Most
biologists consider economics and politics as bad words, because we are not
trained in their use and implications, so we prefer to avoid any issue that can
lead to their discussion. For this
reason when we discuss the economics of conservation, we usually talk about
economic incentive for conservation and sustainable use of the natural
resources but often do not go any further. We identify the cost of the
commodity involving nature, what it represents for the environment and what
economic incentive the local people receive, but we often fail to place it in
the bigger macroeconomic frame work where it belongs. This is the reason that
often the solutions we offer fall short of the real economic needs of
communities and thus turn-out ineffective or at least vulnerable to other
pressures. In this section I want to reach a step further, I will discuss the
macroeconomic situation of Latin America and the impact that the politics and
economic policies have had in conservation, and how it affects anacondas and
other conservation issues in
Those
who have been out in the rural areas of Latin America have had the opportunity
to enjoy great and beautiful landscapes and pristine natural ecosystems but
more than likely we had the less pleasurable opportunity of seeing how the
local people live, their economic situation, and their limitations and
struggles. It becomes immediately
obvious that there is no amount of education, policing or enforcement that can
really prevent them from using the natural resources around them to survive (McSweeney, 2005). In fact, it
would not even be humane to do so. It is
also evident that these people that do not have many ways of obtaining money
but are still subject to living in a money-driven system are very easily
persuaded with little economic incentive to use nature in an unsustainable
manner. The sale of wildlife as pets or
for their parts are common examples of latter (Fitzgerald et al., 1991; Robinson and Redford, 1991;
Vickers, 1991). Whether they use nature
unsustainably of their own accord, out of lack of education and environmental
awareness (e.i. over hunting), or whether they are encouraged to do so by
external pressures (Camhi, 1995), it is clear that the abject poverty in the rural
areas is the main conservation problem of the area; and no conservation program
can succeed if it does not address it in a direct and bold manner.
Once
established link between poverty and environmental degradation it is important
that we also understand the link between extreme poverty and macroeconomics for
us to be able to place thing within context. In the following paragraphs I will
discuss the basic of macroeconimics and how it influence poverty in developing
countries.
For the last fifty years International Economic Agencies
(IEAs) such as World Bank (WB), International Monetary Funds (IMF), and US
Agency for International Development (USAID) to mention a few, have been
sponsoring development and giving grants or loans for developing countries to
increase and aid their
economies. The idea is that with the
money injected into their economies, the developing countries create
industries, factories and other source of employment that alleviate the poverty
of the area. Once the economy has been
activated, the countries can pay back the money received. The market will take care of everything, once
the country starts doing some business with the aid received there will be
jobs, cash flow and the poverty will go away so the countries can pay back
their debts (World-Bank, 2001; Kütting, 2004; Clapp
and Dauvergne, 2005).
However, the results have not been quite as expected after 60
years. Instead, the countries that have
received more economic help have experienced a dramatic increase in poverty. Countries that abide by the macroeconomic
model proposed are every time deeper in debts and that often spend all their
gross product in paying off the debt without solving their problems (Buhdoo, 1994; Rich, 1994; Jochnick, 2001;
Navarro-Jimenez, 2004; Navarro-Jimenez, 2005).
How can this happen in countries that are getting so much help? The truth is that this help does not come without some strings attached. Often the loans are conditioned to the
countries giving up some of their sovereignty in decision making. International Economic Agencies often request
that countries adopt a number of internal economic measures. Common measures are: decrease or elimination
of internal subsidies to their agriculture and goods, drop trade barriers and
allow international companies to operate in the country freely with little or
no taxation, deregulation, privatization, exceptions in environmental
regulations for businesses, elimination of social benefits such as social
security, relaxation of labor laws, health care and education, to mention a
few. These sets of measures are often
called Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and are imposed on the people when
the government accepts the loan, credit or other kind of economic aid (Buhdoo, 1994; Clapp and Dauvergne, 2005).
The money of loans is not given for the country's
investment at its own sovereign will. It
is often limited in how it can be used.
Often times, the money must be used in hiring US companies or other
transnational companies to do large development projects (roads, dams, etc) known as Export Credit Agencies (ECA). This are often companies associated to the government of
a developed country (e.i. Comodity Credit Corporation, or the Export-Import
Bank of the United States) whose job is to secure sales for the country of
origin (Goldzimer, 2003).
So a good part of the money (about 40%) is given without bidding to a
pre-determined ECA and never reaches the country it is supposed to
benefit. The money then is not injected
into the economy. It is just moved from one bank account to another in some
developed country (Goldzimer, 2003; Perkins, 2004; Clapp and
Dauvergne, 2005).
