A comparative analysis of three social policy regimes and their effects on the incidence of environmental racism and environmental justice movements in those countries.
An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities
Environmental Racism and Social Policy: Risk and Weight of History in the United States, South Africa, and Brazil
1. Environmental
Racism
and
Social
Policy:
Risk
and
the
Weight
of
History
in
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil
The
concept
of
‘environmental
racism,’
and
its
connection
to
historical
social
policies
in
various
countries,
has
moved
to
forefront
of
struggles
for
racial
equality
over
the
last
30
years.
This
paper,
by
utilizing
an
extended
framework
comprising
the
typologies
of
Gøsta
Esping-‐Andersen
and
Ian
Gough
and
Geoff
Wood,
will
seek
to
analyse
the
social
policy
regimes
of
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil,
in
relation
to
environmental
outcomes
through
the
lens
of
race.
Differences
and
similarities
will
be
located
both
within
the
outcomes
experienced
by
different
racial
groups,
and
the
apportioning
of
risk
within
each
social
policy
regime
on
the
basis
of
race.
A
Note
on
the
Analysis
Framework
It
is
beyond
the
purview
of
this
paper
to
undertake
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
extended
theoretical
framework
that
it
will
utilize.1
Nevertheless,
it
is
important
to
note
from
the
outset
just
where
our
sample
countries
fit
within
the
typology.
Firstly,
the
United
States,
whose
social
policies
are
built
around
the
primacy
of
the
market,
is
commonly
identified
as
a
liberal
welfare
state
regime
within
Esping-‐Anderson’s
framework.2
Secondly,
due
to
the
continued
presence
of
a
large
informal
sector,
which
is
not
covered
by
the
lion’s
share
of
state
social
policy,
alongside
neoliberal
market
strategies
imposed
through
external
1
For
an
in
depth
discussion
of
Esping-‐Anderson’s
typology
see
Gøsta
Esping-‐
Andersen,
The
Three
Worlds
of
Welfare
Capitalism,
Cambridge,
Polity
Press,
1990,
pp.
26-‐27.
For
an
in
depth
discussion
of
Gough
and
Wood’s
extended
typology,
see
Ian
Gough,
‘Welfare
Regimes
in
Development
Contexts:
a
Global
and
Regional
Analysis,’
in
I.
Gough
and
Geoff
Wood
et
al
(eds.),
Insecurity
and
Welfare
Regimes
in
Asia,
Africa
and
Latin
America
:
Social
Policy
in
Development
Contexts,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004,
pp.
28-‐36
and
Armando
Barrientos,
‘Latin
America:
Towards
a
Liberal-‐Informal
Welfare
Regime,’
in
Ian
Gough
et
al.
(eds.),
Insecurity
and
Welfare
Regimes
in
Asia,
Africa
and
Latin
America:
Social
Policy
in
Developmental
Contexts,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004,
pp.
121-‐126.
2
Diana
DiNitto,
‘An
Overview
of
American
Social
Policy,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Handbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Publications,
2009,
pp.
21-‐23.
1
2. pressure,
Brazil
can
be
located
within
Gough
and
Wood’s
liberal
informal
welfare
regimes.3
Lastly,
burdened
by
the
legacy
of
colonialism,
underdevelopment,
pervasive
inequality,
and
a
burgeoning
informal
sector,
South
Africa
displays
all
the
hallmarks
of
Gough
and
Wood’s
insecurity
regimes.4
Common
to
all
three
regimes
types,
despite
divergent
historical
and
social
development
paths,
is
the
absence
of
ongoing
state
involvement
in
risk
mitigation,
either
through
an
unwillingness
related
to
ideology,
or
an
inability
related
to
historical
factors.
The
Environment,
Social
Policy,
and
Race
The
environment
is
more
than
just
the
space
surrounding
us;
it
is
the
ecological
space
in
which
the
basic
necessities
of
life
are
provided
for.
It
is
also
the
space
in
which
we
are
employed,
obtain
education,
and
pursue
social
lives,
and
our
ability
to
do
so
depends
heavily
on
the
maintenance
of
a
decent
level
of
environmental
quality.5
Understood
in
this
way
it
is
clear
that
environmental
policy,
which
regulates
the
quality
of
ecological
spaces,
and
social
policy,
which
regulates
the
provision
of
social
‘goods’
within
those
spaces,
are
intimately
linked.
Further,
the
relationship
between
environmental
quality
and
social
policy
is
reciprocal
–
environmental
destruction
may
cause
complex
social
problems
(such
as
physical
and
psychological
illnesses,
and
the
collapse
of
communities),
while
poorly
conceived
social
and
economic
policies
can
threaten
an
already
fragile
ecological
balance.6
3
Armando
Barrientos,
‘Latin
America,’
p.
122.
4
Jeremy
Seekings,
‘Welfare
Regimes
and
Redistribution
in
the
South’
in
D.
Donno,
I.
Shapiro
and
P.A.
Swenson
(eds.),
Divide
and
Deal:
The
Politics
of
Distribution
in
Democracies,
New
York,
New
York
University
Press,
2008,
pp.
24-‐
27.
5
Melissa
Checker,
Polluted
Promises:
Environmental
Racism
and
the
Search
for
Justice
in
a
Southern
Town,
New
York,
New
York
Unversity
Press,
2005,
p.
17.
6
Marie
D.
Hoff
and
John
G.
