Colonialism and the North/South Divide in the Modern Day

The Issue with Colonialism and the Modern Day Environmental Movement

One of the biggest issues with current North/South divide is the lingering idea of colonialism and how that affects the modern day environmental politics. One of the biggest issues in the modern day is getting the Southern or third world and developing countries to take the assistance of the "Northern" states and actors. While these countries may need or want the assistance of more developing countries, the way it is gone about is not working. Many of these developing countries, particularly in Africa, have many similarities to colonialism in the past. The idea of "becoming civilized" was prominent in colonialism and seems eerily similar to the idea of "helping" the Massai tribe with their land rights and preservation. Whether you refer to the countries as North or developed or southern and developing, the modern day process seems entirely too similar. Barging into these countries and telling them to change their way of life that they have had for thousands of years is just like colonialism from the past. Even though more developed countries may sugarcoat it and try to make it look different, they are still forcing countries to change a system that isn't broken.

Examples of Modern Day Colonialism in the Environmental Movement

One of the most common and blatant examples of Modern Day Colonialism is how the Massai tribe is currently being treated. I all started when the British were colonizing in the early 10--'s and first manipulated the Massai through a treaty in 1904. The British focused on negotiations with a few select chiefs and got the Massai to give up land on two more occasions while eventually getting them to leave the Serengeti for less valuable and livable land. This was the start of colonialism and how the Massai began their distrust of developed countries or outside influence. As soon as Kenya got independence they began with an idea of saving wildlife and the environment, but really it was for the economic opportunities. Just recently, the idea of land privatization became prominent among some Massai, and their land is being bought up and they are once again being told what to do with it. The real reason for this is economic opportunity and it's eerily similar to colonialism of the past. The process of contacting the tribe, pretending to benefit, economizing their private assets, changing their way of life, and having false motives is prevalent in both colonialism of the past and the modern day privatization or exploitation of Massai resources. The Massai are properly concerned with this trend since they were so taken advantage of by the British and now the same thing seems to be happening, with a different Northern actor.

How to solve the North/South Divide In Environmental Politics

With the memories of colonialism still lingering in many countries, the Northern states and actors have to be careful when they actually want to help these Southern or developing states. Even if the intentions were pure from these Northern countries and they actually wanted to help and not economize or take advantage of these people, the way they go about it is completely wrong. First off, maybe it is best to leave these people alone. Many of these cultures and tribes have been around for hundred or thousands of years, they know what they're doing.  They live off the land the the resources it provides, pushing through every drought and lack of animals or resources that came about. These cultures have shown repeatedly that they care about the environment and preserving it for future use, and have the ability to fix many issues on their own. 

On the other hand, if there is an issue that Southern actors or tribes like the Massai can't fix on their own, storming in or trying to take advantage of them is not the way to go. Using eco-toursim, changing land rights, or just blatantly lying are not good ways to build a relationship, When intervening in these countries and tribes, the North needs to offer help and try to work with these people. If the North really wanted to help these countries and people they would not try to turn them from their ways and economize their way of life. By offering help with things like dought, disease, lack of resources or any number of other factors, the North can build a better relationship. By taking advantage of these Southern actors and their plights and not being honest with their intentions, the North is destroying any future of relationships. If these people need help they will ask for it or it can be offered, it should not be pushed down their throats or try to change their way of life which has obviously been working. By forcing their way in and changing the way of life, these Northern actors are essentially bringing back a new form of colonialism and opening old wounds. There is a sharp North and South divide in global environmental politics and part of that is because of colonialism and its origins. If Northern actors don't start working better with these Southern actors and countries, they will reopen the old wounds of colonialism and permanently damage relationships with these people.

