Between science and activism: Learning and teaching ecological economics with environmental justice organizations

J. Martinez-Alier, H. Healy, L. Temper, M. Walter, B. Rodriguez-Labajos, J.F. Gerber, M. Conde ICTA, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Spain jo...
Author: Kelly Griffin
5 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
J. Martinez-Alier, H. Healy, L. Temper, M. Walter, B. Rodriguez-Labajos, J.F. Gerber, M. Conde ICTA, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Spain [email protected]

Between science and activism: Learning and teaching ecological economics with environmental justice organizations ABSTRACT

Activists are driven by interests and values, making use only of the evidence that supports their arguments. They are not dispassionate as scientists are supposed to be. There is therefore something antithetical between science and activism. Nevertheless, environmental justice organizations (EJOs) and their networks have accumulated large stocks of activist knowledge of great value to the field of ecological economics, which sometimes becomes available to academics and influences public policies. Vice-versa, some concepts and methodologies developed in ecological economics are useful in practice to EJOs. In this paper, we use the data and knowledge built through the European Çommission funded projects CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological Economics) and EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities and Trade) to understand the relations and mutual influences between academic fields and theories such as ecological economics and political ecology and, on the other hand, activist practice in environmental justice organizations. Some work by scholars and researchers in ecological economics and political ecology can be perceived as activismled science while environmental justice organizations sometimes carry out science-led activism. A dialectic and dynamic relation is at the center of the interactions between academics and practitioners focused on ecological distribution conflicts. An interactive process exist between knowledge production and knowledge use, in which one helps further the other thanks to the relations built over time between scholars and practitionners. Key words: activist knowledge, activist-led science, science-led activism, ecological debt, ecologically unequal trade, environmental liabilities, post-normal science, GDP of the Poor, economic degrowth, political ecology, CEECEC, EJOLT.

1

Introduction Andrew Stirling wrote in 2006 for the European Commission, that there was a "move towards an emerging paradigm of ‘co-operative research’. This is a new form of research process which involves both researchers and non-researchers in close cooperative engagement. It encompasses a full spectrum of approaches, frameworks and methods, from interdisciplinary collaboration through stakeholder negotiation to transdisciplinary deliberation and citizen participation" (Stirling, 2006). Support from the European Commission for worldwide cooperative or collaborative research with civil society organizations (CSO) under the Science in Society programmes was a welcome novelty resting on Stirling’s approach. However, the practice of cooperative or collaborative research is not new. Many academics work together regularly with business firms and with public administration, and sometimes with non-governmental organizations. And vice-versa, CSOs look for support from academics. For instance, the first reports on the State of the Environment in India were put together in the 1980s by a CSO, the Centre for Science and the Environment (CSE), drawing on the knowledge of both activist organizations and academics across the sub-continent. This article uses the case studies of two European projects of cooperative research in ecological economics between CSOs and academic partners to analyze examples of activist-led science and of science-led activism. The two projects (one running from 2008 to 2010 and one from 2011to 2014) are reviewed in this article that analyzes data obtained when carrying out or preparing both projects. Most CSOs involved are EJOs (environmental justice organizations). Such organizations and the networks they form, work towards addressing ecological distribution conflicts at different scales, backing struggles against unfair resource extraction and waste disposal. This is a type of environmentalism different from “wilderness conservationism”. It is the “environmentalism of the poor”, meaning the defence of the environment to ensure the livelihood of those directly involved in ecological distribution conflicts. The common thread in both projects is that activists can profit from the teachings of academic ecological economics, and moreover, that ecological economists can learn from concepts pushed by activist organizations (such as the ecological debt, food sovereignty, corporate accountability, economic degrowth). Ecological economics is seen as closely linked to political ecology. By political ecology we understand the study of ecological distribution conflicts (Martinez-Alier, 2002), while ecological economics is a transdisciplinary field born in the 1980s (Costanza, 1991, 1996, Ropke 2004, Martinez-Alier and Ropke, 2008, Spash 2009) out of a confluence of interests between ecologists who studied the use of energy in the human economy (Odum, 1971, Jansson, 1984), and dissident economists (Daly, 1968, 1973) who followed Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1966, 1971) and Kenneth Boulding (1968). Work by K.W. Kapp on social costs (1950), and by Kneese and Ayres (1969) on the pervasiveness of externalities, was also influential. Ecological economics views the economy as embedded in larger biophysical ecosystems. Areas of study include the social metabolism of societies, the development of physical indicators, the modelling of the interactions between economy and environment, the multiplicity of valuation languages deployed in the management of natural resources and environmental services, cost-benefit and multi-criteria evaluation methods, and new institutions and policy instruments for improving sustainability.

2

The FP7 CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological Economics) project (2008-2010) grew out of disatisfaction with the distance between academic ecological economics, and activist knowledge and needs (Escobar, 2008). Building upon the lessons from CEECEC, a larger project EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities and Trade) was prepared in 2010, and will run between 2011 and 2014. CEECEC was focused on learning and teaching ecological economics with environmental activists while EJOLT explicitly combines academic and activist knowledge, focusing on activism-led science. In this article, we analyze the origins and development of the CEECEC and EJOLT projects, showing how the academic partners met the EJOs over periods going back over twenty years in some cases, since empirical research on environmental conflicts involves leaving the ivory tower and meeting the actors involved in the conflicts on the ground, namely EJOS. We then review some core concepts relevant for EJOLT: Ecological debt, the EROI of agriculture and its use by Via Campesina, ecologically unequal exchange, corporate accountability and liability, post-normal science, the GDP of the poor, and economic degrowth. Our analysis shows that the work of scholars and researchers in ecological economics may be seen sometimes as activism-led science while the work of EJOs may be seen in some instances as science-led activism. A dialectic and dynamic relation is present at the center of interactions between academics and practitioners focused on ecological distribution conflicts. The CEECEC project CEECEC was a European Commission funded project (750 000 €) to enable CSOs to engage in and lead collaborative research with ecological economists. The overall focus was not on theory but on case study learning, whereby CSOs and academics identified and explored key issues for research in areas such as water management, waste disposal, transport and trade, tourism, nature conservation, extractive industries, forestry and agriculture, based on CSO knowledge, needs, and interests. The methological approach in CEECEC was to ask environmental CSOs to write reports on case studies of their own choice, and then collaborate with university institutes in turning these reports into chapters of a Handbook which would be helpful for CSOs in the development of their frames of action and strategies on the ground. The CSOs chose with total freedom the case studies they wanted to write about -- often major ongoing conflicts. The academic partners held workshops with the CSOs and engaged in two-way communication shaping the chapters written by them and providing keywords. The CSOs that took part in CEECEC (listed in Table 1 together with the titles of the case studies) were the CSE from India, Acción Ecológica from Ecuador, the CEDFriends of the Earth from Cameroon, Endemit from Serbia , Sunce from Croatia, Rebraf from Brazil, VODO from Belgium, and ASud from Italy. Academic partners were ICTA-UAB (coordinator), SERI from Austria (a think-tank that took care of the website), the Université Libre de Bruxelles, Gepama (University of Buenos Aires), ECOMAN (Universidade Nova de Lisboa), and IFF (Vienna, specialized in the study of social metabolism). Dr. Simron Jit Singh (IFF, Vienna) wrote one chapter on the role of donor CSOs after the Tsunami of 2004 in the Nicobar islands – this chapter teaches about Material Flow accounting, as well as about institutions and markets. Similarly, the ICTA UAB

