3.5.b- industrialization and environment

8/6/2019 3.5.B- Industrialization and Environment

1/24

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND ENVIRONMENT*

by

Paul Smith

The "environment" that is in the process of construction in less developed countries is separated fromour own by underdevelopment. It is differently located, not simply in geographical terms, but in termsof its role in the environment process. It follows that the `environment' in less developed countries isan arena for different social aspirations and material struggles.

(Redclift, 1987)

Environmental issues are now high on the international political agenda. This increasedconcern about the environment has implications for development and industrializationthroughout the world, and particularly in the less developed world. Discussion about globalwarming, deforestation and pollution of the oceans is affecting attitudes to economic growthand development at a local, national and international level. But taking effective politicalaction to deal with these problems is not simple. Whose problems are they? In the lessdeveloped countries (LDCs), the problems will not be perceived in the same way as theyare perceived in the fully industrialized nations.

This chapter examines more than just the physical consequences of particular forms of development. As Redclift asserts, environmental problems are really developmentproblems. So to understand environmental problems we have to look at the political andeconomic systems within which they occur.

There are clear implications here for the processes of economic development andindustrialization throughout the developing world. Some people, who could be calledenvironmental determinists, say that two hundred years of mindless capitalist expansionhave brought us to the abyss of environmental ruin, and that the only way out is to seek

radical alternatives to the economic growth model. In contrast, consider this quote from theWorld Commission on Environment and Development, established under the auspices of the United Nations in 1983 to take a global view of the relationship between economicgrowth and environmental impact:

It is both futile and indeed an insult to the poor to tell them that they must remain in poverty to protect the environment.

(Brundtland, 1987)

The social processes which underlie political and economic processes also have to beappreciated and understood alongside the purely environmental. It is worthwhileemphasizing this point. It is easy to label people who write about the environment as"environmentalists" and assume that they all prioritize the protection of the natural

environment at the expense of human social and economic needs. In this chapter, we areconsidering the environment not as a separate issue, but within a wider social andeconomic context. To this end, the following questions are addressed:

_________________

*REPRINTED FROM: Paul Smith , "Industrialization and Environment", in Tom Hewitt,Hazel Johnson, and Dave Wield (eds.) Industrialization and Development (Oxford Univ.Press: Oxford, 1992). Chapter 10, pp. 277-301.

1


2/24

How has environmental thinking developed in relation to development theory?

What is "sustainable development" and what options do the LDCs have for industrialization?

How does the relationship between industrialization and the environment differ fromone developing country to another? For example, what prospects do Thailand, Indiaand Mexico each have of achieving sustainable development?

1. ENVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY

Environment Versus Industrialization?

The concept of "environment" now brings with it a whole range of images and connotationsthat come from the early days of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. From the earlynineteenth century onwards, a rich and critical literature developed, presenting a variety of images of social deprivation alongside environmental pollution and degradation, brought

about by the unbridled forces of industrial capitalism. What much of the writings had incommon was a dislike, ranging from muted distaste to outright condemnation of industrialism. By "industrialism" they meant the wider social transformations associatedwith industrialization. Underlying the prose, however, was a diversity of political beliefswhich ranged from romantic notions of returning to some sort of pre-industrial rural idyll,through the Utopian socialist visions of William Morris, to the revolutionary socialism of Marx and Engels.

The idealization of a pre-industrial order, where the emphasis is on the purely physical or ecological consequences of economic growth, evades fundamental questions about socialand economic conditions. This is particularly relevant when we come to look at the LDCs.In Morris's writings we can see ample evidence of his desire to return to a simple form of life which find an echo in some contemporary "green" literature. Yet he also left us with arich legacy of ideas that are deserving of our serious attention today. His long-standinghatred of the utilitarian and imperialist values of capitalism led to his critique of the abstractidea of "production". Instead of the simple capitalist quantum of production, he beganasking questions about what kinds of production. He also demonstrated his awareness of Britain's imperialism abroad. He wrote:

Have nothing in your home which you do not either believe to be beautiful or know to be useful. ...

To further the spread of education in art, Englishmen in India are actively destroying the very sourcesof that educationjewelry, metalwork, pottery, calico printing, brocade weaving, carpetsall thefamous and historical arts of the great peninsula have been thrust aside for the advantage of any

paltry scrap of so-called commerce.(Morris, quoted in Thompson, 1976)

The essence of this argument finds a deal of relevance today. Rightly or wrongly Morris'sideas have tended to find support amongst the wealthier middle classes in Britain, perhapsas a way of coping with life in the late twentieth century. By contrast, the influence of Marxand Engels has been both dramatic and far reaching. Their late 20th century critics saythat the ideas of Marx and Engels, by replacing one form of imperialism, industrialcapitalism, with another, the conquest of Nature, have been responsible for the ruination of environments on a massive scale. Far from being "anti-industrial" they saw industrializationas a progressive force, whose full realization to eradicate poverty was being impeded

2


3/24

because of the struggle of class interests within capitalism.

The rhetoric of environmental conquest was all too readily translated into reality, as hasbecome depressingly apparent now that the political barriers have been lowered in theUSSR and in Eastern Europe. Yet, as we shall see later, contemporary Marxist argumenthas an important contribution to make to the debate about environment and development.Also, in what now seems a prophetic vein, Engels wrote in his Dialectics of Nature that weshall never understand the ethos of expansionism if we fail to remember that:

We ourselves are part of nature, and that what is involved in this mastery and conquest is going tohave its effect on us. Let us not flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over Nature. For each such victory, Nature takes its revenge on us. We are reminded that we belong toNature, and that all-over mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other creatures of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly.

(Engels, 1889)

Although this argument rests heavily upon the metaphor of conquest, it could equally beseen to reside in some contemporary ethic about sustainability. This serves to illustrate thevalue of delving, however briefly, into the history of ideas. There is nothing new about

environmental concern. The predominant values that come through to currentenvironmentalist thinking are those which tend to be highly critical of industrialism andindustrialized societies.

Environment and Industrialization?

The modern environmentalist movement can be said to have started in the late 1960s andearly 1970s, with the formation of pressure groups like Friends of the Earth, which wereopenly committed to direct political involvement. Their message, while being an overtlypolitical one, was scarcely new: that the only way to prevent environmental and ecologicalcatastrophe was to change fundamentally the materialist and consumerist values of industrialized societies. Much of the expressed anxiety stressed the limits to the ability of the earth to sustain current (1970s) levels of economic and population growth, consumptionof resources, and the destruction of whole ecosystems through industrial pollution andmodern agricultural methods.

There was a literary boom in "doom and gloom" with titles like The Population Bomb, How to be a Survivor and Blueprint for Survival becoming bestsellers. Internationally, thepredictions of impending crisis reached a peak in 1972 with two significant events: thepublication of The Limits to Growth from the "Club of Rome", and the United NationsConference on the Human Environment in Stockholn.

