summary paper - Alliance of Religions and Conservation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
SESSION 3 Conditions and criteria for partnerships Roundtable participants: Most Rev. Diarmuid Martin Archbishop of Dublin, Primate of Ireland For many years I was involved directly in the area of development policy at the international level through my work at the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. I would like to begin by sharing some of my experience in various dialogues between faiths and development agencies, and especially by indicating some of the pitfalls which have made such dialogue and the subsequent partnerships less successful than one had hoped them to be. In one of the early discussions between leaders of the World Bank and the Vatican on partnership with religious bodies in development programmes, one senior World Bank official was asked what the overall aim of the World Bank in such partnerships was. The answer, part in jest and partly serious, was: “We at the Bank are the world’s leading wholesaler in development theory, and you guys have a magnificent worldwide retail outlet system”. It is certainly in the interests of all that people who are working for the same goals should work as closely as possible together. But the challenge is not quite as simple as matching wholesaler and retailer in order to get it right. The first thing that any partnership must understand is that partnership is the work of two partners, each with its own identity and specific contribution. There is a tendency for governments and international agencies – for legitimate and well intentioned reasons to want to use religious bodies. Religious partners have their own identity and are not simply useful outlets for the products of others. Their identity is intimately part of their activities. To continue using the market analogy, their outlet is an integral part of their product. That is why their outlets are so effective. Changing the brand could mean smothering the entire operation. Partnerships must be marked in the first place by profound respect for each partner, which means looking sensitively at the originality of each contributor and being aware of the fact there may not be perfect synergy between both partners. This means being prepared to work together where that is possible and at the same time to respect differences where these exist. Religious bodies are precisely that and are not easily “harnessable” into the patterns of others. Indeed, the message of religious bodies may be opposed to the thought patterns of secular organizations. Religious bodies are there to bring a message of faith, a message about the transcendent, which will not always be manageable within utilitarian categories or in plans to get things done quickly and efficiently. Take an example of the Christian message which preaches a God whose love is gratuitous and superabundant. The terms “gratuitous” and ”superabundant” are hard to fit into in a market context in which everything has its price and you get just what you pay for. Yet it is the concept of superabundant generosity which is the secret of the success of many Christian and many other religious projects in health care and education. Dialogue between international agencies and religious bodies needs rigorous evaluation. But that evaluation must also be able to look at the contribution that religious bodies bring in contexts which are not so easy to measure in traditional accounting or monetary terms. Saying that religious bodies are not easily “harnessable” does not of course mean that they should ask to be or allowed to be unaccountable. It should be the opposite, particularly in the area of the environment. The very first religious concept which springs to my mind when I think about the relations between humankind and the environment is that of creation. The term creation defines not so much the mechanics of the origins of the universe (creationism tries to do that), but much more the relationship between humanity, the creator and the rest of creation. If the world is created, then the world and all that is in it is not our own private possession. It is gift, which must be used in accordance with certain intrinsic principles which cannot be interpreted just according to our own private whim. Recognising that all creation is gift is a fundamental call to accountability about the way we use resources of any kind. 47
Page 1: Conference in Oslo 7 th to 8 th Nov
Page 5 and 6: PROGRAMME (REVISED) Religion, the E
Page 7 and 8: 15:45 Session 2 continues: Panel di
Page 9 and 10: Jaini Jaakola Shashi Prabha Vesa (J
Page 11 and 12: OVERARCHING QUESTIONS Agnes Aboum D
Page 13 and 14: Based Organizations not least Churc
Page 15 and 16: Ikonya, who argues that the socio
Page 17 and 18: exist. They have powerful leaders a
Page 19 and 20: movements, rituals of joining becom
Page 21 and 22: The personal quality of the relatio
Page 23 and 24: SESSION 1 How perceptions of nature
Page 25 and 26: Mongolia which maintains its centur
Page 27 and 28: future. The first ecology workshop
Page 29 and 30: SESSION 2 The relationship between
Page 31 and 32: The battle between two opposing but
Page 33 and 34: Even when children are in school, t
Page 35 and 36: MarjaLiisa Swantz Professor Emeri
Page 37 and 38: These are isolated cases in which b
Page 39 and 40: school uniform or whatever her need
Page 41 and 42: The churches in Africa could potent
Page 43 and 44: landclearing and to accelerate th
Page 45: In general the Green Education Prog
Page 49 and 50: Religious language contains much of
Page 51 and 52: These development programs will mea
Page 53 and 54: It is not enough to base partnershi
Page 55 and 56: religious groups normally have a
Page 57 and 58: • Environmental causes such as co
Page 59 and 60: * Sikhs feed more than 30 million p

summary paper - Alliance of Religions and Conservation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?