McNutt,
‘Social
Policy
and
the
Physical
Environment,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Hanbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Pulications,
2009,
pp.
295-‐297.
For
an
in
depth
discussion
of
health
and
social
effects
related
to
environmental
degradation
see
ibid,
pp.
300-‐303.
2
3. Since
the
late
1970s
the
emergent
environmental
justice
movement
has
attempted
to
confront
and
eradicate
inequities
in
environmental
quality
based
upon
racist
social
policies.
It
has
drawn
upon
studies
showing
that
patterns
of
environmental
destruction,
and
the
social
issues
they
cause,
are
often
dependent
upon
the
presence
of
poor
or
racially
defined
communities.
In
a
number
of
countries,
these
results
are
a
corollary
to
historical
social
policies
that
have
embedded
racial
discrimination
within
social
and
political
structures.
It
is
not
surprising
therefore,
that
struggles
for
environmental
justice,
and
for
racial
equality,
are
often
inseparable.7
Three
examples
of
‘environmental
racism’
that
can
be
understood
within
this
paradigm
are
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil,
and
it
is
to
these
that
we
now
turn.
Three
Examples
of
Environmental
Racism
(i)
The
United
States
While
social
policy
in
the
United
States
no
longer
reproduces
racial
inequality
as
directly
and
explicitly
as
it
did
in
the
past,
racial
conflict
is
nevertheless
embedded
within
the
structure
of
American
society.
The
Jim
Crow
laws,
which
legislated
racial
segregation
in
areas
such
as
education,
housing,
and
employment,
organized
society
around
the
conception
of
racial
difference
between
the
end
of
the
American
Civil
War
and
the
Civil
Rights
era.
But
although
the
Civil
Rights
Act
(1964)
and
the
Fair
Housing
Act
(1968)
nominally
dismantled
de
jure
racial
segregation,
de
facto
segregation
is
still
an
ambiguous
force
in
contemporary
America.
This
is
particularly
apparent
in
urban
areas,
where
the
phenomenon
of
‘white
flight’
to
wealthy
outer
suburbs,
as
well
as
discriminatory
lending
and
housing
patterns,
led
to
the
formation
by
the
1970s
of
central
‘urban
ghettos,’
characterized
by
black
racial
concentration
and
7
For
an
overview
of
the
environmental
justice
movement
see
Glenn
S.
Johnson,
‘Environmental
Justice:
a
Brief
History
and
Overview,’
in
Filomina
C.
STEADY
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
pp.
17-‐38.
3
4. declining
quality
of
life.8
Social
policies
enacted
since
have
had
little
effect
upon
these
so-‐called
‘racial
donuts’,
in
part
due
to
less
overt
forms
of
racism
perpetuated
by
social
and
market
forces.9
Given
the
persistence
of
racial
segregation
and
inequality,
it
is
not
surprising
that
environmental
harms,
and
indeed
benefits,
are
unevenly
distributed
in
the
United
States.10
African
Americans,
for
example,
are
three
times
more
likely
than
whites
to
live
in
communities
containing
at
least
one
uncontrolled
toxic
waste
site,
leaving
them
more
vulnerable
to
health
risks
such
as
asthma,
of
which
they
are
three
times
more
likely
to
die
from.11
Further,
a
2006
study
of
air
toxins
in
American
cities
found
a
‘persistent
relationship
between
increasing
levels
of
racial-‐ethnic
segregation
and
increased
estimated
cancer
risk.’
At
the
same
time,
the
incidence
of
environmental
benefits,
such
as
‘green
areas’,
also
vary
on
seemingly
racial
grounds.
In
Los
Angeles,
for
example,
there
are
1.7
acres
of
parkland
in
white
wealthy
areas,
compared
with
just
0.3
in
more
racially
diverse
areas.12
These
more
recent
findings
echo
the
conclusions
of
a
study
conducted
in
1987
under
the
title
Toxic
Wastes
and
Race
in
the
United
States.
It
found
a
clear
correlation
between
the
placement
of
hazardous
waste
and
the
presence
of
minority
communities,
which
it
identified
as
‘environmental
racism.’
According
to
the
Reverend
Dr.
Benjamin
F.
Chavis
Junior,
who
wrote
the
forward
to
the
study,
environmental
racism
involves
‘racial
discrimination
in
environmental
policy-‐making,
enforcement
of
regulations
and
laws,
the
deliberate
targeting
of
communities
of
color
[sic]
for
toxic
waste
disposal,
and
the
siting
of
polluting
8
Jordan
Brown
et
al.,
‘Race,
Politics,
and
Social
Policy,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Handbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Publications,
2009,
pp.
271-‐272.
9
For
an
overview
of
these
forces
see
Robert
R.
M.
Verchick,
Facing
Catastrophe:
Environmental
Action
for
a
post-‐Katrina
World,
Cambridge
Mass,
Harvard
University
Press,
2010,
p.
160.
10
Ibid,
p.
117
11
Melissa
Checker,
Polluted
Promises,
p.
13.
12
Robert
R.
M.
Verchick,
Facing
Catastrophe,
pp.
118-‐120.
