Christine Cardi
Michael Thiele
Environmental Science Seminar

Environmental Racism, Equity, and Justice:
International Dimensions

Today the environment is not only a local issue but an international concern. Topics such as ocean dumping, waste trades, and exploitation of third world resources by first world countries were discussed at the World Summit in Rio in 1993. We have selected two examples that demonstrate some aspects of environmental racism and eco-imperialism. First, Shell's oil production methods in Nigeria are destroying the environment and endangering the health of the people in the Southeast region. The second example displays the French government's decision to conduct nuclear testing on their territory in the South Pacific. It is necessary to first explain how third world countries have fallen victim to the first world's economic dependence.

During the 1970's, the world's commercial banks began lending large sums of money to third world countries. Loaning this money was perceived as an investment since a country cannot go bankrupt. By doing this, banks were able to pay interest on deposits from wealthy OPEC countries and still earn profits. In the next decade, the interest rates increased. The interest charges on the third world debt rose dramatically. In 1980, the total third world debt was $500 billion and reaching over $1.3 trillion by the end of the decade (Weissman, 187).

The heavy debt burden placed the countries in economic turmoil. They were forced to remediate the situation by increasing export revenues. For most of the third world countries, natural resources were their highest exports. Many were forced to mine minerals, clear cut forests for timber companies, increase farm production, and drill for oil for exportation. Yet, these poor countries with already fragile ecosystems were tripling the rate of exploitation of their forests to gain foreign exchange to make their interest payments. It was a vicious circle deeply correlated between environmental exploitation and poverty and the ever present debt crisis.

Over-production was causing severe environmental damage. Therefore, global environmental groups sought other methods to remediate this debt burden. With intervention from The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), debt-for nature proposals were introduced. These swaps involved Northern environmental groups paying off the debt of a third world country in exchange for land protection. The country agreed to protect portions of the land that the environmental group deemed worthy. There have been some pilot programs initiated in Ecuador, Jamaica, and Brazil to name a few. However, despite the potential benefits of such a program, some countries feel that such a swap will "undermine the efforts of indigenous peoples to achieve self-determination and ownership of the lands where they lived for centuries" (Alston and Brown, 189).

Another example involves toxic waste trade. In first world countries, there has been increased regulation regarding toxic waste disposal. Companies are not able to haphazardly dump the waste therefore, waste management companies and illegal waste traders are seeking alternative sites. These companies target politically and economically less powerful nations of the world who are looking to enter the world market more vigorously. The governments are often enticed by the large sums of money and the promises of steady employment and future development. Some would argue that this is a "extension of the pattern of targeted dumping on communities of color in the United States" ( Alston and Brown, 189).

According to Principle 10 of the Principles of Environmental Justice:
"Environmental justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide" (Goldtooth, 142). Eco-imperialism is not only constrained to exploitation of third world people by first world governments. It also includes first world companies taking advantage of those nations who have not benefitted from industrialization. Considering the often quite undemocratic political situation in the tricont, the governments of these nations are unconcerned about the rights of the general public. One such example occurred in Nigeria.

Nigeria:

The multinational petroleum company Shell Oil has been known for disregarding environmental and social welfare. Their policies have not favored environmental quality. The infamous incident involving Shell's plan to dump a heavily contaminated oil installation, the 4,000 ton Brent Spar, into the North Atlantic despite it being loaded with toxic and radioactive sludge in 1995 is one such example. While this plan was being discussed, the Nigerian military regime executed Ken Saro Wiwa. He was a member of the Ogoni people who suffered most from Shell's oil production methods. This internationally known author was actively writing about the exploitation of his people by Shell and was killed because of this by his own government.

A report written by World Bank environmental specialist David Moffat and Professor Olof Linden of Stockholm University stated that statistics suggest that annually the Niger delta is polluted by 2.3 billion cubic meters from some 300 separate spills, averaging one per day (Greenpeace, WWW). They argue further that the true amount may be ten times higher. It confirmed a report written in a British newspaper that gas flaring from oil production in this area emits some 35 million tons of carbon dioxide and 12 million tons of methane a year, making it the world's largest single contributor to global warming (Greenpeace, WWW).

Building canals and roads, largely to service the industry, has precipitated the most extensive environmental degradation in the region. Shell and government roads block streams and flood plains creating stagnant ponds of water, killing forests and killing fields. They also give loggers better access to the area's fast diminishing forests.

Shell Oil and the Nigerian government are reaping all the economic benefits while the people of the Ogoni region are bearing all the environmental responsibility. They are living in the true and utter nightmare of environmental exploitation. The income for this area is below the national average, while the health standards are substantially worse than in the rest of Southeastern Nigeria. Tests have demonstrated that 85% of the drinking water samples are polluted with sewage. This pollution is largely responsible for the water-related diseases and accounts for four-fifths of all illness (Greenpeace, WWW).

