severity of the North American climate, together with the ubiquity of central heating and air conditioning, the natural world can be experienced primarily as a nuisance. It is often either uncomfortably warm or cold; clothes that would protect against the cold are cumbersome inside any heated building, and so most people choose to dress lightly, simply enduring their brief exposures to the elements. These hurried journeys to and from the car reveal nothing about the life and pulse of the earth. Frost on the branches, the return of songbirds, the oppressiveness that can precede violent storms - such details will hardly be noticed. Uncomfortable weather is something to be suffered; it has no further meaning. Second, the dominance of the shopping mall both reflects and reinforces the consumerism of the culture. Shopping has become, notoriously, a major component of life, an end in itself. Shopping as such, of course, can be consistent with a reverence for nature; it is natural to adorn oneself and one’s dwelling, to try to make life easier, to want to see more and hear more. Affluence - having a considerable amount of disposable income - means all these things can be done more often. For adolescents in particular, the culture of consumption is to some extent empowering: what is bought is usually clothing, an archetypal means of expressing individuality and sexual maturation. Movies play an important part in constituting youth culture, and food away from home (restaurant meals, fast food, and ‘designer’ coffees) provide sites for talk, flirtation, gossip, and display. It is not easy to identify the point at which all this becomes consumerism. Rob Latham expresses figuratively the simultaneously empowering and devouring nature of consumption: consumer culture is both cyborg and vampire.2 More soberly, Andrew V. Abela distinguishes positive from negative with a definition: consumption is destructive when it becomes; excessive attachment to material possessions…..attachment…that goes beyond those possessions’ ability to provide satisfaction commensurate with the investments (both economic and psychological) made in them.3 Abela’s definition is reasonable, but it involves notoriously difficult measurements of subjective satisfactions and costs. Furthermore, if consumerism is objectionable not only in the way that any addiction is,

Judith Andre

229

but also because of its constituent attitudes and dispositions toward the external world, then we need a definition that specifies those problems. For this paper let me stipulate that consumerism is a matter of shopping for the pleasure of acquisition, not because of a felt need for something in particular; of shopping without attention to environmental impact; and of habitual waste of what one has bought. Furthermore, the means of acquisition is purchase (rather than, say, bartering or making). I’ve argued elsewhere that pricing encourages treating things purely as means, as objects whose value can be fully calculated in comparison with anything else priced, and as fungible: completely interchangeable with anything costing the same amount of money.4 Albert Borgmann points out another feature of contemporary consumerism: its objects are far removed from nature, and acquiring them requires no acquaintance or involvement with it. He first insists that consumption per se is natural and necessary to life. In a world of vigorous consumption, you see people swarming about the Home Depot, looking at paint sprayers, buying plumbing fixtures, and loading up lumber. Roofs are replaced, kitchens are remodeled, and plantings are added…Things look vital and hopeful. To live is to consume. Social and philosophical disputes cannot possibly pivot on consumption versus no consumption… Plants consume carbon; animals consume plants; humans consume animals….Life-sustaining consumption, however,…under natural conditions remains roughly constant per organism.5 That kind of consumption is consistent with, even entails, an ‘honorable and morally admirable’ stance toward material things. ‘Becoming intimate with a material thing, an instrument, is the burden and the delight of a musician,’ and the same is true for an athlete, a sculptor, or an architect.6 In contrast, what is typically bought today reveals almost nothing about the processes which create it; few of us anymore can sew or bake bread, let alone understand the televisions and computers central to our lives. The effort it takes to get such devices - to earn the money to buy them - is entirely different from the effort of transforming raw material into the things we buy. The way of living into which my suburban students are born then - automobile dependent, consumption driven - provides little connection with the earth. On the other hand, many aspects of their lives encourage kind and generous hearts. They respond with passion to certain sorts of issues - the mistreatment of animals, corporate polluters, famines overseas. But often their passion is unsophisticated. They may not recognise the interconnections among these issues, and between the problems ‘out there’

230


and their own lifestyles. Their concern tends to be about what other people, ‘bad’ people, do; their responses take the shape of isolated behaviours: some students, for instance, are dedicated recyclers. It is obvious that such young people need a deeper awareness of their own rootedness in the earth, and equally true that they need to appreciate the complexities in human - non-human interrelationships, complexities that often take the form of trade-offs. Even deeper, truer forms of human good require that we manage, change, and destroy parts of the non-human world. 2.

The Course Education can help this understanding develop. Some may argue that classroom activities cannot counterbalance a lifestyle so thoroughly divorced from the natural world; that political and economic forces alone can change things. Dependence on the automobile in the United States, for instance, is unlikely to change until the price of gasoline makes it politically possible to change land use policies, particularly by limiting suburban sprawl. In the United States at the moment this sort of change is politically very difficult. It would involve a redistribution of authority from localities to regions, long-term planning, denser residential areas, and altered property values. If driving long distances becomes prohibitively expensive, voters may be willing to pay these other prices.7 In other words, objectors are right to point out that, pace Socrates, knowledge is not virtue; information does not always change behavior. The evidence for this disconnect is overwhelming, even when the behavior is self - destructive (consider the number of nurses who smoke), or central to one’s professional responsibilities; informing physicians about their patients’ wishes as death draws near, or the level of their patients’ pain, does not make doctors honour those wishes or medicate the pain.8 I would also agree that there is nothing like experience. A trip outside the United States, especially with guides who understand the larger picture, would do far more than a classroom could to enlarge minds and ultimately change behavior. Short of that, students, typically and fallibly human, are likely to continue living as they always have. Most will change a few habits, acquire a little guilt, and that will be the end of it. Nevertheless a university course can make a difference. Notoriously, people can act - and vote - against their own economic interests. There is a not insignificant number of ‘political’ consumers, and of ‘green’ voters. If in the end only politics and economics will change suburban life, both are shaped by human agency, by voters and by consumers. In both capacities people can be educated. Students, obviously, are present and future voters and consumers. And if the ideal education includes experience - travel, especially - we should remember that study can motivate travel. In fact, Michigan State has the largest Study Abroad program in the country.

Judith Andre

231

I believe that our course ‘Ethics and [International] Development’ can move students toward an environmental awareness of some complexity, as well as motivate travel, even though neither goal is its primary purpose. The course looks at ethical aspects of ‘development’ activities: largely but not exclusively projects originating in wealthier countries intended to benefit poorer countries. The central and deepest issue addressed is the question of what counts as development, that is, as change for the better. For years the definition, or at least the criterion, was economic: a larger gross domestic product, or an increase in per capita income. Gradually such criteria were recognised as inadequate. To begin with, an improvement in an average tells little about the status of individuals; those below the average might be poorer than before, their misfortune offset mathematically by improvements for those above. Beyond these calculative deficiencies, the deeper problem is that increased market activity and more advanced technology, simply as such, do not necessarily improve a community’s quality of life. In place of these earlier definitions of development, scholars and activists now largely use the ‘capabilities approach’ formulated by Amartya Sen and others.9 Fundamentally Aristotelian, this approach holds that real development consists not in an increase in markets or technology, but in the ability of individuals to develop and exercise those capabilities which make them human. Another centrally relevant concept in the field is the power of global economic systems to create, reinforce, or alleviate poverty. Most of the poorest countries on the globe for instance, are former colonies of the richest countries; extractive colonialism clearly played a role in what is happening now.10 In addition, the structural adjustment policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the 1980s and 1990s were often severely damaging. ‘Structural adjustment’ required countries to privatise most governmental services, including education and health care, and to open their markets to outside goods, requirements that sometimes helped countries but often hurt them badly. Education and health care, for instance, are preconditions for most development, even if development is defined purely economically. Viewed more cynically, the structural adjustment projects demonstrated the deep bond between economics and politics: richer countries rushed in to the newly open markets but too often kept their own closed. Furthermore, it was economic and political factors that allowed such conditions to be imposed in the first place. The oppressive debt carried by many poorer countries resulted largely from global inflation (given adjustable rate loans). In addition there had been political pressure on the poorer countries to borrow; the loans were to the advantage of major financial institutions. These two issues - what should count as development, and the hegemony of the global economic system - provide a rich context for deepening environmental awareness. Although this awareness cannot be

232


the central goal of the course, it would be deracinated without attention to the physical and biological world in which human poverty exists. And since the course addresses quite practical questions, discussions of each issue always go beyond naïve endorsement of the good to complex questions of balancing competing goods, i.e., to trade-offs. The first issue - what should count as true development - requires thinking about what constitutes a good human life. Most theorists in the capabilities school avoid making lists of which capabilities are central, pointing instead to a few obvious candidates: the ability to live long and in good health, the ability to learn, the ability to work meaningfully, to love, and to have and rear children. (Anyone can choose not to exercise their capabilities; societies and governments are measured, for instance, not by how many people choose to have children, but whether that choice is impeded.) Martha Nussbaum, however, is bold enough to offer a list, ‘humble and tentative,’ but quite worth discussion.11 On her list is the ability to live with concern for, and in relation to, animals, plants and the earth. This not uncontroversial suggestion provides much food for thought. She formulated it after discussions in Scandinavia, where spending time in wilderness is considered central to a full human life. In the crowded cities of India, however, her suggestion has been greeted with scepticism. Discussing this ‘capability,’ exploring reasons for it that go beyond specific cultural preferences, requires considering human nature not just in what distinguishes it from the rest of the world but also in what connects and embeds it. Other less controversial capabilities provide the opportunity for the same sort of discussion. Why, for instance, should procreation be considered a central human capability? What does it tell us about the nature of human life, and its situatedness in a planet of life - which is to say, of change? The suburban lifestyle I’ve described (and perhaps caricatured) certainly includes change, in fashion, popular movies video games, and so on. But the change essential to life as such is not a matter of taste or of choice; it happens, inexorably; it is not always welcome. Death, the most fundamental change of all, is rarely welcome, yet a little thought shows that death is implied by procreation; i.e., we must die to make room for our children’s children. The Catholic admonition on Ash Wednesday, ‘Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return,’ can be interpreted less sombrely: ‘You arose from the earth, to which you will return, and from which others will arise.’ Or, as scientists sometimes put it, we are all stardust. Procreation as a basic human capability points to these deep facts. It raises other, more practical, questions as well. How, for instance, does the condition of the natural world impede or foster the ability to have children? Such questions are conducive, again, to a more sophisticated understanding of ‘natural,’ since what comes ‘naturally’ might be far too many children for anyone’s good. On the other hand,

Judith Andre

233

pollution can lead to infertility and to birth defects, a case where ‘natural’ as ‘unaltered’ is clearly what is desirable. Similar questions can arise with other capabilities: How does the condition of the environment affect the possibility of living a long, healthy life? Pollution and desertification, not to mention global climate change, threaten health. Yet human health also requires suppression or even elimination of certain microbes and, for instance, their insect vectors. The second issue - the inexorable power of global economic systems - also leads naturally to, and indeed requires, discussing environmental issues. The ways in which economic ‘development’ ravages the environment are legion. The book with which we open the course, Joe Kane’s Savages, recounts the struggles of the Haorani (indigenous Ecuadorians) against petrochemical companies seeking to build oil pipelines in the jungle. The damage is ruinous - not only spills from haphazardly constructed lines, but the inherent, invisible, and deadly disruption of feeding and migration patterns for the animals that are the Indians’ food source. The oil which is extracted helps fuel the lives of my suburban students. Similar points can be made, more quickly, elsewhere in the course. One example is the environmental and other costs of growing cotton, at times much in vogue as a ‘natural’ fibre, but whose commercial production often involves heavy use of chemicals, whose cultivation will drain the Aral Sea, and which plays a complex role in the history and contemporary economy of the Sahel.12 Another example is the way in which the low prices at Wal-mart inflict environmental costs around the world.13 To return to Kane’s book, however: it is not only a well written description of the power and depredations of the oil industry, intertwined with the global economy. Savages also addresses the other major theme in this essay, the fundamental nature of human life. The Haorani’s lives are utterly different from any the students know: not only embedded in and immediately dependent on the non-human world, but lived completely in the present. The life of the Haorani is so different from ours that its lessons, its food for thought, must be consciously extricated: we are not less embedded than the Haorani, but our rootedness is less obvious and less immediate. Because our dependence is mediated, we are more secure; neither snakes nor starvation threaten us. Yet we pay a price for our greater security: Because we can to a significant extent affect our future, we are constantly thinking about it; on the other hand, because we find our food in the supermarket rather than the jungle, we think about shopping rather than about plants and animals. The price we pay every day is an inability to see the physical beauty and mystery around us. The longer term price is, of course, looming environmental disaster. Some theorists would count parts of the ‘developed’ world as undeveloped; sections of Detroit, like its infamous Cass Corridor, would certainly qualify.14 Environmental degradation is both cause and effect of

234


the poverty (and political impotence) of the people who live in this ghetto. Versions of the questions asked about the Haorani and about the affluent suburbs of Detroit could also be asked about life in the city’s slums: how obvious is the embeddedness of human life in the earth? What price is paid, and what is gained, from the particular relationship to nature found in these three patterns of life? To some extent the embeddedness is considerably more obvious on Cass Corridor than in the suburbs; many buildings are in obvious states of decay, roaches and rats abound, the weather reaches indoors, those who venture out have insufficient clothing. This is not the kind of embeddedness anyone would seek, and ‘development’ here, under the capabilities approach, would include protection from the elements and from vermin. But it would also include gardens and parks. Every American who lives in a big city knows that severe poverty lurks in its corners, and it is possible that this knowledge, half-suppressed, reinforces the indoor lifestyle of the suburbs. But setting American urban poverty alongside the lives of the Haorani fosters a more complicated view of what it means to live in recognition of one’s bodily nature. Other topics in the course can serve similar purposes. One example is the absolutely basic need for clean drinking water, and the tradeoffs required to supply it. No single aspect of life is more important to good health. Diarrhoea, for instance, is the largest killer in the developing world; safe drinking water can cut its incidence by two thirds. Sometimes a single well can make safe water available; yet artesian wells often contain arsenic, replacing the bacterial contamination of surface water with (natural) chemical contamination. This in turn can require decontamination plants, specially designed filters, and the problems that arrive with any factory. A similar problem arises when surface water is contaminated by animal waste. Controlling the animal population through trapping, and perhaps through the cruelty of leg traps, may be the only way to avoid installing chemical treatment plants. Again, consideration of one of the most fundamental of human needs, clean water, emphasises not only the biology we share with all animals, but also the ways in which human welfare necessarily takes a toll on the non-human world.15 Analogous issues arise with ecotourism, a fast growing set of activities aimed at educating the tourist and nurturing the local environment. In theory ecotourism is vastly superior to the tourism that consists of ‘home plus’ (sand, sea, exotica), but ecotourism can pit the welfare of local people against the conservation of the environment. The tension can be so great that protected areas, for instance, are threatened by the people whose livelihood they have destroyed. And for the tourist, knowledge may be gained out of context and therefore have limited value. In conclusion, then, ethical issues in assisting poor countries should be treated in an environmental context. Doing so is crucial for a full

Judith Andre

235

understanding of the lives of the people that ‘development’ is out to help. But the environmental context is equally important for students from wealthier countries - and particularly those who have grown up in American suburbs. It helps them recognise their own almost radical separation from nature as well as the ways in which their consumption, whether of cotton, oil, or Wal-mart products, has impact on other human beings and the environmental context of those lives. Finally, such a context illuminates the inescapable conflict between human welfare and at least some aspects of the ‘natural’ environment, and can help students’ naive generosity mature into attitudes that are more sophisticated, more sustainable, and more useful.

