Original+versions+(Political+ecology+and+development+ethics)


 * //Please add your finished parts below://**


 * //Introduction//**


 * //The C//****//entral Tenets within Political Ecology//**

The new field of Political Ecology was born as an answer to the environmental crisis the world is suffering in the last decades. Political ecology has successfully linked the environmental aspects of development using the insights of natural and social science. (Adams, 2009. p. 196) The field of political ecology addresses the relation between the environmental and social conditions and it emphasizes the interaction between them. All relations between the environment and people are political. It’s not possible to understand the relation between development and nature without taking in to account the economical and social issues. It’s also important in this new field the asymmetries of power such as the unequal relation between their main actors: the society and the environment. Raymond L. Bryant and Sinead Bailey in their book “The Third world: a Political Ecology”, state that the political ecologists start from the premise that environmental change is not a neutral process amenable to technical management, it has political sources conditions and ramifications, that impinge on existing socioeconomic inequalities and political processes. Second, political ecologists assume that an unequal distribution of environmental costs and benefits reinforces or reduces existing social and economic inequalities. And finally political ecologists argue that the differentiated social and economic impact of environmental change also has political implications in terms of the altered power of actors in relation to other actors. (Bryant, R. and Bailey, S.1997 p. 28).

From this premises we consider that political ecology is not only about ecological concepts, it also includes social and political issues to the analysis of the environment. Such analysis can contribute to create a better environmental governance and to understand how unequal relations in societies affect natural environment, especially when making government policies. Political ecology also recognizes that environmental problems such as desertification, soil erosion, deforestation and animal’s depletion affect to the economic, social and political fields. For instance, when we talk about deforestation, we can’t only blame deforestation to the constant growth of population but also to the “socially and politically advantage of powerful people” (Adams, 2009, p.251). There are powerful actors interested in natural resources’ exploitation that work directly or through the governments. Duraiappah (1998) outlines that poverty certainly, is the major cause of the environmental degradation but that poor people don’t initially or indirectly degrade the environment, there are the powerful and wealthy that degrades the environment due to the institutional or market failures. Thus, ecological problems such as deforestation or soil erosion need to be seen not only as the product of local processes but also of political economy at local, national and international scales. Woods, mentioned by Adams (2009) suggests that the politics of deforestation can be imagined as an upside down pyramid of increasing scale that engages local, national, multilateral and global scale and that interact each other. Certainly, the process of development is causing the environment degradation. The new field of Political ecology is contributing on explanations that include social and political dimensions. For instance, land degradation can undermine and frustrate economic development, while low levels of economic development can in turn have a strong causal impact on the incidence of land degradation. (Adams, 2009, p. 205)

Adams, W.M., 2009. “Green Development: Environment and sustainability in a developing world” pp. 196-273
 * Sources:**

Bryant, R. and Bailey, S.1997. “Third world: A Political Ecology”. Book online. Accessed on January 23rd 2012. Available at http://books.google.no/books?id=T-6i5pVeQPUC&pg=PA27&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 28-29

Duraiappah, A.1998. “Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus” p. 2177

After World War 2 development was for many years regarded as a straightforward economic issue (Goulet, 1997, p. 1160). History has, however, shown that mere monetary measures and activation of institutional arrangements cannot solve the issues of development. In many parts of the developing world no considerable distance has been covered regarding problems such as water scarcity, famine, and bad sanitary conditions, at the same time massive consumption within the developed world has caused huge ecological destruction. In this regard the perspective of development ethics emerged in the 1980s and 1990s (Øyhus, n.d., p.2). Development ethicists formulate ethical principles relevant to social change in poor countries, analyze and assess the moral dimensions of development theories and seek to resolve the moral quandaries raised in development policies and practice, such as: “In what direction and by what means should a society 'develop'?”, “Who is morally responsible for beneficial change?”, and ”What are the obligations, if any, of rich societies (and their citizens) to poor societies?” (Crocker, n.d., p.1).
 * //The Central Tenets within Development Ethics//**

