Rethinking the Environment with Indigenous Agency

Earth’s climate crisis could be approaching a “point of no return’’. 

The UN has reported that governments have not committed enough to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The scale of climate damage has already been immense: floods and landslides have forced 12 million people from their homes in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. In 2019, Cyclone Idai took the lives of over 1000 people across Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique only for Cyclone Kenneth to sweep through Northern Mozambique a mere six weeks later. The current climate emergency has far-reaching economic, physical, social, and political impacts on humankind, but a human-centric approach to achieving sustainability has not yet been successful to solve the climate crisis. Indigenous scholars are advocating for an alternative approach, critiquing society’s tendency to view the natural world as property, a commodity, or a resource. According to Linda Robyn, colonial logic argues that those who are “less civilised” (Indigenous Peoples) are unable to properly exploit the land and its resources so those who are deemed “civilised” must make the decisions about the land. Indigenous knowledge about the environment has been undermined as being non-knowledge or merely folklore instead of being a source of knowledge to establish a reciprocal relationship with Earth.

Ultimately, the ecological crisis is an “intensification of colonialism”, exemplified by the disproportionate effects of climate change, with poorer countries experiencing colossal damage to their economies, populations, and land. COP27 in Egypt discussed the impact of climate change on poorer countries, with richer countries most responsible for climate change agreeing to payments, however is there any accountability or self-reflection? Without the use of the word reparations or compensation, countries who contribute to climate change the most are not acknowledging their roles in the damage caused to countries like Nepal, Mozambique, Pakistan or Bangladesh. 

Therefore, the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples are crucial to how we understand and combat climate change. Indigenous Peoples across the globe have endured constant waves of settler colonialism that have decimated their lands. Despite this, they have adapted and survived through centuries as great stewards of their environment; Indigenous lands make up around 20% of the Earth’s territory and contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Winona LaDuke, a member of the Anishinabe Nation, writes, “sustainability in these marginal habitats did not simply rely on a matter of luck”.

Conceptions of the environment by Indigenous Peoples requires a greater complex framework – one that is conscious of the relationship between specific communities, individuals and their land, intertwined with living, livelihood, culture, and even legal rights. Consequently, movements by Indigenous populations against environmental exploitation also take a specific language of their own, and there is much we can learn from their resistance. In India, the Dongaria Kondhs – an Indigenous community in the state of Odisha – launched resistance against the bauxite mining project of Vedanta Resources (UK based mining company) in 2002. The movement gained traction when Vedanta started acquiring land in Niyamgiri mountains, a sacred place tied to the ancestry of the Kondhs. At the beginning of the movement, any reasoning of the movement on ecological grounds against the bauxite mining project was dismissed in favour of the sacredness of the Niyamgiri mountains to the tribe’s culture by India’s Supreme Court. However, a clear separation of livelihood, ancestry, sacredness, and environment simplifies and is culpable in erasing the complex interlinkages of these aspects in indigenous life. The Supreme Court’s act of dismissing ecological concerns from cultural concerns assumes that the culture cannot be ecological, because the environment is separate from human life (see ruling here). However, indigenous cultures are a prime example or reminder that environment and life are interlinked. This is an important purview that environmental movements at large should adopt. The environment is not an abstract idea that can be acted upon separately. 

Resistance against ‘developmental’ projects is also common, as projects of the Western ‘development’ model often impinge upon regional lives. Often, what is understood as ‘development’ leads to violence, dispossession and erasure of indigenous cultures and communities. Protests against ‘developmental’ projects by Indigenous communities in India, and globally, emphasise the connection of natural resources, forests, rivers, and land, to tribal and adivasi (term for specific Indigenous communities in India) populations. Resistance by the Gond community in the state of Chhattisgarh, active for the past decade, intensified this year as the government approved three new coal mines, which would result in future environmental degradation and increased clearance of Hasdeo Aranya forests. Villagers from around the forest region have occupied the forests, building campsites, hugging trees (a historical form of tribal protest in India known as chipko), conducting speeches, events, and even work from within the forests. Demonstrating not only that their forest has cultural significance and provides livelihood, but there is a question of legal rights as well. 

These movements emphasise the casual disregard for rights of Indigenous communities in these projects. The disregard of indigenous rights is directly tied to the disregard of Indigenous existence and colonialism. The lack of Indigenous consensus on decisions of ‘development’, or land, forest interference is symbiotic of erasing marginalised voices. The disregard for understanding grassroots mobilisation for ecological catastrophe and implementation of top-down policies which do not consider violence on certain lives as violence, or do not account for how life is lived in the regions targeted for ‘development’ is a manifestation of imperialism. 