Limits to Growth used models of future resource use and population to foretell inevitablecatastrophe by the year 2000 unless international action was taken immediately. Thesolution was seen in terms of achieving a stable world population and a steady state

economy (in which growth was not the primary or stimulating ingredient). The StockholmConference was somewhat less alarmist. It placed more emphasis on inequalities betweennations and set some important initiatives in motion (like the Law of the Seas Conferences).It is now regarded as a landmark for progress on environmental issues.

Several themes which come out of this brief examination of the history of modernenvironmentalist thought are pertinent to the relationship between the environment anddevelopment in the Third World. This is exemplified by two quotations from the writings of Raymond Williams

3


4/24

We shall get nowhere in thinking about these problems [of industrial development and environmental impact] if we think that it is only the distinctive forms of modern production that represent the

problems of living well and sensibly on the earth.

Productive growth is not the abolition of poverty. What matters is the way production is organized, theway the products are distributed. It is also the way in which priorities between different forms of

production are decided. (Williams, Socialism and Ecology, 1982)

This presents us with an alternative to, on the one hand, the depressing predictions of the"ecodoomsters" and on the other, the technological over-optimism of the "free marketeers"whose dominating ideology was in the ascendency during the 1980s.

Such ideas about how industrial development affects the environment do not tie in neatlywith the different theories of economic development, which take different views of howindustrial production is organized and controlled. Nevertheless, in unraveling the linksbetween all of these it is useful to start with the two main [development] approaches:

(i) Structuralist approaches emphasize:

the need for transformation of economic and social structures;

the importance of ownership and control of resources;

the key role of industrialization.

(ii) Neo-liberal approaches emphasize the key role of markets over non-market (e.g.government) regulation.

However there is a third approach which appears to be more relevant to analysis of environment issues.

(iii) An explicitly environmental approach makes safeguarding the environment a priority,emphasizing such concepts as "zero growth" option, and a steady-state economy. It isoften associated with an "appropriate technology" perspective emphasizing smallscale and "local" initiatives (possibly along the lines of E F Schumacher's Small isBeautiful , 1973).

The neo-liberal approach seems to represent the very antithesis of an explicitlyenvironmentalist approach. After all, critiques of laissez-faire capitalism have provided thefocus for argument for successive generations of the majority of environmental thinkers.Yet some of the most persuasive political and economic arguments. Purportedly embracinga concern for environment, are emerging from new-liberal approaches.

Another apparent contradiction arises with some of the more extreme environmentalistapproaches. The political implications of attempting to implement the policies of the so-called "deep ecologists" are such that the term "ecofascism" has been used to describethem.

However, the structuralist approaches and the "appropriate technology" environmentalistapproach attempt to address the questions of economic growth, the way production isorganized and the way products are distributed.

4


5/24

A common point of debate amongst all three approaches has been the notion of sustainable development.

2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

What does "sustainable development" mean in terms of the relationship betweenindustrialization and environment in the less developed world? Can it best be achieved bya neo-liberal approach or a structuralist approach? Or is it more appropriate to take anenvironmental approach with appropriate forms of technology and an emphasis on "local"initiatives? Should we consider the environment with industrialization rather than theenvironment versus industrialization?

Towards Sustainability

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two principal concepts:

needs , in particular those of the world's poor, to which over-riding priority should be given

limitations, imposed by the state of technology and social organizations, on the environment'sability to meet present and future needs.

(Brundtland et al ., Our Common Future, 1987)

This definitive statement emerged from the United Nations World Commission onEnvironment and Development, chaired in the 1980s by the Prime Minister of Norway, GroHarlem Brundtland. In fact, definitions of the concept have proliferated leaving the skepticalobserver to surmise that "sustainable development" is merely a result of the latest politicalbandwagon. The richest nations are all trying to show concern for global environmentalissues and to respond to what they perceive as the needs of the LDCs. However, theconcept does deserve our serious consideration.

From the Brundtland Report definition we may deduce a number of serious concerns inrelation to industry and environment in the less developed world:

concern about the relationship between resource use, population growth andtechnological advancement

concern about the production and distribution of industrial and energy resourcesamongst the less developed and more developed nations

implicit concern about economic dominance and ideological differences

concern about environmental degradation and ecological destruction.By focusing on human need[s] and on development issues Brundtland appears to beoffering a fundamental challenge to the materialist and consumerist values of theindustrialized world (the North). The Report provides clear evidence for the links betweenpoverty and environment in the LDCs. It sets out an agenda for action, particularly for themore developed nations. Yet for its critics, despite the considerable participation of manyless developed nations in drawing it up, the Report represents the perspective of the Northon what is best for the South, and it is full of contradictions.

5


6/24

A critical look at the findings of the Brundtland Report raises a whole series of questionswhich are not unique to the environmental aspects of development. Is economic growthsynonymous with development? Is economic growth an adequate measure of development? What is it that is to be sustained; levels of production or levels of consumption? This last is a critical distinction. It is the patterns of consumption in the moredeveloped world that makes development unsustainable on a global level. But the mainfocus for development is necessarily production. Can sustainable development really beconcerned with meeting human needs, maintaining economic growth and conserving"natural capital" at one and the same time?

The Brundtland Report goes into considerable detail over a range of issues, such aspopulation, food, industrialization and urban growth. It explains the basis for concern,providing an agenda for achieving sustainable development, and proposing the institutionalreforms that will be needed both nationally and internationally.

Certainly, the emphasis of Brundtland is environment and development, environment w ithindustrialization, using appropriate technological means to achieve sustainable growth inboth developed and developing countries. There is clearly an empathy with Williams'thinking here. But, perhaps inevitably, the World Commission did not, as William did, go onto argue how ecological, political and economic thought could, and should, come together in a new "brand" of politics, underpinned by a progressive socialist commitment. TheBrundtland Report is laced with references to the "need for political will". But it falls short inexplaining how that is to be exercised and how the necessary radical reforms are to comeabout.

The entire credibility of the Report hinges on the premise that major economic growth canbe achieved in ways that sustain and even enhance environmental capital. It argues thatdevelopment, primarily through industrialization, is the best way of achieving populationcontrol, and that growing populations should be sustained at economic levels "above theminimum" to satisfy fundamental needs, to improve the overall quality of life. This would

mean an increase in consumption for many LDCs, but these cannot be of the order of thoseenjoyed at present in the industrially advanced nations. For all this to happen, two basicchanges have to occur:

(i) The nature of industrial development, specifically the forms of production and the use of resources, would have to change radically.

(ii) People in developed nations would have to lower significantly their use of resources.

