When The Ill Is Pimped As The Cure

When the Ill is Pimped as the Cure
An Anthropological Critique of Sustainable Development Ideologies as Applied to the Amazon Rainforest
Bachelor of Arts Thesis

Suzanne Nievaart e-mail: suzanne.nievaart@gmail.com Scriptie begeleiders: Dr. Gerd Baumann Drs. Beatrice Simon Cultural Anthropology and Sociology of Non-Western Societies University of Amsterdam 20-09-2006
Table of Contents
Introduction Death to Amazonia and Filling the Bellies of the Wealthy Development as the Ill and the Cure? The Sustainability of Poverty Blaming the Victim The Overpopulation of Overconsumers Whose Future is Sustainable? Maana, Maana Conclusion References Appendices A : Deforestation Rates in Amazonia B : Growth of Soy Planted Area in Brazil C : Soybean Imports and Exports D : Photos of Soybean Cultivation in Brazil E : Correlation Growth of GDP in Brazil and Amazon Deforestation F : Population Growth and Urbanization in Amazonia
2 4 10 13 17 19 23 24 29 32 42
Suzanne Nievaart
-1-
20/09/2006
Introduction
In a top-down approach to sustainable development, which is unfortunately the case in most projects, there is rarely consideration for what people on the ground, at the local level, want and need. What is the ideal of sustainability to them? Environmental and development agencies try to get around this problem by introducing the concept of so-called participation, but this does not fully place the power in the hands of the people directly. Rather, they are allowed to participate in the top-down scheme. How generous. Drawing from Persoon and van Est (2000), I will discuss an anthropology of the future as an alternative to this approach, to see what sustainability means at the local level. Throughout the literature on development in general and industrial agriculture in particular, social scientists and other critics signal symptoms of a sick system. It is aid gone awry, as unintended consequences of fighting poverty increasing poverty and environmental destruction appear because of exactly the same tools that caused poverty to begin with. These phenomena are found in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon is a prime example of this illness, where consumption patterns of the wealthy in Western Europe affect the daily lives and environment of the poor in Latin America. This case study has been widely discussed, yet the system with all its ills and effects continues and increases unabated today. Not only is it time for this suffering to end, it is time for those promoting this system to face up to its tragic consequences. In 1987, the Brundtland commission launched the term sustainable development into the international political arena (WCED 1987). Since then, it has formed a precedent for the neoliberal approach to developing populations, and planning their futures. Sustainable development is thus a continuation of the hegemonic development discourse and paradigm, which, according to Escobar (1995), disguises power relations. In the Brundtland report to the UN, Our Common Future, fighting poverty is deemed necessary in order to achieve sustainability, because poverty leads to unsustainable practices. Despite its shortcomings, as I will discuss in this thesis, this position has maintained its course into the UNs Millennium Development Goals. True, sustainability is impossible as long as there is poverty; however, the danger in emphasizing this fact is that actors of the neoliberal capitalist world market oversimplify it as poor people cause environmental problems. I will argue that this is a result of the concept of sustainability now being a part of the larger capitalist discourse of development. I will deconstruct this discourse, to show that the relationship between poverty and the environment is actually the reverse, as the poor are truly the victims of poverty as well as environmental problems. I will draw on Franks (1972) dependency theory of metropoles and satellites relations to explain these contexts, and I will
Suzanne Nievaart -220/09/2006
demonstrate that they are reproduced in the neoliberal free-trade system, which is the postmodern form of the capitalist world system of power relations, as analyzed by Wallerstein (1974). Among others, Estevas (1992) critique is that the development discourse perpetuates an attitude in which underdeveloped populations are inferior to developed populations, creating a detrimental approach to relations on both sides. Therefore, I shall use the term poverty to replace the term underdevelopment in Franks theory. According to Frank, poverty is generated by the same historical process that generated the development of capitalism itself. Therefore, I will look at the cause of poverty, as being wealth accumulated in the world capitalist system of the metropoles by appropriating natural resources of the satellites in order to accumulate material goods, as the root of environmental problems. Different actors of the sustainable development discourse live by different definitions of sustainability. Their respective definitions allow them to act in various contradictory ways. Their perceptions of the Amazonian rainforest most often differ from its inhabitants. Therein I suggest that the maana philosophy in Latin America is a concept for sustainability. To be clear, the maana attitude is not one of laziness, but rather one of non-stress. How does this concept of the future relate to the concept of future generations in the Brundtland definition of sustainability? Poverty, like sustainability, is an endlessly contested concept throughout development studies. I will not define it according to any statistically derived formula, such as the World Bank and the UN attempt with their GDP measurements or dollar-a-day pleas. Instead, its definition in itself is part of the ill instead of the cure. The labelling of people as being poor by the Brazilian government, local or international NGOs, development programs and projects, perpetuates judgments of their inferiority, ignorance and insufficiency, which the people themselves often then internalize as if these were their inherent characteristics (see ScheperHughes 1992). Who defines poverty and what this implies certainly depends on whose interests this represents, and the different definitions create tensions between these different actors, much like the sustainability concept. Do the poor see themselves as such, and if so, is this because others imposed it? These are questions that anthropologists would want answered in any study of poverty. Therein, poverty has multiple dimensions: economic, cultural and ecological. This said, in this thesis I will focus on those Brazilians that have found themselves victims of a system that deprives them of their economic and/or ecological means to survive. In their struggle to gain economic capital for survival, they are blamed for depleting the ecological capital of the commons, as is evident in the case of soybean cultivation in the Brazilian Amazon. In Amazonia, the poor are not often able to fuel their fires for cooking with anything other than the young trees, and therefore receive the blame for deforestation. Meanwhile, large logging companies and agrochemical companies are
destroying the bulk of the forest, in the name of development, whereby the ill is peddled as the cure (Hall 1989: 234).
Death to Amazonia and Filling the Bellies of the Wealthy

