Jane L. Collin’s piece Labor Scarcity and Ecological Change is an incredibly informative piece discussing the issues regarding and surrounding labor scarcity and its effects on Latin American families and communities. She begins by defining the nature of labor scarcity and the ways in which it affects many contemporary rural communities, examining the relationships between economic diversification, migration and trade faced by rural households. She then moves forward to examine the many debates over labor availability amongst rural commoners and lastly covers the policy dilemmas that arise, using the case study of the Peruvian Andes and how the experiences and lifestyle of the people in the rural communities affects their lives and production.
More...
Her section titled The Nature of Labor Scarcity in Rural Areas takes the work of Deere and de Janvry (1979) to a higher level, discussing the idea that wage is not work, however it is the only activity that takes peasants off of their farms and into the work force. In northern Peruvian homes for instance nearly half of their income is from the sale of labor power. Collins discusses land and labor scarcity by pointing out three major observations, one being that land scarcity arises from processes of land transfer and encroachment, as well as demographic growth, (Important in my opinion). Second she states that whatever the cause of land scarcity the downward pressure it exerts on a household’s income may FORCE individuals to leave rural areas in order to increase household income and commerce (Not a guarantee that demographic growth and rural exodus will eventually balance one another). And lastly a factor that may force rural individuals and families to diversify their production is the decline in the trade in which they are experiencing due to secular economic trends, the emulsion of small business family farms and a relative decline in prices.
Collins goes on to discuss Visions of Labor Surplus and Scarcity in Agricultural Research and uses W. A. Lewis to illustrate this information. Lewis’s proposition was that the economics of developing nations could be viewed from two perspectives, the first being from a position of low productivity , basing the intensity and remuneration of labor from a view of customs or tradition, the second proposing a comparison between population figures in relation to capital and natural resources putting limitations on the social and family environment. Lewis had been criticized on three different counts, an implication that neglect of agriculture was a force and motive for economic growth, a methodological/empirical criticism and lastly a his model being based on evidence that was weighted in historical contexts, though there is a clear point in his model basing out of historical contexts when looking at “political repression, debt bondage, and racial, cultural and gender-based barriers to economic participation in relation to opportunities available for rural households and communities.
For me the most intriguing section of this article was the section The Seasonal Migration of Aymara Cultivators, where Collins discussion shifts away from the logistics of labor scarcity and towards and application with the glance at the Aymara, which represent a case where the diversification of economic activities on and off the farm have stretched the labor resources of the population to their limit. With relatively small plots of land as well as unfavorable markets it is no wonder that the people of the eastern slopes of the Peruvian Andes are faced with labor and ecological issues. Having a lack of knowledge for cultivation and limited labor availability it is no wonder they are facing such issues. Families must travel to the lowlands for work in the off months, distancing themselves from themselves (which seems illogical but it makes perfect sense) as well as placing strain cultural and ritualistic practices.
This was a very thought provoking piece.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Labor Scarcity
Generally, poor rural agriculturalists divide their time between on-farm and off-farm activities to stabilize an income, whereas larger landholders get most of their income from the land they work. This chapter begins with a question of whether development programs (mostly concerned around less fertile land) should put effort toward off-farm industrial wages or on-farm capacity investments. The answer entailed a bigger-picture description of labor scarcity.
More...
W.A. Lewis (I took him for an elite economist of capitalism) reasoned that small farms would have plenty of extra labor and still be able to function properly, because that’s what it looks like when people migrate (from temporarily to permanently) off the farm in search of income “from the free choice of the individual.” This gave rise to labor-intensive development which hurt more than helped.
Jane L. Collins argues land scarcity and labor scarcity are closely related. Labor requirements seem to outweigh available labor, and less labor means less productivity and more land degradation, as seen with the Aymara-speaking farmers of Peru. Their main cultivatable land is in the labor-intensive highlands where they manage the land carefully and can at least grow enough to sustain themselves. Supplementary coffee fields below bear the brunt of strained labor supply. Collins seems to want them to permanently move there to manage the soil better, and give up the highlands and their food supply (I think I might have missed something). However, her bigger problem is with the government in their commercialization of coffee and their indirect control over the whole process (maybe that’s what I missed).