Development ethicists have emerged with critical questions and issues to be addressed within the umbrella of development, such as “What should count as (good) development?” and “What should be a society's basic economic, political and cultural goals and strategies, and what principles should inform their selection?” (Crocker, n.d., p.2; 1991, p.457). Development ethics considers ethical and value questions posed by development theory, planning, and practice (Gasper, 1992, p.19), based on the ancient philosophical view of what is good life and happiness (Astroulaki, 2010, p.4). Thus, the essential task of development ethics is to ensure that changes launched under the banner of development not result in anti-development that erode culture, individuals, and social well-being. For development ethicists the true indicator of development is the qualitative enrichment of human beings in all relevant aspects of human life- it puts human development as ends and economic development as means of directing development towards qualitative improvement in human development (Goulet, 1997, p.1168-1169). Denis Goulet- the “father” of development ethics- highlights the importance of questions such as : “What is the good life?”, “What are the foundations of justice in society?”, and “What stance should human groups adopt towards nature?” (1997, p.1165). Thus, development ethics also pays attention to nature and ecological preservation. One of the strongest arguments for giving priority to the protection of the environment is the ethical need for guaranteeing that future generations will continue to enjoy opportunities of leading worthwhile lives (Crocker, 1991, p.455). Perhaps the objective of development should also create an enabling environment for the current generation to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives. To achieve these objectives it is important to understand under which ethical values and principles development process shall take place.

(I might incorporate some more elements, as I am not entirely finished with the editing. How do you think the new version looks?)

**Sources:** Astroulaki,N.(2010), The Development Ethics Paradigm: Ethical Goals and Strategies For an Authentic Development, Retrieved from [] Crocker (n.d.), International Development Ethics, retrieved from [] Crocker, D.(1991), Toward Development Ethics, World Development, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 457-483,199l. [] Gallopin, G.G., Gutman, P., and Maletta, H., (1989), Global Improvement, sutainable development, and the environment: a conceptual aprroach, pp. 375-397 Goulet, D., (1997), Developement Ethics a new decipline, pp. 1160-1171

There is no doubt that the perspectives of ‘political ecology’ and ‘development ethics’ can enhance our understanding of the linkage between poverty, environment and development. They facilitate a broader and holistic diagnosis of the constraints related to the nexus within the context of underlying change processes thereby revealing fundamental patterns and situations that enable conceptualisation of the nexus. However, it is necessary to first understand how the aspects of the nexus-poverty, environment and development are linked so as to contextualise the discussion on the insight provided by the new perspectives on the nexus.
 * How can the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics give us a better insight into the linkages between poverty, environment and development? **

