Cutting the Vines

During discussion in class yesterday, we went over the difficulties of having a larger organization coming into an area with an established set of values, and trying to change them in the name of environmental protection. Particularly, with the African tribe and the WWF coming in to help with conservation within the Sangha basin. It seems that the ways in with WWF approached the situation ultimately lead to it not being embraced with open arms.

         For the WWF to come into an area that they do not live in and try and force a new way of living is completely unreasonable. How are they determining that the deaths of species within the Sangha basin are more valuable to the deaths that would occur due to the creation of the national park? Creating this park would take away vital resources used by the Africans. The inhabitants incorporate the Sangha into multiple parts of their lives. It can provide materials for clothing, food, as well as defining their gender roles within their community. Removing them from this area would harm them physically and mentally because it would take away so much that would be extremely difficult to replace.

Another problem with the approach of the WWF was the prevention in any of the tribe members participating in any of the protection tactics. Very few Africans were hired. This would further damage the relationship the inhabitants had with the area since not only were they forbidden from living there, but not allowed to help out in protecting the area they valued so highly. It seems that it would make sense for the WWF to utilize individuals that respect and value the land, and Africans would be exactly that. Extreme limits were placed on forest-resource exploitation, which was the point of the conservation plan, but taking away vital resources without replacing them is bound to be detrimental. Additionally, there were very little transportation services or medical services provided to those impacted. If the WWF expects to drastically change people’s lives, they should provide adequate services to aid them in transitioning.

The WWF portrays the Sangha untruthfully, painting the picture that it’s the “last remaining undisturbed tropical lowland forest in the Central African Republic.” This is incorrect. The forest is “disturbed” by animals and people. It makes the land seem sacred and deserving of being saved, however it remains actually sacred to those who use it for resources.

In discussion, someone mentioned that education would be a way to gently nudge the Africans into integrating conservation tactics, which I think is a great approach. However, crucial to this would be a two way education system; both WWF educating the tribe members, and the tribe members educating the WWF. Clearly, the WWF did not know all about this area, thinking it was undisturbed. There needs to be a platform that allows for an open discussion where each side can present why they think their values deserve attention and action. The WWF thinks the Sangha should be protected, but do not seem to be taking into account just how much that would affect those who use the area to live. And also, the Sangha might not be adequately informed of how their actions might be detrimental to the area. 

GMO Ethics

I think that the debate about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is very interesting. We are looking to feed a constantly growing world population on top of climate change and misuse and waste in the food industry. I think this is a cross cutting issue on what is ethical, what is healthy, and also for analyzing huge technological developments that have the potential to be absolutely life-changing, or devastating to the world farm industry.

I agree with the points discussed in class that this is a development issue at the core. The South is now fast-tracking in development and GMOs are an easy way to curve the issues of not enough food and to make food accessible to a broader population. It is a matter of weighing socioeconomic risks versus agricultural productivity. However, I think that GMOs are an issue that spans through the first world as well. Here we are in America with money, technology, and talent, yet day after day our restaurants (mostly fast-food chains) are being reported for using chemicals and other unnatural ingredients to supplement their food. This can be seen recently with Subway. Despite claiming that they use natural ingredients, the polymer that is used yoga mats has been found in all of the “fresh” bread they make. I see a big issue in living in the most developed nation in the world, yet our bread is actually filled with plastic.

I think it is very interesting that the GMO seed is referred to as the “suicide seed.” It can solve the world’s food shortage problem, but it will also be the death of us as well. I think it is a morally stimulating debate to decide how to best go about using (or not using) GMOs. Supporters of GMOs are able to tell protesters that they are taking food out of the mouths of the hungry, who have no food at all. Protesters want the world to be fed, but they want it done by natural means. But that is expensive and will take decades to figure out. Could GMOs be a temporary solution? Potentially. Will we be addicted to them from the outset? Yes, as we have already seen. As much as I want all natural crops- I think it is morally tough to make a call on GMOs when you think that this could take away food supplies from millions of people, or make their food substantially more expensive. I don’t think there is an easy answer.

I do think that there can be a more grassroots approach to this as a global issues. The farmers should be the designers and businessmen/women behind crop growth- not multinational groups. I want to see a revival of natural farming and a culture shift. Once people truly understand the chemical effects of what they’re eating, chances are they won’t want to continue. But there has to be a basic structure in place. I took an AREC class my sophomore year and I recall that there is more than enough food in the world to feed every single person on the planet and then some, but food distribution and the politics behind that cause so much of the issues, along with developmental barriers and differences in policy for the global north and south. Perhaps it is socialist to say that ‘we need to share all the food with everyone in the world’ but once people are stable, they are often able to make a life for themselves. 