3

contributed one chapter by Leah Temper on conflicts on the HANPP (human appropriation of net primary production) in the Tana Delta in Kenya, born out of a collaboration with Nature Kenya and the East African Widlife Society. This chapter developed from a “live ecological economics session” at the conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics in Nairobi in 2008. In sum, two of the 14 chapters have been written by the academic partners (“cheating” on the initial plan), and two or three others (in Cameroon and Ecuador) benefited from the visits of graduate students from ICTA UAB. Table 1 : The CEECEC case studies and their keywords Case Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in India from the Bottom-Up CSE Participatory Forest Management in Mendha Lekha, India CSE Mineral Extraction and Conflict in Cordillera del Cóndor, Ecuador, Acción Ecológica Manta-Manaos Multi-modal Transport Infrastructure in Ecuador: Nature, Capital and Plunder Acción Ecológica Waste Crisis in Campania, Italy A SUD High Speed Transport Infrastructure (TAV) in Italy A SUD Local Governance and Environment Investments in Hiware Bazar, India CSE Nautical Tourism in the Lastovo Islands Nature Park, Croatia SUNCE Local Communities and Management of Protected Areas in Serbia (Djerdap) ENDEMIT Mechanisms in Support of the Creation and Consolidation of Protected Areas in Mato Grosso, Brazil: The Potential of REDD and Legal Reserve Compensation REBRAF Forestry and Communities in Cameroon CED-FoE Environmental Justice and Ecological Debt in Belgium: The UMICORE case VODO Aid, Social Metabolism and Social Conflict in the Nicobar Islands IFF-UKL Land use and water disputes in the Tana Delta, Kenya, ICTA UABNature Kenya

Keywords willingness to pay, opportunity cost, Coasian bargaining, environmental services, transaction costs, community property rights, CDM biomass economy, Gross Nature Product, GDP of the poor, joint forest management, watershed management, social capital, self regulation, consensual democracy, community rights, non-monetary economy, livelihood security, rights-based approach copper mining, Shuar communities, environmentalism of the poor, biodiversity hot spot, ILO Convention 169, Social Multicriteria Methods, languages of valuation, inconmensurability of values. Social metabolism, material flows, transport infrastructure, local knowledge, resource extraction, Chinese export markets, free trade, IIRSA hazardous waste, Ecomafia, cost shifting, post-normal science, “Zero waste”, incinerators, Lawrence Summers principle, DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses), corruption, EROI Transport and energy, material flows, participatory democracy, CostBenefit Analysis, Multi Criteria Evaluation, High speed, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), activist knowledge environmental investments, grazing rights, community resource management, water harvesting, National rural employment guarantee Act (NREGA), institutional innovations, property rights, virtual water, livelihood security. nautical tourism, marine biodiversity, depopulation, landscape value, property rights, protected area management, carrying capacity, resilience, public participation, willingness to pay, eco-tourism management. Protected areas, dams and hydroelectricity, depopulation, comanagement, eco-tourism, forest economics, local livelihood opportunities, ecosystem services, Krutilla’s rule, cost-benefit analysis, trans-boundary cooperation biodiversity valuation, ecological economic zoning, avoided deforestation, carbon trade, payment for environmental services, opportunity cost, institutional innovations, stakeholder participation, public policy formulation

Industrial logging, property rights, community forests, co-management, community interests, commodity chains, ecologically unequal exchange, cost shifting, corporate accountability, corruption, wood certification, fair trade, consumer blindness, languages of valuation, FLEGT ecological debt, lead pollution, manufacturing of uncertainty, environmental justice, popular epidemiology, post-normal science, environmental externalities, corporate accountability/ liability, value of human life, discount rate, greenwashing humanitarian aid, material and energy flows, working time, property rights, community ownership, subsistence economy, natural disasters wetlands, land-grabbing, irrigation, pastoralists, property rights, biofuels, EROI, HANPP, virtual water, biodiversity

4

A twelve-week trial on-line course was run between May and July 2010 with 25 students, most of them members of CSOs but a few university lecturers and students, and public administrators. For the course, lectures (based on the chapters, www.ceecec.net) featuring slide shows with recorded audio were made available together with essay questions for students. There are further plans for on-line teaching and learning of ecological economics from the bottom up, and also for publishing a book based on CEECEC. The EJOLT project In 2010, upon the completion of CEECEC, another FP7 Science-in-Society project (over 3 M €) was awarded, involving 23 organizations: seven university research institutes, two think-tanks, one independent laboratory, and 13 EJOs (Table 2). The EJOLT project is geared to support research on two key issues of immediate interest to society. Which are the causes of the increasing ecological distribution conflicts at different scales? How can such conflicts be turned into forces for environmental sustainability? Table 2 - The EJOLT partners Organization Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) (coordinator) Centre for Civil Society (CCS) CDCA (A-Sud) ToxicsWatch Alliance Sozial Ökologie Institut - University of Klagenfurt (IFF) Focus Association for Sustainable Development (FOCUS) Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) World Rainforest Movement (WRM) Acción Ecológica – Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros en América Latina (OCMAL) Citizens for Justice (CFJ) Earthlife Namibia (ELN) Environmental Rights Action - Oilwatch (ERA) Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED) Nature Kenya (NK) Lund University Universitat Rovira i Virgili Boğaziçi University Business and Human Rights Za Zemiata (ZZ) Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI) Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ) Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) Commission de Recherche et d'Information Indépendantes sur la Radioactivité (CRIIRAD)

Country Spain South Africa (Durban) Italy India Austria Slovenia Brazil Uruguay Ecuador Malawi Namibia Nigeria Belgium Kenya Sweden Spain Turkey United Kingdom Bulgaria Germany France Spain France

Conflicts arising in mining, oil and gas extraction, nuclear energy, shipbreaking and ewaste disposal, tree plantations, biomass exports and land grabbing will be studied across the world. The Action Plan of EJOLT encompasses the production of databases and maps of environmental injustices, networking platforms, mutual case study 5

development, policy papers, dissemination of best practices, scientific articles, videos, on-line courses, and other training materials. For instance, one EJOLT partner is the WRM, an organization doing activist research on tree plantations conflicts. The WRM collaborated with J.F. Gerber (ICTA UAB) who prepared a world inventory of tree plantation conflicts, listing the relevant variables that could help explain the incidence of such conflicts (Gerber, 2010). EJOLT will continue such statistical work, extending it to other conflicts on biomass, oil and gas extraction, to mining conflicts, and to some waste disposal conflicts.

