Green activists - from Brazil to Bangladesh - are rejecting the view that ecological concern is the preserve of the industrial world. Khor Kok Peng argues that underdevelopment and environmental decay are two sides of the same coin.

TO be Green in the Third World today means standing shoulder-to shoulder with the marginalized. It means fight- ing for safe and sustainable development that can feed the hungry in rural villages and shelter the homeless of the sprawling urban slums.

Not long ago. 'environmental issues' were considered a luxury for the Third World. The first priority was to speed up economic growth to eliminate poverty; only then could we afford to worry about negative side-effects like pollution or occupational safety. So went the conventional argument from governments in both rich and poor countries. Those who had doubts about this logic - people who today might call them- selves Green - were dismissed as dreamers and reactionaries.

Today the 'growth first' stance is indefensible. Poverty has increased despite growth and there is overwhelming evidence that the environmental destruction it has caused has disrupted the sources of livelihood and threatened the health and even lives of poor Third World communities.

Much ot that destruction has been imported. environmental and health disasters in the Third World often result from Western products. technologies and development models. The Bhopal gas tragedy, where 3,000 lives were lost and another 200,000 are suffering disabilities is the outstanding example of what happens when a western transnational adopts industrial safety standards far below those acceptable in its own country. There are hundreds of other substandard plants sold to the Third World (the Bataan nuclear plant in the Philippines, for example) or which have been shifted there by trans- nationals to escape health and pollution standards in their home countries.

Then there are the aid-fueled develop ment packages that uproot indigenous systems of agriculture and land-use, converting them for rich-nation interests. Thc Green Revolution, for instance, has wiped out thousands of indigenous rice varieties that had withstood generations of pests and substituted a few high-yielding varieties that are very susceptible to pest attack.

The ever-increasing use of chemicals to counter pests had not only heightened Third World dependence on agribusincss transnationals, it has also resulted in 40,000 pesticide poisoning deaths annually. Meanwhile, with the disappearance of indigenous varieties, Thirld World farmers and governments will incrcasingly be at the mercy of a few transnationals which have collected and patented seeds and geneplasm originating from the Third World itself.

Fishermen in many Third World countries find their catch dwindling. The large scale introduction of modern trawl boats, often aid-financed, has rapidly depleted ocean fish stocks. Not only is a major source of Third World protein at risk but millions of traditional coastal fisherman depend on thc fishery for their survival. Effluents from industrial factories, many owned by transnationals, kill off riverina fish, whilst the new agricultural chemicals are also wiping out fish in rice ponds. Such projects are usually inappropriate for genuine development. They end up under-utilized, grossly inefficient or even too dangerously designed and built to be used at all. Absorbing so much investment, they deprive communities of much needed finance for genuine development projects, and moreover lead the borrowing Third World nations into debt.

The ultimate environmental and social tragedy of our age is that industrial technology, could, if properly designed and applied, provide for every human being's physical needs. Instead it is being used to take resources away from the Third World largely for the production of superfluous goods; whilst the majority of' Third World peoples sink deeper at the margins of survival. Worse yet. the very processes of extracting Third World resourccs result in environmental disasters deforestation. massive soil-erosion and desertification. pollution of water supplies and thc horrible human toll in poisoning from toxic substances and in industrial accidents.

Despite the record of disasters, environmental concepts and groups in many Third World countries are still met with skepticism and even anger. They are called 'romantics' or crackpots who love blue skies and butterflies. In some Third Word countries they are denounced as selfish groups who want to preserve Nature and thus deprive poor people of land; or they are accused of being lackeys of Western environmental groups who want to keep the Third World poor by topping their economic growth: or they may even be termed subversive because of anti-development activities'

But environmental consciousness is still growing rapidly in many parts of the Third World It is just too obvious that environncntal degradation and increasing poverty go hand in hand. Environmental issues are no longcr a 'luxury' but matters of life and death.

In Brazil, several groups are trying to stop the cultural massacre of Indians as the Amazon Forest is opened up. In India, dozens of organizations havc sprung up, including the Chipko Movcmcnt to save Trees, the People's Scicnce Movcment and groups emerging out of the Bhopal disaster. And there are growing demonstrations against nuclear power in India. In Thailand 100,000 people infunated by the setting up of a plant producing radioactive material burnt down the factory in Phuket in 1986. in thc Philippines, environmental protests have persuaded the Aquino Government to mothball the Bataan nuciear plant. And in Malaysia activist groups like Sahabat Alam Malaysia ( Friends of the Earth) have helped scores of communities defend their environment from trawler boats, pollution, occupational hazards and ecologically destructivc projccts. Court action by 3000 residcnts in Bikt Merah put a stop (at least temporarily) to the operations or a plant producing radioactive waste, whilst 3,000 indigenous peopes signed a petition to the Government not to embark on a eight billion dollar hydro dam project in Bakunm Sarawak.

These community-level actions are crucial to the development of 'Green Consciousness' at the grass roots of the Third World. However. a deeper understanding of environmental problems in the Third World would have to link them to the global dimension of the economic, social and political system. It is unacceptable to preach that the Third World adopt appropriate technologies or preserve simple lifestyles whilst people in rich nations continue to destroy the world's, resources in producing luxuries with capital intensive technologies. Changing this pattern will require a fundamental restructuring of industrialism and its culture of expansion in both the capitalist and the socialist North.

Third World governments must also be willing to redistribute wealth, resources and income and increase the effective demand for locally produced goods and services so reducing dependence on expensive imported goods. This would at least slow down the unecological exploitation and firesale of Third World resources on the intemational market.

With increasing self-reliance based on income redistribution and the growth of indigenous agriculture and industry, the Third World could also afford to be tough with transnationals who ignored health and safety and pollution standards. It could afford to reject inappropriate products, technologies, industries and projects. The principle should be 'sustainable development'; the sparing use of non-renewable rcsources and the adaptation of alternative renewable resources. Sustainable develop ment also means devising technologies, practices and products that are durable and safe and which satisfy real needs. Taking an environmental position in the Third World thus means joining in the fight for a just and sustainable world order the only way we can survive. Being 'Green' in the Third World is not a luxury at all but a necessity.

Back...