The Impact of the Global North on the Global South

            The Global North often views the South as flagrant polluters who are depleting their natural resources faster than they can be replenished. Often the example used is Haiti, which shares an island with the Dominican Republic, when looking at satellite images of the island it appears that there is a line drawn down the center of the island at the border of the two countries. The reason for this is the prevalence of logging that exists in Haiti and the more conservationist mindset that exists in the Dominican Republic. Environmentalist view this as a success of their campaigning in the Dominican Republic, and as a victory for the global North over the polluting states of the global South. The fact of the matter is that the economy of the Dominican republic is more based on trade and tourism industries, so they do not need to consume their natural resources as fast as their neighbors. This thought process that most countries in the Global North have can be incredibly insulting to much of the people in the Global South. This has been expressed by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir who said “When the rich chopped down their own forests, built their poison-belching factories and scoured the world for cheap resources, the poor said nothing. Indeed they paid for the development of the rich. Now the rich claim a right to regulate the development of the poor countries…As colonies we were exploited. Now as independent nations we are to be equally exploited”. He brings up a valid point the Global North did more than their fair share of polluting and ruthlessly exploited their land and sea resources driving some species to extinction, and now they want to tell the countries in the Global South how to run their states. Many countries have taken this thinking to an extreme and say that they have not reached their quota of pollution, and the Global North has far exceeded their quota and owes the rest of the countries that have just recently been undergoing their own industrialization some leeway. It is these countries who call for an exemption from the mandatory limits on the emission of greenhouse gases under a new Kyoto Protocol. The United States says it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it does not bind China and India, and the Chinese and Indian governments say they will not tolerate limits on their greenhouse gas emissions because the US has not ratified Kyoto, and this has led to a merry-go-round of talks that has led to none of these countries curbing the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. There is no doubt that the majority of the damage done to the environment has been done by the Global North and they are now saying that they are helping other countries avoid the same pitfalls made by the early industrialized nations. However these same environmental pitfalls that destroyed the environment also made it possible for these countries to leap forward and make them into the powers that they are today, leaps forward that the arguably could not have made in the same short time if they were forced to be environmentally conscious. So the countries in the Global South see these intrusions into their economy as hamstringing their ability to grow as a nation and they are rightfully upset.

Approaches to Conservation in the Global South

As biodiversity loss increases and human settlements increase in size and amount of environmental degradation, it becomes increasingly difficult to decide who gets to lay claim over the land: humans or endangered species.  Do we move the people from the land they have cultivated for centuries, or do we move them so that we can maintain a disintegrating population of charismatic mega-fauna such as elephants, rhinos, or tigers?  Do we approach this from an anthropocentric or a biocentric point of view?  The division between these views is often between the global north and the global south.  There are different value systems in the north and the south; the more developed countries (MDCs) are wealthier and have the resources to focus on protecting endangered species around the world (and in the third world) for their intrinsic value.  Meanwhile, the less developed countries (LDCs) in the global south are still struggling to make sure their people survive and do not have the time nor the resources to devote to protecting endangered species.  This creates a disconnect between the north and the south when attempting to create reserves or protect the land of endangered species.  In LDCs, people often bring up the idea of “green colonialism”, where MDCs push their way into LDCs and forcibly remove native peoples and tribes from their land in an attempt to create national parks and protect biodiversity.  This process of removing natives from their land comes from the idea of “fortress conservation”, an entirely biocentric view that when the needs of starving people come into conflict with the protection of natural values, we ought to prioritize nature; that we should exclude human settlement and activity from the most fragile and valuable natural areas.

Recently, we have read quite a few case studies where a land conflict existed between removing all native people to protect endangered species or allowing native peoples to continue living in the same area because they had a “right” to the land and depended on that ecosystem for survival.  In many of these case studies, fortress conservation was upheld and the native peoples were relocated to other areas.  For example, in Kruger National Park in South Africa, the Makuleke tribe was forced off their land and out of the national park.  Removing and relocating native peoples causes a huge strain on the relationship between those in control of the park and the natives.  This will disincentivize the natives to protect the endangered animals because of their resentment towards the “green imperialists”; in fact, it creates the possibility of native peoples working together with poachers instead of with the park to kill the endangered animals either out of spite or for profit (or both).  It also takes these people away from their home, taking away their sense of place and cultural identity.  While some studies have shown that endangered animal populations have increased rapidly and ecosystems have recovered and flourished after removing all human influence, there are ways to increase these endangered populations and protect these ecosystems without ostracizing the native peoples who live around these species.

