Toxicidad del cromo

This section explains the broad concepts of environment and natural resources, their interaction, and the role of natural resources in rural development. The environment terms will be reshaped in the context of natural resources to meet the research questions and framework of this thesis. I will start by reviewing the development of the environment definition, describe its interaction with natural resources, and explore the role of resources in the development process.

2.3.1 Expansion of environment definition

The English word “environment” is said to be of French etymology. In French, it translates as ‘around or round about or to surround or to encompass’; in etymological terms, the word ‘environment’ refers to the total of the things or circumstances around an organism – including humans (Young, 1986, p. 86). Young admits to difficulty in assigning a single meaning to the term ‘environment’ due to its broad terms and many interpretations in different contexts (1986). Peasgood and Goodwin (2007, p. 2), in terms of daily life,

environment means different things to different people, define environment as “surroundings

14_{For details, see https://cms.eldis.org/index.cfm?objectid=07E1005A-F839-A014-} 05BB5E06DF19DA36&flushcache=1&showdraft=1#Distance

and different things that have different surroundings”; as well, they suggest that it is important to be clear about its meaning when talking about the environment. Starting from this point, more reviews of the concepts of environment are needed in order to understand the various ways in which studies have defined the term ‘environment’ in terms of natural resources. While environment is broadly defined as everything surrounding us (Peasgood & Goodwin, 2007), studies tend to conceptualise it differently based on their respective disciplines and contexts. For example, in terms of Australian environmental law, based on the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, environment is defined as:

“… components of the earth, including (a) land, air and water, and (b) any layer of the atmosphere and (c) any organic or inorganic matter and any living organism, and (d) hand-made or modified structures and areas, and includes interacting natural ecosystems that include components referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c)” (Farrier, Lyster & Pearson, 1999, p. 5).

In a joint development study undertaken by DFID, EC, UNDP and the World Bank (2002, p. 9), environment is referred to as “the living (biodiversity) and non-living components of the natural world, and the interactions between them that together support life on earth”. The meaning of environment in both cases tends to focus on environmental components and classification. In a study of the link between environment and development, ‘environment’ refers to both natural resources particularly renewable natural resources and nature or the natural environment. The environment is viewed both as a natural resource and an ecosystem: the two are recognised as fundamental factors that sustain the livelihoods of poor people in the world’s poorest countries (Jones & Carswell, 2004, p. xvii). Drawing from these

definitions, as the terms ‘natural ecosystems’ and ‘resources’ and their interaction have been frequently mentioned, it would be possible to infer that they are the key terms to explain the meanings of environment in the development context.

Due to this broad definition, many studies have attempted to narrow down the terms of environment to a specific meaning. For example, in an ecologist’s view, environment can be defined as the external conditions and influences affecting the lives and development of organisms including things from 60 km under the Earth to things in the upper atmosphere (Bartelmus, 1986, p. 1). From a natural scientist’s perspective, ‘environment’ may be interpreted in terms of non-human living and non-living, physical surroundings such as ecosystems, biodiversity, air quality, water and soil, and stocks of non-renewable resources (Tellegen & Wolsink, 1998, p. 5). In analyses of environmental impact, environment is often viewed both as green issues concerned with nature, such as pollution control, biodiversity and

climate change, and as brown agenda, such as drinking water and sanitation provision (Chowdhury & Ahmed, 2008; Nunan et al., 2002). The definitions of environment in these studies have been diversified based on their subject studies, and this diversification seems to have crossed over several disciplines in environmental studies to encapsulate the biophysical environment, environmental policy, environmental science, natural environment and social environment.

