6. Environmental Justice

edited April 2020 in Environment

Reminder: Zoom today

Bullard, Robert. 2005. “1. Enviornmental Justice in the Twenty-first Century” in The Quest for Environmental Justice, Robert Bullard (ed).

Santana, Deborah. 2005. “11. Vieques: The Land, the People, the Struggle, the Future” in The Quest for Environmental Justice, Robert Bullard (ed). (same book as above)

Watch If You Love This Planet

Dowie, Mark. 1995. “6: Environmental Justice,” Losing Ground.

Human Rights Watch Report on Flint: https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/10/23/human-right-water/guide-first-nations-communities-and-advocates

(optional) Pulido, Laura. 2017. “Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence,” Progress in Human Geography 41(4): 524-533.

(optional) Roberts, Elizabeth. 2017. “What Gets Inside: Violent Entanglements and Toxic Boundaries in Mexico City” Cultural Anthropology 32(4)

(optional) “The Cancer Capital of America” https://theoutline.com/post/7457/the-cancer-capital-of-america?zd=1&zi=6wnmom6h


Indigenous peoples aren’t the only frontline communities with an invested interest in solving environmental problems. Environmental Justice (EJ) groups are a powerful part of the environmental movement. Robert Bullard is often called the “father of environmental justice” because he is one of the first academics to frame and champion the concept. As a case study, I included Santana’s chapter on Vieques and nuclear power, as well as a video of a famous speech on nuclear power.

Can the environmental issue you selected be framed in terms of environmental justice? What do these groups need to succeed?

Feel free to explore these readings any other way you like.

«1

Comments

  • The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.

  • The issue of violating Indigenous land rights in order to build petrochemical pipelines is most certainly an issue of environmental justice. The difference between the legal issues surrounding Canadian and American cases illustrate the two origins of environmental injustice very clearly. On the southern side of the border, Indigenous groups almost exclusively exist with some connection to a reservation and have signed a treaty. While economic incentives are often the impetus, particularly in modern cases, the expropriation of Indian land can largely been seen as originating from racist attitudes towards Indigenous peoples and land use: their erasure and the view that they do not put the land to use. However, on the northern side of the border there are many tribes who never were forced to the negotiating table with their colonial enemies. Furthermore, their rights, not to reservations, but to their traditional lands are, at least to some degree, enshrined in the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under Aboriginal Land Title. Overall, Canadian courts are far more amenable to Indigenous land issues, and provincial and federal governments have shown (at least a degree of) earnest interest in protecting those rights. However, the origin of environmental injustice is at play here: the simple fact of money equals power. There seems to be no real malice at play, simply the fact that after centuries of brutal colonialism Indigenous peoples have very little power to stop exploitation. Even if the government does have some genuine interest in Indigenous land rights, the moment that monied interests come into conflict, the government does not think twice about abandoning them. I find this to be even more horrifying than environmental racism, because its evil has no root in even hate. It is even colder and more capricious. There is not even passion against rights, merely total ambivalence to them once money comes into play. Thus, both demonstrate environmental injustice. In one case, where hate and malice towards the rights and concerns Indigenous people play a large role in driving it, in the other they simply vanish in the eyes of the powerful when there is money to be made.

  • @a_hipp said:
    The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.

    I like your idea of advocating for the inclusion non-mainstream voices in the conversation. This seems like an issue very similar to population: global northern elitist conservation groups look throughout the global south for instances of environmental issues that originate in the global north and then find poor people of color to blame instead of looking at the impact of their own society. The issue of fining is obviously a lot less cut and dry than blaming poor people of color for having too many children and the bad action of cutting the fins off sharks much more clearly so, but nonetheless I think its an interesting parallel.

  • @SpencerFier said:

    @a_hipp said:
    The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.

    I like your idea of advocating for the inclusion non-mainstream voices in the conversation. This seems like an issue very similar to population: global northern elitist conservation groups look throughout the global south for instances of environmental issues that originate in the global north and then find poor people of color to blame instead of looking at the impact of their own society. The issue of fining is obviously a lot less cut and dry than blaming poor people of color for having too many children and the bad action of cutting the fins off sharks much more clearly so, but nonetheless I think its an interesting parallel.

    Thank you, Spencer. That is a great point that I will keep in mind as I am writing. As I do my research, I am discovering that international market demand from Asia is one of the most significant driving forces for finning operations in Costa Rica. While the environmentalist organizations I am studying are mostly headquartered in the U.K., their finger-pointing at Asia seems to be more prominent than in exporting countries like Costa Rica. I find that to be intriguing, as I keep running into the narrative of 'ecojustice warriors from the U.S.' versus 'cruel Hong Kong fisheries' hiding behind cultural practices to legitimize their 'greedy trade.' I would have expected to see a lot more of the North/South blame game in articles involving decreasing shark species, but the NGOs and news outlets reporting are very mute on the involvement of locals. The 'vanishing' of indigenous people's voices in your research seems similar to the underrepresentation of fisher communities I am finding. I am interested to see what more you find out!