There are two viable solutions to create compromise between park management and the native peoples (or more broadly, between the global north and the global south).  One is ecotourism and the other is community-based conservation.  To me, these solutions go hand in hand.  Ecotourism will allow people from the MDCs and locals to come in and see that the endangered species are being conserved, thus prioritizing the existence and aesthetic values that are so important to MDCs while still making money for the LDC and local natives by charging people to come into the park to see the protected species.  This is where community-based conservation comes in.  The park can allow the native peoples to continue living in the park, but may have to restrict their land use more than normal.  However, instead of ostracizing the native peoples and making them enemies of conservation, the park can work with the people who live off the land to learn more about the behavior of the endangered species, since the native peoples will often know about migration patterns and daily habits of the animals better than the park staff.  The native peoples can also be hired to act as stewards of the land, tour guides, hosts, etc. to help the park protect the endangered species while still living in their homes on park land and making money off of ecotourism.  While I am sure that resentment issues between the native peoples and the “green imperialists” will continue to cause conflict in reserves and national parks in the global south, inclusion of these native peoples in the stewardship process provides a good path to eventual compromise and cooperation.

GMOs in Africa Need a Makeover

One must always be careful to avoid oversimplifying when talking about Africa and development. The complex array of issues facing the continent differs by region, climate, culture, religion, ethnicity, and history. This post will argue that despite these differences, Africa as a continent must come together to tackle the issue of food insecurity and we must help by creating a public relations campaign to give GMOs a much needed makeover for Africans.

After reading Paarlberg’s introduction and listening to Jacqui’s presentation, it is astonishing to me that African governments have rejected the use of GM crops in nearly every corner of the continent. This should not be surprising, however, due to the failure of newborn bureaucracies in addressing many needs of civil society. On a continent where many have come to believe false science (i.e. South Africa’s HIV-does-not-cause-AIDS debacle), government officials seem to care little about scientific facts purported from the west. In reality, as is the case in the United States, most bureaucrats in Africa likely do not face the struggles of the poorest of the poor. Thus, GM crops do not seem to be a necessity to them and provide no tangible benefits to their immediate lives. Proponents of GM crops in Africa (if there are many) must overcome the ignorance of their peers to see the potential benefits for those poor who desperately need a gain in agricultural productivity.

As a wealthy, modernized country with an imperfect record in terms of foreign assistance and relations, the US government faces little chance of success in promoting GM crops and practices to African governments. We have no science yet to prove that these crops are safe to humans and the environment, but prior to the middle of the 20th century, who actually tried to measure potential hazards on the scale which we do so now? While I do not believe fears of public health disasters are unfounded, I do think that any fear we have now is premature. As a Kenyan official remarked in 2000, “Our confidence was established in the fact that if Americans are eating it, it should be safe for our starving people.” The notion proposed by an African leader in Jacqui’s talk that GM crops are “second-hand” or “second-rate” is nonsense. We do not say that clothes sewn by machines are any more “second-rate” than handsewn pieces. Technology has brought unbounded advances to the modern world relatively safely. While GM crops may pose long-term health risks, it is relatively clear that they have not produced dramatically dangerous short-term problems. One short term problem that Africa faces is hunger. Over 227 million people are hungry in Africa today (http://www.wfp.org/hunger/who-are) and more people die of hunger every year than those who die from malaria, TB, and AIDS combined (http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats). If that is not considered a short-term problem than I do not know what is.

The disappointing fact is that scare tactics have been used in Europe to steer people away from GM foods. The problem of food insecurity and hunger can be addressed by GM farming and should be. These hungry people, if they do not die of hunger, will likely die of common diseases endemic to their areas because their immune systems become so weak from malnutrition. Children especially suffer in this regard. Africans are unlikely to die from cancer or some other malicious disease potentially caused by eating GM crops over a lifetime. These numbers do show, however, that they are at a clear risk of death from lack of nutrients and calories.

How can we solve this problem? How can we undo the harm that has been caused by Europe’s GM labeling system? One thing that Americans can do to help persuade Africa to adopt these crops is continuing research on them. The US has ample funding to do so and could easily divert some more agriculture R&D money to studying the potential effects of GM foods. This is a type of “aid” that we can give Africa that proves beneficial to our state as well, considering most corn products we eat in the US are likely derived from GM seeds. Additionally, US NGOs and agencies like USAID can launch public diplomacy campaigns to show African governments that we do not know of potential health risks due to GM crops. We lead by example in this case through our consumption of GM products. As mentioned previously, if one of the wealthiest countries in the world eats GM products on a regular basis, why would these foods not be good enough for Africa?

I am aware that the issue of GMO implementation in African farming is a much more complex issue than what could be stated in this short blog post, but this is one important facet of the debate. While I have not mentioned the financial costs of GMOs to African farmers, these costs would seem much less significant with accurate information campaigns to display the benefits of GM crops. Africa needs more of a market incentive to adopt GMO farming, and a public relations campaign could help provide one important area of incentivization.