Collaborated Approach in Third World Countries
Lets take a look at the state of environmental issues in third world countries such as India, Brazil, Ethiopia, Nepal and China. It is in these countries that much of the worst environmental degradation anywhere in the world has occurred. In most of these countries it has only been in very recent times that the respective governments have begun to introduce policies to try and minimise the extensive degradation problems that their countries face. It is no coincidence that this policy development has come about soon after the formation of, and pressure applied by various environmental activist groups. Before the governments were exposed to pressures from such groups they saw no reason to draw up any environmental policy. But now that people in these countries are becoming better informed, or, activist groups are not being quashed by strict government regimes, governments are being forced to take notice.
It is all very well for governments to develop environmental policies aimed at conserving the environment. In third world countries however, it is another matter enforcing environmental legislation. Corruption and/or bureaucratic red tape can lead to policies that were tabled to conserve the environment, being rendered largely ineffective.
Taking the situation of each country into consideration is very relevant. Environmental activism works in Australia because the country is at a position to put our environment in the scheme of things. We’ve been able to do this for almost 40 years. People wouldn’t and can’t think twice about allowing mines, destroying thousands of acres of forest or protecting waterways because they just aren’t in an economically viable position to do so. It’s great that in Australia people can, to an extent.
Third world countries are not the most environmentally degrading! Third world countries have to make do with what they have, and usually competing with large populations (because lack of contraception available.) Once a resource (for example water) is gone, it is gone, and people know that they will not be funded or looked after by the government, because it is not a priority. Therefore 3rd world communities have limited access to natural renewable and non-renewable resources and that is why 3rd world countries are not harming the environment as much as 1st world countries.
1st world countries, such as America, Australia, Japan, Canada are producing the most CO2 in the world, contributing to the greenhouse gas emissions in a massive way. As well as 1st world countries using natural resources until near depletion occurs. (This happens because the country has the wealth to buy the product). There are the exceptions - Norway, Sweden, and Germany governments that have worked WITH the environment and benefiting economically from being environmentally sustainable.
Adeola (1996) points out the ‘environmental contamination exacerbated by environmental imperialism and international dumping of hazardous wastes in the Third World, specifically in Nigeria’. Why did countries in Third World welcomed hazardous wastes into their countries, ignorant could be. However, the urgent need to acquire capital to develop is always the reason behind the acceptances (Foster 1994, McKee 1996). These poor people do not have many choices and they do have the right to develop and perhaps enjoy what we are enjoying today. This is one of the principles of sustainable development: Intra-generational Equity.
This scenario leads to two issues: a) environmental degradations in Third World are partially escalated by developed countries and b) the right to develop of the developing countries should not be neglected. Cleaning the backyard of the rich developed countries by transporting hazardous wastes to the poor developing countries as well as forbidding the developing countries to develop (e.g. logging) seriously violates the above-mentioned principle of sustainable development.
When trying to influence environmental agendas, maybe we need to take what Clark (1993) suggests: ‘should be cautious not to adopt an imperialistic attitudes when pushing for environmental changes in the third world. Although there is sense of urgency in fixing environmental problems, individual cultures and their unique perspectives should be respected’.
In Central Africa 80-90%% of the indigenous population walked to wherever they were going (for many it was nothing to walk 20-30kms a day on foot). They also mainly lived in houses or compounds that didn't have electricity. On top of this many purchased/ate bulk produce like "sheema" or fresh vegetables - there is very little packaging in their grocery shopping etc and hence waste. Their ecological footprints would be drastically lower than developed countries. That is not to say however that due to overpopulation etc, etc there are not severe environmental problems occurring over there. Many of their habitats are far less undisturbed than ours.
'Bush meat' trade is occurring on a large scale in Central Africa, Sarawak, and Brazilian Amazon. Rural people often rely heavily on wild meat, but, in many cases, this important source of food and income is either, already lost (through localised extinctions) or is being rapidly depleted. The local communities in these countries rely on the money generated from the sale of wild meat. What should be done in this situation? - get the government to try and stop/reduce poaching and risk forcing hundreds of thousands of rural people into further poverty (which in many cases could result in increased crime)or allow it to continue and watch species hunted for wild meat further decline into extinction. Either decision will have massive negative impacts. This raises the question - which do we value more as a global community - The lives of hundreds of species that are hunted for wild meat or the lives of hundreds of thousands of human beings. It's a big call either way. In this situation a collaboration is necessary to resolve this issue (and many others like it). Successful conservation of hunted wildlife requires collaboration at all scales, involving local people, resource extraction companies, governments and scientists (and not just activists and government).
Are First World countries more environmentally degrading because they consume more? The environmental degradation in Third World countries is more at point source. As to which one is worse I wouldn’t know. Over population is of course a very important consideration but I understand having large families is more or less needed as a resource for more income. Your point about education is important. Everyone, from the government to local scale, should be educated on why efficiently using their resources is economically viable for them and ultimately the environment. For positive results in collaborating all sides need to be informed.
People in developed countries have a tendency to take too much for granted - like fresh, clean drinking water. We just assume it will always be there! Guess we have a lot of work to do to get the message across that our resources aren't without limit and to achieve sustainability.
Australia is the sixth worst country in the world, in regards to land cleared. Today, major land clearing still continues to be a problem in Australia, (Wilderness Society, 2002). We have both models functioning in our society today.
Some people in this discussion mentioned the Australian legislation for the environment (e.g. Nature Conservation Act 1992), thus we have policies in place (functional model). The Wilderness Society Website invites you to become involved in their campaigns; we have freedom to actively voice our views (conflict model). So, if we have this "integrated" system, why do we not have the results (see land clearing facts above)?
I'm not saying there have been no victories won by either model, but broadly speaking, are the results worthwhile? Have either of the models really given Australia significant enough environmental gain, to use as a precedent for our future resource management.
Why Australia does not have a good result in terms of the land clearing issue even with the presence of the integrated model? Well, serious negligence by the government and even the environmentalists account for the situations today. The historical record shows that this crisis, which has taken half a century to fully materialise, was largely foreseen by contemporary agricultural scientists. … It locates the schemes to open up the area for agriculture in the period 1900-1980s within the ideology of developmentalism which became the major plank in the policy of successive governments.’ Science was separated from policy and the institutionalisation of the developmentalist ethos in the administrative arms of government was put in the forefront. (Beresford 2001)
Under these situations, not government is dealing the environment with a very reactive approach, but also the environmentalists are dealing with the environment very reactively. Nonetheless, environment does benefit from this. Imagine if there is not any environmentalist to push forward and monitor the agenda in this regard, this large critical area of land clearing may still be left unchecked.
Perhaps with more environmental activism, more of us would be aware of the catastrophic impact on the ozone layer caused by the mass clearing of forests in developing countries.