Notes 1

Of course not all suburban families fit the description I give here. The most common exceptions will be families that value winter sports, especially skiing and sledding. But even these activities do not give the daily attentive exposure to the environment, in a variety of situations, that best lead to an attentive appreciation. 2 Rob Latham, Consuming Youth: Vampire, Cyborgs, and the Culture of Consumption (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002). 3 Andrew V. Abela, ‘Marketing and Consumerism: A Response to O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy,’ European Journal of Marketing 40 (2006): 5. 4 Judith Andre, ‘Blocked Exchanges: A Taxonomy,’ Ethics 103 (October 1992): 29-47. 5 Albert Borgmann, ‘The Moral Complexion of Consumption,’ Journal of Consumer Research 26 (March 2000) 418. 6 Ibid, 419. 7 Anthony Downs and Fernando Costa, ‘Smart Growth/Comment: An Ambitious Movement and Its Prospects for Success,’ Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2005): 367-380. 8 J. Teno et al, ‘Advance Directives for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: Effectiveness with the Patient Self-Determination Act and the SUPPORT Intervention,’ Journal of the American Geriatric Society 45 (April 1997):500-7. 9 Amartya Sen, Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992). 10 Luis Comacho, ‘Geography-as-Destiny vs. History in Development,’ International Conference on Ethics and Development, April 8-15 2005 (Novembr 15 2006) Michigan State University . 11 Martha Nussbaum, Women and Human Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 78-80.

236


12

Richard L. Roberts, Two Worlds of Cotton: Colonialism and the Regional Economy in the French Soudan, 1800-1946 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press 1996). 13 Charles Fishman, The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works-and How It’s Transforming the American Economy (New York: Penguin Group, 2006) 14 Efforts to revitalize the neighbourhood continue, and the story of one of the activists underlines an earlier point: experience does more to broaden horizons than does classroom instruction. Nichole Herrera’s life ‘was turned around’ by an (MSU sponsored) internship called ‘City Year.’ Emiliana Sandoval, ‘FIVE THINGS: About a City Enthusiast: Nichole Herrera is a Program and Training Manager for City Year Detroit,’ Detroit Free Press, 12 November 2006, State and Regional News. 15 Patrick G. Derr and Edward M. McNamara, Case Studies in Environmental Ethics (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), 107-111.

Bibliography Abela, Andrew V. ‘Marketing and Consumerism: A Response to O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy,’ European Journal of Marketing 40 (2006): 5-16. Andre, Judith. ‘Blocked Exchanges: A Taxonomy,’ Ethics 103 (October 1992): 29-47. Borgmann, Albert. ‘The Moral Complexion of Consumption,’ Journal of Consumer Research 26 (March 2000): 418. Camacho, Luis. ‘Geography as Destiny vs. History in Development,’ International Conference on Ethics and Development, April 8-15 2005 Michigan State University (November 15 2006). Derr, Patrick G. and Edward M. McNamara. Case Studies in Environmental Ethics. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. Downs, Anthony and Fernando Costa, ‘Smart Growth/Comment: An Ambitious Movement and Its Prospects for Success,’ Journal of the American Planning Association 71 (2005): 367-380. Fishman, Charles. The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works-and How It’s Transforming the American Economy. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Judith Andre

237

___________________________________________________________ Latham, Rob. Consuming Youth: Vampire, Cyborgs, and the Culture of Consumption. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Nussbaum, Martha. Women and Human Development. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Roberts, Richard L. Two Worlds of Cotton: Colonialism and the Regional Economy in the French Soudan, 1800-1946. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press 1996. Sen, Amartya. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992. Teno, J, J. Lynn, N. Wenger, R.S. Phillips, D.P. Murphy, A.F. Connors Jr., N. Desbiens, W. Fulkerson, P. Bellamy, W. A. Knaus. ‘Advance Directives for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: Effectiveness with the Patient Self-Determination Act and the SUPPORT Intervention.,’ Journal of the American Geriatric Society 45 (April 1997): 519-20.

Carbon Justice? The Case Against a Universal Right to Equal Carbon Emissions Derek R. Bell Abstract The clear trend in a long series of reports on climate change, going back to the 1980s,1 is towards greater confidence that there is anthropogenic climate change and that it will cause suffering and death for present and future generations. Although ideas of justice and injustice are implicit in all discussions of climate change, political philosophers have had relatively little to say so far. This chapter aims to begin to fill this gap by critically examining one popular proposal for climate change justice. The “Contraction and Convergence” proposal suggests that all humans are entitled to an equal right to emit carbon: an intuitively attractive but ultimately indefensible idea. I suggest that the “carbon justice” approach is only one way of thinking about climate change justice. Six arguments for carbon egalitarianism are considered and rejected. We then question why should there be a universal right to equal carbon emissions? I suggest two possibilities: (1) egalitarianism about carbon is part of a broader egalitarianism; or (2) there is something special about carbon emissions which justifies carbon egalitarianism in a broader non-egalitarian theory of justice; which are then further explored. I conclude by suggesting that advocates of a universal right to equal carbon emissions are making a mistake: they are over-simplifying the problem(s) of justice posed by climate change. Simplicity may be a virtue in politics but over-simplification is an ever-present problem. Keywords: Carbon emissions, carbon egalitarianism, carbon justice 1.

The Case for Carbon Egalitarianism The search for an adequate response to the problem of climate change has fostered a minor industry in the development of new proposals that advocates suggest should be incorporated into post-Kyoto climate agreements. One proposal that has become increasingly popular in recent years is “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C). Its most persistent and vocal advocate is Aubrey Meyer, the founder of the Global Commons Institute (GCI), a small non-governmental organisation, which has consistently “punched above its weight” in the climate policy community. GCI describe C&C as a “science-based, global climatepolicy framework.”2 The “contraction” element of C&C is

240

Carbon Justice?

straightforward. The science tells us that global carbon dioxide emissions currently exceed “safe” levels. Therefore, the “budget” for global emissions must contract to a level “consistent with stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a pre-agreed concentration maximum deemed to be safe.”3 In other words, global emissions must be reduced (“contracted”) to a safe level. The “convergence” element of C&C is also quite simple. Currently, some people (regions, nations and individuals) emit more carbon dioxide than other people. “Convergence” requires that we move toward “equal shares per person globally” or an equal per capita allocation of emission rights.4 It is the convergence element - or, more accurately, the end point of convergence - that is of primary interest to us. The idea of equal emission rights per person globally suggests a universal right to equal carbon emissions. This rights-based reading of the proposal is supported by Athanasiou and Baer: [A workable climate treaty] must … be a constitutional, “rights of man” kind of treaty, one in which we affirm that we all, however proud or humble we may be, have the same ultimate claim to the atmospheric commons.5 They make it clear that they envisage, “a radical expansion of [human] rights … into the new territory of economic rights to global environmental resources.”6 We might call this position, “cosmopolitan carbon egalitarianism” (or, for brevity, “carbon egalitarianism”). Why should we be “carbon egalitarians”? Athanasiou and Baer put the case dramatically: We need to restrict global emissions - drastically and soon - and this means that we need a global climate accord. And this, in turn, means that we have to find a fair way to divide up a finite “atmospheric space.” To be blunt: unless you think that global apartheid is a realistic and desirable option, the issue is, necessarily, fairness in a finite world. And at the end of the day, there just isn’t any way to conceive of such fairness except in [equal] per capita terms.7 On their view, it is simply obvious that equal emission rights are the fair way to “divide up a finite ‘atmospheric space’.” They elaborate a little on their position later in the same book when they claim that “from the point of view of both basic ethics and enlightenment philosophy, the case for equal per capita rights is an obvious one.”8 The references to “basic ethics” and “enlightenment philosophy” are rather vague but they are illustrative of the confidence of carbon egalitarians: any account of

Derek R. Bell

241

basic ethics and the whole of enlightenment philosophy stands squarely behind them. Indeed, some carbon egalitarians go even further. Andrew Simms, for example, in a pamphlet for the New Economics Foundation (a left-leaning think-tank based in the UK) suggests that the rejection of carbon egalitarianism involves faulty “logic”: A plan to tackle global warming cannot succeed unless it concedes each individual’s logical claim to the atmosphere. Over time the equal distribution of property rights in the air above our heads will mean the biggest economic and geo-political realignment of recent history.9 Some of the grander claims made by advocates of carbon egalitarianism may be implausible but they reflect a very strong intuitive belief in a universal right to equal carbon emissions. More modest advocates may be more circumspect in their language but they still emphasise the attractiveness of simple equality as the appropriate principle of justice in this context: The fair shares conception, as embodied within a per capita emissions share climate change mitigation regime, best realises the idea of fairness and offers a compelling vision of international justice.10 Intuitively, the carbon egalitarians seem to have a point. If we think of the “finite ‘atmospheric space’” as a “cake” to be divided up among the world’s population, we are very likely to go straight to the standard principle for fairly distributing cakes, namely, simple equality. 11 However, we might all imagine cases in which the fair division of a particular cake in particular circumstances might be something other than simple equality. The question that must be pressed against carbon egalitarians is whether the “atmospheric space” is an archetypal “cake” or whether it has characteristics that justify a rather different principle for the distribution of rights to emit carbon. 2.

Responses to Climate Change: Carbon Egalitarianism in Context Advocates of carbon egalitarianism tend to offer it as the fundamental principle for dealing with climate change. They imagine it to be the cornerstone or the centrepiece of a climate treaty. However, we should reflect further on the place that a universal right to equal carbon emissions might have in a fuller account of how we should respond to

242

Carbon Justice?

climate change. In this section, I suggest one general way of conceptualising the problem of climate change and our response to it. The ethical significance of climate change lies in the impacts or effects of climate change. The first question that we need to address is, “What impacts should people (or non-human entities) be protected from?” In other words, the starting point for a discussion of climate change is not specific to climate change. Instead, we start from a general account of what we want to protect. We might describe this as our “impacts threshold” (or “impacts target”). If we focus on the effects of climate change on humans, we need to begin from an account of human goods or human interests that we should protect. We might think of this account of “to-be-protected interests” in a number of ways but one plausible interpretation conceives of these interests as grounding human rights.12 So, the aim of a climate change policy might be to protect human rights or, perhaps, to prevent the violation or non-fulfilment of human rights. There are, of course, very different accounts of human rights extant in contemporary moral and political theory. Therefore, the particular account of human rights that we endorse may be more or less extensive and may impose a more or less demanding “impacts threshold.” In this chapter, I do not propose to consider where the impacts threshold should be set or what human rights should be protected.13 However, I do make the assumption that there are some impacts - for example, death and severe suffering - that any morally plausible account of the impacts threshold will not permit. The second question is, “How can we avoid exceeding the impacts threshold?” In other words, “How do we protect people from those impacts that we believe they should be protected from?” There are three basic possibilities here. First, we may not need to do anything to prevent us crossing the impacts threshold. The effects of climate change might not be morally significant enough to justify action. If this is the case, we can continue with “business as usual.” Second, we might adapt to climate change in a way that prevents unacceptable impacts. For example, we might start growing different crops that are more suitable for the changed climate or we might enable people to migrate from areas threatened by flooding. In other words, we accept climate change but prevent its worst impacts. Third, we might attempt to prevent or mitigate climate change. It is this third option that requires us to try to prevent temperature change by controlling emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The scientific evidence combined with any plausible impacts threshold seems to rule out the “business as usual” option. The Stern Review makes this clear: The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change

Derek R. Bell

243

associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.14 The scientific evidence “indicates that the Earth’s climate is rapidly changing, predominantly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities.”15 In a “business as usual” scenario the effects of these changes are likely to be devastating: A 2°C warming would be a death sentence for tens of thousands and perhaps millions of people, a commitment to catastrophic losses of species and ecosystems, and frankly, an invitation to a dangerous new exacerbation of geopolitical and military instability.16 The language of “catastrophe” might be both dramatic and imprecise but there is overwhelming support from the scientific community for the claim that a 2°C rise in temperature will cause human suffering and death. Moreover, there is a general scientific consensus that “business as usual” will produce much more than a 2°C warming: Even if the annual flow of emissions did not increase beyond today’s rate, the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would reach double pre-industrial levels by 2050 - that is 550ppm CO2e - and would continue to grow thereafter. …The level of 550ppm CO2e could be reached as early as 2035. At this level there is at least a 77% chance - and perhaps, up to a 99% chance, depending on the climate model used - of a global average temperature rise exceeding 2°C.17 In short, we can expect 2°C warming to be “locked-in” by 2035 on a “business as usual” approach. We know that 2°C warming - without adaptation - will result in human suffering and death. Therefore, we can rule out the “business as usual” approach because it will take us beyond any morally acceptable account of the impacts threshold. We cannot protect people from the impacts of climate change by doing nothing. We might protect people by adapting to climate change. We might choose adaptation for two reasons. First, adaptation might be an alternative to mitigation. We may not need to mitigate - i.e., attempt to prevent climate change - if we can adapt to it. However, the scientific evidence suggests that adaptation is not enough. If we continue with a “business as usual” approach to emissions but try to adapt to the resulting climate changes, we will find it more and more difficult to adapt