One of the big problems with Latin America has been that relations among the countries, even among regions within the countries, have largely been broken and they have individually been related to, and hence dependent on, foreign imperial powers (Chomsky 1999: 99).
In 1988, when the rubber tapper cum activist Chico Mendes was assassinated, the world went in uproar, and for the first time, became aware of Amazonia (Cleary 1991: 117). Since then, throughout the nineties, Brazil was reified in the popular imagination as the place where theyre burning all the forests (Cleary 1991: 116). Even now, for the past five years, I have repeatedly received chain protest e-mails in my inbox from concerned friends, to stop deforestation in Brazils Amazon rainforest. Amazonia is the icon of the environmental movement as the lung of the earth, and Chico Mendes represents a turning point in the global consciousness of environmental issues (Perz 2002). For the past twenty years, people around the world are concerned about the forest, even though it is very far from their homes. It has been the source of heated political debate and formed the stage for many of Brazils policies. Deforestation, however, still continues today, and does not seem to have a tendency of stopping anytime soon. Amazonia is seen by environmentalists as important in terms of carbon sequestration, absorbing some of the increasing quantity of carbon man is pouring in the air largely due to the burning of fossil fuels by automobiles, factories and electric generatorsIts preservation is therefore crucial for moderating global warming, probably also in regulating global weather systems (Bilsborrow 1997: 6-7). Since the 1970s, it has become apparent that Brazils tropical forest has been under a massive transformation due to deforestation (Bilsborrow 1997: 9). See Appendix A for a graph showing the increasing deforestation rate since 1978. To understand the recent and pending developments, it is useful, despite the risks of selective historical summaries, to sketch here the main outlines of the changing politics of the agroindusty as it pertains to the Brazilian case. The role of Amazonia in Brazils national economy has historically been that of an extractive periphery in the world system, a region of rich natural resources that were exported for processing elsewhere (Perz 2002: 45). Wealth as the cause of poverty is imbedded in Brazils historical colonial context of slavery and discrimination. Since the European invasion of the Americas, wealthy elites have exploited the native and African populations, while enjoying European lifestyles. However, the large foreign companies dominated the market in the end, through the open veins of Latin
America (Galeano 1973). Historically, Amazonia itself was a project for development. From the 16th Century onwards, the perception of Amazonia was of an empty space, ripe for development (Cleary 1991: 120). After 1970, the Brazilian government further intensified this scheme, entailing deforestation and human resettlement, and set the tone for the proceeding decennia of socio-economic as well as ecological transformations, which in turn, placed Amazonia on the international political and popular environmental agenda (Ibid.). At the same time, the oil crisis propelled Brazil into a debt crisis (Rist 1997: 122). In a battle for power, higher loans than were needed were given to Latin American countries frivolously by U.S. investors, to ensure their loyalty to the U.S., so that they would not join the Reds by receiving loans from the Soviet Union during the Cold War (Hertz 2004: 26). These loans, in turn, were often spent unwisely on arms, exports, large industry etc., while only a small percentage went to schools and hospitals, meanwhile improving the banks image as a donor (Hertz 2004: 46). Lending from commercial banks, as interest on interest is collected, the business of debts results in the lenders earning while the borrowers lose; it is a pure commercial trade-off. Large industrial projects like the Green Revolution accelerated the widening gap between rich and poor, reinforcing processes of inclusion and exclusion throughout the region. While the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased, only the wealthy elite benefited and the poor became marginalized, forced into squatting land and clearing the Amazonian forest for survival (Leonel 1992). This form of internal colonialism wishes to dispose of Amazonia in three ways: consume it, export it, and get rid of the landless and other marginalized people by settling them there (Leonel 1992: 9). After the Brady Plan of 1989, with the goal to eliminate global debt, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank became the guarantors of 80% of these debts, whereby they implemented their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for repayments (Stiglitz 2002). This name was given for a set of deregulation and free-trade policies to increase Latin American export production and open the market for multinationals by privatizing public services, which led to increased social polarization and poverty. Debtor countries had to accept IMF and World Bank ever more intrusive control over their internal economic policiesBut developing countries were by now in no position to argue (Hertz 2004: 71). In this stage of capitalism, writes Klein, the commons are for sale, where fences create a global security state instead of a global village, protecting the haves from the have-nots (2002: XX, see also Stiglitz 2002). This is echoed by Sachs (1999) and simultaneously Radermachers (2004) notion of global apartheid based on class. There are countless accounts of devastation due to the SAPs of the IMF and the World Bank (George 1997; Hertz 2004; Klein 2002; Chomsky 1999, and Stiglitz 2002). In Latin America, this has led to accelerated deforestation, mass migrations, deepening poverty, expanded drugs trade,
leading to global instability and conflict (George 1997: 207). Since the SAPs, the debt service outweighs received development and aid funding (Poppema 2004). Therefore, it is apparent that the ideology of development pretends to be a self-evident truth, but in fact it is merely a self-justifying construct (Burgess 1996: 134), and so the ill is prescribed as the cure. In 1990, President Bush Sr. presented the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative as a solution to the debt burden, although this supported the interest of the neoliberals, by implementing a free market system (OBrien 1991: 35). This free market system, some would argue, reinforces inequality in an unethical manner (Giddens 2000): Business ethics exalts the will to power and egoism, and scorns the weak and the losers. It falls back glibly into Social Darwinism when it is caught red-handed. Too bad for the losers! (Latouche 1997: 139). Free trade was solely designed in economic terms, there was no consideration for the environment, despite the international criticism Brazil was receiving for the destruction of Amazonia. Brazils foreign debt, therefore, is widely seen as a leading cause of deforestation in Amazonia. Large-scale industrial development programmes designed to repay foreign debt, such as the Grande Carajs Programme, increased land clearing for highway construction, agriculture, logging, mining and oil and gas extraction (Cleary 1991: 121-128, see also Treece 1993: 62, and Hall 1989). Although debt-for-nature programmes, which were designed to protect the forest, were also popular during this time, they were a powerful symbol of external interference in domestic Brazilian affairs, which furthered Brazils dependence on foreign investors (Cleary 1991: 134). Thus, both poverty and environmental destruction are directly linked to the ongoing debt crisis and the neoliberal structural adjustment programs (Keen and Haynes 2000: 581).
In the 1990s, Brazilian agriculture contributed substantially to national economic growth and servicing of the national debt through the expansion of exports of processed goods in demand by international markets, particularly the European Community. Crucial to Brazils increased export earnings is the expansion in exports of soybeans, in part due to new production in Amazonia. This is one reason why multilateral banks, which receive funding from OECD countries, have been keen to make loans for infrastructure projects in Amazonia (Perz 2002: 47).
Recently, modern agriculture is the most wide-spread form of Amazonian colonization in Brazil. Appendix B shows the growth of soy planted area in Brazil from 1995 to 2003. It is in fact the modern food system and the mass consumption of the wealthy elite, which require so much agriculture, in the form of non-traditional products such as the soybean, which is used as food protein for livestock in Europe, recreating the so-called hamburger connection of the 1980s cattle-ranching (Redclift and Goodman 1991: 52). Appendix C demonstrates the direction of soya on the global market: Western Europe imports the majority of soybean products from Brazil. The modern commercial agricultural sector, which is considered one of
the technology sectors, is an unequal exchange on the global market. Farmers must import agricultural inputs, seeds, and machinery from corporations and receive very little in return for their agricultural products (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 70; Reis and Blanco 1997). The Green Revolution was a development programme exported as part of U.S. aid projects, as a comprehensive remedy intended to alleviate poverty and hunger and to increase technological and economic progress (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 69). It was first introduced in India in 1967, and due to its success, countries in Africa and Latin America soon followed. The Green Revolution was seen as the quickest means of generating the capital necessary to drive modernization and to feed the ever-growing and hungry populations of the Third World (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 69). It was chiefly a package of genetically modified seeds, agricultural machines, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation installations and agricultural equipment (de Souza Silva 1991: 87). Initially, these products were subsidized, and the farmers were promised high yields and a greater income for the cash crops destined for export. Of course, this appealed to the rural poor, but the following years the multinationals demanded a share of the profits, as they had patented the seeds, and the farmers were now charged for new seeds, forcing them into their corporate crop rotation cycle (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 70, Reis and Blanco 1997, and Stiglitz 2002: 32). The same phenomenon had already occurred in the United States, prior to the Green Revolution, which was a photocopy of this large-scale industrial agriculture meant to support the growing fast-food market (Schlosser 2001: 117-119). Thus, the Green Revolution principally created markets for the U.S., as the increased demand for products made there boosted the U.S. agroindustry, yet drained the rural economy of Brazil (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 69 and de Souza Silva 1991: 87). The cash crops were also destined for the modern food system that was designed in the U.S. in the 1940s and 1950s, during the so-called Fordist regime of post-war accumulation, increasing real wages and levels of personal consumption, during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, in the core industrial countries (Redclift and Goodman 1991: 49). This Fordist diet, based on the modern grains-livestock complex, however, is only enjoyed by the wealthy elite, or intended for export, such as the soybean production in Argentina and Brazil. The Green Revolution was not introduced into a social vacuum, and so it fell short of delivering encompassing relief to poverty and famine in developing nations (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 69). As small farmers became dependent on the agricultural inputs, their own food production was sidelined, creating a double dependence on imports (Ibid.). Due to North American and European protectionism, farmers in Brazil could not compete, as the prices they received for their products did not or barely covered the cost of their inputs, leaving them indebted (de Souza Silva 1991: 86, see also Roberts and Thanos 2003: 60). It also reinforced
and worsened the economic and social cleavages that have divided people for centuries leaving the poor to slip into marginality or wage laborer status (Roberts and Thanos 2003:69), reinforcing processes of inclusion and exclusion historically found in Brazilian society. Furthermore, Green Revolution agrochemical inputs and technologies have had devastating consequences for the environment. There is growing concern and mounting evidence of the dangers of pesticide use for both humans and the environment. Ironically, pests continue to destroy around 37 percent of the worlds agricultural products. In 1940, before the onset of the Green Revolution, pests caused the loss of 35-40 percent of all global agricultural production (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 70). Thus, Roberts and Thanos poignantly ask: If the percentage of crops lost to pests has remained invariable over the last sixty years, why have we remained committed to a pesticide-intensive development ideology? (Ibid.). See Appendix D for photographs illustrating soybean cultivation and pesticide use in Brazil. In numerous studies of the Brazilian Amazon, causes of deforestation coincide: Primarily, it is due to migration to Amazonia form the poverty-stricken poor Northeast and South in a government displacement program. Other crucial factors in deforestation are signalled as the opening of the forest by road construction starting in the 1960s, as well as large-scale development strategies, which in turn lead to more displacement and migration, land conflicts and violence. The poor resort to coping strategies to survive, such as moving to the cities where they end up in the misery of the favelas, or moving into the rainforest, which in turn, allows outsiders to blame them for slash-and-burn deforestation (Fearnside 1988; Perz 2002; Angelsen and Kaimowitz 1999; Fearnside et al 2004; and Schaeffer and Rodrigues 2005). The ultimate causes are usually the same the greed of outsiders and, to much lesser extent if at all, the needs of locals (Sponsel 1995: 265). Multinational companies, such as Monsanto/Cargill, financed the clearing of the forests, in order to sell their fertilizers, pesticides and other agrochemical products. Monsanto has even created a hybrid seed that will resist its own pesticide, named Roundup, promoting sales in both of its products (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 71). These seeds are called the Roundup Ready variety. Monsanto owns the patents of these soy seeds, therefore Monsanto will receive one percent of the sales earned on Roundup Ready soy crop being harvested and two percent of the sales of the fall crop, by producers in Brazil, under a new agreement (Baker and Small 2005). Roundup Ready soybeans were planted in Brazil in the period 2002-2003, while a moratorium was in effect (Altieri and Pengue 2006). After a seven year lobby by Monsanto (2005), Roundup Ready was finally approved by the Brazilian Government in 2005. Furthermore, multinationals such as Monsanto/Cargill have not only financed the clearing of the forest for agricultural land, they have also financed the construction of waterways, railway lines, and roads to bring inputs and take away produce, which led to
private investment in logging, mining, ranching and other environmentally destructive practices, which increase the classic causes of deforestation in Amazonia (Altieri and Pengue 2006, see also Redclift and Goodman 1991). Appendix A indicates the increase of deforestation along the major highways in Amazonia. There is also a large discussion concerning genetically modified seeds. Environmental activists and scientists warn against the inevitability of biodiversity destruction by biotechnology, as well as the plight of the poor due to patenting (Bickel and Dros 2003; Shiva 1993 and 1995). Yet, corporatists maintain that their Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are the solution to poverty and hunger, and are actually sustainable (Monsanto 2006; Griffin et al. 2005). They promise farmers increasing yields, improved protection from insects and disease; they promise consumers increasing quality and quantity of agricultural products; and they promise that conservation tillage methods actually benefit the environment (Ibid.). Soybean production not only contributes to displacement among small farmers and agricultural workers, which does not benefit them economically nor the forest ecologically, but their food security is also at stake. The soils that have been diverted to soybean for exports would previously support a sustainable form of diversified agriculture of beans, maize, fruits and vegetables, and now the farmers often buy their food from the supermarket, which imports it from So Paolo (Lutzenberger 1993: 88, see also Altieri and Pengue 2006). This is an ironic dualism (Hall 1989: 240), since traditionally farmers are producers of primary needs, which are exported to the city, not the other way around. This is the political nature of the economic coin: on one side is wealth, which cannot exist without the other side, which is poverty. This is, in turn, a result of the ideology of development, and the capitalist world system (Shiva 1993: 72, and Wallerstein 1974), wherein the ill is sold as the cure. In Brazil, between 1960 and 1990, the average per capita income increased, yet the number and proportion of poverty increased simultaneously, indicating a concentration of the GDP into the hands of a few wealthy and powerful elite (Barradough and Gimme 1995: 53). Meanwhile, agricultural production more than doubled, increasing more rapidly than the population, which would mean that the entire population should technically have had more than enough to eat, but in reality, the surplus was exported and hunger was widespread among the rural poor, whereby the cure of development became the ill(Ibid.). As Brazils GDP increased, deforestation increased, implying a direct correlation between this exportoriented ideology of development and environmental destruction, as illustrated in Appendix E. The history of development and thus deforestation in Amazonia lies precisely in the fact that for several centuries Amazonia was more linked to the world market than to the heartland of the countries to which it belonged (Pansters 1992: 7). Top-down, homogenous, universalistic development schemes proved inadequate, as they do not allow for diversity on
the ground (Escobar 1995). I will now turn to an analysis and critique of the capitalist discourse of development to explain the ideological and historical context of this case study.
Development as the Ill and the Cure?

