The Curse of a Gift

           Typically having a natural talent or gift is a great thing to have. Something that gives you a leg up on the competition from the start is seen a very valuable thing to have going for you in many cases. However, in case of countries with valuable natural resources, theses natural gifts can lead to some unintended consequences that can lead to problems for these countries. These consequences can include weaker governmental infrastructure, poverty, and internal and external conflict due to a number of pressures. African and Middle Eastern countries are very susceptible to the problems that come with large natural resource pools. I believe that until a country has strong government and infrastructure or a diverse economy the natural resource will lead to problems.

            Africa has always been rich in natural resources. However many citizens of African countries continue to be steeped in poverty. In countries like Equatorial Guinea or the Republic of Congo where abundant oil, gas and minerals are abundant there is a massive disparity between the classes (Casey)[i]

            These natural resources have made a small group of people rich, leading to widespread corruption and left the majority of citizens poor. This corruption leads to states that do a terrible at providing health care and education to their citizens. This creates a large amount of poverty in the country. This makes it very easy for rebel groups to recruit. These people are poor and unemployed and the prospect of combat and looting is more attractive as a result

The article states that the resource curse could strike Africa again because Sub-Saharan Africa has been producing at a very high rate recently.   According to an African Energy Outlook report “30% of global oil and gas discoveries made over the past five years were from sub-Saharan Africa, which includes countries south of the Sahara desert” (Casey). At the same time only “290 million out of 915 million people have access to electricity”(Casey). That figure is rising and will continue to. “Four out of five people in the region depend on firewood and charcoal mainly for cooking due to the lack of electricity. The projection is that figure will rise 40 percent by 2040” (Casey).

International Energy Association (IEA) Chief Economist Fatih Birol has stated that “There is huge potential both for oil and gas and, when it comes to renewables, huge potential for hydropower, wind and solar, on the other hand, there is very little energy for the people in Africa” (Casey). There are many factors that link the extreme surplus of natural resources to the poverty of its average citizens.

            This is the biggest problem that citizens in countries facing the resource curse deal with. The country is rich in minerals but there are a number of factors that do allow this wealth to reach everyone.  The infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa has been severely negated to the point where most citizens’ do not have electricity and are using firewood instead. To escape the curse these countries must push through reforms and upgrade their infrastructures so that the wealth from the countries natural resource can be spread throughout the country more equally.

The IEA report said, touches on a number of major barriers to investment that are afflicting Sub-Saharan Africa like “widespread oil theft (worth $5 billion a year in Nigeria) to electricity tariffs across the region, which are among the highest in the world, and corruption” (Casey). However IEA states that the major issues are “the lack of investment and the second one is the governance issue” (Casey).  Birol goes on to say that “There are investments coming into the region but our study show that today $2 out of $3 in Africa is for export-related projects not for the Africans”. “We don’t see the investments can come if the governance issue is not fixed” (Casey). These statements show that efforts of these countries are concentrated on meeting the needs of countries who consume their oil and other consumer goods but not on the needs of their own citizens.

If a country does not have a strong government system in place before it discovers that it has a valuable natural resource then they are particular susceptible to the resource curse. The income that the natural resource creates goes to a private source. This makes it very easy for corruption to occur within the countries government. Money to fund the government is not coming from the country’s average citizens in the form of taxes. It is coming from the private industries that control the valuable resource. This often means that the government is listening to the interests of private industry. It also means that the government has no incentive to listen to its citizens or even invest in its own infrastructure. In order for countries to break free of the curse they must invest in themselves and diversify their economy so that they do not rely so much in contributions from these kinds of industries.

[1] http://fortune.com/2014/10/13/another-african-resource-curse-iea-says-energy-boom-not-helping-poorest/

Environmentalism or Neo-colonialism?

There is a constant debate about whether environmentalism is the new form of colonialism of the South. This is with good reason as the two share similar qualities and their goals may also seem the same. However, their goals are quite different.

The opponents of the globalization of environmentalism consistently use arguments comparing environmentalists to colonizers like Columbus, the French, or the British. This is true to an extent, as modern environmentalism is a western ideal.

The movement started in the late 19th/early 20th century in America. It was a movement developed by the upper-class, white males, most notably Theodore Roosevelt. However, this wasn’t about cutting down on waste like the environmentalism we know. This idea was mostly conservationist; keeping forest spaces thriving so that men could get away from society and hunt and be free. The movement transformed in the 1960s with events like Earth Day and ideas like Sustainability, which promoted cutting out our waste rather than focusing on conserving small spaces for the environment.