We do not suggest that indigenous life is infallible, but that Indigenous perspectives and mobilisation are crucial to the environmental movement at large. The constant dismissal of Indigenous lives is a symptom of colonialism. Indigenous communities should be considered active agents in the environmental movement, and intersectionality should extend to Indigenous communities within different contexts.


Toxic Waste Mountain: How The Occupation Also Harms Israelis

Israel is explicit about the objective of its supposedly sustainable projects: to achieve full sovereignty over “the lands of Judea and Samaria” by whatever means necessary, i.e. present-day Israel combined with its occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories. Let’s imagine this objective were to magically be achieved overnight: Israel would literally have a mountain of toxic waste on its hands. 

Israel uses the West Bank as a dumping ground for its own waste and the waste from illegal settlements. Israel also systematically denies Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza suitable access to resources and infrastructure for the responsible management of their own waste. This has led to the widespread adoption of unsafe waste disposal practices in the area. Israel is attempting to circumscribe both the Palestinian people and all of the waste in the region within its eight meter walls, and it will eventually fail on both counts. The ongoing imprisonment of the Palestinian people seems to thus entail the ongoing degredation of the lands by Israelis; both practices continue to harm their intended Palestinian victims as well as unintentionally backfiring on Israelis.

Let’s be clear– the occupation of Palestine is a war crime violating a seventy-three-year-long list of human rights; it is wholly inappropriate to compare the suffering of an Israeli to that of a Palestinian. In addition to our awareness about the myriad ways in which the Israeli occupation harms Palestinians, it is also important to pay attention to the ways that the occupation harms Israelis: when a bare foot in the grass crushes an unsuspecting bee, the bee is killed– but not before leaving a nasty sting. 

Israel and Palestine are enmeshed in a relationship of coloniser- colonised “stuckedness” as explained by Ghassan Hage: they are bound to one another, destined to be doomed or flourish collectively. Hage states that no matter what, they are in fact “stuck with each other.” Building on this concept of stuckedness, the June 2020 UN report illustrates that Palestinians and Israelis are stuck with their collective toxic waste as much as with each other.

Achille Mbembe’s conceptualization of the “racist affects” of borderwork explains that the Israeli borderworkers are expected to inflict injury on the Palestinian ‘other.’ The omnipresence of “racists affects” within Israeli society have not only perpetuated the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians, but has also led to widespread trauma and chronic mental illness among the Israeli population of indentured soldiers. But there is a third loser in this war: the ‘sacred’ land on which it’s waged. Mbembe shows us that Israelis are encouraged to undertake unsustainable environmental practices (like the mass dumping of toxic waste) as one of many tools for inflicting harm on the Palestinians. These practices are backfiring: poisoning the neighbours’ garden harms yours too, especially when you’re actively stealing their land.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett delivers a speech on stage during a meeting at the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, on November 1, 2021. (Haim Zach/GPO)

Obsessive anti-Israel bias': Erdan rips up human rights report at UN podium  | The Times of Israel

Two events last month encapsulate the hypocrisy of Israel’s greenwashing. Israeli PM Bennett was outspoken at COP26 about Israel’s green-tech ‘innovations’ and its self-declaration of ‘successfully’ having implemented the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s). Elsewhere, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN tore up the annual human rights report on the podium at the UN General Assembly. By using the global stage at COP26 to greenwash Israel’s inherently unsustainable practices, the international community itself is not just greenwashing but also gaslighting the continuation of Israel’s human rights violations and war crimes. Israel’s allegedly “successful” implementation of the SDG’s serves as an offensive cover-up for their policy of genocide and environmental degradation, and also as state approval for the continuation of unsafe practices like toxic waste disposal in the West Bank. These Israeli efforts to destroy Palestinian land are destroying all the lands for all those in its midst, and eventually the toxic waste will be the last one standing.

Environmental Peacekeeping – the Future of Diplomacy?

We know that global warming is accelerating volatile weather and putting a strain on natural resources. But do we really know the true breadth of its implications? 

Environmental peacekeeping is a relatively nascent field, emerging at the start of the 21st century. It offers a new, ‘green’ lens for examining peacebuilding in conflict zones and is attracting the attention of practitioners and academics alike. This dynamic interdisciplinary field has huge practical value, exploring how environmental resources can empower and unite conflicting groups. Its exciting and inclusive approach is opening up new dialogues and fresh perspectives on conflict resolution. Although research into environmental peacekeeping still has further to go, it already implies that solving armed conflicts and the climate emergency go hand-in-hand and are by no means insurmountable. 

Extreme weather is particularly problematic in what is often referred to as the Global South. This is an appellation for some of the most economically poorer regions which were exploited by former colonial regimes and the neoliberalist systems persisting today. The countries which contribute the least to the Earth’s rising temperatures are disproportionately the most impacted by its effects. For instance, increasing drought frequency, water scarcity, illness and food insecurity; all threaten people’s livelihood and security, which in turn can cause disputes that become violent. 

