The Violence Of Global Eco-Management Essay, Research Paper

COMMUNICATIONS The phrase, “global ecology” is used frequently in contexts of concern for the world’s natural resources. Strategies for intervention often make reference to the “biodiversity” for describing what must be preserved in ecological systems. This article argues that global ecological management interventions, such as “sustainable development projects,” are actually strategies for developing a global capitalist economy. What emerges as the most significant feature of the intervention projects promoted under the guise of “sustainable development” is the complex participation of transnational corporations. The Violence of Global Eco-Management …the term “Global Ecology” carries a contradiction in itself. Ecology is always local, always unique and special, and so far has never depended on a central planning and management institution for its proper functioning.(von Weiz cker 1993, p. 117) von Weiz cker’s (1993) analysis of the term “biodiversity” makes clear that ecological interests are currently being served, globally, by capitalist concerns. This is evidenced rather crudely within the funding strategies for ecological interventions. Conservationists who identify an ecological crisis are forced to define the problem in contexts of industry needs. For example, “…[t]he potential value of this huge stock of biological capital…could be a rich sustainable sources of building material and fuel, as well as medicinal plants, specialty woods, nuts and fruits.” (in von Weiz cker 1993, p. 121) Similarly, von Weiz cker (1993) refers to Merck’s (a pharmaceutical corporation) agreement with Costa Rica’s National Institute of Biodiversity to share information about Costa Rica’s rainforests. Expressed by a Merck spokesman, this translates to, “We have therefore clearly heard the call to come to the rescue of biodiversity by exploring the medical potential of the tropical plant world.” (in von Weiz cker 1993, p. 122) “Biodiversity” is inscribed in these discourses as an economic resource. This is not to be confused with a viable strategy for preserving biodiversity, but is rather a corporate project of capitalizing upon what remains of the so-called Third World’s resources. North-South Relations The North’s slogan …seems to be: ‘What’s yours is mine. What’s mine is mine.” (Shiva 1993, p. 149) While the North-South distinction minimizes the influence of transcorporate colonization of developing countries (Myoshi 1993) it is nonetheless helpful for describing how economic relations are managed from this spatial positioning. Geographically, most of the world’s poor countries are situated in tropical climates, and most of the world’s economic authority is centralized within Northern urban centres (McCormick 1991; Myoshi 1993) This relation is organized primarily within a context of need, and debt. Countries in the South need to develop kinds of industry in order to attract Northern-based investments. The North accommodates this specific relation by giving loans which are to finance the creation the infrastructures which can promote the cultivation, or extraction, of a “local” resource, such as timber, agricultural crops, mining sources, and so on (Norgaard 1987). Demand for the resource expands as the country’s market is expanded (with the help of a Northern partner). The supply expands even more, since many other (and competing) poor countries have similarly invested in an exploitable resource; and world market prices for their resource drop (Norgaard 1987). In a sense, the poor countries of the South take on enormous loans to create a resource-based industry, only to find the price of the resource for Northern countries will decrease, due to ample supply. Unluckily, the interest rates go up at the same time, due to deficits in the national budgets in the Northern and Southern countries alike. A dependency is structured within this North-South relation, then, as the South exhaust their resources in a desperate attempt to woo Northern investments, only to find that with Northern investments come debts, and the sacrifice of ecological consciousness in developing a nation’s economic structures (Shiva 1993b; Worster, 1993). The problem signified here, then, is capitalism. Northern countries not only invest in other capitalist economies, but they take on the work of reforming socialist economies into similarly structured capitalist economies (Myoshi 1993; Norgaard 1987). As part of this global campaign for the world’s resources, Northern interests tend to operate on models of corporate efficiency and management. Thus, for example, investment in developing countries is never organized with promises of economic autonomy; rather, “…the scientifically and economically most powerful Northern countries will supply just enough funds for training the necessary compliant and loyal Southern scientific servants. They will also use this to stake their claims for the ‘mining of biodiversity.’ ” (von Weiz cker 1993, p. 125) Deforestation Global deforestation represents perhaps one of the most alarming ecological violences enacted through capitalist interests and transnational corporate management structures. This emerges in the concept of “sustainable development,” (Worster 1993) which is a term used to structure resource-extraction in ways which “theoretically” will not destroy the environment sustained by the resource. Tropical rainforests continue to paradoxically represent both the least understood site of complex and interconnected biodiversity, and the most easily consumed resource (Contreras 1987; Marchak 1995; Shiva 1993a) Losses to the countries who have participated within the global deforestation project remain incomprehensible to conservationists who cannot keep up with the rate of destruction long enough to account for what kinds of biological diversities are eradicated in