Global environmental citizenship and Biodiversity
This essay will begin by defining the key words contained in the above statement. The importance of biodiversity will then be described followed by the theoretical debates pertaining to the classical descriptions of citizenship. Modern politics and economics will then be explored and described in relation to how nations have been divided into the ‘global north’ and ‘global south’ and how this has created inequalities, of both power and wealth, which have forged the need for a new way forward for what we perceive as environmental citizenship and its interdependence with nature’s biodiversity. The disconnect between people and nature will be discussed in relation to population demographics and the continuing urbanisation and the resultant reduction in the perceived value of biodiversity. More modern themes of what makes for good environmental citizenship will be evaluated not just as individuals but as communities, corporations and governments and the more radical viewpoint of ecological citizenship. Where appropriate examples will be used in relation to global forestry. Although major forests only cover approximately 2% of the globe’s landmass, they are estimated to account for at least 50% of the globe’s terrestrial biodiversity. The behaviors of citizens at all levels play an important part in mitigating biodiversity loss not only for intragenerational but also intergenerational survival.
It is important that there is an understanding of the key words that will be used in this essay.
Biodiversity – A term that refers to the ‘variability of organisms in the living world and the interactions between them’ (Humphries et al, 2014).
Environment – ‘The whole physical world that surrounds us’ and is mainly a discussion of the relationship between humans and nature (Cao, 2015).
Citizenship – A complex and contested relational conception, two definitions are used here: ‘A relationship between the individual and the collective, between citizens and the political community to which they belong’ (Cao, 2015) and ‘Pro-environmental behavior, in public and private, driven by a belief in the fairness of the distribution of goods’ (Dobson, 2010).
The term ‘biodiversity’ is a relatively new term used to replace ‘flora and fauna’ and ‘nature’ entering common usage in the mid-1980s. It is this biodiversity that creates the variety of ecosystems that people enjoy and need. Nature has been described as socially constructed (Blake, 1995, Castree and Brown, 2001, and Robbins, 2004 as cited in Humphries et al, 2014) and refers to the observation that nature is materially shaped over time by humans interaction with it not only for its intrinsic value but for the economic, food and health benefits too. An example of this is the Neem tree where indigenous peoples have found it possesses Traits that can be used to cure many human and animal ailments. Corporations have also discovered these Traits and use them in the manufacture of toothpaste and pesticides. Therefore, if humans are linked to nature and its biodiversity it must be in human’s best interest to conserve it and forge development and economic growth in a sustainable way. To engage people in environmental issues such as biodiversity, one has to inspire a connection with nature. That linkage should be built from a clear compelling message about the importance of biodiversity (Novacek, 2008) and the importance of environmental citizenship.
As already stated, citizenship is a much-contested relational concept. Classical models of citizenship, republican and liberal, share a long history. Republican citizenship is to be a member of a political community with certain responsibilities and community duties (Seyfang, 2006 as cited in Smith, 2014). Liberal citizenship includes all ‘nationals of a state and places emphasis on the rights of individuals within the rule of law’ (Smith, 2014).
Republican citizenship emphasizes the collective over the individual and therefore a bounded community must be formed to sustain the community (Cao, 2015). On the face of it, it could be considered to be an enviable position if all citizens supported their community particularly if individuals included environmental issues and individuals acted in the best interest of all. However, this has been criticized in that it is too narrowly bounded given the more global nature of modern economics and politics.
Liberal citizenship focuses on the individual rather than the collective and private interests via legal protections take precedence. This promotes a more selfish attitude towards others and is criticized for creating individualism and generating social inequalities and a closer link to capitalism and consumerism. Whilst this could be said to reflect the politics of developed nations (global north) it does not reflect well on developing and poorer nations (global south) who are required to use up their natural resources and degrade the nations biodiversity to feed the consumerism of the global north.