Possibly the best example of colonialism and the modern day environmental movement is the Massai tribe of East Africa. 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-new-colonialism-foreign-investors-snap-up-african-farmland-a-639224.html

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/maasai.htm

Shrugging Off the "Resource Curse": A Comparison of Developing Nations

     It comes of no surprise that the phrase “resource curse” conjures up mental images of exploited citizens in oil rich nations; corrupt, politically unstable nations practically ruled by a certain mineral or export. And this would not be an incorrect typecasting. Nations such as Nigeria, Botswana, the Democratic Republic of the Congo are all countries still suffering from wealth that fails to disseminate to local populations, resulting in gross levels of inequity, and startlingly low Human Development Indexes. A combination of dishonest business practices, ulterior political agendas, and undue influence on the part of third party consumers has led to not only to numerous political collapses, but additionally, economic deterioration that has set the countries terribly far back in terms of market competition on a global scale.

     However, what can be pinpointed as the cause of such disastrous results? Is the presence of such a tempting venture always necessarily bad? Take for instance, Fiji, whose economy has largely been revitalized by the presence of several large mining corporations: Vatukoula Gold, Dome Gold, and Lion One Metals. Last month, Lion One received a thumbs up from the Fijian mining commission to continue on in developing several new processing plants. These externally-owned mines have been vital in bringing revenue in for the county. Another metal, Bauxite—a type of aluminum— is also harvested there, which brought in over $40 million in 2013 alone. Additionally, bauxite mining companies are working to provide assistance to families and the community helped jump start local economies centered around the mining facilities. Not only do the companies employ the local people, Fijian farmers are able to sell their crops to the workers from other islands on coming in to mine, which creates incentives for local agriculturalists, and has been essential in the movement from subsistence to commercial agriculture.

    The African nation of Angloa is another example of what could potentially be considered a developmental success—or at least a success in progress. While, admittedly, in the early 2000s, a civil war killed and displaced a large number of the populous, since then, the nation has taken positive strides. Though the president still has the ability to exercise an unfortunately large amount of power, there is still a National Assembly which is elected by a general, democratic vote. Unfortunately, this has been the primary advantage that Angola has incurred thus far, as poverty reductions have not been terribly drastic. But outside influences pushing the nation to enable its citizens have been helpful in the political realm—now actors must enable indigenous populations by promoting trade outside of the oil industry, and exporters must focus on building communities that will generate funds in supporting enterprises.

     Perhaps the stages of success can be attributed to the lessened outflows-- something largely prevalent in struggling African countries. The Fijian government works to ensure that funds return to the island, and are not entirely lost to their business partners, nor stay tangled up in an oligarchic few. Additionally, the limited number of external national influences also could be the reason for the reaches of success. Vatukoula is headquartered in London and both Lion One Metals, Dome Gold, and numerous Zinc mines are forefronted by Canadian companies. Bauxite mine in the province of Bua are owned locally, and have an agreement with a Chinese mining enterprise trading exports for numerous millions of dollars. On a sustainable note, the restrictions in this area can be linked to Fijian desires to ensure exploration occurs in a sustainable fashion and does not greatly overwhelm other social markets.
    Fiji stands out as having overcome what would typically be known as a “resource curse,” and though colonial ties can still be seen in the ownership of many mining corporations, it is one of the most prosperous nations in the Pacific island region. Angola still has many obstacles to overcome in order to ensure that it will not fall victim as so many other nations have, and its sponsors should use the nation of Fiji as an example of a positive feedback loop of investment. Though oil and gold are both essential in allowing many small, struggling economies to enter international markets, shifts towards commercialized agriculture, and the increasing of political involvement are the real treasures that must be sought after in the developing nations.