It is easy to criticize Brundtland: it is optimistic, over ambitious, too farreaching.Moreover it has been seen as a conscience-salving exercise for the rich nations. However,a good deal of the criticism has been of a subjective nature. What varying perspectivesmight the contrasting theoretical approaches considered in the previous section offer? Thefollowing brief analysis examines:

neo-liberal views (emphasizing the market)

a moderate environmental approach (stressing small-scale and local approaches rather than measures requiring strong central political intervention)

a structuralist perspective (emphasizing the unequal structural relationship between the

6


7/24

North and South)

Contrasting Approaches to Sustainability

Neo-Liberal Views

For some neo-liberals, like Professor David Pearce of London University, the concept of sustainable development is a positive and optimistic one. Professor Pearces report to theUK Department of the Environment in 1989 on the feasibility of achieving it, now in bookform as Blueprint for a Green Economy has been welcomed in various quarters as"providing an economics of hope for the world around us". Whilst commending theBrundtland Report, Pearce says it does not define unambiguously what sustainabledevelopment is. Brundtland is critical of using market forces alone for achievingsustainability, but Pearce argues that sustainable development is a "practical and feasibleconcept" precisely because of the market.

Pearce's argument rests on putting a value on the economic functions of the environment.Environmental problems are perceived as being essentially economic problems. "They are

manifestations of the failure of market systems to allocate resources efficiency, he pointsout. Everything can be given a market value , and environmental improvements can beseen as equivalent to economic improvements. Figure 1 illustrates the process in the formof a demand curve. The diagonal line shows the demand for the services of a naturalenvironment. If a price were associated with demand, the lower the price the greater wouldbe the demand. If there were no market and the price were zero the neo-liberal theorywould suggest that too much (Qo) of the environment would be used up. Thus, they argue,it is important to put a price on the environment. The supply of environment is fixed, soFigure 1 has a vertical supply curve. Thus, if such a market in the environment existed, theprice would settle at P *, the equilibrium price, and the amount of environment used upwould be Q *.

Pearce recognizes that sustainable development must accept some trade-offs betweennarrowly construed economic growth and environmental quality, meaning that the economicvalue of environmental cost (and there usually is one) has to be understood.

In short, a neo-liberal interpretation of Brundtland is that environment and economicsshould be merged in decision-making, and market incentives employed. The "polluter pays" principle and "green" taxes are two examples of economic methods to encourage"good environmental practice". For an international environmental issue like globalwarming the neo-liberal would see market-based approaches as a necessary part of anyattempt to reduce the impact of "greenhouse gases", with the most attractive optionsinvolving the encouragement of energy efficiency.

Environmentalist Approach

Moderate environmentalists have generally been more equivocal about the BrundtlandReport and sustainability, welcoming some of its recommendations for local action andpractical solutions in developing countries, but being very critical of the general impressionthat economic growth and environmental conservation are mutually compatible. Theemphasis on the person rather than the product (echoing E F Schumacher's approach inSmall is Beautiful ) comes through in a good deal of the Brundtland rhetoric. But thepotential contradictions between the local and the global in Brundtland are too glaringlyobvious for most environmentalists. The Report urges us all "to think globally but to act locally" , but for many the Report's own thinking has not gone nearly far enough.

7


8/24

D S

Price

P* ---------------------------

0 Q* Q 0

Quantity of environmental services

Figure 1. Demand curve for the natural environment.

Those favouring more ecologically friendly solutions to the world's environmental problemshave also been critical of the neo-liberal response, challenging the altogether simplisticproposition that you can put a realistic value on the environment and on environmentaleffects. How do we value the greenhouse effect? The consequences of such globalenvironmental issues have not been foreseen due to lack of scientific knowledge, so how

can the market allocate costs on the basis of information that does not even exist?Some environmentalists have taken the argument further to link the questions of sustainability and continuing growth to the worlds poor, and particularly to the developingnations. Their argument can be summed up in the comment from John Bowers of theBritish Association of Nature Conservationists:

If sustainability is to be accepted then the poor, both in the Third World and lower income groups indeveloped countries, must be protected. Substantial sacrifices will be required by the wealthy whoconsume the lion's share of the world's resources.

(Bowers, 1990)

Structuralist Perspective

The theme of inequality between North and South is expanded considerably within thestructural approach. Structuralism is centrally concerned with the contradictions implicit inthe Brundtland concept of sustainable development, imposed by the structural inequalitiesof the global economic system. Attention is focused, in particular, on the economicdependence of the less developed countries on the developed, and on the historical andsocial processes which have produced this. As a prominent commentator on these issues,Michael Redclift, explains: "People in the South are being thrown against the contradictionsof development in their struggle to survive" (1987). For writers like Redclift the Brundtland

8


9/24

Report makes too many major assumptions about the ability of the capitalist system toaccommodate the sort of changes required.

Clearly, this view is diametrically opposed to the neo-liberal arguments of people like DavidPearce, with whom Redclift takes particular issue. Pearce's discussion of sustainabledevelopment makes no assumptions about who benefits or who loses, and fails toacknowledge that structural linkages among nations at different levels of development canresult in a politically and culturally biased view of what is sustainable.

Pearce's approach may work for the industrially advanced countries, but it is wholly aperspective from the North. The core of the structuralist critique includes the issue of equity which Redclift sees as "the driving force behind indiscriminate resource degradationin developing countries", but such considerations are not high on the neo-liberal agenda of looking primarily at total economic value.

Many structuralists, like many environmentalists, sympathize with Brundtland's aim of linking the environment with the needs of less developed countries, but challenge thefundamental assumption that sustainable development is achievable. Neo-liberals on theother hand, have generally embraced the concept of sustainability and made it their own.What does all this mean for the relationship between industrialization and environment inthe less developed world? Is it realistic to talk in terms of progressing towards asustainable future?

Comparing the Three Approaches

The position of the neo -liberals is that the system of industrial capitalism is sufficientlyflexible and adaptable to allow sustainable development to be achieved globally, basedupon market principles. For them capitalism has demonstrated its historical capacity toadapt to changing circumstances.

The environmentally oriented approach provides a varied mix. The argument for "lowinput" technology and local initiatives is an attractive one, particularly for the less developedworld; but the "no growth" solution is not, neither is it politically acceptable. Theimplications for the former are unclear in political terms. How is change to occur? Theappeals to "populism", to local action and participation, sound encouraging, but howrealistic are they in the political climate of the "real" world?

The structuralist position is one of explaining the "real" world situation in terms of structuraleconomic dependency within a dominant global political economic context that is capitalist.Radical structural transformations are required if these inequalities are to be addressed andenvironmentally sound solutions found. However, the structuralist approach is limited by itsgenerality.

A North and South Issue?Raymond Williams argues that what is crucially important for the developing nations is howdecisions about prioritizing one form of production over another are taken. "It is, then, thesocial and economic relations between people and classes", says Williams, "which emergefrom such decisions, which determine whether more production will reduce or eliminatepoverty, or will simply create new kinds of poverty as well as new kinds of damage anddestruction [to the environment]". The question of who decides and at what level suchdecisions are effectively taken becomes highly pertinent here.

9


10/24

We could argue that they way production and its priorities are organized at a national levelcreates the social relations which then determine how we distribute the production and howpeople actually live. The issue of national sovereignty may be significant. But in theindustrialized nations of the West, the inherent capitalist priority of profit is the driving forceof an international economic system that crosses national boundaries. The global economycrucially influences the relationship between the North and the South because it isdominated by the production and consumption interests of the industrially advancednations.

