Conflicts in Environmental Regulation and the Internationalisation of the State

Ulrich Brand, Christoph Görg, Joachim Hirsch, Markus Wissen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781134050369
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the global regulation of biodiversity politics through the UN UNConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the WTO and other international treaties. Using historical-materialist state and regulation theory, it assesses how the discourse and politics of sustainable development have contributed to the internationalisation of the state.

The authors argue that sustainable development, far from being a fixed concept, is a conceptual terrain on which different and conflicting symbolisations of and solutions responses to of the ecological crisis struggle for hegemony. Furthermore, it shows that the international multilateral environmental organisations agreements are not at all a means to counteract neoliberal globalisation but, on the contrary, form an integral part of the ongoing transformation process. Focussing on the UN Convention on Biological DiversityCBD, the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the World Trade Organisation, this co-authored volume addresses the following issues:

• 
  
  

• state theory, regulation theory and International Political Economy

• 
  
  

• biodiversity protection and valorisation of genetic resources

• 
  
  

• access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits which arise out of its use

• 
  
  

• enforcement of intellectual property rights and their impact on biodiversity.

This book will be of interest to students and scholars of international politics, international political economy, environmental studies, development studies and political ecology.

1
The regulation of nature in post-Fordism

There is a strongly pronounced tendency in environmental sociology and politics to discuss questions concerning how to deal with ecological problems more or less in isolation from broader societal and politico-economic changes. Even global environmental problems such as climate change or—in our example—the erosion of biological diversity are generally discussed in relative separation from the structures and processes of societal production and reproduction and the problems and conflicts involved in them. And even where such a connection is in fact made, the dominant tendency is to discuss international environmental problems in the context of the formation of cooperative mechanisms and instruments to deal with common threats. The way in which environmental problems are intertwined with global and national distributional problems, as well as with connected power relations, usually remains underestimated or even ignored.

Such an approach, however, increases the threat that the problems involved become abbreviated. This is particularly obvious in the issue areas we deal with in this book. The problem area “regulation of biodiversity” is characterised by a high degree of overlap between global environmental and distributional conflicts (Göerg 1999b). In order to make clear the manner in which these problems are intertwined, the following section shall first, explain the concept of societal relationships with nature, focusing on the constitutive interdependence of the societal process with nature. Furthermore, working within and indeed expanding upon this objective, this study centres on the emerging political-institutional terrains of international and Mexican biodiversity politics. However, this process can only be understood if the national and international societal developments are taken into account. Political economy and questions of hegemony are therefore decisive in order to understand the complex nature of international and national regulatory projects as well as non-intended societal regulations. Due to this fact, the second part of this chapter shall present and discuss the most important elements of the regulation approach. The manner in which this approach perceives the new phase of capitalist development will be outlined in order to enable us to focus, third, on the special meaning of knowledge and, fourth, on central characteristics of the emerging post-Fordist relationships with nature. In the fifth section, the transformation of the state and the state system will be dealt with. The aim here is to describe and further develop certain concepts of materialist state theory which will be important for the following empirical analysis. In this sense, following some general theoretical remarks on the state and political institutions, we will introduce, with key emphasis, the concept of the “internationalisation of the state” and of “second order condensations of societal power relations”. Chapter 1 will end with some remarks on the methodology applied in the empirical investigations.

1.1 Societal relationships with nature

Even when, in the 1970s and 1980s, the ecological crisis began to receive ever greater public attention, it still needed quite some time before its relevance for social science research and the development of a theory of society was fully appreciated. Indeed, it was a far from easy task to conceptualise how social and non-social, “natural” processes are linked with one another. The reasons for that are manifold and sometimes contradictory, depending on the theoretical traditions involved. The history of sociology was accused of having ignored the material-substantial implications of social processes and consequently, it was considered that a new environmental paradigm was required (Catton/Dunlap 1978; for a critical discussion see Buttel et al. 2002; Görg 1999a). Moreover, the need for a bio- or ecocentric perception of society and nature was highlighted. By contrast, constructivist approaches to nature became prominent, at least since the 1990s, focusing more on the (discursive) construction of nature (Haraway 1991; see also Castree/Braun 1998). The underlying debates between naturalistic/realistic and constructivist/productivist approaches have yet to be adequately resolved. While in the Marxist tradition the “production of nature” became a prominent and stimulating concept (Smith 1984; Harvey 1996), the question remains as to how other aspects, such as discursive/symbolic dimensions (i.e. regarding natural sciences) could be integrated into such a concept as well as how it could possibly grasp the limits to the production of nature (Benton 1989; Castree/Braun 1998; Swyngedouw 2004).