The Jamaican soil preservation terraces didn’t work (partially) because the “philosophy was that if productivity could be improved, and soil loss decreased, farm labor could be more fully utilized and young people would be attracted back into agriculture.” The main times for maintenance and agriculture conflicted, landlords could have decided to take the land away from the farmers, prices fluctuated, and there was no market outlet. They knew labor was going to be a problem.
The Peruvian soil preservation terrace project worked with the people more, and seems to have been successful, but this article doesn’t exactly say. This time current labor availability was considered. Initial terrace construction was intense, but maintenance was less. The terraces needed more labor to farm on, but yields were higher (is there a typo that said fertilized land was 43% and unfertilized was 142%?). All in all, the terraces sold themselves.
So, whether off-farm wages or on-farm productivity should get more attention is relative to the place. Too assess this, go local and ask rural families their considerations for “gains and risks over the short and long term” (Peru) rather than “engaging in elaborate promotional campaigns” (Jamaica).
More...
W.A. Lewis (I took him for an elite economist of capitalism) reasoned that small farms would have plenty of extra labor and still be able to function properly, because that’s what it looks like when people migrate (from temporarily to permanently) off the farm in search of income “from the free choice of the individual.” This gave rise to labor-intensive development which hurt more than helped.
Jane L. Collins argues land scarcity and labor scarcity are closely related. Labor requirements seem to outweigh available labor, and less labor means less productivity and more land degradation, as seen with the Aymara-speaking farmers of Peru. Their main cultivatable land is in the labor-intensive highlands where they manage the land carefully and can at least grow enough to sustain themselves. Supplementary coffee fields below bear the brunt of strained labor supply. Collins seems to want them to permanently move there to manage the soil better, and give up the highlands and their food supply (I think I might have missed something). However, her bigger problem is with the government in their commercialization of coffee and their indirect control over the whole process (maybe that’s what I missed).
The Jamaican soil preservation terraces didn’t work (partially) because the “philosophy was that if productivity could be improved, and soil loss decreased, farm labor could be more fully utilized and young people would be attracted back into agriculture.” The main times for maintenance and agriculture conflicted, landlords could have decided to take the land away from the farmers, prices fluctuated, and there was no market outlet. They knew labor was going to be a problem.
The Peruvian soil preservation terrace project worked with the people more, and seems to have been successful, but this article doesn’t exactly say. This time current labor availability was considered. Initial terrace construction was intense, but maintenance was less. The terraces needed more labor to farm on, but yields were higher (is there a typo that said fertilized land was 43% and unfertilized was 142%?). All in all, the terraces sold themselves.
So, whether off-farm wages or on-farm productivity should get more attention is relative to the place. Too assess this, go local and ask rural families their considerations for “gains and risks over the short and long term” (Peru) rather than “engaging in elaborate promotional campaigns” (Jamaica).
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Imperial Valley gives us keen insight into the unsustainable nature of an imbalanced society.
More...
"The only real difference is that the stagnation and declining number of small farms happened faster and earlier in the Imperial Valley than elsewhere in the U.S."
So there we have it, yet again. The conversion from a system of smaller, sustainable farms to corporate industrial agricultural can have devastating effects on an environment if not properly monitored. This means governmental regulation. No other entity within the U.S. is allowed authority in such matters.
So, this article like several others we've had, makes the point that we must have cooperation within the sciences. We must have a holistic approach to these complex problems, as they are holistically composed. This is, as James O'Connor is cited in the text, because production is composed of three conditions.
1.) "The natural conditions which are the content and context of production"
2.) "The personal conditions of the people and their familial milieu"
3.) "The communal conditions such as material infrastructures and cultural sites and practices"
Obviously, if production is based upon these three components we must have all three in equanimity to have optimal production. As it goes within market economies, the entire system must function cohesively for compartments to experience optimal enrichment.
And let's face it, we all want optimal enrichment.
More...