In exchange for accepting the SAP the IEAs give loans and credits (to
the ECA), the companies that move in will bring jobs and capital. The rationale is that the money injected from
the companies will activate the economy, the truth is that the factories and
companies are built with the money of the loan so there is no much flow of
money brought in by the company and the loan will have to be paid plus
interests, so there is only net flow of capital out of the country. So the private debt is transformed into
public debt and the tax payers must respond for it (Goldzimer, 2003).
The ECAs hire employees at minimum wage, but since the SAPs imposed to
lower wages, drop social assistance, and workers benefits the minimum wage does
not really solve the problem of poverty in the area. People have jobs but the
regular commodities (produce, water, housing) have gone up because they are now
in a globalized marked, so their standard of living is even lower than what it
used to be (Horta, 1991; Cheru, 1992; Yunus, 1994;
Clapp and Dauvergne, 2005).
The
national companies are bought by international mega corporations since the
national companies cannot compete with the foreign investors once there are no
trade barriers. The small and local
companies have then to face competition with multibillion-dollar transnationals
that leave them bankrupt (Blustein, 2005). Imagine a
small phone company in, say,
Increasing
poverty linked to neoliberal agenda may lead the environmental degradation by
forcing people to use the resources in an unsustainable manner. However this is not the only way in which
neoliberalism hurts the environment. The
companies now have liberty to dump their waste waters in the water sheds, due
to the imposed lowering of environmental standards included in the SAPs (Clapp, 2001; Goldzimer, 2003), and their activities deteriorate the habitat where
the local people live, bringing problems of diseases, and pollution that
affects the whole ecosystems and kills the local wildlife (Horta, 1991; Cheru, 1992; Rich, 1994; Pearce et al.,
1995; Horta et al., 2002). In general the new companies lower the quality of
life of local people and jeopardize the possibilities to return to their former
lives style. Many of these companies are
temporary, like those involving mining, or timbering. When the company leaves the country, it
leaves behind pollution, destroyed habitat, unemployment, and even more poverty
than there was to begin with (Ellin, 2003; Forero, 2003; Goldzimer, 2003). The effect of
these economic aids by EIAs has been compared to the use of anabolic steroids
in sports. It can produce a temporary
spike in performance but it is bound to produce lesions and results detrimental
in the long term (Rogoff, 2004). The impoverished nation will then go back to exploit
whatever is left of the environment in an even stronger manner.
These
economic strategies described here is a coin of two sides. The side that faces the developed countries
is called globalization while the one that faces the developing countries is
called neoliberalism. Regardless the name used it is strongly linked to extreme
poverty in developing countries as the evidence show in all the countries that
have abided by it (Danaher, 1994; Kütting, 2004; Navarro-Jimenez, 2004). A good example of this sad situation is Argentina
that embraced neoliberal agenda whole heartedly during the late 1990s to the
point of being a success story to show to all developing countries for their
temporary (and ephemeral) wealth. In
2002, the bubble burst in the Argentinean economy, leaving the country in great
poverty and great economic toil (Blustein, 2005).
The
crash of Argentinean economy was followed by political upheaval and more
economic and social turmoil. The influence of IEAs producing extreme poverty
through the application of SAPs can be seen in developing countries throughout
the world; often leading to similar social unrest and political problems. This has been the cause of the recent popular
up-rising in South America that ended up toppling presidents in the last decade
in Argentina (2002), Bolivia (2003, 2005), and Ecuador (1997, 2000, 2005) just
to mention a few. Needless to say,
during times of economic toil and political upheaval, conservation takes the
last seat.
Why is all this political and economic broohaha important for
conservation? Well, when countries have
these kinds of problems it negatively affects conservation in different manners.
Poverty leads people to the unsustainable use of natural resources; when hunger
strikes there is no amount of environmental education, or enforcement that can
protect the environment, people will resort to the unsustainable use of the
environment as a first resource (Cheru, 1992; McSweeney, 2005). Also, during
times of political upheaval, countries tend to let aside conservation programs,
environmental education campaigns or environmental policies and
enforcement. All of which produces
negative effects on the biodiversity of the areas.
The sustainable use of natural resources has been offered as one potential solution to economic problems. The rational use of wildlife has also been proposed as an alternative to destruction and replacement of natural habitats with non-sustainable uses of the land, such as timbering or agriculture. The sustained harvest of wild populations has been implemented in several countries for subsistence (Robinson and Redford, 1991; Shaw, 1991; Silva and Strahl, 1991; Vickers, 1991; Balick and Mendelson, 1992; Bodmer et al., 1997) and for commercial uses such as harvesting wildlife for hides, flesh, or live pets that give the local people reasons to protect the habitat the provides their livelihood