Besides the debate about naturalism and constructivism, now widely discussed in a broad variety of approaches such as the actor-network-theory (Latour 1999), there was a further reason which was partly responsible for this delay. Different theoretical traditions, regardless of their sometimes opposing approaches to societal development, generally agreed on one point regarding the direction of progress. For the dominant version of modernisation theory of the 1970s, based on the work of Talcott Parsons, the direction of societal development was predetermined: towards the greater control of nature and the decreasing relevance of nature for the development of society (Parsons 1975; for a criticism see Görg 1999a). Even for most of the theories of the post-industrial society (see Bell 1967; Touraine 1972) it was clear that in the course of societal development, the “game against nature” would be replaced by a purely social game. Nearly the same argument occurs in the Marxist tradition. At least in the official socialistic ideology, environmental problems did not exist and natural limits to social development were not acknowledged. Social development was considered as if nature did not matter. Ecological problems were considered to be a secondary contradiction, subordinate to the development of production relations, which were considered to be of primary importance. It took until the 1980s for the relevance of environmental problems in the development of society and for the formation of social theory to be recognised (see Smith 1984; Beck 1992; Altvater 1993; O’Connor 1988). And even then it was difficult to acknowledge that the relationships between society and nature have their own logic which must be dealt with carefully. It is correct that capitalist accumulation is one central cause for the destruction of nature. In recent years, however, capitalism has demonstrated its capability of reacting to environmental problems, therein trying to manage its own conditions of production, giving rise to a new, “post-modern” regime of accumulation. Therefore, in order to analyse the relationships between society and nature in more detail, it is helpful to periodise capitalist development. In line with this objective, in the next section we refer to the concept of post-Fordism in order to indicate a new phase of capitalist development.

Some time was needed until it was recognised that the problems which were put on the political agenda by the ecological crisis were not isolated environmental problems. When this was realised, there was room for the recognition of the fact that we are dealing with a comprehensive crisis of societal relationships with nature (Becker/Jahn 1987). The concept of societal relationships with nature places a quite different emphasis with regard to both aspects concerning the naturalistic-constructivist debate and the concept of progress and social development. Although this concept stems from within the Marxist tradition, it was also developed in the social theory and the historical diagnosis of the “dialectic of enlightenment” in the Critical Theory of Horkheimer and Adorno (see Horkheimer/Adorno 1987; Görg 1999a, 2003a). According to that concept, society cannot be discussed independently of nature, nor does the process of history aim towards an ever more comprehensive control of nature. First, the social process is constitutively mediated through nature. The difference between nature and society, however, should not be eliminated. While naturalistic and some constructivist approaches assume that nature and society are not distinctive entities, Critical Theory emphasises that we should make a distinction between both (without falling back into a dualistic approach). In particular, this is the case with respect to the aim of liberation and social emancipation. Moreover, nature is, in one aspect, a social construction, constructed discursively through language and materially, through human labour. Nevertheless, it remains a materiality of its own which displays qualities that societies cannot really control. That leads to the second point: certainly, the process of modernity is based on an increasing domination of nature, but this domination does not lead to an increasing control over nature; rather, it rebounds in the destruction of nature and in ever greater dependency on the results and secondary effects of the domination of nature.

Thus, basically, society cannot free itself from its dependencies in relation to nature because the social process always contains material-substantial elements (e.g. “natural” resources) and this process is therefore dependent on the metabolism of nature. The mutual interdependence of nature and society is central, however, not only to one side, namely society, but also to the other, nature. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, nature untouched by human activity is virtually non-existent. Marx and Engels were completely aware of this tendency to transform nature from the state in which it was found (Marx/Engels 1978:44). But in spite of this transformation the material-substantial conditions of human existence retain their own meaning, which can be respected or ignored by human activity—the latter with potentially destructive results for society in the form of ecological risks. Following Adorno’s critical theory, this complex understanding can be designated the non-identity of nature (Görg 2003b).¹

The starting-point for a critical theory of societal relationships with nature, however, is the acknowledgement of a practical, that is economic/technical and cultural/discursive, construction of nature, and not the supposedly unchangeable laws of nature to which humanity or society has to adapt.² Today, scientific constructions, closely linked to the technical and economic strategies of their application, have come to the foreground, finding their expression in the diagnosis of the “knowledge society” (see below). It should be remembered, however, that there are also other practical constructions of nature, as we shall see more precisely in the following section. There is an unavoidable pluralism of societal relationships with nature which, however—particularly under bourgeois-capitalist conditions—is characterised by an asymmetric relationship and a dominance of capitalist forms, particularly in production and reproduction. However, even in the age of globalisation, cultural interpretations and, linked to them, forms of knowledge and practices, can be found which cultivate a completely different treatment of nature. These (“traditional”) forms of knowledge and their agencies have been given an even greater value by the ecological crisis, for one can discover in certain practices dealing with the tropical rain forest or in certain forms of agricultural production, elements of a more respectful handling of natural resources. This poses the question as to whether these practices are today only marginal or if they have a chance of influencing the shaping of global relationships with nature.

