Ecology and Justice: A Review
In this weekend's Jordan Times, the article Ecologists angry as settlers eye nature reserve as new home (also on the BBC here) discusses a conflict over the proposed withdrawal of Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip to an area in Southern Israel that has been designated as a nature reserve.
Image © BBC
From the Jordan Times article:
"A plan to relocate Gaza's Jewish settlers in a nature reserve along the Mediterranean coast of southern Israel has enraged ecologists and local residents, who have vowed to block the move. ...
"[T]he proposal, which will reportedly involve the construction of houses for 400 families, has provoked an angry backlash from ecologists and local residents, some of whom have sworn to physically fight any new building."
Being an unabashed environmentalist and ecologist, I certainly understand the ecologists' concern. There is no doubt that relocating 400 families to the reserve would have an impact on the ecosystem, and we should not forget this point. But, this conflict is indicative of much larger problems within the environmental movement throughout the world - that is, placing issues of environmental protection ("environment rights") above human rights. This is seen in the statement made by the Israeli Environment Minister, Shalom Simhon, who said that "[w]e cannot allow a political and human problem, as painful as it is, to be resolved by selling off our protected reserves and our children's right to green spaces" (emphasis added). From this statement, we must raise the question of who Mr. Simhon speaks of when he says "our protected reserves and our children's right to green spaces." Is his motive for protecting these lands for the "inherit right" of the wildlife to exist undisturbed? Or, does he wish the nature's beauty to be preserved for the enjoyment and, indeed, improvement of people's lives? These intentions must be identified and addressed if we are to resolve the issue.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric values, because it is a stupid argument; they're both extreme positions and nothing is that black and white. I will argue, though, that much of the reasoning behind establishing nature reserves should be - and is - for the aesthetic enjoyment and improvement of people's quality of life. The idea that “islands” of nature, in the form of reserves and parks, can completely protect the flora and fauna from external inputs and withdrawals is optimistic at best. If the sole intention is the protection of the “natural” environment, much more drastic measures would be needed (i.e. rejecting much of our modern industrial civilization, for better or [more likely] worse). We can thus conclude that a major underlying focus of reserves and parks is humanistic.
We must ask, then, whose lives do we wish to improve? Over 60% of the population of Gaza lives below the poverty line. For the Palestinians who live in Gaza, the presence of a nature reserve (in Israel) has limited, if any, positive impact on their lives. Because of their economic and social situation, most of the residents of Gaza do not have the social “agency” to experience and benefit from a nature reserve. Their priorities are focused on daily survival, not on aesthetic and recreational protection of nature. In this regard, the environmentalist’s grievances are inadequate to address the broader issues that are at play in the conflict.
Until the Palestinian people in Gaza are given social mobility and a livable wage, discussion should not be framed around protecting our “reserves and our children's right to green spaces” (emphasis added, again). Of course, we should not automatically move the settlers to the nature reserve. Alternative sites could (should) be explored, which would allow for the relocation of settlers AND protection of the reserve. There is certainly social and developmental worth in nature reserves, but we should not place value on the elite’s access to nature over the impoverished’s right to self-determination. The withdrawal of settlers from the Gaza Strip is an important first step if issues of human rights and freedom are to be dealt with in the region. Once this is achieved, then we can adequately address how nature can improve all people’s lives, Palestinian or Israeli.
Image © BBC
"A plan to relocate Gaza's Jewish settlers in a nature reserve along the Mediterranean coast of southern Israel has enraged ecologists and local residents, who have vowed to block the move. ...
"[T]he proposal, which will reportedly involve the construction of houses for 400 families, has provoked an angry backlash from ecologists and local residents, some of whom have sworn to physically fight any new building."
Being an unabashed environmentalist and ecologist, I certainly understand the ecologists' concern. There is no doubt that relocating 400 families to the reserve would have an impact on the ecosystem, and we should not forget this point. But, this conflict is indicative of much larger problems within the environmental movement throughout the world - that is, placing issues of environmental protection ("environment rights") above human rights. This is seen in the statement made by the Israeli Environment Minister, Shalom Simhon, who said that "[w]e cannot allow a political and human problem, as painful as it is, to be resolved by selling off our protected reserves and our children's right to green spaces" (emphasis added). From this statement, we must raise the question of who Mr. Simhon speaks of when he says "our protected reserves and our children's right to green spaces." Is his motive for protecting these lands for the "inherit right" of the wildlife to exist undisturbed? Or, does he wish the nature's beauty to be preserved for the enjoyment and, indeed, improvement of people's lives? These intentions must be identified and addressed if we are to resolve the issue.
I'm not going to get into an argument about Anthropocentric vs. Biocentric values, because it is a stupid argument; they're both extreme positions and nothing is that black and white. I will argue, though, that much of the reasoning behind establishing nature reserves should be - and is - for the aesthetic enjoyment and improvement of people's quality of life. The idea that “islands” of nature, in the form of reserves and parks, can completely protect the flora and fauna from external inputs and withdrawals is optimistic at best. If the sole intention is the protection of the “natural” environment, much more drastic measures would be needed (i.e. rejecting much of our modern industrial civilization, for better or [more likely] worse). We can thus conclude that a major underlying focus of reserves and parks is humanistic.
We must ask, then, whose lives do we wish to improve? Over 60% of the population of Gaza lives below the poverty line. For the Palestinians who live in Gaza, the presence of a nature reserve (in Israel) has limited, if any, positive impact on their lives. Because of their economic and social situation, most of the residents of Gaza do not have the social “agency” to experience and benefit from a nature reserve. Their priorities are focused on daily survival, not on aesthetic and recreational protection of nature. In this regard, the environmentalist’s grievances are inadequate to address the broader issues that are at play in the conflict.
Until the Palestinian people in Gaza are given social mobility and a livable wage, discussion should not be framed around protecting our “reserves and our children's right to green spaces” (emphasis added, again). Of course, we should not automatically move the settlers to the nature reserve. Alternative sites could (should) be explored, which would allow for the relocation of settlers AND protection of the reserve. There is certainly social and developmental worth in nature reserves, but we should not place value on the elite’s access to nature over the impoverished’s right to self-determination. The withdrawal of settlers from the Gaza Strip is an important first step if issues of human rights and freedom are to be dealt with in the region. Once this is achieved, then we can adequately address how nature can improve all people’s lives, Palestinian or Israeli.
posted by Aaron Berdanier at 4:09 PM Permalink