  • As a quick reminder, my topic is oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon polluting water and harming indigenous people of the region. This can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice- it is firsthand an example of environmental injustice on a basis of race. The indigenous people of the region are viewed as less Ecuadorian than others and as such less of a priority than others. There's a lot these groups are doing to combat this, and there are some important necessities that are being addressed which is important to point out- there is a language barrier between many indigenous communities and the Ecuadorian government and as a result many indigenous groups are forced to learn Spanish. There's a huge education difference in that the legal route to make change is completely foreign to many of these groups. Many don't know what rights they and the oil companies do or don't have from the governments perspective and are working to learn these things. There's many more examples of fundamental requirements such as these that the indigenous groups are forced to compensate for. Additionally, one thing some local indigenous people talk about is the need for unity. Many different tribes are teaming up in ways they never have before as they are identifying many similarities between their experiences and hardships.

  • @caroline22 said:
    As a quick reminder, my topic is oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon polluting water and harming indigenous people of the region. This can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice- it is firsthand an example of environmental injustice on a basis of race. The indigenous people of the region are viewed as less Ecuadorian than others and as such less of a priority than others. There's a lot these groups are doing to combat this, and there are some important necessities that are being addressed which is important to point out- there is a language barrier between many indigenous communities and the Ecuadorian government and as a result many indigenous groups are forced to learn Spanish. There's a huge education difference in that the legal route to make change is completely foreign to many of these groups. Many don't know what rights they and the oil companies do or don't have from the governments perspective and are working to learn these things. There's many more examples of fundamental requirements such as these that the indigenous groups are forced to compensate for. Additionally, one thing some local indigenous people talk about is the need for unity. Many different tribes are teaming up in ways they never have before as they are identifying many similarities between their experiences and hardships.

    Fascinating topic. I was wondering what the role of environmentalist organizations is in all this? Is there a tendency for a focus on only the ecological aspect of the Amazon more so than the indigenous communities? Are there any EJ or human rights groups that you know of who are helping with the language barrier or legal jargon? It is a shame that there is not more media coverage on these inequalities. The case mirrors that of Standing Rock, yet I have not heard about any specific legal battles in the Amazon.
    Furthermore, Standing Rock was one specific incident, whereas I am sure many indigenous peoples are fighting every day for their rights. I hope that if they do win against the oil drilling companies that they are also given recognized land rights. In @SpencerFier 's research, there is the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under the Aboriginal Land Title that is there to protect their ownership. Are there any legislative measures in Ecuador that do something similar? That would be huge for negotiating other environmental policies with the government.

  • I was actually really surprised at a lot of the organizations I looked into out there. The main one I'm focusing on is Amazon Frontlines which is a newer group. They take a very holistic approach to supporting the local indigenous people. AF is working a lot on empowering the tribes by helping with language, legal education, cultural preservation, and environmental monitoring systems and things like that. It goes far beyond just helping to combat the water pollution or just legally helping them. They are really embodying the whole "give a fishing rod, not just a fish (or whatever the real phrase is) mentality and its super, super admirable work. In 2015 AF actually also supported the creation of the Ciebo Alliance, an indigenous led non-profit consisting of members of the Kofan, Secoya, Siona, and Waorani nations.
    My research is pretty focused in on these two organizations though so their positive work could be atypical.
    I'm pretty sure @Julieta, you took Josh's Ecuador class right? You probably have a better reference point to the region as a whole than I do.

    @a_hipp said:

    @caroline22 said:
    As a quick reminder, my topic is oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon polluting water and harming indigenous people of the region. This can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice- it is firsthand an example of environmental injustice on a basis of race. The indigenous people of the region are viewed as less Ecuadorian than others and as such less of a priority than others. There's a lot these groups are doing to combat this, and there are some important necessities that are being addressed which is important to point out- there is a language barrier between many indigenous communities and the Ecuadorian government and as a result many indigenous groups are forced to learn Spanish. There's a huge education difference in that the legal route to make change is completely foreign to many of these groups. Many don't know what rights they and the oil companies do or don't have from the governments perspective and are working to learn these things. There's many more examples of fundamental requirements such as these that the indigenous groups are forced to compensate for. Additionally, one thing some local indigenous people talk about is the need for unity. Many different tribes are teaming up in ways they never have before as they are identifying many similarities between their experiences and hardships.

    Fascinating topic. I was wondering what the role of environmentalist organizations is in all this? Is there a tendency for a focus on only the ecological aspect of the Amazon more so than the indigenous communities? Are there any EJ or human rights groups that you know of who are helping with the language barrier or legal jargon? It is a shame that there is not more media coverage on these inequalities. The case mirrors that of Standing Rock, yet I have not heard about any specific legal battles in the Amazon.
    Furthermore, Standing Rock was one specific incident, whereas I am sure many indigenous peoples are fighting every day for their rights. I hope that if they do win against the oil drilling companies that they are also given recognized land rights. In @SpencerFier 's research, there is the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under the Aboriginal Land Title that is there to protect their ownership. Are there any legislative measures in Ecuador that do something similar? That would be huge for negotiating other environmental policies with the government.

