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
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 bursted 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