4
5. industries.’13
Government
authorities
have
questioned
these
findings,
and
their
racial
implications,
on
the
basis
that
economic
considerations
dictate
waste
disposal,
and
black
communities
tend
to
be
situated
on
the
cheapest
land.14
Yet,
this
study,
as
well
as
a
follow
up
report
in
2007,
found
that
low-‐income
white
areas
also
have
drastically
lower
levels
of
contamination.15
It
would
seem
then,
that
the
risks
of
negative
health
affects
flowing
from
such
environmental
policies
are
at
least
in
part
racially
determined.
The
devastation
wrought
on
the
minority
communities
of
New
Orleans
by
Hurricane
Katrina
and
its
aftermath
is
perhaps
the
most
blatant
example
of
environmental
racism
in
the
United
States.
Following
the
Civil
War,
segregated
black
communities
were
located
in
areas
of
the
city
that
were
the
most
prone
to
flooding
due
to
elevation
and
to
levee
configuration.
Restrictive
land
use
laws,
discriminatory
lending
patters,
and
intimidation
on
the
part
of
sections
of
the
white
community,
have
since
perpetuated
this
exposure.16
As
a
result,
the
areas
damaged
following
the
storm
were
75
percent
African-‐American,
who
in
part
due
to
extreme
poverty
(of
the
28
percent
of
people
in
New
Orleans
living
in
poverty,
84
percent
were
black)
were
unable
to
evacuate
at
the
rate
of
wealthy
whites.
The
despicably
slow
disaster
response,
moreover,
accentuated
the
instance
of
death
and
disease,
and
has
been
widely
blamed
on
the
implicit
racial
bias
of
the
Bush
administration.17
Regardless
of
who
is
to
blame,
however,
it
is
13
Produced
by
the
United
Church
of
Christ
Commission
on
Racial
Justice,
the
extended
title
of
the
study
was
Toxic
Wastes
and
Race
in
the
United
States:
A
National
Report
on
the
Racial
and
Social-‐Economic
Characteristics
of
Communities
with
Hazardous
Waste
Sites,
though
it
is
more
commonly
known
by
its
shorter
title.
Melissa
Checker,
Polluted
Promises,
p.
14.
14
A
prominent
example
is
the
1992
report,
produced
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Environmental
Equity:
Reducing
Risk
for
All
Communities.
Martin
V.
Melosi,
‘Equity,
Eco-‐racism,
and
Environmental
History,’
in
Char
Miller
and
Hal
Rothman
(ed.),
Out
of
the
Woods:
Essays
in
Environmental
History,
Pittsburgh,
Univeristy
of
Pittsburgh
Press,
1997,
pp.
201-‐202.
15
Melissa
Checker,
Polluted
Promises,
pp.
14-‐15.
Also
produced
by
the
United
Church
of
Christ,
the
follow
up
study,
‘Toxic
Wastes
and
Race
at
Twenty:
1987-‐
2007’
found
that
in
spite
of
raised
levels
of
community
awareness,
little
had
changed
in
the
interceding
years.
Robert
R.
M.
Verchick,
Facing
Catastrophe,
p.
119.
16
Ibid,
p.
160.
17
Ibid,
pp.
130-‐136.
5
6. clear
that
black
communities
had
been
shouldered
with
a
disproportionate
level
of
environmental
and
social
risk
on
the
basis
of
race.
(ii)
South
Africa
Racial
conflict
is
embedded
within
the
structure
of
South
African
Society,
much
as
in
the
case
of
the
United
States,
due
to
an
historical
social
policy.
Known
as
Apartheid
(literally
‘apartness’)
and
established
in
1948,
it
sought
the
separate
development
of
white
and
non-‐white18
communities
until
its
dismantling
in
1994,
and
led
to
the
forcible
relocation
of
individuals
comprising
the
latter.
Those
whose
labour
was
required
by
industries
located
in
or
around
urban
centres
were
pushed
onto
nearby
unused
and
unwanted
land
characterized
by
a
lack
of
services,
housing
shortages,
overcrowding
and
low
environmental
quality.19
Those
who
we
deemed
surplus
to
requirements
(mostly
women,
children
and
the
elderly)
were
relocated
to
barren
rural
‘homelands’
(supposedly
traditional
native
areas),
far
from
social
services
and
employment
opportunities.20
Both
of
these
areas
evolved
into
impoverished
and
dehumanizing
ghettos,
while
at
the
same
time
a
small
wealthy
white
elite
enjoyed
the
benefits
of
unfettered
access
to
the
countries
natural
resources.21
18
Non-‐whites
here
refers
to
the
majority
of
the
population,
which
includes
Africans,
‘Coloureds’
and
Indians.
This
paper
will
focus
on
the
African
community,
who
also
commonly
referred
to
as
‘blacks’.
Francie
Lund,
‘South
Africa:
Transition
Under
Pressure,’
in
P.
Alcock
and
G.
Craig
(eds.),
International
Social
Policy:
Welfare
Regimes
in
the
Developed
World,
New
York,
Palgrave,
2001,
p.
222.
19
Thomas
Homer-‐Dixon,
‘Environmental
Scarcity
and
Violent
Conflict:
The
Case
of
South
Africa,’
Journal
of
Peace
Research,
Vol.
35,
No.
3,
May
1998,
p.
289.
20
The
legacy
of
racial
segregation
and
dispossession
upon
inequality
continues
to
this
day.
For
example
whites
who
comprise
just
9
percent
of
the
population
own
80
percent
of
the
land,
while
blacks,
who
comprise
80
percent
of
the
population
own
just
13
percent.
Mashile
F.
Phalane
and
Filomina
C.