Fig 1. The structure of the EJOLT project

Fig. the

1

shows

structure of EJOLT, composed of four vertical work packages, dealing with: a) the nuclear energy chain from uranium mining to waste disposal; b) oil and gas extraction and climate change injustices; c) biomass and land grabbing conflicts; and d) other mining conflicts and waste disposal conflicts such as ship disposal and e-waste exports. Both resource extraction and waste disposal are considered (including disposal of greenhouse gases that gives rise to climate justice issues) (Martinez-Alier, 2009). EJOLT also includes five cross-cutting work packages: (a) an inventory and (b) map of ecological distribution conflicts drawing on the knowledge of the EJOs and their networks; (c) three workshops on risks to environmental health, on economic valuation of enviromental liabilities, on court cases and other procedures to enforce corporate accountability and obtain environmental justice locally and internationally; (d) a workshop on ecologically unequal trade and the ecological debt bringing together the results of previous workshops. Finally, (e) one more transversal work package will carry out bottom-up training (based on the CEECEC model), including policy formulation, as well as dissemination through video productions.

6

Indian Roots The CEECEC and the EJOLT projects have common origins. CEECEC originated before the 9th biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) in New Delhi in December 2006, when a contribution to the conference by Hali Healy pointed out that ecological economics lacked significance for non-governmental organizations. This was perhaps true but it rattled a bit. At that time, Martinez-Alier was president of ISEE and he had been involved in research and academic collaboration in India for twenty years. His knowledge of India’s environmental activists went back to the publication by the Centre for Science and Environment (Delhi) of the First and Second Citizens’ Reports on the State of the Environment, the publication by Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain of the CSE of the influential booklet Global warming in an unequal world: a case of environmental colonialism in 1991, and his collaboration with Indian environmental historians (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997). Because of this connection and long-term professional ties, Sunita Narain, the head of the CSE, was invited to attend the ISEE conference and give a plenary speech. Despite being at at first reluctant to deliver the speech, she nevertheless accepted because she was asked to do so by Prof. N.S. Johda, the author of Life on the Edge. Sustaining agriculture and community resources in fragile environments (Oxford U.P., Delhi, 2001) who had long been an advocate of bringing together science and practical local knowledge, as so many other activist groups in India did. This meant that Sunita Narain, a non-academic activist, was a plenary speaker at the ISEE conference. In fact, the CSE journal Down to Earth had carried articles on valuation of non-timber forest products, the costs of urban air pollution, the economics of water harvesting in Indian villages, bottom-up cases of payment for environmental services, and also the political economy of climate change. The goal and hope for the conference was that Sunita Narain could teach practical ecological economics (her talk was on human excrement, its production and management in Delhi), and hopefully that the CSE could also gain some valuable knowledge from the conference deliberations and debates for its work. Italian and Latin American Roots Present at the ISEE Conference in New Delhi in December 2006, was also Giuseppe de Marzo, a leading member of the Italian EJO ASud (and a partner both in CEECEC and EJOLT), author in 2009 of a book entitled Buen Vivir (based on a concept enshrined in the new Constitutions of Bolivia and Ecuador). Over the years, ASud has built an archive of environmental conflicts (www.cdca.it) with emphasis on Latin America. De Marzo had also taken part in debates on the ecological debt, a concept born in activist circles in 1990 at the Instituto de Ecología Política in Chile (Robleto and Marcelo, 1992) and discussing the thinning of the ozone layer and later, climate change. In 1997 and after, a campaign on ecological debt was taken up, mainly by the EJO Acción Ecológica from Ecuador. Furthermore, ASud was familiar with attempts to provide a financial estimate of the environmental and social damages of Chevron-Texaco’s oil extraction in Ecuador in a court case started in 1993. Such calculations of corporate liability are indeed instances of applied ecological economics (as in the UMICORE case in CEECEC). ASud was also interested in another line of work in ecological economics, the study of social metabolism, which they found useful for activists because of the link between increasing flows of energy and materials into the economy and the increased

7

number of resource extraction conflicts. ASud thus became a partner of CEECEC (as also did Acción Ecológica from Ecuador), contributing not only their knowledge of environmental conflicts worldwide but also two chapters on major environmental conflicts in Italy. Another partner of CEECEC (Walter Pengue, from the University of Buenos Aires) had also pushed the notion of the ecological debt tracing the loss of nutrients, soil and “virtual” water in the soybean exports of Argentina (Pengue, 2005).

Ecological Debt: Activism leads to scientific production and policy making In the 1990s, the concept of the ecological debt spread among activists because of the difficulty that countries were facing in paying back their external financial debt. Activists asked the question “Who owes Whom?” and concluded that Southern countries should actually be seen as a creditors, not debtors (Fig. 2), hence the creation of the network SPEDCA, Southern Peoples Ecological Debt Creditors Alliance. (www.deudaecologica.org) around 2000. Shortly after, the notion was taken up by nonenvironmental civil society organizations including the World Council of Churches (Peralta, 2009). Since 1997, Acción Ecológica has also sponsored several international meetings on the ecological debt with the international confederation of Friends of the Earth.

Fig. 2. An activist message, at the venue of the World Social Forum, Mumbai 2004 (Vivek Bendre, Frontline). If the concept of the ecological debt originally came from civil society activism (Martinez-Alier, 2002, Simms, 2005), after twenty years it is now reaching the policy arena in proposals for an agreement on climate change policies. For instance, Roberts and Parks (2007) show that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing sharply in some raw materials exporting developing countries as wealthy nations “offshore” the energy and natural resource-intensive stages of production. Industrialized nations are thus in a situation of “carbon debt” or “ecological debt” relative to Southern nations, as they have greatly exceeded their share of equitable, global per capita carbon emissions, and have already used up most of the “space” available for greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. In terms of public policy, Roberts and Parks assert that funds transfers could help poorer nations transition from carbon-intensive pathways to more climate-