244

Carbon Justice?

successfully. Stern makes clear the scale of the climate changes that might occur by the end of the century: Under a BAU scenario, the stock of greenhouse gases could more than treble by the end of the century, giving at least a 50% risk of exceeding 5°C global average temperature change during the following decades. This would take humans into unknown territory. An illustration of the scale of such an increase is that we are now only around 5°C warmer than in the last ice age.18 If 5°C warming is the difference between an ice age and the current climate, what circumstances might be produced by another 5°C warming? The scientific consensus is that the consequences of this level of warming are likely to include “large-scale discontinuities”.19 For example, there might be a sudden rise in sea level caused by ice melting in Antarctica; or the thermohaline circulation, which is the ocean current that keeps Europe warm, might collapse. It is difficult to imagine how adaptation could keep us within any plausible impacts threshold under these circumstances. The very character of large-scale discontinuities sudden and large-scale - makes adaptation almost impossible. Adaptation cannot be our only approach but it might be an essential supplement to mitigation. There is widespread agreement among scientists that we have already “locked-in” significant warming. The current concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are already changing the climate and will continue to do so for many years. The climate changes that are occurring are causing human suffering and death through, for example, extreme weather events, extreme temperatures, desertification and population displacement. In other words, it seems plausible to argue that climate change is already having impacts that are beyond the impacts threshold. These impacts will become more severe before mitigation could have any effect. Mitigation can only prevent climate change that will be produced by future emissions; it can do nothing about climate change that will be (or has been) produced by past emissions. So, if the climate changes that are already “locked-in” would take us across the impacts threshold, we will be required to adapt as well as mitigate. I have suggested that adaptation and mitigation are both necessary. Any plausible account of the impacts threshold when combined with the prevailing scientific position on climate change supports both mitigation and adaptation. It is, of course, less clear how much mitigation or adaptation is morally required. A more specific account of what is morally required would necessitate that a more detailed stand be taken on both the impacts threshold and the scientific

Derek R. Bell

245

evidence. I do not propose to undertake either task in this chapter. My concern has been to map out the basic alternative strategies and their relations to each other and to make the case that the only plausible position involves both adaptation and mitigation. The third question that any discussion of climate change needs to address is, “Who is responsible for protecting people from the impacts of climate change?” Perhaps, more precisely, “How should we distribute responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation?” The most common approach to the “responsibilities” question is “economic:” how should the economic costs of mitigation and adaptation be distributed? This question is usually answered in one of four ways. First, the “fair burdens” approach suggests that “the allocation of climate change reduction burdens might begin with a presumption of equality” or “equal burdens.”20 Of course, “equal burdens” might be interpreted in a number of different ways - most notably, it can be interpreted in either an absolute or a proportional way. Second, the “polluter pays principle” requires that the distribution of the costs of mitigation and adaptation reflect the distribution of the responsibility for pollution. So, the highest emitters should pay the most. Third, the “beneficiary pays principle” requires that those who benefited most from the emission of greenhouse gases should pay the most toward mitigation and adaptation. Fourth, the “ability to pay principle” requires that the costs of mitigation and adaptation are distributed according to wealth. The rich should pay the most; the poor should pay the least (if they pay anything at all). These four alternatives - fair burdens, polluter pays, beneficiary pays and ability to pay - provide the ground on which most “battles” about the responsibility for climate change are fought. It is hardly surprising that most arguments about climate change justice are presented in these economic terms. However, an alternative “carbon” perspective is becoming more important. On the “carbon” approach my responsibility is not measured in terms of how much money I should pay toward adaptation and mitigation but rather in terms of how much carbon I should be permitted to emit. There are, of course, a range of different distributive principles that might be used to distribute carbon emission rights. Currently, carbon emission rights tend to “track” money: my carbon emissions are limited only by my ability to pay for goods and services whose production or use involves carbon emissions. In other words, carbon emission rights tend to follow straightforwardly from economic rights. However, when we accept that mitigation is morally required, we impose a non-economic more specifically, an environmental - limit on carbon emissions. We cannot avoid setting a global carbon emissions budget but we might continue to think about the distributive problem in economic terms. If we calculate the costs of reducing emissions so that they do not exceed the global emissions budget, we might distribute those costs according to one

246

Carbon Justice?

of the economic principles outlined in the previous paragraph. The distribution of emission rights will be derivative from the principle for the distribution of economic costs. The economic perspective remains dominant. It is, however, possible to move away from the economic perspective to a more distinct carbon perspective. If we adopt the carbon approach, the distribution of carbon emission rights will be independent from the distribution of economic benefits or burdens. The idea of a universal right to equal carbon emissions is an example of an independent principle for the distribution of carbon emission rights. It is, in other words, a principle of “carbon justice.” We might also think of it as a principle of “justice in mitigation” because it gives us the basis for an account of the distribution of responsibilities for mitigation: each one of us must reduce our carbon emissions to no more than an equal share of the global emissions budget. On this understanding, the “carbon justice” approach seems to be able to give us only a partial account of climate change justice because it deals with justice in mitigation but has nothing to say about justice in adaptation. However, this underestimates the potential of the carbon approach. A universal right to equal carbon emissions might also have implications for justice in adaptation. If you have emitted more than your fair share of carbon, you may have committed an injustice that you cannot rectify through mitigation. In other words, you cannot reduce your carbon emissions sufficiently to bring you back within the limits of your rights to emit. In this kind of case, we might reasonably think that you should rectify the injustice in some other way. One obvious possibility is that you should pay for adaptation to those climate changes that your unjust emissions have caused. If this were possible, you would rectify the injustice in mitigation by ensuring that we did not cross the impacts threshold. Of course, it is impossible to identify the climate changes caused by the unjust excess emissions of any one individual (or society). However, we might think that the distribution of economic costs of adaptation should “track” unjust emissions. We should pay for adaptation in proportion to the size of the injustice in mitigation that we have committed. Interestingly, this suggests a variation on the standard polluter pays principle. On this variation, justice in mitigation is understood in terms of a duty to stay within one’s carbon emission rights; and justice in adaptation is understood in terms of a duty to pay to prevent one’s unjust pollution causing harm. We might call this principle of justice in adaptation, “the unjust-polluter pays principle.” We have now established a broader context in which we can locate the idea of a universal right to equal carbon emissions. Any account of climate change justice will start with an account of the impacts threshold - an initial account of the human interests or rights that should be protected. The impacts threshold will determine - with the

Derek R. Bell

247

scientific evidence - the required levels (or forms) of adaptation and mitigation. Finally, we will need to distribute responsibilities for adaptation and mitigation. I have suggested that the question, “How should we distribute responsibilities for mitigation and adaptation?” can be addressed from two different perspectives: the “economic” perspective; and the “carbon” perspective. We will talk about both money and carbon emissions whichever perspective we adopt. However, the choice of perspective is a choice about our primary focus or our primary “frame” for thinking about the distribution of responsibilities. The universal right to equal carbon emissions (carbon egalitarianism) is a principle of carbon justice. Principles of carbon justice are characteristic of one perspective on - or approach to - the “responsibilities” question in a theory of climate justice. 3.

Why Carbon Egalitarianism? The carbon perspective requires us to think about our responsibilities for preventing climate change in terms of limiting or reducing our carbon emissions. Carbon egalitarianism claims that everyone should limit (or reduce) their emissions to the same level, x tonnes of CO2e per annum (or, perhaps, x tonnes of CO2e over a lifetime).21 We might contrast carbon egalitarianism with carbon inegalitarianism. For the carbon inegalitarian, carbon justice does not require that everyone should limit their emissions to the same level. The carbon inegalitarian can accept that some people might be required to limit their emissions to less than x tonnes of CO2e while others will be permitted to emit more than x tonnes of CO2e. If we adopt the carbon perspective on the responsibilities question, why should we endorse carbon egalitarianism rather than some other principle of carbon justice that supports carbon inegalitarianism? The advocates of carbon egalitarianism (as we saw in section 1) suggest that it is the obvious principle of carbon justice. There is no remotely plausible alternative. I believe that this is a mistake. Carbon egalitarians have lost sight of the place of the responsibilities question and the role of the carbon perspective in an account of climate justice. We have seen that the right to emit carbon is only one part of a theory of climate justice. Moreover, we have seen that a full account of climate justice is dependent on a broader account of human rights (or human interests), which sets the impacts threshold. We might also note that the broader account of human rights will itself either constitute or be part of a broader theory of (global) justice. Therefore, any account of carbon justice must “fit” with that broader account of global justice. I want to consider two ways in which carbon egalitarianism might fit with a broader account of global justice. I do not intend to take a position on which theory of global justice we should endorse. Instead, I will argue that there are good reasons for thinking that carbon egalitarianism does

248

Carbon Justice?

not fit in either of the two ways to be discussed with any of the leading theories of global justice. The first possibility is that carbon egalitarianism follows directly from a broader egalitarian theory of global justice. There are many different general egalitarian theories of justice, which are distinguished by their different “metrics” or “currencies.” The currency of a theory of justice is the good (or goods) that it uses to measure relative advantage. Three theories have dominated the recent literature: equality of welfare; equality of resources; equality of capabilities. I want to suggest that only one of these - equality of resources - offers any support to carbon egalitarianism but even it does not offer straightforward support for carbon egalitarianism. This is the topic of section four. The second possibility is that carbon egalitarianism is an egalitarian “module” in a broader non-egalitarian theory of global justice. On this account, there is something special about carbon (or the right to emit carbon) that justifies carbon egalitarianism despite a general rejection of egalitarianism. In section five, I consider three arguments for this kind of “selective egalitarianism :” the global commons argument; the modus vivendi argument; and the pragmatic egalitarian argument. I suggest that none of them offer a convincing justification for carbon egalitarianism. 4.

Broad Egalitarian Defences The idea of equality of welfare has been much criticised. However, it remains the standard point of reference for theories of justice.22 For the welfare egalitarian, justice requires that we measure relative advantage by asking how “happy” people are with their lives or how much utility they have over their lifetime. The most common interpretation of utility defines it in terms of preference-satisfaction. My utility increases as my preferences are satisfied. On this account, the welfare egalitarian will be committed to carbon egalitarianism only under very special circumstances. Specifically, the welfare egalitarian will be a carbon egalitarian if the right to emit x tonnes of CO2e produces the same utility for every person. However, this seems very unlikely for two reasons. First, different people will have different preferences and satisfying those preferences will require different levels of carbon emissions. In other words, some people will have more “carbonintensive” preferences than other people. For example, if person A’s preferences include long-distance air travel while B prefers to live modestly at home, A and B will require unequal carbon emission rights to achieve equal utility. Second, even if the general profile of people’s preferences was very similar, their circumstances might be very different. In other words, some people will have more “carbon-intensive” circumstances than other people. For example, A and B might both have

Derek R. Bell

249

a preference for keeping warm but if A lives in Corfu and B lives in Stockholm, satisfying A’s preference is likely to require the emission of less carbon than satisfying B’s preference. Similarly, A and B might both have preferences to travel locally but if A is physically disabled and can only travel by car while B can walk, satisfying A’s preference is likely to require the emission of more carbon than satisfying B’s preference. In the first example, the “external circumstances” make satisfying B’s preference more carbon-intensive. In the second example, the “internal circumstances” make satisfying A’s preference more carbon-intensive. In both cases, A and B will require unequal carbon emission rights to achieve equal utility. It is implausible to assume that everyone has the same preferences and faces the same circumstances; therefore, it is implausible to assume that carbon egalitarianism can be derived from welfare egalitarianism. The equality of capabilities view has become very popular in the last two decades. For the capabilities egalitarian, justice requires that we measure relative advantage in terms of “capabilities to function” or the real opportunity and capacity to do things that are constitutive of a full human life. Capabilities egalitarians identify a list of capabilities, including “being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length,” “being able to have good health,” “being able to move freely from place to place,” “being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves,” to which everyone is entitled.23 Capabilities egalitarianism differs from welfare egalitarianism in providing an objective list of human goods. For the capabilities egalitarian, differences in preferences are not relevant for a theory of justice. Therefore, the first objection that we made to the derivation of carbon egalitarianism from welfare egalitarianism cannot be made to the attempt to derive carbon egalitarianism from capabilities egalitarianism: people might have different preferences, which may be more or less carbon-intensive, but they have the same capabilities. However, the derivation of carbon egalitarianism from capabilities egalitarianism is no less susceptible to the second objection. For example, if A is physically disabled while B is not, A may need to emit more carbon than B to have the capability “to move freely from place to place.”24 Similarly, if A lives in Benidorm and B lives in Rekjavik, A may need to emit less carbon than B to be able “to have good health … to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.”25 In other words, the problem of different circumstances undermines any attempt to make an argument from capabilities egalitarianism to carbon egalitarianism. Resource egalitarianism offers a more promising starting point for carbon egalitarians. For the resource egalitarian, justice requires that relative advantage be measured in terms of resources. Resource egalitarians have different conceptions of “resources” but generally they include economic (or monetary) resources (i.e., income, wealth) and

250

Carbon Justice?

physical resources, including natural (or environmental) resources and man-made (or manufactured) resources. In addition, resource egalitarians tend to recognise the moral relevance of “personal” resources, including, for example, intelligence and physical ability.26 If we can construe the right to emit carbon as a resource, it would seem we might be able to derive carbon egalitarianism directly from resource egalitarianism. Unfortunately, there are problems with this line of argument. Resource egalitarians do not believe that every resource should be distributed equally. Instead, they believe that the value of bundles of resources should be equal. In Dworkin’s terms, the distribution of resources should be “envy-free:” no one should envy anyone else’s bundle of resources.27 Therefore, if I value resource x more than resource y while you value resource y more than resource x, an envy-free distribution is likely to be one in which you have more of resource y than I have while I have more of resource x than you have. There is no reason to expect that everyone will value the right to emit carbon (relative to other resources) equally. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that carbon egalitarianism follows directly from resource egalitarianism. The carbon egalitarian might respond to this objection by pointing out that carbon egalitarianism does not preclude carbon trading. Indeed, most advocates of carbon egalitarianism support carbon trading. If everyone is given the same initial allocation of carbon emission rights, the people who value the right to emit carbon lower relative to other resources can trade some of their emission rights for other resources that they value more highly. The people who value the right to emit carbon higher relative to other resources will be willing to give up those other resources to get more than their initial allocation of emission rights. So, the resource egalitarian might suggest that we begin from an equal allocation of carbon emission rights and an equal allocation of other resources. If people value resources differently, we will move to an unequal allocation of carbon emission rights as a result of trading. On this account, resource egalitarianism implies both carbon egalitarianism (initially) and (the likelihood of) carbon inegalitarianism (after trading). There are two problems with this response. First, carbon egalitarianism does not seem to be the most obvious choice for the resource egalitarian. Would it not be easier to auction carbon emission rights with all of the other natural resources rather than treating them as some kind of special case? It might be replied that we are only treating carbon emission rights separately because they are a newly created resource. This leads us to the second problem. The argument from resource egalitarianism blurs ideal theory and non-ideal theory. Ideal theory offers an account of a fully just world. Non-ideal theory tells us what we should do in a less than fully just world. Resource egalitarianism is an ideal theory: it offers an account of a fully just world. The resource egalitarian defence of carbon egalitarianism appears to assume a story