Shell provides equipment and financial assistance to Nigerian police and military. On the other hand, they disassociate themselves with the murder of Saro Wiwa and propagate the developmental aid they provide to the citizens of the region. Ironically, countries like the U.S. concerned themselves only with the political aspects of the affair and neglected the environmental issues. We did not promote an economic boycott toward Shell in Nigeria. Perhaps it is because 10% of oil used in the U.S. is imported from Nigeria.

This example poses a few unanswered questions. First, who should we boycott: Shell Oil or the Nigerian government? Second, is an economic boycott an effective way to sway a country toward better social and environmental policy? Finally, can the U.S. really accuse another country of environmental irresponsibility since they are the world's leading polluter?

French Polynesia:

Another example confronts environmental racism on a different level. It involves a country conducting nuclear tests in its overseas territory. This incident involved France and their overseas department known as the French Polynesia. This colony (as we are referring to it as) is located in the South Pacific Ocean, about one-half of the way from South America to Australia.

In the spring of 1995, President Chirac of France announced that the French would abandon the global moratorium on nuclear testing, and explode eight more nuclear bombs in the Mururoa atoll beginning in September. The president stated that eight nuclear explosions would occur, one every month thereby concluding the test series in May 1996. Previously, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at the Conference of Disarmament in Geneva was signed by all nuclear powers except China and France. France stated that they would not sign such a treaty until the series was complete. Chirac stated the testing was necessary to validate a new warhead for its submarine-based missiles and acquire simulation capacity.

The chosen site is 12,000 miles from metropolitan France. This region is within the area of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the Treaty of Rarotonga, which among other things provides a zone free of nuclear testing. The resumption of testing by France would thus directly contravene what the independent states of the South Pacific region, exercising their individual sovereignty, have agreed to jointly.
However, French authorities have continuously pointed out the low population density around the atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. Yet, it must be noted that European countries located two or three hundred miles from the Chernobyl explosion were severely affected by the blast. Also, ocean current can be very effective carriers of radioactive contamination as well as bio-accumulation in the food chain.

The Fangataufa atoll is smaller than the Mururoa atoll and has no permanent civilization. Four atmospheric tests were conducted here from 1966 to 1974 when the International Court finally issued an inunction to stop atmospheric testing - 11 years after other countries signed a treaty to stop atmospheric testing. The first underground test was conducted in 1975. Seven more test were conducted under its natural lagoon. The tests have caused the north end to subside unnaturally fast therefore, the French began conducting the tests have been carried out under the floor of the lagoon since 1988.

French Polynesia has a population of just over 200,000 people. Of this figure, 78% are Polynesian natives, 12% are Chinese, and 10% are Europeans. The European population mostly consist of medical, technical and scientific personnel. Their primary concern is to conduct the nuclear tests. They are not natives of the region. They provide economic support so that the French Polynesian population is given a higher standard of living when compared to neighboring countries. Yet, this brings back to public consciousness the question if French nuclear testing is as safe as French authorities claim, than why are the tests conducted 12,000 miles away in the South Pacific and not in Paris? Also, why are the tests done in a region predominantly native Polynesian and not European?

Although the French authorities affirm that they closely monitor the effects of their nuclear testing program on the environment, they have made no effort to monitor the possible medical effects on the population of Polynesia. In early July 1995, a team from the international relief agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) carried out an evaluation mission in French Polynesia. The MSF team found that the general health of the polynesian population, as well as the level of care to which they have access, has evolved over the past 30 years in a manner consistent with the socio-economic development of the territory. The team was concerned with medical effects associated with exposure to nuclear radiation. There were however, some obstacles along the way.

Cancer statistics were not recorded. The official cancer register of French Polynesia has only existed since May 1985. Before this data, there were no reliable figures recorded for cancer incidence. Even as late as 1988, the Public Health Department of the Ministry of Health in Papeete estimated that the sensitivity of the register was quite low: only 60% of the cancers were being recorded (IPPNW, Australia, WWW). Also, death certificates only became compulsory after 1981 and the cause of death is not always certified by a doctor. Therefore, no one has studied the number of cancers occurring in the Territory before 1985, and since then the data is incomplete. Because of this, there is no way to accurately say that the increase in cancer outbreaks was due to exposure to nuclear radiation. Although laboratory tests have concluded that even slight exposure to low levels of nuclear radiation will produce cancer cells, the data collected in French Polynesia is so incomplete that this correlation cannot be made in a court of law. There simply is no concrete proof.