Steady,
‘Nuclear
Energy,
Hazardous
Waste,
Health,
and
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa:
The
Continuing
Legacy
of
Apartheid,’
in
Filomina
C.
STEADY
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
p.
189.
21
Larry
A.
Swatuk,
‘Environmental
Policy
Making
in
Southern
Africa:
Learning
the
Hard
Way,’
in
Gordon
J.
MacDonald,
Daniel
L.
Nielson,
and
Marc
A.
Stern
(eds.),
Latin
American
Environmental
Policy
in
International
Perspective,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Westview
Press,
1997,
p.
188.
6
7. The
environmental
effects
of
segregation
on
black
communities
in
particular
have
been
severe.
The
homelands
themselves
were
situated
in
fragile
environments
whose
thin
topsoil
was
wholly
unsuitable
for
extensive
agricultural
requirements.22
The
resulting
legacy
of
devastating
soil
erosion
led
one
recent
observer
to
describe
the
scene
in
the
homelands
as
‘almost
lunar
in
its
desolation.’23
Meanwhile,
in
the
shantytowns
that
still
surround
South
African
cities,
poor
blacks
live
in
hazardous
environmental
conditions,
including
inadequate
access
to
sanitation
and
uncontaminated
water
supplies.24
Due
to
a
lack
of
alternatives,
moreover,
a
heavy
reliance
on
wood
fuel
for
energy
consumption
in
both
rural
and
urban
areas
has
led
to
extensive
deforestation
and
air
pollution,
putting
further
strain
on
both
the
environment
and
the
communities
it
supports.25
Despite
the
dismantling
of
Apartheid
by
the
new
African
National
Congress
(ANC)
government
in
1994,
the
social
effects
of
environmental
racism
have
proved
persistent.
This
can
be
traced
to
two
considerable
impediments
to
change,
the
first
related
to
perceptions.
During
the
Apartheid
era,
and
indeed
throughout
South
Africa’s
history
of
colonial
domination,
environmental
management
and
conservation
supported
policies
of
racial
discrimination.
The
22
The
South
African
ecosystem
is
characterized
by
land
unsuitable
for
agricultural
production,
low
rainfall,
and
soils
susceptible
to
erosion.
Indeed,
only
13.5
percent
of
South
Africa
is
considered
suitable
for
crop
production,
with
only
3
percent
of
that
considered
high
yield.
Thomas
Homer-‐Dixon,
‘Environmental
Scarcity
and
Violent
Conflict,’
p.
282.
23
It
is
estimated
that
during
the
20th
century,
25
percent
of
South
Africa’s
topsoil
has
been
lost
to
soil
erosion,
while
55
percent
of
the
land
is
threatened
by
desertification.
Ibid,
p.
285.
24
Mashile
F.
Phalane
and
Filomina
C.
Steady,
‘Nuclear
Energy,
Hazardous
Waste,
Health,
and
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa,’
p.
190.
For
example,
in
South
Africa,
between
12
and
16
million
people
lack
potable
water,
while
21
million,
or
half
the
population,
lack
adequate
sanitation.
70
percent
of
urban
blacks,
moreover,
do
not
have
running
water
and
are
forced
to
rely
on
supplies
contaminated
by
industrial
run-‐off.
Thomas
Homer-‐Dixon,
‘Environmental
Scarcity
and
Violent
Conflict,’
p.
286.
25
In
Kwa
Zula
Natal,
for
example,
it
has
been
estimated
that
in
the
fifty
years
following
the
start
of
Apartheid,
the
regions
forests
have
been
reduced
from
250
to
just
50.
Approximately
40
percent
of
the
population,
or
17
million
people,
rely
on
wood
fuel
for
cooking
and
heating.
Ibid,
p.
285.
7
8. same
colonial
rulers
whose
settler
population
had
once
relied
upon
subsistence
activities
viewed
the
historical
crop
and
livestock
practices
of
black
communities
as
unnatural
and
ecologically
destructive.
Redefined
as
‘poachers,’
black
communities
were
forcefully
relocated
away
from
their
ancestral
lands
to
make
way
for
game
and
nature
reserves.26
The
resulting
marginalization
of
local
communities
from
their
land
and
resources
has,
not
surprisingly,
negatively
affected
their
environmental
perceptions,
leading
to
an
‘anti-‐conservation’
ideology
that
has
proved
difficult
to
dislodge
in
the
post-‐Apartheid
era.27
The
second
impediment
to
radical
change
in
South
Africa
relates
to
difficulties
associated
with
policy
implementation.
While
the
new
South
African
constitution
proclaims
a
universal
right
to
an
environment
that
is
not
harmful
to
health
or
well-‐being,28
its
application
has
been
burdened
by
a
history
of
collusion
with
environmentally
unsound
industries
by
the
Apartheid
government,
coupled
with
an
overall
lack
of
transparency.
For
example,
the
shipping
of
hazardous
mercury
waste
to
Kwa
Zulu
Natal
by
a
British
Company,
though
discovered
in
the
late
1980s,
would
not
be
halted
until
1996.
To
this
day,
10,000
barrels
of
the
waste
remains
in
the
province,
unable
to
be
disposed
of
or
recycled
due
to
health
and
economic
considerations.
While
a
solution
is
being
found,
the
local
black
communities
face
continued
exposure
to
health
risks,
a
consequence
of
environmental
racism
that
is
to
be
found
across
the
country.29
26
Larry
A.