Derek R. Bell

251

that goes something like this: before climate change was recognised as a problem we believed that we lived in a fully just world. Knowledge of climate change led to the recognition of a previously unnoticed resource the right to emit carbon - which had not been justly distributed. Carbon egalitarianism is a corrective to this injustice because it distributes this “new” resource equally. Carbon trading will lead to a (genuinely) fully just world. In other words, carbon egalitarianism is part of non-ideal theory in very specific circumstances: it tells us what we should do in a nearly just world where all resources except the right to emit carbon are distributed equally. Carbon egalitarianism is not part of ideal theory for the resource egalitarian. Moreover, it is not clear why carbon egalitarianism should be part of non-ideal theory in other circumstances. For example, if other resources are distributed very unequally, why should we distribute carbon emission rights equally? If we are resource egalitarians, shouldn’t we seek to rectify the overall resource inequalities by giving those with less resources more carbon emission rights than those with more resources? An initially unequal allocation of emission rights will enable the “carbon rich” to trade their emission rights for other resources; thereby moving us closer to the resource egalitarian’s fully just world. To summarise: I have argued that welfare egalitarianism and capabilities egalitarianism offer no support for carbon egalitarianism. Resource egalitarianism does a little better but only supports carbon egalitarianism in very specific circumstances: the nearly just world described above. In short, carbon egalitarianism cannot be derived directly from a broader egalitarianism. 5.

Selective Egalitarian Defences A selective egalitarian defence of carbon egalitarianism is consistent with the rejection of the broader forms of egalitarianism discussed in section four. On this approach, there is something special about the case of carbon (or the right to emit carbon) that justifies carbon egalitarianism despite a general rejection of egalitarianism. I will consider three arguments for this kind of “selective egalitarianism:” the global commons argument; the modus vivendi argument; and the pragmatic egalitarian argument. The global commons argument claims that the right to emit carbon should be distributed equally because everyone has an equal right to use the global commons. There are two related versions of the argument. On the first version, everyone has an equal claim to the global commons because they are unowned: [No] one owns the atmosphere - it is a true global commons - yet we all need it. On that basis everyone

252

Carbon Justice? has an equal right to its services - in one sense, an equal right to pollute.28 This version has a Lockean inspiration. Traxler makes this clear: So, just as John Locke and others have held that each person has an equal title to land that was previously common to all, we may assume … that each individual has an equal title to this atmospheric absorption capacity.29

However, this extension of the Lockean argument is problematic. The Lockean argument allows individuals to legitimately appropriate land by using it. In the same way, it might be argued that individuals might have legitimately appropriated the “atmospheric absorption capacity” by emitting carbon. Of course, Locke insists that legitimate appropriation leaves “enough and as good” for others. We surely cannot claim that we have left enough and as good atmospheric absorption capacity for others. However, it is no more plausible to claim that we have left enough and as good of other resources, including land, for others. Therefore, a Lockean argument for carbon egalitarianism is not a selective egalitarian argument. It is a general argument for equality of natural resources, which gives us no reason to prefer carbon egalitarianism over carbon inegalitarianism. Instead, our concern should be (overall) equality of natural resources. On the second version of the argument the global commons provide “public goods” to which everyone has an equal claim: [There] are global commons which provide “public goods,” such as the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere … [These] are goods to which we all have an innately equal claim.30 The “absorptive capacity of the atmosphere” is a “public good.” Each person has an equal claim to a public good. The problem with this argument is that is far from clear why the “benefits” of a public good should be distributed equally. Why, for example, shouldn’t they be distributed according to need? (as defined by a capabilities or welfarist account of justice). In other words, the “public goods” version of the global commons argument is either question-begging or it depends on a more general argument for equality of resources rather than equality of capabilities or equality of welfare. In sum, I conclude that the global commons argument cannot justify carbon egalitarianism. The second selective egalitarian argument is the modus vivendi argument. We should distribute rights to emit carbon equally because the

Derek R. Bell

253

global South will not accept a less advantageous arrangement. Carbon egalitarianism is the only way to ensure global peace. Athanasiou and Baier make this point: Despite all the attention the global-justice movement has lavished on international trade, it’s only within the climate battle that the South really has the power to demand fair terms, and it’s unwise to assume that Southern negotiators are unaware of this.31 This is not a moral argument. It does not offer a moral justification for carbon egalitarianism. Instead, it offers a “realist” argument based on an appraisal of the power relations between the global rich and the global poor. The peculiarity of the argument is that it suggests that the global poor have the power to demand equality in the context of climate change. This defence of carbon egalitarianism seems unconvincing. If the global South really have power over the global North on the issue of climate change, why should they settle for carbon egalitarianism? Wouldn’t they seek to redress more general global inequalities by demanding carbon inegalitarianism in their favour? However, it seems more likely that the global South do not have the power to demand carbon egalitarianism. We know that many regions in the global South are particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, including flooding, desertification and extreme weather events. Moreover, we know that the global poor have fewer resources to facilitate adaptation. The effects of climate change on the global North are likely to be less and they are more likely to be able to adapt. In other words, it is far from clear that the power in climate change negotiations lies so firmly with the global South. So far, there is little evidence that we are headed for a postKyoto climate treaty based on the principle of carbon egalitarianism. In sum, I do not believe that the modus vivendi argument is based on an accurate understanding of the power relations in climate negotiations nor do I see any reason to believe that the global South would be satisfied with carbon egalitarianism if they did hold power over the North. The third selective egalitarian argument is the pragmatic egalitarian argument. This argument recognises the radical injustice in the world and suggests that one way that we can begin to reduce injustice is to distribute rights to emit carbon equally. The person who adopts this position is a broad egalitarian (of some kind) who accepts that a fully just world is currently out of reach. His non-ideal solution is to find ways of promoting equality. One way is to advocate carbon egalitarianism and allow carbon trading. The poor can sell their excess carbon emission rights to the rich and make a windfall gain that reduces the economic

254

Carbon Justice?

inequality between the rich and the poor. There are two problems with this argument for carbon egalitarianism. First, it is far from clearthat it will be an effective way of reducing inequalities. In an economically unequal world, the poor have limited bargaining power. The opportunity to sell their carbon emission rights might be little better than the right to sell their internal organs. In both cases, they may be prepared to take life-endangering risks (having an organ removed; not adequately heating their homes) to get enough money to buy other necessities (or what they consider to be “necessities”). Second, there are good reasons for thinking that the pursuit of carbon egalitarianism may distract from a broader egalitarian aim rather than promoting it. The intuitive attraction of carbon egalitarianism appears to have two sources. The first source is the general (or broad) cosmopolitan egalitarian intuition that all people are equal and should have the same basic entitlements. The second source is the idea that we can distribute carbon emission rights separately and leave the distribution of everything else untouched. In other words, the intuitive attraction of carbon egalitarianism is just that it is a way of limiting the scope of the cosmopolitan egalitarian intuition. Carbon egalitarianism is likely to be an alternative to broad egalitarianism rather than a stepping stone toward broad egalitarianism. If we are genuine broad egalitarians, we should tackle the economic (or resource or capability or welfare) inequalities more directly by fundamentally re-shaping the global economic and political system. To summarise: I have considered three selective egalitarian arguments for carbon egalitarianism: the global commons argument; the modus vivendi argument; and the pragmatic egalitarian argument. I have suggested that none of these arguments provide a convincing defence of carbon egalitarianism. 6.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have considered and rejected the idea of a universal right to equal carbon emissions (carbon egalitarianism). However, I do not want to reject the idea of carbon justice or the usefulness of adopting the carbon perspective when we address the question: “How should responsibility for adaptation and mitigation be divided?” The distribution of rights to emit carbon should not be considered in isolation from the distribution of other resources. Carbon justice cannot be treated as wholly independent from broader questions of justice. However, we should not ignore the distribution of carbon emission rights. We need to think carefully about how the right to emit carbon should be distributed in both a fully just world and, more importantly, in our radically unjust world. The right to emit carbon is a complex good and it is related in complex ways to other goods. A full theory of climate change justice will examine this “novel” good and place

Derek R. Bell

255

it in the context of a general theory of global justice. Climate change justice will include an account of carbon justice but it will not be the over-simplified account that we find in carbon egalitarianism.32

Notes 1

Among the more important recent summary reports are: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: summary for policymakers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001; and H Schellnhuber, W Cramer, N Nakicenovic, T Wigley and G Yohe (eds), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. 2 Global Commons Institute, GCI Briefing: “Contraction and Convergence,” GCI, London, 2005, p. 2. 3 Global Commons Institute, p. 2. 4 Global Commons Institute, p. 2. 5 T Athanasiou and P Baer, Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming, Seven Stories Press, New York, 2002, p. 28. 6 Athanasiou and Baer, pp. 86-7. 7 Athanasiou and Baer, p. 64. 8 Athanasiou and Baer, p. 86. 9 A Simms, An Environmental War Economy: the lessons of ecological debt and global warming, New Economics Foundation, London, p. 2. Emphasis added. 10 S Vanderheiden, ‘Justice in the Greenhouse: Climate Change and the Idea of Fairness’ in C Hughes (ed), Social Philosophy Today: Environmental Philosophy, Philosophy Documentation Centre, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002, p. 100. 11 J Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972, p. 85. 12 On the interest-based theory of rights see J. Raz, The Morality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986, p. 186. 13 For useful discussion see S Caney, ‘Global Justice, Rights and Climate Change’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 9 (2), 2006. 14 N Stern, The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London, 2006, p. iii. 15 Stern, p. 3. 16 Athanasiou and Baer, p. 44. 17 Stern, p. iii. 18 Stern, p. iv. 19 IPCC cited in Athanasiou and Baer, pp. 40-1. 20 Vanderheiden, p. 92.

256

Carbon Justice?

21

I cannot address the important issues raised by the choice between a whole life approach and an annual approach in this chapter. 22 See R. Dworkin, 'What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare', Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (3) 1981, pp.185-246. 23 M Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, pp. 78-9. 24 Nussbaum, p. 78. 25 Nussbaum, p. 78. 26 Dworkin’s discussion is the classic statement of equality of resources. See R Dworkin, ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (4), 1981, pp. 283-345. 27 Dworkin, p. 285. 28 Simms, p. 5. 29 M Traxler, ‘Fair Chore Division for Climate Change’, Social Theory and Practice 28 (1), 2002, p. 120. 30 Simms, p. 19. 31 Athanasiou and Baer, p. 17. 32 I would like to thank audiences at the “Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship” conference in Oxford (2006) and the Association of Legal and Social Philosophy conference in Dublin (2006) for their very helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Bibliography Athanasiou, T. and P. Baer, Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming. Seven Stories Press, New York, 2002. Caney, S., ‘Global Justice, Rights and Climate Change’. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 9 (2), 2006. Dworkin, R 'What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare', Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (3) 1981, pp.185-246. Dworkin, R., ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (4), 1981, pp. 283-345. Global Commons Institute, GCI Convergence.” GCI, London, 2005.

Briefing:

“Contraction

and

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: summary for policymakers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.

Derek R. Bell

257

Nussbaum, M., Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1972. Raz, J., The Morality of Freedom. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986. Schellnhuber, H., W. Cramer, N. Nakicenovic, T. Wigley and G. Yohe (eds), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. Simms, A., An Environmental War Economy: the lessons of ecological debt and global warming. New Economics Foundation, London, 2001. Stern, N., The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, London, 2006. Traxler, M., ‘Fair Chore Division for Climate Change’. Social Theory and Practice 28 (1), 2002, pp. 101-34. Vanderheiden, S., ‘Justice in the Greenhouse: Climate Change and the Idea of Fairness’ in C Hughes (ed), Social Philosophy Today: Environmental Philosophy. Philosophy Documentation Centre, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2002, pp. 89-101.

Section 7 Professionals and Corporations

The Final Frontier: Free Trade, Corporate Capitalism and International Environmental Law Kristy J. Buckley Abstract In the past several decades, free trade and the process of globalisation have expanded exponentially through the medium of multiand transnational corporations. These entities have infiltrated countries worldwide and gained tremendous power and profits as a result. However, the nature and structure of public international law is antiquated in respect to the rise of corporate capitalism and the power that corporations exert in lesser-developed countries. As a result, the current system enables multinational corporations to export environmental costs to the third world. In the past three decades, there has been an increasing trend towards environmental degradation and intra-state conflict in weak states and lesserdeveloped countries. In contrast with developed countries, which have the ability to set strict regulations and monitor corporations operating in their country; underdeveloped states do not have the structural or political means to regulate multi-national corporations operating within their territories. Corrupt government officials colluding with corporate managers undermine attempts at state regulation; people and the environment suffer while decision-makers profit. Thus far, international law and organisational bodies have largely failed to bring about any substantial regulation over corporations. This paper will examine the environmental impacts of free trade, international financial institutions and multi-national corporations in weak and failed states throughout Africa. It will demonstrate the lack of international law governing these powerful entities and their activities. Finally, it will argue that in the face of violent conflict, social erosion, and environmental degradation, it is time for international law to catch up with globalisation and the expansion of corporate capitalism in order to devise regulatory mechanisms that protect exploited people and environments worldwide. Key Words: International Law, Environmental Economics, Ecological Economics, Multi-National Corporations, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo, Environmental Degradation, Free Trade, Water, Economics. 1.

Introduction

This paper will discuss the environmental impacts of globalisation and free trade by examining the relationships between environmental degradation, multi-national corporations (MNCs) and international law.