By imposing such a huge transfer of resources from Latin America to the West, and by insisting that Latin America should increase exports come hell or high water to pay the interest on the debt, the creditors had accelerated the destruction of Latin Americas environment, pushed the poor into even greater poverty, and created the conditions for social and economic collapse rather than sustainable development (OBrien 1991: 36).
The capitalist development discourse is a hegemonic, ideological paradigm. It is hegemonic in its prescriptions, replicating its projects throughout the world, and its modernisation assumptions rest on a scientific-rational ideology inherited from enlightenment thinking (Shiva 1993). Development itself is the problem, yet it is sold as the solution. Neo-Marxist Frank (1972) proposed that the underdevelopment of the satellites is part of the same historical process of economic development in the metropoles: the development of capitalism itself. It has an exploitative power relationship and class structure, originating in colonization, replicated in imperialism and is being reinforced by free trade and the global world market today (Shanin 1997). The satellites, in this case Amazonia, are dependant on the metropoles, such as So Paulo, for trade and manufactured goods, whereas the satellites are economically subordinated to provide the wealthy elite in the metropoles with raw materials and labour in order to produce the export products for the luxurious metropoles, which results in wealth flowing in one direction, leaving those producing that wealth in poverty. In each moment of exchange, the wealthy metropoles gain more wealth, as the satellites are depleted, economically, socially and environmentally, whereby they become doubly dependent on the metropoles for survival. Such a resource that is appropriated by the metropoles is land, and land in Amazonia has historically been a reason for strife and conflict. Small farmers and rural workers have continually been displaced to make way for development projects, and migration for seasonal employment has increased as a result, which has often led to violence and impoverishment (Redclift and Goodman 1991: 53-54). Every act of development involves, of necessity, an act of destruction (Appell in Sponsel 1995: 269). Wallerstein (1974) echoes Franks thesis in his modern world system (capitalism) and replaces the names of metropoles and satellites with the names core and periphery. Wallerstein sees capitalism as an ideology, which inherently produces private wealth and public poverty. The history of Brazil is, according to Frank, the clearest case of the development of underdevelopment or the development of poverty: the metropoles develop while the satellites underdevelop and their poverty increases. Frank demonstrated that when the ties
Suzanne Nievaart - 10 20/09/2006
to the metropoles are weak, the satellites develop more, which is opposite to the common hypotheses of development at the time, and todays myth of the trickle down effect (Latouche 1997). The capitalist system itself, Frank showed, has meant uneven development throughout history, wherefore inequality between the satellites and metropoles are the necessary foundations of this system. The Marxist theorist Frank therefore proposed a socialist revolution for Latin America. This revolution, however, did not quite materialize in the way he had hoped. Since the 1980s, Reagan and Thatcher style free trade and neoliberal policies took the upper hand, reinforcing the metropole-satellite exploitation (Stiglitz 2002: 13). This outcome was due to unsurpassable foreign competition, the promotion of an exportoriented economy instead of self-sustenance, and progressive income inequality, which induced the soybean production in Amazonia. These are the results of transactions framed by uneven power structures (Goldsmith 1996[1]). This is a virtual repetition of the style of free trade that was introduced at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the latifundia replicated the capitalist colonial formation of the rural class structure and mode of production in Latin America: a few large, mainly foreign landowners, and many exploited labourers producing monoculture exports, repatriated for the foreign markets of the metropoles. This is a process that continues today with the soybean cultivation in Brazil, victimizing the poor and further depleting Amazonian rainforest. It is mainly U.S.-based multinational corporations that receive the largest profits, which Johnson (1972) noted was apparent in the 1950s, and continues today (Khor 1996; Reis and Blanco 1997) as a form of corporate colonialism (Goldsmith 1996[2]). The emergence of giant corporations from the U.S., reinforcing their hegemony in the world market, replaces the dominance of European colonial power through the monopoly of capital (Rist 1997: 111), such as Monsantos system of total control on food (RFSTE 2004). As foreign debt is added to the mix, this system of power relations is a modern version of imperialism. In order to produce for export, foreign debt was accumulated. In order to service this debt, new loans were taken out. And, in order to repay the loans, export production is increased, for which more loans are needed, and so continues the vicious cycle (Hertz 2004 and Morris 1996), the ill repeatedly peddled as the cure. Although Frank and Wallerstein have been criticized by post-development theorists in the 1990s as unable to deliver actual solutions to the problems they posed, Franks hypotheses and the dependentistas theories were very progressive for their time. They rejected Rostows ideal-typical stages of development as a-historical, which was a model on which most of his peers based their development theories. However, post-development critics are quick to point out that the dependencia school does not challenge the basic presuppositions of development itself, which comes down to the idea that growth is necessary to gain access to the Western mode of consumption (Rist 1997: 121). Rist
suggests the center-periphery theory is just another variant of the dichotomy of tradition and modernity (Ibid.). Sachs refutes the idea that the metropole-satellite division of the world can be overcome by accelerating the course along the racetrack of development (1997: 296), which is suggested by the dependentistas ideas of underdevelopment: the development of the satellites was being blocked (Rist 1997: 120). Trumans post World War II speech is signalled throughout the literature as a turning point for progress to become development, turning global poverty into a problem and the focus of attention: a project for the wealthy to solve, as the poverty of the Other two-thirds of the worlds population posed a threat to the security of the wealthy (Sachs 1996). However, development further deepened poverty and social unrest, which we can still see today, in the reactionary terrorism against super-powers the United States and the United Kingdom. Again, the ill is promoted as the cure.
By 1955 a discourse had emerged which was characterized not by a unified object but by the formation of a vast number of objects and strategies; not by new knowledge but by the systematic inclusion of new objects under its domain. The most important exclusion, however, was and continues to be what development was supposed to be all about: people (Escobar 2002: 86).
The 1975 UN Report What Now proposed Another Development in response to criticism of the universalistic, photocopy type of development models, and the one-size-fits-all approach of the 1960s (Rist 1997: 155, and Stiglitz 2002: 34). Around the same time, the basic needs approach was launched by the World Banks president Robert McNamara in 1972 (Rist 1997: 160). Both these alternatives merely promoted more development assistance, as the idea of fulfilling essential human needs of food, clothing and shelter was certainly not new in development projects. Yet, the World Bank continued to support large-scale development projects of outside interference instead of the local, grassroots level (Rist 1997 163-164). Development, as an ideology and paradigm, has been widely criticized as a patriarchal form of (neo)colonialism, imperialism, racism, intervention, domination, power, and control (Rahnema 1997, Burgess 1996, Escobar 1995, Goldsmith 1996[2], Shiva 1993). As a concept, it is derived from the history of the teleological belief in and idea of progress, from the Industrial Revolution, to urbanization, to colonisation, to modernization, and echoes through the still-pervasive temple of economic growth (Castles 2000 and Shanin 1997). Post-development theorists thus look to think outside the box of the ideology of progress in order to find an alternative approach to poverty. This approach looks beyond the economic dimension and linear thought. Illich (1997) compares economic development to Coca-Cola, as a package deal consumption form of education that is exported from the metropoles to the satellites as if that were the key to prosperity and happiness, when it is,
like Coca-Cola, truly all marketing, with no actual nutritional value. This also rings true for soya: it deprives Brazilians of their food security yet fattens the bellies of the wealthy in Western Europe. Yet, post-development theorists do not truly present an alternative paradigm. They criticise the idea of development but fail to stop talking about the world as divided by these two categories: the developed and the underdeveloped. Although they may be given different names, the dichotomy remains, and implies that those that are to be developed are inferior to those that are already developed. The 1980s were coined the lost decade, because this period proved to be a failure for economic development. In reaction to the lost decade, but nonetheless continuing in the logic of modernity, the UN launched the fashionable Human Development Index, which adds a humanitarian gloss to the ethnocentrism of the all-important growth of the GDP as a sign of progress and economic development (Latouche 1997). Today, Brazil is the second largest exporter of soya, which raises its GDP significantly. This reinstates the famous trickle down effect, although uncovered as a myth and a paradox by the post-development theorists that began with Illich as early as the late 1960s (Rahnema 1997: xiv), yet it is reiterated by those promoting the concepts of social development and sustainable development today. Even the UNs Millennium Development Goals still promote the same package deals of education, health and infrastructure of the 1980s (Escobar 2002). The development myth all sell or promote images of a better future for our children, while in fact their operations are doing these people and their children out of their very livelihoods (Burgess 1996: 138). This issue pertains to the food security that is lost for the Brazilians due to the soybean cultivation. However, despite the Club of Rome report in 1975, the limits to growth are still not taken seriously (Tellegen 2006). The concentration of wealth in the metropoles is today still not addressed as the biggest problem, which is in fact what reinforces poverty in the satellites (Poppema 2004). Thus, there is no paradigm shift - as promoters of alternative development would assume - they are still working within the same economic model (Nederveen Pieterse 1998). In the next section, I will demonstrate that sustainable development is therefore a reiteration of the development discourse.
The Sustainability of Poverty