8

friendly development trajectories, using remuneration from the so-called “ecological debt”. This view fits into the Yasuni ITT initiative in Ecuador, which was one starting point for CEECEC when the project was written in early 2007. The original Yasuni ITT proposal came from Acción Ecológica at the end of 2006. The idea of the Yasuni ITT is that the economic value (net of extraction costs) of the estimated 850 million barrels of oil that will not be extracted out of the Amazonian soil is less than the value of the local biodiversity, the avoided carbon dioxide emissions, and the rights of the local indigenous peoples, and that these net benefits accrue in part to the global community. Or rather, the value of the oil and the other items come in different units. After several years of campaigning around the globe, the goverment of Ecuador finally signed an agreement with UNDP in August 2010 to set up a Trust Fund in which contributions to the Yasuni ITT project will be collected for investment in renewable energies and social development. Ecuador asks for outside contributions of 3,6 billion USD over 13 years equalling half the estimated foregone revenue. Such contributions may be seen as repayments for the ecological debt. The Yasuni ITT case is a solid example of how the claims and demands of environmental justice organizations have penetrated the policy arena and contributed to innovative proposals that help address climate change while providing support for biodiversity conservation and social policies locally. There are an increasing number of academic articles and books scrutinizing the Yasuni ITT proposal. Srinivasan et al. (2008) quantified (at USD 2 trillion) the ecological debt from North to South. A large part of this is the climate debt. This was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, signalling the scientific credibility of the concept of “ecological debt”. In several books and articles, Paredis et al (2008) and Goemmine and Paredis (2009) provided an academic discussion on this grass-roots concept that has now “matured”. Furthermore, in Copenhagen in December 2009 at least 20 heads of government or ministers explicitly mentioned the ecological debt in their main speeches, some also using the loaded word “reparations”. A presentation on the climate debt was made by Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the United Nations. He said that "admitting responsibility for the climate crisis without taking necessary actions to address it is like someone burning your house and then refusing to pay for it. Even if the fire was not started on purpose, the industrialised countries, through their inaction, have continued to add fuel to the fire… It is entirely unjustifiable that countries like Bolivia are now forced to pay for the crisis. [...] Who should address this? To us it seems only right that the polluter should pay, and not the poor. We are not assigning guilt, merely responsibility. As they say in the US, if you break it, you buy it." The claim for compensation for the climate debt twenty years after Rio 1992 is now audible to anybody witnessing the international negotiations. Thus in December 2009, the then Foreign Relations Minister of Ecuador (Fander Falconí), stated in Copenhagen that poor countries were like “passive smokers”, mentioning explicitly the “polluter pays principle” and the notion of the ecological debt. Here there is a clear line from activism to science, and to policy making at different scales. From science to activism: Via Campesina looks at the EROI of agriculture As much as activism has influenced the production of scientific knowledge and environmental policy-making, scientific research has also supported the work of nongovernmental organizations, as shown by the example of biofuel production. Critiques

9

of biofuel or agrofuel production from ecological economists (Russi, 2008, Giampietro and Mayumi, 2009) are based on three main points. First, agrofuels mean an increase in the HANPP, the human appropriation of net primary production, to the detriment of other species; and occupying space that could be used to grow food crops. Second, agrofuels consume a lot of “virtual” water that could have been used for other crops or purposes. Third, agrofuels have a low EROI (energy return on energy input), perhaps lower than one, or perhaps only 1.5 to 1, or 2 to 1 – when we deduct from the output, as we should, the net energy produced in the fields before they are turned into agrofuel monocultures. The debates on agrofuels have re-popularized the analysis of agriculture as a system of transformation of energy, but the first calculations date from the late 19th century (Martinez-Alier, 1987). At that time, agriculture was seen as producer of food energy and not of fuel for cars, although Rudolf Diesel himself said that his engine could work with vegetable oils. Later, in the early 1970s, taking up H. T. Odum’s view of modern agriculture as “farming with petroleum”, several researchers did careful accounts of the output-input ratio of agricultural systems. The best-known calculations were by Pimentel (Pimentel et al, 1973) published in Science. It was striking to realize that the energy output-input ratio of corn production in Iowa or Illinois was lower than that for the traditional milpa corn production system of rural Mexico. From an economic point of view, modern agriculture increased productivity, but from a physical point of view, it lowered the energy efficiency. The concept of EROI, fundamental in the history of ecological economics (and also of ecological anthropology, Rappaport, 1967), has now been taken up after 40 years by pro-peasant CSOs, and by the international network Via Campesina. The EROI concept has also proved to be useful (outside peasant activism) to environmental or indigenous organizations complaining for instance against Alberta oil sands extraction.

Fig. 3. An activist message, “peasant agriculture cools down the earth” (Source: Duke University students, Dec. 2009 Since 2007 Via Campesina has published reports stating that “agriculture has changed from being a producer of energy to being a consumer of energy”. Actually, agriculture transforms solar energy into food, it does not “produce” energy. The efficiency of

10

photosynthesis is around one per cent, thus a lot of the solar energy input is not incorporated into the food energy. However, the meaning of Via Campesina’s statement is clear: The (fossil-fuel based) inputs of energy into agriculture (not counting solar energy) have increased faster than the outputs, and in “developed” economies more energy is put into the agricultural and food system than we get out of the system. Via Campesina states in its reports that the first role of plants and agriculture is to transform solar energy into energy in the form of sugars and cellulose that can be directly absorbed in food or transformed by animals into animal products. This is a process which brings energy into the food chain. However, the industrialization of agriculture has lead to an agriculture which is a net consumer of energy (i.e., fertilizers, tractors, oil based agrochemicals). Moreover, fodder and food transport as well as deforestation for pastures, soybeans or oil palms make agriculture even more of an “energy consumer” and a contributor to climate change. The capacity of the soils to retain carbon is also damaged by modern agriculture. In addition to its reports, Via Campesina summarized its core arguments in booklets and posters prepared for the COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 stating that “Peasant Agriculture Cools Down the Earth” (Fig.3). Does it matter that Via Campesina forgets to quote H.T. Odum (1971), Pimentel (1973), Hall et al (1986) or indeed De Saussure who in 1804 demonstrated that plants absorb carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, today’s primary (or secondary) school knowledge? Here the traffic went first from science to activism, and later from activism to academic research and to public policies. Doctoral theses, scientific articles and policy proposals are now written on different aspects of “food sovereignty”, the concept that summarizes the frames developed by Via Campesina to point to the environmental and social consequences of over-industrialization and intensive agriculture. Ecologically unequal trade: from science to activism One CEECEC case study deals with deforestation, community resistance and the wood trade in Cameroon. It was written by CED (Centre for Environment and Development led by Samuel Nguiffo, and a member organization of Friends of the Earth International). Some keywords of this chapter (see Table 1): “industrial logging, community forests, commodity chains, ecologically unequal exchange, corporate accountability, corruption, wood certification, consumer blindness, FLEGT” are a direct reflection of recent research in the ecological economics of trade, and of existing policies. For instance, FLEGT, refers to a European sponsored programme on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, while another keyword, “consumer blindness”, arose at a CEECEC workshop to indicate the lack of knowledge in importing countries of the origins and conditions of production of commodities consumed. Another concept “Ecologically unequal trade” is a twenty-year old concept alien to mainstream economics. It was easily understood however by the activist writers from Cameroon. In this context, a project like CEECEC was meant to "translate" or make accessible for EJOs and other stakeholders propositions such as: "Tied to their unsustainable consumption levels, this misappropriation (of global environmental space) by higher-income countries leads to the suppression of resource consumption in lower-income countries, well below globally sustainable thresholds, which negatively impacts the well-being of domestic populations." (Jorgenson, 2009). CEECEC has