...Structuralism is a useful concept for exploring more specifically the links betweenindustrialization in the less developed countries and environmental impact of industrialization. Industry is essential to developing countries if they are to widen their development base and meet the growing needs of their rapidly expanding populations.India, for example, is likely to have a population of around one thousand million by the year 2000. The Brundtland Report affirmed that "all nations require and rightly aspire to efficientindustrial bases to meet changing needs".

Industry extracts minerals from the natural resource base, processes them and puts bothproducts and pollution back into the environment. Whether or not profit is the motivatingforce, industries have seldom taken responsibility for the consequences of their actions,unless required to do so by law, and even then often only by lip service. If enforcement of national legislation is problematic within sovereign states, then how much more difficult is itin the international arena with the implementation of protocols and conventions? Some of the worst offenders are the transnational corporations (the TNCs). In 1984, a chemical leakfrom a Union Carbide pesticides factory in Bhopal, India, killed more than 2,000 andmaimed an estimated further 200,000.

Table 1. Share of manufacturing value added in GDP, by economic grouping and income group (%)

1960 1970 1980 1982

Developing Countries 14.2 16.6 19.0 19.0Low income 11.2 13.8 15.0 15.0Lower-middle income 11.0 13.5 16.4 16.6Upper-middle income 19.4 21.6 24.1 23.3High income 17.2 16.2 17.2 17.9

Developed Market Economies 25.6 28.3 27.9 27.1

Centrally Planned Economies 32.0 42.4 50.5 50.8(Estimated)

[Source : UNIDO, 1985]

Industrial production in the LDCs is diversifying and moving into more capital-intensiveareas such as chemicals, machinery, metal products and equipment. In the mid-1980s theproportion of manufacturing value added (MVA) in gross domestic product (GDP) hadincreased to 19% (see Table 1). Heavy industries, traditionally the most polluting, hadbeen growing in relation to light industries. Nonetheless the LDC share of world MVA hadrisen only from 10% to 13% between 1960 and 1985.

10


11/24

Energy consumption is also extremely uneven (see Table 2). The industrialized countriesof North America, Western Europe and Japan used approximately half of the world's energyconsumption in 1988, the centrally planned economies used about a third, and the lessdeveloped countries used a sixth.

Table 2. Global distribution of energy consumption in 1988

% of world total consumption

North America 27.2

Western Europe 16.2

Centrally planned economies:USSR 17.3China 9.0Other 7.7

Asia and Australia 12.3Latin America 5.3

Middle East 2.4

Africa 2.6

[Original data source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 1989]

The negative environmental impacts of industrial activity have long been recognized. But itwas only in the late 1960s and early 1970s that growing public awareness and concern,principally in the more developed countries, led to action by some governments andindustry. Government regulatory measures and a number of economic instruments such aspollution charges and taxation, were considered; in line with the thinking of David Pearceand others who saw the market as a powerful instrument to achieve sustainability. But onlya few governments actually introduced these measures. Industries also responded to somedegree, principally in the more developed countries. Scandinavian and Germancompanies, and a few US companies such as 3M, developed new processes designed tocut emissions, reduce pollution and avoid other adverse environmental impacts.

The good news, then, is that there have been achievements over the last two decades.Expenditure on pollution control measures has increased in some highly polluting industriessuch as steel, chemicals and energy production. Guidelines on safety, trade practices andtechnology transfer have been introduced, as have voluntary codes of practice.International industry associations, established to cooperate on improving industrialperformance, has also facilitated pollution control. The Brundtland Report is keen toemphasize that some firms, all former major polluters, that established teams to researchand develop innovative technologies to meet new environmental standards "are today[1987] among the most competitive in their fields, nationally and internationally".

The bad news is that these improvements have been almost entirely limited to theindustrially advanced nations, and even there many problems remain to be tackled and"solved". Along with competitiveness and innovation, energy efficiency, recycling and re-use have become the key themes for "technologically aware" industrialists. Pollution

11


12/24

control has become a thriving branch of industry in the developed countries. But pollutingindustries have sometimes been relocated to less developed countries.

Levels of air pollution in some "Third World" cities have risen above anything witnessed inthe industrial countries during the 1950s or 1960s. For example, peak levels of airborneparticulates in Calcutta and Delhi, and of sulphur dioxide in Beijing, are several timesgreater than peak levels recorded in cities in developed countries (Table 3). Both types of pollutant are linked to inefficient burning of fossil fuels, with sulphur dioxide usually comingfrom coal in particular. It would be wrong to give the impression that air pollution is aproblem in every Third World city. It is not, particularly where there is not a great deal of industry as in some African cities. Also, levels are seriously high in a number of developedcountries; but conditions are clearly worse in cities like Beijing, Delhi, Manila and Bangkok.They are worse still in Mexico City, which is not recorded in Table 3, but is described later in this chapter.

Pollution problems that were once considered as "local" are now global in scale, and asBrundtland solemnly reported:

Contamination of soils, ground-water, and people by agrochemicals is widening, and chemical

pollution has spread to every corner of the planet. The incidence of major accidents involving toxic chemicals has grown. It is evident that measures to reduce, control and prevent industrial pollutionwill need to be greatly strengthened. If they are not, pollution damage to human health could becomeintolerable in certain cities, and threats to property and ecosystems will continue to grow.

(Brundtland, 1987)

Table 3. Peak air pollution levels in selected cities, 1982-1985 (in microgrammes per cubic metre)

particulates sulphur dioxide

Developed Countries

Brussels (Belgium) 97 205

Frankfurt (Germany) 117 230London (UK) 77 171New York City (USA) 121 131Warsaw (Poland) 248 205

Less Developed Countries

Bangkok (Thailand) 741 48Beijing (China) 307 625Calcutta (India) 967 188Delhi (India) 1062 197Manila (Philippines) 579 198Sao Paulo (Brazil) 338 173

[Source: World Resources Institute, 1989]Clearly, a heavy burden of responsibility continues to rest with the industrialized countriesto "clean up their act". That they are making progress, as evidenced for example in therecent series of international climate conferences, may give some grounds for cautiousoptimism. But what of the responsibilities in the less developed world? To what extentdoes the structural interdependency between North and South provide industrializingcountries with options or choices?

12


13/24

We should pause to take stock here of the various dimensions to this whole issue. Thereare a number of important considerations:

For industrial development to be at all sustainable in the long term (discounting the "nogrowth" scenario of some radical greens as being politically and economicallyunrealistic) there will have to be radical changes to the quality of that development.

To accept the Brundtland concept of sustainability is not to suggest that industrializationhas yet reached a quantitative limit, particularly in the LDCs;

According to the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), world industrialoutput would have to increase by 260% for the consumption of manufactured goods indeveloping countries to reach current levels in the industrialized countries (based on1987 figures).

UNIDO also estimates anything from a five-to a ten-fold increase in world industrialoutput, depending when world population stabilizes "sometime in the next century". (UNprojections range from 7.7 billion in 2060 to 14.2 billion in 2100.)

Growth of this magnitude has the most serious implications for the future of the world'secosystems, and its natural resource base.