  • Water access and pollution in Nicaragua can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice. (I haven't had a chance to narrow my topic yet- just finished my thesis) Poorer people have less access to clean water despite it sometimes being available and water pollution (especially due to industries) is more common in some poor rural areas than in highly populated areas. A lot of the rural people are discriminated against due to being indigenous or not speaking Spanish. (Similar to @caroline22 ) Many people don't know their rights to clean water and there is a large education gap.

  • @caroline22 said:
    I was actually really surprised at a lot of the organizations I looked into out there. The main one I'm focusing on is Amazon Frontlines which is a newer group. They take a very holistic approach to supporting the local indigenous people. AF is working a lot on empowering the tribes by helping with language, legal education, cultural preservation, and environmental monitoring systems and things like that. It goes far beyond just helping to combat the water pollution or just legally helping them. They are really embodying the whole "give a fishing rod, not just a fish (or whatever the real phrase is) mentality and its super, super admirable work. In 2015 AF actually also supported the creation of the Ciebo Alliance, an indigenous led non-profit consisting of members of the Kofan, Secoya, Siona, and Waorani nations.
    My research is pretty focused in on these two organizations though so their positive work could be atypical.
    I'm pretty sure @Julieta, you took Josh's Ecuador class right? You probably have a better reference point to the region as a whole than I do.

    @a_hipp said:

    @caroline22 said:
    As a quick reminder, my topic is oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon polluting water and harming indigenous people of the region. This can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice- it is firsthand an example of environmental injustice on a basis of race. The indigenous people of the region are viewed as less Ecuadorian than others and as such less of a priority than others. There's a lot these groups are doing to combat this, and there are some important necessities that are being addressed which is important to point out- there is a language barrier between many indigenous communities and the Ecuadorian government and as a result many indigenous groups are forced to learn Spanish. There's a huge education difference in that the legal route to make change is completely foreign to many of these groups. Many don't know what rights they and the oil companies do or don't have from the governments perspective and are working to learn these things. There's many more examples of fundamental requirements such as these that the indigenous groups are forced to compensate for. Additionally, one thing some local indigenous people talk about is the need for unity. Many different tribes are teaming up in ways they never have before as they are identifying many similarities between their experiences and hardships.

    Fascinating topic. I was wondering what the role of environmentalist organizations is in all this? Is there a tendency for a focus on only the ecological aspect of the Amazon more so than the indigenous communities? Are there any EJ or human rights groups that you know of who are helping with the language barrier or legal jargon? It is a shame that there is not more media coverage on these inequalities. The case mirrors that of Standing Rock, yet I have not heard about any specific legal battles in the Amazon.
    Furthermore, Standing Rock was one specific incident, whereas I am sure many indigenous peoples are fighting every day for their rights. I hope that if they do win against the oil drilling companies that they are also given recognized land rights. In @SpencerFier 's research, there is the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under the Aboriginal Land Title that is there to protect their ownership. Are there any legislative measures in Ecuador that do something similar? That would be huge for negotiating other environmental policies with the government.

    Yes, @cara and I took that class together. Joshua, correct me if I am wrong, but I rememebr that most communities were given land titles around 1992/3(?) after a massive protest that included walking for 250km and camping outside the Parlament in Quito. Nevertheless, the land titles did not make it up for all the land that belongs to them, and the government have found many ways to re-enter their lands and do not respect the agreements made. So there are still many movements to protect their land, and also to make Ecuador a plurinational state, so their culture and nation will be more respected.
    There were actually a couple of legal battles that went shared in international media mostly about the Waorani nation last year, since they won a case against the Ecuadorian state a few months before we were there. We were able to meet Nemonte one of their leaders, and she was very much grateful for the international support and mostly for the work that Amazon Frontlines was doing. I was reaaally skeptical of these international organizations, but for sure AF made me more positive about how international organizations and grassroot movements can work together. Apart from them there are plenty of indegenous communities fighiting in the amazon, mostly in Brazil right now with the current president, bur also in Colombia there have been many great environmental leaders but the violence they face is huge (second country after the Philipines with more environmnetal activists murdered). I still agree that the way this information is shared is more through alternative media than the mainstream, even here in south america is hard to hear these news from regular TV.
    I remember some people still struggle with the ways mainstream organizations percieved these nations. There was a speaker who I do not remember the name sadly, who said that mainstream environmnetal activists see the forest as a museum, which for them is way more than that, the forest is also a being. I believe it could be really good to look also into the whole idea of "Buen vivir" and how it relats to how they connect to nature.
    I really like your topic and I am excited to hear more about how you go through it, I would for sure recommend also reaching out to more grassroot movements. I wrote a PoliSci paper and reached out to a couple of grassroot organizations we met with and they were super helpful and open to help, I am sure Joshua has a bunch of other contacts too.

