From the Institute of Development Studies
‘Green’ market initiatives are increasing poverty; local ecosystem stewardship must be nurtured instead
‘Green grabbing’ – the rapidly-growing appropriation of land and resources in the name of ‘green ‘ biofuels, carbon offsetting schemes, conservation efforts and eco-tourism initiatives – is forcing people from their homelands and increasing poverty, new research has found.
Ecosystems being ‘asset-stripped’ for profit is likely to cause dispossession and further poverty amongst already-poor land and resource users, according to a set of 17 new research case studies from Africa, Asia and Latin America, published in a special issue of the Journal of Peasant Studies.
“Green grabs are the dark side of the green economy,” said Professor Melissa Leach, director of the ESRC STEPS Centre. “If market-based mechanisms are to contribute to sustainable development and the building of economies that are not only green but also fair, then fostering an agenda focused on distribution, equity and justice in green market arrangements is vital.”
This means including meaningful local engagement and consultation based on transparency, accountability and free, prior informed consent. Yet green markets cannot do it all. In the rush to repair a damaged nature through trading and offset schemes, the political-economic structures that caused the damage in the first place must not be neglected.
Responsibility for tackling unsustainable practices in wealthy industrialised settings should not be offloaded by financialising ecosystems in other parts of the world. And if sustainable development is genuinely to be pursued at Rio+20 and beyond, we need to recapture nature from the market’s grasp, nurturing and legitimising more interconnected human-ecological relationships and understandings, along with tried-and-tested forms of local ecosystem stewardship based on them.
Examples of green grabs include: in Guatemala, conservation agencies, ecotourism companies and the military are ‘protecting’ the Guatemalan Maya Biosphere Reserve as a ‘Maya-themed vacationland’, violently excluding local people. In Eastern and Southern Africa, businesses are revaluing soil systems and farming practices for ‘biochar’, dispossessing farmers and pastoralists from land and resources important for their livelihoods. Meanwhile evidence is mounting that some Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD and REDD+) schemes are dispossessing local forest users of vital resource access.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No surprise but a sad reality.
Anthony, WUWT proves that “investigative journalism” has a new home, the premier blogosphere. I look forward to the time that these kinds of efforts stop the money flow to science-fraudsters. At least most of the “climate” conferences have been a big FAIL; Rio must be as well Perhaps we will see funding collapse after November.
These must be the “climate refugees” we’ve heard so much about, caused, ironically enough, not by “climate change” but rather by climate hysteria and Big Green.
The Green movement is more like the Soviet system and Stalin. No suprises there! But “financialising”? Is that even a word?
[SNIP: Thank you, but that is why we have a tips and notes page. -REP]
If the general public heard some of the horror stories arising from green money making schemes like the UN and World Bank backed REDD program, they’d be outraged. But the media refuses to report any of it. Almost no one in N America has even heard of the REDD programs and don’t know a thing about them.
You can tell if something is a UN idea because it always has an awkward acronym like IPCC or FCCC, in this case it’s REDD. And UN plans are almost always so complex and convoluted they are difficult to understand. I think that’s part of the reason the media does not report them, their journalists cannot understand how they work.
I used to be a proponent of the UN, now I despise it.
REDD and other greenie money grabbing schemes must end. The sooner the better.
Guess I’m glad that they see greed in green, but I keep gagging on their devotional green snippets anyway. Green economy is the dark side of the economy. Still, I’m thinking there is a probability that Mr. Gore is largely focused on the projects they are objecting too.
Bottom line about the religion even noting a few obvious cases of green looting is that you can never be geen enough.
I’ve long suspected that the most extreme greens are motivated more by misanthropy – hatred of Man – than by love of nature. The AGW faith is a godsend to them, legitimising their antidevelopment agenda and, as with any faith, is immune to scepticism – a key element of the scientific method.
Correction — One MORE dark side of the green economy.
when you sort through all this eco bafflegab, what it says is people need property rights.
So their “solution” is outright communism. Ever get the feeling that this is all a “good cop bad cop” routine?
You can thank people like Chico State’s Scott McNall, who used the city of Chico’s RECO program to get into people’s homes and then sell their private lifestyle information to interested parties.
For decades, most of what I read about local forest peoples losing their land had to do with things like logging (for example, Chinese companies doing a deal with a corrupt government, then tearing down the forests in which people lived), or ranching (same thing, except ranchers burn the trees instead of logging them, to grow grasses for cattle). I found myself siding with the people who lived in the forests. Groups like Conservation International help local people who want to keep their forested homes get the needed publicity so that, in Brazil for example, ranchers can’t take their land illegally and burn the forests.