It is also clear that the drive towards environmentally sustainable development is a commercial necessity, in order to maintain the marketability and attractiveness of this commodity. More noticeable is the way in which much, if not all, the discussion bypasses the interests of local people (Mowforth and Munt 2003: 275).
Since there has not been a paradigm shift, the definitions of sustainability and sustainable development are highly contested, as the Brundtland definition was initially vague and open to interpretation, and therefore commodified within the different development discourses, by
its promoters (Mowforth and Munt 2003; Gasper 1996). There is considerable confusion surrounding what is to be sustained (Redclift 2005: 214). As a result, they have become buzzwords and have lost their original meaning that was intended by the WCED. Nowadays, in the intention to popularize development, there is even talk of pimping poverty, using MTVjargon to make poverty sexy (Plug 2006). Using the term pimp in this context adds another dimension to the already known concept of the controversial poverty pimps posing as aid workers, which are discussed in the literature. The term poverty pimp is defined as a derogatory label for an individual or group which, to its own benefit, acts as an intermediary on behalf of the poorPoverty pimps gain a higher quality of existence from exploiting the poverty of others (Loughner 2005). Pimping poverty in development programs, is poverty packaged and sold as hype, so that young people become involved to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (Ad hoc 2005), or in cancelling debt such as the Live8 campaign, with all its pop-star sex appeal (Plug 2006). In this way poverty is presented as a fashion craze, promising those that join the bandwagon some quick and easy feel-good values. Because poverty as a problem has existed for so long (since Truman), and only seems to be increasing, the fight has lost its momentum, so that people would prefer to make a difference without it being too complicated: sending a text message via mobile phone or wearing a white plastic bracelet (Plug 2006), instead of looking at the behaviour in their own daily lives as a contribution to the solution. This may be a result of individualization trends that Marx (1932) signalled as alienation due to the capitalist division of labour. Sustainable development marketers thus encourage people to fight poverty, like many quick-fix pharmaceutical drugs, they are fighting the symptoms of a sick system, and not curing what causes the illness to begin with: development itself, whereby the ill is prescribed as the cure, so that the war on poverty is ultimately a paradox (Loungani 2003, see also www.povertyfighters.com). Therefore, neoliberal leaders have taken these terms and applied them to the advantage of their own agendas, adding yet another dimension to the term pimping. Their applications are either a form of green-washing or enable the continuation of the free-trade approach to capitalist development, such as the debt-for-nature swaps applied to Amazonia. For example, Friedmans (2005) level playing field theory is based on the equality of all people, assuming the poor have the same opportunities for economic gain or environmental preservation as the wealthy elites. However, such as demonstrated by Frank (1972), the creation of this system reinforces the metropole-satellite exploitation, thus the neoliberals are pimping the ill as if it were the cure. Named the greening of capitalism (Smith 2002: 173), sustainable development was proposed as an answer to the accelerating environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s; the Club of Romes publication, Limits to Growth, which recognized the environmental
problems of development; and in turn, civil societys pressure on governments and businesses to pay attention to environmental issues in resource-rich satellites which have been exhaustively exploited since Trumans call for economic development of these underdeveloped areas in 1946 (Tellegen 2006 and Sachs 1996). Thus, the collision between development and environment led to theories on sustainable development (Holland 2002: 185), and paradoxically made Amazonia a site for both increased GDP and environmental concern. The famous Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, called for the global need to develop sustainably, for the survival of future generations. The report signalled the link between poverty and environmental degradation, yet most environmentalists and postdevelopmentalists see development as the ill rather than the cure for both poverty and the environment (Sachs 1996, 1997 and 1999; Rist 1997; Shiva 1995; Burgess 1996; Daly 1996, among others). Although the report names poverty as the cause and effect of global environmental problems (WCED 1987:3), there is no reference to a solution that addresses both problems simultaneously. According to Rist, the report and the commission hardly presented anything that would encourage the industrial countries to make basic changes in their consumption pattern (Rist, 1997:181). The main contradiction in the report is that the growth policy supposed to reduce poverty and stabilize the ecosystem hardly differs at all from the policy which historically opened the gulf between rich and poor and placed the environment in danger (Rist, 1997:181). The essentialist Brundtland definition of sustainable development allows for neoliberals to blame the poor for environmental destruction. Since this report, it has been easy for developmentalists to use it as a crutch to increase economic development programs similar to the past fifty years, under the banner of sustainable growth (Daly 1996). Thus, most sustainable development approaches continue to employ patriarchal, technocratic and ethnocentric top-down approaches of social planning (Escobar 1995 and 2002), even while introducing terms such as participation and the basic needs approach, they fail to address the power inequities that reproduce poverty and all its facets, such as a minimal priority to the environment or to sustainability, and a maximum profit for capitalists in the metropoles (Castles 2000). Participation is a case in point. How generous it is that the beneficiaries (Rahnema in Escobar 2002: 79) of these development projects may take part, that they were even asked, as if they are otherwise passive victims of oppression (Scott 1997). The poor are definitely victims of the system, yet they do have their own agency. In the MST movement in Brazil the landless poor squat unused agricultural land of large estates. After years of squatting and protests, the government courts often rule in their favour so they are given legal ownership of the land, which now provides many with self-sustenance (Hammond 1999).
Needs - assumed in the Brundtland definition, and the basic needs approach to development - is another term that is very suspicious. Whose needs are they, and who decides what their needs are? (Rahnema in Escobar 2002: 79, Moser 1995 and Sachs 1997). Furthermore, the needs themselves change, as future generations will certainly not have the same needs as we have today (Redclift 2005: 213). Similarly, needs are culturally defined, and therefore Redclift sees a syllogism emerge: sustainable development is necessary for all of us, but it may be defined differently in terms of each and every culture (Ibid.). Additionally, people often define their needs in ways that effectively exclude other peoples livelihoods, contributing to processes of inclusion and exclusion (Redclift 2005: 215, and Beckerman 1999: 83). Most of all, the Brundtland definition still emphasizes the need for development, which implies that economic growth shall continue to increase in the future, while Sachs (1999) and others plead to leave the economic model of development behind us, in order to achieve sustainability. Furthermore, connecting sustainability to development requires a compromise between ecology and economy, but most of its promoters tend to prioritize the economic dimension, leaving Amazonia up for grabs. Therefore, sustainable development remains an oxymoron (Redclift 2005). Wealth creation itself reinforces poverty and exploitation, whereby the economic vision excludes the majority of the worlds population. The poor are made into a problem, as they are not participating in the formal world economy, even though this group constitutes about 80% of all people (Sachs 1999: 30). Our Common Future is full of paradoxes. Its policy recommendations aim to please all parties, therefore each new page of the report contradicts the preceding page and vice versa. This most likely reflects the different interests of those in the WCED, so that the report remains vague and indefinite such as its policy recommendations and empirical evidence to support its base, in order not to imply or favour any one party in the process. This is both its strength and its weakness. Both environmentalists and developmentalists have their views represented and justified by the report, yet both are confronted by each others argumentation. This is representative of the reality of diverging interests. The concept of sustainable development itself is thus such a paradox, where the ill of development is pimped as the cure of sustainability. Since the concept of sustainability entered the political arena in 1987, it has passed into the everyday language of the politicians, and is consequently in danger of losing any real meaning (OBrien 1991: 24). Although every technocrat from the World Bank to the IMF, Monsanto, the UN Development Program (UNDP) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) are green-washing their image by promoting their projects as contributing to sustainable development or corporate social responsibility, there is a clear segregation between the environment and trade, agriculture, poverty and development policy. In freeSuzanne Nievaart - 16 20/09/2006
trade negotiations the environment is not a subject for negotiation; nor are environmental matters included in the text of the agreements (Goldsmith 1996 [1]: 90). This is most likely a result of the power of multinational corporations in such negotiations as NAFTA and GATT, and the undemocratic manner in which the agreements were created, sold, and passed (Nader and Wallach 1996: 92, see also Chomsky 1999: 90). Multinationals have certainly succeeded in the WTO, as their soya is now a major global commodity. Furthermore, the UNs Millennium Development Goals are not indicative of an acknowledgement that poverty, development and the environment are inextricably linked, as they are each presented in separate Goals, as separate problems, with separate solutions to fix them (UN 2000). Therefore, the Brundtland definition of sustainable development is usually interpreted as: the poor all need to do and be the same as the rich, yet this is ecologically unsustainable. However, there is an alternative movement, an amalgamation of post-sustainability (Redclift 2005: 219) discourses, in which this thesis is also situated: There is a huge number of people in the world probably the vast majority that is strongly opposed to the economic and social policies being carried out on a global scale (Chomsky 1999: 92). There are trends in Brazil showing that its society is indeed changing. Protests from the grass-roots, which started around the time of Chico Mendes in the 1980s, are successful in the MST movement (Landless Peoples Movement) and the first World Social Forum, which took place in Porto Alegre in 2001. The forum is now an annual event and continues to grow and multiply into regional forums throughout the world (FSM 2006). The forum was initiated by various local NGOs and calls for a radical form of local participatory democracy (Klein 2002: 202). At the forum, globalization was defined as a mass transfer of wealth and knowledge from public to private, and participants of the forum are looking to reverse this phenomenon (Klein 2002: 199). Similarly, I am looking to move the sustainable development discourse away from blaming the victim, as I will discuss next.
Blaming the Victim

As a matter of fact, it is the poor who suffer the most from the consequences of environmental degradation (Dahles & Keune 2002: 20).
Blaming the poor for environmental destruction is an oversimplification: the poor are in their position due to a complex web of broader socio-economic and political circumstances, deeply rooted in a history of inequality, oppression, racism and power relations beginning in colonialism, through industrialization, capitalism, modernization, post-war development, the oil crisis which spurred on the debt crisis, which in turn spurred on the SAPs, free trade, neoliberalism and multinational corporate domination. Therefore, the free market as it
Suzanne Nievaart
- 17 -
20/09/2006
appears today has produced severe consequences: deepening poverty, inequality and environmental depletion. Can we at least stop calling it free? (Klein 2002: 71). Anthropologist Scheper-Hughes (1992) shows that the wealthy elite in Northeast Brazil look down on the poverty and disease of the populations poorest citizens, who work at and around the sugarcane plantations. She demonstrates the result of the expression blaming the victim, wherein the victims receive the blame for the position in which they find themselves. The postcolonial power structures with a history of slavery keep this group repressed and in a vicious circle of poverty and illness. They are also suffering due to the environmental consequences of the sugarcane plantations: this monoculture makes it impossible to grow any other crops. Therefore, they are doubly dependant on the higher classes to provide them with food. Scheper-Hughes demonstrates the macro socio-economic context that determines the poverty, repression, powerlessness, and invisibility of the poor in Northeast Brazil. She pleads for an alternative view of poverty, one that steers clear of blaming the victim, in order to reveal the broader postcolonial capitalist system as the cause of poverty, and break through the culture of silence. The case study presented in this thesis is an example of the same phenomenon which Scheper-Hughes analyzed. It is a repetition of the same system, elsewhere in Brazil. The agribusiness of soybean production, as it is Brazils current leading export product, replaces the previous success of the sugar cane plantations. The poverty produced by this industry in the Northeast resulted in the migration to Amazonia, and those same peasants have in turn been displaced by the soybean production, forcing them to move into the rainforest for their livelihood, and thus contributing to unsustainable practices (Perz 2002; Angelsen and Kaimowitz 1999; Fearnside et al 2004; and Schaeffer and Rodrigues 2005). In the development discourse of the past 20 years, the finger is pointed at the underdeveloped populations as soon as the sustainability issue surfaces. The underlying implication of the concept of sustainable development is often that poverty, and thus poor people, cause environmental problems, instead of the poor being the actual victims. This blame is derived from an attitude of superiority prevalent in Brazil, which starts at the government level and is filtered down to the poor themselves (Rocco 2006 and Dek 2001). Due to their lack of formal education, they are seen as ignorant and this ignorance is seen as the reason that they pollute and destroy not because of their poverty. The roots of such extreme differences both in income and the quality of the environment go back to the origins of So Paulo and Brazilian society itself (Dek 2001: 1). The history of slavery on the plantations in Brazil during colonization set the tone for this inequality and discrimination (Scheper-Hughes 1992). Thus, the poor are blamed for their own poverty and every other problem that results from poverty, such as environmental destruction. This is literally blaming
the victim, which leads to a top-down form of environmental management, with disastrous consequences for the local peoples, such as depleted food security and displacement. This is illustrated in the birds-eye photograph of soybean cultivation in Amazonia on the cover. This form of blaming the victim is due to the assumptions found in the sustainable development discourse, which lead to its misinterpretation and abuse by actors in the neoliberal capitalist world market. Development implies economic progress, which, according to Sachs (1999), is detrimental to sustainability. Therefore, many of the development projects that have taken place in the past in Latin America have focused on economic development rather than environmental sustainability. The local people have been taught to work towards this form of progress, in total disregard of the environment, whether or not this was culturally valued originally, such as the culture of sustainability found in the maana philosophy, as will be discussed below. Simultaneously, the poor are oppressed in a culture of silence (Scheper Hughes 1992). Scheper-Hughes poignantly addresses silence on several levels to represent the oppression of the poor and marginalized by the privileged classes. Firstly, the systematic repression by the state and the elites, which results in a silence of the poor, that is necessary for their survival in such a political and economic climate. Secondly, she addresses the silence of these elites towards the suffering of the poor: they are necessarily marginalized and kept quiet in order to support their position of power. Generally poverty is defined negatively, as awful or terrible, as a dysfunction, and the poor are pitied and seen as outcasts, living on the fringe of society (Rahnema in Escobar 2002: 79). This view is derived from the concept of development, which historically meant progress and modernization in the post-World War II era from which it evolved. As Scheper-Hughes demonstrated, rarely are the poor seen as human beings with the same dignity as everyone else, forming their own social structures and working hard in order to survive. The poor most likely live much more sustainably in the periphery than the wealthy in the center. Their survival strategies - or maana attitude - most often include recycling and reusing materials and consuming a bare minimum as opposed to the over-consumption patterns of the elite (Shiva 1995). This overconsumption is the ill for the environment, whereas the cure is often marketed as population reduction strategies, which I will discuss now.
The Overpopulation of Overconsumers

