Conservation, ecological justice and harm to nature - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 89

new international standards of environmental management and trade
liberalisation (particularly in the third world) is a precursor to capitalist
penetration and exploitation of nature (Goldman, 1998a). To see
environmental regulation in this light is to acknowledge the economic
rather than ecological rationale behind the actions of global regulatory
bodies like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank (see Friedrichs and Friedrichs, 2002). Such
'regulation' is about facilitation of the exploitation of nature and
humans, not about human interests and needs and ecological wellbeing
as such. Enhanced 'environmentally friendly' production and extraction
of natural resources do not change the status quo - such enhancements
still collectively degrade the global ecological commons.
Non-government organisations are divided as to how they should
intervene in major world conservation and protection issues, and they
are split as to whether they take action in collaboration with, or against,
transnational corporations and hegemonic nation-states. Duffy (2010)
points to the increasingly close relationships between large transnational
NGOs and transnational corporations, international organisations
such as the World Bank, and particular national governments. There is
funding to be attained and kudos found in many such arrangements.
Conservation under these circumstances is, however, redefined as
supporting a particular kind of development rather than taking
precaution by preventing development. Thus:
As new dam projects, oil fields, mines and tourism facilities
threaten to engulf and destroy habitats and the wildlife
they contain, conservation NGOs have spotted a new
opportunity to push their agendas forward. Instead of
resisting these new and potentially damaging initiatives,
they work with developers on 'mitigation' projects. These
revolve around deals with developers to 'offset', mitigate or
compensate habitat loss by paying for or setting aside land
for new conservation schemes and protected areas. (Duffy,
2010: 69)
This, too, is not a new phenomenon. Jacoby (2001) describes how
conservationists in the mid to late 1800s saw a strong link between
their goals and development. The name of the game was efficiency
and sustainable development, and the promise of conservation was to
provide the continuous supply of the necessities of life. Corporations
likewise soon discovered that conservation could be an ally in pursuit
of their goals.