Hi Marc and all,
Like Kathy and Beth - and others I suspect - I approach it very much from a
north-south and challenges to 'development' angle. Of course we knit it into
critical perspectives on development, too.
Best regards,
--Greg
>>> Kathy McAfee 12/10/10 3:21 PM >>>
<!--blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 } -->Marc,
1) As far as I know I'm the only one at SF State who teachescourses on
development that have a strong environmental component,although we do have an
environmental studies program. Our campus willalso soon make it a requirement
that all undergrads take at least onecourse relevant to "sustainability". What
will qualify isyet to be seen.
2) ABSOLUTELY the best way to teach "sustainabledevelopment" is to integrate it
with challenges to development.I've been doing this for some time. To see why I
feel so stronglyabout this, take a look at the abstract I just prepared of a
paper I'mwriting.
KM
Selling Nature toFinance Development?
The Contradictory Logic of "Global" Environmental-ServicesMarkets
Commodification and transnational trading of ecosystem services(ES) is the most
ambitious iteration yet of the strategy I call"selling nature to save it". It
is modulated today by "social"or "inclusionary" versions of neoliberal
development policy. Perthis discourse, ES are the new tropical miracle crop,
exports of whichwill foster the economic development of formerly colonized
regions.Advocates assert that international payment for ecosystem services(PES)
projects, financed by carbon-offset sales and biodiversitybanking, can benefit
the poor. World Bank and UN agencies proclaimthat global carbon markets can
slow climate change while generatingresources for development. However, the
World Bank's own PESguidelines warn that a focus on poverty reduction is
counterproductiveto the primary goal of maximizing efficiency in conservation
spending.Recent case studies of PES-type projects confirm that, in
practice,market-efficiency criteria clash with poverty-reduction
priorities.Nevertheless, the dubious premises of market-based PES are
beingextrapolated to support the claim that REDD and similar programsfinanced
by carbon-offset trading can simultaneously mitigate globalwarming and foster
development. I argue that contradiction betweendevelopment and conservation
goals is inevitable in projects framed bythe a-social logic of orthodox
environmental economics. Moreover, thenotion that ES exports are the missing
link between conservation anddevelopment accepts the failed paradigm of
development by integrationinto international markets. I contend that the
full-scale applicationof market logic in "global" conservation policy, in which
profitincentives depend upon differential, so-called opportunity costs,
willinstead entail a net, upward redistribution of wealth from poorer
towealthier classes, rural to urban areas, and from the South to distantcenters
of capital accumulation, mainly in the North. I conclude that efforts to"save"
(socio)nature can only succeed as part of broaderstrategies for endogenous
rural and regionaldevelopment.
Keywords: ecosystemservices, development, neoliberalism
1) Would you say that, where you teach,undergraduate classes on"sustainable
development" aremore or less framed as extensions of
environment/natural resource science and policy, or as subjectareas
that seek to integrate challenges to sustainability with challengesto
development?
2) Which approach do you think is most appropriate?
Thanks,
Marc
--
Marc A. Levy
Deputy Director, CIESIN
Adjunct Professor, SIPA
PO Box 1000
61 Route 9W
Palisades, NY 10964
t +1 845-365-8964
f +1 845-365-8922
m +1 845-270-5762
-- Kathleen McAfee
Associate Professor, International Relations
San Francisco State University
Office hours fall 2010: HSS 381 most Tuesday and Thursdays 4 - 5 or
byappointment