Poverty, environment and development are inextricably linked and many scholars for example, Hayes and Nadkarni (2001: 2) illustratively refer to the relationship as a triangular nexus in which the three aspects influence each other in a complex way. The complexity of the interaction arises from the diverse directions of the influence and their dependence on the prevailing circumstances. Notable in the influence is the cause-effect relationship between and among the aspects. According to Gallopin, Gutman, and Maletta, (1989: 377), the two major causes of environmental degradation are: the patterns of economic growth in the affluent societies and the affluent sectors within the poor countries and patterns associated with poverty. On one hand, while Adams (2009:11) notes that tackling human poverty is an ethical imperative of development, many development projects leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable and at the same time degrade the environment, (WCED, 1987: 4). On the other hand, poverty is also recognized as a significant constraint of development. In the area of agricultural development, for example, Scherr (2000: 481) shows that the poor constraint agricultural growth through concentration of resources on lower value food groups for subsistence security and their inability to mobilize production and investment resources. Regarding the poverty-environment interactions, the poor people are blamed for causing environmental degradation through placing increasing pressure on the natural resource base due to factors like population growth and limited resources for sustainable resource management, ( Scherr, 2000: 481). Duraiappah (1998:2170) on the other hand also argues environmental degradation by the wealthy facilitates poverty. The above just scratches the surface, but highlights the interconnectedness of poverty, environment and development. Indeed the concept of sustainable development that dominates development thinking today arose out of recognition of that nexus. Sadly though, many development ventures continue to treat development and environment as separate fields which has inhibited comprehensive understanding of the problems of development and environment. This state of events highlights the relevance of the perspectives of the new fields ‘political ecology’ and ‘development ethics’ to development work which is the subject of the next section. Adams, W.M., 2009: //Green Development, Environment and Sustainability in the Third World//, //3rd Edition,// Chap. 9, pp. 242-273, Routledge, London. Duraiappah, A.K. 1998: Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of thenexus, //World Development,// 26, 12, 2169-2179. Gallopin, G.G., Gutman, P., and Maletta, H., (1989): Global impoverishment, sustainable development and the environment: a conceptual approach, //International Social Science// //Journal//, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 375-397. Hayes. A and Nadkarni. M. V (2001) (Ed.). Poverty, Environment and Development:Studies of Four Countries in the Asia Pacific Region. Retrieved on 18th /01/2012 from: [] Scherr. S. J (2000). A Downward Spiral: Research Evidence on the Relationship between Poverty and Natural Resource Degradation. //Food Policy// 25, 479–498. Retrieved on 18th /01/2012, from: [] World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) ( 1987): //Our Common Future.// Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
 * //The linkages between poverty, environment and development//**
 * References **

The perspectives of ‘political ecology’ and ‘development ethics’ enable holisticunderstanding of the nexus as a basis for addressing the aspects in an integrated way and informing development decisions.
 * //How can these perspectives give a better insight into the linkages between poverty, environment and development?//**
 * //In general//**

The broader social and political context of political ecology implies a diversion from the inadequate single-factor explanations of ecological concerns thereby recognizing the multiple causative factors. In the context of the nexus, it implies a critical analysis of the aspects, dissecting them with a view to establish the overlaps and in roads into each other’s territory. Although it is now acknowledged that poverty, environment and development are linked courtesy of the concept of sustainable development, problems associated with development and the environment are often addressed independently. As a result, development projects have frequently led to undesired environmental degradation, (Gallopin, Gutman and Malleta (1989: 377). A major challenge in this respect is limited understanding of the causes/ explanations behind these concerns as a result of focusing on a single causative factor thus ignoring the context of the problem - underlying political, social and economic causes. Adams (2009: 246-7) presents the flaws of a single focus using an example of deforestation. He notes that focusing on the conventional single cause of pressure on resources with population growth as the primary driving force of deforestation, has resulted in purely technical responses focusing on preservation and exclusion of people to protect biodiversity. While extremely important, purely technical solutions, do not address underlying political, social and economic causes. This implies that single factor explanations are limited in understanding thus inadequate and according to Adams (2009:24, 272) overcoming that challenge is inevitably political thus there is need to understand the nexus in light of political economic structures and decisions by actors both the local, national and global levels- political ecology.