"The only real difference is that the stagnation and declining number of small farms happened faster and earlier in the Imperial Valley than elsewhere in the U.S."
So there we have it, yet again. The conversion from a system of smaller, sustainable farms to corporate industrial agricultural can have devastating effects on an environment if not properly monitored. This means governmental regulation. No other entity within the U.S. is allowed authority in such matters.
So, this article like several others we've had, makes the point that we must have cooperation within the sciences. We must have a holistic approach to these complex problems, as they are holistically composed. This is, as James O'Connor is cited in the text, because production is composed of three conditions.
1.) "The natural conditions which are the content and context of production"
2.) "The personal conditions of the people and their familial milieu"
3.) "The communal conditions such as material infrastructures and cultural sites and practices"
Obviously, if production is based upon these three components we must have all three in equanimity to have optimal production. As it goes within market economies, the entire system must function cohesively for compartments to experience optimal enrichment.
And let's face it, we all want optimal enrichment.
California's Imperial Valley
Use "Environmental history and environmental sociology" to "illuminate the roots of present problems" and develop ideas as to how to resolve them. For most I think that this should be obvious-learn something from past mistakes. It would appear the seeing environmental issues through economics and political views have two effects- either it clouds the vision and/or it inhibits good judgment. Between 1850 and 1900 was the planning to bring water to the dessert but even in the initial stags of this process it was plagued with problems, maybe someone should have taken this as warning. 1901 to 1941 Development of irrigated agriculture in the dessert. This was supported the great possibilities of "great" economic profitability of agriculture, if ecological, labor and community 'problems could be held at bay. The power to control the valley and poor planning resulted in the first of many disasters that affected the people around or near the valley, this of course was corrected by more control. More...
Then there was the issue of labor problems and the neighbors on the "Mexican side" that appeared to create more problems and still no one took the hint that this may not be a good idea. Maybe it was because of the huge investments that were made. Regardless of the cost (either environmentally or socially) they were going to make this work. All of this would swept under the rug, the next thirty years of profit would certainly wipe away all of the problems of the past and no one would remember or care. From 1942 to 1972 the area was booming, "The gross agricultural income in the valley increased by more than 600%. This was all backed by federal and state support and lack of awareness of the weak foundations that were being built in the local governments and economy's. The lack of the administration and enforcement of the 160 limitations, the residency requirements and the termination of the Bracero would have long lasting effects. 1973 to 1993 brought changes in the agricultural economy, new regulatory processes and "destabilization of agricultural production and profit". Ecological conditions became quite evident and the affects on the local economies were in a steep decline. Many growers and producers have moved to "newer" production areas and jobs have moved away, the younger generations so they have moved away for better employment opportunities. Today many of the jobs that are left are minimum wage and most of those that hold higher positions are not from the area. The Salton Sea is contaminated and the only economic possibility that the area may have surrounds tourism but that would appear limited due to the conditions of the lake. Had the history of this area been taken into consideration it would seem as though that there could have been preventative measures taken to prevent the degradation of not only the natural environment but also the social environment.
Then there was the issue of labor problems and the neighbors on the "Mexican side" that appeared to create more problems and still no one took the hint that this may not be a good idea. Maybe it was because of the huge investments that were made. Regardless of the cost (either environmentally or socially) they were going to make this work. All of this would swept under the rug, the next thirty years of profit would certainly wipe away all of the problems of the past and no one would remember or care. From 1942 to 1972 the area was booming, "The gross agricultural income in the valley increased by more than 600%. This was all backed by federal and state support and lack of awareness of the weak foundations that were being built in the local governments and economy's. The lack of the administration and enforcement of the 160 limitations, the residency requirements and the termination of the Bracero would have long lasting effects. 1973 to 1993 brought changes in the agricultural economy, new regulatory processes and "destabilization of agricultural production and profit". Ecological conditions became quite evident and the affects on the local economies were in a steep decline. Many growers and producers have moved to "newer" production areas and jobs have moved away, the younger generations so they have moved away for better employment opportunities. Today many of the jobs that are left are minimum wage and most of those that hold higher positions are not from the area. The Salton Sea is contaminated and the only economic possibility that the area may have surrounds tourism but that would appear limited due to the conditions of the lake. Had the history of this area been taken into consideration it would seem as though that there could have been preventative measures taken to prevent the degradation of not only the natural environment but also the social environment.
