ESPM 169 - Power Politics II: North-South Relations and the CBDOctober 9, 2003 continuing our look at states as key actors in IEP: interactions with each other, state-society relations power and wealth important in this split - also ideas, and future development N-S split: important partly as a strategic negotiating device, but also in negotiating the terms of international environmental protection - in particular, - the notion of sustainable development - development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising later generations - and how SD relates to environmentalism (S. critics of W. environmentalism)- notions of equity in international politics- relationship between poverty and environmental degradation IEP a good forum for expressing Southern interests - more democratic; S. sources of leverage1. Pulling together where N-S issues have come up in class so far BD a particularly rich area to look at some of the differences, divergences and problems in relationships between rich and poor countries N-S interests and relative influence have a particular configuration in CBD issues (see Agarwal et al) - these vary from issue to issue - e.g. CC (different sorts of coalitions; equity issues), HWT, desertificationa. The CBD and Biosafety protocol - source of leverage: much of the world's BD located in the South - managed to change agenda: to genetic resources, sovereignty, biosafety and GM foods, technology transfer at favorable rates - IPRs key (more next week) - biocolonization and biotrade1b. Implementation - capacityc. GEF and environmental aid - international institutions - UN, UNEP, WB etc. - capacity building - criticisms of GEF - conservation policies South and North each trying to get the other to change behavior in different ways; some middle ground reached2. Defining "North" and "South"Name some Countries: - rich countries, transition economies, newly industrializing countries, "4th world", HIPCs3. One way of charting N-S relations: How did this divide come about, and where did SD come from?a. colonialism - up to late 1940s, 1950sb. independence and modernization - paternalistic - 1950s and 60sc. 1970s: underdevelopment and dependency theory - antagonism and conflict; finding a voice - underlain with "south is good" rhetoric from elements in North; "essentializing"2G77: "Group of 77" (now much larger) emerged in the UN General Assembly in 1974 - following success of OPEC and the failure of alternative development strategiessuch as import substitution industrialization) - a way of asserting power and furthering development - Aim: to work towards a New International Economic Order (NIEO); to form producer groups and to increase the price of commodity exports relative to manufactured exports, and the right to nationalize MNCs adopted as a charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States by UN in December 1974 - ultimately did not succeed; splits among participants etc. (and these days, almost unthinkable). - however, established the G77 as an important UN bloc of states; now much larger, and often votes together or in subsetsd. 1980s and 1990s: - neoliberalism vs. sustainable development international economic and environmental arenasGroup exercise: the "North-South Divide" is basically a construction: what does it illuminate in IEP? When and why is it misleading?N-S conflicts seen as one of the biggest divides in IEP. Why? - ecological imperialism: resource extraction, waste shipment - wrong problems prioritized by North; within the problems chosen, had to be pushed to deal with equity concerns3- relationship between poverty and environmental degradation: poverty causes environmental degradation, and becoming wealthier a way to improve the environment - at the same time, wealth and over-consumption lead to environmental degradation - N-S conflict very clearly set environmental problems in wider contexts: local land rights; globalization and development S. countries have been able to push these at the bargaining table something of a blame game; tied up also with problems of globalization and indebtedness but, sustainable development emerged as driving principle good to look from both sides; finally, "southern" perspectives becoming more commonin literature, or rather, books on IEP not written by westerners also clear that unitary perspectives not always the best, nor making assumptions about governments, populations on either side of the divide (e.g. hazardous waste trade) finally, differences at the negotiating table not always mirrored on the ground, e.g. in implementing BD policiesWays in which the N-S construct is misleading:Relations now (or now understood as being) more complex: - influence of south - differentiation - attention being paid to the "large middle" of world politics; squeezed by the very poor and the very rich - transnational alliances (not unproblematic) - e.g. indigenous movements - shared governance - though still a lot of conflict - also structural constraints a. the "sustainable middle" (Conca, 2001): most of the world falls between the hugely wealthy, over-consuming top billion and the desperate barely subsisting lowest 4billion - therefore close to 4 billion people who lead relatively sustainable lives - not eating large amounts of grain fed beef, or owning single-passenger cars or masses of consumer durables - this class, however, most at threat if prevailing distribution patterns continue - many countries contain all three groupsb. Hence, differentiation within countries: links made at a variety of levels, e.g. environmental movementsc. Types of politics, political access and control strong and weak civil societies different political institutions and policy-making processes struggles for southern environmental groups as much against their own governments, often using allies from the North - Kenya and Indonesia examples as extremes - India and GEF - displacement of local