Swatuk,
‘Environmental
Policy
Making
in
Southern
Africa,’
pp.
196-‐
197.
27
Farieda
Khan,
‘The
Roots
of
Environmental
Racism
and
Rise
of
Environmental
Justice
in
the
1990s,’
in
David
A.
McDonald
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa,
Cape
Town,
University
of
Cape
Town
Press,
2002,
p.
16.
28
Anthony
Butler,
Contemporary
South
Africa,
Hampshire,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2004,
p.
144.
29
The
company,
Thor
Chemicals,
had
been
banned
from
operation
in
Britain
due
to
casualties
from
mercury
poisoning
and
the
imposition
of
tougher
environmental
laws.
It
is
not
surprising,
therefore,
that
workers
at
the
South
African
site
tested
positive
to
mercury
poisoning,
and
indeed
the
Mngeweni
River,
which
flows
through
nearby
communities
was
found
to
have
mercury
levels
1,500
times
higher
than
international
acceptable
levels.
For
a
full
description
of
the
saga,
see
Mashile
F.
Phalane
and
Filomina
C.
Steady,
‘Nuclear
Energy,
Hazardous
Waste,
Health,
and
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa,’
pp.
195-‐198.
8
9. (iii)
Brazil
The
history
of
racial
discrimination
in
Brazil
is,
at
least
outwardly,
quite
different
to
that
of
the
United
States
and
South
Africa.
Despite
a
similar
history
of
colonial
domination,
marginalization
of
indigenous
populations,
and
slavery,
the
issue
of
race
has
long
been
avoided
in
the
Brazilian
public
sphere.30
Racism
was
effectively
‘swept
under
the
carpet,’
especially
during
the
military
dictatorship
that
ran
from
1964
to
1985,
with
societal
hierarchy
being
explained
by
cultural
and
class
differences
rather
than
race.31
Yet
since
the
establishment
of
democracy
in
the
mid-‐1980s
a
significant
level
of
prejudice
and
racism
towards
Indians
and
those
with
African
heritage
has
bubbled
to
the
surface.32
This
phenomenon
is
what
anthropologist
João
Costa
Vargas
termed
the
‘hyperconsciousness/negation
of
race
dialectic’,
or
the
‘tension
between
a
pervasive
belief
that
race
should
neither
be
talked
about
nor
addressed,’
and
the
reality
of
persistent
racial
discrimination
throughout
Brazil.33
In
contrast
to
the
issue
of
race,
the
Brazilian
environment,
and
specifically
the
Amazon,
has
historically
been
at
the
forefront
of
the
nation’s
consciousness.
For
Brazilians
from
the
poor
to
the
affluent,
the
Amazon
is
an
imaginary
landscape
of
wealth
waiting
to
be
exploited,
a
‘land
without
people
for
people
without
land’
as
the
military
regime
aptly
put
it.34
Indigenous
populations,
and
other
communities
who
had
moved
there
centuries
earlier,
are
therefore
largely
ignored,
and
deforestation
for
the
purposes
of
large-‐scale
grazing,
mineral
30
Luiz
C.
Barbosa,
The
Brazilian
Amazon
Rainforest:
Global
Ecopolitics,
Development,
and
Democracy,
Lanham,
MD,
University
Press
of
America,
2000,
p.
102.
31
George
M.
Fredrickson,
‘Race
and
Racism
in
Historical
Perspective:
Comparing
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil,’
in
Charles
V.
Hamilton
et
al.
(eds.),
Beyond
Racism:
Race
and
Inequality
in
Brazil,
South
Africa,
and
the
United
States,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Lynne
Rienner
Publishers,
2001,
pp.
1-‐2.
32
Kathryn
Hochstetler
and
Margaret
E.
Keck,
Greeng
Brazil:
Environmental
Activism
in
State
and
Society,
Durham,
Duke
University
Press,
2007,
pp.
183-‐184.
33
Christen
A.
Smith,
‘Strategies
of
Confinement:
Environmental
Injustice
and
Police
Violence
in
Brazil,’
in
Filomina
C.
Steady
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
p.
93.
34
The
Amazon
covers
60
percent
of
Brazil’s
total
area.
Ibid,
p.
142.
9
10. exploration,
and
agricultural
production,
has
proceeded
at
an
alarming
rate.35
Resistance
movements,
supported
by
external
pressure
for
environmental
justice
from
NGOs
and
international
organizations,
have
progressively
secured
portions
of
the
Amazon
as
Indian
reserves
since
the
mid-‐1980s.36
More
often,
however,
the
establishment
of
nature
conservation
areas,
and
the
redefinition
of
Indian
subsistence
activities
as
‘poaching’,
have
led
to
the
forceful
removal
of
communities
and
racial
hostility.37
For
ordinary
Brazilians,
moreover,
who
rely
for
their
survival
on
agriculture,
lumber,
commerce,
and
mining
in
the
Amazon,
it
is
difficult
to
understand
programs
aimed
at
the
protection
of
small
communities
‘hidden’
in
the
forest.38
There
has
been,
due
to
the
significance
of
the
Amazon
to
global
environmental
health,
sustained
international
pressure
over
the
last
thirty
years
for
greater
protection
in
the
region.