11

allowed EJOs to incorporate recent ecological economics theory into their frames and strengthen their arguments and claims. At the beginning of European colonization, the goods imported were what Wallerstein called ‘‘preciosities’’. The means of transport at the time made large shipments impossible. A few bulk commodities such as wood, guano, and cotton later had roles in the techno-metabolism of the importing countries. However, in the early 20th century the countries of today’s European Union still depended on their own coal and biomass as energy sources, while now they are large net importers of oil and gas. Today, taking all materials together, the European Union imports nearly four times more tons than it exports. Meanwhile, Latin America as a whole appears to be exporting six times more tons than it imports (Giljum and Eisenmenger, 2004). Moreover, Southern exports carry heavier “ecological rucksacks’’ than the imports. This added an ecological perspective to older theories of deteriorating terms of trade for commodity exporting countries. Steve Bunker wrote an influential book on raw material exports and the lack of political power in Northern Brazil (Bunker, 1984, 1985). This was followed by articles in Ecological Economics and the Journal of Industrial Ecology looking at physical trade balances between countries or regions. (Gonzalez and Schandl, 2008; Muñoz et al., 2009, Muradian et al., 2001, 2002; Perez Rincon, 2006, 2007, Russi et al., 2008, Vallejo, 2010, Vallejo et al., 2010). Thus, while “ecological debt” was born from activism and transmitted to academia, the concept of “ecologically unequal exchange” was developed by academics, becoming relevant for EJOs and also for policy-makers considering the establishment of “natural capital depletion taxes”. The president of Ecuador for example, asked OPEC in November 2007 to impose an eco-tax on oil exports, because of unpaid local negative externalities and the enhanced greenhouse effect (Martinez-Alier and Temper, 2007). Assessment of health risks and environmental liabilities: the UMICORE case The next case analyzes the role of activist researchers in assessing health risks and environmental liabilities coming from corporate practices. VODO is a Flemish federation of civil society groups working on sustainable development. Its executive secretary in 2007-09 was Leida Rijnhout (now in 2010 executive secretary at ANPED, a Northern European federation of environmental CSOs). Inspired by debates on the ecological debt, VODO took up the UMICORE corporation case in Flanders for the CEECEC project, with support from the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Lea Sebastien and Tom Bauler, cf. Cornut et al, 2007). The assessment of risks to health in resource extraction or waste disposal conflicts is a topic both in CEECEC and EJOLT. One can often observe the two-way communication between activists on the ground and outside experts regarding the uncertain risks from new investments in agrofuels, mining, oil and gas extraction, and recycling practices. This is "post-normal" science in practice (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1994, Pereira and Funtowicz, 2009, Walter and Martinez-Alier, 2009). Funtowicz’s and Ravetz's postnormal science coincides to some extent with Beck's risk society theory, sharing the view that the “precautionary principle” has not historically been applied despite early warnings (EEA, 2002), and fostering the debate about social participation in the definition of environmental risks. In a context of complexity, uncertainty and difficulties concerning assessment, responsibility and compensation, stakeholder participation in decision-making processes acquires a new rationale. This perspective

12

(well known to ecological economists) was brought into the UMICORE chapter in CEECEC. In the Antwerp suburb of Hoboken, where UMICORE runs the world’s largest precious metals recycling unit, controversies about health risks and the incidence of cancer are still taking place. Despite epidemiological research that could have been deemed strong enough statistically, evidence of risks and cancer incidence was and is still disputed by the firm. To illustrate this more than skeptical corporate attitude, the CEECEC case study on the topic featured the keyword “manufacturing of uncertainty”. Although the plant has implemented substantial ecological modernisation since the 1970s, the legacy of 125 years of historic pollution is still present. Lead, arsenic and cadmium levels in the soil increase with proximity to the factory, as does the level of lead in the blood of toddlers and infants. As a result, since the early 1920s local actors have been asking for decontamination and compensation. In 2004, the company paid 77 million € for a cleanup of the area in proximity to its plants. In light of the health impacts of the company’s recycling work, the UMICORE chapter in CEECEC quantified the environmental liability or ecological debt, calculating the amount that the company owes to nearby residents, with a focus on health damages and loss of capabilities. The authors combined the best available studies on damage to health and crops in Hoboken with relevant calculations of the cost of illness, the economic values of human life and foregone benefits from gardening. The results of their study show the environmental liability of a single industrial plant, and inform recommendations for actions to be taken by the chemical industry and the government to enforce corporate accountability. The main author of the study, Nick Meynen, a young activist journalist, believes that his study could be used by civil society to seek reparations from the firm. In the course of 2011, this chapter might become an article in an environmental sciences journal. In sum, the UMICORE case illustrates the dialectic and dynamic relations at the center of the interactions and collaborations between academics, activists, and practitioners. This iterative and mutually-reinforcing relationship between knowledge production and knowledge use will ultimately contribute to addressing the causes and consequences of environmental conflicts. GDP of the Poor Finally, we focus on another CEECEC case study, this one on the tribal village of Mendha Lekha in eastern Maharashtra in India, written by Supriya Singh of the Center for Science and the Environment. The adivasi Gonds, traditionally depend on the forest for food, grazing, timber, water and other resources. The village is one of the few remaining villages in the Gadchiroli district that controls and manages a village forest of 18 km2 according to its own rules. Since the village depends heavily on its forest, all decisions pertaining to the management and extraction of resources are taken collectively. The chapter in CEECEC describes the institutions of environmental and resource management. Far from a “tragedy of the commons” taking place, the village is a successful example of community-based resource management. The economy is self sustaining and unaffected by the vagaries of the market economy as the Gonds have managed to keep their economy relatively free of monetization. Despite being poor in monetary terms and also with regard to material possessions, Supriya Singh emphasizes that their economy is not adequately measured in GDP accounting. Many timber and non-timber products from the forests, many environmental resources (water, pastures

13

and medicinal plants) are provided for by nature according to social rules of access without going through market transactions. Work is performed outside the market, both for economic production and for social reproduction. Furthermore, one of the keywords of this study is “the GDP of the Poor”, introduced in 2008 by TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, a project sponsored by UNEP and by DG ENV of the European Commission). The GDP of the Poor concept argues that the monetary representation of the services provided by clean water, soil retention, access to wood and pastures, and medicinal plants does not really measure the essential dependence of rural poor people on such resources and services. In traditional GDP accounting, the economic valuation of such losses might be low relative to the economic gains of projects that destroy biodiversity. The groups of people who suffer most from such losses however are traditional poor rural communities, (Orta et al, 2007, Gerber et al, 2009), hence the notion of "the GDP of the Poor.". This notion is illustrated in cases of water river or aquifer pollution due to mining extraction. Here, the poor cannot use the river or aquifer as a source of potable water any longer, but cannot afford to buy water in plastic bottles either. Therefore, when poor people see that their sources of livelihood are threatened by mining projects, dams, tree plantations, or large industrial areas, their claims stem from the fact that they need the services of the environment for their immediate survival, hence the concept of the “environmentalism of the poor” (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997). Here as well, the environmental impacts of resource extraction or pollution are taken up and analyzed by scientists, who in turn develop concepts that can be used by activists and communities on the ground to assert their claims to policy-makers and corporations that support destructive practices. Beyond GDP lies Economic Degrowth: again, from activism to science The reality of the “GDP of the poor” is one of the reasons why we should mistrust national macroeconomic accounting and go “Beyond GDP”. This expression, Beyond GDP, became fashionable in Brussels among some European civil servants and politicians some forty years after Commission President Sicco Mansholt in 1972 had already criticized GDP, and proposed an end to economic growth in rich countries. The slogan in Brussels is “the greening of the economy: beyond GDP”. GDP growth coincides with increasing pressure on biodiversity, climate change, and the destruction of human livelihoods at the “commodity frontiers” (Moore, 2000). Environmental activists are comforted by the academic critiques of GDP. Actually, feminist activists and academics (Waring, 1988) made a convicing argument against GDP accounting because it “forgot” not only to count nature’s services but also unpaid domestic work. Moreover, another type of critique against GDP accounting is now surfacing socially, the so-called Easterlin Paradox as updated by work by social psychologists which shows that increases in happiness do not correlate with increases in income above a certain level of per capita income. In a paper published in 1974, Easterlin found that within a given country people with higher incomes are more likely to report being happy. However, in international comparisons the average reported level of happiness did not vary much with national income per person, at least for countries with income sufficient to meet basic needs. Similarly, although income per person rose steadily in the United States between 1946 and 1970, average reported happiness showed no long-term trend and declined between 1960 and 1970.