Poverty and rural development studies have considered environment in terms of natural resources. In a study of rural development and the environment, environment is described in terms of natural ecosystems and resources, with the latter seen as fundamental ingredients in the sustaining of the poor’s livelihoods (ADB, 2000; Jones & Carswell, 2004). The joint study undertaken by the DFID, EC, UNDP and the World Bank (2002, p. 9) argues that the

environment provides goods (natural resources) and services (ecosystem functions) to support food production, the harvesting of wild products, energy and raw materials. In the human– centred approach to the natural environment, ‘environment’ is referred to as resources based on what is good for people rather than for the natural environment (Farrier et al., 1999, pp. 14- 15). In summarising these concepts, the term ‘environment’ has been widely reduced to ecosystems and natural resources. This study will follow this interpretation.

Over the last two decades, the environment has become an important issue in both politics and research. In the political economy of the environment, Sachs (1971, p. 47) regarded the

environment as environmental concerns, which referred to all the side-effects of economic activities, disregarded by economic agents as well as the economic feedback of environmental change. This field of study views human activities as forms of political, economic, and social decisions, which have a huge impact upon natural resources and creating of environmental issues. Accordingly, many political economy studies have attempted to explore the influence of various actors on environmental problems and policies, such as civil society, government, non-government organizations, development agencies and local communities. In their study of environment politics, Hirsch and Warren (1998) explored several case studies on the growing importance of environmental issues and their relationship to the broader processes of social, political and economic change in Southeast Asia. These case studies have attempted to explain the environmental struggles over large dams, forestry, mining, pollution and tourism as a consequence of the rapid changes in society, politics and the economies in the region. As environment is related to many study fields, its definition has been expanded to

in these in-depth studies. On the other hand, questions may be raised regarding the usefulness of its expansion, e.g., to what extent these broad definitions can help to address current global environmental problems, including environmental degradation and pollution, climate change and global warming. As environment interacts closely with natural resources, in what ways can these definitions help the poor and the governments of the developing countries to comprehend the use of resources in a sustainable manner. I will examine these issues in the next section.

2.3.2 Interaction between the environment and natural resources

Some of the above studies have regarded ‘ecosystems’ and ‘natural resources’ as the main components of the environment, components often regarded as renewable natural resources such as water, land, forest, fisheries, rangelands, wildlife, air quality and energy in rural development studies (Jones & Carswell, 2004). Sometimes they are considered non-

renewable, e.g., as fossil fuel of coal, oil and gas. Resources viewed as everyday resources for general living include fuel wood, medicinal plants, water, bees, rivers and other water-related ecosystems, and rangelands, all of which are contained in urban and rural landscapes

(Fabricius, 2004, p. 23). From a development perspective, the above natural resources and ecosystems are often described as goods and services produced by the environment (DFID et al., 2002). These notions have illustrated some causal interactions between natural resources and the environment. The term ‘interaction’ here simply means the ways in which natural resources and environment influence or react to each other. In fact, the environment and natural resources formally interact with each other in many ways: their interaction can be observed in their environmental functions, values and cause-effect relationships.

First, their interaction can be recognised in the concept of environmental functions or in functions provided by the environment. Hueting et al. (1998, p. 31) define environmental function as “any possible uses of the natural, biophysical surroundings that are useful for humans, and can be conceived as consumption and capital goods”. In this view, the

environment’s function is to supply natural resources such as forests, soil, water and clear air. For example, green forests function as habitats for organisms, hydrologic flows and soil conservers; they also provide clear, fresh air and timber as raw material for wooden products for human consumption. Good soil also supports food and other biomass production,

biological habitats, and is a source of raw materials for people’s living. It provides clean water, bountiful crops and forests, productive rangelands, diverse wildlife and beautiful landscapes. Humans use these resources for consumption and their livelihoods. Any damage

to these resources impacts negatively on the environment and by extension on the human living. The latter is heavily dependent upon the ways in which the natural environment is used as a resource reservoir. de Groot (1987, p. 105) suggested re-defining ‘natural resources’ as natural functions or goods and services provided by the natural environment, a definition which further implied the level of their close interaction.