Sources:
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=190825
http://www.liononemetals.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=679860&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=Lion-One-Receives-Environmental-Approvals-For-Construction-And-Development-...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/23/africa.resource.curse
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/opinion/opinion-angola-development-elections/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2012-10/12/content_15814026.html

The Problem With Conservation Measures - The Lost Opportunity Mentality and Its Negative Effects

It is very easy to say things like: “Conservation measures should be about the environment first and foremost”. However, history has shown us that most conservation efforts have been anything but the selfless measures they are supposed to be. The “Lost Opportunity” mentality that led many of the early colonialist forces to explore and exploit the natural resources of faraway lands made sense during those times. However, that mentality is still very much alive today. Today, when people know a lot more about the long-term devastations caused by the unscrupulous exploitation of resources. Lost Opportunity is disguised under the cover of conservationism and that poses many problems for the environment and the world in general. The difficult in identifying countries’, and other relevant actors’ true intentions in crafting and carrying out conservation measures is a reason for us to adopt a more skeptical stance on environmental conservation efforts.

Countries and companies are almost always led by some kind of self-serving interest in their conservation efforts. How could it be otherwise? Borrowing a little from the rationalist scholarship in international relations, countries will always be concerned with their interests first. Everything else comes second. That mentality proves problematic for matters that require international cooperation, such as the environment. How to justify the costs of conservation efforts (in other territories than their own) to countries when they cannot “get anything out of it”? In this case, that “anything” means something tangible such as economic profit or security. From that perspective it is easy to see why countries adopt the Lost Opportunity mentality when dealing with conservation measures targeted at underdeveloped regions. It makes sense to argue that their resources are being badly managed, or even wasted, due to their lack of governmental sophistication and financial power, and, because of that, it warrants international intervention. Natural resources, such as forests, create the premise that allows countries to justify their interference in another’s sovereignty under the guise of protection of something that is of global interest. This interference often exacerbates the problem by providing underdeveloped governments with the funding necessary to oppress their people. Lost Opportunity is then a tool used to justify a sort of environmental neo-colonialism, and it is also what makes conservation measures usually fail.

The Lost Opportunity notion came about with the first colonialist efforts. That was a time when countries were most worried about riches, and the environment received little to no consideration. There was not a whole lot of knowledge about the effects of deforestation on the environment, or how the extraction of some minerals could damage water sources. There was also very little respect given to local peoples and how they were affected negatively by the butting in of foreign powers for their own selfish reasons. However, we know better today. That makes the fact that countries are still driven by this idea of opportunities being lost by people who do not know how to take advantage of them all the more disturbing. Conservation measures need to be subject to severe scrutiny before being implemented to assure that their purpose is to protect the environment. It must take into consideration its impact on local peoples. We can no longer get by with any kind of self-serving, colonialist project disguised as conservationism. We have to get smarter.

The Positive and Negative Effects of Ecotourism

Ecotourism

Globalization is making it easier than ever before for people all over the world to interact culturally, economically, and socially on the international level. With standard of living at its highest level in post-industrial nations, westerners have found a new hobby – ecotourism. According to the United Nations, ecotourism is “tourism and recreation that is both nature-based and sustainable” (Kennedy). Ecotourism, when fairly executed and operated, positively affects regions defined as ecotourism destinations. However, these destinations are usually located in developing nations with weak governments and corruption. Due to these troubles and the innocent ignorance of many westerners, ecotourism can harm these regions if it is not regulated in a fair and just manner. Ultimately, ecotourism does have the ability to help these nations and regions develop.

Positive Effects of Ecotourism

            Most economies, not just those of developing nations, depend on tourism. Tourism allows businesses and trade to thrive. For developing nations, which lack industry and struggle with agriculture, tourism can sometimes be the only industry to aid in economic development. Ecotourism not only benefits economic development but it also aids in resource preservation and conservation. Ecotourism advocates for environmentalism, it allows developing nations to make money by protecting its natural environment and resources.

           

Local people from ecotourism destinations can develop socially and economically through tourism revenues. They also learn the importance of preserving and conserving their land and resources. For example, ecotourism has helped facilitate economic growth in Uganda. Local people “supplement their income by working as rangers or field staff in the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest” (Kennedy). Ecotourism is most advantageous when small tourist companies work directly with local people, so that money goes to them and not directly to the government.