After all, the dynamisms in this process are determined by actors with quite different strategies. As we have just been able to see in the example of biological diversity, the dominant strategies for the appropriation of nature increasingly aim at its commercialisation, that is at a purely economic appraisal of nature. Here, the tendency towards the domination of nature is continued in a new and even stronger form, even after the experience of the ecological crisis. In the tradition of the Critical Theory not every form of the appropriation of nature is defined as the domination of nature (for if it was, the development of society without the domination of nature would be inconceivable). The domination of nature tries to completely subject or subsume nature to particular objectives and ignores every “own” meaning, every non-identity of nature. This is without doubt the case in the tendencies towards the commercialisation of biological diversity, for nature is reduced here to its usability and all other elements which are not compatible with this are ignored.

As a result of more than 30 years of environmental struggles, it is now widely recognised that the increase in the domination of nature has led to a “domination of secondary effects” (Beck et al. 1994). Societies are confronted more and more with the consequences of the unhindered domination of nature, and that causes additional costs and a great deal of trouble. The idea of the complete control of nature has, therefore, at least partially been abandoned and the scarcely controllable risks involved in the appropriation of nature have increasingly been taken into account, that is in terms of uncertainty or the precautionary principle. The use of nature is, therefore, increasingly accompanied by attempts to mitigate its destructive effects prophylactically or to eliminate them reactively—to engage in the protection of nature and the environment. But the question is whether this means an acknowledgement of the non-identity of nature or whether it represents the attempt at an accompanying mitigation of the domination of nature because of the uncontrollable consequences. The question is, in other words, whether society acknowledges that nature cannot be totally subsumed under societally based targets, thereby allowing room within which nature’s own logic can be respected; or alternatively, whether we are dealing with a reflexive form of the domination of nature which takes into account that although we sometimes face negative consequences, our targets will not be changed. This question can be answered via an examination of the fate of strategies which follow a different, less destructive form of the appropriation of nature, that is a handling of nature which attempts to respect its non-identity. Considerable attention will be paid to this in the following section.

This approach differs from the often analysed questions, which refer to the general chances of the protection of the environment and nature under capitalist conditions. Of course, it also deals with whether and to what extent aspects of the protection of nature can hold their own against commercialisation strategies. But precisely in the field of biological diversity, the problem cannot be grasped via a confrontation of economic and ecological dimensions, or of conservation and use strategies. On the contrary, conservation and use, as well as ecology and economy, are indissolubly intertwined. Biological diversity, or biodiversity, in the comprehensive scientific meaning of the concept, is a societal construction (which, e.g. does not exist in the same way in all cultures). In this construction, economic interests and geostrategic objectives have already been included, as we shall see more precisely in the process of the establishment of this new scientific concept (Flitner 1995a).

At the core of this are those parts of biological diversity which are of potential economic value: the genetic resources. By genetic resources, we mean those components which contain hereditary characteristics—that is not coffee once it has been roasted, but the seeds or its hereditary elements and generally, the genetic parts of animals and plants. These genetic resources are of particular interest because they represent an input for the newer biotechnologies and genetic technologies and the industries based on them, the so-called life science industries.

Because of these new scientific and technological developments there is a growing economic interest in nature. At the same time “humanity” cannot completely renounce the use of “biodiversity” as a whole. Since biological diversity also includes the diversity of the animals and plants used in agriculture and for food supply, it is of central importance in ensuring human nutrition. Thus, the conservation of nature cannot be played off abstractly against its use. The strategy of the “pure” protection of nature can only be a solution for, at most, parts of biodiverstiy, for example tropical rain forests or coral reefs. Even in tropical rain forests, however, nature supplies a habitat for many people and for greatly differing forms of human use (Hecht 1998). Thus, even there, the strategy of protection clashes with interests in the use of biodiversity—and even the setting up of a nature reservation is basically only a change in the form of use, namely use for ecotourism or as “natural capital”. It is, simply put, always a question of the different forms of the socialisation of nature, of different cultures and practices in the handling of biodiversity. In this constellation the tendency towards their greater commercialisation determines the direction of the organisation of societal relationships with nature. In the process, other societal forms are marginalised and tend to be dissolved. The threat emerges that nature in the form of genetic resources is reduced to its economic value, that is subsumed under the practices of capitalist valorisation (in German: lnwertsetzung; see, for the specific meaning, Görg 2004). In the reflexive domination of nature, in addition, even conservation efforts are functionalised within broader strategies of valorisation. The question, however, is not use versus protection; rather, it concerns which strategies of use can the conservation of biological diversity aim for. And, as a further topic, which is central to this study: how can “the democratic content of socio-environmental construction” (Swyngedouw 2004:24) be enhanced? This question can be translated into an inquiry about the specific meaning which is given to the strategies of the valorisation of nature, the strategies of nature protection and the practices of a different organisation of relationships with nature in the global management of nature.

The starting-point for our investigation, therefore, is the specific historical conditions in which these different strategies clash with one another. For, with regard to the objects...

Table of contents

• RIPE Series in Global Political Economy
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 The regulation of nature in post-Fordism
• 2 On the value of nature
• 3 Limits to commercialisation?
• 4 Politicising intellectual property rights
• 5 The relevance of the national and the local
• 6 Contested terrains
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Interviews
• Index