Who Owes Who? Collecting the Ecological Debt
An International Campaign of Friends of the Earth.
Aurora Donoso, Friends of the Earth/Acción Ecológica (Ecuador)
Numerous campaigns have focused international attention on the consequences of indebtedness for the world’s poorest nations. Crumbling local economies, lack of education, lack of adequate health care, displacement of entire communities, and the destruction of natural resources are just a few of the more notorious effects. However, while the world’s poorest nations sink deeper into financial and environmental ruin, their workers and natural resources are producing massive wealth for the world’s wealthiest nations. This crisis of inequality has led some to question: who owes what to whom?
The International Campaign for the Recognizing and Claiming the Ecological Debt seeks recognition of the ecological debt owed to the countries of the global south as well as recognition of the illegitimacy of the foreign debts of the world’s poorest countries; redress for lost cultural heritage, lost and damaged environmental resources, and displaced communities; and, finally, to establish a more democratic and sustainable development model that includes redistribution of wealth and resources and places greater decision-making power into the hands of local communities.
What is Ecological Debt?
While the External Debt is an acknowledged problem, Ecological Debt is a relatively new idea, probably due to the fact that politically, more importance has been placed on financial issues than on the loss of natural heritage.
The living standard of the industrialised ‘Northern’ countries owes a great deal to the massive flow of natural resources and work (either as slave or underpaid labour) of the countries which make up the ‘Third World’, Southern or developing countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. The recompense paid by Northern countries to Southern countries has never taken into account the social and environmental damage caused by this exploitation. In effect, the impoverished countries of the South have subsidised and are continuing to subsidise the rich countries of the North through the provision of raw materials, commodities and labour.
The current economic situation entrenches these forms of exploitation through mechanisms such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organisation (WTO) which dictate global economic policies that maintain these systems of dominance through the mechanisms which have become better understood through the campaign to cancel External Debt.
Ecological Debt refers to ‘the cumulative responsibility of industrialised countries for the gradual destruction of the planet caused by their production & consumption patterns’. Natural wealth extracted by the North at the expense of Southern people has contaminated their natural heritage and sources of sustenance. Ecological Debt also includes the cost of the human energy of the people of the Southern countries.
The relationship between External Debt and Ecological Debt has two main aspects. Firstly, there is the claim to Ecological Debt, which involves accounting for exports undervalued, due to not taking into account associated environmental and social costs. The second is that servicing External Debts, and fulfilling Structural Adjustment Plans (SAPs) leads to even greater destruction of the environment, due to the demands for increasied export of natural resources which requires further exploitation of the environment and an increasing reliance on these types of production models.
One of the primary objectives within the Ecological Debt Campaign is recognising the highly inequitable consumption patterns across the globe. The Northern developed world owes an enormous ecological debt for the gross exploitation and consumption of the resources of the South, and for continuing consumption patterns that are beyond the ecological limits of the earth. Following is a critique of the television documentary Against Nature which highlights issues of consumption, trade and transnational corporations that are commonly not a part of superficial explorations of contemporary environmental movements.
The ‘North’ (or first world or the western world) comprises only 25% of the world’s population, yet consumes around 75% of global resources. Pre-existing political and economic structures, the legacy of more than 500 years of European colonialism, have resulted in a situation where the Northern countries, through the activity of Northern based companies and individual lifestyles of people in those countries, draw vast levels of resources from Southern countries. This drain of basic commodity resources and raw materials has greatly undermined the capacity of Southern countries to feed themselves. We are also witnessing a lowering of work conditions as more businesses locate ‘offshore’ into the Southern countries.
If the consumption levels of the Southern countries equalled that of the industrialised North, the demand for natural resources would triple, even with zero population growth. Research shows that ‘if everyone were to adopt the lifestyle of a typical North American, we would need at least two more planets to produce the resources, absorb the wastes and maintain the life-support systems’ (Friends of the Earth Sustainable Societies Program: Beyond Slogans in Action on Sustainable Societies: the FoE Experience, June 1997). The solution to this dilemma is to increase consumption in the South while simultaneously reducing it in the North, as to immoral to afford different consumption levels on different groups of people. Local control of development and effective technology transfer is fundamental to achieving this. As almost all current technology transfer occurs for the purpose of profit, the results of current initiatives will only enforce current inequity. Even in the North, where there is a growing gap between rich and poor (and hence environmental impact), inequity in consumption is a key social issue. Enclaves of high consumers in the Southern countries means that there is global commonality between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. In effect, consumption is determined by class. Against Nature, supposedly coming from a left-wing analysis, does not address this issue.
The role of transnationals
In an era of globalisation, where international trade agreements are actively undermining environmental protection at the local, regional and global level, it is remarkable that the series did not even mention the role of transnational companies or trading blocks. Integration of all regions of the world into a single market has resulted in unprecedented environmental destruction as resource extraction from remote areas has seen the fastest rates of tropical rainforest and temperate forest clearance and loss of biodiversity ever witnessed by humankind. In turn this has lead to huge social disruption to farming and indigenous communities around the world.
