The Expanded Resource Curse

Ross’ Resource Curse:

Presence of finite resources = CONFLICT AND CIVIL WAR

Expanded Resource Curse:

Lasting ethnic grievance + Presence of finite resources

[+ any reinforcing variable(s) (western influence, population growth, unstable government)] =

ENTRENCHED CONFLICT

In this paper, I will argue that Ross’ resource curse, described in his article “Natural Resource curse: How Wealth Can Make You Poor,” is too narrow. The linkage between the presence of and dependence on natural resources and violence is much more complex than he suggests (as depicted above, in the first equation). I believe that ongoing civil war, or entrenched conflict, is first caused by a lack of attention to ethnic grievances, and then exacerbated by the presence of finite resources. The conflict becomes even more complicated and entrenched when you add any of the reinforcing variables denoted above: the presence of western influence (described by Mitchell in his book, Carbon Democracy), unchecked population growth, and a weak, unstable government.

It cannot be mere coincidence that of all the conflicts and civil wars being waged today, most are in resource-rich countries. In fact, Ross depicts this in Table 2.1, called “Civil Wars Linked to Resource Wealth, 1990-2002” on page 18 of his chapter. Yet looking through the list, which includes countries such as Afghanistan, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Myanmar, it also cannot be a coincidence that of these conflicts, all are rooted in deep civil inequalities and/or ethnic grievances. The majority of civil wars did not start over competition on access and control of natural resources, but rather over persisting social and ethnic inequalities, which boiled over to the point of sparking conflict. Natural resources were used as a means to fuel that conflict. The longer these conflicts persist, and the social and ethnic inequalities remain unaddressed, the more these conflicts pose a threat to the development of the country.

The variables that I believe most reinforce a conflict, besides the presence of finite natural resources, are the influence of western industry, unchecked population growth, and an unstable or corrupt government. We all read Mitchell’s critique of the resource curse, and how he believes that it is too often blamed on the producer states that depend on its income, and not on the processes by which the world obtains its energy. Western oil companies come in, maneuver access to resources and win profits, consequently affecting the producer country.

Population growth also adds another stressor to an already precarious situation. The world’s population as of July 2014 was approximated at around 7.1 billion people. Many population projections have estimated that the world’s population will increase to approximately 9 billion people by the year 2050, which is only 36 years from now. As conflicts escalate, fueled by natural resources, population growth will serve to exacerbate the issue by giving a sense of urgency. If there is fighting going on right now over control of resources, with more people, this competition will only become heightened.

Unstable governments also reinforce entrenched conflict. Corrupt and unaccountable governments tend to place the interests of the state and its officials above those of its people. These governments do not enforce regulations to try and establish property rights, in such cases, temptations arise to establish property rights by force, triggering more conflict. Furthermore, as is the case in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, honest wood sector companies see little point in involving themselves in such an economically and politically unpromising environment, leaving way for dishonest, aggressive companies. With a broad leeway to operate as they will, these operators find this environment attractive for quick profits, destabilizing the system even further.

The three variables explained above serve as reinforces to conflict, but are not necessary for conflict to occur. If ethnic grievances and social inequalities are taking place in a country or region high in resources, that alone is enough to spark conflict. Yet, the presence of the reinforcing variables have the ability to change the nature of the conflict from type 1, to type 2 (see below, Baker, et al. 2003), e.g. from a conflict that is fueled by natural resources, to a conflict over natural resources.

Type 1: Combatants harvest and sell finite resources to obtain weapons and other means of war (conflict FUELED BY natural resources)

Type 2: Resource harvesting proceeds in a way that leads to competition among user groups over remaining resources, which ends in conflict (conflict OVER resources)

I believe that the resource curse began because of a lack of attention to ethnic grievances, which happened to occur in resource-rich countries. Yet the presence of reinforcing variables has the ability to entrench a conflict deeper, and transform the conflict into one more characteristic of Ross’ “resource curse.”