  • One of the organizations I am looking into is very successful and I think a large part of that is being started, funded, and run by local people. The organization is reforesting to restore the jungle on a mountain which is bringing water back to the valleys and restoring the water shed. The organization is completely run by Nicaraguans with the exception of some volunteers. It has been so successful and impactful because the locals listen, feel heard, and participate in the program actively and don't feel like the employees are outsiders. When I visited the employees said that keeping the community involved has been their top priority.

  • My topic about the new UPM pulp mill opening in Uruguay, is also an environmnetal justice issue. As with many of the topics before mentioned, there health consequences are going to have a different impact depending on class and race aspects that needs to be analized. These aspects work differently when talking about the international agreement itself, but also within the country. Colonization regarding this pulp mill, does not only imply from Ireland getting resources and profit out of Uruguay, but also how we are still centralizing resources in the capital, and the higher classes are still getting profited from other people's work. I want to explore more from an anthropological lense the perspective that there is between local people vs environmnetal activists regarding the debte of jobs vs. unemployment which is stated in Bullard's text. Also, the ways in which the change of government (from the left to right) has changed the discourse around this topic. So far international organization have played a passive role in this fight, which I want to analyze further, but my main point will be to go in depth on which actions have been taking by the grassroot movements and what has been the past left government response, which I find to be the most problematic part of all of this due to its ideological stance

  • The issue I am focusing on is the Salton Sea which can definitely be framed as an environmental justice issue. The Sea is the result of break in a dike that diverted the Colorado River for agricultural purpose in the Imperial Valley (Which before the access to water was a desert). The lake then filled for two years until they got control of the river. Now the lake is only fed through agricultural runoff, therefore it is rapidly shrinking and very polluted. when the lake dries lake bed is exposed and particulate matter from the sea is blown into the air by wind. The Imperial alley has the worst asthma rates compared to anywhere in California with one in five children having it. in 2003 the Quantification Settlement Agreement occurred which resulted in water allotments being transfered from the Imperial Valley to San Diego. This reduced the flow into the Salton Sea and increased the rate that lake bed is being exposed. Part of the QSA was that they would focus on management of the Sea but seventeen years later and nothing has happened.

    The people impacted by this problem are people of color and agricultural workers and as we have learned form our reading communities of color are often those impacted by environmental disaster and this is an example of the government not fulfilling its role in protecting the people. There are NGOs working on this issue and one of those groups is the Comite Civico Del Valle which is focused on improving health of the community through environmental justice. They are conducting community research projects focused on both air and water quality so they can have an accurate record of pollution. In order for the environmental justice of issues of the Salton Sea to be addressed I think they need far more media attention. Most people haven't even heard of the issue and educating the public might force the government to give management of the Sea more attention.

  • @a_hipp said:
    The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.

    This seems like a really interesting issue and I don't much about it. Is the issue that local fisheries are being punished for shark by-catch and therefore aren't a fan of the conservation initiatives? I really like your idea of including more local voice in the decision making process regarding policy. I think that could help the fishing groups advocate for themselves. Are there different methods that could be used by the fisheries to reduce by-catch?

  • @Madison said:

    @a_hipp said:
    The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.

    This seems like a really interesting issue and I don't much about it. Is the issue that local fisheries are being punished for shark by-catch and therefore aren't a fan of the conservation initiatives? I really like your idea of including more local voice in the decision making process regarding policy. I think that could help the fishing groups advocate for themselves. Are there different methods that could be used by the fisheries to reduce by-catch?

    In some ways, the fisher community (mostly local pelagic fishermen, not larger-scale fisheries or international fisheries) feel cheated out of a way to earn money to support themselves with the 2012 Costa Rican total ban on shark fishing and finning. A lot of sharks are caught as bycatch, so it is in some ways unavoidable for some fishermen, and they then feel burdened with what to do with the sharks, especially if they can get money for it locally by selling the meat. I am looking at a survey done with three fisher communities in Costa Rica who feel disgruntled in this way, and the majority of fishers answered that they want to conserve the sharks but do not have the means to purchase fishing equipment that is less conducive to bycatch than their long-lines. They also reacted negatively in the study if asked if they would change their fishing technique or where they fished.

  • @Julieta said:

    @caroline22 said:
    I was actually really surprised at a lot of the organizations I looked into out there. The main one I'm focusing on is Amazon Frontlines which is a newer group. They take a very holistic approach to supporting the local indigenous people. AF is working a lot on empowering the tribes by helping with language, legal education, cultural preservation, and environmental monitoring systems and things like that. It goes far beyond just helping to combat the water pollution or just legally helping them. They are really embodying the whole "give a fishing rod, not just a fish (or whatever the real phrase is) mentality and its super, super admirable work. In 2015 AF actually also supported the creation of the Ciebo Alliance, an indigenous led non-profit consisting of members of the Kofan, Secoya, Siona, and Waorani nations.
    My research is pretty focused in on these two organizations though so their positive work could be atypical.
    I'm pretty sure @Julieta, you took Josh's Ecuador class right? You probably have a better reference point to the region as a whole than I do.