We may rightly feel that any projections so far into the future should be treated with at leasta modicum of circumspection. But, whichever way we approach the United Nations figures,there is cause for concern. Despite the growth of awareness of global environmentalproblems and the improvements referred to already, we are repeatedly being informed by agrowing number of voices, including scientists, that the situation is deteriorating . There isa widening hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. There are threats of global warming.There is widespread deforestation and desertification. And this is not just a concern beingexpressed by agitated "Northern" voices. Note the following quote from a representative of a Brazilian ecology movement, presenting evidence to the Brundtland Commission:

Our ecological movement is not against industry, but we must think of the social function of industriesand that pollution and progress are not the same thing. Pollution is not the synonym of progress and,therefore, the time has come for new development concepts to come up. Pollution should not be asynonym of progress because we know that pollution is controllable and when you do not control

pollution you are transferring this pollution to the community of the whole.

(Fabio Feldman, Sao Paulo, October 1985)

The reference to the "social function of industries" brings us once more back to Williams'questions: what kinds of production; what priorities for production; and to a structuralistexplanation. Do less developed countries have much of a choice? This is the subject of the next two sections, the second of which takes a more detailed look at three very differentcase studies from the less developed world.

What Choices?

The United Nations' estimates to which reference has been made in the previous sectionmake all kinds of assumptions about the ability or the freedom of developing nations tochoose their paths to further industrialization. For writers like Michael Redclift, quotedearlier, this is a blinkered approach which merely serves to underline the contradictions

13


14/24

inherent in the concept of sustainable development.

Using structuralist theories, it is possible to predict a situation in which the shortage of keycommodities leads to the more developed world exerting the strong pressure to secure their supplies; political pressure, economic pressure, and in the extreme, military pressure. Justsuch a situation existed in 1991 in the Middle East in relation to oil. And it is equallyfeasible that similar scenarios could occur in the future in other parts of the developingworld. Raymond Williams has expressed it thus:

We can see the possibility of recruiting wide areas of public opinion to cast as "enemies" the poor countries which have been assigned the role of supplying the raw materials, the oil, the whole rangeof basic commodities, at prices which are convenient to the functioning, in received terms, of the older industrial economies.

(Williams, 1982)

Events at the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations appear to support the structuralistargument that LDCs are assigned the dependent role. A widely expressed view,particularly from Third World commentators, is that the main priority of the industrialized

nations in the Uruguay Round was:... to extend their control over the global economy. In the past this was achieved through a mixture of colonialism and threats of military intervention. Today it is hoped that GATT and the threat of retaliation will serve the same purpose.

(Raghavan, 1990)

One particular argument being advanced is that GATT could advance TNC domination of the world economy to a "point of no return". Raghavan talks in terms of a world dividedbetween the "knowledge-rich" and the "knowledge-poor" where the latter are "permanentlyblocked from acquiring the knowledge and capacity to be rich". His argument continues:

In economic and social terms, Third World countries could be said to be on the point of being rolled back to the colonial era. Third World governments would not only be unable to act to advance theeconomic well-being of their people, but would be obliged to protect the interests of TNCs and foreignenterprises against their own people.

(Raghavan, 1990)

One structuralist view is that, far from environmental considerations leading to a more equaluse of resources for development, there will be increased inequality and constraineddevelopment in LDCs.

To be aware of these arguments is to demonstrate the complexity of the issues under discussion, and yet we should not leave the question of the United Nations' projectionsthere. The UN made the point that "industrialization has yet to reach a quantitative limit,particularly in the developing countries". Yet material limits there have to be. If weconsider that the United States currently (in 1991) uses something like 370 times as muchenergy per capita as Sri Lanka, then it seems very unlikely that the ecological balance of the planet could sustain developing countries using similar levels.

In short, this means that the less developed world cannot follow the development path of the more developed. Nor can the industrialized nations continue along this same pathwithout changing their habits.

What propositions might we consider that would see all nations moving, if not along the

14


15/24

same path, at least in the same direction? Such propositions might include:

a realignment of political and economic blocs that does not adversely affect the LDCs

a serious commitment on the part of the more developed nations and the World'sfinancial institutions to review and to amend radically current positions on debt andpolicies for structural adjustment

a serious commitment by the industrialized nations to achieve the goals of sustainabledevelopment sooner rather than later

the continuing development of new technologies that avoid the most dire environmentalconsequences, and their export through technology transfer to the LDCs without stringsattached

an end to "ecological imperialism" like calls to "internationalize" Amazonia.

Given such an hypothetical context, what theoretical choices might exist for developing

countries in their desire to industrialize without causing major environmental damage? Arange of possible themes that are practicable could be considered here:

The promises and risks of new technologies;

the establishment of internationally agreed environmental standards and incentives tohelp achieve them;

dealing with industrial hazards;

the disposal of hazardous waste;

strengthening international efforts to assist developing countries to develop safer technology.

Before taking a brief look at the first and last of these possibilities, we should be clear aboutthe political economic context within which such initiatives might occur.

We have been considering contrasting perspectives of sustainable development: neo-liberal market-led, environment-oriented (emphasizing "local" action), and structuralist. Itshould be evident from the foregoing discussion that the structuralist explanation of unequalnations at different stages of development is powerful, particularly in terms of its critique of market-led development processes. It highlights the essential contradictions within theconcept of sustainable development, which purports to promote radical change yet derivesfrom an ideology dominated by market economics.

Herein lies both the strength and the weakness of structuralist explanations. For sustainable development is, for many, about achieving practical results on the ground.Maneka Gandhi, Indian Junior Environment Minister 1990-1991, said "it means just cleanwater, clean air and a rational land use. That's all sustainable development is about". Thefirst inference is that issues of sustainable development may appear to involve meetingsimple environmental needs in many LDCs: such as water, land and housing. Themeaning of environment in particular circumstances can be broader than the issues of humanly produced waste, hazard and pollution. But the second inference is that although

15


16/24

sustainable development can effectively argue that global resources are available to meetthe basic human needs of the world's population, it does not mean that changes will occur without dramatic structural transformations.

New Technologies and International Cooperation

As has already been demonstrated in the industrially advanced world, new technologiescan offer great opportunities for improving productivity, health and the overall quality of life,whilst at the same time minimizing risk to the environment. Significant advances have beenmade in Scandinavia, Germany, and in the most progressive industries in the highest per capita energy consuming nation of all, the USA. The 3M Company has for more than adecade reoriented its whole productive process to be "environmentally friendly", includingreduction of waste and built-in product recyclability. Developments in informationtechnology and the introduction of new materials can contribute towards energy andresource efficiency.

In the field of biotechnology, developments in genetic engineering could have major implications for the environment. Energy derived from plants, new high-yield crop varieties,and integrated pest management are three major areas of predicted improvements. It isalso being confidently forecast that biotechnology could yield cleaner, more efficientalternatives to a whole range of industrial processes and polluting products, and make amajor contribution to the problem of hazardous waste disposal through the advancement of new techniques to treat solid and liquid wastes.