When Climate Change started to become a prevalent issue the original blame was put on the developed countries as they were the ones who produced. The first-world nations made strides to cut down their emissions and trying to halt climate change. This eventually led to developing countries becoming the producers of goods and most pollutants. Developing countries also have a lot of traditional people who live off the land, and these people are beginning to have a significant effect on their countries ecosystem. Now, these developing countries are facing pressure to stop emitting GHGs and become environmentally friendly. The issue with this is that these nations are economically dependent on these modes of production, or have no other option than living off the land.

This is where we start to see the parallels between colonialism and modern environmentalism. On one side we have individuals who are used to a certain way of life or need their surroundings to simply survive. On the other side we have a group that are trying to impose their ideals and way of life on another culture because they feel it is their duty. This white man’s burden was the primary force driving colonialism behind Africa. This idea of saving a culture from itself is what many believe led to the decimation of the African people and their traditional culture. Westerners are trying to imprint their ideals onto the people of developing nations, and many deem that as unfair. An example of this can be seen in Giles-Vernick’s book. She tells the story of how kids have educational programs that are teaching them forest conservation. Despite this, she believes that it will have no effect as the older generations still follow the same practices that are harmful to wildlife and the environment. There’s also a sense of irony of developing nations being forced to stop exploiting resources by developed nations, as they are the ones who colonized these southern countries and forced them to develop modes of production.

While it may seem unfair for Western, developed nations to pressure developing countries to adopt these environmental values, it’s beneficial in the long run. It may seem unfair that developed countries became successful through environmental harmful means, but it makes sense. If the world allowed all nations to develop through industrialization the rate of climate change would increase significantly. We need to teach these people more sustainable ways so that the world can continue to thrive environmentally and economically.

Instead of telling developing nations to stop harming the environment, we developing nations need to offer them alternatives. With safer modes of production, alternative forms of energy, and more sustainable exports we can hope to reduce global emissions and halt climate change.

GMO's an uncertain future

GMO’s: An Uncertain Future

The average citizen of any country would likely struggle to explain the pro’s, con’s and even the simplest aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMO). But who could blame us? So few people can gain a true understanding of how to alter food or even medicine at such a microscopic level to have such significant outcomes that changes the basic nature of a living item. I blindly trust that scientists, who research, promote and implement GMO’s into daily practices such as farming and pharmaceutical companies. Many people do. For most of my life I have been exposed to GMO’s and until doing research I didn’t know they existed. I will try and clarify the purpose of GMO’s then discuss the negative response to them, but finally I will argue why GMO’s are an integral part of solving a world hunger problem.

What I learned is genetic material from one species can be inserted into the genetic make up of another organism (Lecture 12). The purpose of doing this is to create an organism that can withstand certain environment it would otherwise perish in, add micro-nutrimental value to the make up of the organism. There is a long list of benefits, but for every positive affect of GMO’s there are strong opponents to their use.

 Consumers argue that there needs to be a more transparent application of GMO’s. According to the Institute of Responsible Technology, modified products are not labeled, and the FDA does not mandate lab studies. This scares consumers who actively want to avoid such products. Another argument is that using GMO’s is an unnatural application of food growth. Messing with genes is like playing God. Robert Sternberg explained that humans are comfortable with what is familiar; once experiment is involved there is a struggle to understand what occurred creating fear (Konnikova). Other consumers fear GMO’s because they find there is a legitimate health risk in consuming them. When GMO’s are implemented in poor African countries a different argument about crop specialization, and sovereignty over ones own crops leads to further distrust in GMO’s. A last argument is that seeds cannot be simply reproduced, but instead need to be bought from the lab each planting season.

 These arguments are all fair reasons to distrust the future of farming, but in reality GMO’s are what will save farming and create a greater yield of food to feed a greater population of people. In Africa, droughts frequently stunt food growth on farms, but there is a complex, but realistic solution to overcome this natural restraint and it includes GMO’s. Florida is known for its amazing fields of Orange trees, but when natural bacteria kills off thousands of trees and limits the yield of oranges, the only way to fight the bacteria was through pesticides. Pesticides could contaminate the remaining Oranges, but using GMO’s there was a tolerance to the pesticides and Americans were able to enjoy Orange juice throughout the entire 2013 winter (Harmon). Apply this to Africa where a larger portion of the population does not eat a substantial amount. GMO’s can be a legitimate savior to consumers who rely on farms to yield enough crops. The seeds created in factories can withstand droughts and travel longer without decay. In states with limited infrastructure, crops might not be able to make the trip to isolated villages without going bad. However, with GMO’s the crops survive making it to a hungry group of people. Mass crop production using modified seeds will feed a starving nation.