    @a_hipp said:

    @caroline22 said:
    As a quick reminder, my topic is oil drilling in the Ecuadorian Amazon polluting water and harming indigenous people of the region. This can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice- it is firsthand an example of environmental injustice on a basis of race. The indigenous people of the region are viewed as less Ecuadorian than others and as such less of a priority than others. There's a lot these groups are doing to combat this, and there are some important necessities that are being addressed which is important to point out- there is a language barrier between many indigenous communities and the Ecuadorian government and as a result many indigenous groups are forced to learn Spanish. There's a huge education difference in that the legal route to make change is completely foreign to many of these groups. Many don't know what rights they and the oil companies do or don't have from the governments perspective and are working to learn these things. There's many more examples of fundamental requirements such as these that the indigenous groups are forced to compensate for. Additionally, one thing some local indigenous people talk about is the need for unity. Many different tribes are teaming up in ways they never have before as they are identifying many similarities between their experiences and hardships.

    Fascinating topic. I was wondering what the role of environmentalist organizations is in all this? Is there a tendency for a focus on only the ecological aspect of the Amazon more so than the indigenous communities? Are there any EJ or human rights groups that you know of who are helping with the language barrier or legal jargon? It is a shame that there is not more media coverage on these inequalities. The case mirrors that of Standing Rock, yet I have not heard about any specific legal battles in the Amazon.
    Furthermore, Standing Rock was one specific incident, whereas I am sure many indigenous peoples are fighting every day for their rights. I hope that if they do win against the oil drilling companies that they are also given recognized land rights. In @SpencerFier 's research, there is the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under the Aboriginal Land Title that is there to protect their ownership. Are there any legislative measures in Ecuador that do something similar? That would be huge for negotiating other environmental policies with the government.

    Yes, @cara and I took that class together. Joshua, correct me if I am wrong, but I rememebr that most communities were given land titles around 1992/3(?) after a massive protest that included walking for 250km and camping outside the Parlament in Quito. Nevertheless, the land titles did not make it up for all the land that belongs to them, and the government have found many ways to re-enter their lands and do not respect the agreements made. So there are still many movements to protect their land, and also to make Ecuador a plurinational state, so their culture and nation will be more respected.
    There were actually a couple of legal battles that went shared in international media mostly about the Waorani nation last year, since they won a case against the Ecuadorian state a few months before we were there. We were able to meet Nemonte one of their leaders, and she was very much grateful for the international support and mostly for the work that Amazon Frontlines was doing. I was reaaally skeptical of these international organizations, but for sure AF made me more positive about how international organizations and grassroot movements can work together. Apart from them there are plenty of indegenous communities fighiting in the amazon, mostly in Brazil right now with the current president, bur also in Colombia there have been many great environmental leaders but the violence they face is huge (second country after the Philipines with more environmnetal activists murdered). I still agree that the way this information is shared is more through alternative media than the mainstream, even here in south america is hard to hear these news from regular TV.
    I remember some people still struggle with the ways mainstream organizations percieved these nations. There was a speaker who I do not remember the name sadly, who said that mainstream environmnetal activists see the forest as a museum, which for them is way more than that, the forest is also a being. I believe it could be really good to look also into the whole idea of "Buen vivir" and how it relats to how they connect to nature.
    I really like your topic and I am excited to hear more about how you go through it, I would for sure recommend also reaching out to more grassroot movements. I wrote a PoliSci paper and reached out to a couple of grassroot organizations we met with and they were super helpful and open to help, I am sure Joshua has a bunch of other contacts too.

    @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.

    Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)

    Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.

  • edited April 2020

    So I don't remember if it was @a_hipp or @charlotte or who it was that asked about litigation. There's something I forgot to bring up.

    Litigation is absolutely critical for making not only companies but government agencies accountable. You've got plenty of cases where community groups sued the ports (Jesse's group was central to that), but also sued the EPA for not enforcing laws. There was a point where the City of LA was pushing through a diesel railway that violated it's own clean air laws and AQMD (a government agency) sued the City of LA, essentially the government suing itself.

    On the other hand, because it's so effective, the government and private foundations that fund environmental groups want to actively prevent it. AB32 was supposed to provide grants to frontline EJ communities, but they filter their money through the Port of LA which has a Community Grants Foundation that re-grants money to small community nonprofits in areas with environmental injustice caused by the ports We can talk about the ethics of that particular choice, but when re-granting funds one of their criteria is "have you ever been involved in a lawsuit against the Port of LA or the City of LA" and if you check yes, you are ineligible for funds. It's a way to encourage the groups that don't rock the boat (aka. aren't effective) and discourage those that are willing to fight. Similarly private foundations like Community Partners ask if groups have been involved in a lawsuit, supposedly because of "liability issues" but also because some of their money comes from corporations and they don't want to make the corporations upset by funding a group that might sue the EPA for non-enforcement or sue companies themselves.