14

Such criticisms against the methods and relevance of GDP accounting go much beyond complementary measurements of social performance such as the HDI (human development index) which correlates very closely with GDP per capita. They also go beyond the idea of simply “greening the GDP”, or introducing satellite accounts. Among the physical indices of sustainability, the best known is the Ecological Footprint (EF) that made its debut in 1992 at an Ecological Economics conference (Rees and Wackernagel, 1994). The WWF publishes the EF results regularly. The EF translates the use per capita of land for food, fibre, wood, plus the built environment (paved space for houses and roads), plus the hypothetical land that would absorb the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels into a single representative number in hectares. The EF is a constructed index, it does not measure any given properties of nature or human systems. The calculations also assume that humans have a right to use most of the planet. In any case, work on “ecological economics for EJOs” should analyse the social success of the EF and the uses of this index by EJOs. Going “beyond GDP” accounting should mean looking beyond the single imperative of economic growth in developed countries and should mean something different from “greening the GDP” or, at the other extreme, genuflecting before one single environmental index such as the EF. It should mean to go into multicriteria assessment of the economy, working with ten, twelve indicators of social, cultural, economic and environmental performance (Shmelev and Rodriguez-Labajos, 2009). Social movements have sometimes referred to the works of academics in regards to another related demand: socially sustainable economic de-growth. The décroissance movement has some of its roots in ecological economics, namely in GeorgescuRoegen’s work. Some articles of his were translated and published by Grinevald and Rens in 1979 with the title Démain la décroissance, with which he agreed. This was the first time that “economic degrowth” was put forward as a slogan. (Martinez-Alier et al, 2010). The bulk of French and Italian activists in the décroissance and decrescita movements might have read a few articles by Georgescu-Roegen but not his books on energy, materials and the economy (1966 (introduction), 1971). They are not available in French or Italian, and they are hard to digest in any case. Nevertheless, this does not stop activists from singing the praises of Georgescu-Roegen. This behaviour is painful to scholars but it is in the nature of social movements. The Degrowth activists in France and Italy are also keen on one concept from industrial ecology: the Jevons’ paradox or “rebound effect” (Polimeni et al, 2009) because they argue against techno-optimism and the use of technology to transcend environmental limits. They have read economic anthropologists such as Serge Latouche (2007) and are inspired by environmental thinkers of the 1970s such as André Gorz and Ivan Illich. But Degrowth is not based on iconic writings. It is a social movement born from experiences of co-housing, squatting, neo-ruralism, reclaiming the streets, alternative energies, waste prevention and recycling. It is a new slogan, a new movement, and it has become a new research programme. This is again a case of activist-led science, towards a new branch in the sustainability sciences that could be called “economic degrowth studies” closely related to “socio-ecological transition studies” (FischerKowalski and Haberl, eds., 2007, Haberl et al, 2009, Krausmann et al, 2008, Krausmann et al, 2009). There is no similar Degrowth movement (yet?) in Germany, the U.K., the United States, or Japan but the convergence of Degrowth activists with ecological economists and

15

industrial ecologists has produced already two scholarly conferences in Europe (Paris, April 2008, Barcelona, March 2010, www.degrowth.eu). (Fig. 4) The words “economic degrowth” have also been introduced into academic journals. A collection of papers from the 2008 conference (Schneider, Kallis and Martinez-Alier, 2010) was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production including a remarkable article by Christian Kerschner explaining Georgescu-Roegen’s criticism of Daly’s “steady-state economy” (Daly, 1973, 1991, 2007). Kerschner looks at “degrowth” as a stage towards a steadystate economy. There is a book by Mylondo (2009) with papers from the 2008 conference, while special issues from the 2010 conference are in preparation for Ecological Economics and the Journal of Cleaner Production. The same group has produced a film, Life after Growth, by Claudia Medina and Leah Temper.

Fig.4. Academic and activist international conference on Degrowth, Paris, April 2008

Conclusion This article explains the origins and contents of two European FP7 “Science in Society” projects, CEECEC (Civil Society Engagement with Ecological Economics) and EJOLT (Environmental Justice Organizations, Liabilities and Trade), giving examples of activist-led science and of science-led activism in the field of ecological economics and also in political ecology. CEECEC was focused on learning and teaching ecological economics with environmental activists while EJOLT combines academic and activist knowledge to answer two main questions: Which are the roots of the increasing number

16

of resource extraction and waste disposal conflicts taking place at different scales? How might such conflicts be turned into forces for environmental sustainability? Environmental Justice Organizations (EJOs) and their networks are learning to use concepts from ecological economics and other sustainability sciences, activities which could be labelled “capacity building”. More importantly, EJOs and their networks have developed new concepts (ecological debt, food sovereignty, corporate accountability, economic degrowth) that have become subject to academic scrutiny, and in some cases have been taken up in public policies. For instance, quantification of the ecological debt from North to South fulfills the demand from EJOs and also from government officials for instruction in the methods of calculation in terms that activists and citizens can understand. Moreover, this two-way communication improves the relevance and immediacy of scientific research to civil society concerns. The CEECEC project (2008-10) adopted a case study approach in order to achieve its goals of learning and teaching ecological economics with civil society organizations, particularly EJOs. EJOs constantly conduct research on environmental conflicts and write reports as part of their advocacy work. What CEECEC provided to them was a critical audience of interested activist and academic partners, who gave encouragement, made comparisons, and provided keywords and references, keeping in mind the final objective of building a Handbook and on-line course with a glossary for teaching ecological economics from the "bottom up" instead of from first principles. Here, EJOs appreciate the transdisciplinary approach of ecological economics (in contrast with the narrow compass of neoclassical enviromental and resource economics). EJOLT is another collaborative project (much larger in scale than CEECEC) which will run from 2011 to 2014 to support mutual learning and collaboration among stakeholders who make use of the sustainability sciences, focusing on ecological distribution conflicts worldwide. During the implementation of EJOLT, the knowledge of EJO activists will be combined with the research methodologies of the academic partners to show the policy relevance of concepts such as “ecologically unequal exchange” and “ecological debt”. It will cover more issues and territories than CEECEC, with the double objective of, firstly, providing inventories and maps and advancing a theory of the causes of the increased number of ecological distribution conflicts, and, secondly, showing how such conflicts for environmental justice can be turned into a decisive force that moves the economy towards sustainability. New topics arise all the time. EJOs have large stocks of environmental knowledge gained from their grassroots experience and activism. They have introduced concepts that academics have taken up, refined and defined carefully, and have operationalized through calculations. Ecological debt and climate debt are such concepts. Corporate accountability is another such activist concept (Clapp and Utting, 2009). In other cases, EJOs and their networks can take concepts from academics (ecologically unequal exchange, GDP of the poor, corporate environmental liabilities) and use them for their own ends. Such dynamics illustrate the mutually reinforcing relationship between researchers and activists and the dialectic relation between knowledge production and knowledge use. The post-normal science approach (Pereira and Funtowicz, 2009) has legitimated civil society interventions in disputes with business and administrators who impose