Undoubtedly there will be backlash anytime only a few companies provide a powerful service, especially when they do not face strict government regulation. Perhaps there should be more publicly funded studies that go into the use of GMO’s, but as a student who hasn’t studied biology in seven years, I will trust the scientists that dedicate their lives to creating a remarkable product. Frankly I do not even care if the food is labeled, because if they labeled it, I still would not understand what went into my food. All I know is that I drank plenty of glasses of orang juice last winter and without GMO’s that would not have been possible. If the science can combat natures cruel tricks, then I have no problem supporting even further implementation of the usage of GMO’s. Konnikova, Maria The Psychology of Distrusting GMO’s. The New Yorker, August 8, 2013. Accessed on October 23, 2014


http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-psychology-of-distrusting-g-m-o-s Institute for Responsible Technology, 10 reasons to avoid GMOs, (2008-2014) http://www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs Harmon, Amy A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA. The New York Times, July 27, 2013. Accessed October 23, 2014.

Blog #2: Eco-tourism and Conservation Efforts in India and Africa

Blog #2: Eco-tourism and Conservation Efforts in India and Africa

There is often debate over whether conservation efforts can help or hurt indigenous societies, such as those in India and Africa. Although, in theory, these conservation efforts seem like a good idea (e.g. saving endangered species such as wild elephants or tigers, bringing in money for the community due to tourism, etc.), these practices are actually harming the people who have lived on this land for centuries. After reading Emil Uddhammar’s article “Development, Conservation and Tourism: Conflict of Symbiosis?” (Uddhammar, 2006) and viewing the video “Milking the Rhino” (ITVS, 2014), I believe that the amount of ownership of the land which is set aside to be conserved has a direct relationship to the amount of benefit derived by the local population. Even if eco-tourism benefits wildlife in the conserved lands, if the local people are not benefiting from the conservation effort, the long-term implementation of wildlife conservation will not be possible.

Uddhammar investigated four different conservation efforts, either national parks or reserves, two in Africa and two in Asia (specifically India). The four locations were not only different in location but also in the amount of ownership the local population had of the conserved land and the types of benefits they received from owning the land. He tried to answer the question “Is it possible to simultaneously promote human development and conservation?” (Uddhammar, 2006) and, I think the answer is no, not unless the local population benefits from the conservation effort also.

The four conservation locations were Kruger National Park in South Africa, Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, the Kanha National Park in India, and the Corbett National Park in India (Uddhammar, 2006). The Kruger National Park represents the best case scenario of local ownership. It is located in northern South Africa adjacent to Zimbabwe and Mozambique and, when originally established in 1969, the local Makuleke tribe was forced to move from their ancestral lands but were then re-located to other lands within the borders of the park. The Makuleke tribe was allowed to set up eco-tourism camps that were managed by both a Joint Management Board consisting of park authorities and local tribal representatives. It was not clear if the livelihood of the Makuleke tribe involved hunting or farming or if any of their cultural rituals were disrupted by relocating but their involvement in eco-tourism seemed to be of a benefit unlike the other examples in the article.

The second of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar was the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, which is not a national park but a national reserve, owned by two different local districts within the Maasai tribe, the Narok and Transmara, which operate under different guidelines within the reserve. The Maasai themselves have a unique culture that is at odds with the economically driven 21^st century. They are traditionally cattle farmers that roam long distances with their cattle. As seen in the film, “Milking the Rhino,” the Maasai acknowledge that they are part of the tourist attraction that people come to see. Although they could benefit economically from eco-tourism, the presence of tourists from “Western” nations also becomes part of a problem when the tourists start to judge some of the cultural traditions of the Maasai (ITVS, 2014). What has happened is that the Maasai have leased land for tourist camps and a physical separation has taken place between the local Maasai and tourists, sometimes referred to as “enclave-tourism” (Uddhammar, 2006).

The third of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar was the Kanha Tiger Reserve which is a national park in the Madhya Pradesh state in India. In contrast to the two conservation locations in Africa, the Kanha National Park is not owned or leased by any of the local populations. Its tribal population, the Baiga, were removed and resettled to farming land outside the park and the park is now under the direction of an NGO with international ties. The entrance fee to the park goes directly to park management but any other monies spent by eco-tourists could, in theory, benefit the local economy. Uddhammar describes Kanha as having very few international visitors (only 10%) so it was not clear how the local population has benefitted from the park so far (Uddhammar, 2006).

The worst case scenario was the fourth of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar which was the Corbett National Park in Uttaranchal, India in the Himalayan foothills. It was created in 1936 as a tiger preserve but includes many other forms of wildlife. The local population is very aware of eco-tourism as a form of income and, in fact, thinks that not enough money is being made on the park due to lack of marketing. They do not care about the tourists but complain that the animals from the park get loose and destroy their farmland. The Indian government has come up with a solution of “buffer zones” around the parks where wildlife and humans can mix (Uddhammar, 2006). In this case, the local population sees the national park as a money-making operation and is physically as well as emotionally removed from the conservation aspect of the park. If the economy or climate changed, and the park did not offer any economic value, one wonders if it and the animals would survive.

