504+Task+1.2+Political+ecology+and+development+ethics

Outline and division of parts:


 * //__Introduction__// **//(Linn- 250 words)//**
 * __//Political ecology//__: What are the central tenets within the new field of political ecology? How does this differ fro previous/conventional view on this? (We can also include Susan’s suggestion: The limits of this new field) **//(Veronica +/-500 words)//**
 * __//Development ethics://__ What are the central tenets within the new field of development ethics? (In addition to explain this in general, also relate this to nature. Goulet is drawing some connections between development ethics and nature) (Can also include limits of this new field) **//(Tekle +/-500 words)//**
 * //__The linkages between poverty, environment and development__//: Short explanation **//(Susan.//** I think you need to see how many words is needed, e.g. +/-200-250 words)
 * __//How can the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics give us a better insight into the linkages between poverty, environment and development?//__
 * 1) Discuss this //__in general__// **(//Susan +/-500 words)//**
 * 2) Discuss the difference between the //__global/international and the local level__//. E.g. Duraiappah is highlighting the role that international structures are playing in deteriorating nature at the local level. Also Gallopin, Gutman and Maletta discusses this at p. 390, and Adams is very relevant) **//(Hege +/-500 words)//**
 * __//Conclusion//__ **//(Linn- 250 words)//**


 * This is what I have been working on today. You can find the old versions on the page "original parts". Please bring comment by pushing edit, highlight the sentence you want to comment, and push the "comment-bubble" that is on the tool-line. Then save.**


 * I am working in a word document now when finishing up, so many of the comments that you have brought is incorporated into the document that will be handed in.**

In this paper the linkages between poverty, environment and development are addressed, and in particular the question of how the perspectives within the “new” fields of political ecology and development ethics can give better insight into these. Acknowledging the complexity of the linkages, we argue that compared to the Mainstream Sustainable Development approach, the perspective of political ecology offers a more useful insight, as it, instead of focusing on technical solutions and scientific explanations, addresses social and political dimensions which often are ignored or downplayed when addressing the relationships between poverty, environment and development. Also development ethics offer substantial insight: Asking questions such as “What is the good life?”, this perspective emphasizes that the true indicator of development is the qualitative enrichment of human beings in all relevant aspects of human life. One example that will be used is the impact that global and international structures and institutions are having on poverty, environment and development at the local level.
 * Abstract**


 * //The abstract possibly needs to be altered after I have been reading the final product. //**

//“//All relations between environment and people are political, just as all development is ideological” (Adams, 2009, p. 198)
 * 1. Introduction**

The above statement points to the heart of this paper. In recent decades the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics have emerged, addressing significant shortages within mainstream development and environmental thinking. W.M. Adams states that “at the heart of political ecology is the observation of the centrality of politics in attempts to explain the interactions between people and the environment” (2009, p.197). Development ethics, which mainly emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, emphasizes that “development is above all else a question of values and human attitudes, self-defined goals, and criteria for determining what are tolerable costs to be borne in the course of change” (Goulet, 1997, p. 1161). Each of these perspectives is aiming towards giving a holistic and broad approach to development. This is essential in order to comprehend the linkages between poverty, environment and development. In this paper, we will therefore address the question of how the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics give a better insight into the linkages between poverty, environment and development. First, we will however explain the central tenets within the fields of political ecology and development ethics.

The present essay will briefly describe the reader about the central tenets within the new fields of Political Ecology and Development Ethics followed by the explanation of how poverty environment and development interact each other. We’ll also analyze how the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics give a better insight into the linkages between poverty, environment and development.


 * //This is just a suggestion of the introduction. It may be altered later.//**

The new field of political ecology was born as an answer to the environmental crisis the world has been suffering for the last decades. The perspective links the environmental aspects of development using the insights of natural and social science (Adams, 2009. p.197). It addresses the relation and interaction between environmental and social conditions. // Environmental issues need to be analyzed and addressed in a broad political and social context. Political decisions and financial structures on international, national and local level can have profound implications for the environment. In turn, this can lead to impoverishment of some people, while increasing the wealth of others (Øyhus, n.d, p. 1). // It is not possible to understand the relation between development and nature without taking into account such economical and social issues. This new field also emphasizes asymmetries of power, such as the unequal relation between main actors. Raymond Bryant and Sinead Bailey (1997, p.28) state that political ecologists start from the premise that environmental change is not a neutral process amenable to technical management- it has political sources and ramifications, which 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. 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. Thus, political ecology not only concerns ecological concepts, it also includes social and political issues to the analysis of the environment. This can contribute to create improved environmental governance and to understand how unequal relations in societies affect natural environment, especially when making government policies.
 * 2. Central Tenets within Political Ecology**

In the light of political ecology environmental problems such as desertification, soil erosion and deforestation affect economic, social and political fields. Deforestation can for example not only be attributed to population growth, but also to the “social and political advantage of powerful people” working directly or through governments to exploit natural resources (Adams, 2009, p.251). Duraiappah (1998) outlines that poverty is a major cause of the environmental degradation but that poor people do not initially- only indirectly- degrade the environment. Degradation is often due to institutional or market failures.

Thus, ecological problems such as deforestation and soil erosion need to be regarded not only as the product of local processes but also of political economy at local, national and international scales. Wood 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 which interact with each other (Adams, 2009,p.251).

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).
 * 3. 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 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 consider 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.