Rudy: A Historical Political Regional Economy of Agriculture: California's Imperial Valley
Through a case study of the Imperial Valley of Southern California, the article seeks to model an interdisciplinary approach focusing on the interconnectedness of historical, political, social, ecological, community-related, and ideological states of being designed to take into account all of the various contributing factors promoting degradation of the environment and the social consequences thereof.
More...
This idea seems to be nigh unto impossibly expansive, but the article manages, through admitted oversimplification of complex power struggles and extensive annotation, to give a brief overview of the processes involved in society's negotiation with its natural, social, and communal environment. This last concept (5, elaborated in note 9) is perhaps the single most important point to take away from the article, and summarizes the angle that it is suggesting that the field of environmental sociology should take, rather than simply talking about the social aspects of the environmental movement or gathering opinion surveys (4)
As we have heard argued and applied throughout the course (not surprisingly, considering the author), the article makes the case that the "environment", as a term, is not to be constrained to the "natural/scientific" world in which we live. It also includes the "physiological/psychological" personal world, as well as the "cultural/infrastructural" world that comprises our social environment and intellectual and cultural heritage. We live in all of these worlds, and here it is argued that they are NOT separate, isolated entities, but rather three parts of the same whole, presented as the preferred, inclusive sociological definition of the word "environment". Assuming we have all read the article, the example of the Imperial Valley need not be elaborated in great detail here, but let us agree that it presents a compelling instance of capitalist production "externalizing", or shrugging off, its costs into all three sectors of the environment in a process called a "through-put", which refers specifically to end results of production "which are not produced or reproduced as commodities" (6).
The capitalist agricultural production of the Imperial Valley externalizes costs to the natural environment in many ways, including the fundamental alteration of the water table to support agriculture in a desert, thereby destroying the original ecology of the region, the release of large amounts of pesticides into the water that has been diverted to the area, making it untenable for the fish and bird populations that have been introduced, etc. These are the costs of this kind of production that we are all familiar with. However, capitalist production also externalizes costs to the other two parts of the environment, the parts that are not traditionally associated with environmentalism:
The personal, or psychological/physiological environment consists of individuals, and their personal quality of life. The case study discusses the costs to the people of the area, including the exploitation of Mexican farm workers, the extreme racial inequality, and the increasing accumulation of resources into fewer and fewer hands at the expense of the majority of the population, as evidenced by increasing unemployment and inadequate financial, educational, and health resources for individuals in the area.
The communal, or cultural/institutional environment includes the system of production and the government's interaction with it, as well as community organization and composition. The government subsidies, funding for infrastructure, such as drainage development, the Hoover Dam, and the All-American Canal, and continual ignorance of flagrant violations of federal land-use law which all require public resources to create and maintain are obviously part of the costs that have been shrugged off onto this part of the environment. Also to be included here is the driving off of well-educated young people that represent a vital community resource by the unilateral economic development, and the extractive nature of businesses taking advantage of incentives provided by local government to build in the community, while either bringing employees in from elsewhere or paying very low wages to the local employees that they do use, and also extracting wealth due to the export of revenue to the national or international headquarters.
The crux of this entire system, of course, is to show how all of these conditions are not separate occurrences or trends, but part of the same system of capitalist extraction. The fact, presented at the end of the article, that the greatest efforts to reform each of these three areas of the environment coincided in time is a vital one to the moment of realization that occurs upon absorption of the material. The natural, personal, and communal worlds are shown to be vitally interconnected, and mutually degraded by the accumulation of capital. Thus, accepting the argument of the article, and I do, environmental discourse cannot discuss nature as if it is somehow outside of or above our lives and our institutions, but must address it as it truly exists in the real world: part of the same set of manifold conditions in which we and our society exist, all three mutually affected by the destructive mining of capital.