Second, their interaction may be derived from the concept of environmental values. Given that the environment provides huge natural resources that sustain humans’ livelihoods with satisfactory utility, this provision is recognised as having environmental value (Bergstrom, 1990). Environmental value may be simply defined as a process of assigning human values with respect to the natural environment; or, it may be seen as “an individual and shared community or beliefs about the significance, importance and well being of the natural environment, and how the natural world should be viewed and treated by humans” (Reser & Bentrupperbäumer, 2005, p. 141). The IUCN study undertaken in the Nam Et and Phou Loei protected areas in Laos estimated the environmental values of forest product to be more than US$1.12 million per year or US$313 per household (see Emerton, 2005). Elsewhere,

environmental value is expressed not only in economic terms , but also from physical- biological, institutional, philosophy, moral social and technological perspectives (Cocklin, 1988). While the environment can be valued in various ways, and many studies have used the concept of environmental values to explain the strong interaction between natural resources and the environment, this study will limit its scope mainly to economic value aspects.

Finally, when the poor have depleted their local natural resources after having drawn heavily on them for their livelihoods, depletion will result in resource degradation of their local areas in the forms of deforestation, soil erosion and biodiversity loss. Degradation will negatively pollute their local environments (see Mabogunje, 2002; Opschoor, 2007; Rahman, 2004; Reed, 2002). In this scenario, the interaction between the natural resources and the

environment may be termed a direct cause-effect relationship since resource degradation will immediately cause environmental damage.

Many environmental studies have attempted to explain this cause-effect relationship. For example, in their natural resource and energy study, Kolstad and Krautkraemer (1993, pp. 1219-1220) claimed that the extraction of natural resources from the earth can cause many environmental effects, which can range from the release of short-lived pollutants to

irreversible change in the natural environment; inversely, a large proportion of all

p. 1222) also assert that the concentration of pollutants has physical effects such as reducing yields of agricultural crops, soiling and corroding materials, impairing human health, and obscuring scenic vistas. This natural resource and energy study clearly delineates the cause- effect relationships in nature.

Drawing from the above three concepts, it becomes clear that the interaction between the environment and natural resources can be determined by human observation. This means that the existing interaction is dependent upon how humans value environmental functions, and their relationships with nature. In fact, the interaction between these agencies may be viewed in various ways, rather than limiting to environmental function, values and cause-effect relationships. It would be interesting to explore the various forms of said interaction. One way would be to explore how natural resources are utilised for rural development, especially for the rural poor, and the impact of their utilisation on the environment. This topic will be explored in the next sub-sections.

2.3.3 Natural resources benefits, access and degradation

In this section, focus is upon the context of poor households in rural areas, particularly the rural poor. I will argue that while many households in rural areas are poor, not all of them are poor. As ‘the poor, particularly those living in rural areas, often rely on a variety of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystem services as a direct source of livelihood’ (DFID et al., 2002, p. 11), it may be suggested that there are strong relationships between natural resources and the rural poor’s livelihoods. In order to understand these relationships, the benefits of the resources to the poor’s livelihoods, the constraints on the poor’s access to resources and the impact of resource degradation on their daily lives are elaborated in this section.

Some empirical studies state that natural resources contribute many benefits to the poor’s livelihoods. Vedeld et al. (2007) investigated rural people in developing countries considered dependent upon forest environmental income using a meta analysis of 51 case studies from 17 countries. Their findings revealed that forest environmental income accounted for

approximately 22% of the total income of the population sampled, mainly sourced from fuel wood, wild foods and fodder. They viewed this income as important to rural livelihoods in three ways: as a safety net for unexpected income shortfalls or cash needs; as supportive of current consumption; and, as a pathway out of poverty. They also suggested that the income from the forest should not be overlooked in poverty assessments (Vedeld et al., 2007). Cavendish (2000), in his empirical study of the poverty-environment relationship of rural