The rise of Neoliberalism promotes free market activity through de-regulation of financial systems and reducing the role of the state. Global free trade is encouraged by taking down economic barriers and promotion of economic rights through marketisation (Sarre, 2014). The upshot of these policies is to create a distinct difference between the wealthier developed nations (global north) and the poorer developing nations (global south). It is possible to understand how economic style brings the environment into conflict with current globalization. Lending and support, given to nations of the global south, was and still is on the basis that they adopt neoliberal doctrine and the requirement to sell off state enterprises, reduce price controls, reduce spending on health and education and open their economies to foreign investment (Sarre, 2014). Ironically, whilst this led to their economies expanding it is at the cost of their natural resources, increased agriculture and cattle ranching needed for exports to raise capital to repay indebtedness. This has led to environmental degradation particularly by degradation of the planets extremely biodiverse rainforests. Whilst they only cover, approximately 2% of the planet’s landmass they are estimated to account for at least 50% of the planet’s terrestrial biodiversity, the importance of which has already been described.
The Friends of the Earth have summed up the constraints to good environmentalism as follows:
Increasing levels of inequality.
Concentration of resources and power in fewer and fewer hands.
Economic instability.
Spiralling rates of natural resource exploitation and loss of bio and cultural diversity.
Weaker international agreements and governance of key areas particularly the environment.
(Friends of The Earth, 2010).
Another result of global industrialisation is the movement of people to industrial areas, for work, better healthcare and the perceived increase in living standards creating large urban areas, urbanisation, which forges a further disconnect of people from nature and a reducing set of values towards the natural environment and its subsequent effect on environmental citizenship. At the same time whilst such bodies as the United Nations (UN), the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) and many other Non-government organization (NGO’s) have tried to negotiate international agreements there has been a marked lack of governance and very little in the way of sanctions for non-compliance. Hence, these agreements have been weak and unable to prevent growing poverty, in the global south, and the ever-growing use of scarce natural resources.
However, since the 1990s the threat of global degradation, of natural habitats and the resultant threat to potentially millions of species (biodiversity), has galvanized an effort to both study and conserve what is at risk (Novacek, 2008). A new type of environmental citizen is also required to cope with modern politics and globalization. Governments became acutely aware of the need to address environmental concerns and some have adopted laws and regulations particularly to stop the over-harvesting of marine and terrestrial species. Despite these attempts at governmental citizenship rainforest loss appears to have continued unabated. For example, deforestation of Brazil’s Amazon has reached its highest rate for 10 years with an increase, between August 2017 and July 2018, of 13.7% (REDD-monitor. Org). This appears set to continue under the new government of President Jair Bolsonaro.
Indigenous citizenship will now be introduced as it directly connects with the previous paragraph. The United Nations via their declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) acknowledges the connection that indigenous peoples have with their local environment including an understanding of the ‘intrinsic value’ of nature. When it comes to forest management nations such as Mexico, Equador and China have demonstrated the long-term advantages of including indigenous peoples at all levels of decision making in a ‘bottom up’ as well as ‘top down’ approach to sustainable development. This acceptance of indigenous environmental citizenship has not only resulted in better sustainable development but in poverty reduction as well.
The British political theorist, Andrew Dobson, has provided a more radical view which he terms as ‘ecological citizenship’ based on the obligations of citizens to correct ecological injustices inherent in material relationships. He also introduced ‘ecological footprints’ referring to a measure of the ecological space that individuals, organizations and communities take up. Citizens should then be mindful of future generations and act, on a daily basis, to conserve energy and control consumerism. One of the main critiques of Dobson’s work is that it promotes latent elitism that derives from individual acts and lifestyle politics at the expense of collective action which is more relevant to the global south (Cao, 2015). Dobson applies a radical change to how citizenship should be viewed and contrasts with traditional models by involving the private sphere emphasizing feminine virtues and is non-territorial. Whilst this does not sit well with the global collective action that is required to conserve biodiversity it has spawned further descriptors of what good environmental citizenship might look like.
Cosmopolitan citizenship extends from Dobson’s ecological viewpoint to encompass the global and the viewpoint that global environmental problems can only be solved by global cooperation between nations and people. However, this has been criticized for not taking into consideration the ‘local’ and inequalities between the global north and south.