rainforest clear-cuts (Contreras 1987; Marchak 1995) Marchak provides estimations of hectares which have been eliminated over the years; however, as Shiva (1993a) points out, within this loss are local traditions which link people to the rainforests in culturally and historically distinct ways. Local agriculture, animal life, insect-life, as well as the cultivation of foods and flora for medicinal purposes, are all scarified in the deforestation projects. Accounting for the acreage matters if only to realize the geographical losses; however, as von Weiz cker (1993) explains, the quantification of biodiversity conceals the complexity of ecological systems effected by resource extraction. Marchak’s (1995) numbers do reveal horrifying consequences for global development. In India, for example, “…only about 11 percent of the country’s 328 million hectares of land remain forested; in Thailand one-quarter of the total [forest lands] disappeared during the 1970s; …in Nepal what is left is fast disappearing; and in Malaysia, there is unlikely anything to be left by the year 2000…” (Marchak p. 155) It is because the world’s forests are disappearing that the world’s eyes are turned to the rainforests of Brazil, Zaire, and Indonesia, “… in part because they are survivors in a global deforestation process.” (p. 155) Sustainable Development Survivors for how long? It is here the phrase “sustainable development” gets played out most frequently (Marchak 1995, p.171). The phrase is intended to signal “responsible” resource management; however, in practice, sustainable development persists as a materialist value-exchange of resources. With no shared agreement concerning just what “sustainable development” is to include, its usage is pervasive in the discourses of the envirnment and development (McCormick 1990) For instance, sustainable development systems depend upon an assumption that the potential capacity of local regions can be predicted, and that the complexity of an ecosystem can be determined within an economic model (Worster 1993, p. 142) As well, …the sustainability ideal rests on an uncritical, unexamined acceptance of the traditional world view of progressive, secular materialism. It regards the world view as completely benign so long as it can be made sustainable.(Worster 1993, p. 142) Worster here is certainly echoing a standard Marxist observation of economic determinism, which is the perception of a necessary control over “nature” (Jagger 1988). In understanding “sustainable development” as a control-mechanism, what is being managed is not the rate of deforestation, then, but the economic viability of prolonged deforestation. in other words, sustainable development emphasizes the management of resources in such a way that economic dependence upon the resource is sustained as a way to develop a market economy.

Elimination of local cultures in the context of deforestation does not translate into any category of concern for “sustainable development” since, within this term of management, what is managed are resources, not the ecosystem of which the resource might be an integral part. Closer to home, as an example, the recent government measures to curb fishing of the salmon stocks have, indeed, emerged as too little, too late; and this, because of the lack of sophistication in divvying up the province’s resources ot the highest bidder. Deforestation has, in turn, dramatically altered the existence of watersheds and salmon-breeding streams, which has – in turn – dramatically altered the breeding patterns of local salmon stocks. While institutions are quick to blame the loss of local salmon on fisheries, it is myopic to assume that centuries of clear-cutting has had no impact upon fisheries, just as fishery industry has in many ways impacted upon local cultures in coastal British Columbia. Resource Management This lack of ecological understanding foretells an appalling future for developing countries’ resources, particularly since there are few environmental laws to govern the resource management of Third World economies (McCormick 1990). As the corporate models of management are displaced from the boardroom and into tropical rainforest cultures, the possibility of protecting cultural diversities which are particular to rainforest areas becomes remote. What this language of management provides is a “peace of mind” for Northern environmentalists (McCormick 1990; Worster 1993) What it conceals, however, are the complexities of indigenous culture and local ecosystems which are targeted for “management” projects. As Lohmann complains, Western culture apparently has no other way to reach peace of mind and heart – called, more academically, intelligibility – than by reducing everything to one single pattern with the claim to universal validity.(Lohmann 1993, p. 160) If anything, the “Think global/act local” slogans of the early 1990s have operated to satisfy Western concerns about environmental issues in developing countries; however, the lack of information and the absence of critical analyses of corporate resource management have contributed largely to a wealth of ignorance about the world’s resources and the profit-based harvesting of tropical ecosystems (Shiva 1993b; Lohmann 1993) Tourism & Development The globalization of capitalism has worked in tandem with the globalization of tourism as an industry which services the First World citizens (Urry 1990). This entails the commodification of “pleasure;” however, this relies upon a conceptualization of whose pleasure is being serviced, and at who’s expense. What global tourism introduces is a slow and gradual purchasing of developing countries through transnational interests (Myoshi 1993). These corporate interests manifest overtly in contexts of foreign investments and foreign interests. In this relation, Third World countries are paradoxically seduced into marketing their resources