Chapter VIII of Rio Plus 20 Document by Cho Tab Khen Zambuling (Alfredo Sfeir-Younis)
VIII. Traditional Understanding of Nature
Most people see nature outside themselves. Nature is there to be visited, to be explored, exploited, and dominated. This prevalent view exercises a major influence in the ways our professions approach nature. In particular, and as one example, the prevailing view for a long time was one whereby nature was infinitely abundant, a major sink for disposal, and ‘something’ to be appropriated by private or public means. This view is progressively changing. However, most professions still relate to nature as a material entity, and we focus mainly on outcomes resulting from external human activities. In environmental economics, for example, most of the attention has been on such negative states of nature as pollution, desertification, global warming, biodiversity depletion, and the like. This attention has become the essential ingredient in addressing the negative natural phenomena and in selecting the economic policy instruments that are to minimize or eliminate them. A material view of pollution, for example, has given major emphasis to issues of technology and technological change. This has been essential. However, even with granting technology immense importance towards an eventual solution, a purely technological solution will never work in a sustainable way.
Traditionally, and from a decision-making perspective within public policy, nature has been seen as a functional collection of resources. This is why national statistics, for example, are classified in terms of mining, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, irrigation, production, consumption, trade, etc. All of those atomized categories pay exclusive attention once again to nature as a “thing”. Of course, within each of the above- mentioned functional categories there are sub-categories of more classifications to give the public some sense of dis-aggregating and completeness. Thus, agriculture may be divided into irrigated and rain fed agriculture. Or, statistics may be disaggregated into low income and high-income consumers, or into import-trade and export-trade of agricultural commodities.
This functional approach to nature leads to compartments and silos where no holistic approach is possible. Forestry investments are designed independently of soil management programs or agricultural mechanization programs. Mining has been seen as far away from climate change though it destroys glaciers and other resources that are essential for a stable climate. In essence, the main aim has been to maximize outputs or profits per unit of outcomes. And we are witnessing such an approach either by the actions of the market –what is produced, consumed, or traded—or by a set of public interventions, designed to safeguard existing resources, increase productivity and enhance processes needed to maximize those material outputs. The private sector –a key actor– acts through the different markets and civil society organizations –another set of key actors– act by means of participation, opportunity and empowerment. This engineering-economic approach to nature has reached its limits. Material solutions do not work in a vacuum, particularly with regard to institutions, organizations, people, and many dimensions of human transformation.
The above commentary does not invalidate the importance of technological solutions, or of the physical approaches to natural resources management, or of the traditional works of the market. We are simply saying that such an approach is incomplete and has to be complemented by other forms of interventions and interactions. There is no doubt that the traditional approach to management or interactions with nature have yielded some important results. Think, for example, of the genetic improvements embodied in many seed varieties that have been often presented under the umbrella of the “green revolution”. This revolution was science at its best, helping poor families in rural areas to diminish the risks of hunger, malnutrition and diseases, and the results have been excellent in many parts of the world. However, the impacts of the green revolution have been uneven and accompanied by several negative external effects (e.g., depletion of micro-nutrients). The discovery of hybrid seed varieties is yet another example that has revolutionized the world and has seemingly helped many poor families worldwide. Today what is touted as beneficial, tomorrow becomes a consequence of great detriment. Altering the genetic code of nature is of grave concern.
Our human interactions with nature must involve many other components, if we are to succeed in the longer-term with the minimum number of negative external effects. In a similar way, one tends to see global warming as a natural and external phenomenon. It is an effect or an outcome of human activities –some of which are very well identified. All is seen in a functional way as it was the case of previous examples, and the policy instruments recommended are mainly geared to break down those cause-effect relationships. Examples of these external material instruments are to cut down on pollution, diminish economic activity in some sectors (e.g., transport), tax the polluter, subsidize clean technologies, favour renewable sources of energy, and the like.
Would these actions be enough to end global warming? We believe that it will not be enough. An approach that is only geared to modify outcomes is limited and will not work in the longer term.
To read the full text click HERE.
