Saving the planet: imperialism in a green garb?

UNESCO Courier, April, 2001 by Shiraz Sidhva

Developing countries feel that protecting the world's resources is just another way for rich nations to retain the upper hand in the international trade game

For nearly a decade, international efforts to address global environmental concerns have been frustrated by a deep rift in perceptions between rich and poor countries. Economists and environmentalists in developing nations argue that the agenda for environmental negotiations is almost exclusively driven by the North. Under the pretext of saving the planet, they say, the industrialized world is wielding a new brand of dominance, "ecoimperialism."

Developing countries like India and China continue to resist global environmental protocols, like the 1989 Montreal Accord to cut the production of CFC gases (used for example in refrigerators) by 50 percent, or the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), part of the climate change negotiations initiated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. "These are viewed as instruments to make the Third World pay for damages caused primarily by the North," says Indian environmentalist Vandana Shiva. India and China account for two percent of CFC consumption, while the United States consumes 29 percent. "This 'eco-imperialism' undermines national sovereignty, while generating new costs for those once marginalized by colonialism," claims Shiva.

The spectre of imperialism is likely to vitiate the next round of climate change talks in Bonn (Germany) this July, when policymakers finalize the terms on which the CDM will be implemented. Negotiated by industrialized countries to gain some flexibility in meeting the emission reduction targets pledged in Kyoto, few issues in recent environmental diplomacy are proving as contentious.

Critics say the mechanism is the latest in a string of attempts to dominate poor countries, which are being virtually "bribed" so that rich nations can continue business as usual. By financing forestry schemes and other energy-efficient projects, industrialized countries could exploit the mechanism to avoid reducing their own greenhouse gases. Environmentalists fear this could turn the Amazon and other primeval forests into "carbon sinks" to absorb pollution, but with side effects which disregard the developmental needs of southern countries.

Lopsided negotiations

"The Northern bias continues to dominate discussion of the global climatic crisis," explains Shiva. "The threat to the atmospheric commons has been building over centuries, mainly because of industrial activity in the North. Yet discussions seem to focus more on developing countries: the North refuses to assume extra responsibility for cleaning up the atmosphere. No wonder the Third World cries foul when it is asked to share the costs."

"The whole effort to bring about ecological change is very one-sided," says Chow Kee, who represents Malaysia at the climate negotiations. "The developed countries don't want to give up their extravagant lifestyles, but plan to curtail our development."

Beyond negotiations on climate, efforts to link environmental concerns to trade are sparking more allegations of imperialism. "There is an attempt by rich countries to stunt the growth of developing nations like India, and we are fighting it tooth and nail," says Pramod Mahajan, India's minister for information technology. "They are practising protectionism under the garb of environmental protection." Economists argue that sanctions could spell further economic marginalization for developing countries, which often lack the means to set up expensive quality-control systems.

The 1989 Basel Convention, for instance, imposed restrictions on trade in scrap metals and recyclable materials, claiming they were hazardous to the environment. Economists say it prohibits poor countries from competing in the lucrative world market for computer parts, scrap metals, and recyclable products.

Other examples of trade restrictions are cited. In the early 1990s, Malaysia and Indonesia fought to overturn an ecolabelling law introduced by Austria ostensibly to safeguard the Asian rain forests. Austria refused to import timber that was not from sustainably managed forests, but no such curbs existed for wood from temperate areas. The protectionist flavour of the measure was overt, and Austria eventually revoked it.

In other trade-environment disputes over the last decade, the United States has been accused of protectionism in banning the import of Mexican tuna because dolphins were getting ensnared and killed in nets meant for the fish. Shrimp from India, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia, which paid no heed to sea-turtle protection, were similarly banned in 1996. The sanctions may have been motivated by a desire to protect dolphins and turtles, but the poorer countries claimed that they were a pretext for suppressing competition in the global fish market.

A green agenda to stop growth?

Deepak Lal, professor of international development studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, cites these examples when he describes the green movement as "the new secular religion." He says "green imperialists" are a new avatar of the "white man's burden," set to impose their values on the world.