Even if a conflict isn’t directly caused by the climate, it still disrupts humankind’s ability to depend on the natural world. The use of arms and weapons pollute the air, soil and water, often releasing hazardous substances. Failing to address these after-effects can aggravate human suffering for years after. During the gulf wars, Western forces used depleted uranium for their weapons. A by-product of this radioactive material was poisonous dust which, through wind, polluted agriculture and local waters. More recently it has been linked to rising cancer rates, highlighting how environmental justice is tied to human health. Meanwhile, Daesh has committed crimes against both humanity and the environment. It has targeted rural areas, including the irrigation wells of farmers. In Al-Faw, a city in Southern Iraq, many blame the water and farming problems on the felling of date trees by the military during the Iran-Iraq war. Society has to recognise the link between our environment and armed conflict, as well as how the climate emergency is increasingly influencing the nature of conflicts. Ecology is an inextricable aspect of our lives. It is not enough to alleviate the symptoms of conflict in the short-term, we need a diplomatic approach that is more durable, equitable and which tackles the root cause.

A peaceful and prosperous world can sometimes seem beyond reach. The recent failure of world leaders at COP26 to commit to keeping warming levels below 1.5C has further dampened hopes. Our survival, the future generation’s, and that of our planet are intertwined. It is dangerous for us to become complacent and dismiss the environmental challenges with which our planet is grappling. When it comes to mediating conflict, the environment isn’t usually at the top of peacebuilding agendas; instead, de-escalation, humanitarian relief, political reconciliation and economic redevelopment are prioritised. Without a shadow of a doubt, these are vital priorities. Nevertheless, conflict-resolution should additionally account for how our environment shapes our experiences and quality of life. There is a need for us to apply our understanding of the climate crisis to managing natural resources and post-conflict rebuilding. Long-lasting solutions which factor in our planet’s health can help us break cyclical patterns of violence. Enter: environmental peacekeeping. 

For example, in the Sundarbans forest, the largest mangrove forest in the world, we see nature can foster interreligious and interethnic harmony between India and Bangladesh. The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ‘Conservation of the Sundarbans’ to streamline cooperation on the management and conservation of resources, ecotourism and sustainable socio-economic development.

In southern Africa, Peace Parks integrate natural conservation, economics and politics. These parks help manage large protected areas and migratory species, as well as producing alternative sources of income. As such, they play an important role in addressing the conflicting economic interests of local inhabitants as well as environmental conservation. Cooperation in respect to shared natural resources can forge common bonds which prevent violence, especially in climate-vulnerable and conflict-sensitive areas.

Climate change ultimately fans the flames that can ignite conflicts. When ecological degradation disrupts people’s access to the basic necessities of life, it can push people to join terrorist or armed groups for an alternative source of income and ‘stability’. Recognising the causal role of the climate in certain conflicts will enable us to tackle it more effectively. Through environment-oriented diplomacy, we can heal our relationship with the natural world. By pushing for local, national and international governments and peacekeeping bodies to develop a conflict-resolution toolkit we can save lives and livelihoods. Some of us may be extraordinarily privileged not to be directly affected by Earth’s temperature rise at the moment, yet it would be wrong to dismiss the gravity of global heating. If we don’t act, our own children may end up waging wars for water, food and other commodities. While this may make grim reading, the principles of environmental peacekeeping give us much room for hope. 

Image credit : Unsplash

Deeds, not words: Delhi gasps for breath

Delhi’s Air Quality Index (AQI) was recorded at 400 units in October 2021, which is considered severe as per the scale developed by the Central Pollution Control Board. It is one of the most polluted cities in the world. Over the past few years, the discussion has centred on the health issues of its 30 million residents. Medical experts are clear: poor air quality leads to a number of respiratory problems, especially among the most vulnerable – children and the elderly. Dust particles from stubble burning in the farmlands of neighbouring Punjab and Haryana flow towards Delhi with a push from the North-western winds. This report by Vox explains the problem in detail and raises questions on the environmental importance of efficient agricultural practices. This continued issue highlights a critical lack of coordination between the state-level and central governments which is directly impacting the quality of life for Delhi residents.  

The Supreme Court of India had to step in to force the governments to chart a long-term plan to reduce the AQI. As a result, the Central Government has been ordered to devise an emergency plan in consultation with the Delhi and neighbouring states’ governments. The court heard the matter of Delhi’s pollution for the third time in 2021 alone and stated that ad hoc measures will not work to curb this problem. The court was responding to a petition filed by an 18-year-old environmental activist, Aditya Dubey who is seeking judicial intervention for measures to control worsening air quality in the city.

