summary paper - Alliance of Religions and Conservation

It is increasingly common for the management of natural resources to be based on an economic
rationale. Nature is seen as a ‘resource’, with a market. A watershed – seen from this perspective ­
provides ‘environmental services’ whose value can, and should, be estimated in money terms. And
economic instruments (notably taxes and subsidies) are increasingly favoured for implementing policy.
These are certainly effective instruments, but it is important to recognise that such an approach implies
that decisions about public wellbeing are increasingly driven by the logic of the market, and controlled by
the expertise of one particular professional ­ the economist. This is an example of a more general
tendency in modern society for the ethics of the market to be increasingly dominant. Despite much talk of
‘global ethics’ in recent years, I suggest that an anthropologist from Mars who was invited to make an
empirical study of the behaviour of earthlings (or at least those who exercise most power in the world)
would conclude that the dominant ethic is not that of Christianity, or any other world religion, but rather
that of the market.
(The need to argue in economic terms applies also in the field of health, as we have found in recent
studies from the WHO. I recently read an article in an English newspaper about the possible impact of
avian ‘flu. The headline announced the billions of pounds that such an attack would cost the economy.
One had to read far into the text of the story to find the apparently secondary consideration that millions of
people would die).
The dilemma for those concerned with the management of natural resources is whether to accept the –
very powerful – approach of economics, or to argue against it. It is difficult to ‘have it both ways’. To
accept this logic involves committing to a whole mindset that may turn out to be inimical to nature. To
reject this logic is to risk being marginalized when important political decisions are taken.
Religion, the environment and development: the potential for partnership
(Introductory Session)
The research in which I am currently engaged involves studying a number of multilateral organisations, to
see how they deal with issues of ethics. Each of them has a moral purpose – the reduction of poverty. But
they are to very varying extents effective in this endeavour. It has become apparent that each of them
faces a dilemma, which may be expressed simply in terms of a choice: between having power (derived
mainly from their financial resources and their economic expertise) and having moral authority (derived
from their political legitimacy as representing the interests of the poor, and their ‘moral prestige’). It is
difficult – perhaps impossible – to have both.
I suggest that religious organisations seeking to enter this same field may be faced with the same
dilemma. The moral authority of religious organisations is surely very considerable. So too, at least in
some case, are their resources. There is, therefore, a choice to be made. And they should be wary of
believing that the two can be easily combined.
Conclusion
It is the poor who will suffer most from environmental degradation, both now and in the future.
Sustainable development is, to a very large extent, an issue of fairness – on a world scale. In his
welcoming remarks, the Minister of Development Mr. Erik Solheim urged participants to ‘take on the
global issues’. Yesterday, we were discussing predominantly local issues in poor countries. These are
important. But on the basis of the three points above, I want to suggest that the highest priority for
religions concerned with sustainable development should be to lend their moral authority to a challenge to
the dominance of economics in policy­making, and to consumerism in behaviour ­ a battle to be fought
primarily in the North.
46