After each test the natives would riot and protest for independence from France. Aside from this grass rooted movement, Greenpeace was the infamous international radical environmental group protesting in Polynesia against France. They would chain themselves to concrete drums lead demonstrations or organized ship cruises in the actual testing area. The French became very irritated with the Greenpeace demonstrators and took action. The French navy used intimidation and in some cases pirated the tiny vessels. Needless to say, they were escorted out of the country. The most famous example of French irritation toward Greenpeace was the explosion of the Rainbow Warrior. The blast killed three innocent people in the harbor of Auckland, New Zealand fifteen years ago.

Japan, Australia, and New Zealand were the countries expressing the strongest outrage at the tests. These countries would routinely call in the French Ambassador after each test and persuade him to stop them immediately. After the third test, President Chirac announced that the total number of tests would decrease from eight to six and be completed well ahead of the original date in May 1996. These three countries along with other nations throughout the world put judicial pressure against France to halt the tests through the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This court is the main judicial organ of the United Nations. It acts as a world court, settling disputes between states in accordance with international law. New Zealand, backed by Australia and other states in the region, was seeking to invoke a clause of the 1974 ruling which provided for a review if there was a change in the circumstances on which the court based its original decision (New Zealand. WWW). A new case could not succeed because France withdrew its recognition of the court's jurisdiction in 1974. In an interim judgement in 1973, the court ordered France not to conduct any nuclear tests that caused radioactive fallout on Australia or New Zealand. Therefore, France began underground testing in the South Pacific in 1974 claiming the court's decision only halted atmospheric testing. New Zealand hoped the ICJ would halt the testing as it did in 1973. The French government has stated however, that they would not go to court as all parties need to agree on the case before it can proceed under the ICJ guidelines. New Zealand asked the court to rule the tests unlawful until France conducted an internationally accepted environmental impact statement. New Zealand believes that "unless this assessment establishes that the tests will not give rise, directly or indirectly to radioactive contamination of the marine environment, the rights under international law of New Zealand as well as the rights of other states will be violated" (New Zealand, WWW). In conclusion, this test series would be a direct violation of Principle 19 of the Rio Declaration which states the importance of an independent environmental impact assessment.

Originally, France had planned to conduct the tests one per month. Due to international pressure and economic boycotts from many nations, President Chirac decided to rush the tests. He produced two per month therefore, ending the series in November. Although Chirac felt the need to reverse the international damage he caused, there was complete and utter chaos in his own country due to his lack of domestic policies. France completely shut down for three weeks in December 1995. There was a general strike against the government.

To conclude, several deductions can be drawn. First, regarding the unanswered questions about the Nigerian disaster, it is difficult to determine if a boycott would prove effective. One could argue that it could be very effective especially because the U.S. imports so much of its oil from Nigeria. However, the problem does not necessarily only lie with Shell Oil but also with the Nigerian government. We could hope that third world countries like Nigeria develop into more environmentally concerned nations. This is only possible if they are free from financial pressure. Perhaps debt wavers from the World Bank are a possible solution.

Regarding the situation in France, this is not the first time the French government has tested nuclear bombs away from metropolitan France. For example, before France lost its African colony Algeria in the 1960's, they were testing nuclear bombs in the Algerian desert. Their independence struggle eventually led to war between the two regions and France was forced to grant the Algerians freedom.
We can hope that through continued struggle Polynesia gains its independence as well.

For companies like Shell incentives not to exploit third world countries should be proposed. Boycotts could be one incentive to stop future exploitation by Shell. But the examples we discussed are not the only cases. There are hundreds of Shells and dozens of Frances on our planet. Our problem is a deep-rooted obsession with money and the collection of capital goods. This is often at the expense of the environment. Though this eco-imperialism spawns from capitalism, as Lenin defined imperialism as the highest state of capitalism, the only way to stop this mind-set would be to question the notion of capitalism itself.

Bibliography

Bryant, Bunyan, ed. Environmental Justice: Issues, Policies, and Solutions.
Island Press, Washington D.C., 1995.

Bullard, Robert , ed. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices From the Grassroots.
South End Press, Boston MA, 1993.

Hofrichter, Richard, ed. Toxic Struggles:The Theory and Practice of Environmental Justice. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, 1993.

Neelsen, John P. Die franzoesischen Atomtests

World Wide Web Pages:

http://www.sofcom.co.au/Greenpeace Greenpeace/ Australia
http://www.url.co.nz/testing.html New Zealand environmentalists
http://www.shellnigeria.com/ Shell Nigeria
http://www.sierraclub.org/saro-wiwa/ Sierra Club/ Nigeria-sites
http://www.greenpeace.org Greenpeace Headquarters
gopher://gopher.undp.co.uk Concepts and principles of international
law