So far corporations appear not to have been included, specifically, in any branch of citizenship. Corporations, in particular transnational corporations, have been accused of being responsible for some of the planet’s environmental problems, causing major environmental disasters (Bhopal 1984, Fukushima 2011 etc.), creating social inequalities, global poverty and natural resource depletion. Pollution and deforestation policies have made no allowance for using natural resources in a sustainable way. However, some major corporations have embraced corporate environmental citizenship (CEC) and applied self-governance in order to appear ‘greener’ in their policy making. Given the emphasis on self-regulation corporate responsibility ultimately depends on the corporation’s willingness to develop robust codes of conduct and monitor their own activities, those of subsidiaries, outsourced manufacturers, and suppliers (Smith and Pangsapa, 2008 as cited in Cao, 2015). Without external governance, however, corporations appear to have become adept at ‘greenwashing’ appearing to follow good environmental policies but using their power to devolve these green credentials onto their suppliers which, in most cases, means the global south. The ‘bottom line’ is the main concern of most corporations so it is a matter of whether corporations actually achieve corporate environmental citizenship.
Finally, global neoliberal environmental citizenship is discussed. It might not yet be the most dominant theory, but it does appear to be gaining ground. In 2001 the United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) funded a 3-year project on global environmental citizenship for Latin American and Caribbean nations. The project included environmental authorities, religious leaders, local populations and radio broadcasters which demonstrated how collaborative environmental governance worked. UNEP also promoted that the duty of individual citizens was ‘to help protect and conserve that part of the local ecosystem where he or she belonged or is part of to participate, actively, in local environmental affairs in cooperation with government and others (UNEP,2002). Both Mexico and China have demonstrated how this collaboration can manage and develop forestry management in a sustainable way to mitigate biodiversity loss.
CONCLUSION
Environmental citizenship is a much-contested theory ranging from the classical republican and the liberal which do not fit well into the modern global neoliberalist politics and economics. These have divided the globe into the developed global north and the poorer, developing global south. More modern theories, particularly, global neoliberal citizenship with an emphasis on individualism through self-regulating sustainable consumerism which also includes a collaborative approach including governments, corporations and others acting in unison to protect and conserve local ecosystems. As yet no one theory predominates but there is an ever-growing awareness of the need to use nature’s resources sustainably to protect our natural environment and, in particular, its biodiversity particularly those our rainforests which are believed to contain 50%+ of the planet’s biodiversity.
Copyright M.Taylor 2019
REFERENCES
Cao, Benito. (2015) ‘’Environment and Citizenship’’ Oxon, UK, Routledge.
Dobson, Professor Andrew. (2010) “Environmental Citizenship and pro- environmental behavior’’ Keele university.
Friends of the Earth International, “Towards Sustainable Economies: Challenging Neoliberal Economic Globalization.”, January 10, 2003. https://www.foei.org/resources/publications/publications-by-subject/economic-justice-resisting-neoliberalism-publications/towards-sustainable-economies-challenging-neoliberal-economic-globalisation.
Humphreys D., Fall J. and Bhagwat S. (2016) ‘An idea of nature: biodiversity and protected areas’DU311 Earth in crisis : Environmental issues and responses, chapter 5, Milton Keynes, Open University.
Novacek, Michael J. “Engaging the Public in Biodiversity Issues.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, no. Supplement 1 (August 12, 2008): 11571–78. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802599105.
“Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon Hits Highest Rate for Ten Years, According to Brazil’s Government. It’s Way Worse According to Global Forest Watch | REDD-Monitor.” Accessed May 6, 2019. https://redd-monitor.org/2018/11/28/deforestation-in-brazils-amazon-hits-highest-rate-for-ten-years-according-to-brazils-government-its-way-worse-according-to-global-forest-watch/.
Sarre, P. (2014) ’Governing the international economy; growth, inequality and environment’ in, Brown, W. Aradau, C. and Budds, J. (eds) DU311 Earth in crisis: Environmental issues and responses, Milton Keynes, Open University.
UNEP (2002) “Annual Report 2002.” Accessed May 6, 2019. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/Activity_Report/2002/3.asp.
The Inevitable Climate Change 