Often
viewed
as
an
attempt
at
environmental
imperialism,
however,
the
results
have
been
mixed.39
The
state,
burdened
with
considerable
foreign
debt
and
economic
instability
has
repeatedly
resorted
to
resource
extraction
to
the
detriment
of
indigenous
populations.40
In
any
case,
it
would
be
mistake
to
assume
that
the
state
can
simply
legislate
problems
in
the
Amazon
away.
The
strong
federalist
system
put
in
place
by
the
1988
constitution
has
resulted
in
a
dearth
of
central
planning
and
policy
formulation
–
the
state
is
effectively
absent
in
the
region.41
The
economic
value
to
be
gained
from
land
grabbing
and
resource
exploitation,
moreover,
has
made
the
area
ripe
for
criminality.
In
a
video
released
by
the
Indigenous
Council
for
Roraima
in
June
1998,
for
example,
gunman
hired
by
commercial
farmers
35
Though
the
rate
of
deforestation
is
heavily
contested,
ranging
from
a
total
loss
of
8
percent
to
25
percent,
it
is
generally
accepted
that
the
rate
is
increasing
year
by
year.
J.
Timmons
Roberts
and
Nikki
Demetria
Thanos,
Troube
in
Paradise:
Globalization
and
Environmental
Crises
in
Latin
America,
New
York,
Routledge,
2003,
pp.
139-‐142.
36
Luiz
C.
Barbosa,
The
Brazilian
Amazon
Rainforest,
p.
99.
37
J.
Timmons
Roberts
and
Nikki
Demetria
Thanos,
Troube
in
Paradise,
p.
79.
38
Kathryn
Hochsettler
and
Margaret
E.
Keck,
Greening
Brazil,
pp.
140-‐142.
39
Luiz
C.
Barbosa,
The
Brazilian
Amazon
Rainforest,
p.
83.
40
J.
Timmons
Roberts
and
Nikki
Demetria
Thanos,
Troube
in
Paradise,
pp.
168-‐
169.
41
Kathryn
Hochsettler
and
Margaret
E.
Keck,
Greening
Brazil,
p.
147.
10
11. were
seen
to
be
firing
upon
an
indigenous
community
in
an
effort
to
force
them
out
of
a
state
designated
reserve
area.
Charged
with
protection
of
these
communities,
local
authorities
are
either
unwilling
or
unable
to
do
so.42
As
one
Brazilian
journalist
described,
‘[c]riminality
has
turned
Amazonia
into
an
enormous
green
Sicily.’43
Thus
despite
concerted
efforts,
some
marginally
successful,
the
deforestation
of
the
Amazon,
and
the
risk
to
the
survival
of
Indian
communities,
has
continued
apace.44
Environmental
Racism,
Risk,
and
the
Weight
of
History
What
can
be
drawn
out
from
the
above
examples
is
the
effect
that
historical
social
policies
can
have
upon
the
distribution
of
environmental
risks.
The
regulations
that
govern
risk
distribution
are
ultimately
the
responsibility
of
states,
and
are
determined
by
their
particular
social,
economic,
and
environmental
policies.45
This
is
what
Ulrich
Beck
identified
as
the
‘risk
society’
–
one
in
which
the
risks
of
environmental
hazards,
which
have
been
introduced
through
modern
production
and
consumption
patterns,
are
systematically
apportioned
by
central
authorities.46
Despite
the
abstract
nature
of
environmental
risk,
however,
it
often
manifests
itself
as
real
harm
to
real
people.47
As
we
have
seen,
these
harms
and
the
risk
of
them,
are
not
evenly
distributed
in
the
United
States,
Brazil,
and
South
Africa,
and
fall
disproportionately
on
racial
groups
within
those
countries.
This
‘environmental
racism’
is
a
result
of
the
historical
development
of
their
social
policy
regimes.
Certainly,
as
our
framework
suggests,
the
fundamental
nature
of
these
regimes
can
be
differentiated
on
the
basis
of
their
particular
historical
development.
Yet
regardless
of
historical
specificity,
all
three
have
these
two
42
Ibid,
pp.
143-‐144.
43
Lúcio
Flávio
quoted
in
ibid,
p.
151.
44
Ibid,
p.
141.
45
Roger
C.
Field,
‘Risk
and
Justice:
Capitalist
Production
and
the
Environment,’
in
Daniel
Faber
(ed.),
New
York,
Guilford
Press,
1998,
p.
86.
46
Ulrich
Beck,
Ecological
Enlightenment:
Essays
on
the
Politics
of
the
Risk
Society,
Atlantic
Highlands,
NJ,
Humanities
Press,
1995,
pp.
2-‐4.
47
Roger
C.
Field,
‘Risk
and
Justice,’
p.
81.
11
12. mutually
reinforcing
issues
in
common
–
racial
discrimination,
and
the
uneven
distribution
of
environmental
risk.
Dealing
with
racism
first,
we
can
note
that
all
three
countries
have
a
history
of
racial
discrimination
that
includes
colonisation,
marginalization
of
indigenous
communities,
and
slavery,
and
which
manifested
itself
within
the
very
structures
of
their
societies.
The
issues
of
environmental
justice
discussed
in
this
paper
are
all
tied
to
these
structural
inequities,
and
while
they
are
not
maintained
by
the
state,
forms
of
physical,
symbolic,
or
structural
violence
serve
to
keep
them
in
place.48
In
this
way,
racist
social
policies
have
influenced
contemporary
social
forces,
which
in
turn
have
produced
racist
environmental
outcomes.