More...
This idea seems to be nigh unto impossibly expansive, but the article manages, through admitted oversimplification of complex power struggles and extensive annotation, to give a brief overview of the processes involved in society's negotiation with its natural, social, and communal environment. This last concept (5, elaborated in note 9) is perhaps the single most important point to take away from the article, and summarizes the angle that it is suggesting that the field of environmental sociology should take, rather than simply talking about the social aspects of the environmental movement or gathering opinion surveys (4)
As we have heard argued and applied throughout the course (not surprisingly, considering the author), the article makes the case that the "environment", as a term, is not to be constrained to the "natural/scientific" world in which we live. It also includes the "physiological/psychological" personal world, as well as the "cultural/infrastructural" world that comprises our social environment and intellectual and cultural heritage. We live in all of these worlds, and here it is argued that they are NOT separate, isolated entities, but rather three parts of the same whole, presented as the preferred, inclusive sociological definition of the word "environment". Assuming we have all read the article, the example of the Imperial Valley need not be elaborated in great detail here, but let us agree that it presents a compelling instance of capitalist production "externalizing", or shrugging off, its costs into all three sectors of the environment in a process called a "through-put", which refers specifically to end results of production "which are not produced or reproduced as commodities" (6).
The capitalist agricultural production of the Imperial Valley externalizes costs to the natural environment in many ways, including the fundamental alteration of the water table to support agriculture in a desert, thereby destroying the original ecology of the region, the release of large amounts of pesticides into the water that has been diverted to the area, making it untenable for the fish and bird populations that have been introduced, etc. These are the costs of this kind of production that we are all familiar with. However, capitalist production also externalizes costs to the other two parts of the environment, the parts that are not traditionally associated with environmentalism:
The personal, or psychological/physiological environment consists of individuals, and their personal quality of life. The case study discusses the costs to the people of the area, including the exploitation of Mexican farm workers, the extreme racial inequality, and the increasing accumulation of resources into fewer and fewer hands at the expense of the majority of the population, as evidenced by increasing unemployment and inadequate financial, educational, and health resources for individuals in the area.
The communal, or cultural/institutional environment includes the system of production and the government's interaction with it, as well as community organization and composition. The government subsidies, funding for infrastructure, such as drainage development, the Hoover Dam, and the All-American Canal, and continual ignorance of flagrant violations of federal land-use law which all require public resources to create and maintain are obviously part of the costs that have been shrugged off onto this part of the environment. Also to be included here is the driving off of well-educated young people that represent a vital community resource by the unilateral economic development, and the extractive nature of businesses taking advantage of incentives provided by local government to build in the community, while either bringing employees in from elsewhere or paying very low wages to the local employees that they do use, and also extracting wealth due to the export of revenue to the national or international headquarters.
The crux of this entire system, of course, is to show how all of these conditions are not separate occurrences or trends, but part of the same system of capitalist extraction. The fact, presented at the end of the article, that the greatest efforts to reform each of these three areas of the environment coincided in time is a vital one to the moment of realization that occurs upon absorption of the material. The natural, personal, and communal worlds are shown to be vitally interconnected, and mutually degraded by the accumulation of capital. Thus, accepting the argument of the article, and I do, environmental discourse cannot discuss nature as if it is somehow outside of or above our lives and our institutions, but must address it as it truly exists in the real world: part of the same set of manifold conditions in which we and our society exist, all three mutually affected by the destructive mining of capital.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Neumann: Political Ecology in Tanzania - Wilcox
The main focus of this article was how the political ecology of Tanzania is disrupting the preservation of wildlife. Political ecology has to deal with how "land user's behavior is influenced by social structures and processes that extend beyond his or her immediate environment", particularly in a Third World setting. The reason the parks are in such a threat is because the idea of natural areas is not very popular with the surrounding residents. The fact that the residents surrounding the parks don't comply with park regulations, wildlife is taking the consequences from poaching. The battle has become one of encroachment vs. wildlife.
More...
