http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2012/04/23/leadership-lessons-from-the-barrio/
Recently, the Goldman Environmental Prize was awarded to a woman named Sofia Gatica of Argentina. This prize, which honors independent environmental activist, was given to Gatica because of her involvement with a grassroots movement against Monsanto’s use of pesticides in its soybean fields in Argentina (the third-largest producer of soybeans and of genetically enhanced crops in the world). Gatica had a child who died of kidney failure, and as she noticed the mortality rates of her area, she began a door-to-door campaign to document the health of her neighbors. Eventually, she discovered that residents of her neighborhood were 41 times more likely to get cancer than the rest of Argentina; when her discoveries were ignored by the Ministry of Health, she spurred protests that captured the attention of the global media and the global science community. Eventually, Monsanto’s spraying of herbicides was banned by a municipal order and the national government offered essentially a plea bargain- if the people wouldn’t sue, they would be given a tank for clean water. While this means that no national action was taken and the herbicides are still in use, it is at least a step in the right direction. However, this is not the end of the story.
One of the things that makes this article stand out is that it goes deeper with an analysis of the strategies used by the movement and both the positive and negative effects of this activism. It examines how individual research can be more effective than an official statement because it will highlight individual problems instead of taking an average, and also how public attention is incredibly important for a movement’s success.
The article also mentions strategies for success. In an ideal world, the pesticide use would have stopped. But sometimes what is best is not what is feasible. The clean water tank given to the region is probably not a sound long-term decision, as over time the contamination will only increase. But when an area has nothing, any step to rectify the problem must be seen as positive. To the protestors, clean water was worth more than an ideological victory.
The article also points out the long-term effects of environmental contamination and notes that even though regulations are changing, the victory is somewhat hollow for several generations. Even after cleanups and legal regulation of toxins, disease still continues to affect the populations at risk. I think that this is often overlooked when reading about cases of activism movements succeeding in getting a law changed. Writing tends to focus on the short-term, immediate effects with the supposition that things will soon heal and the environment will be as it was before the contamination. It also tends to assume that all residents are happy with the changes; yet in the affected neighborhood, people have complained that the protests have lowered property values, made things more difficult for local farmers, and have caused discrimination and employment problems because outside employers think that the health crisis might be contagious. The article shows that environmental justice is not a case of black and white morality, which I think is important. It is easy to vilify a large corporation or government agency, but for some people, the status quo does make life easier- if not better. The question then comes down to which is more important: one’s health or one’s livelihood? In cases like this, sometimes the choice really is one or the other.
The last couple of paragraphs bring up a very important point about environmental justice activism and activism more generally. In some cases, activists can promote changes that really improve people's lives immediately, but often times these campaigns seek a much more long-term improvement to quality of life and the people doing all of the work on the campaign may not actually see significant benefit themselves. This fact is one of the things that makes activism at the same time very impressive and very difficult for those involved, and it makes an understanding of the bigger picture essential. Observing the political sphere, I think a lot of times activists tend to respond too harshly when half measures, like the water tanks in Argentina, are all that come from their efforts. While having an ideal goal in mind is important, what's even more important is being able to take a step back and realize that any change like that with the ability to improve lives is a major accomplishment in and of itself. That doesn't mean they should stop there, but the patience to recognize the importance of small steps like that is essential for activists to be successful.
ReplyDeleteI really like this article because it shows that environmental justice really is a global issue. Anybody can be affected by an environmental injustice, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, etc, and can come in the form of toxic waste, pesticides, or any of the numerous environmental toxins humans are exposed to.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it’s unfortunate that even if immediate action were taken, the problems created by the pesticides wouldn’t be completely gone for several generations, and the pesticides have already had irreversible negative health consequences on those who have been affected. I think that for these people, justice can only come in the form of acknowledgement from Monsanto and the Argentinean Ministry of Health that these health problems have been caused by the pesticides. However, I do wish that Gatica had been more aggressive against the government; it could have set a larger precedent and an example for others who are in similar situations to follow.
I think one of the most interesting similarities between this case in Córdoba and the other environmental justice cases we’ve examined is that it was also led by a mother. I think the fight for justice is most urgent when you are not fighting for justice only for yourself, but for your children. That kind of desire to protect somebody, as well as that selflessness and unwillingness to give in, is necessary when working against giant corporations like Monsanto.