While
there
can
be
no
doubt
that
racism
is
a
factor
in
the
distribution
of
environmental
risk,
another
common
factor,
present
in
each
country’s
social
policy
regime,
is
just
as
influential.
The
United
States,
as
a
liberal
welfare
state,
leaves
the
distribution
of
‘goods’,
environmental
risk
among
them,
to
market
forces.
Brazil,
as
a
liberal
informal
welfare
regime,
has
been
pressured
by
external
forces
to
instigate
a
similar
system,
albeit
only
covering
the
formal
sector.
Those
outside
this
sector
are
arguably
at
the
mercy
of
market
forces
to
an
even
greater
degree.
Lastly,
in
South
Africa,
the
legacy
of
Apartheid
has
left
the
new
insecurity
regime
with
little
choice
but
to
follow
suit.
Thus,
market
forces,
heavily
influenced
by
the
weight
of
racist
histories,
distribute
environmental
risk
in
a
discriminatory
manner.
Conclusions
Using
an
extended
analytical
framework
the
environmental
policies
of
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil,
have
been
analysed
in
terms
of
their
racial
dimensions.
I
have
identified
race,
and
its
effect
on
the
distribution
of
environmental
risk,
as
a
determining
factor
in
environmental
outcomes
within
the
social
policy
regimes
of
these
countries.
This
result
is
based
upon
similar
racial
histories
within
each
country,
and
irrespective
of
particularities
in
the
development
of
their
social
policy
regimes.
48
George
M.
Fredrickson,
‘Race
and
Racism
in
Historical
Perspective,’
p.
24.
12
13. Bibliography
Alston,
Dana
and
Nicole
Brown,
‘Global
Threats
to
People
of
Color,’
in
Robert
D.
Bullard
(ed.),
Confronting
Environmental
Racism:
Voices
from
the
Grassroots,
Boston,
Mass,
South
End
Press,
1993,
pp.
179-‐194.
Ascher,
William,
‘The
Politics
of
Rent
Distribution
and
Latin
American
Natural
Resource
Policy,’
in
Gordon
J.
MacDonald,
Daniel
L.
Nielson,
and
Marc
A.
Stern
(eds.),
Latin
American
Environmental
Policy
in
International
Perspective,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Westview
Press,
1997,
pp.
15-‐39.
Barbosa,
Luiz
C.,
The
Brazilian
Amazon
Rainforest:
Global
Ecopolitics,
Development,
and
Democracy,
Lanham,
MD,
University
Press
of
America,
2000.
Barrientos,
Armando,
‘Latin
America:
Towards
a
Liberal-‐Informal
Welfare
Regime,’
in
Ian
Gough
et
al.
(eds.),
Insecurity
and
Welfare
Regimes
in
Asia,
Africa
and
Latin
America:
Social
Policy
in
Developmental
Contexts,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004,
pp.
121-‐168.
Beck,
Ulrich,
Ecological
Enlightenment:
Essays
on
the
Politics
of
the
Risk
Society,
Atlantic
Highlands,
NJ,
Humanities
Press,
1995.
Brown,
Jordan
et
al.,
‘Race,
Politics,
and
Social
Policy,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Handbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Publications,
2009,
pp.
263-‐278.
Butler,
Anthony,
Contemporary
South
Africa,
Hampshire,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2004.
Checker,
Melissa,
Polluted
Promises:
Environmental
Racism
and
the
Search
for
Justice
in
a
Southern
Town,
New
York,
New
York
Unversity
Press,
2005.
DiNitto,
Diana
M.,
‘An
Overview
of
American
Social
Policy,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Handbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Publications,
2009,
pp.
21-‐37.
Durham,
William
H.,
‘Political
Ecology
and
Environmental
Destruction
in
Latin
America,’
in
William
H.
Durham
and
Michael
Painter
(eds.),
The
Social
Causes
of
Environmental
Destruction
in
Latin
America,
Ann
Arbor,
University
of
Michigan
Press,
1995,
pp.
249-‐264.
Esping-‐Andersen,
Gøsta,
The
Three
Worlds
of
Welfare
Capitalism,
Cambridge,
Polity
Press,
1990.
13
14. Field,
Rodger
C.,
‘Risk
and
Justice:
Capitalist
Production
and
the
Environment,’
in
Daniel
Faber
(ed.),
New
York,
Guilford
Press,
1998,
pp.
81-‐103.
Fredrickson,
George
M.,
‘Race
and
Racism
in
Historical
Perspective:
Comparing
the
United
States,
South
Africa,
and
Brazil,’
in
Charles
V.
Hamilton
et
al.
(eds.),
Beyond
Racism:
Race
and
Inequality
in
Brazil,
South
Africa,
and
the
United
States,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Lynne
Rienner
Publishers,
2001,
1-‐27.
Goodland,
R.J.A.,
‘South
Africa:
Environmental
Sustainability
needs
Empowerment
of
Women,’
in
Laura
Westra
and
Peter
S.
Wenz
(eds.),
Faces
of
Environmental
Racism:
Confronting
Issues
of
Global
Justice,
Lanham,
MD,
Rowman
&
Littlefield,
1995,
pp.
207-‐225.
Gough,
Ian,
‘Welfare
Regimes
in
Developmental
Contexts:
a
Global
and
Regional
Analysis,’
in
Ian
Gough
et
al.