National Parks are not very popular in Tanzania for many reasons and the first one is how they were established. These parks were brought up when this country was under British rule after WWI. These areas were drawn up on maps thousands of miles away with no concern for the locals; citizens were living life peacefully one day and the next they were told to leave because this area is now "protected". This was first noticed in the Serengeti National Park, established in 1940, where the Masai people were they had to change their life because of the new park boundaries. They could now not graze their cattle on land they have been doing it for many generations; "national parks severly disrupted historical patterns of land use". The second case of local populations of people disliking the thought of national parks was in the Mt. Meru area. The Arusha National Park was established in 1960 and was very unliked because the new park rules made it hard or impossible to continue their way of life. They now had to graze cattle in very distinct areas, had to reduce taking coffee as cash crop, and had to have various restrictions on honey production becasue of the danger of fire. Citizens are not the only ones having to deal with the new problems.
Wildlife such as the elephant and black rhino were being poached at an alarming rate, which still is true today. Since the introduction of the parks people had to change their ways of life because farming was just not an option anymore. The ivory from the elephant and the rhino tusk are worth a lot of money, so the native residents took advantage of the resources. These two species have became near extinct in the park and the black rhino is almost extinct all together. Wildlife officials are very aggravated over the situation because they are getting no help from the locals about poachers. The wildlife officials are not concerned about the citizens as much as they are the wildlife because "those of man ... are of second importance".
To sum up the article I would have to say it is an argument of encroachment vs. wildlife. There is a great deal of population growth, particularly in the Third World, and people are just needing more space to live; animals are always going to get the short end of the stick, particularly when the people they live around do not care about them as much as others. There is just no way growing populations/encroachment can co-exist with conserving nature because the needs of the people will met if the law allows it or not.
More...
National Parks are not very popular in Tanzania for many reasons and the first one is how they were established. These parks were brought up when this country was under British rule after WWI. These areas were drawn up on maps thousands of miles away with no concern for the locals; citizens were living life peacefully one day and the next they were told to leave because this area is now "protected". This was first noticed in the Serengeti National Park, established in 1940, where the Masai people were they had to change their life because of the new park boundaries. They could now not graze their cattle on land they have been doing it for many generations; "national parks severly disrupted historical patterns of land use". The second case of local populations of people disliking the thought of national parks was in the Mt. Meru area. The Arusha National Park was established in 1960 and was very unliked because the new park rules made it hard or impossible to continue their way of life. They now had to graze cattle in very distinct areas, had to reduce taking coffee as cash crop, and had to have various restrictions on honey production becasue of the danger of fire. Citizens are not the only ones having to deal with the new problems.
Wildlife such as the elephant and black rhino were being poached at an alarming rate, which still is true today. Since the introduction of the parks people had to change their ways of life because farming was just not an option anymore. The ivory from the elephant and the rhino tusk are worth a lot of money, so the native residents took advantage of the resources. These two species have became near extinct in the park and the black rhino is almost extinct all together. Wildlife officials are very aggravated over the situation because they are getting no help from the locals about poachers. The wildlife officials are not concerned about the citizens as much as they are the wildlife because "those of man ... are of second importance".
To sum up the article I would have to say it is an argument of encroachment vs. wildlife. There is a great deal of population growth, particularly in the Third World, and people are just needing more space to live; animals are always going to get the short end of the stick, particularly when the people they live around do not care about them as much as others. There is just no way growing populations/encroachment can co-exist with conserving nature because the needs of the people will met if the law allows it or not.
Political Ecology of Wildlife Conservation/ Mt. Meru Area
The author of the text, R.P. Neumann, begins his introduction with a couple of startling statistics, stating that Tanzania's elephant population decreased by more than 50 percent in the 80's and 98 percent of its black rhinoceros population is gone as well (Neumann 85). These numbers are staggering and should certainly catch the reader's attention. It's degradation like in the Arusha National Park that Neumann focuses on in his research.
More...
Neumann claims that what is missing from the debate on what is causing wildlife populations to decline and the solutions to such problems is "the volatile politics of nature protection in rural Africa." He goes on to say that the "establishment of national parks is... a political process" and in colonial Africa, it involved denying resources to whole settlements, "threatening the very existence of communities" (85).