only a small portion of the worlds resources serves the basic needs of the poor majoritywho sink deeper into the trough of poverty and destitution. This is the ultimate environmental and social tragedy of our time (Khor 1996: 54).
Suzanne Nievaart
- 19 -
20/09/2006
Environmental problems are not only blamed on the poor, but also because there are so many poor people. The population growth argument is based on Malthusian logic, and its advocates mathematical modelling equation of deforestation and population growth in Amazonia (see for example, Pfaff 1997 and Margalis 2004) lead them to argue that deforestation is an inevitable result of growing human populations. The FAO even concluded that population growth was the cause of deforestation globally (Skole and Chomentowski 1994: 3). However, urbanization has been on the increase at nearly the same rate of poverty (Redclift and Goodman 1991:63). Appendix F shows that population growth in Amazonia has actually decreased since 1980, and the majority live in urban areas, as opposed to rural areas, such as the rainforest. This population-deforestation rhetoric literally points the finger to the poorest populations, as they are most vulnerable to migration and simultaneously economically dependant on agricultural shifts and changes. They are at the same time victims of environmental degradation, as it determines their capacity for survival.
The focus on population as the cause of environmental destruction is erroneous at two levels: 1) it blames the victimsand 2) by failing to address economic insecurity and by denying rights to survival, the current policy prescriptions avoid the real problem. False perceptions lead to false solutions. As a result, environmental degradation, poverty creation, and population growth continue unabated, despite the billions of dollars spent on population control programmes (Shiva 1993: 285).
Thus, poverty as the cause of environmental problems is often linked to the problematic idea of overpopulation, so that deterring population growth (which predominantly takes place under the poor) by forced family planning is justified as an improvement for the environmental situation (Shiva 1993). The population growth argument is also derived from the concept of carrying capacity, which is a calculation of the maximum amount of humans possible to be carried in a given ecosystem, without it being depleted. Carrying capacity, in turn, is a cousin of the ecological footprint concept. This concept suggests that if all the worlds people were to live at current North American standards, and if the global population were to be 10 billion within the next century, we would require five earths to provide us with sufficient resources and enough space as a large enough sink for our waste (OCallaghan 1997). Yet it is the wealthy that have the largest footprints, and are therefore truly responsible for environmental degradation:
This focus on numbers disguises peoples unequal access to resources and the unequal environmental burden they place on the earth. In global termsa drastic decrease of population in the poorest areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America would make an environmental impact immeasurably less than a decrease of only five per cent in present consumption levels of the richest countries (Shiva 1993: 268).
Suzanne Nievaart
- 20 -
20/09/2006
These consumption levels, in turn, are related to the vast amounts of modernized agricultural schemes that are literally eating up the Brazilian Amazon, as well as perpetuating poverty (Keen and Haynes 2000: 579-580, see also Shiva 1993: 284). Galeano (1973) blasted the idea of population control in Latin America, pointing out that with a few exceptions population densities in Latin America are among the lowest in the world (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 77). Galeano attributes the popularity of population-based arguments to American squeamishness that masses of poor brown people will flow up the isthmus into the United States (Ibid.). The same reasoning can be applied to the large amounts of African migrants that are detained at the borders of Spain, trying to seek refuge in Europe. However, Many Latin Americans bristle at the idea that their numbers need to be controlled, seeing such arguments as patronizing and frightening especially when these arguments come from groups in the nation that acted for so long as Latin Americas colonial power The United States (Ibid.). I do not think that a depletion in the population growth will necessarily be an improvement for the environment, and I fear the way in which such a solution would be achieved, such as it was in China this past century, for example, or as is happening now in several parts of Asia (Shiva 1993). Shiva presents an alternative focus:
It might then well be more fruitful to directly address the roots of the problem: the exploitative world market system which produces poverty. Giving people rights and access to resources so that they can generate sustainable livelihoods is the only solution to environmental destruction and the population growth that accompanies it (Shiva 1993: 285).
Shiva discusses how the poor are blamed for having too many children. However, reproduction is often their only guarantee for their old age, as there is no welfare system to take care of them. Shiva poses that a sustainable livelihood would provide the alternative security that they need. Furthermore, she states that the over-consumption of the wealthy populations is truly the biggest factor in environmental destruction, and the solution lies in the depletion of this behaviour. Therefore, global overpopulation is only a problem as long as everyone behaves such as the capitalist elites of the metropoles. While they are overconsuming, they are gaining wealth in times of food shortage, it is therefore doubly in their interest to control food production, so that they may be fed luxuriously and reap the economic benefits simultaneously. It is, in turn, the poor of the satellites which are producing the food, yet becoming indebted in the process, due to the neoliberal promises of the level playing field. The overpopulation of these wealthy capitalist elites is what needs to be stopped, as keeping the poor in poverty is only lucrative for them, which is in the end, the sustainability of unsustainability, or the cure becoming the ill.
Looking at current trends on the global level, however, the combination of population growth in combination with economic growth is clearly unsustainable. Economic growth in its current form leads to overconsumption, and a rise in wealth leads to the consumption of animal products, wherefore large amounts of agricultural land are necessary, in the inefficient and intensive cattle ranching and the production of soybean products for their consumption. Meanwhile, the global levels of overweight people are on the rise (Reijnders 2006). Considering current trends, soybean production will most likely increase, as eighty percent of industrially processed foods now have soybeans in them (Shiva 2000: 28). Therefore, population growth implies agricultural growth, and hence environmental destruction, and a consequential loss in biodiversity and increase in methane emissions which furthers climate change, which, in turn, has negative consequences for agricultural production (Reijnders 2006:4). Ironically, there is a simultaneous increase in malnourishment, hunger and poverty worldwide, which signals a significant unequal and uneven development (Mowforth and Munt 2003): a global apartheid of the haves and the have-nots (Sachs 1999 and Radermacher 2004: 91), which is the furthest thing from sustainability. To realize the goals of sustainable development, it must be liberated from its embeddedness in the ideology and institutional parameters of capitalism (Fernando 2003: 590). Considering Shiva (1993) and Sachs (1999), let us move the focus away from poverty and overpopulation as environmental problems in policy making and development programmes. Instead, let us focus on development itself, as a neoliberalist, free-trade, capitalist form of globalization due to the greed and corruption of a few and the poverty and repression of the many, as the biggest problem for sustainability. It is the ill and not the cure, indeed. The World Bank and IMFs near mystical (Klein 2002: 12) faith in trickle-down economies have the tendency to emphasize that the poor are overusing resources, while I would question if it is not rather the eight per cent wealthy few that have a much larger ecological footprint than all the poor around the world, combined (Sachs 1999: 30). Ironically, survival strategies of the poor, including squatting land at the peripheries of the forest and using it as a resource for their basic needs, is seen as environmentally destructive, thus the poor receive the blame for their own predicament. Poor and marginalized people live where they do because of macro forces in the history, politics, and economies of whole regions. They have no other livelihood choices (Roberts and Thanos 2003: 67). Having no alternative is something believers of the level playing field do not seem to comprehend, as they drive to the golf course in their SUVs. Free-trade logic echoes Garrett Hardins (1974) life-boat ethics, wherein the poor put an unnecessary burden on the planets resources. This view, and the responses and strategies that emerge from it totally ignore the fact that the greatest pressure on the earths resources is not from large numbers
of poor people but from a small number of the worlds ever-consuming elite (Shiva 1993: 86). The worlds ever-consuming elite are producing money that produces ever more money, which the large numbers of poor people will never benefit from within the current free market paradigm. The processes of exploitation, exclusion and marginalization are well-known phenomena of the world capitalist system today, yet powerful players at the top, which are benefiting from this system, are not prepared to part with any of their wealth in order to redistribute it among the poor. Providing opportunities to those people they are exploiting would decrease their power, and diminish their comfortable positions. Such opportunities could be achieved by moving towards an emancipatory discourse for the poor, and in order to do this, I will first look at the role of anthropology in the sustainability debate.
Whose Future is Sustainable?