Biofuel plantations are the same destructive thing, taking land from people who live there and depend on the forest. The only difference is that it is done for a “green” purpose, although most studies I’ve now read say that tearing down forests for biofuels in fact is NOT green, it results in MORE CO2 emissions, when deforestation is taken into account, not less. To me, biofuels plantations are just major international firms hiding under the “green” label, but just as destructive of cultures and forests as the international logging companies. I actually think that the EU and the UN got the wool pulled over their eyes by these firms, and only after the mechanisms for biofuel plantations got set up, did they discover, too late, that green wasn’t (in the case of biofuels) green at all.
If governments are now kicking people off their land for ecotourism, that’s crazy, and needs to stop. One of the main draws of ecotourism in most places is that it gives higher paying jobs to locals, so ecotourism becomes a way to help retain forests, and to give governments an incentive to do so, because it brings in dollars. In most places, the governments work with ecotourism companies and with the local residents, and it’s a win/win for everyone.
The enviro movement started with many admirable ideals and goals. Those lofty puropses seem to have become more and more displaced by some very ugly techniques and goals.
@Vince Causey – “The Green movement is more like the Soviet system and Stalin.”. Not so much like, but exactly like.
Instead of selling the populace the dream of a coming Worker’s Utopia, sell them the vision of getting back to some equally mythical Garden of Eden. Instead of telling them they had to fight Capitalism or be exploited by it, tell them that they had to fight Capitalism, because it was destroying the Earth. Instead of telling them that individual liberty had to be sacrificed in the greater interest of the state, tell them it had to be minutely controlled in the greater interest of the environment.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/
Pointman
Thanks for bringing this stuff to light.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/by-their-fruit-you-will-recognize-them/
http://www.euractiv.com/climate-environment/carbon-credits-tarnished-human-r-news-508068
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/kenya-samburu-people-evicted-land
Three different stories, and, yet, three stories which are the same. I believe Anthony covered one of the stories here. I think if we look hard enough, we’d find many more stories, just like these stories.
ChE says:
June 15, 2012 at 8:02 am
So their “solution” is outright communism. Ever get the feeling that this is all a “good cop bad cop” routine?
___________________________
It is Diocletian’s Problem-Reaction-Solution.
We see it over and over.
Create “The Problem”, have the media hype “The Problem” so the public reacts and then offer “The Solution” that is ALWAYS a transfer of Power and Wealth to the ever expanding bureaucracy. The name of the “Solution” changes – “Free Markets” “Socialism” “Communism” “Communitarianism” the name of the front men (politicians) changes but the families behind the mess have not changed in a couple of centuries. All that has changed is they are reaching their goal, a World Government run by bureaucrats they control. Most recently it is called “Global Governance” The European Union and the Soviet Union were test cases I think. That is why the Soviet Union was suddenly allowed to collapse and China was drawn into the WTO.
Check out the London School of Economics and the “Third Way” front men like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, George Soros, Maurice Strong and Pascal Lamy.
Wasn’t there a little, African boy burned to death in his home, when the Green Greed decided the villagers were “squatters?”
What words begin with G-R-E-E? Greed, green, and, oh yes, Greece.
Apparently in Athens there are nearly a half million people more than three months behind on their electricity bills, and the utility has some big bond payment due. Wonder whether the richer investors will have to wait, or the poorer people will all have their power shut off?
Expect riots, and fools proposing more wind turbines.
ISIB-ISIG. Even if all the AGW alarmism were true,. The cure is far worse than the disease.
Home wind-turbine: “He expects the structure will cost about $25,000 to build – an amount that would take about 100 years of energy bill savings to pay for – but his company prides itself on thinking progressively about power consumption.” http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120614/bc_west_side_vancouver_turbine_120614/20120614
The thing that turned me against this type of stuff was when I started hearing stories of parks & natural forests being torn down to make way for wind turbines & solar panels.
Parks, natural forests, & clean water always come first in a sound environmental ethic. The more sound environmental movement of the past has been sabotaged by naivety-based & deception-based climate alarmism.
The sensible thing to do is support parks & natural forests while opposing toxic pollution. Naive leadership is weak & naturally unsustainable. I advise any remaining sensible members of the environmental movement to think long, hard, & carefully about the following & implications:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/10/psychology-of-uncertainty/#comment-209253
Regards.
Same kind of land grab happening here in Ontario, Canada. The leftist provincial government has the authority to build industrial wind powered electrical generation sites anywhere they want to, and local input is not accepted.