17

participatory exclusions (Agarwal, 2001) in the name of so-called sound science. Meanwhile, concepts such as embodied HANPP and virtual water, methods such as participatory multi-criteria evaluation and in general deliberative ecological economics (Zografos and Howarth, 2008), are waiting for takers from civil society, very much as calculations of the EROI of agriculture waited for thirty years until they became activist knowledge through Via Campesina. There are other examples of activist-led science and of science-led activism in the field of sustainability studies, which will hopefully lead to new procedures for decision making.and to new policies. For instance, economic degrowth leading to a steady state is a plausible objective for the rich industrial economies, one that would be supported by the environmental justice movements of the South which are active in resource extraction conflicts. Acknowledgement. We thank all the CEECEC and EJOLT partners, and Isabelle Anguelovski for her competent editing job and useful suggestions.

REFERENCES Agarwal, B., 2001, Participatory exclusions, community forests and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework, World Development, 29 (10):1623-48. Boulding, K., 1966. The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in Environmental quality in a growing economy (H. Jarret et al., eds.), John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Bunker, S. 1984. Modes of extraction, unequal exchange, and the progressive underdevelopment of an extreme periphery. The Brazilian Amazon. American Journal of Sociology, 89: 1017-1064. Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon: Extraction, unequal exchange, and the failure of the modern state. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bunker, S. 2007. The Poverty of Resource Extraction. In Rethinking environmental history: world-system history and global environmental change, edited by A. Hornborg, et al. Altamira Press, Lanham Clapp, J., Utting, P. (eds.). 2009. Corporate accountability and sustainable development, Oxford U.P., Delhi. Cornut, P., Bauler, T., Zaccaï, E. (eds.). 2007. Environnement et inégalités sociales, Brussels, Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 214 p. Costanza, R. (ed.). 1991, Ecological Economics: the Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia U.P. New York. Costanza, R., Segura, O., Martinez-Alier, J., (eds.). 1996. Getting down to earth: practical applications of ecological economics, Island Press, Washington DC, 494 p. Daly, H. 1968. On economics as a life science, Journal of Political Economy, 76 (3) (May – Jun): 392-406. Daly, H. 1973. Toward a Steady-state Economy. WH Freeman & Co, San Francisco, 332 p.

18

Daly, H. 1991. Steady-State Economics: Second Edition with New Essays, Island Press, Washington, DC. Daly, H. 2007. Ecological economics and sustainable development, selected essays, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Escobar, A. 2008. Territories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes, Duke UP, Durham, 456 p. European Environment Agency (EAA). 2002. Late Lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental Issues Report No. 22, 210 p. Fischer-Kowalski, F., Haberl, H. (eds.) 2007. Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use, preface by J. Martinez-Alier, E. Elgar, Cheltenham, 263 p. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a postnormal science. Ecological Economics, 10: 197-207. Georgescu-Roegen. N. 1966. Analytical Economics, Harvard U.P., Cambridge. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard U.P., Cambridge. Gerber, J.F., Veuthey, S., Martinez-Alier, J. 2009. Linking political ecology with ecological economics in tree plantation conflicts in Cameroon and Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 68(12): 2885-89. Gerber, J. F., 2010, Conflicts on tree plantations, Global Environmental Change (in press) Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., 2009. The biofuel delusion. Earthscan. London. Giljum, S., Eisenmenger, N. 2004. International trade and the distribution of environmental goods and burdens: a biophysical perspective. Journal of Environmentand Development, 13(1): 73-100. Goeminne, G., Paredis, E. 2009. The concept of ecological debt: challenging established science-policy frameworks in the transition to sustainable development. In: Techera, E. (ed.), Frontiers of environment and citizenship. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press (in press). Goemmine, G., Paredis, E. 2009. The concept of ecological debt: some steps towards an enriched sustainability paradigm, Environment, Development and Sustainability, DOI:10:1, Schandl, H. 2008. The biophysical perspective of a middle income economy: Material flows in Mexico. Ecological Economics, 68 (1-2): 317-327. Grinevald, J., Rens, I. eds, 1995. La Décroissance : Entropie, écologie, économie, Sang de la Terre, Paris (a selection of writings by N. Georgescu-Roegen, first published in 1979). Guha, R., Martinez-Alier, J. 1997. Varieties of Environmentalism. Essays North and South. Earthscan, London, 246 p.

19

Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Berecz, S., Ludwiczek, N., Martinez-Alier, J., Musel, A., Schaffartzik, A. 2009. Using embodied HANPP to analyze teleconnections in the global land system: conceptual considerations, Danish Journal of Geography, 109(2): 119-130. Haberl, H, Fischer-Kowalski, M, Krausmann, F., Martinez-Alier, J., Winiwater, V. 2009. A socio-metabolic transition towards sustainability? Challenges for another Great Transformation, Sustainable Development, DOI: 10.1002/sd.410 Hall, C., Cleveland, C., Kauffman, R.1986. Energy and Resources Use. The Ecology of the Economc Process. Wiley, New York. Hornborg, A. 1998. Toward an ecological theory of unequal exchange: articulating world system theory and ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 25(1): 127-136. Hornborg, A. 2009. Zero-Sum World: Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World System, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 50 (3-4): 237-262. Hornborg, A., Jorgensen, A.K. (eds). 2010. International Trade and Environmental Justice: Toward a Global Political Ecology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Forthcoming. Hornborg, A., McNeill, J, Martinez-Alier, J. (eds). 2007. Rethinking environmental history: World-system history and global environmental change, Altamira Press, Lanham, 420 p. Jansson, A.M. ed, 1984 , Integration of Economy and Ecology: an outlook for the Eighties, Proceeding of the Wallenberg Symposia, Askö Laboratory, Stockholm. Jorgenson, A. 2009. The Sociology of Unequal Exchange in Ecological Context: A Panel Study of Lower-Income Countries, 1975-2000. Sociological Forum, 24(1): 22-46. Kallis, G., Martinez-Alier, J., Norgaard, R. 2009. Paper assets, real debts. An ecological economic exploration of the global economic crisis. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 5 (1/2): 14-25. Kneese, A., Ayres, R.U. 1969. Production, Consumption and Externalities, American Economic Review, 59: 282-297. Krausmann, F., M. Fischer-Kowalski, H. Schandl and N. Eisenmenger. 2008. The global sociometabolic transition: past and present metabolic profiles and their future trajectories. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(5-6): 637-657. Krausmann, F., S. Gingrich, N. Eisenmenger, K.H. Erb, H. Haberl and M. Fischer-Kowalski. 2009. Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. Ecological Economics 68(10):2696–2705. Latouche, S., 2007, Le Pari de la Décroissance, Fayard, Paris. Martinez-Alier, J. 1987. Ecological Economics. Energy, Environment and Society. Blackwell, Oxford. Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L. 2007. Oil and Climate Change: Voices from the South, Economic and Political Weekly, 15 Dec. 2007. Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 328 p..