(eds.),
Insecurity
and
Welfare
Regimes
in
Asia,
Africa
and
Latin
America:
Social
Policy
in
Developmental
Contexts,
Cambridge,
Cambridge
University
Press,
2004,
pp.
15-‐48.
Hochstetler,
Kathryn,
and
Margaret
E.
Keck,
Greeng
Brazil:
Environmental
Activism
in
State
and
Society,
Durham,
Duke
University
Press,
2007.
Hoff,
Marie
D.,
and
John
G.
McNutt,
‘Social
Policy
and
the
Physical
Environment,’
in
Michelle
Livermore
and
James
Midgley
(eds.),
The
Hanbook
of
Social
Policy,
Thousand
Oaks,
California,
Sage
Pulications,
2009,
pp.
295-‐311.
Homer-‐Dixon,
Thomas,
‘Environmental
Scarcity
and
Violent
Conflict:
The
Case
of
South
Africa,’
Journal
of
Peace
Research,
Vol.
35,
No.
3,
May
1998,
pp.
279-‐
298.
Johnson,
Glenn
S.,
‘Environmental
Justice:
a
Brief
History
and
Overview,’
in
Filomina
C.
STEADY
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
pp.
17-‐42.
Khan,
Farieda,
‘The
Roots
of
Environmental
Racism
and
Rise
of
Environmental
Justice
in
the
1990s,’
in
David
A.
McDonald
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa,
Cape
Town,
University
of
Cape
Town
Press,
2002,
pp.
15-‐48.
Kolk,
Ans,
Forests
in
International
Environmental
Politics:
International
Organisations,
NGOs
and
the
Brazilian
Amazon,
Utrecht,
International
Books,
1996.
Law,
Ian,
Racism,
Ethnicity,
and
Social
Policy,
New
York,
Prentice
Hall,
1996.
Lund,
Francie,
‘South
Africa:
Transition
Under
Pressure,’
in
P.
Alcock
and
G.
Craig
(eds.),
International
Social
Policy:
Welfare
Regimes
in
the
Developed
World,
New
York,
Palgrave,
2001
14
15. MacDonald,
Gordon
J.,
and
Marc
A.
Stern,
‘Environmental
Politics
and
Policy
in
Latin
America,’
in
Gordon
J.
MacDonald,
Daniel
L.
Nelson,
and
Marc
A.
Stern
(eds.),
Latin
American
Environmental
Policy
in
International
Perspective,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Westview
Press,
1997,
pp.
1-‐11.
Melosi,
Martin
V.,
‘Equity,
Eco-‐racism,
and
Environmental
History,’
in
Char
Miller
and
Hal
Rothman
(ed.),
Out
of
the
Woods:
Essays
in
Environmental
History,
Pittsburgh,
Univeristy
of
Pittsburgh
Press,
1997,
pp.
194-‐211.
Phalane,
Mashile
F.
and
Filomina
C.
Steady,
‘Nuclear
Energy,
Hazardous
Waste,
Health,
and
Environmental
Justice
in
South
Africa:
The
Continuing
Legacy
of
Apartheid,’
in
Filomina
C.
STEADY
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
pp.
189-‐202.
Roberts,
J.
Timmons,
and
Nikki
Demetria
Thanos,
Troube
in
Paradise:
Globalization
and
Environmental
Crises
in
Latin
America,
New
York,
Routledge,
2003.
Shrader-‐Frechette,
Kristin
S.,
Environmental
Justice:
Creating
Equality,
Reclaiming
Democracy,
New
York,
Oxford
University
Press,
2002.
Smith,
Christen
A.,
‘Strategies
of
Confinement:
Environmental
Injustice
and
Police
Violence
in
Brazil,’
in
Filomina
C.
Steady
(ed.),
Environmental
Justice
in
the
New
Millennium:
Global
Perspectives
on
Race,
Ethnicity,
and
Human
Rights,
New
York,
Palgrave
Macmillan,
2009,
pp.
93-‐114.
Swatuk,
Larry
A.,
‘Environmental
Policy
Making
in
Southern
Africa:
Learning
the
Hard
Way,’
in
Gordon
J.
MacDonald,
Daniel
L.
Nielson,
and
Marc
A.
Stern
(eds.),
Latin
American
Environmental
Policy
in
International
Perspective,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Westview
Press,
1997,
pp.
185-‐210.
Seekings,
Jeremy,
‘Welfare
Regimes
and
Redistribution
in
the
South’
in
D.
Donno,
I.
Shapiro
and
P.A.
Swenson
(eds.),
Divide
and
Deal:
The
Politics
of
Distribution
in
Democracies,
New
York,
New
York
University
Press,
2008,
pp.
19-‐42.
Verchick,
Robert
R.
M.,
Facing
Catastrophe:
Environmental
Action
for
a
post-‐
Katrina
World,
Cambridge
Mass,
Harvard
University
Press,
2010.
Viola,
Eduardo
J.,
‘The
Environmental
Movement
in
Brazil:
Institutionalization,
Sustainable
Development,
and
Crisis
of
Governance
Since
1987,’
in
Gordon
J.
MacDonald,
Daniel
L.
Nielson,
Marc
A.
Stern
(eds.),
Latin
American
Environmental
Policy
in
International
Perspective,
Boulder,
Colorado,
Westview
Press,
1997,
pp.
88-‐110.
15