Baker, M., Clausen, R., et al. “Conflict Timber: Dimensions of the Problem in Asia and Africa” USAID: Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry, v. 3. May 2003. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/Annex25.pdf

Africa Isn't Coming Close to Their Goals

Genetically modified foods are produced from organisms that have had specific changes to its DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. It has been noted that in richer and more economically stable countries—citizens do not favor GMOs—mainly because they are not needed. In more developed countries, citizens are fine with there imported produce and farming techniques that are used. Personally, I believe that many people in developed countries are moving towards more organic and local farmers for food sources. With additional leeway, the public is more favorable to foods without fortifiers, additives, or pesticide usage.

However in some instances, countries do not have an option on whether to decide from non-organic, or organic produce, or how their food is manufactured. In Africa currently human poverty and hunger are both increasing. With nearly one-third of men, women, and children in Sub Saharan Africa currently under nourished, they have the largest proportion of hungry people. Over the past 15 years, Africans have been living on less than one dollar a day, and the number of people is consistently growing. With a negative GDP per capita, their economic prosperity seems farfetched. Developed by the United Nations, countries collaborated on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  Some of the goals included are: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger (targeting halve of the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day), Reduce Child Mortality (reducing it by two-thirds of children under 5), Ensure Environmental Sustainability (integrating the principles of sustainable development to countries and reverse the loss of environmental resources), and Develop a Global Partnership for Development (focusing on rule based, predictable, non discriminatory trading and financial system). These are just four out of the eight MDGs. With these goals a lot of them are associated with Africa and specifically Sub Sahara. It has been noted that if Africa continues at this negative rate, they will not meet their goals by the 2015 deadline.

Countries that were similar to Africa’s poverty included China and India. Nevertheless, China and India were able to make investments in agricultural science, which was essential. Their agricultural research and development stimulated over all agricultural GDP growth and reduced the amount of poverty. Many would think that Africa would follow other nations leads and work together to develop a more productive agriculture system—but due to African leaders, they do not want to make the investment in science.

I am strongly against GMOs and see why African leaders may not personally want to use them. However, I highly doubt that starving farmers are going to pass up an offer to develop food. In this case I think that some the leadership within African Governments may have to do with some corruption. I do not want to say that African leaders are keeping their people poor…but I also think that they are being quite selfish in a way to stop what could be monumental development for their country. 

The Sustainability of the Meat Industry

People are always shocked to find out that I am a vegan. They claim that they could “never” give up meat or dairy products. They often seem condescending, asking me what it would take for me to eat a cheeseburger, or how on earth I’m able to resist cheese pizza. There are several factors that have led me to veganism. Health and ethical reasons aside, living a life free of meat and dairy products is actually much more sustainable on a global scale. Health and ethics are very important to me, but I feel good making sustainable choices with every meal. This is known as environmental veganism.

Eating vegan really does impact the environment. For example, “if one person exchanges eating meat for a vegan diet, they’ll reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 tons per year”.[1] This significant reduction in carbon footprint is because “livestock farming is responsible for almost 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions from human-related activities.”[2] This is an astonishing portion of all of our greenhouse gases that people are simply overlooking. Carbon dioxide is released during almost every step of the livestock farming process. Ecosystems are destroyed when they are cleared to create land or cattle grazing. Carbon dioxide is also emitted in the process of transporting animals and the resulting meat products to and from farms, slaughterhouses and grocery stores. Another large sustainability issue with the meat industry is the amount of methane that it produces. “Cows and sheep are responsible for 37% of the total methane generated by human activity.”[3] This is problematic because methane has a significant impact on global warming- it is actually better at trapping greenhouse gases within the atmosphere than carbon dioxide is, thus making it a significant threat to our climate.

            “Worldwide food production requires around 30% of the total soil available, 20% of fossil fuel energy and a major part of the fresh water flow.”[4] With meat production, most of this land area is going towards growing grains to feed the animals. It would be much more efficient to simply use that land to grow crops that could directly feed people.

