Politics of the environment

The readings in the second week of GEOG 5325: Cultural Politics of Environment & Development touched on a central aspect of my master's studies and a preoccupation of mine over this past fall. Recently, as noted in past blog entries, I delved into the contested environmental narratives and the deforestation discourse in the Himalayan context. Blaikie & Muldavin's article was particularly appropriate and complemented my readings of Ives & Messerli (1989) and Ives' recent work, Himalayan Perceptions (2004) that both looked at the history of the "Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation" (THED) and how it persisted over the years.

Going further, Blaikie & Muldavin helped elucidate why national policies had remained relatively unchanged since the THED discourse was largely debunked in the 1980s. This lack of influence proved to be quite telling on how academic debates among social scientists have either failed to make much of an impact or been actively resisted by the policy apparatus largely dominated by their natural science counterparts. As Blaikie & Muldavin noted, this debunking may have indeed been overstated, given that the Himalayas are experiencing several environmental challenges including habitat loss, urban sprawl, pollution, roads, dams, mining, tourist traffic, etc. In fact, given the discursive uncertainties, it is imperative to figure this out. However what is clear is that while the blame game has become politically incorrect, highland communities have continued to bear the brunt of these environmental pressures and the prescribed draconian policies attempting to remedy them.

Source: Blaikie, P.M. & Muldavin, J.S.S. 2004. Upstream, downstream, China, India: the politics of environment in the Himalayan Region. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (3): 520-548.