"Universal responsibility is the key to human survival." - The XIVth Dalai Lama
The ideal of sustainable development seemingly faired by all its contesters is a multidimensional concept in which a balance is sought between ecological, social and economic dimensions, and in practice, global inequality and poverty are eradicated in order for sustainability to be achieved. In reality, the dissolution of the world has local effects, wherefore large-scale projects such as soybean cultivation in Amazonia and other oversimplifications do not present local solutions (Grin 2004). Escobar warns that the Brundtland report propagates such strategies:
who is this we who knows what is best for the world as a whole? Once again, we find the familiar figure of the Western scientist turned manager...But can reality be managed? The concepts of planning and management embody the belief that social change can be engineered and directed, produced at will (1995: 193-194).
Scott (1998) demonstrates that these concepts are designed to standardize and simplify society in order for it to be legible, politically motivated for control, manipulation and centralized power. Scott illustrates that these utopian plans are products of short-term thinking instead of the continuous changes, complexities, diversity and variety of real life on the ground: Administrative man recognizes that the world he perceives is a drastically simplified model of the buzzing, blooming confusion that constitutes the real world (Scott 1998: 45). He concludes that in practice, these utopian designs are doomed to fail, because their simplicity undermines these elements of local reality. Thus, top-down methods often ignore the local circumstances, needs and desires of the targeted population. In these schemes, local populations and organizations are often seen as obstacles to progress (Castles 2000). The need to look and operate at the local level to promote the autonomy of the people themselves is signalled throughout the literature. There has indeed
been an increasing emphasis on local processes in the anti-globalisation movement since the 1990s, in the form of indigenous movements such as the Zapatistas and the revitalization of local knowledge and culture (Poppema 2004). Therefore, social scientists are called upon to undertake long-term research, with less focus on the people in society with positions of power, and more on the marginalized groups, to be able to recognize their problems, needs and desires. This is where anthropology comes in, and where development research has failed in the past. The new focus on sustainability and poverty demands a participatory approach to processes of change. This is ideally to give the marginalized a voice, and to gain deeper insight into specific environmental and social problems and their possible solutions, yet in practice it is often more of the same top-down strategies. Escobar (1997) recognized the value of local knowledge in the development of ecological concepts, although Fernando warns, that in practice, NGOs may abuse this knowledge to legitimize the very practices that they seek to transform (2003:54). Anthropologists strive to be wary of ethnocentrism, as the application of a universal scale to evaluate societies, such as the GDP, is irrelevant and a large obstacle for anthropologists whose goal it is to understand societies from within. The focus of development has often been named ethnocentric because of such measurements (Esteva 1992 and Escobar 1997). Esteva states that the concept of development itself implies a positive change, from inferior to superior, from worse to better, with individualism, technology, mass consumption and wealth at the top of the ladder (Esteva 1992 and Villa 2004). For twothirds of the world population, he points out, the concept of development, and therein its polar opposite underdevelopment, is a reminder of what they are not (Esteva 1992). Therefore, I would hope that anthropologists approach development, as well as sustainability critically, and problematize this ethnocentric premise. To turn this criticism into action, I will explore the concept of time, in particular the future, as a subject of anthropology for a meaningful contribution to the sustainability debate. Therein I will present maana as such a concept.
Maana, Maana
Youd think with all these things that are speeding things up for us and moving us along that wed get places earlier, or at least on timebut I dont have any more time, I have less time. - Ellen Degeneres
Maana is a well-know concept throughout Latin America, and this idea is one of sustainability. Leaving something for tomorrow, for ones children, for ones grandchildren, is as future-oriented as one can live on a daily basis. In Western Europe we have a lot more trouble living by an abstract notion of future generations and we can certainly learn from the
maana culture. If we were to perpetually live by this notion, the sustainability debate would no longer be up for discussion. Adopting a maana philosophy, by putting something off until tomorrow, can actually prevent environmental destruction today and preserve natural resources for tomorrow. The Brundtland definition of sustainable development, is unfortunately vague, and the idea of future generations itself is quite vague as well. At the ground level, it generally implies ones children, and perhaps ones grandchildren, as forty to sixty years is approximately what most people can fathom (Rademaker 2006). The environmental consequences to todays development, however, reach much further into the future. Just as there are different definitions and representations of sustainability, there are various time perspectives found in environmental and development projects. Concepts of time are seen both as universal and culturally defined. Time itself is perceived as objective, yet the interpretation of it as a concept can vary culturally, making its experience subjective, as a result of socialization (Gell 1992: 327). Durkheim sees time as one of the universal properties of thingslike the solid frame surrounding all thought (1915: 9), and that time exists for us because we are social beings, as one of the Kantian categories. Kant (1929) saw time and space as pure concepts of understanding. Durkheim (1915) and Leach (1961) both believed time to be an objective, universal category of cognition, although social time can be culturally constructed, according to a societys rituals or rhythms, or derived from ideology. Furthermore, the concept of time is bound up in language (use) and culturally defined and constructed, so that language is a prominent starting point for the anthropology of time (Gell 1992: 30). There is body time and clock time, literal and epochal time, linear and cyclical time (Munn 1992). The concept of time in the sustainable development paradigm is seen as a product in the capitalist system. Much like the growth philosophy, in the capitalist discourse, time is money, where material goods are produced faster and faster, representing the turnover time of capital, or the commodification of linear time (Munn 1992: 109, see also Meerloo 1970: 31-32) so that there may be more and more production in a shorter period of time to compete with the next capitalist, while interest on interest accumulated over time forces the indebted poor into a downward spiral. Simultaneously, such as Marx demonstrated, it is the cost of labour that is kept to a minimum in the process. Therefore, the capitalist system is not sustainable: the accumulation of wealth as quickly as possible by appropriating natural resources and exploiting the poor for their labour does not consider maana, and thus Brundtlands future generations. At the same time, acceleration cancels itself out: one arrives faster and faster at places at which one stays for ever shorter periods of time (Sachs 1997: 299), and therein the capitalist creates his own competition, and ultimately, the
inability to keep up with himself. This efficiency in capitalist modernization is representative of space and time being defined and represented by those in power, and shifts in tempo or spatial ordering can redistribute social power by changing the conditions of monetary gain, in turn, affecting social life (Harvey 1989: 229-232). Control over time is not just a strategy of interaction; it is also a medium of hierarchic power and governance (Munn 1992: 109). And yet today, this hurry, hurry, money, money is experienced as the rush to nowhere (Neville 2002: 25, and Swift 2002). This process prevailed in the de-industrialization process, the transition from Fordism to flexible accumulation, otherwise known as Post-Fordism (Harvey 1989: 284; Mowforth and Munt 2003). Thus time, speed and postmodernity are intertwined in the current capitalist world system, resulting in a time-space compression:
The annihilation of space through time has radically changed the commodity mix that enters into daily reproduction. Innumerable local food systems have been reorganized through their incorporation into global commodity exchange (Harvey 1989: 299).
This is illustrated by industrial agriculture in the form of soybean production in Brazil, which links the poor being blamed for deforestation in Amazonia to the steak on the dinner plates of wealthy Western Europeans. Some see this form of globalization as careening out of our control, a runaway world (Giddens 2000: 2), yet simultaneously in the control of fewer, wealthy and powerful elite: diminishing spatial barriers give capitalists the power to exploit minute spatial differentiations to good effect (Harvey 1989: 294). This acceleration of change is used as an excuse to legitimize our blindness to the future or to claim that the future is unthinkable (Bind 2002: 42). There are many ways to comprehend the future: commitments in a schedule, future markets, insurance, future technology, (linear) calendars (Judge 2002: 15). However, the future is actually the past and present repeating itself. For the Zinacanteco, descendants of the Mayas in Mexico, the ancestors control/are the future. Therefore, the past becomes the future in the present belief. In this system, the future has already been determined by the ancestors. There is no need for concern with the future because the future will always be the present (Gifford 1978: 278). And so we will be the ancestors in the future, for the future is made up of the past and the present. The much utilized term future generations is one of the fashionable buzz words in global conversations (Judge 2002: 13). Although the concept of generation is an essentially biological organization of time (Judge 2002: 16), it is culturally constructed, essentially a fiction (Needham in Gell 1992: 17). It is understood in different cultural contexts as 14 years, 33 years, lived cycles of experience, or the wheel of life for some Eastern religions (Judge 2002: 20). The evolution of the dimension of time in human consciousness is a timescape
(Holland 2002: 181). The term timescape is a term that emphasizes the rhythmicities, timings and tempos of past and present activities and the interactions of organisms and matter, including their changes and contingencies (Adam 1998 in Persoon and van Est 2000: 21). An active timescape is projected time that will influence actions But rarely, if ever, do people live by an active future timescape of more than a generation or two. (Holland 2002: 182). Therefore, a generation of 14 years is a very limited timescape (Holland 2002: 183). Sustainability seems to be a term (ab)used by NGOs, politicians and academics and is seldom used by the people whose future sustainable development plans affect (Simon 2006). Yet, people always speak of their future, the future of their village, and their childrens future (Ibid.). Thus, there is a large gap between these plans, often at the macro level, and what actually occurs at the micro level (Ibid., and Calvert and Calvert 1999). At the macro level, sustainability most often refers to the conservation of natural resources for future generations. At the micro level, people are most affected by past policies: the generations of today and tomorrow are responsible for repaying the debts incurred by past generations. An ideal of sustainability is a concern for future generations, which is an active future timescape, which can be interpreted as posterity: my childs childs childs child (Holland 2002: 182). Sustainability is therefore giving time to the future generations, and unsustainability is stealing time from them. In the example of soybean agriculture in Brazil, there were high yield returns to begin with, which produced quick economic growth in the present (which is now the past), yet in the long run there is widespread debt, poverty, and environmental depletion for the future, which is already present now (in the present). However,
the future is often absent as a topic for discussion with informantsAnthropologists, moreover, have not been trained in this kind of reflectiononce they have returned from the field anthropologists often feel pressed to make statements about the future of the people they have studied. That is why these reflections often reveal highly personal opinions and lack empirical evidence (Persoon and van Est 2000: 16).
Persoon and van Est attest that there is a lack of focus on the future, and predominance of focus on the past in anthropology. Therefore, anthropology to date has worked with a linear perception of time, refusing to predict an unknown future, nor to perceive their informants view of the future as empirical fact; albeit a few rare case studies (see, for example, Simon 2006). I suggest that this is due to the rational, enlightenment heritage of science, and thus the disciplines struggle to prove itself as scientific (Shanin 1997: 65). This scientific-realist paradigm in turn creates a distance between the expert researcher and their informants, which requires a Freirian (1970) dialogical relationship or a postmodern collaborative approach (Pink 2001) to reflexive ethnographic fieldwork, which is a reaction to the colonial history of the discipline:
most anthropological field research is conceived, designed, and after implementation, analyzed, reported, and published solely within the framework of academia. During the entire research process there is little, if any, consideration of the interests, priorities, problems, and issues for the local indigenous community in which the anthropologist is privileged to live and work (Sponsel 1995: 276).
In the meantime, the subscription to the idea of progress in the social sciences has contributed to modernization theories, strategies of development and programmes of growth, which are all future-oriented (Shanin 1997: 68). At the same time, development bureaucracies, both national and international agencies, with their multiple aims and internal contradictions, have different time perspectives. These perspectives are organized predominantly around a two to five year project cycle, repeated again and again, while reflecting the changes in development discourseThe time perspectives of development bureaucracies are in many ways closely related to the rise and fall of politicians or political parties (Persoon and van Est 2000: 20). Yet, consideration of the cyclical concept of time (which is common in indigenous belief systems as well as most major religions, which Leach (1961) demonstrated) will allow for a notion of the future as one of sustainability. An example is the circular relationships of the Ojibway seven generations, past and future: everything that the people did today would have repercussions for tomorrow and for their own survival and the survival of future generations and such thought was passed down from their ancestors (Clarkson et al. 1997: 49). There are scientific models that predict or prescribe the future of a population or society, echoing the grand utopian schemes of high modernism, upheld on the belief that society can be orchestrated by a top-down management plan often designed and written far from the actual location which it concerns. Scott (1998) demonstrates that these schemes have failed, yet ecologists persist in creating similar models of the future concerning ecosystems, which I would assume is even less predictable as you cannot control other species as such. Anthropologists have no use for such models, as the people involved, whose environment it concerns, are irrefutably disadvantaged. Yet without knowing their informants views of the future, their forecasting is no different from the scientific models themselves (Persoon and van Est 2000: 16). It is possible to apply Textors (1980) ethnographic futures research (EFR) method, which has been developed by adapting traditional ethnographic interview methods to elicit individual informants images of alternative futuresThe transcripts of EFR interviews are analyzed to discover both what and how the informants think about the future (Riner 1991: 307, see also Razak 2000). This type of empirical data would be beneficial for the sustainability debate, for it would provide a micro response to the macro assumptions, and it would simultaneously empower those people whose lives the discourse concerns. Anthropologists have a role in the
formulation of this emancipatory discourse, and the EFR method could provide an alternative to the ecological concern for their future generations. Terms like sustainability and future generations, commonly used in environmental discourse, are uncommon in local usage. Emic conceptions of sustainability, if at all present, may refer to entirely different ideas (Persoon and van Est 2000: 18). Allowing the people whose environment it concerns to respond to this discourse will permit future generations (including our later selves in moments to come) to determine their own forms of action (Judge 2002: 22). Ecologists are generally preoccupied with the conservation of natural resources and predict doom and gloom for future generations, and promoters of the sustainability debate often sound warning bells about implications for future generations (Mahoney 2002: 160), and stress that if we do not act in timetomorrow is always too late (Bind 2002: 42). This depicts a sense of pessimism about the future; it suggests feelings of disempowerment and dependency (Smith 2002: 172). It would be interesting to see if the people on the ground are actually concerned with being in a hurry or not, or if they feel they have reciprocal obligations with future generations (Bind 2002: 41). Allowing for this type of solidarity, it would be worth it to find out how the people themselves predict their futures, or see their own good society of the future, which would move them towards an emancipatory discourse, one in which they are in control of their own destinies: societies need to project themselves into the future in order to survive and prosper (Bind 2002: 41). This is a role anthropologists can assume to get involved in the sustainability debate. Since it dominates corporate slogans and spurs on development schemes, it is indeed necessary that anthropologists turn their focus to the future, not only in the conclusions of their monographs, but actually in terms of empirical data. This may indeed lead to activism at the ground level. I believe it is one of the only practical results anthropology can bring: to give the poor a voice, to empower the poor to speak out against their oppressors and reclaim their livelihoods, for their own futures. We cannot afford, the poor cannot afford, and the earth cannot afford, to wait.
Conclusion
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, thats how it goes, everybody knows - Leonard Cohen A reduction in the worlds population will not necessarily lead to an improvement in the global environment. The world needs to behave sustainably before the numbers can make a difference. If the world is overpopulated with overconsuming high-speed capitalists who do not consider the future of their grandchildren, then overpopulation is indeed a problem. Even if the numbers of these people were to decrease, we would still exceed the so-called carrying
capacity. However, if the world was to have the same population, but of people living according to the sustainable concept of maana, overpopulation would no longer be a problem for the environment. It is actually development itself that is unsustainable, whereas poverty produces environmentally sustainable practices. Instead of reducing emissions by using less fossil fuels, the wealthy elite are concerned with Amazonia fulfilling the purpose of carbon sequestration, yet prefer to blame the poor, who are simultaneously ensuring that there is steak on their plate. Furthermore, over-consumption is apparently easy for people to signal as an environmental problem, but for the majority it remains extremely difficult to consequently act accordingly. It is confronting to realize that the only way to make a true difference in the world is if we change our own behaviour, for this has consequences for the environment as well as the poor and oppressed populations worldwide. The importance of Amazonia in terms of carbon sequestration is recognized globally, yet reducing automobile usage has not been addressed effectively to date. Actions are often only undertaken if there is an economic gain or possibility. This is typical of the economic analysis, using the cost/benefit relationship, wherein social and environmental consequences are not considered. Letting go of this free trade and neoliberal logic, as well as the capitalist development paradigm, allows for an emancipatory discourse of poverty, where the poor are not to blame, but where they are recognized as the victims of the global system, and given a chance to reclaim their lands, their sustenance, and livelihoods. To achieve the ideal of balance between the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, ecological, social), would require a compromise. A compromise in their values, as one may not be more valuable than the other. Therefore, the actors involved must compromise their own interests on the basis of equality with the other parties involved. In line with Sachs, the present development model itself is unsustainable, and therefore sustainability is not possible in the current system. Sustainability must represent an alternative approach altogether, not one that takes place within the development paradigm, or the ill pimped as the cure. As discussed in this thesis, the development paradigm, which resulted from similar phenomena such as colonialism, imperialism and is intertwined with the inequality of capitalism in its current neoliberal form, is based on an attitude of superiority, or the assumption of inferiority. I would prefer to see sustainability based on the assumption that all humans are equal. This is certainly an alternate reality than the current political system would not allow. If anthropologists are made to assume a nonpolitical point of view, they are not reflecting reality. Anthropologists are educated, created and formed within a specific political context, and their research field is in a specific political context, which undeniably results in political empirical data, despite their attempts to de-politicize it in the name of science.
Therefore, I believe that one cannot ignore ones own political context as an anthropologist, nor can one ignore the political context of ones informants. That would be contributing to the superiority of Us versus Them, which is something I think anthropologists work at resisting, even at the risk of being called political. Furthermore, an emancipatory discourse for the poor would contribute to breaking the culture of silence. This includes the silence of the academic community towards the poor. The poor, oppressed and marginalized demand a central role in academic discussion, as important actors in our world economy, but most of all to give them a platform so that they are no longer silenced and invisible, but rather to create the potential for change. Since little research has been done concerning the future, like Persoon and van Est and Textor himself, I would like to see anthropologists consider their informants visions for the future. Recording local perspectives of the future will facilitate those involved in the sustainability debate to gain insight into the perspectives of those whose lives it concerns. In a dialogical relationship, the informants can turn their vision for the future into a more tangible form, so that they may be empowered to actively create their futures in the present. In this way they may be able to control the changes that their society will undergo, which will shape the future of their lives as well as the lives of their children and their childrens children. This dual awareness and dialogue with those promoting sustainability will allow the local people whose future it concerns to be active players on the state of their own futures, as opposed to being blamed for their own predicament or powerless victims of repression and poverty, by those in power, whom are abusing the sustainability debate in order to gain profits, and pimping the ill as the cure. For the future, I aim to ask my informants about the future, their future, their vision of the future, their hopes, their dreams, their plans, and what they want for their childrens lives. It is most likely not a grand gesture of wanting to feed the earths poor through genetic engineering, nor to save the earths natural resources by establishing UNESCO sites. Local solutions to local problems, empowering the poor to take the future of their lives into their own hands in an ethic of self-sufficiency is, if anything, sustainable. With a concern for their grandchildren and possibly their grandchildrens grandchildren, not just for themselves, as a fast profit-seeking capitalist would. This is indeed, maana.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 31 -
20/09/2006
References
Ad hoc Working Group for Youth and the MDGs 2005 Youth and The Millennium Development Goals. Challenges and Opportunities for Implementation. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/youthmdgs.pdf#sear ch=%22millenium%20development%20goals%20youth%22. 10-092006. Altieri and Pengue 2006 GM Soya Disaster in Latin America. Hunger, Deforestation and SocioEcological Devastation. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php 27-06-2006.
Angelsen, A. and D. Kaimowitz 1999 Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models. In: The World Bank Research Observer. Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp. 7398. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK. Baker, M.M. and D. Small 2005 Brazils Agricultural Success in the Cerrado is a Disaster. In: Economics. EIR. Pp. 20-23. Beckerman, W. 1999 Sustainability and Intergenerational Equity. In: A. Dobson (Ed.). Fairness and Futurity. Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Structural Adjustment Programs. Success for Whom? In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.Pp. 285-293.
Bello, W. 1996
Bickel, U. and J.M. Dros 2003 The Impacts of Soybean Cultivation on Brazilian Ecosystems. WWF. Bilsborrow, R.E. 1997 Bind, J. 2002 Population Dynamics and Deforestation in Latin America: Research findings and Policy Issues. Den Haag: NIDI. The Ethics of Future Generations. In: S. Inayatullah and S. Leggett (Eds.). Transforming Communication. Technology, Sustainability, and Future Generations. London: Praeger. The Myth of Progress. Glasgow: Wild Goose Publications.
Burgess, Y. 1996
Calvert, P. and S. Calvert 1999 The South, The North and The Environment. London and New York: Pinter. Castles, S. 2000
Suzanne Nievaart
Studying Social Transformation. In: International Political Science