Clearly, new energy-efficient technologies, promising reduced risks to the environment, arecapable of promoting sustainable forms of development in the industrialized North. Butwhat are the prospects for the less developed world? The "green revolution" and theprovision of new seeds became the domain of the huge transnational chemical industries.The chemical companies have been concerned with reaping the benefits from developingand controlling a limited number of crop varieties, often requiring large inputs of specificfertilizers and pesticides, which they also produce. Such dependency scarcely enhances

either the chances or the choices for the LDCs with agriculture-based economies toachieve sustainability.

The green revolution may have had a significant impact upon productive output in manydeveloping countries, but not without a considerable environmental cost. The necessaryresearch into new techniques and production processes, to promote "environmentalcompatibility" and minimize the risk element, is both costly and time consuming. Can theless developed world afford either in its struggle to industrialize?

Those industries which are fastest growing in developing countries are pollution-intensiveand based on exploiting natural resources. Many developing countries do not possesseither the technical or the institutional capacity for making the most of imported or newtechnologies. These have to be brought in from outside. However, lack of capital meansthat new industry may only be started with aid or commercial loans, or from investmentfrom the transnational corporations.

The international economic system holds few favours for governments in the South.... [The]running up of large external debts, high interest rates, and the inequitable trade situationwhich sees less developed countries receiving less than a fair market price for their commodities, means that allocating scarce financial resources on environmental protectiongets a very low priority. Yet the industrialized world is busily drawing up the guidelineswhich stress that "nations have to bear the costs of any inappropriate industrialization"

16


17/24

(Brundtland, 1987).

This is a cleft stick for the LDCs. In a world of rapid technological change they have neither the resources nor the time to prevent or remedy environmental damage. The existingtechnology is "dirty", It is heavily polluting and energy consuming. New technology isexpensive and comes with strings attached. We might argue, from the relative luxury of our "northern" observation points, that governments must tighten their existing environmentallegislation, although even here there are no guarantees that this would be consistentlyenforced.

A burden of responsibility certainly rests with the governments of the LDCs; but arguably afar greater burden resides with the governments of the richest nations and with thetransnational corporations (TNCs). Less developed countries will continue to have a veryrestricted range of options without substantial assistance from the international community,in financial, technical and institutional terms. The TNCs have a major responsibility to"smooth the path to industrialization in the nations in which they operate", according toBrundtland. How optimistic can we afford to be that either of these essential undertakingswill occur at a significant level before the turn of the century?

3. INDUSTRIALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT: CONTRASTING CASES

In the following case studies we will take a brief look at the challenges of industrializationand development which are being faced in three contrasting Third World areas, each at adifferent level and stage of development. Thailand is a rapidly industrializing country on thePacific rim, facing severe environmental problems. Haryana State in India has a localinitiative for promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewable resources, as acounterbalance to the huge Narmada Valley Project. In Mexico City there is a seeminglyintractable problem of balancing the demand for continued industrial expansion with theprovision of environmental safeguards.

Thailand

Between 1960 and 1990 Thailand's GDP expanded more than eighteenfold, with a buoyant7.5% average annual growth rate throughout that period. According to Bank of Thailandforecasts, the Thai economy was set to expand by a further 9.7% at the start of the 1990s,with indicators suggesting continued high growth in virtually every sector. Trade has playeda central role. Export volume expanded by 34% in 1987, which has since led to a further major increase in investment. The capital city, Bangkok, has witnessed explosive growth,from a modest city of some 450,000 people at the end of the Second World War, tosomething over 8 million according to 1989 estimates.

Thailand has achieved such remarkable sustained growth because of a consistent record of

macro-economic stability, and an enduring commitment to undertake structural economicreforms, encouraged by the World Bank. The substantial input of foreign capital, includingaid, to boost development in Thailand is certainly creating wealth. But a significantproportion goes abroad again in the form of export capital, especially on debt repayments,and as profits to the transnational corporations.

Problems of Rapid Growth

The paradox is that such economic dynamism co-exists with severe economic, social and

17


18/24

environmental problems. Although economic growth has undoubtedly reduced poverty;severe imbalances in the distribution of wealth have applied relentless pressure on naturalresources and on an inadequate infrastructure.

Is sustainable development an achievable goal in Thailand, or is growth being achieved ata price? Thai financial institutions continue to paint an optimistic picture for the 1990s,claiming that Thailand is now Asia's top performing economy, and even the world's fastestgrowing economy. However, the labour force remains largely rural-based, with two-thirdsof the population (in 1989) of almost 54 million still engaged primarily in agriculturalactivities.

Despite industrial expansion, Thailand is still heavily dependent on the natural resourcesthat continue to make an important contribution to the country's GDP. Even so, the share(by value) of agricultural products in Thailand's exports fell from 48% in 1981 to 34% in1986, while the share of manufactured products increased from 35% to 55% over the sameperiod.

There is certainly a recognition by a concerned minority in Thailand of the need for policiesdirected towards sustainability and conservation. Equally there is an uneasy acceptancethat many economic development projects have paid too little attention to the long-termsustainability of their natural resource base; that laws and regulations have been weightedin favour of the unscrupulous, rather than the conscientious; and that a fair distribution of the wealth derived from Thailand's natural resources and industrial progress is as distant aprospect as ever.

Pollution in Bangkok

The most potent images of rapid growth are to be found in Bangkok itself. Asindustrialization has continued apace, the economic relations of the country have becomeprogressively oriented towards the capital city, to the extent that over 75% of Thailand'sfactories dealing with hazardous chemicals are now located within Bangkok's hinterland.The growth of private transport has been equally phenomenal, and the city is fast becomingchoked with traffic.

Like all burgeoning Third World cities Bangkok has its shanty towns, with their associatedproblems of sanitation, health and securing a fresh water supply. Water is a crucial issue.So much of it is being pumped out of the underground aquifers that the city is literallysinking by up to 100 mm a year. The authorities have a major task ahead in prioritizingexpenditure to deal with this and other pressing matters of infrastructure, like publictransport and essential services.

Living in Bangkok is becoming more and more environmentally hazardous. Air and water quality are deteriorating. Every year there is serious flooding, exacerbated by the loggingof forests in the north. The disposal of waste, industrial and domestic, an ever presentheadache, is getting worse. The problems are the hallmarks of four decades of rapiduncontrolled and largely unplanned growth. As in all developing cities, the urbanunderclasses are suffering the most and carry the least political clout, but the problems arebeginning to affect everyone. Here is an extract taken from a letter written by oneconcerned woman in Bangkok:

It seems not enough to learn from other countries' experiences; we have to be an NIC and learn thelesson first hand. Unfortunately, by the time we learn that being an NIC is not to the advantage of Thailand, which is basically an agricultural country, it will be too late. Once fertile farmlands have

18


19/24

been turned into factory sites, beaches and forest reserves have become tourist resorts, paralysed traffic has become a way of life, the air has become heavy with industrial smoke in Bangkok, and there would be more natural disasters to contend with as nature takes her revenge on us.