as sites of “paradise” for Western consumers who continue to value the “Eden” myth of pleasure, while simultaneously scavenging the resources in order to participate within the larger economy. What occurs here is a commodification of resource development, where particular sites are selected for tourism purposes and are “packaged” for Western consumers as “evidence” of “paradise.” (Urry 1990) What are not shown are the concomitant urban developments, as rural peoples are forced from their lands and into the cities. Once there, with no education or particular skill, many young people enlist in the tourism industry for wage-labour, or participate in thriving sex trades industries. Their futures become enmeshed with the Western desire for “escape,” so that the poor peoples of developing countries must not only relinquish their cultural relationship with the land, but as well their relationship with a global humanity, as they are enlisted, instead, as slave-labour for servicing the fantasies of the Westerners who can afford to travel (Urry 1990) Eco-tourism is an emergent compromise between the competing interests of environmentalism and capitalist industry. In these “tours,” Westerners are encouraged to participate in an environmentally-sensitive vacation which will introduce them to Third World sites, such as rainforests, valley plateaus, mountain ranges, ocean fronts, and so on (Urry 1990). For a fee, Westerners travel to developing countries as though they are somehow “helping” by “visiting” (Urry 1990) In effect, what is achieved is an ideological process of convincing Westerners that tourism is necessary for “helping” a country’s economic development, to the extent that tourism is promoted as something Westerners can do for “global greening.” (Lohmann 1993; Urry 1990) Resisting Capitalism As von Weiz cker (1993) demonstrates, the economics of environmentalism are, unlike the economics of sustainable development, difficult to promote. Convincing people that spending money to protect what remains of the world’s ecosystems involves committing to some sort of promised return on the investment (Lohmann 1993); hence the popularity of sustainable development and resource management models, and eco-tourism. The issue of compensation for damages rendered by hydroelectric dams, air pollution, or deforestation is not easily addressed, because the lay-person’s language for environmentalism is not related to the market economy. Thus to speak of “compensation” is to “trivialize” the “crisis” (Lohmann 1993, p. 165) – when, really, to speak of compensation is to participate within the discourse which brought about the crisis in the first place. If anything, Westerners need to be speaking more intelligently about globally-orchestrated economics, since they impact upon our lives daily, as we unwittingly impact upon the lives of developing countries, daily, with our market fetish, and the institution known as “consumerism.” Lohmann (1993) rather smartly argues that an activity which might make sense in this post-industrial economy is the learning of languages other than English. As Lohmann points out, the ways a local culture may describe themselves and their daily activities within a particular environment provide significant information about the historical relations which have produced a particular tribal community. Furthermore, the subtleties of plant life within any particular ecosystem are complicated and detailed (Shiva 1993a) and learning more about these is, as well, crucial for expanding Western consciousness towards global particularities. Understanding the mechanics of transnational corporations emerges as a more significant feature of the world’s ecological systems than the projects promoted under sustainable development. REFERENCES Contreras, A. (1987). “Transnational Corporations in the Forest-Based Sector of Developing Countries.” Unasylva, 39 (3/4), pp. 38-52. Jagger, A. (1988/1993) ) “Traditional Marxism and Human Nature.” In Rebecca Collins (Ed). An Anthology of Feminist Marxisms : Towards a Political Theory of the Body. (Boston, Mass.: Rowan and Allanheld Publishers) pp. 51-82. Marchak, P.M. (1995). Logging the Globe. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.) McCormick, J. (1991). Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environment Movement. (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University Press.) Myoshi, M. (1993). “A Borderless World? From Colonialism to Transnationalism and the Decline of the Nation-State.” Critical Inquiry, 19. (Summer) pp. 78-106) Norgaard, R. (1987) “The Rise of the Global Exchange Economy and the Loss of Biological Diversity.” In Edward O. Wilson (Ed.) Biodiversity. (Washington: National Academy Press.) pp. 108- 129. Lohmann, L. (1993) “Resisting Green Globalism.” In Wolfgang Sachs, (Ed.) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political conflict (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Books Ltd.) pp.157-169 Shiva, V. (1993a). “Monocultures of the Mind.” Monocultures of the Mind. (London: Zed), pp. 9-61. Shiva, V. (1993b). “The Greening of the Global reach.” In Wolfgang Sachs, (Ed.) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political conflict (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Books Ltd.) pp. 149-156 von Weiz cker, Christine. (1993). “Competing notions of biodiversity.” In Wolfgang Sachs, (Ed.) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political conflict (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Books Ltd.) pp. 115-131. Worster, D. (1993). “The Shaky Ground of Sustainability.” In Wolfgang Sachs, (Ed.) Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political conflict (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Books Ltd.) pp. 132-145. Urry, J. (1990) “The Changing Economics of the Tourist Industry.” The Tourist Gaze. (London, GB: Sage Publications), pp. 40-65.