    This is a HUGE problem which simultaneously prevents grassroots organizations from acting as watchdogs for corporations and government agencies, and supports organizations that will moderate or provide a greenwashed image of the movement.

    (another example I forgot to mention was the air quality monitoring project Jesse has been involved in. In his first proposal, he requested federally-approved air quality monitoring devices (the expensive ones) because only those can be used in enforcement--if one of those devices identifies a crime, there are legal consequences. The met with him in person (to ensure no paper trail) and told him we wouldn't be receiving funding that year, but encouraged him to apply next year, implying that they wanted him to take the federally-approved devices out of his application)

  • My research will focus on the effects PFAs has for humans and how certain communities are disproportionately affected by these, namely in Fountain Valley and communities who get their water from the Widefield Aquifer. Typically these specific communities being affected are poorer than surrounding areas. I think this could potentially qualify to be helped by EJ groups, namely because the people people being affected are of a lower class and could potentially not have the resources to fight this serious problem. I'm not exactly sure what resources EJ groups would need to succeed, and hopefully this will become more clear with further research.

  • With regards to my project, a lot is being done to inform citizens, both within and outside of the affected area however from my understanding and what I've gathered from fountainvalleywaterproject.com there is not a lot being done to actually combat this problem. I suppose a short term solution would be to supply affected homes with bottled water, but obviously this is not an ideal solution. Because the affected water is ground water, and PFAs take an extremely long time (if ever) to disappear, this is an extremely difficult problem to find a solution to.

  • @fionaw said:
    Water access and pollution in Nicaragua can absolutely be framed in terms of environmental justice. (I haven't had a chance to narrow my topic yet- just finished my thesis) Poorer people have less access to clean water despite it sometimes being available and water pollution (especially due to industries) is more common in some poor rural areas than in highly populated areas. A lot of the rural people are discriminated against due to being indigenous or not speaking Spanish. (Similar to @caroline22 ) Many people don't know their rights to clean water and there is a large education gap.

    That's really interesting that the EJ issue of language accessibility persists in Latin America. It's definitely something I've read about between Spanish speakers and American governmental agencies, but I never realized there were more layers.

  • @Julieta said:
    My topic about the new UPM pulp mill opening in Uruguay, is also an environmnetal justice issue. As with many of the topics before mentioned, there health consequences are going to have a different impact depending on class and race aspects that needs to be analized. These aspects work differently when talking about the international agreement itself, but also within the country. Colonization regarding this pulp mill, does not only imply from Ireland getting resources and profit out of Uruguay, but also how we are still centralizing resources in the capital, and the higher classes are still getting profited from other people's work. I want to explore more from an anthropological lense the perspective that there is between local people vs environmnetal activists regarding the debte of jobs vs. unemployment which is stated in Bullard's text. Also, the ways in which the change of government (from the left to right) has changed the discourse around this topic. So far international organization have played a passive role in this fight, which I want to analyze further, but my main point will be to go in depth on which actions have been taking by the grassroot movements and what has been the past left government response, which I find to be the most problematic part of all of this due to its ideological stance

    The Coastal GasLink pipeline seems to have the same phemonenon at play. Left-wing governments seems so progressive until there is money to be made...

  • edited April 2020

    Definitely the environmental issue I'm talking about - nuclear waste sites on reservation land is an EJ issue. This definitely ties into what Dowie described as the more anti-toxics wave of environmentalism, where the actual effects of environmental degradation in marginalized people's bodies started to inspire outrage and organizing. I am interested in the human rights framework & how far that can go. Saying we have the right to not be literally poisoned feels so basic and easy to get behind. I believe that ethically & beyond that think the language of the human rights framework can be really compelling for social movements or grassroots organizing.

  • @joshua said:
    @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.

    Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)

    Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.

    Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.

    Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?