262

The Final Frontier

First, it will discuss the inexorable trend towards globalisation and how the effects of this movement are contributing directly and indirectly to environmental degradation. Secondly, it will address the economics of free trade and the environment by applying economic concepts to illustrate how the current international financial systems negatively and disproportionately impact lesser developed countries and how these inequities lead to environmental degradation, conflict, political corruption, and even greater disparity between rich and poor. The major actors and contributors under the international financial system are multi- or transnational corporations, and trade organisations. These influential entities can have major economic, social and environmental impacts on the countries in which they operate. Despite their international and local power, corporations have limited obligations under international law to behave in socially or environmentally responsible ways: they simply must adhere to the laws of the states in which they operate. In the developing world and especially in Africa, many countries are mired by corrupt government, conflict, poverty and lack of effective government control. As a result, it is difficult, if not nearly impossible, for the state to effectively monitor and regulate powerful multi-national corporations. Finally, the paper will conclude by demonstrating that international law has yet to ‘catch up’ to address the economic, social and environmental impacts that MNCs pose under the current trade system. 2.

Globalisation Globalisation and free trade have long been promulgated by international institutions and governments worldwide as a panacea for development and progress. International financial institutions adhere to their economic models and theories regarding the benefits of trade liberalisation, while failing to take into account the environmental impacts that these systems create, especially in developing countries. The ecological impact of this system results in environmental costs being “exported” to countries in the developing world. Yet the price of most freely traded primary commodities does not reflect the associated environmental costs being paid by the countries where these goods are produced. Many lesser-developed countries rely heavily on unsustainable exploitation of their agricultural and natural resources in order to generate revenue and participate in the world market. These export-oriented economies are fulfilling the demands of the “world” economy, (namely the industrialised world) while suffering from environmental degradation as a result. This entire system is heavily dependent upon MNCs, which effectively serve as the vehicles of globalisation and trade. These entities invest and operate in lesser -developed countries and supply the world market demands. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), the extent to which trade exacerbates environmental degradation depends largely on two

Kristy J. Buckley

263

factors: “the strength of national environmental regulations and the degree to which international trade regimes reinforce or undermine them.”1 The following two sections will examine the capacity of states to protect their environment, and the impacts of international trade and financial institutions. 3.

Law and the Capacity of States Under the current international trading system, lesser developed countries (LDCs) incur a majority of the environmental costs as they increasingly focus their economies on export crops and exploitation of their natural resources. Additionally, many of these countries do not have the capabilities to devise and enforce environmental regulations on investing foreign corporations. One of the contributing factors to this problem is that regulations can conflict with a country’s economic incentives if they depend upon export-oriented industries such as cash crops or timber. For example, despite possible government motivation to restrict logging and the use of pesticides, if “world markets offer high prices for blemish-free fruit and hardwood timber, the economic incentive to violate the regulations will be strong.”2 Globalisation and capitalism have opened up the doors to remote areas of the world and corporations have taken advantage of these new opportunities to exploit land and resources. The environmental effects of these trends are considerable. Given the usual array of problems facing governments of lesser-developed countries such as conflict, corruption and lack of education and health care, environmental regulations are usually the least of the government’s concerns. Additionally, government accountability can be further eroded by corporate exploitation. According to the organisation Publish What You Pay, Dependency on extractive resources tends to lead to unaccountable state institutions, many of which have inadequate infrastructure and expertise to manage the substantial size of revenues flowing in from this sector.3 The high revenues generated from contracts with MNCs are absorbed by the state government. In weak states, corrupt politicians often pocket the money themselves instead of investing the revenue into longterm goals of social and environmental programs for their people, many of whom are amongst the world’s poorest citizens. Corruption is not the only motivation for weak environmental regulation. In an increasingly competitive world market, lesser-developed countries often argue that their lack of standards and regulations serve as competitive advantages that attract foreign corporate investment. Devising and enforcing strict environmental codes on corporations can discourage

264

The Final Frontier

foreign direct investment and result in negative economic consequences for the country. Also of importance is the role of international aid and financial institutions. Many state recipients of foreign aid are pressured to generate money and encourage foreign investment and development. Through the use of international financial policy such as World Bank structural adjustment programs, lesser-developed countries are required to conduct their economic policies according to Bank standards and direct their focus towards policies that encourage corporate investment. The motivation for this initiative is predicated on the need for more state infrastructure and to generate revenue in order to repay international debts.4 For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), home to the world’s second largest rainforest, the World Bank has been instrumental in devising ways to formalize the timber industry to include one of the most lucrative exports in the Congo.5 The Bank’s motivation is to promote free trade and generate revenue. However, the program fails to take into account the fact that over 70 per cent of the population relies directly on the forests for survival. Increased logging may generate revenue for the government and profits for MNCs but it is the environment and the people of the Congo that will ultimately incur the costs of environmental degradation with little compensation from the extracting corporations. For example, in a contract between a foreign timber logging company and the DRC government, the abysmal compensation awarded to the displaced tribal peoples included several bags of salt, a couple cases of beer, and some bars of soap. Clearly in this case, the DRC government lacked the capacity to monitor these transactions or demand more adequate compensation for their people; as such, the corporation was taking advantage of the situation. A state’s capacity to devise regulations, monitor, and enforce them varies depending on the strength of government accountability and institutions. There are many external factors that influence a state’s capacity to protect the environment ranging from: free trade agreements, World Bank programs and powerful multi-national corporations. When these are combined with internal dynamics such as conflict, corruption and weak government institutions, ensuring protection for the environment seems quite unrealistic. However, as the globalisation phenomenon is quickly demonstrating; the internal activities of states can often impact the rest of the world. Since every nation and citizen is dependent on the global environment, protecting the vital commons is a collective international interest, and cannot be left to state or corporate responsibility alone. The following section will address the external influences affecting LDCs in terms of world trade and globalisation.

Kristy J. Buckley 4.

265

International Economics and Environmental Degradation The economic or monetary ‘value’ of the environment is a difficult quantity to determine. It is not easy to gauge the value of having a reliable water supply or the additional value if that water supply is suitable for drinking. Economic and trade theories are largely based upon productivity and profit, and rarely take into account the existing value of a healthy environment. For example, when government officials and corporate businessmen assess the economic value of timber in the rainforest, they are not taking into account the value of not logging the rainforest (such as preserving land, species, mitigating climate change, etc.). There are different schools of thought regarding the relationship between economics and the environment. One approach is ecological economics, which emphasises the “interdependence and co-evolution between human economies and natural ecosystems.”6 A major criticism of this approach towards trade is its assumption that there is a positive relationship “between international trade and economic growth and between economic growth and environmental protection.”7 Ecological economics promotes sustainable development and a higher standard of living through the use of natural wealth to create capital wealth.8 The first part of this assumption is not always pertinent in lesser developed countries where economic growth depends on the exploitation of natural resources (often linked with exporting raw materials and primary commodities9). Furthermore, using the gross domestic product (GDP)10 as a measurement of social welfare can be a misleading indication of real welfare. For example, there has been “no positive relationships [found] between exports and economic growth…” in African countries that are reliant upon non-renewable resources.11 The second part of this assumption, that economic growth results in environmental protection, is based upon the concept that an increased standard of living will result in a greater demand for environmental quality.12 This approach can be represented through what is known as an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) which is “the graphical representation of Simon Kuznets’s theory that economic inequality increases over time, then at a critical point begins to decrease.”13 See graph below:

266

The Final Frontier Y*

Environmental Damage

per capita GDP Where: Y-axis: represents the amount of environmental damage due to economic activity X-axis: represents income per capita. Y*: represents the threshold income, sometimes referred to as the “turning point”. That point signifies the income level at which environmental damage per capita begins to recede. Figure 2. The Validity of the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis and the Dangers of Environmental Policies Based Upon It.14 Essentially, this method asserts that cultivating respect for the environment initially requires degradation of it through free trade and unsustainable use of natural resources. It also assumes that degradation caused by economic growth is reversible. However, effects such as the pollution of water supplies and the loss of biodiversity are not quickly curable problems.15 The level of per capita GDP needed in order to reduce harm to the environment is “larger than the current world median of GDP per capita.”16 Based on this data, “extensive environmental degradation at a global level would carry on many years into the future” before environmental quality can be realised.17 In addition, GDP growth does not generally occur at ‘lightning’ speed. For example, Mexico opened up its economy to free trade in 1985. At the time its per capita GDP was $5,000. Since Mexico’s liberalisation of trade, the growth of income has been minute (annual per capita GDP has risen only ~1%), while the environmental degradation that has ensued as a result of trade has been substantial.18 According to the EKC19 curve, Mexico has surpassed the GDP level deemed to be the “turning point” at which environmental quality is considered a social priority, however “national levels of soil erosion, municipal solid waste, and urban air and water pollution all worsened from 1985 to 1999.”20 Countries in which there is a greater disparity between the current per capita GDP and the income “turning point” may have a long road of environmental degradation ahead. Due to the possibility of irreversible

Kristy J. Buckley

267

environmental damage, by the time that economic wealth has reached this pivotal turning point the opportunity to ‘go green’ may have already been lost.21 The environmental economics approach stands in contrast to the ecological economics model. This approach is based upon the concept…that some effects of an activity are not taken into account in [the] price. For instance, pollution in excess of the socially ‘optimal’ level may occur if the price that a producer pays does not include the impacts (costs) experienced by those adversely affected.22 This situation can be termed as ‘market failure’, which is “when market forces do not serve the perceived public interest.”23 One reason for market failure is “the inadequate expression of costs or benefits in prices thereby not factoring into microeconomic decision-making in markets.”24 One of the tenets of trade liberalisation is the idea that the price of goods and services are determined by the open market and are a reflection of the “true cost” of production. However, by using this market-based method to determine the “cost of production,” there is a failure to take into account the associated environmental costs of production. 5.

Free Trade and International Financial Institutions Regardless of the type of economic modelling a state adheres to, the influences of free trade and international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Bank are evident. The unequal distribution of environmental degradation that occurs with free trade25 is not as simple as the ‘race to the bottom’ theory, which says that global competition contributes to the erosion of environmental standards. Rather, free trade “produces environmental improvement and economic growth in the North and environmental deterioration and economic stagnation in the South.”26 Paradoxically, and contrary to the objectives of many IFI “development” programs, it is the lesser developed countries that “suffer the load of ‘affluent’ consumption.”27 The inequality of environmental costs is largely the result of the “flow of primary commodities” and raw materials from LDCs to the industrialised world.28 The developed world consumes “two-thirds of all primary commodity exports,” many of which are resource- or environmentintensive products.29 Due to the fact that many LDC economies are dependent upon the export of raw materials or primary commodities to generate revenue, there is an incentive to increase production and extraction of natural resources; often at a greater expense to the environment.30 To measure the impact of trade on the environment, the effects must be measured in physical terms; prices provide an unreliable representation due to their fluctuations over time.31 For six of the most environmentally

268

The Final Frontier

harmful sectors, the EU and US were the greatest net importers and LDCs were net exporters.32 Tracing the flow of environmentally intensive goods from LDCs to the industrialised countries can also serve as a representation of the “ecological flow” in terms of environmental costs.33 The disparity in the distribution of environmental costs is known as “unequal (ecological) exchange.” The effect of this is; that producers, investors and consumers incur either higher costs or lower incomes (or both) in the buying and selling of commodities than they would have, if the commodities had traded at their ‘real’ or ‘true’ value34 As a result of the embedded inequality, lesser developed countries are ecologically disadvantaged from trade while the importing rich countries and the MNCs “obtain a super profit,”35 or rather, they outsource environmental degradation. In order to further understand how globalisation, free trade, and the expansion of MNCs have impacted the environment, we must also examine the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which, according to the World Resources Institute, is “the most powerful and effective institution for international governance that exists today.”36 Its current and potential impact on the environment is substantial and far-reaching. However, the trade and environmental regimes have developed isolated from one other and consequently, their objectives can come into conflict.37 This being the case, it is relevant and important to examine the role of this powerful institution in terms of the environment. 38 Under the WTO, international trade agreements are made not by elected or politically accountable representatives, but by a handful of economists, investors, and lawyers. Despite this lack of democratic process and political accountability, the power and enforceability these trade agreements have at the international level is unprecedented. One of these WTO Agreements deals with agriculture. While most of the criticisms of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) deal with unequal competition between small rural farmers and agribusiness, there are also environmental implications.39 The Agreement promotes the movement away from rural farming and towards agribusiness, creating substantial “ecological footprints” including high levels of water consumption, waste, and pollution through the widespread use of pesticides. There are also rules under negotiation for the AoA that have to potential to “prevent governments from strengthening environmental regulations.”40 According to one critic, international trade and IFI policies have not been appropriately attentive to environmental considerations: Nearly three decades of environmentally blind policies, especially in semi-arid and arid lands, have been

Kristy J. Buckley

269

compounded by the exigencies of international trade and structural adjustment policies whose design has not taken into account environmental considerations, further encouraging ecological deterioration and acute economic stress among local people.41 The structure of the global economy is such that “increasingly industrialised production, market-led strategies, and developing countries stricken by famine…produce more for export than for their own needs.”42 In addition to this paradoxical situation where the world’s poor are growing food to feed the world’s rich, there are also negative environmental impacts associated with LDCs being economically dependent upon export-crops and the exploitation of natural resources. While no “conclusive evidence exists that demonstrates that trade in and of itself necessarily harms the environment,” it is fair to conclude that if an activity such as logging or fishing is unsustainable; augmenting such activities through trade can exacerbate its negative impact on the environment.43 In terms of agriculture, free trade promotes cultivation of export-oriented crops such as coffee, bananas, and cotton. The need for high crop yields can result in a number of environmental problems such as high water and pesticide use, desertification, and deforestation to make way for farm fields- ultimately reducing biodiversity.44 In addition to trade agreements, international financial institutions also have a sizeable influence as they “control the global purse strings” through funding for development and investment.45 These institutions help to fund and implement environmentally sensitive projects such as the construction of roads or dams. Through the use of structural adjustments programs, these institutions have the ability to influence and shape national economies and their integration in the international economy.46 The inequality of environmental degradation is also caused in part by the policy evaluation methods used by international financial institutions. For instance, the World Bank uses what is known as a “weak sustainability approach” which measures environmental sustainability using monetary units. This is in contrast to the traditional notion of sustainability which promotes “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”47 The weak sustainability approach allows for “complete substitutions between human-made and natural capital (i.e. natural resources).” This method assumes that there are “no ecological limits.” Therefore, weak sustainability “allows for the depletion or degradation of natural resources, so long as such depletion is offset by increases in the stocks of other forms of capital.”48 Applying the weak sustainability approach to World Bank policy “may lead to an irreversible loss of ‘critical natural capital’” because it assumes that as long as a state is gaining