This reminds of another green grab. In North Carolina, the Cape Hatteras National Seashore is a designated national recreation center, not a national park but it is managed by the National Park Service. Since it became a national seashore, people have been able to drive their trucks on the beach. Some of my fondest memories are driving on the beach. Quite often, people would drive their truck on the beach, park near the water, hope you don’t get stuck, and start fishing. Even if you didn’t fish, you could drive on the beach and have a small gathering. A picnic by the waters is something special. Then the greens got involved.
Several years back, they sued to block people from driving on the beach to protect nesting sea turtles. Never mind the people who drove on the beach already respected the sea turtles, the greens wanted to stop us from driving on the beach. So they sued. An activist judge closed down all beaches until a plan was implemented. Eventually, some beaches were opened up, but not the best and most popular ones. That left us with only a few driving beaches, and none of the prettiest ones. But that wasn’t good enough. Now you have to buy a permit to drive on the beach. $50 for a week permit, $120 for a year. This is a money grab, because there is no maintenance for shifting sand and the lighthouse already charges a fee to climb. Granted, it does cost money to maintain highway 12, but the state does that, not the feds. And now you need to hire some park rangers to enforce the beach permits. (source: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10736099/ )
Thankfully, the senators in this state are angry about this even though one is a republican and the other a democrat. I hope S.2372 passes. I am still angry about this.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2372
Gail-I never track a comprehensive scheme involving the environment/economy/education nexus where at some point the report doesn’t stop and describe how to get the media on board. One of the most memorable asked for a dining budget as it said top media officials like being taken to fine restaurants.
I was just off downloading getting ready to outline the next part of my stories on the Belmont Challenge and related initiatives. Once I mention something links go down. These fools are not only describing getting rid of fossil fuels. They are literally describing the self-sufficiency economics of autarky without a real sense of the consequences of what they are proposing. And talking about going back to earlier more labor-intensive, now displaced, forms of technology.
Because windmills are so cute?
Robin says:
June 15, 2012 at 10:16 am
Gail-I never track a comprehensive scheme involving the environment/economy/education nexus where at some point the report doesn’t stop and describe how to get the media on board….
___________________________
Robin, As far as I can tell the whole scheme of Agenda 21/ “Third Way”/ Wildlands- UN Biodiversity Project is to return to a cross between feudalism and the “company town”
Humans will be herded into “Smart Growth” communities. By making energy very expense, home ownership and transportation will be unknown to any but the top strata. Roads will be abandoned/torn-up and sections between “Grow Smart” communities will be limited access farms or no access wilderness. Sounds like a feudal estate/company town doesn’t it? You will be stuck in the community for the rest of your life unless the “Company” needs you elsewhere. If you tick-off the movers and shakers you are done for, you can not leave . You can not even stick out a thumb and hitch to another town. With Grope-n-Fly and the “No Fly List” we are already seeing the start of this restriction on travel.
More and More Regulations will make it impossible to own a small business. I have seen the creeping consolidation over my live. A woman can no longer open a business baking cookies, baby-sitting, cleaning homes, or even braiding hair without running into government regs and insurance hassles. Farming was the last unregulated business in the USA and Congress slammed the door on that in December 2010. Soon even home gardens will be regulated. Heck you can not give meat cheese or milk to your own family members without the USDA/FDA screaming bloody murder
Think I am nuts? Rosa Koire who works for California on Eminent Domain seizures spells it out http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ (the video is excellent)
Gail-someone who knows me who lives in California heard Rosa speak. She described her as doing for Agenda 21 what I was doing on education. She brought ICLEI to my attention. In one of the UN reports I read within last few months ans a Green Economy report I downloaded this morning there are repeated references to Agenda 21. It’s not a conspiracy or a rumor or a point of embarassment. It’s a tool and they are relying on it and their control over local school boards through accreditation to get the local control UN officials tout.
In fact they argue only they can manage the global economy in this new economy they plan to foist on us in the name of sustainable development. Where we will be treated as the funding serfs who need to be guided and directed. Preferably without it being so obvious. Anyway, they argue no one else has local, national, regional, and global influence.
Remember sometimes conspiracies do exist. In this area there are lots of declarations of this is what I am doing and why. And this is who I am working with. We can call it a group coordinating around a common purpose. It’s especially common when the people get to live at our expense as they push their programs and only if they push those programs. It’s also very common to preserve current political or economic power. Especially both. Neither politicians or established businesses like creative destruction. Genuine innovation may displace the existing market of a crony.
And then who would loan you a jet or Masters tickets when you feel the urge to get away?