households located in the Communal Area in Zimbabwe, summarised a number of resources utilised by poor households , which showed that poor households in the areas used a wide range of different resources in different ways for their livelihoods. He categorised the resources into four groups: (1) wild foods and minor uses; (2) the multiuse of wood, such as timber, firewood, construction materials, furniture, household utensils, and agricultural implements; (3) use of grass, reeds, rushes, cane and leaves, such as thatching grass, woven goods and leaf litter; and, (4) other resource utilisation: pottery clays, termitaria mounds, livestock fodder, browse and water (2000, p. 1982). These resources, which were of wide economic use to the households, included consumption goods, consumer durables, production inputs, asset formations and sales (ibid). The above two studies confirm the benefits and importance of natural resources to the rural poor’s livelihoods.

Natural resources can provide great benefits to the rural poor. But, the question remains as to whether the benefits can be shared equally among all members of a community. Lee and Neves (2009) claim that even in a country with abundant resources, not all of the people can enjoy or share the resource benefits, particularly the rural poor due to the many constraints that prevent them from accessing said benefits. In this argument, “access” to resources may prove a key point in understanding the benefits that flow from resources. Ribot and Peluso (2003, p. 154) define access as “the ability to benefit from things—including material objects, persons, institutions, and symbols”. In addition, they claim that “focusing on ability, rather than rights as in property theory, brings attention to a wider range of social relationships that can constrain or enable people to benefit from resources without focusing on property relations alone” (ibid).

The reality is that many constraints limit the poor’s access to their perceived natural resources. In the United Nations guidance note on environmental scarcity and conflict, the UNEP (2010) reveals the various components that underpin restricted and unequal access to natural resources. For example, the poor become marginalised either because they lack rights to the resources upon which they depend for their livelihoods, or they have rights but cannot exercise them. These issues are important to the poor, particularly when the right to access key resources is concentrated in the hands of a single group to the detriment of others (UNEP, 2010, p. 16). This guidance note also suggests that economic development has put pressure on natural resources. Emphasis is upon the poor management of new technologies, the

migration and incentives for economic policies, all issues that have tended to result in restricted or unequal access to natural resources (UNEP, 2010, pp. 19-20).

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005, p. 62) noted the many changes in the world ecosystems that have benefited some but exacted costs on others, who as a result risk losing access to resources or being affected by externalities. These changes tend in the main to harm society’s most vulnerable; for example, the poor, women, and indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend upon resources. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment also highlighted the many factors that force change, e.g., the privatisation of common pool resources, loss of the poor’s right to access resources, growth of vulnerable populations, ecosystems at risk of disaster, inappropriate policies, gender inequality, the diminishing of roles and rights in many societies, and the implementation of inappropriate strategies that exclude the environment’s role in poverty reduction. This assessment claimed that the poor have historically lost access to ecosystem services due to the fact that these services have been converted to other uses, that is, for export rather than for local consumption.

Kates and Haarmann’s (1992, p. 8) study defines entitlement as “the access enjoyed by a household to needed environmental resources”. The authors claim that the poor lose their resource entitlements due to displacement, resource division and resource degradation. They further suggest that the poor are displaced due to development or commercialisation activities, large scale resource investments, legal and illegal wealthier claimants, and limited land and employment opportunities. The poor are likely to divide their resources because of their need to share, or to sell their resources among family members to offset extreme losses like crop failure, illness, death, or of marriage dowries. Their resources become degraded due to excessive or inappropriate usage, failure to restore and maintain their resources, and natural hazards. The combination of these factors can produce a spiral of poverty and resource degradation. The sum of these studies suggests that not only have various constraints reduced the poor’s ability to access their resources, but that lack of resource access and degradation of environmental resources invariably hurt the poor.

This brings one to the further issue vis-à-vis the meaning of environmental degradation and how it occurs. Duraiappah (1996) argues that defining environmental degradation is a difficult task because of the large degree of subjectivity on the part of the agents involved or of those who own the resources. He further stresses that these difficulties may derive from different ecosystems as well as from different values placed on environmental resources by different