  • @Julieta said:
    Yes, @cara and I took that class together. Joshua, correct me if I am wrong, but I rememebr that most communities were given land titles around 1992/3(?) after a massive protest that included walking for 250km and camping outside the Parlament in Quito. Nevertheless, the land titles did not make it up for all the land that belongs to them, and the government have found many ways to re-enter their lands and do not respect the agreements made. So there are still many movements to protect their land, and also to make Ecuador a plurinational state, so their culture and nation will be more respected.
    There were actually a couple of legal battles that went shared in international media mostly about the Waorani nation last year, since they won a case against the Ecuadorian state a few months before we were there. We were able to meet Nemonte one of their leaders, and she was very much grateful for the international support and mostly for the work that Amazon Frontlines was doing. I was reaaally skeptical of these international organizations, but for sure AF made me more positive about how international organizations and grassroot movements can work together. Apart from them there are plenty of indegenous communities fighiting in the amazon, mostly in Brazil right now with the current president, bur also in Colombia there have been many great environmental leaders but the violence they face is huge (second country after the Philipines with more environmnetal activists murdered). I still agree that the way this information is shared is more through alternative media than the mainstream, even here in south america is hard to hear these news from regular TV.
    I remember some people still struggle with the ways mainstream organizations percieved these nations. There was a speaker who I do not remember the name sadly, who said that mainstream environmnetal activists see the forest as a museum, which for them is way more than that, the forest is also a being. I believe it could be really good to look also into the whole idea of "Buen vivir" and how it relats to how they connect to nature.
    I really like your topic and I am excited to hear more about how you go through it, I would for sure recommend also reaching out to more grassroot movements. I wrote a PoliSci paper and reached out to a couple of grassroot organizations we met with and they were super helpful and open to help, I am sure Joshua has a bunch of other contacts too.

    Thank you!!!!

  • Through the lens of The Surfrider Foundation, whose mission i to protect the world’s oceans and beaches, I chose to explore the environmental issue of marine contamination and pollution. Their mission falls under Robert Bullard’s definition of environmental justice in that it strives for equal access to beaches (a long time debate in Southern California). However the movement does strive for environmental justice in regards to the natural world, and does not incorporate air in the work place or other less historically conventional interpretations of the natural environment which Bullard brings to light.

  • @Madison said:
    The issue I am focusing on is the Salton Sea which can definitely be framed as an environmental justice issue. The Sea is the result of break in a dike that diverted the Colorado River for agricultural purpose in the Imperial Valley (Which before the access to water was a desert). The lake then filled for two years until they got control of the river. Now the lake is only fed through agricultural runoff, therefore it is rapidly shrinking and very polluted. when the lake dries lake bed is exposed and particulate matter from the sea is blown into the air by wind. The Imperial alley has the worst asthma rates compared to anywhere in California with one in five children having it. in 2003 the Quantification Settlement Agreement occurred which resulted in water allotments being transfered from the Imperial Valley to San Diego. This reduced the flow into the Salton Sea and increased the rate that lake bed is being exposed. Part of the QSA was that they would focus on management of the Sea but seventeen years later and nothing has happened.

    It would be interesting to look at the various strategies implemented to combat water issues in the Southwest. Since the Southwest is a generally dry landscape but has been so heavily converted to agricultural land, there have been strategies put in place to address the diminishing watersheds, like the Salton Sea. What comes to mind for me is in line with a lot of what we've learned about in class. The first being regulatory restrictions and the second market based incentives to encourage less water consumption. Comparing each of those actions across farmers sourcing water from the Salton Sea could shed light on effective strategies for water management and some of the other comments you brought up.

  • @Madison said:
    The issue I am focusing on is the Salton Sea which can definitely be framed as an environmental justice issue. The Sea is the result of break in a dike that diverted the Colorado River for agricultural purpose in the Imperial Valley (Which before the access to water was a desert). The lake then filled for two years until they got control of the river. Now the lake is only fed through agricultural runoff, therefore it is rapidly shrinking and very polluted. when the lake dries lake bed is exposed and particulate matter from the sea is blown into the air by wind. The Imperial alley has the worst asthma rates compared to anywhere in California with one in five children having it. in 2003 the Quantification Settlement Agreement occurred which resulted in water allotments being transfered from the Imperial Valley to San Diego. This reduced the flow into the Salton Sea and increased the rate that lake bed is being exposed. Part of the QSA was that they would focus on management of the Sea but seventeen years later and nothing has happened.

    The people impacted by this problem are people of color and agricultural workers and as we have learned form our reading communities of color are often those impacted by environmental disaster and this is an example of the government not fulfilling its role in protecting the people. There are NGOs working on this issue and one of those groups is the Comite Civico Del Valle which is focused on improving health of the community through environmental justice. They are conducting community research projects focused on both air and water quality so they can have an accurate record of pollution. In order for the environmental justice of issues of the Salton Sea to be addressed I think they need far more media attention. Most people haven't even heard of the issue and educating the public might force the government to give management of the Sea more attention.

    I think your topic is so interesting! The only time I had heard of the Salton Sea before this was because of the pollution issue in the lake and not all based on health concerns for people in the area. This really goes to show how even issues which are environmental justice related can be branded as issues of conservation or land management. It's making me think about all of the NGOs which focus so heavily on "wilderness" or charismatic animals. We don't hear the stories about the indigenous people who were displaced to create national parks, or even the people who are getting asthma rates in the Imperial alley. People are left out of understandings of "the environment" often at the expensive of vulnerable people's lives.