Food politics are essentially the politics behind how food gets produced, distributed and consumed. In our nation, large corporations such as Monsanto, Tyson’s and ConAgra control disproportionate amounts of the food industry. They operate ‘factory farms’ in which animals are kept in tiny cages until they are large enough to be brutally slaughtered. Since they are such large corporations, they buy out local farms that are unable to compete, and force the local farmers to revert to factory farming tactics to produce as much meat as possible. These corporations have gone global, shaping how food is produced in other countries. They have quietly introduced genetically modified organisms into the foods of many unknowing or uninformed citizens. Corporate control over our food industry gives us little agency over what we put in our own bodies. This is why it is so important to make sustainable choices when it comes to what you eat.

Rajenda Pachauri, chair of the UN Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, said that “diet change [is] important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and environmental problems”.[5] He is an advocate for giving up meat once a week, to make it more feasible for those who eat meat-heavy diets. This is reflected in a well-known campaign started by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) known as Meatless Mondays. Cutting just a little bit of meat out of your diet each week can reduce your carbon footprint significantly and allow you to live more sustainably.

---

[1] Veganism & The Environment: By the Numbers: http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/02/13/energy-ecology/veganism-the-environment-by-the-numbers-infographic/

[2] The Vegetarian Society: https://www.vegsoc.org/reducecarbon

[3] The Vegetarian Society: https://www.vegsoc.org/reducecarbon

[4] Why It’s Green to Go Vegetarian: http://www.vegsoc.org/document.doc?id=524

[5] Climate Change and Meat Consumption: http://www.happycow.net/blog/climate-change-and-meat-consumption/

The Shortcomings of Conservationism

  An article in the New York Times titled “Under a Tented Roof, an Unknown World Beckons” paints a beautiful picture of an exotic oasis where people can go to escape the monotony of their modern lives and enjoy a world of exciting new landscapes, people, and wildlife. This place is Kenya’s Masai Mara, a wildlife reserve. I argue that this wildlife preserve is a perfect example of the idea of colonialism manifesting itself in the world of conservationist movements.

  During the discovery of the new world, Columbus and other explorers wrote of the wondrous things that this peculiar land of had to offer. He was fascinated by the wildlife and by the people who inhabited this bizarre world. In many ways I think this parallels the Western fascination with less developed parts of the world. Westerners wish to preserve lands like the Masai Mara because they fascinates us; maybe they make us feel some latent superiority, but what is more likely is that the juxtaposition of our world with theirs is so different that it sparks a curiosity and excitement within us. However, there is a trouble in trying to preserve these lands because doing so prevents the indigenous people from making any type of advancement. Whether or not these people wish to advance their society is not a question I can answer, but to prevent them from changing because people are fascinated with their beautiful land and wildlife is wrong. Some people may argue that the Masai people are benefiting from this preservation in the form of tourism.

  Who is this tourism really benefiting? Well, it certainly isn't the indigenous people in the case of the Masai Mara. According to the article “as traditional grazing land is reduced through wildlife preservation and agricultural practices, the Masai’s ability to sustain themselves has also been greatly reduced.” This is a good example of how conservationism can be much like colonialism under certain circumstances. The indigenous people of this reserve were not consulted when the plan to create a wildlife preserve was put into place, much like during the era of colonialism when powerful countries would take land from the indigenous people to serve their purposes. I admit that the intentions of conservationists are certainly not to hinder the agricultural system of the Masai people, but the end result is still the same as if those were their intentions. The question of morality now comes into play; are misguided conservationist movements more acceptable because they don’t have malicious intent? I believe that there is no difference.

