Time to Change the Language of Environmental Debates

A few weeks ago, I heard a presentation from Manuel Rodriguez-Becerra focusing on the crossover of the environment and development. Professor Rodríguez-Becerra, the first Minister of the Environment in Colombia, focused much of his talk on the topics from his article on Greening the Colombian State (pdf). He spoke about the difficulty of crafting, enacting, and enforcing environmental legislation while also dealing with the shifting priorities of politicians. Specifically, presidential will in Colombia shifts from administration to administration, and serious environmental policies enacted by one can be undone by another. In fact, the administration does not even need to change, just the priorities of the president, and environmental protection can be undone.


Professor Rodríguez-Becerra described the dire situation in much of Latin America as a crisis of resources, bemoaning the fact that many politicians would rather utilize natural resources in the present than protect unique ecosystems for future generations. He and others argue that the debate must turn away from simple economic measures, such as GDP growth, to more holistic indicators that include the wide-ranging value of ecosystems (watersheds, plant and animal life, importance to the water cycle, resources, etc.). Other argue that it is time to change the deabte by adding universally-accepted planetary boundaries. 

Quite frankly, I think all of these environmentalists are missing the point. The debate does need to shift, but it needs to shift away from esoteric talk about the environment as a resource to be protected or exploited. Too often the talk of environmental protection is about protecting a "thing," usually defined as an unspoiled forest paradise. As my colleague Ryan mentioned a few months ago, 

This is the conservation myth.

While incredibly beneficial to the conservation cause, it does have a darker side. In the midst of climate change and prevalent extinctions, it is easy to see why rainforests, are beneficial. But this story homogenizes those rainforests, it takes away the voices of the people who have always used those forests...

People live in these forests. People live on the outskirts of these forests. People live downstream of these forests. People live in the fertile areas whose rainfall patterns are dependent on these forests. These forests are important not only as the habitat of a rare species of bird or as the source of a potentially-beneficial medicinal herb; they are important as sources of water, fuel, and food for the people inhabiting the forest and its surrounding land. These forests are critical to the livelihoods of the people living in its proximity.

When the environmental debate focuses on forests and other ecosystems as resources, it is easy for politicians to say to voters that the short-term benefits of exploiting these resources (via mining, timber production, etc.) greatly outweighs the long-term benefits of conserving these lands. Voters hear of this exploitation and think "money" and "now." If the debate was over people, however, it would be much harder for politicians (who are against environmental protection) to spin. Advocates of the environment should not be claiming that forests are "virgin forests," because politicians can spin this to voters as: "These forests are empty, who needs 'em! Pave the way for progress and economic development!" Instead, advocates for the environment should be totaling the number of people directly dependent on these forests. If you could counter a politician's claims with "x number of people live in this forest, y number of people derive their living from it, z number of people depend on its water, and q tons of agricultural productivity will be lost, equating in p number of people succumbing to food insecurity and malnutrition." It is much harder to convince voters to side against people than it is to convince them to side against trees and animals. 


In addition to Ryan's article mentioned above, I also recommend this article on indigenous rights in development in Indonesia