In response, the Delhi State Government introduced a 5 point plan to curb air pollution. The plan identified four key sources of air pollution and proposed solutions such as an anti-dust campaign, water sprinkling across areas with high dust emission, a ban on diesel generator sets, stopping open-burning of waste at landfills and spraying the bio-decomposer solution on 4000 acres of farmland within Delhi. It also proposed measures under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), such as banning coal furnaces, a key contributor to the city’s air pollution. Six of eleven coal powered plants in a 300 kilometres radius of Delhi have been temporarily shut and schools have been on a week-long leave as a part of the response. 
While these measures demonstrate an acknowledgement and an improvement in the response of the state government, they are not sufficient to address the critical issue which transcends state borders. The Delhi government has limited jurisdiction and is bound by geographical boundaries. The Central government must immediately intervene and, working with Delhi and surrounding state governments, generate a comprehensive and coherent emergency plan. Air pollution is an annual crisis for the city, making national and international headlines and impacting the health of an estimated 30 million people in the city. As the Supreme Court remarked, “This is the national capital. Look at the signal we are sending to the world”. It’s time for the Government of India to show leadership on reducing air pollution to protect the residents of Delhi and set an example for the rest of the country.

Photo Credit: Sajjad Hussain / AFP / Getty

The Myth of the “Eco-Terrorist”

“Eco-terrorists  and animal rights extremists are one of the most serious domestic terrorism threats in the U.S. today”. These words are found in a 2008 FBI report on environmental extremism. Specifically, groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) were identified as the main culprits in a new kind of domestic terrorism: eco-terrorism. 

‘Eco-terrorism’ has been conceptualised as acts of violence carried out with the intent to disrupt or prevent activities considered harmful to the environment. The ALF, ELF and various small and loosely organised environmentalist groups were responsible for a string of arson attacks in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Today, the perceived threat from environmental extremists is once again occupying the minds of those in power. 

How is it that these so-called ‘terrorists’ came to be thought of as one of the most serious domestic threats in the US, given that to this day these groups have never killed anyone? Homeland security agencies in the US and Europe were immensely concerned with any potential threats after 9/11 and saw these arson attacks as the beginning of a broader and far deadlier eco-terrorism campaign. The term ‘green scare’ was coined by environmentalist groups to describe this hysteria over eco-warriors. The phrase was used to draw a parallel with the ‘red scare’ of the 1950s in which the threat of communist infiltration was radically exaggerated and led to mass arrests. During this green scare, dozens of ALF/ELF members were arrested, and millions of dollars were spent on surveillance and prosecution. Eventually, these ‘eco-terrorists’ faded from the headlines, the attacks on property decreased, and homeland security agencies turned their attention elsewhere. 

But there has been renewed focus on these ‘eco-terrorists’. In 2018 a new group grabbed the headlines in the UK for their use of disruptive and headline-grabbing protest tactics: Extinction Rebellion (XR). XR and Youth Strike for Climate protests sprang up across the country, demanding that the climate crisis be taken seriously by those in power. This rattled the UK government. In 2020, the British counter-terrorism police branded XR as “an extremist ideology”. For a short time official police counter-terrorism documents listed XR next to neo-Nazi organisations such as the National Front. Addressing a police conference in September 2020, Home Secretary Priti Patel claimed that “XR poses a threat to the UK’s way of life”. Such rhetoric is redolent of the language used to discuss groups such as al-Qaeda, Islamic State or George Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’. The British government is clearly interested in framing XR and other environmentalist organisations as ideological extremists with the capacity for violence. But is this accurate? Is there a genuine possibility that the new terrorist threat will be from eco-terrorism?

In reality, environmentalism has been mainstreamed. The Youth Strike for Climate are mostly children, and while XR’s tactics are disruptive the average XR activist is hardly radical in their approach to environmentalism. In fact, XR has expended considerable energy in “depoliticising” environmentalism, by rejecting ideology, and framing the climate crisis as something “beyond politics”

It’s true that recently there has been something of a ‘call to arms’ for environmentalists to escalate their tactics. In his recent book How to Blow up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm believes now is the time to do precisely what his book title implies; turn to violence – specifically the destruction of private property. However, scholars working on extremism broadly agree that causing bodily harm or murder is fundamentally at odds with the ethics of environmentalism and that we’re unlikely to see this change in approach. 

It’s impossible to know what the future holds for environmental activism. Perhaps the violent elements of the environmentalist movement will remain on the fringe. Perhaps as the climate crisis becomes more desperate, so too will the tactics of those seeking to defend the natural world. For now, the ‘eco-terrorist’ remains a myth which authorities around the world deliberately propagate to avoid responding systematically to the climate crisis.

Picture link https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-holding-banner-2561628/