           

While many argue that ecotourism can harm local tradition, it can actually help it. When westerners visit these exotic regions they want to learn about local traditions and customs. Their desire for this particular knowledge shows locals that their traditions and daily customs are special. Also, developing and adopting modern values and customs is not a bad thing. People automatically assume that if these local people adopt new customs that they will do away with their tradition. This idea is simply illogical and untrue. Ecotourism allows local people to adopt and learn new western values whilst maintain their own traditions.

           

Also, it is a good thing that people from developed nations are interested in visiting developing nations. This means that people are interested in more than just the comfort of their daily lives. The goal of ecotourism, in countries such as Ghana and Uganda, is to “foster a relationship between conservation organizations, local communities and travelers that benefits all three” (O’Neil). Ecotourism can be extremely beneficial for international relations and globalization. However, individuals and governments are sometimes influenced by corruption and greed, which in turn can make ecotourism develop harmful aspects.  

Negative Effects of Ecotourism

            Due to the lack of stability in developing nations that include environmental destinations, ecotourism can fail at developing economic growth. According to the United Nations, in 2012 ecotourism contributed to 25% of revenue in the world’s tourism industry (Kennedy). Due to the surge in ecotourism popularity, big corporations have infiltrated these regions. In some of these environmental destinations, big corporations are working with unstable and corrupt governments to produce profits at the expense of local people. Tourism is a huge industry in developing nations. However, according to the United Nations Environment Programme, only “$5 of every $10 spent by tourists in the developing world stay there” (Kennedy). This means that even less of those $5 remains in the hand of local people, instead most of the money goes directly to governmental leaders.

           

Harmful consequences can also come from the innocent ignorance of westerners. Westerners look at exotic natural environments as paradises in need of preservation. Westerners forget that local people live and survive hand-to-hand with the land, its resources, and its animals. Westerners, especially those from the United States, have been raised on concept of exploring the frontier and preserving it. The United States was founded on colonialism and imperialism, people moved out west to explore the unknown. Now Americans and Europeans are spreading their ideologies and exploring a new frontier—developing nations / Neo-Europe— in the name of eco-imperialism and eco-colonization. However some people, not all people, are unaware that the local people of ecotourism destinations do not want to be bothered and do not want people to infringe on their land, resources, and way of life. For example, in Kenya local people struggled with ecotourism and conservation because westerners took jobs and controlled the industry. These people not only lost the right to their land but also were unable to develop economically. Troubles grew further, when western actors provided the Kenyan government with conservations equipment such as weapons to keep local people from poaching. This allowed the government to be corrupt and work against its people not with them (Peluso).

           

These harmful consequences do not directly stem from ecotourism. They stem from the actions of unjust and corrupt state and non-state actors. These actors are either ignorant to the traditions of local people or greedy with a desire for wealth. Ecotourism alone does have the capacity to benefit local communities, governments of developing nations, and westerners. However, governments and westerners must understand that ecotourism should primarily benefit local people and the environment.

Ways to Improve Ecotourism

            Ecotourism can be an idealistic concept but there are realistic ways in improving and developing beneficial ecotourism. First and foremost, westerners must respect the differences in tradition. They must want to learn more about these different traditions and not feel the need to modernize them. When traveling they must choose destinations that benefit local people. For example, in Ghana there are agencies such as the Ghana Rural Ecotourism and Travel Office that work to help travelers plan trips that “will support community and conservation effort” (O’Neil). These agencies are great to foster good ecotourism, because they connect travelers with local tour operators. This alone fosters healthy relationships between westerners and local people as well as providing local people with jobs.

           

Travelers should stay clear of major resorts and western attractions, especially those that are familiar at home. Staying at resorts neither helps in regional economic development nor helps in connecting travelers with local people. Ecotourism may be a big industry but it does not have to be a big business. Local people should work tightly with smaller agencies to create the ecotourism attractions with which, they feel most comfortable.

Sources: 

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/positive-negative-effects-ecotourism-63682.html

http://traveltips.usatoday.com/ecotourism-ghana-103977.html