  • @SpencerFier said:
    The issue of violating Indigenous land rights in order to build petrochemical pipelines is most certainly an issue of environmental justice. The difference between the legal issues surrounding Canadian and American cases illustrate the two origins of environmental injustice very clearly. On the southern side of the border, Indigenous groups almost exclusively exist with some connection to a reservation and have signed a treaty. While economic incentives are often the impetus, particularly in modern cases, the expropriation of Indian land can largely been seen as originating from racist attitudes towards Indigenous peoples and land use: their erasure and the view that they do not put the land to use. However, on the northern side of the border there are many tribes who never were forced to the negotiating table with their colonial enemies. Furthermore, their rights, not to reservations, but to their traditional lands are, at least to some degree, enshrined in the Canadian Constitution of 1982 under Aboriginal Land Title. Overall, Canadian courts are far more amenable to Indigenous land issues, and provincial and federal governments have shown (at least a degree of) earnest interest in protecting those rights. However, the origin of environmental injustice is at play here: the simple fact of money equals power. There seems to be no real malice at play, simply the fact that after centuries of brutal colonialism Indigenous peoples have very little power to stop exploitation. Even if the government does have some genuine interest in Indigenous land rights, the moment that monied interests come into conflict, the government does not think twice about abandoning them. I find this to be even more horrifying than environmental racism, because its evil has no root in even hate. It is even colder and more capricious. There is not even passion against rights, merely total ambivalence to them once money comes into play. Thus, both demonstrate environmental injustice. In one case, where hate and malice towards the rights and concerns Indigenous people play a large role in driving it, in the other they simply vanish in the eyes of the powerful when there is money to be made.

    I feel like we could really benefit from talking about our research with each other. After reading the piece on the human rights framework, I'm interested in the ways in which grassroots organizations are holding the government accountable and on what grounds. @joshua 's response to the question I asked Emily about litigation made me think more deeply about the types of legal fights that are happening. I'm wondering if the absence of treaties makes the more looking for policy loophole (not that the U.S. has a huge problem with violating a treaty) type of work more difficult. Is there comparable legislation to the Clean Water/Air Acts. I'm also thinking about if people litigate EJ issues in the context of civil/human rights arguments effectively and what that looks like. Some food for thought and for me to research!

  • @fionaw said:
    One of the organizations I am looking into is very successful and I think a large part of that is being started, funded, and run by local people. The organization is reforesting to restore the jungle on a mountain which is bringing water back to the valleys and restoring the water shed. The organization is completely run by Nicaraguans with the exception of some volunteers. It has been so successful and impactful because the locals listen, feel heard, and participate in the program actively and don't feel like the employees are outsiders. When I visited the employees said that keeping the community involved has been their top priority.

    This sounds cool, like a true grassroots movement, which as we have learned some may have more sinister undertones. I'm curious, of the people involved are any involved in politics in Nicaragua? How are they carrying out the restoration? I just thought this was actually a little bit related to our readings for tomorrow in that the attitudes of advocacy groups in other countries differ from those in the respective country.

  • @slothman said:

    @fionaw said:
    One of the organizations I am looking into is very successful and I think a large part of that is being started, funded, and run by local people. The organization is reforesting to restore the jungle on a mountain which is bringing water back to the valleys and restoring the water shed. The organization is completely run by Nicaraguans with the exception of some volunteers. It has been so successful and impactful because the locals listen, feel heard, and participate in the program actively and don't feel like the employees are outsiders. When I visited the employees said that keeping the community involved has been their top priority.

    This sounds cool, like a true grassroots movement, which as we have learned some may have more sinister undertones. I'm curious, of the people involved are any involved in politics in Nicaragua? How are they carrying out the restoration? I just thought this was actually a little bit related to our readings for tomorrow in that the attitudes of advocacy groups in other countries differ from those in the respective country.

    The last time I contacted them was a few years ago but none of them are very involved in Nicaraguan government or go to any large cities often. They are restoring the forests mainly through growing bamboo because it's fast growing, having a lot of bees and worms, semi-naturally reintroducing local plans, and helping guide where water is traveling to help the growth of newer areas. They mainly fund the organization through a small hostel on the grounds and they have guides for hikes tourists can pay for. And yeah, the local area was damaged by foreign aid, it would be interesting to learn more about their opinions.

  • @slothman said:
    With regards to my project, a lot is being done to inform citizens, both within and outside of the affected area however from my understanding and what I've gathered from fountainvalleywaterproject.com there is not a lot being done to actually combat this problem. I suppose a short term solution would be to supply affected homes with bottled water, but obviously this is not an ideal solution. Because the affected water is ground water, and PFAs take an extremely long time (if ever) to disappear, this is an extremely difficult problem to find a solution to.

    Is there anything being done by the government on the issue to help people impacted? Is there any research being done into how to get PFAs out of the water? I know that a CC student (Sam Sanson) did her thesis on PFAs and made a podcast about it called Pre-sistence. This could be a good resource to get some information about the issue. Maybe she has some resources she would share if you reached out the her

Sign In or Register to comment.