There is no doubt that the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics can enhance the 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 processes. However, we will first give a short introduction of the linkages between poverty, environment and development.
 * 4. The linkages between poverty, environment and development**

Hayes and Nadkarni (2001, p.2) refer to the relationship between poverty, environment and development as a triangular nexus in which these aspects influence each other in complex ways. According to Gallopin, Gutman, and Maletta (1989, p.377), 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 the one hand, while W.M. Adams (2009, p.11) notes that tackling human poverty is an ethical imperative of development//, many development projects leave numbers of people poor and vulnerable and degrade the environment// (WCED, 1987, p.4). On the other hand, poverty is also recognized as a constraint on development. In the area of agricultural development, for example, Scherr (2000, p.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. The poor are blamed for causing environmental degradation through placing increasing pressure on natural resources due to factors like population growth and limited resources for sustainable resource management. Duraiappah (1998, p.2170), on the other hand, argues that environmental degradation by the wealthy also could facilitate poverty.

The above just scratches the surface, but highlights the interconnectedness of poverty, environment and development. The concept of sustainable development arose out of recognition of that nexus. Still, many development ventures continue to treat development and environment as separate fields. W.M. Adams also states that “a coherent understanding of how society and nature relate must go beyond the simple oppositionism of conventional Western environmentalism, and the limited reformism of MSD (Mainstream Sustainable Development) thinking…Its view of society and environment is restricted, untheorized and naive” (2009, p.196). This highlights the relevance of the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics to understand these linkages.


 * 5. How can the perspectives of political ecology and development ethics enhance insight into linkages between poverty, environment and development? **

The perspectives of political ecology and development ethics enable holistic understanding of the nexus as a basis for addressing the aspects in an integrated way and informing development decisions.
 * 5//.1. 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 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, p.377). A major challenge in this respect is limited understanding of the causes/ explanations behind these concerns- thus ignoring the context of the problem: underlying political, social and economic causes. Adams (2009, p.246-247) 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 important, purely technical solutions do not address the underlying causes. This implies that single factor explanations are limited in understanding thus inadequate. According to Adams (2009, p. 24, p.272) overcoming that challenge is inevitably political and there is need to understand the nexus in light of political economic structures and decisions by actors both at the local, national and global levels- political ecology.

However, to attach real meaning to the rich explanation of the nexus that develops 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 ignoring humanity as an integral part of the solution, adds up to numerous problems for the world’s people. 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 (Astroulakis, 2010, p.1). Therefore, 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 above elements in combination with environmentalism is very likely to inform practical decisions that will address the current development and ecological concerns.


 * //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).


 * Conclusion **

This paper has addressed the central tenets within the fields of political ecology and development ethics, illustrating that these can make an essential contribution to the understanding of the linkages between poverty, environment and development. As we have seen, such linkages are complex. However, as the perspective of political ecology argues, environmental degradation is ultimately a product of political and social processes, linked at a number of scales from the local to the global (Adams, 2009, p.197). This understanding is essential, as it has implications for how to address problems of poverty, environment and development successfully. It is not sufficient to take on a pure technical approach, which often is promoted in Mainstream Sustainable Development thinking, as such analyses often ignores or downplays social and political dimensions (Adams, 2009, p.205). On the other hand, institutional and market failures and social and political structures, often working in the interest of the rich and powerful, needs to be changed (Duraiappah, 1998). In this process the perspective of development ethics also gives important insight, illustrating how successful development only can be promoted when taking on a broad approach to questions such as “What is the good life?” and “What are tolerable costs to be borne in the course of change?” (Goulet, 1997, p.1161). Development can only succeed when leading to qualitatively enrichment of human lives. This do, among other things, depend on protecting the nature from environmental degradation, so that current and future generations can enjoy opportunities of leading worthwhile lives.
 * 6. Conclusion **


 * I will adjust the conclusion if this is needed afterwards and maybe try to improve it, when I have read the new version of Hege's part. But feel free to comment for improvement.**


 * Sources: (Not yet in alphabetical order). They are now in alphabetical order **

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

Bryant, R. and Bailey, S.1997. “Third world: A Political Ecology”. Book online. Retrieved on January 23rd 2012 from 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.

Crocker (n.d.), International Development Ethics. Retrieved on January 23rd 20012 from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/OApp/OAppCroc.htm.

Crocker, D. (1991), Toward Development Ethics, World Development, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 457-483,199l. Retrieved on January 24th 2012 from <range type="comment" id="186109">http://pdn.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271773&_user=10983609&_pii=0305750X9190188N&_check=y&_origin=article&_zone=toolbar&_coverDate=31-May-1991&view=c&originContentFamily=serial&wchp=dGLbVBA-zSkWA&md5=e6887719607d1a005df161b59daf9c80/1-s2.0-0305750X9190188N-main.pdf

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

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.

Goulet, D., (1997), Development Ethics a New Discipline, pp. 1160-1171.

Hayes. A and Nadkarni. M. V (2001) (Ed.). Poverty, Environment and Development:Studies of Four Countries in the Asia Pacific Region. Retrieved on January 18th 2012 from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001219/121999e.pdf

Øyhus, A. O., 2012. Political Ecology and Development Ethics. Mini lecture [pdf]. Retrieved on January 18th 20012 from: https://fronter.com/uia/links/files.phtml/914631996$761991043$/Course+material/Minilectures/Module+1_Minilecture_Political_Ecology.pdf

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 January18th 2012, from: http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE298/Readings/alain2.pdf

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987): Our Common Future. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.