Following the introduction, the author describes the approach that was taken in doing his research, calling it "political ecology" and explains what it encompasses: "the political, economic, and social structures and processes which underlie human practices leading to degradation." Before getting into his research, Neumann describes the difficulties associated with taking a political ecology approach to degradation problems and cites specific examples before concluding that at its "most elemental level, a political ecology perspective entails: (1) a focus on the land users and the social relations in which they entwined; (2) tracing the linkages of these local relations to wider geographical and social setting; and (3) historical analysis to understand the contemporary situation" (86-87).
The author begins the section titled "Political Ecology of Threats to National Parks" by defining degradation as 'a reduction in the land to satisfy a particular use,' and threats as "environmental conditions that 'are in serious conflict with the objectives of park administration and management.' He then goes on to give examples of declining animal populations in Arusha National Park, such as buffalo, giraffe, and eland, and relates that conservationists and government officials chalk such degradation up to "overpopulation and the ignorance and irrationality of local residents," an interpretation that Neumann suggests is "seriously flawed" (88).
The next portion of text deals with historical information of Tanzania's national park system. It begins with the establishment of the Society for the Preservation of the Flora and Fauna of the Empire (SPFFE), a conservation group based in London, which, through an investigation, suggested that forming national parks was critical. Modeling national parks in other parts of the world, the SPFFE "made [it] clear that humans were not welcome in [the] parks, but allowed that under the prevailing political climate, preservation 'cannot be pushed to a point at which it seriously conflicts with the material happiness and well-being of the native population' (89).
The insistence by the SPFFE of the importance of national parks lead to a Tanganyika government proposal to designate 3000-4000 square miles of the Serengeti to become the first national park. As it turned out, however, this was not done without resistance. On one side of the debate were the conseravationists and natural resource professionals, and on the other were officers in charge of the colonies who worried that the conservationists were imposing on the rights of the people. The conflict grew, resulting in destruction of land and the killing of animals. The park was then divided into two areas, one where humans were not allowed and the other where the Masai were allowed to live and graze animals. In 1959, however, a new ordinance was drawn up, basically stating that human rights would have to come second and no humans would be allowed in the park. This pattern was repeated throughout Tanzania (90).
Neumann next focuses on the history of the Arusha National Park. European settlement left little area for the Meru to live and graze their cattle. When the British began ruling Tanganyika, many of the reserves established by the Germans were kept in tact and by 1920 all of Mt. Meru was designated a game reserve and strict state control outlawed settlement, cultivation, and hunting on the land, but some rights were preserved such as the allowance of residents to take produce from the forests for their own use. This and other rights were soon put to question, however, and the indigenous people found themselves submitting to the terms of the Europeans, and then taking their case to the United Nations, where they lost. As years passed, state control grew and tightened and the park eventually expanded from the original 4000 sq mi to 28590 acres in 1969. This expansion and strict rule has caused a severe collapse in grazing and the Meru have little customary rights (93).
Following the historical information of the Arusha National Park, Neumann discusses the current politics and wildlife conservation in the Mt. Meru area. Here the mainstays are coffee production and cattle-keeping. Neumann writes that "[p]articipation in cash crop production has provided the basis for a rising standard of living" but Meru's northern villages are in a much poorer state and Nasula residents are fighting for rights to more land, which is causing concern in the conservationists and state officials. Many of the people have been fined of breaking the state laws by using the land illegally and there is much conflict between the two parties (95).
Neumann states that there is little interest in the people of the of Tanzania to help the conservation efforts. He relates that many of the residents know of poaching in the area but have not told officials who because they feel the park provides no benefit to the village. The people believe that policies place animal rights above those of humans. For example, as the numbers of certain species began to decline, laws were passed that protected them from being harmed if they strayed into local farms. After government-built fences became useless (I found it funny that bull elephants learned to short circuit the wires) residents became helpless (95).
More...