- 32 20/09/2006
Review. No. 222, iss. 22. Pp. 13-32. Chomsky, N. and H. Dieterich 1999 Latin America. From Colonization to Globalization. Melbourne and New York: Ocean Press. Clarkson, L., Morrisette, V. and Regallet, G. 1997 Our Responsibility to the Seventh Generation. In: M. Rahnema& V. Bawtree (Eds.). The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 40-50. Cleary, D. 1991 The greening of Amazonia. In: D. Goodman and M. Redclift. Environment and development in Latin America. The politics of sustainability. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Pp. 116-140.
Dahles, H. and L. Keune (Eds.). 2002 Tourism Development and Local Participation in Latin America. New York: Cognizant Communication. Daly, H.E. 1996 Sustainable Growth? No Thank You. In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.Pp. 192-196. So Paulo. In: Carmona, M. & Burgess, R. Strategic Planning & Urban projects/Responses to Globalization from 15 cities. Delft: Delft University Press. Pp. 173-182. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Oxford University Press. The Problematization of Poverty: The Tale of Three Worlds and Development. In: S.Schech and J. Haggis (Eds.). Development. A Cultural Studies Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. The making and unmaking of the third world through development. In: M. Rahnema& V. Bawtree (Eds.): The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Encountering Development. The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Development. In: W. Sachs (Ed.). The Development Dictionary. London: Zed Books. Environmental Destruction in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Hall, A. and D.
- 33 20/09/2006
Dek, C. 2001
Durkheim, E. 1915 Escobar, A. 2002
1997
1995 Esteva, G. 1992 Fearnside, P.M. 1988