270

The Final Frontier

monetarily by trading their natural wealth then it is classified as practicing ‘weak sustainability.’49 Environmental degradation is also a result of the imbalanced terms of trade and price fluctuations for primary commodities. Countries that are dependent on export crops to generate revenue are driven to increase production, consequently degrading their environment. However, the basic market mechanisms of supply and demand take effect and the increased supply results in a lower price for the products. The intuitive response of producers is to increase production even more in order to attempt to make up for the lost income. There are negative environmental effects of this selfreinforcing cycle because “increased exports require intensive use of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides”50 and puts a further strain on already overtaxed water supplies. This cycle stands in contrast to the EKC method which argues that environmental degradation will dissipate as economies expand and per capita GDP grows. However, these practices are often supported or required by the World Bank’s structural adjustment programs so that indebted countries can generate revenue and pay off their debts. Inequities in terms of trade combined with the indebtedness of many developing countries undermine concern and respect for the environment.51 Furthermore, if a country incorporates environmentallyminded limits, these conditions could interfere with production levels and the generation of revenue. Subsequently, they may obstruct the World Bank’s structural adjustment programs which require the state to generate revenue by meeting the demands of the international market. The supply of these demands is delivered mainly through multi-national corporations. As explored in the following section, these companies are the main benefactors of the current system of international trade. 6. Multi-National Corporations: The means by which rich countries are able to transfer environmental degradation to LDCs is through multi- and transnational corporations. The most powerful and profitable MNCs are headquartered in the industrialised world, yet conduct many operations in LDCs. As such, they serve as the vehicles of globalisation and export trade. While states have legal personality under international law, corporations, even though they operate on a multi- national and international scale, do not. Given the fact that, of the top 100 economic entities in the world, the first 49 are industrialised countries while the remaining 51 are MNCs, it is time international law recognises the immense wealth, power and influence that these corporations have attained through globalisation and free trade and start independently monitoring and regulating corporate actions and impacts on the environment. Under the current system, MNCs are only held accountable under the laws of the states in which they operate. So for instance, if a multi-

Kristy J. Buckley

271

national is headquartered in the United States, they are subject to US laws. Their foreign operations in other countries are not regulated by US or international law, only by the domestic law of the territory in which they operate. This follows the traditional system of international law, whereby the state is paramount in terms of legal sovereignty. In theory, this system should serve LDCs well: they are able to pass and enforce their own social and environmental regulations that the MNCs operating within their territory must abide by. However, due to political corruption, greed, weak government institutions, and lack of countrywide effective control in many LDCs, MNCs are rarely monitored and even less often regulated. This leads to a considerable disparity between how MNCs conduct their operations in industrialised countries versus lesser developed, weaker states. Since they are motivated by profit, and legally impeded only by state governments’ ability to regulate them, operations in weak states are generally not socially or environmentally conscious. As profit-driven companies, they take advantage of the circumstances in the country to pursue self-serving exploitation. For instance in Kenya, much of the available water is used by agricultural business (foreign-owned agribusiness) to irrigate export crops including coffee, lettuce, peas, broccoli, and flowers. The resulting environmental cost is heavy; a fifty gram bag of lettuce sold in the UK for ninety-nine pence “wastes almost fifty litres of water” in Kenya where it is grown.52 Agribusiness’ insatiable need for water is threatening rural farmers who attempt to grow to sustain themselves; farmers are increasingly deprived of their water supply so that agribusiness can meet the demands of the international market. Over-consumption of water in Kenya is such a sizeable problem that even Starbucks has started to support and fund projects to promote water access to coffee-growers in Kenya.53 While this is an example of corporate environmental altruism, the environment is too important a global concern to allow it to be “protected” by the meagre philanthropic projects of corporate giants. As exemplified by the popularity of Starbucks, the developed world depends on international trade and industrial agriculture to fulfill its vast need for agricultural products, and this comes with an exorbitant environmental cost. The great dependency on export crops from Kenya is resulting in the unsustainable water use of Lake Naivasha: …almost everybody in Europe who has eaten Kenyan beans or Kenyan strawberries or gazed at Kenyan roses has bought Naivasha water…it is sucking the lake dry and soon the lake will become a turbid, smelly pond with impoverished communities ekeing out a living along bare shores.54

272

The Final Frontier

The prices for these goods are set by market forces, and do not reflect the “true cost” of production. The reliance upon Africa for many of these goods is furthering the exhaustion of the region’s already reduced water supply. “Africa’s water resources for agriculture are already inadequate” and per capita water availability in an export-crop dependent country like Kenya, for instance, is projected to fall by 82 per cent by 2050.55 Competition and demands from the world market require that countries such as Kenya, that regularly experience drought and food shortages, plant crops to feed the industrialised world while not leaving them with the resources they need to feed themselves. Ironically, in many ways the world’s poor are feeding the world’s rich; and this is achieved at the expense of using up water and land resources in places where they are precious dwindling commodities. The renewable water resources for SubSaharan Africa (where much of the European produce imports are grown) is 6,000 cubic meters per person while Europe maintains 10,000 cubic meters per person.56 Comparatively, Europe does not have major water problems but the international trade market dictates that sub-Saharan countries like Kenya should be growing Europe’s coffee and lettuce. This is in spite of the fact that they barely have enough water to drink, let alone to sustain the irrigation of such water-dependent crops. Outside of its impact on developing countries, industrial agriculture also has a global impact on water usage. Currently, the world produces twice the amount of food that it did just a few decades ago. However, it is consuming three times the amount of water during the same time period.57 The amount of water allocated for agriculture has also risen to equal two-thirds of the total amount of water extracted in the world.58 Going hand in hand with increased water usage and soil depletion is the problem of deforestation as overproduction degrades soil quality and land dries up from overuse. As explained earlier, the growing need to generate revenues through export crops drives up the rate of production; yet the land used for industrial agriculture is not capable of supporting this high level of production and the end result is desertification.59 The effects of desertification have been substantial in the Sahara, where approximately 250,000 square miles (equivalent to the size of Somalia) of “onceproductive land…have become desert over the past fifty years.”60 Following desertification, there arises a need for new and rich lands. This results in expansion to marginal lands and in many cases, the stripping away of valuable forest, otherwise known as deforestation.61 In Africa, approximately 12 million acres of forest are cut down per year, the majority of this is a result of agricultural expansion.62 Agribusinesses now operating in African states are multi-national corporations (MNCs), not locally owned ventures. The Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), set by the WTO, opens up the doors for these MNCs to

Kristy J. Buckley

273

contribute to environmental degradation by allowing them to gain a greater foothold in lesser developed countries, all under the rubric of free trade.63 The environmental effects of these practices stem from the “race for productivity” which has resulted in the spread of industrial agriculture (or agribusiness).64 Until recently, industrial agriculture was traditionally used in the developed world, but now it is expanding to the developing world through free trade initiatives such as the AoA.65 Agribusiness “produces, processes, and markets 70 per cent of foodstuffs” and contributes heavily to environmental damage through the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and high level of water consumption.66 The growth of industrial agriculture, coupled with large scale expansion of multi-national corporations into developing countries has resulted in “unregulated extraction of groundwater for agriculture, industry, and potable use [and] has shown to seriously affect the quantity and quality of water resources.”67 In Africa, for instance, much of the land suitable for agriculture is used to grow export-crops, “often to the detriment of local populations”68 as water supplies are depleted and polluted in the name of economic growth and to meet the demands of free trade. The ecological impacts of agribusiness and extractive industries can be severe, and their operations are expanding under the auspices of free trade. Despite the implied connotations that the term “globalisation” may invoke, the activities and subsequent “ecological footprints” of these industries are not equally dispersed throughout the globe. Without effective state governments and laws, powerful multi-national corporations are able to take advantage of tenuous circumstances in LDCs and ultimately this can have severe adverse repercussions for the local and global environment. 7.

Conclusion International Relations realists would argue that environmental compensation and protection are matters best left to the state governments to regulate, monitor and enforce. However, the difficult position lesserdeveloped countries are often put in due to weak governance, political corruption, economic dependence on natural resources, requirements of international aid donors, and desperate efforts to gain market competitiveness, makes environmental protection not only seem like treehugging idealism, but worse yet, detrimental to the country’s economic development and advancement. Many aspects of the international free trade system and international financial institutions contribute to environmental degradation because there is a failure to adequately or accurately take environmental costs into account when devising trade law or financial policy. In addition to causing harm to the environment, these regime structures create unequal ecological exchanges that result in greater impacts being felt in the developing world. In effect, this enables the industrialised world to

274

The Final Frontier

outsource the economic costs associated with trade and the associated unsustainable rates of consumption. In order to combat environmental degradation and create more equality in the international market, trade laws and policies need to give more serious and substantial consideration to environmental factors and costs. Placing the responsibility for environmental protection on lesserdeveloped countries by expecting them to regulate the MNCs operating in their territory is an unrealistic approach for attaining true environmental protection. Rather than poor countries incurring high economic costs for environmental protection, the international community can be progressive and call for an entirely different type of international regulation over corporations themselves, regardless of the territories in which they are operate. To achieve this objective, the international trade community and financial regimes must enlist support for the global environment from the rich and powerful nations. Creating internationally enforceable environmental laws for multi-national corporations will serve to protect the world environment as a whole; rather than on the current country by country basis. Holding corporations responsible for maintaining internationally accepted standards regardless of their location would help eliminate the ‘race to the bottom’ approach to economic competition. It would also help curb corruption at the state level by setting international requirements for corporations, thereby preventing government officials from waiving regulations in return for bribes. In doing so, international regulations will help to balance the trade and environmental inequities between rich and poor nations; and ultimately prevent the full realisation of the late John Kenneth Galbraith’s observation that “people of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.”

Notes 1

World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2004. p. 157. 2 World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2003. p. 157. 3 Publish What You Pay, [http://www.publishwhatyoupay.org/english/background.shtml] 15 March 2006. 4 Interview with Theodore Trefon. 5 Kristy Buckley. “Road to the Forests: Post-Conflict Forest Management in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 1 Sep 2006. On file with author. 6 Brittanica Online Encyclopedia.

Kristy J. Buckley

7

275

Roldan Muradian. “Trade and the Environment: a ‘Southern’ Perspective.” Ecological Economics.” 36 (2001) 281-297. P. 283. 8 Brittanica Online Encyclopedia. 9 The term primary commodities refers to: “food and live animals, beverages and tobacco, excluding manufactured goods; crude materials, inedible, excluding fuels, synthetic fibres, waste and scrap; mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials, excluding petroleum products; animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes.” OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms. 10 Gross Domestic Product “is an aggregate measure of production equal to the sum of the gross values added of all resident institutional units engaged in production (plus any taxes, and minus any subsidies, on products not included in the value of their outputs).” OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms. 11 Roldan Muradian. P. 284. 12 Ibid. 13 Brittanica Online Encyclopedia. 14 Available at: [http://christopher.darrouzetnardi.net/experiences/ee.envirokuznetscurve.doc]. P. 3. 15 Muradian. P. 284. 16 Muradian. P. 284. 17 Muradian. P. 284. 18 Kevin P. Gallagher, “Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond,” Americas Program (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric ResourceCenter,September17,2004). [http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0409naftaenv.html] 29 Apr 2006. 19 EKC stands for Environmental Kuznets curves. EKCs are based on “a hypothesized relationship between various indicators of environmental degradation and income per capita” (or GDP). EKC studies are used to determine the ‘ecological footprint’ of economic growth using per capita GDP and measures of environmental degradation associated with trade liberalization. More information about EKC can be found at [http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc_entries/Stern.pdf]. 29 Apr 06. 20 Kevin P. Gallagher, “Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond,” Americas Program (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric ResourceCenter,September17,2004). [http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0409naftaenv.html] 29 Apr 2006. 21 Muradian. P. 284. 22 Brittanica Online Encyclopedia. 23 Ibid. 24 Investor Dictionary. [http://www.investordictionary.com/definition/market+failure.aspx]

276

25

The Final Frontier

Roldan Muradian. “Trade and the Environment: a Southern Perspective.” P. 288. 26 Roldan Muradian. “Trade and the Environment: a Southern Perspective.” P. 286. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 The increase in supply of products also undermines LDCs objective of revenue gains by driving down the market price for commodities and natural resources. Roldan Muradian. “Trade and the Environment: a Southern Perspective.” P. 287. 31 Roldan Muradian. P. 290. 32 Roldan Muradian. P. 291. 33 Roldan Muradian. P. 290. 34 Britannica Online Encyclopaedia. 35 Ibid. 36 World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2003. p. 157. 37 Ibid, 161. 38 The WTO is slowly incorporating environmental reviews of trade agreements. To this effect, the WTO site mentions the following: “the Doha Ministerial Declaration contains a paragraph relevant to this issue (Paragraph 33) which encourages Members to share their experience and expertise with others on how national environmental reviews can be performed. The importance of environmental reviews in WTO trade negotiations has also been confirmed in paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration and, subsequently, in the WSSD Plan of Implementation. Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration reads: ‘We take note of the efforts by Members to conduct national environmental assessments of trade policies on a voluntary basis.’” 39 Vandana Shiva. “Free Trade Industrial Agriculture Rules Threaten the World’s Farmers.” International Forum on Globalization. [http://www.ifg.org/pdf/int’l_trade-shiva_AOA.pdf_1.pdf] 28 Apr 2006. 40 World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2003. p. 157. 41 Lucy Oriang. “A Market for Drylands and Deserts?” IDRC Reports. Vol. 22, No. 2. [http://archive.idrc.ca/books/reports/v222/market.html]. 42 UNEP Food: Feed the World Without Starving the Planet. P.1 43 World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2004. p. 156-157. 44 World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2004. p. 157. 45 Ibid.