(The Bangkok Post, 26 November, 1989)

Plans for Sustainable Development

The Thai government has a long-term plan to develop the country's eastern seaboard totake some of the pressure off Bangkok and its hinterland. There are also policies in theprocess of implementation for rural development to open up the interior of Thailand. Toconcerned citizens the official response is that growth is essential as the only solution topoverty, and that increased awareness on environmental issues will ensure that Thailandwill not make the same mistakes as the industrialized nations. One particular safeguardbeing stressed is the incorporation of "state of the art" technologies into the forefront of thedevelopment process, supported by loans and the transfer of technology from the West.

Dr. Dhira Phantumvanit, one of the country's foremost environmentalists, argued in 1987that "Despite its acknowledged problems, Thailand has a real opportunity to pioneer in anemerging field of sustainable development. Much of the groundwork has been laid, eventhough the legal and administrative framework cannot yet exploit the full potential of theinvestments already made. There is certainly a sense amongst leading politicians andeconomists that Thailand can "contain growth" and steer a course towards sustainability.

There is a powerful argument that economic growth and industrialization are essential toeradicate poverty in the developing world. This is a cornerstone of the Brundtland Report.However, the free-market-based approach embraced by Thailand through her strong tieswith the more developed countries of the West is hardly likely to produce an equitabledistribution of resources internally, and the price being paid in environmental terms isconsiderable.

India

The environment and development problems facing India are of a different order. Thepopulation is expected to reach one billion by the year 2000. In 1991 the UN estimated thatmore than a third of the population was below what is in any case a very low poverty line.India has made great strides to industrialize, and to initiate major economic developmentschemes through a rolling programme of five-year development plans. However more andmore Indians are questioning the whole approach to the process of development,specifically the scale of projects and to who actually benefits from them.

Narmada Valley

At the forefront of controversy has been the Narmada River scheme, which in the 1990s isset to become the world's largest hydroelectric power and irrigation complex. The projectinvolves the building of 30 major dams, 35 medium-sized dams, and 3,000 small dams,over a period of fifty years. It is designed to irrigate some 20,000 square kilometres in thedrought-prone states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, provide drinking water for the wholeregion, and generate 500 megawatts of electricity. It represents the archetypal "granddevelopment scheme", and much of the estimated costs of around US$40 billion will be metby the World Bank.

19


20/24

The Narmada Valley project has also produced India's first nationwide environmentalprotest movement, bringing together campaigners for peasants' rights, fishermen, the urbanpoor and other groups. The protesters see the scheme as being an environmentalcatastrophe, a "technological dinosaur" and an example of great social injustice. For thedams, when completed, will displace more than 200,000 people, submerge 2,000 squarekilometres of fertile land, and 1,500 square kilometres of forest.The essence of their argument is that environmental damage would be minimized withhundreds of local irrigation projects, which could do the same job (although not provide theelectricity) at a fraction of the cost. In this they have the support of a number of prominentpoliticians, including Maneka Gandhi. Poor farmers and agriculture in general will lose out,because the whole scheme will benefit more intensive farming methods, encouraging thosewho are already prosperous to grow more cash crops, leaving peasants upstream witheven less water.

Just such a process has been typical of large scale development schemes all over thedeveloping world. What purports to be development for everyone in fact can benefit onlythose who are already wealthy and the developers themselves. It is, in effect, a classicexample of "top-down" thinking, the imposition of grandiose ideas from above.

Haryana State

At the other end of the spectrum, in terms of the scale of development and the politicsinvolved, comes an example of a sustainable energy project in Haryana State to the northwest of New Delhi. It was initiated on an experimental basis in 1984 by the Tata EnergyResearch Institute (TERI) in Delhi, an organization that is mostly funded by the TataIndustrial Group, one of the largest corporations in India. The aim has been to demonstratethe practical achievements of their work on local renewable sources of energy. The projecthas centred on one village, Dhanawas, which has about 300 inhabitants. The long-termobjective is to spread the ideas to other villages in the state.

Participation by the villagers is a cornerstone of the initiative, in what is clearly a "bottom-up" process. All work has been undertaken in complete cooperation with the villagecouncil, with the equitable concept of the "common property resource" as a lynchpin of resource management and use policies. There has been to date (1991) no costs bornedirectly by the inhabitants, modest funding coming jointly from TERI, the Indian governmentand the FAO.

The principal features of the project have been:

The establishment of an 18 acre plantation on what were very poor saline soilssupporting only scrub vegetation. The policy is for long-term improvement of soil

quality, using hardy nitrogen-fixing species like acacia and mesquat which can be usedas a source of much needed fuelwood on a sustainable basis. All the trees are held asa common property resource.

The development of a number of bio-gas makers, which use a mixture of cow dung andwater. The capacity of each unit is 2 cubic metres per day, which is sufficient for aboutfive hours cooking on modern cookstoves or ten hours of lighting. The plan is tointroduce enough units to make the village self-sufficient in renewable sources of fuel,reducing the consumption of fuel wood in conventional cookstoves.

20


21/24

The building of a gasifier, which uses a mixture of shredded mustard stalks, cow dungand water in the form of small pellets and converts them into gas. The equipment iscapable of generating the equivalent of five kilowatts of electricity with an 80/20gas/diesel mix, enough power to provide lighting for the whole village.

The use of solar powered water heaters.

Essentially the project concerns the use of intermediate technology to promote the efficientuse of renewables, thus cutting the cost of conventional fuel consumption in rural areas. Itis not being suggested that such projects can solve the problems of energy use in thecities. A central problem is that Haryana State is amongst the most agriculturally productivestates in India, and the inhabitants of Dhanawas have been willing and able to participatebecause their village is relatively well off. Poorer villages have other priorities, like accessto safe water and income generation.

Nevertheless, the TERI project does demonstrate what can be achieved locally with a smallbudget, and with the political cooperation of the government. At the same time such

initiatives are taking place within a context of continuing pressure for economic growthnationally, as the Narmada project illustrates. In India, it is a question of striving to achievea balance between huge, national multimillion-dollar projects and small-scale localschemes, with the emphasis not necessarily on the former.

Mexico City

The environmentally and socially damaging effects of industrialization, combined with highrates of population and rapid urban growth, are starkly illustrated in Mexico City. Of allmajor cities in the less developed world, Mexico City must surely face the greatestenvironmental and social problems. In Bangkok we saw the adverse consequences of rapid growth and development in a country with a continuously high rate of economicgrowth, striving to achieve NIC status. In Mexico City we see the impact on urbanizationprocesses of a rapidly rising population; a combination of high natural increase andcontinuing migration from rural areas.

Population and Poverty

Mexico City's 1991 population of over 19 million is expected to rise to 25 million by the year 2000, according to UN predictions. Even though the pace of demographic growth isslowing a little, to many who live in the city and to many more outside observers, theproblems appear insurmountable.