Suzanne Nievaart
Goodman (Eds).The Future of Amazonia: Destruction or Sustainable Development? London: Macmillan. Fearnside, P.M., W.F.Laurance, A.K.M. Albernaz, H.L. Vasconcelos, and L.V. Ferreira 2004 Deforestation in Amazonia. In: Science. Vol. 307. Pp. 1109. Fernando, J.L. 2003 Frank, A.G. 1972 Rethinking sustainable development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The development of Underdevelopment. and Economic dependence, Class structure, and Underdevelopment Policy. In: Cockcroft et al. (Eds.) Dependence and Underdevelopment. Latin Americas Political Economy. New York: Anchor Books. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/index.php?cd_language=2 9-9-2006. The Open Veins of Latin America. Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. New York and London: Monthly Review Press. Essentialism In and About Development Discourse. In: R. Apthorpe and D. Gasper (Eds.). Arguing Development Policy: Frames and Discourses. Portland: Frank Cass. The Anthropology of Time. Cultural Constructions of Temporal Maps and Images. Oxford: Berg. How the Poor Develop the Rich. In: M. Rahnema& V. Bawtree (Eds.): The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Runaway World. How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. New York: Routledge. Ideas Concerning Maya concepts of the Future. In: M. Maruyama and A.M. Harkins (Eds.). Cultures of the Future. The Hague and Paris: Mouton Publishers
Freire, P. 1970 Friedman, T.L. 2005 FSM 2006 Galeano, E. 1973 Gasper, D. 1996
Gell, A. 1992 George, S. 1997 Giddens, A. 2000 Gifford, J.C. 1978
Goldsmith, E.
1996[1]
Global Trade and the Environment. In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club. Pp. 78-91. Development as Colonialism. In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.Pp. 253-266.
1996 [2]
Griffin, J.J., M. McNulty and W. Schoeffler 2005 Shaping Brazils emerging GMO policy: opportunities for leadership. In: Journal of Public Affairs. Vol. 5. John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 287-298. Grin, J. 2004 Ze lossen het niet meer op. Interview in: De Volkskrant. Amsterdam. 2404-2004. Developing Amazonia. Deforestation and Social Conflict in Brazils Carajs Programme. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Law and Disorder: The Brazilian Landless Farmworkers Movement. In: Bulletin of Latin American Research. Vol. 18. Iss. 4. London: Society for Latin American Studies. Pp. 469-489. Living on a Lifeboat. In: Bioscience. Vol. 24. (10). Washington, D.C.: The American Institute of Biological Sciences. Pp. 561-568. The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hall, A.L. 1989
Hammond, J.L. 1999
Hardin, G. 1974 Harvey, D. 1989
Heckenberger, M.J. 2005 The ecology of power: culture, place, and personhood in the Southern Amazon, A.D. 1000-2000. New York: Routledge. Hertz, N. 2004 Holland, G. 2002 The Debt Threat. How Debt is Destroying the Developing Worldand Threatening Us All. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Why Consider Future Generations? And How to Consider Them More Fully. In: S. Inayatullah and S. Leggett (Eds.). Transforming Communication. Technology, Sustainability, and Future Generations. London: Praeger. Development as Planned Poverty. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 94-102.
Illich, I. 1997
Suzanne Nievaart
- 35 -
20/09/2006
Johnson, D.L. 1972
Dependence and the International System. The Nature of Dependence. In: Cockcroft, J.D., Frank, A.G., and Johnson D.L. (Eds). Dependence and Underdevelopment: Latin Americas Political Economy. New York: Anchor Books. Pp. 19-45. Future Generations through Global Conversation In Quest of Collective Well-Being through Concresation in the Present Moment. In: S. Inayatullah and S. Leggett (Eds.). Transforming Communication. Technology, Sustainability, and Future Generations. London: Praeger. Critique of Pure Reason. London and New York: Macmillan.
Judge, A. 2002
Kant, I. 1929
Keen, B. and K. Haynes. 1999 A History of Latin America. Sixth Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Khor, M. 1996 Global Economy and the Third World. In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.Pp. 47-59. Fences and Windows. Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate. London: Flamingo. Paradoxical Growth. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 135-142. Two Essays Concerning the Symbolic Representation of Time. In: Rethinking Anthropology. London: Athone. Roads, Indians and the Environment in Amazonia from the Central Brazil to the Pacific. IWGIA Document. No.72. Copenhagen: IWGIA. Do You Know A Poverty Pimp? Guerrilla News Network. http://shiftshapers.gnn.tv/blogs/8685/Do_You_Know_a_Poverty_Pimp. 10-09-2006. The Global War on Poverty. In: Finance and Development. Washington D.C.: IMF. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/12/pdf/basics.pdf. 13-09-2006.
Klein, N. 2002 Latouche, S. 1997 Leach, E.R. 1961 Leonel, M. 1992 Loughner, J. 2005
Loungani, P. 2003
Lutzenberger, J.A.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 36 -
20/09/2006
1993
Who Is Destroying Amazonian Rainforest? In: S.E. Place (Ed.). Tropical Rainforests. Latin American Nature and Society in Transition. Wilmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources. Global Food Policy: Like Winning a Game of Poker on the Titanic? In: S. Inayatullah and S. Leggett (Eds.). Transforming Communication. Technology, Sustainability, and Future Generations. London: Praeger. Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. World Bank Working Paper No. 22. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.
Mahoney, M. 2002
Margalis, S. 2004
Marx, K. 1964(1932) The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Publishers. Meerloo, J.A.M. 1970 Monsanto 2006 Along the Fourth Dimension. Mans sense of Time and History. New York: The John Day Company. Benefits of our Products. http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/products/benefits/defaul t.asp. 21-08-06. Monsanto 2005 Annual Report. http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/media/pubs/2005/MO N_2005_Annual_Report.pdf. 21-08-06. Introduction: Mobilizing Critical Communities and Discourses on Modern Biotechnology. In: V. Shiva and I. Moser (Eds.). Biopolitics. A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. London: Zed Books.
2005
Moser, I. 1995
Mowforth, M. and I. Munt 2003(1998) Tourism and Sustainability. New Tourism in the Third World. London and New York: Routledge. Munn, N.D. 1993 The Cultural Anthropology of Time: A Critical Essay. In: Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 21. Pp. 93-123.
Nader, R. and L. Wallach 1996 GATT, NAFTA, and the Subversion of the Democratic Process. In: J. Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.Pp. 92-107. Nederveen Pieterse, J. 1998 My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development. In: Development and Change. Vol. 29. Pp. 323373. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
OBrien, P. 1991
Debt and sustainable development in Latin America. In: D. Goodman and M. Redclift. Environment and development in Latin America. The politics of sustainability. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Sustainability: Positioning the concept as a global goal. In: Sustainable Development: Education, The Force of Change. Paris: UNESCO. Amazonia: Ecology and Sustainable Development. Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
OCallaghan, M. 1997 Pansters, W. 1992
Persoon, G.A. and D.M.E. van Est 2000 The study of the future in anthropology in relation to the sustainability debate. In: Focaal. No. 35. Pp. 7-28. Perz, S.G. 2002 The Changing Social Contexts of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. In: Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 83. No. 1. Southwestern Social Science Association. What Drives Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence Form Satellite and Socioeconomic Data. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Doing Visual Ethnography. Images, Media and Representation in Research. London: Sage Publications. Pimping Poverty. Of Hoe Maak Je Armoede Sexy? Interview met Noreena Hertz. In: SUM Magazine. Vol. 16. No. 3. April 2006. Amsterdam: Careera. Hoorcollege: Van ontwikkeling naar duurzame ontwikkeling. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 8-09-2004. Hoorcollege: Workshop Toekomst Scenario Schrijven. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 4-4-2006. Neoliberalism against sustainable development? In: Feiler, K. (ed.). Sustainability Creates New Prosperity: Basis for a New World Order, New Economics, and Environmental Protection. Club of Rome. Introduction. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The Post Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. ix-ixx
- 38 20/09/2006
Pfaff, A.S.P. 1997
Pink, S. 2001 Plug, T. 2006 Poppema, M. 2004 Rademaker, P. 2006 Radermacher, F.J. 2004
Rahnema, M. 1997
Suzanne Nievaart
Razak, V.M. 2000 Redclift, M. 2005
Introduction. In: Essays in Anticipartory Anthropology. Elsevier Science Ltd. Pp. 717-727. Sustainable Development (1987-2005): An Oxymoron Comes of Age. In: Sustainable Development. 13: 212-227.
Redclift, M. and Goodman D. 1991 The machinery of hunger: the crisis of Latin American Food systems. In: D. Goodman and M. Redclift. Environment and development in Latin America. The politics of sustainability. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. Reijnders, L. 2006 Wereldvoedselproductie en Biodiversiteit. (Forthcoming).
Reis, J.E. and F.A. Blanco 1997 The Causes of Brazilian Amazon Deforestation. In: The Forest in the South and the North in the Context of Global Warming. UNU: Rio de Janeiro. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) 2004 Monsanto the Gene Giant. Peddling Life Sciences or Death Sciences? New Delhi and Ottawa: RFSTE and Polaris Institute. Riner, R.D. 1991 Rist, G. 1997 Anthropology about the Future: Limits and Potentials. In: Human Organization. Vol. 50. No. 3. The Society for Applied Anthropology. The History of Development. From Western Origins to Global Faith. London: Zed Books.
Roberts, J.T. and Thanos, N. D. 2003 Trouble in Paradise. Globalization and Environmental Crises in Latin America. London: Routledge. Rocco, R. 2006 Sachs, W. 1999 1997 Metropolis of Uncertainty. History of a South American Global City. Lecture at the Seminario Intensivo CEDLA, 20/2/2006. Planet Dialectics. Explorations in environment and development. London: Zed Books. The Need for the Home Perspective. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 290-301. Neo-Development. Global Ecological Management. In: J.
1996
Suzanne Nievaart
- 39 -
20/09/2006
Mander and E. Goldsmith (Eds.). The Case Against The Global Economy And For A Turn Toward The Local. San Francisco: The Sierra Club.. Pp. 239-253. Schaeffer, R. and R.L.V. Rodrigues 2005 Underlying Causes of Deforestation. In: Science. Vol. 307. Iss. 18. Scheper-Hughes, N. 1992 Death Without Weeping. The Violence of Everyday Life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schlosser, E. 2001 Scott, J.C. 1998 1997 Shanin, T. 1997 Shiva, V. 2000 1995 1993 1991 Simon, B. 2006 Fast Food Nation. The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. The Infrapolitics of Subordinate Groups. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 65- 72. The Idea of Progress. In: M.Rahnema and V.Bawtree (Eds.). The PostDevelopment Reader. London: Zed Books. Pp. 65- 72. Stolen Harvest. The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. New Delhi: Indian Research Press. Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. London: Zed Books. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books. The Violence of the Green Revolution. Third World Agriculture and Politics. New Delhi: Zed Books. Locale Percepties van Duurzaam Toerism in Pisaq, Peru. Te verschijnen in: Annelou Ypeij en Annelies Zoomers (Eds.). La Ruta Andina, Turismo y desarollo sostenible en Peru y Bolivia. Amsterdam: Cedla, CBC, Abayala, IEP.
Skole, D.L. and W.H. Chomentowski 1994 Physical and Human Dimensions of Deforestation in Amazonia. In: Bioscience. Vol. 44. Iss. 5. Smith, C. 2002 Permaculture: Hope and Empowerment for a Sustainable Future. In: S. Inayatullah and S. Leggett (Eds.). Transforming Communication. Technology, Sustainability, and Future Generations. London: Praeger.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 40 -
20/09/2006
Sponsel, L.E. 1995 Stiglitz, J. 2002 Swift, R. 2002
Indigenous Peoples and the Future of Amazonia. An Ecological Anthropology of an Endangered World. Tucson and London: University of Arizona Press. Globalization and its Discontents. London and New York: Penguin Books. Rush to Nowhere. In: The New Internationalist. Vol. 343. http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2002/0518english .htm. 13-5-2006. Sociology and Sustainable Development. Nijmegen: SNN. A handbook on Ethnographic Futures Research. Third edition. Stanford: Stanford University School of Education and Department of Anthropology. 1980. The Militarization and Industrialization of Amazonia: The Calha Norte and Grande Carajas Programs. In: Place, S. (Ed.) Tropical Forests. Latin American Nature and Society in Transition. Delaware: Scholarly Resources.
Tellegen, E. 2006 Textor, R.B. 1980
Treece, D. 1993
UN General Assembly 2000 Millennium Declaration. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. 8 September 2000. http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm. 18-6-2006. Villa, C. 2004 Vlachos, E. 1978 Hoorcollege: Sustainable Development from a Southern Perspective. Universiteit van Amsterdam. 11-10-2004. The Future in the Past: Toward a Utopian Syntax. In: M. Maruyama and A.M. Harkins (Eds.). Cultures of the Future. The Hague and Paris: Mouton Publishers The Modern World-System, vol. I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York/London: Academic Press. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wallerstein, I. 1974
WCED 1987
Cover Photo
An area of rainforest cleared by soya bean farmers in Novo Progreso, Brazil. Photo: Alberto Cesar/Greenpeace/AP. http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1488779,00.html. 12-09-2006.
Appendix A
Deforestation along Paved Highways in the Amazon Paved Highway (km) BR-010 (Belm-Brasilia) 1514 PA-150 (Abeatetuba-Santana
do Araguaia)
Length
Frontier Age (years) ~35
Deforested Area km % 47.000 32.000 31.000 58,0 37,2 28,7
991 1454
~20 ~25
BR-364 (Cuiab-Porto Velho)
= Deforested area refers to the 50 km strip on each side of the highway. Source: Jaccoud et al. 2003: 65 Jaccoud, DA., P. Stephan, R. Lemos de S, and S. Richardson 2003 Sustainability Assessment of Export-Led Growth in Soy Production in Brazil. WWF. Deforestation rate (1000 km) in Brazilian Amazon from 1978 to 1994.
Source: Cordeiro 2000: 12 Cordeiro, A. 2000
Sustainable Agriculture In the Global Age. Lessons From Brazilian Agriculture. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
- 42 20/09/2006
Suzanne Nievaart
Appendix B
Growth of soy planted area in Brazil 1995-2003
Source: Dros 2004: 23 Dros, M. 2004 Managing the Soy Boom: Two Scenarios of Soy Production Expansion in South America. Amsterdam: Aidenvironment.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 43 -
20/09/2006
Appendix C
Main Importers of Brazilian Soybean Products And World Soybean Exports
Source: Cordeiro 2000: 14 Cordeiro, A. 1999 Sustainable Agriculture In the Global Age. Lessons From Brazilian Agriculture. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.
Appendix D
Photos of Soybean Cultivation in Brazil
Demonstration of large scale mechanised soy harvesting, Mato Grosso, Brazil. (Dros 2004:9).
Pesticide filling on a large soybean and cotton farm. Photo by Ulrike Bickel. (Bickel and Dros 2003:19).
Bickel, U. and J.M. Dros 2003 The Impacts of Soybean Cultivation on Brazilian Ecosystems. WWF. Dros, J.M. 2004
Suzanne Nievaart
Managing the Soyboom: Two Scenarios of Soybean Production Expansion in South America. WWF.
- 45 20/09/2006
Appendix E
Correlation between Economic Growth (GDP) in Brazil and Amazon Deforestation
Brazil: Economic growth and Amazon Deforestation (in km) from 1977-88 to 1998.
Source: Wunder 2001: 1821. Wunder, S. 2001 Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests What Scope for Synergies? In: World Development. Vol. 29. No. 11. London: Elsevier.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 46 -
20/09/2006
Appendix F
Population Growth and Urbanization in Amazonia
Source: Perz et al. 2003: 29 Perz, S.G., C. Arambur, and J. Bremner 2003 Population, Land Use and Deforestation in the Pan Amazon Basin: A Comparison of Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Per and Venezuela. In: Environment, Development and Sustainability. Vol. 7. Florida: Springer. Pp. 23-49.
Suzanne Nievaart
- 47 -
20/09/2006

When The Ill Is Pimped As The Cure

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

When The Ill Is Pimped As The Cure

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

When the Ill is Pimped as the Cure

An Anthropological Critique of Sustainable Development Ideologies as Applied to the Amazon Rainforest

Bachelor of Arts Thesis