Kristy J. Buckley

46

277

World Resources Institute. “Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth.” Earthscan. 2004. p. 161. 47 From the 1987 Brundtland Report. Wikipedia Online Encycplopedia. 48 OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms. [http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6611]. 29 Apr 2006. 49 Roldan Muradian. “Trade and the Environment: a Southern Perspective.” P. 292. 50 Lucy Oriang. “A Market for Drylands and Deserts?” IDRC Report. Vol. 22, No. 2. 51 Ibid. 52 Laurance Jeremy. “The Real Cost of a Bag of Salad: You Pay 99p, Africa pays 50 Litres of Fresh Water.” The Independent. 29 Apr 2006. [http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article360836.ece ] 29 Apr 2006. 53 Starbucks Corp0ration. Press Release. “Starbucks Honors World Water Day Through Its Commitment to Help Bring Clean Water to Children and Communities around the World; Starbucks Hosts Symbolic ‘Walks for Water’ and Announces US$2.12 Million in Investments for Water Programs”22 Mar 2006.http://www.csrwire.com/PressRelease.php?id=5254 54 David Harper. “Kenya’s Lake Naivasha in Critical Condition. 22 Mar 2006. EarthWatch Institute. [http://www.earthwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=crLQK3PHLsF&b =453237&ct=2082865]. 29 Apr 2006. 55 Robert Paarlberg. “Rice Bowls and Dust Bowls.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 1996. p. 131. 56 FreshWater Resources 2005. EarthTrends. World Resources Institute. [http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/wat2_2005.pdf] 29 Apr 2006. 57 Laurance Jeremy. “The Real Cost of a Bag of Salad: You Pay 99p, Africa pays 50 Litres of Fresh Water.” The Independent. 29 Apr 2006. 58 Ibid. 59 Desertification is the degradation of land in arid, semi arid and dry subhumid areas resulting from various factors including climatic variations and human activities. Modern desertification often arises from the demands of increased populations that settle on the land in order to grow crops and graze animals. UNESCO. [www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/theme_c/mod13/www.worldbank.org/dep web/english/modules/glossary.htm] 60 Robert Paarlberg. “Rice Bowls and Dust Bowls.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 1996. P. 131. 61 Lucy Oriang. “A Market for Drylands and Deserts?” IDRC Report. Vol. 22, No. 2. 62 Robert Paarlberg. “Rice Bowls and Dust Bowls.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 1996. P. 131.

278

The Final Frontier

63

Ibid. Industrial agriculture/agribusiness/factory farming is characterized by methods that are geared to produce the highest output at the lowest cost, and include the use of agrichemicals and veterinary drugs. It often refers to large-scale, industrialized production of livestock, poultry, and fish. Factory farming may also describe farms that grow fruits and vegetables as intensive monoculture crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. [http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/industrialagriculture-features-and-policy.html] 28 Apr 2006. 65 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Report. “Food: feed the world without starving the planet.” 66 UNEP Food: feed the world without starving the planet.” 67 Cesano Daniel. “Impact of Economic Globalization on Water Resources,” Water Policy. 2 (2000) P.213-227. p. 221. 68 UNEP Food: feed the world without starving the planet.” 64

Bibliography Buckley, Kristy J. “Road to the Forests: Post-Conflict Forest Management in the Democratic Republic of Congo” 1 Sep 2006. On file with author. Cesano, Daniel. “Impact of Economic Globalization on Water Resources.” Water Policy. 2 (2000) P.213-227. The Center for International Environmental Law. “GATS, Water and the Environment.” [www.ciel.org/Publications/GATS_WaterEnv_Nov03.pdf]. 26 Apr 2006. FreshWater Resources 2005. EarthTrends. World Resources Institute. [http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/wat2_2005.pdf] 29 Apr 2006. Gallagher, Kevin P. “Free Trade and the Environment: Mexico, NAFTA, and Beyond,” Americas Program (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center, September 17, 2004). [http://www.americaspolicy.org/articles/2004/0409naftaenv.html] 29 Apr 2006. General Agreement on Trade in Services (Articles I-XXVI). The World Trade Organization. [http://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/26gats_01_e.htm]. 26 Apr 2006.

Kristy J. Buckley

279

Harper, David. “Kenya’s Lake Naivasha in Critical Condition.” 22 Mar 2006. EarthWatch Institute. [http://www.earthwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=crLQK3PHLsF&b =453237&ct=2082865]. 29 Apr 2006. UNEP Food: Feed the World Without Starving the Planet. [www.uneptie.org/pc/sustain/reports/ SCP_Resource_Kit/PDF_FINAL_uk/food.pdf] Laurance, Jeremy. “The Real Cost of a Bag of Salad: You Pay 99p, Africa pays 50 Litres of Fresh Water.” The Independent. 29 Apr 2006. [http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article360836.ece] Mann, Howard. “International Economic Law: Water for Money’s Sake?” International Institute for Sustainable Development. Sep 2004. [http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_water_economic_law.pdf ] Matsushita, Mitsuo. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. Oxford University Press. 2003. Mexico - Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services, Report of the Panel, 2 April 2004, WT/DS204/R Muradian, Roldan. “Trade and the Environment: a ‘Southern’ Perspective.” Ecological Economics, 36 (2001) 281-297. P. 283. OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms. Oriang, Lucy. “A Market for Drylands and Deserts?” IDRC Report. Vol. 22, No. 2. Paarlberg, Robert. “Rice Bowls and Dust Bowls.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 1996. Shiva, Vandana. “Free Trade Industrial Agriculture Rules Threaten the World’s Farmers.” International Forum on Globalization. [http://www.ifg.org/pdf/int’l_trade-shiva_AOA.pdf_1.pdf] 28 Apr 2006. Trefon, Thedore. Interview. 27 Apr 2006. Varghese, Shiney. “GATS and Water.” Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. March 2006. [http://www.waterobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=78807]. 28 Apr 2006.

280

The Final Frontier

World Resources Institute. Natural Resources: Decisions for the Earth. Earthscan. 2003.

Empowerment of Professionals as a Strategy for Effective Sustainability of the Built Environment Joseph Akin Fadamiro Abstract Development professionals by their training play vital roles in the shaping of the built environment. Environmental problems, inimical to the quality of life, are being addressed in the industrialised countries by environmental sustainability programmes, which have been put in place in virtually all sections of development schemes. With the whole world embracing this concept of sustainability, planning, design and development professionals in the developing countries are challenged to address their environmental problems through their proposals. This paper examines the level of intervention of these professionals through their principles of sustainable design. It thereafter investigates the effect of their contributions to the development of the urban environment in their bid towards the achievement of comfort and sustainable management of the built environment. Key Words: environment.

Empowerment,

professionals,

sustainability,

built

1.

Introduction The built environment is an expression of the very basic desire by man to enhance comfort within the area where he lives, works and recreates. Built environments take their shapes from the very functions they are expected to perform. Besides, since man is a gregarious animal, and community living makes for increased security, benefits and pleasures of social contacts with neighbours, buildings are clustered together into villages, towns and cities. This is corroborated by the submission that: the built environment, whether it is a village or town is a product of the skilful organisation of space in order to express in the one instance the peoples’ social ideals and in another, man’s notion of reality.11 The development of the Nigerian built environment brought with it uncontrolled urban growth, leading to environmental degradation, deformation and depletion of human-supportive resources, increase in human-antagonistic ones and its reckless exploitation has spelt doom or outright annihilation for plants and animals including humans. This degradation is caused by three basic factors, which include accelerated population growth, increased urbanisation and new expanding technology,

282

Empowerment of Professionals

with associated increases in the demand for space and natural resources. None of these is damaging to the environment, but the …uncoordinated and unplanned efforts to accommodate them into a complex environment and to manage land resources properly have caused severe environmental problems in most countries.2,3 These conditions have thereafter produced unsatisfactory settlement systems that use resources inefficiently, increase development costs, and produce unequal distribution of the benefits and costs. However, the essential condition for the survival of humanity is the reduction and eventual elimination of these conflicts by the effective management of the environment.4 Therefore, it is necessary to establish a balance among the economic and social aims of development on the one hand, and the physical and social aims of development on the other. “The challenge here is to establish an equitable way of living, within the limits of nature and qualitative environment.”5 Despite the emergence of institutional frameworks under the government’s relevant ministries and special departments, there have been few achievements related to environmental protection and natural resources management. Several problems identified include land degeneration, pollution, flood and erosion, desertification, inefficient use of energy resources, loss of biodiversity, environmental disasters and deforestation. Poor access to improved sanitation facilities in Nigeria is blamed on poor implementation of health, housing and other related policies, high levels of poverty, low level of awareness about issues concerning environmental sustainability and the general underdevelopment of rural areas. This in turn results in low quality of life, or poor health conditions emanating from poor nutrition, water, housing and sanitation or from poor living conditions leading to outbreak of diseases. However, raising the quality of life and removing conditions of poverty, through development plans directed at a higher growth output, can solve these problems. Although development is a process by which some environmental problems relating to poverty can be solved, it can also bring other serious environmental side effects unless they are accompanied by sound environmental management practices and professionalism. In designing education and training programmes to solve the problems of the environment, it is essential to take into account not only what may seem to be the local problems, but also problems which could

Joseph Akin Fadamiro

283

affect the local scene indirectly from elsewhere. Hence the necessity to empower development professionals with adequate and necessary knowledge, in order to utilise such for the sustainability of a quality built environment. Given the importance attached to professionalism and its assumed impact on the sustainability of the built environment, the following key issues were addressed in the study; x x x x

An inventory of the concept of sustainability, to assess the environmental impact of human activities on the environment Available frameworks on the built environment as provided by government. The identification of the major targets and prospects of professionalism. A conclusive and recommended approach of the findings for the benefit of the people and the environment.

2.

Concept and Status of Sustainable Development Sustainable development could be regarded as a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are in harmony, and enhance both current and future potentials to meet human needs and aspirations. The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defines sustainable development as one that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It is also defined as: …a development strategy that manages all assets, natural resources and human resources, as well as financial and physical assets for increasing long term wealth and well being.6 Sustainable developments …reject all policies and practices that support current living standards by depleting the productive base, including natural resources and leaves future generations with poorer prospects and greater risks than our own.7 ,8 Discussion on Sustainable Development in the environmental conservation received significant exposition through the influential Brundtland report of 1987. Notable such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Wildlife Fund and the United Nations

284


Environmental Programme, all contributed to the enshrinement of the tenets of sustainable development in environmental circles. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio in 1992 and the second Habitat Conference held in Istanbul in 1992 further brought the idea of sustainable development into limelight. Actions aimed at ensuring environmental sustainability in Nigeria have gathered momentum following the Earth summit held in 1992. Awareness has grown regarding the integration of environmental concerns into resource management, policy and planning processes as a way of promoting sustainable development. The recognition of the critical linkage between the environment and national development led to the establishment of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in 1988 and the launching of the National Policy on Environment (NPE) in 1989. In 1999, FEPA was transformed into a full-fledged Federal Ministry of Environment and the NPE was revised partly in view of the necessity to integrate environmental concerns into the activities of all sectors of the economy. Despite this institutional framework, achievement relating to environmental protection and resource management has been rather limited. Sustainable development, according to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Report is; …therefore being threatened by a plethora of environmental problems including land degradation, pollution, flood and erosion, desertification, inefficient use of energy resources, loss of biodiversity, environmental disasters and deforestation.9 The proportion of people with access to improved sanitation facilities declined marginally from 56.5% in 1990 to 55.5% in 2000. The major factors underlying the low level of access to improved sanitation facilities include poor implementation of health, housing and other related policies, high level of poverty, low levels of awareness about issues concerning environmental sustainability and the general underdevelopment of the rural areas. With regard to the proportion of people with secured tenure as one of the indicators of environmental sustainability, the available data do not reflect the true situation. While there is evidence of poor shelter conditions in urban areas, tenure security in 1988 was quite high. For examples in two major urban centres, 93% of the residents of Lagos and 85.8% of those in Ibadan had access to secure tenure. However, these cities are also known to be centres of deteriorating social services and environmental conditions. Thus, if the MDG target of achieving a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020 is to be met, not only should there be significant improvement in the access to improve sanitation, the problems of inadequate housing, over-crowding in urban centres, homelessness, waste


285

disposal and poor quality housing in general should also be effectively addressed. The country faces the following challenges in its effort to achieve environmental sustainability: x x x x

Implementation of strategies to improve the living standards and quality of life of the people in the face of a rapidly growing population without destroying the environment. Dealing with the increasing trend of environment-related social unrest and dislocations, rising pollution and environmental degradation. Promoting private sector participation in the provision of housing, improved water supply and urban waste management. Fostering the adoption of efficient and environment friendly technologies for the generation, transmission and distribution of energy in the face of unending crisis in this sector. In this regard, city policies, planning and management are expected to be implemented in partnership with all the relevant actors like the public, private and voluntary bodies at all levels.10

This will lead to a new approach of different buildings, built environments and agro-urban relationships, thereby serving as the central challenge for design and designers of the built environment while sustainability and sustainable features will be available only through a purposeful design. Hence the paper addresses the necessary empowerment of professionals with the principles that can contribute to the creation, maintenance and sustainability of a quality built environment. This in effect is to promote the conservation, rehabilitation and maintenance of the city; and to serve as an appropriate and adaptable in-house community based solution to environmental problems. 3.

Capacity Building and Empowerment of Professionals Capacity building is the process of acquiring the ability to use human, institutional and environmental resources and policies to perform functions effectively, efficiently and on a continuing sustainable basis, with reduced dependence on external resources. It involves human resource development, efficiently functioning institutions and an environment conducive to the management of development and achievement of sustainable results. Capacity building for sustainable

286


environmental development hence requires changes to be made in the education of the new generations of technicians and professionals. All the stakeholders should be taken into account for the development of the curriculum and should participate actively in the process since the major need is to find solutions to their problems. In some recent studies many curricula are seen to be unresponsive to socio-economic and technological changes in the developing countries and are inappropriate for the local context. There is a long history of foreign training in which the more developed countries offer superior facilities in the form of well-stocked libraries, functioning laboratories and access to experienced scientists. However, the type of training provided is usually inappropriate to the developing countries, thus creating frustration that continues to be one of the important causes of the “brain-drain” syndrome. Fortunately, the possibilities for overcoming the lack of facilities in these countries are growing, due to modern communication technology. Internet services are rapidly becoming available in the developing countries. This electronic communication helps to overcome one limitation to scientists; relevant current literature are now accessible through e-mail communications. It is believed that students can make a better contribution to development by being provided with guidance and information in their native environments rather than receiving education in the industrialised countries where conditions are vastly different. The context in which education is set can influence its content although much of the inappropriate training currently taking place in many universities in developing countries is admittedly the proof of the opposite. However the inappropriateness of traditional education is in regard to the capacity of the environmental research system to generate relevant technology and thereby provide the needed knowledge for the professionals and the capacity to promote environmentally sustainable policies. It is expedient to make this a national goal and budgetary allocation in which donor agencies would assume secondary and subsidiary roles. Coherent strategies should be formulated with realistic time frames, while allocation of resources; utilisation of human skills and institutional relevance has to be adequately analysed. It should be possible to deliver services to the population in ways that are responsive to their needs. The beneficiaries should also receive capacity building training as a way of improving their participatory and economic relevance. 4.