20

Martinez-Alier, J. 2009. Social Metabolism, Ecological Distribution Conflicts, and Languages of Valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 20 (1): 58-87. Martínez-Alier, J,, U. Pascual, F. D. Vivien, E. Zaccai, Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm Ecological Economics, 69(9), 2010. Martinez-Alier, J., Ropke, I. eds. 2008. Recent Developments in Ecological Economics, 2 vols, E.Elgar, Cheltenham. Marzo, Giuseppe de, 2009, Buen Vivir: per una nuova democrazia della Terra, Ediesse,

Rome. Moore, J.W. 2000. Sugar and the expansion of the early modern world-economy: Commodity frontiers, ecological transformation, and industrialization, Review: Fernand Braudel Center, 23: 409 - 433. Muñoz, P., Giljum, S., Roca, J. 2009. The Raw Material Equivalents of InternationalTrade. Empirical Evidence for Latin America. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(6): 881-897. Muradian, R., Martinez-Alier, J. 2001. Trade and the environment from a “Southern” perspective, Ecological Economics, 36: 281-297. Muradian, R., O’Connor, M., Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the environmental load displacement of industrializad countries, Ecological Economics, 41: 51-67. Mylondo, B, ed. 2009. La décroissance économique. Pour la soutenabilité écologique et l’équite sociale. Edtions du Croquant, Broissieux. Odum, H.T., 1971, Environment, Power and Society, Wiley, New York. Orta, M., Napolitano, D.A., MacLennan, G.J., O'Callaghan, C., Ciborowski, S., Fabregas, X. 2008. Impacts of petroleum activities for the Achuar people of the Peruvian Amazon: summary of existing evidence and research gaps, Environmental Research Letters, 2(4), 045006, 10 p. Paredis, E., Goeminne, G., Vanhove, W., Maes, F., Lambrecht, J. 2008. The concept of ecological debt: its meaning and applicability in international policy, Academia Press, Gent, 228 p. Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic Crops in Argentina: The Ecological and Social Debt. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(4): 314-322 . Peralta, A.K. ed., 2009, Ecological Debt: the peoples of the South are the creditors. Cases from Ecuador, Mozambique, Brazil and India. World Council of Curches, Geneva. Pereira, Â. G., Funtowicz, S. 2009. Science for policy : new challenges, new opportunities, Oxford University Press, Delhi; Oxford, 360 p. Perez Rincon, M.A. 2006. Colombian international trade from a physical perspective: Towards an ecological Prebisch thesis, Ecological Economics, 59: 519-529.

21

Perez Rincon, M.A. 2007. Comercio internacional y medio ambiente en Colombia. Una mirada desde la economía ecológica. Programa Editorial Universidad del Valle, Cali, 385 p. Pimentel, D. et al. 1973. Food production and the energy crisis, Science, 182: 443-449. Polimeni, J., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., Alcott, B. 2007. The Jevons’ Paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements, Earthscan, London. Rappaport, R. 1967. Pigs for the ancestors. Ritual in the ecology of a New Guinea people, Yale U.P., New Haven. Rees, W., Wackernagel, M., 1994. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity, in A.M. Jansson et al, Investing in natural capital: the ecological economics approach to sustainability, Island Press, Washington D.C. Rice, J. 2007. Ecological unequal exchange: international trade and uneven utilization of environmental space in the world system. Social Forces, 85 (3): 1369-1392. Roberts, J. T., Parks, B.C. 2007. Fueling Injustice: Globalization, Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Climate Change. Globalizations, 4(2): 193-210. Robleto, M. L., Marcelo, W. 1992. Deuda Ecológica. Instituto de Ecologia Política, Santiago, Chile. Ropke, I., 2004. The early history of modern ecological economics, Ecological Economics, 50(3-4): 293-314 Russi, D., Gonzalez, A.C., Silva-Macher, J.C., Giljum, S., Martinez-Alier, J., Vallejo, M.C.. 2008. Material Flows in Latin America: A Comparative Analysis of Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Peru, 1980-2000. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 12(5-6): 704-720. Russi, D. 2008. An integrated assessment of large-scale biodiesel production in Italy: Killing several birds with one stone?, Energy Policy 36: 1169-1180 Schneider, F., Kallis, G. Martinez-Alier, J. 2010. Introduction to the special issue on Socially Sustainable Economic Degrowth. Journal of Cleaner Production., 18(6). Shmelev S., Rodriguez-Labajos B. 2009. Dynamic multi-dimensional assessment of sustainability at the macro level: the case of Austria, Ecological Economics, 68: 2560-73. Simms, A. 2005. Ecological debt. The health of the planet and the wealth of nations. Pluto Press, Ann Arbor, London, 224 p. Spash, C. 2009 , ed, Ecological Economics (4 vols.), Routledge, London. Srinivasan, U.T., Carey, S.P., Hallsteind, E., Higgins, P.A.T., Kerr, A.C., Koteen, L E., Smithd, A.B., Watson, R., Harte, J., Norgaard, R.B. 2008. The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 1773–1786. Stirling, A., 2006, From Science and Society to Science in Society. Towards a Framework for Cooperative Research. Report of a European Commission Workshop. Governance and Scientific Advice Unit of DG RTD, Directorate C2. Directorate General Research and Technology Development, Brussels. 24th – 25th November 2005. SPRU – science and technology policy research, University of Sussex, UK, February 2006.

22

Waring, M., 1988, If women counted, a new feminist economics, Harper & Row, San Francisco. Vallejo, M. C. 2010. Biophysical structure of the Ecuadorian economy, foreign trade and policy implications. Ecological Economics, DOI:10.16/j.ecolecon.2010.03.006 Vallejo, M.C., Perez Rincon, M.A., Martinez-Alier, J. 2010. Metabolic Profile of the Colombian economy from 1970 to 2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology (accepted for publication). Veuthey, S., Gerber, J.F. 2010. Logging conflicts in Southern Cameroon: a feminist ecological economics perspective, Ecological Economics (in press). Walter, M., Martinez-Alier, J. 2010. How to Be Heard When Nobody Wants to Listen: the Esquel mining conflict, Canadian J. of Development Studies, 30(1-2).

Zografos, C., Howarth, R.B. (eds). 2008. Deliberative ecological economics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 271 p.

23