In conclusion, the parks where the local population was physically and emotionally involved in the conservation effort in the park, offered the most benefit to the people. The Kruger National Park in South Africa which included local populations who lived in the park was the best case scenario of local populations benefitting from eco-tourism. The other example in Africa, the Maasai Mara National Reserve, where local populations suffered loss of their culturally important grazing lands, demonstrated how local populations did not benefit. In India, the local populations were physically removed from the conservation locations and, although you could argue that they benefitted economically from eco-tourism monies, they suffered losses of crops destroyed by park animals and have become dependent on a single industry that they have no control over. In my opinion, eco-tourism does more harm than good to these local populations.

References:

Uddhammar, Emil. "Development, Conservation and Tourism: Conflict of Symbiosis?" Review of International Political Economy 13, no. 4 (2006).

"Milking the Rhino." ITVS. 2014. http://www.itvs.org/films/milking-the-rhino

Post 2 - Common but Differentiated Responsibility

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is the fairest way to address climate change (Najem, 2010). The principle states that those that primarily created the problem have the primary responsible to remedy it. Therefore, industrialized countries should take on the bulk of the financial and technical burden when it comes to climate change. While the industrialized countries, such as the global North, have and will continue to experience adverse effects of climate change, the global South as a whole is much more vulnerable to the impacts. The primary economic industry of many of these countries is agriculture. Byproducts of climate change such as salinization, desertification, heavier rains, and droughts are negatively impacting crop productivity and therefore reducing the only source of income for many citizens of the global South. Financially, the South is disproportionally affected by climate change. Even small climate differences have grave effects on their GDP’s, whereas the US and Europe have the technical capacity and economic resiliency needed to adapt.

Small island states, such as members of the Alliance of Small Island States, are experiencing extreme encroachment of coastlines by the ever rising sea level (http://aosis.org/). These countries, unlike some others in the global South such as India and China, do not have the economic or governmental capacity to adapt to sea level rise and increased frequency of natural disasters. Additionally, these small islands’ emissions are negligible when comparing them to both industrialized and industrializing countries. To me, the experience of members of AOSIS displays why the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is not only important but also morally right. Most of these countries are not contributing significantly, if at all, to climate change. Yet, they are experiencing the brunt of the impacts. The majority of the South should not be held responsible for mitigation when they barely have the resources to provide basic provisions, such as fresh water, electricity, and sanitation to all their people.

The problem that arises with the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is how we classify developing and developed in global environmental politics. As Najem explains, the US is not willing to take all the responsibility for climate change when economic competitors China and India are not held to the same standard. This poses an interesting dilemma, as China and India are classified as developing, yet have booming international economies. The UNFCCC distinguishes Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 in determining who must meet more stringent targets and who will receive help. China and India are considered non-Annex 1, despite their growing economies and large emissions.

I have mixed feelings about the classification. In theory these countries, particularly China, can afford to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts whereas other non-Annex 1 countries like Burundi or Haiti cannot. However, the wealth in India and China is not distributed in as equitable of a way as it is in many Annex 1 countries. The rural populations that rely on sustenance farming or live near coast lines and river basins, or the urban poor that are exposed to diseases with increasing areas of prevalence due to rising temperatures, are impacted greatly by climate change and cannot afford to do anything about it. Ideally, as China and India emit more in an effort to industrialize, that will increase the economic resiliency of the nations to adapt to climate change. However, emitting will only increase the severity and frequency of the impacts they are already experiencing.  

I morally agree that the industrialized nations should take responsibility for their part in inducing climate change. The Polluter Pays principle, a reflection of the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility, is the fairest way for the international community to approach climate change. However, there are gray areas when it comes to who should bear the responsibility. AOSIS and many other non-Annex 1 countries barely contribute to global emissions and are especially vulnerable, and should therefore be protected by those that emit the most and can afford to quell those emissions. Yet countries that fall in between developed and developing, like China and India, are what makes the Polluter Pays principle or the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility unsuccessful in the international political context. True developing countries see China and India as partially responsible due to both their high emissions rate and comparative high level of wealth. The US sees China and India as competition, and does not want them to gain an economic advantage if they do not have to reduce emissions while the US does. Both sides seem to have an interest in China and India being treated as Annex 1 in environmental negotiations. Yet, these countries have large populations and influence and do not want the burden being considered “developed” would bring when it comes to dealing with climate change. They also have many human development problems that are consistent with other non-Annex 1 countries, such as high poverty rates and lack of basic sanitation for all people.

With both sides at a stand still, it seems doubtful any resolution will be made in the near future. While in theory the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility is the most just way to address climate change, gray areas do exist that make it difficult for any principle to be applied broadly. In reality, there may be too many factors to tease out in order to determine who should be primarily responsible for fixing this global environmental problem.