Mexico City's inhabitants also have to contend with the natural hazard of living in anearthquake-prone area. Records indicate that the city has been struck 122 times since

1460. The latest serious tremor in 1985 caused widespread death and destruction.Estimates of the total number of fatalities have varied from 10,000 to as many as 60,000.Over 45,000 homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Schools serving some 40,000pupils were devastated and an estimated 40% of the city's hospital beds were put out of action.

Floods are also a recurrent threat, as in Bangkok. But it is on the human side, in the social,economic, political and technical processes that contribute to urbanization, that Mexico Cityattracts the greatest attention as an "urban nightmare". Environmental disaster may be

21


22/24

waiting in the wings in Bangkok, but it has arguably already assumed centre stage inMexico City.

A description of the social deprivation and environmental degradation in Mexico City is acatalogue of some of the worst ills of the "Third World" city. Housing conditions are poor;40% of families live at densities of more than two per room, and 25% live in a "house" withonly one room. Sanitation is substandard and waste disposal deficient, posing major healthand pollution problems. Road traffic (there are now over 2.75 million vehicles in the city) iscausing very serious congestion and air pollution, with smogs a frequent occurrence duringthe dry half of the year. Most significantly, Mexico City's industrial concentration of oilrefineries, power stations and cement works adds considerably to the pollution andenvironmental hazards.

The task facing the city's urban managers is formidable and, perhaps not surprisingly,much criticism is focused on government for incompetence and corruption. But someobservers contend that, with more than five million being added to the city's populationbetween 1980 and 1990, the local authorities and government agencies have accomplisheda great deal in terms of increasing the number of homes with piped water and mainsdrainage, improving public transport and building new roads.

Politics and Pollution

Nevertheless, the crucial problems of ensuring continuous supplies of safe water and of progressively reducing air pollution levels remain unresolved, and appear indeed to border on the insoluble. Even an efficient city administration, able to lay its hands on the requisitefunds, would have its work cut out to clean up the polluted skies. For here we encounter anall too familiar story, that of political conflict surrounding the control of pollution, andspecifically the "dirty" industrial processes which give rise to it.

There are two principal sources of air pollution: motor vehicles and heavy industry.Attempts to control the pollution caused by vehicles would be vigorously opposed by themotor industry. (It is the considerable political lobbying pressure of the motor industry in theindustrially advanced nations, particularly the USA, that is hampering attempts to reachinternational agreement on how to tackle global warming.) They would also be opposed bythose in government concerned with stimulating economic growth. For it has been therapid growth of the motor vehicle industry during the past two decades that has contributedsignificantly to increasing Mexico's GNP.

Efforts to impose controls on the major industrial polluters, who now contribute around 30%of the total air pollution, will also be bitterly contested. If legislation is introduced on the"polluter pays" principle and production costs rise (as they inevitably would), these will bepassed on to the consumer, thus fuelling inflation.

Mexico City appears to be facing insoluble problems because of rapid growth andincreasing industrial concentration. Successive governments have all pursued the goal of urban and industrial deconcentration. They have set up rural-based commissions tostimulate agricultural development in the regions. They have also attempted to wooindustry away from the city, offering tax incentives to companies willing to locate outside themetropolitan area. Well over 100 new industrial estates have been established throughoutthe country. But in practice, these schemes have had only limited success, as more andmore activity has continued to locate in Mexico City's hinterland. As in Bangkok, but on afar larger scale, we see the conflict between much-needed economic growth and equallyessential environmental safeguards.

22


23/24

4. Sustainable Industrial Futures?

One of the principal lessons from the three case studies is that there are no simpleexplanations about environmental impact and deterioration in the less developed world.We cannot talk in terms of a single cause and effect, but only of multiple causes with avariety of effects. It is misguided to see all problems in terms of inappropriate developmentand industrialization emanating from the industrially advanced nations. Governments in theLDCs have to shoulder a share of the responsibility. The problem, as this chapter hassought to demonstrate, is that they are most often presented with very limited choices.

The case studies demonstrate the challenges which developing nations face in trying tostrike a balance between the need to industrialize and the increasing pressures from theinternational community to "safeguard" the environment. Their options are often heavilyconstrained. From whatever perspective we choose to explore these issues, whether it beneo-liberal, structural or environment-centred, the problems remain complex. There arealways gaps (and sometimes yawning gulfs) between the rhetoric or theory and the reality,

particularly the political economic reality.Neo-Liberal Ideology

It is worth questioning the conventional wisdom that global environmental problems can beresolved within a dominant neo-liberal ideology of development, and that the capitalistsystem is sufficiently flexible to deal with environmental problems. Even so, neo-liberalssuch as Pearce have worked out practical proposals based on prices, which aim for sustainable development.

Structuralist Framework

Within the structuralist framework, the key is to acknowledge the need for structural changeto reduce inequalities between nations. The Brundtland Report... can be read as aproposal to deal with inequalities between North and South, recognizing their mutualinterests. The framework of welfare-based capitalism could adapt to the requirements of aneconomically and environmentally sustainable system. This would mean acknowledgingand coping with the contradictions inherent in the concept of sustainable development. Andthis is something that neither the more radical structuralists nor the radical "deep"environmentalists are prepared to do.

Radical structuralists appear to be strong on explanation and weak on practicality. TheMarxist approach in particular offers a challenging and relevant analysis of thefundamental aspects of economic dependency in global development. The environment isnot seen in isolation as some kind of "fetish". People, poverty and inequality are placedabove the issues of the market place.Environmentally Centred Approach

The followers of writers like E.F. Schumacher emphasize the need for "local" action andlow-impact technology within an environmentally-centred approach. Such an approach hasappeal. The case study of Dhanawas in India pointed up the significance of participationand "bottom-up" initiatives. But is "local" a realistic overriding context for tackling globalenvironmental problems? Where is the political and economic realism?

23


24/24

"Sustainable development is ultimately a local activity", writes Lloyd Timberlake (1988);"governments do not do development, people do". One may be cautiously optimistic aboutthe movement (politically) of people to bring about change, but a lot has to happen. Habitsof production and consumption in the industrialized North have got to change, and sooner rather than later. National aspirations and goals must be seen in a far wider, globalcontext. The industrialized nations have got to clear up their own mess before expectingless developed countries to do likewise.

Third World Views

In all of this discussion, the view from the less developed world can easily be submerged.Many Third World critics continue to argue that the West has an immense historical debt topay. The consequences of following the "conventional path" of economic developmentover 200 years of history has been disabling and dependency-creating for much of thedeveloping world. These are manifested in rising debt, in structural adjustmentprogrammes, in trade protectionist policies. The role of science and technology is seen bymany not as "liberator" but as "destroyer". They point, in particular, to the huge annualexpenditure on armaments. The end to the Cold War offered a chink of light that fundsmight be diverted away from military expenditure into a "peace dividend". But skepticsremain unconvinced, as there are still numerous wars being fought in various parts of theworld.

Many questions about "the environment" remain unanswered for the citizen of a lessdeveloped country, who does not have enough to eat and has no permanent place to live.

* * * *

3.5.b- industrialization and environment

Documents