   Conservationist movements need to take into account the needs of the people who live on the land. I’m all for saving the lions, but when it puts the livelihood of people in jeopardy, it is no longer worth the cost. In the case of the people living in the Masai Mara reserve, they desperately need increased education to compete with neighboring tribes who also run safari camps or the preservation of wildlife will continue to be a hindrance on their lives. While the plight of the Masai people is only one case, it serves as a good example of how conservation movements can have good intentions yet still yield negative results because of a lack of consideration for the local people.

Art Historical Support of Colonial Environmentalism (late Blog Post 2)

Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich, 1818. 

            Richard Grove discusses colonial roots of Environmentalism in Green imperialism. The argument of preservationist colonialism is supported by the ‘Sublime’ philosophy of Edmund Burke and illustrated in artworks such as Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich.

It is easy to believe that European colonists searched for the Garden of Eden in the foreign wilderness of their Eastern and Southern colonial conquests. Grove argues that the Europeans intended to preserve, rather than exploit, these Edenic lands for “knowledge of the natural world began to be seen as a respectable path to seeking knowledge of God.” (Grove 4)

A parallel movement of the art history world is the idea of the “Sublime”. There are endless historical art works that illustrate the Garden of Eden. However, I argue that the colonial perspective of the environment can be observed more broadly in the ‘Sublime’ landscapes that were popular until the 18^th century. Edmund Burke defines the Sublime experience in his work, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. In summary, Burke’s ‘Sublime experience’ is equivalent with meeting God; terrifying and euphoric, sudden and persisting, overwhelming and mysterious.

Caspar David Friedrich’s 1818 oil painting, Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog, is one of the most frequently cited works of the Sublime. It depicts an elegantly dressed man adorned with a cane atop a steep, jagged, rocky mountain overlooking an infinite landscape. A blanketing fog masks the earth below, alluding to the mysteries of unexplored lands unknown. The poise and dress of the wanderer suggests that this sort of journey is reserved for an elite class; that a pioneer is a privileged title.

Friedrich’s portrayal of the environment is revelatory of colonial environmentalism. The landscape fades into the horizon, representing an infiniteness of what the world has to offer. The delicacy to the white fog triggers thoughts of purity as it rises and blends into the heavens above, suggesting an inherent divinity within the environment hidden below. Conversely, dark, protruding rocks ominously pierce through the fog, proposing uncertain danger or consequences with the impending exploration. Almost tauntingly, clustered trees perch upon the stones like the peaks of resource icebergs. Friedrich’s landscape presents a collision of two dimensions: the man on the cliff and the distant landscape below. This could also allude to man meeting nature, Heaven meeting Earth, and the opposing dimensions of Burke’s Sublime.

“[The Sublime] comes upon us in the gloomy forest, and in the howling wilderness, in the form of the lion, the tiger, the panther or the rhinoceros. Whenever strength is only useful, and employed for our benefit or our pleasure, then it is never sublime: for nothing can act agreeably to us, that does not act in conformity to our will; but to act agreeably to our will, it must be subject to us and therefore can never be the cause of a grand and commanding conception.” (Burke 20)

The terrific and mighty dimension of the Sublime speaks to its ‘higher power’ than man. If an entity can be commanded and massively exploited, it loses its ‘holiness’ and eliminates its potential as Eden. Thus, the Edenic locals’ exploitation of the subsistence resources directly degrades the intrinsic divinity of the garden, rather than merely the integrity of the garden via overexploitation. Therefore, the theories of the Sublime and the Garden of Eden couple to support colonial Environmentalism as an origin of Preservationist Environmentalism.

            Colonialism is the systematic control of one nation over another, or ‘colony’. Although the intentions may be holistically good, colonial Environmentalism, like Preservationist Environmentalism, forces the preservation of nature without consideration of another’s resource needs. This not only derives from the biblical belief of Eden, as suggested by Richard Grove, but also Edmund Burke’s broader philosophy of the Sublime as illustrated by Caspar David Friedrich’s Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog.

Works Cited

1. Burke, Edmund. A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful With Several Other Additions. 1756. 

2. Grove, Richard. Introduction to Green imperialism, 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.