Human Development Dimensions in Nigeria According to Wahab, Nigeria’s rich human and material resources endowments give it the potential to become Africa’s


287

largest economy and a major player in the global economy.11 But much of its potential has remained untapped due to faulty conception and pursuit of unsustainable strategies. Some of the challenges of development in Nigeria include acute poverty, low investment and economic growth rates, excessive dependence on oil, inefficient public sector spending, low productivity of the private sector, high urbanisation rates and high unemployment, which are threatening social cohesion, security and democracy. The education system is dysfunctional, as graduates of many institutions cannot meet the needs of the country. The development models adopted since independence, fuelled by decades of corruption and mismanagement, have created perverse incentives, inefficiencies and waste. A culture of graft and impunity ensured that Government became an instrument for constant acquisition of wealth, distorting the incentive to work and to create wealth in the private sector. With government as the major source of patronage, the fight for public office became fierce. An incentive framework was created that did not reward enterprise, enthroned mediocrity, allowed weak institutions to endure, and ignored the dire need for sustained human development. However to empower the people, the focus of the government’s new economic strategy, National Economic Empowerment and Development Scheme (NEEDS), on the environment is to ensure a safe and healthy environment that secures the economic and social well being of Nigerians on a sustainable basis. The specifics of the agenda are; …to take full inventory of the country’s natural resources, assess the level of environmental damage and design; and implement restoration and rejuvenation measures; aimed at halting further degradation of our environment. The development planning in this context places people at the centre of development efforts. NEEDS recognises education as the vital transformational tool and a favourable instrument for socio-economic empowerment, and sets six goals that include; x x x

To ensure and sustain unfettered access to education for the total development of the individual. To improve the quality of education at all levels. To use education as a tool for improving the quality of life through skill acquisition and job creation for poverty reduction.


288 x x x

To ensure periodic review and effective implementation of the curriculum at the secondary level to meet the requirements of higher education and the workplace. To mobilise and develop partnerships with the private sector and local communities to support and fund education. To promote information and communication technology capabilities at all levels.

The Federal Government, within the framework of NEEDS, further recognises the critical importance of tertiary institutions for developing high-quality human resources, especially in an increasingly technology-driven world economy. Consequently, fundamental reforms have been introduced in the higher education system with the following objectives: x x x x

Encouragement of private sector participation in the educational sector. Restructuring and updating curricula to meet the demands of the national economy, with special focus on science and technology, especially information and communication technology. Establishment of an effective mechanism for monitoring Universities to ensure strict adherence to standards. Developing innovative approaches to ensure continuing retraining and capacity building of lecturers to ensure high standard performance.

The influence of the Environmental Technology Sector in the orderly development of the human environment is a critical aspect of overall national development. Given the current impetus on environmental protection, resource conservation and sustainability; development of requisite manpower in the constituent fields of Architecture, Building, Estate Management, Industrial Design, Quantity Surveying, Urban and Regional planning as well as Geo-informatics, are crucial to the attainment of the national goals identified in the NEEDS programme. Architects are traditionally trained to conceptualise the environmental envelope that is conducive to various human needs and to deploy their creative talents to order space through designs that are influenced by existing prototypes and the local setting, while the primary objective of Urban and Regional Planning is to stimulate and control development through spatial organisation and the designs of master plans to track humans at work, play and rest; and to capture the interrelationships between housing, social services and work such as industries, agriculture, construction and commerce.


289

Quantity Surveyors, as cost-planners and advisors, are expected to provide uniform mechanisms to facilitate value for money pricing. This is done through the compilation of necessary schedules, specifications and the preparation of appropriate quantities for pricing. Engineers, through their designs provide structural and serviceable solutions to guarantee the stability and integrity of various structures, facilities and infrastructure. The training of Builders focuses on the necessary skills for production planning and management systems and for project execution. These find expression in the preparation of production drawings, method statements, scheduling and organisation of physical constructions, and inspection of on-going projects. Estate Surveyors create and exchange value, manage and maintain records of transactions on physical assets, and promote land economy through efficient utilisation. Geo-informatics (Surveying) provides the necessary tools for the development and improvement of physical assets. Location, perimeter and cadastral survey services facilitate effective planning and design, delineate boundaries, establish references and guide charting. These traditional roles have come under increasing pressure for reform in the light of rapid changes in society and the dynamics of socio-economic growth, to retain the continued relevance of the sector. 5.

Targets and Prospects of Empowerment An effective attempt to align the country’s higher education system with the demands of the market place and society will entail a combination of these and other strategies: x

x

x x x

The ‘Catch Them Young’ Scheme, which requires visits to secondary schools for career talks to be supplemented with exposition and feature programmes in both print and electronic media. Innovative teaching methods, which are expected to foster team spirit and nurture the inter-relationship of the various professions in the sector; lectures should emphasise interaction, while studio sessions should be integrated to mirror real life situations in practice. Other areas of focus should be building materials and local content identification, community services to improve current use, upgrading of depressed areas, etc. Entrepreneurship schemes which involve acquiring skills for job creation, expanding frontiers and creating ways in the private sector for construction related fields. Research and Development, perhaps is the most important function of a University, should be well funded. Lecturers must


290

x

be constantly exposed to new trends in technology, exchange programmes, sabbatical leave and study tour. Stakeholders’ participation in community development (similar to what is practiced by the National Youth Service Corps) should promote understanding and acceptance. Concern for the environment and collective ownership of its resources should promote the concept and practice of efficiency and sustainable development.

6.

Conclusions and Recommendations In this paper, some old issues have been raised within a new perspective in order to re-awaken environmental awareness for evolving problems to be examined, and possible solutions proffered. The concept of environmental sustainability was treated by emphasising the importance of the natural and built environments as the basis for the emancipation of a healthy and liveable environment. The environmental problems emanating from poverty and lack of development as well as those from development processes were also highlighted. The challenge for tertiary institutions is to design programmes and curricula that are responsive to the needs and demands of our changing society. There is the need to encourage our young men and women to dream big, envision, explore, and unleash their creative talents in finding solutions to our multifarious problems. That is the clear path towards future growth and greatness. However, the role of environmental education as the people’s means of enlightenment towards a resolution of the problems was also considered. However, this paper also supports the view that knowledge is for everyone and is an action process that relates to and builds upon the work of all other professionals and general studies. It is therefore recommended that all those involved in shaping the environment should be able to understand the issues and problems of the environment, to weigh their actions against the local cultural background, and their proposals for the environment. The corollary is the need for higher institutions to engage in research on environmental issues in Nigeria to find appropriate solutions for the creation of a good environment for quality life.

Notes 1

Joseph A. Fadamiro, “Impact of Landscape Architecture on Environmental Protection and Management” UNESCO – MAB Regional Training Workshop, Federal University of Tech. Akure, Nigeria, 1995 2 Adepoju G. Onibokun, Femi Olokesusi, Layi Egunjobi, Urban Renewal in Nigeria. Femsod Industrial Press, Ibadan, Nigeria, 1987.


3

291

Johnson B. Falade, “Public Acquisition of Land for Landscaping and Open Space Management” Journal of Nigeria Institute of Town Planners, II (1998): 1-13. 4 Tairu, T.T. Towards Protection of Environment and Ecology. In Current Issues in Nigerian Environment, Ed. Prof. A. Osuntokun, Davidson Press, Ibadan, 1998. 5 Sheldon E. Gellar, “Actively Caring for the Environment: An Integration of Behaviour and Humanism” Journal of Environment and Behaviour. 27:2 (1975): Safe Publications. 6 Pearce, David, Barbier, E., and Markandya, A., Sustainable Development: Economic and Environment in the Third World, London: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. (1990): 2-10 7 Robert Repetto, World Enough and Time, New Haven, Connecticut Yale University Press (1986): 15-16. 8 Peter C. Smith. “Reinventing the City: Sustainability and the Built Environment” HKIA Journal, First Quarter, 1997. 9 National Millennium Development Goals Report, Nigeria, (2004). 10 Lucas M. Olayiwola, “Techniques for Achieving Sustainable Development of Towns and Cities in Nigeria”, Ife Planning Journal, IleIfe (ICONDEST), 1:2 (2000). 11 Kunle-Ade A. Wahab, “Federal Government Economic Reforms, Human Development and Due Process”, First Annual Lecture, School of Environmental Technology, Federal University of Technology, Akure, 2006.

Notes on Contributors Doriana Daroit is a Professor at FEEVALE, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. She is finishing her doctoral studies at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Research interests: economic, social and environmental impacts of innovation processes: [email protected]. Luis Felipe Nascimento is an Associate Professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Research interests: environmental quality, cleaner production and environmental innovation: [email protected]. Serena Anderlini D’Onofrio is a Professor of Humanities and Italian at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez. She is also a writer, activist, translator, and public speaker. Her works include the authored volume The “Weak” Subject (1998); the two edited collections Women and Bisexuality (2003) and Plural Loves (2005); the poetry translation A Lake for the Heart (2005); numerous articles in refereed journals; and the forthcoming Eros, a memoir, and Gaia, a book of applied cultural and ecological theory. More information about her is available at: www.serenagaia.com Kendal Hodgman is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. She is also a Principal of Hodgman & Lancaster, consultants in Communications, Strategy and Sustainability. Kendal has also enjoyed a decade as Senior Journalist with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Jo Kehoe is a Law lecturer at the Faculty of Business & Informatics, Central Queensland University, Australia: [email protected] Andrew Deak is an independent researcher, and formerly a postgraduate student at the Centre for Critical Social Theory at the University of Sussex, where he completed his dissertation on the World Social Forum. His interests are in the global political economy, international development, social movements, Marxism and post-structuralism. Tania Sourdin is a Professor of Law and Dispute Resolution, and Director, Conflict Resolution Research Centre and Centre for the Study of the Professions, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Linda Hadfield is a freelance writer, consultant and independent researcher. She holds a PhD in Innovation and Technology Assessment from Cranfield University in the UK. Her background is highly interdisciplinary, and her research interests focus on public perceptions of science and the environment. She has published papers on the evolution of

294

Notes on contributors

environmental management, the Phillips Inquiry into BSE, and the debate on genetically modified food. http://www.geocities.com/lindahadfield/ Kim Loyens is a Ph.D. candidate at the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), University of Leuven, Belgium. [email protected] Belinda Clements Ph.D. is tutor and course author in Environmental Ethics for the University of London Distance Learning Programme. Sarah Wilks is a PhD candidate in the Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109 Australia: Qualified as a ‘hard’ scientist, her research has examined the ways scientific and technical information and ‘knowledge’ and other ‘knowledges’ come into play in environmental decision- and choice-making. [email protected] Judith Andre Ph.D. is a philosopher in the Centre for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, Michigan State University. She also teaches within the Ethics and Development graduate specialisation of the university. Derek R. Bell is Senior Lecturer in Political Thought at Newcastle University, UK. He is the co-editor (with Andrew Dobson) of “Environmental Citizenship”(MIT Press, 2005) and the author of many articles on environmental justice and environmental citizenship. Kristy J. Buckley is the Director of Strategic Development at the Climate Institute, Washington, D.C. She holds an LL.M. in International Law from the University of Kent at Brussels, and has focused much of her research on international environmental law and economics. [email protected] Joseph A. Fadamiro Ph.D. is an Associate Professor, in the Department of Architecture, Federal University of Technology, Akure; Nigeria. A registered member of the Nigerian Institute of Architects, he has been involved in a number of consultancies and the construction of many building and landscape projects. [email protected]

Seeking Environmental Justice

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

The Quiet Revolutionaries: Seeking Justice in Guatemala

Seeking

Environmental Justice (Contemporary World Issues)

Seeking Safety

Seeking Love

Desperately Seeking

Seeking Kokopelli

Drugs and Justice: Seeking a Consistent, Coherent, Comprehensive Views

Drugs and Justice: Seeking a Consistent, Coherent, Comprehensive View

Seeking Peace

Desperately Seeking

Seeking Evil

Seeking Crystal

Desperately Seeking

Seeking customers

Seeking Safety

Seeking Charlotte

Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement

Social Justice and Public Policy: Seeking Fairness in Diverse Societies

Environmental Law and Justice in Context

Environmental Justice Through Research-Based Decision-Making

Environmental Law and Justice in Context

Environmental Justice in America: A New Paradigm

Environmental Justice: Law, Policy & Regulation

Mansfield Global Conference on Environmental Justice

Seeking Evil

Desperately Seeking

Seeking Environmental Justice

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research

The Quiet Revolutionaries: Seeking Justice in Guatemala

Seeking

Environmental Justice (Contemporary World Issues)

Seeking Safety

Seeking Love

Desperately Seeking

Seeking Kokopelli

Drugs and Justice: Seeking a Consistent, Coherent, Comprehensive Views

Drugs and Justice: Seeking a Consistent, Coherent, Comprehensive View

Seeking Peace

Desperately Seeking

Seeking Evil

Seeking Crystal

Desperately Seeking

Seeking customers

Seeking Safety

Seeking Charlotte

Environmental Justice and Environmentalism: The Social Justice Challenge to the Environmental Movement

Social Justice and Public Policy: Seeking Fairness in Diverse Societies

Environmental Law and Justice in Context

Environmental Justice Through Research-Based Decision-Making

Environmental Law and Justice in Context

Environmental Justice in America: A New Paradigm

Environmental Justice: Law, Policy & Regulation

Mansfield Global Conference on Environmental Justice

Seeking Evil

Desperately Seeking

Recommend Documents