Neumann claims that what is missing from the debate on what is causing wildlife populations to decline and the solutions to such problems is "the volatile politics of nature protection in rural Africa." He goes on to say that the "establishment of national parks is... a political process" and in colonial Africa, it involved denying resources to whole settlements, "threatening the very existence of communities" (85).
Following the introduction, the author describes the approach that was taken in doing his research, calling it "political ecology" and explains what it encompasses: "the political, economic, and social structures and processes which underlie human practices leading to degradation." Before getting into his research, Neumann describes the difficulties associated with taking a political ecology approach to degradation problems and cites specific examples before concluding that at its "most elemental level, a political ecology perspective entails: (1) a focus on the land users and the social relations in which they entwined; (2) tracing the linkages of these local relations to wider geographical and social setting; and (3) historical analysis to understand the contemporary situation" (86-87).
The author begins the section titled "Political Ecology of Threats to National Parks" by defining degradation as 'a reduction in the land to satisfy a particular use,' and threats as "environmental conditions that 'are in serious conflict with the objectives of park administration and management.' He then goes on to give examples of declining animal populations in Arusha National Park, such as buffalo, giraffe, and eland, and relates that conservationists and government officials chalk such degradation up to "overpopulation and the ignorance and irrationality of local residents," an interpretation that Neumann suggests is "seriously flawed" (88).
The next portion of text deals with historical information of Tanzania's national park system. It begins with the establishment of the Society for the Preservation of the Flora and Fauna of the Empire (SPFFE), a conservation group based in London, which, through an investigation, suggested that forming national parks was critical. Modeling national parks in other parts of the world, the SPFFE "made [it] clear that humans were not welcome in [the] parks, but allowed that under the prevailing political climate, preservation 'cannot be pushed to a point at which it seriously conflicts with the material happiness and well-being of the native population' (89).
The insistence by the SPFFE of the importance of national parks lead to a Tanganyika government proposal to designate 3000-4000 square miles of the Serengeti to become the first national park. As it turned out, however, this was not done without resistance. On one side of the debate were the conseravationists and natural resource professionals, and on the other were officers in charge of the colonies who worried that the conservationists were imposing on the rights of the people. The conflict grew, resulting in destruction of land and the killing of animals. The park was then divided into two areas, one where humans were not allowed and the other where the Masai were allowed to live and graze animals. In 1959, however, a new ordinance was drawn up, basically stating that human rights would have to come second and no humans would be allowed in the park. This pattern was repeated throughout Tanzania (90).
Neumann next focuses on the history of the Arusha National Park. European settlement left little area for the Meru to live and graze their cattle. When the British began ruling Tanganyika, many of the reserves established by the Germans were kept in tact and by 1920 all of Mt. Meru was designated a game reserve and strict state control outlawed settlement, cultivation, and hunting on the land, but some rights were preserved such as the allowance of residents to take produce from the forests for their own use. This and other rights were soon put to question, however, and the indigenous people found themselves submitting to the terms of the Europeans, and then taking their case to the United Nations, where they lost. As years passed, state control grew and tightened and the park eventually expanded from the original 4000 sq mi to 28590 acres in 1969. This expansion and strict rule has caused a severe collapse in grazing and the Meru have little customary rights (93).
Following the historical information of the Arusha National Park, Neumann discusses the current politics and wildlife conservation in the Mt. Meru area. Here the mainstays are coffee production and cattle-keeping. Neumann writes that "[p]articipation in cash crop production has provided the basis for a rising standard of living" but Meru's northern villages are in a much poorer state and Nasula residents are fighting for rights to more land, which is causing concern in the conservationists and state officials. Many of the people have been fined of breaking the state laws by using the land illegally and there is much conflict between the two parties (95).
Neumann states that there is little interest in the people of the of Tanzania to help the conservation efforts. He relates that many of the residents know of poaching in the area but have not told officials who because they feel the park provides no benefit to the village. The people believe that policies place animal rights above those of humans. For example, as the numbers of certain species began to decline, laws were passed that protected them from being harmed if they strayed into local farms. After government-built fences became useless (I found it funny that bull elephants learned to short circuit the wires) residents became helpless (95).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)