A fundamental issue is how ‘development’ occurs. The creation of a single global market through the forces of globalisation is underpinned by the philosophy of capitalist expansionism and economic rationalism. Against Nature implies that the ‘fruits’ of technology will appear for the poorer countries if only the greens would stop meddling. An analysis of why money is invested would show that this is a simplistic and flawed analysis. It is estimated that private investment accounted for 85% of money flowing into the developing world in 1996, and that the ratio of private to public investment in the top developing and transitional economies was a staggering 30:1. Just as public pressure was beginning to have an impact on publicly financed development projects, private investment began moving into developing countries to finance the same kind of inappropriate mega-developments that had previously been backed by the World Bank. It is becoming increasingly clear that only wealthy multinational corporations have the money necessary for financing roads, dams, electrification, water and sewer systems – the needs of developing countries. Critical development projects that don’t generate profits, such as environmental protection or health care for the poor, are falling by the wayside’ (Michelle Chan-Fishel; The Corporate Slam Dunk: how Multinationals Profit with Help from the World Bank, Governments and Taxpayers Money. Link magazine, Issue 82, Jan/Feb 1998). While viewers could get the impression that the World Bank is simply an arm of the global environment movement, the reality is that the international movement has campaigned against thousands of World Bank funded projects over the last 50 years.
Industrial agriculture
The show has ‘experts’ speaking in glowing terms of the ‘green revolution’, the global program which sought to increase yields of food producing crops through industrial farming, increased use of pesticides, hybrid species and fertiliser-dependent strains of crops. According to prominent Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva, the green revolution was designed as “a techno-political strategy for peace, through the creation of abundance” but has instead brought “diseased soils, pest-infested crops, water-logged deserts, and indebted and discontented farmers” (Vandana Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics, Third World Network, 1991, p 11-12). The green revolution was supported by global corporations and development agencies, and controlled by “opaque bureaucracies controlling policy, credit, standards, and technology” which has “destroyed the cultures and ecologies of innumerable regions. All this has been excused in the name of industrial ‘abundance””. (Tom Athanasiou, Slow Reckoning, Vintage, 1995, p87).
While the destruction caused by the ‘green’ revolution is now widely acknowledged, it is remarkable that the producers of the show gave an entirely uncritical analysis of this agricultural disaster. This seems to be indicative of a world view which assumes that technology will solve any environmental and social problems and ignores the forces behind the ‘technological fix’.
Urbanisation
In the series, urban centres are presented as being the pinnacle of human endeavour, leaving the impression of almost a religious fervour about cities such as New York City. Without entering any debate about the pros and cons of agricultural versus mega-city living, the glaring point missed in Against Nature is that, of the millions of people moving into cities, very few of them get to experience the ‘cafes, the bars, the cultural diversity’ that Against Nature talks about. People ARE moving to urban areas in vast numbers, for a variety of reasons. It is expected that half the world’s population will live in cities by the end of the century. However, the reality is that most of these people end up in fringe dwellings, ghettos and shanty towns. Chronic unemployment, absence of social services and infrastructure, overcrowding, poverty, and lack of social cohesion are all well documented results of this rural-urban flight. To take one example amongst many thousands, it is estimated that 40% of urbanised South African communities have access only to contaminated water supplies. The series is silent on urban environmental realities and the urgent need for improvement in infrastructure and opportunities.
The global environment movement
The series ignores the strong environmental and social justice movements that exist around the world. There are many thousands of community controlled NGOs working for sustainable, locally controlled development and environmental protection. Some of these are famous (such as the Chipko movement in India) but many only have a profile in their local communities. To imply that ‘environmentalism’ is simply a romantic western notion that is being imposed on the rest of the world is both offensive and dangerous to many of the groups resisting the activities of transnational companies. Many individuals in these organisations risk death, harassment and imprisonment because of their activities to protect the environment. It is problematic that the producers of Against Nature did not seek the perspective of these activists.
1998 – Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth Australia.
A Creditors Club for Ecological Debt
The Southern Peoples’ Ecological Debt Creditors’ Alliance
Debt Treaty
DEBT, ENERGY AND MATERIALS FLOWS: The Looting of Latin America
ECOLOGICAL DEBT AS AN INDICATOR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
TRADE, CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ECOLOGICAL DEBT
What is ecological debt?
Who owes who? Climate change, dept, equity and survival
Contacts:
The Ecological Debt campaign in FoE Brisbane works through the Trade,Environment and Sustainability Collective. For furhter information and inquiries contact :
Stephanie Long
FoE Brisbane
Links:
Ecological Debt Campaign Site (in spanish and english)
FoE Australia
FoE International
Global Learning Centre Brisbane