However, to attach real meaning to the rich explanation of the nexus that develops as result of drawing on the political ecology perspective, the human element is important. Development exists for the people just as the ultimate aim of ecological preservation is to ensure that the present and future needs of the people are met. Poverty too affects the people thus they should be at the Centre of all efforts aimed at the nexus- an important aspect of the development ethics perspective. Experience has shown that a form of environmentalism or development that ignores humanity as an integral part of the solution, adds up to numerous problems for the world’s people and fragile ecosystems. Indeed, the development ethics perspective highlights a diversion from the conventional development thinking of economic growth (limited) to considering it as the qualitative enrichment of human beings in all relevant aspects of human life (broader), (Astroulakis, 2010: 1). This implies that comprehensive understanding of the development aspect of the nexus should involve the various dimensions of development: **Economic**: more production and income: **Social**: equity, justice, less poverty: **Human**: education, health, gender equality: **Cultural**: indigenous cultural values versus foreign culture: **Political**: participation of various socio-economic groups in political decision making at different levels: **Technological**: environmental sustainability of development. Considering the various development elements in combination of environmentalism is very likely to inform practical decisions that will address the current development and ecological concerns.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px;">Adams, W.M., 2009: //Green Development, Environment and Sustainability in the Third World//, //3rd Edition,// Chap. 9, pp. 242-273, Routledge, London. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px;">Gallopin, G.G., Gutman, P., and Maletta, H., (1989): Global impoverishment, sustainable development and the environment: a conceptual approach, //International Social Science// //Journal//, Vol. 41, No. 3, Pp. 375-397. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px;">Astroulakis. N (2010): The Development Ethics Paradigm: Ethical Goals and Strategies for an Authentic Development. //Working Paper for the EuroMemo: 16th Workshop on Alternative Economic Policy in Europe, University of Crete, 24-26 September 2010.// Retrieved on the 18th /01/2012, from: []
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px;">References **


 * //Global/internatlonal level vs practices at the local level//**

Political ecology links environmental aspects to development through the interaction between social conditions and the use of natural resources. It becomes political as scarce resources need to be divided and limitating efforts need to be made. When looking at the linkages between global and local level regarding, Duraiappah (1998, p. 2174) highlights the existence of power, wealth and greed among some, and institutional failure and market failure as causes for environmental degradation. These factors all contribute to environmental degradation and endogenous poverty (poverty caused by factors other than environmental degradation). The latter in turn causes further environmental degradation. In their article Gallopin, Gutman and Maletta (1989, pp.376-377) make a distinction between two sources for environmental degradation associated with economic growth and poverty. Unsustainable development and unsustainable impoverishment are complementary sides of economic growth at world level causing stress on Earth’s natural resources and ecosystem, a condition characterized by the inequality and growing symmetry between rich and poor. Access to water is one example of the power, wealth, and greed factor, where smallholders are more negatively affected than for example commercial enterprises and people with property rights (Duraiappah 1998, p. 2175). Many holds the point of view that there is enough resources on this planet for everyone to be fed, kept safe, allowed the opportunity to enjoy several benefits and goods and to stimulate further development. It is uneven distribution that caused and maintains the situation we see today. Poverty is a result of unequal distribution of goods and services, and of knowledge and systems that are developed by humans, not of lacking resources or inability to produce. “The total eradication of global poverty is technological and economically possible” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 376). Thus, “global poverty coexisting with global affluence is absolutely unjustifiable on purely ethical grounds” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 379). However, the complexity of the situation leads away from the purely moral stand, towards the development style at international level as a collective effort to change the global development pattern. There are mainly two ways of local and global interactions: socioeconomic effect and ecological effect. The relationship “between society, population, technology and nature”, both historically and at any point in time “are of critical importance in determining the dynamic and consequences of poverty” (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 380). Yet, myriads of local action worldwide seem to erode the basis for sustainability and development (Gallopin, Gutman, & Maletta, 1989, p. 388). Access to international markets is a factor in the exploitation of natural resources that can make it possible for persons, companies or countries to gain control over resources that might otherwise benefit the population in the area in which the resources are located, and be the benefit of more several than few. This makes it political in the sense that removing or correcting the institutional or market failure would fix the problem for the poor and/or the natural resources, but its effect on powerful and wealthy is not compatible with their greed. Bureaucracy and “vested interested by officials or businesses have powerful and influential positions in the policy-making process” (Duraiappah 1998, p. 2171).

__References:__ Gallopin, G. G., Gutman, P., & Maletta, H. (1989). Global impoverishment, sustainable development and the environment: a conceptual approach. //International Social Science Journal. Vol. 41, No. 3//, pp. 375-397. Duraiappah, A.K. 1998: Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of thenexus, World Development, 26, 12, 2169-2179.


 * //Conclusion//**