Abstract
Abstract
In 2012, a battle raged in northern Western Australia in Australia between the multinational Woodside Petroleum, local Aboriginal people and environmentalists. Woodside was developing a $35 billion liquefied natural gas project. Opponents were determined to save an iconic site from desecration and protect local flora and fauna. In 2013, Woodside abandoned the project with activists claiming victory. But Woodside had merely shifted its focus, to an exploration “hotspot” off the west coast of Myanmar in Southeast Asia. Myanmar is a weak state and local people suffer a range of environmental injustices. Indigenous peoples lack the resources and political freedom to agitate for protection or policy change. This article is based on empirical/secondary insights. Using a case study of Woodside Petroleum as an example, it asks a number of pertinent points regarding environmental justice in the Anthropocene. Should our activism consider “others”? If our activism results in oppression elsewhere, are we responsible? If we are responsible, how should we respond? Considering our interconnectedness and interdependence, what relationships should we be forming? This article highlights the transnational environmental justice issues and consequences that stemmed from activism against development and argues that, in this era of the Anthropocene, we should be expanding the sphere of environmental justice discourse ever further for it is not your place or mine, but ours.
Introduction
T
This article first outlines the case study and discusses the environmental injustices facing local people in Myanmar and Woodside's part in that, before expanding on and answering the following questions: Should our activism consider “others”? If our activism results in oppression elsewhere, are we responsible? If we are responsible, how should we respond? Lastly, considering our interconnectedness and interdependence, what relationships should we (or could we) be forming? This article concludes by noting that we should be expanding the sphere of environmental justice discourse ever further for, this planet Earth is not your place or mine but ours.
The Battle for James Price Point (Walmadan)
James Price Point (referred to as “Walmadan” by local Indigenous people) is a headland situated on the remote Kimberley coast in northern Western Australia, the western state of Australia. The area stands large in the local and national imaginary mainly due to the remoteness and aesthetics of the natural environment and is “characterized by a special spirit of place that is deeply felt by many locals, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.” 2 This ancient landscape, covering hundreds of thousands of square kilometers, has been home to the Goolarabooloo Aboriginal people for over 40,000 years. Aboriginal people believe that connection with country (land) and culture is the base of one's true sense of identity, spiritual and physical health, and self-esteem. It is, therefore, vital that this coastal land be kept clear of any development that would interfere with local law and culture or damage sacred places and sites. In this area, the Goolarabooloo Law Bosses are still actively engaged in looking after country and hold the responsibility for protecting it. 3 The area is also home to the Jabirr Jabirr people. 4
In 2008, the multinational Woodside Petroleum, backed by the Western Australian (state) government, chose James Price Point as the site for a $35 billion liquefied natural gas project. 5 This was to process the huge gas reserves that Woodside and their joint venture partners Chevron, Shell, BP, and BHP have access to in the “Browse Basin,” a geological area of ∼140,000 km2, some 425 km off the Kimberley coast. The processing hub was to cover 2500 hectares involving a major road to the site, a massive jetty jutting out into the sea and a refinery that would have been so big it could be seen from space.
A campaign to stop the project was launched almost immediately after the announcement of its intention. 6 This campaign was complex and multilayered; not everyone opposed the development including some from the local Indigenous community that is split over the proposal. The conflict primarily lay between multinational mining interests and state power keen to open up the Kimberley region to industrialization on the one hand, and the small group of Indigenous people, local community members, and environmental organizations who objected to the development on the other. 7 Opponents were determined to save the iconic site from desecration, preserve the lifestyles they cherish, and protect local flora and fauna for future generations. This was a nonviolent campaign led by dedicated and passionate locals, engaged in place-protective action. 8 The campaign quickly gained national and media interest and tens of thousands of people joined the movement in some way.
In 2013, Woodside, stating that James Price Point was uneconomic and pursuing it could have put the company at risk of collapse, abandoned the project with activists claiming victory. But Woodside had merely shifted its focus, to an exploration “hotspot” off the west coast of Myanmar in Southeast Asia.
Myanmar
Myanmar is one of the largest countries in Southeast Asia, with around 54 million predominately Buddhist (89%) citizens, represented by 135 officially recognized ethnic groups. 9 Once the wealthiest nation in Southeast Asia, Myanmar is now one of the world's least developed countries despite being rich in natural resources. It is home to a relatively young population traditionally based on the land; around 70% of the population is involved in or reliant on agriculture that currently accounts for the largest share of the economy. Like Aboriginal Australians, Indigenous and local peoples in Myanmar have an affinity with the land. They are born into a culture that is closely integrated with the natural surrounds and have a close connection to the materiality of their natural environments.
Myanmar is a fragile state transitioning to democracy ostensibly governed by the National League for Democracy under the leadership of State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. 10 Political, economic, social, and cultural policies and practices enacted by a variety of autocratic military leaders have impacted negatively on the environment, resulting in environmental insecurity and injustice for the majority of the population in Myanmar. 11 Myanmar has an appalling human rights record and local people suffer a range of environmental injustices, in particular loss of land and traditional livelihoods with little or no compensation. More importantly, in addressing environmental injustice, Indigenous peoples often lack the resources and political freedom to agitate for protection or policy change and historically any political or social dissent has been promptly and violently squashed. 12 Consequently, very little has been achieved with regard to protection of environments, let alone enabling community participation in policy making.
The situation in Myanmar for agrarian populations, and Indigenous communities, is being exacerbated by new policies and practices as the state enthusiastically embraces large scale, agri-business, and export-oriented industrialization. 13 Myanmar's substantial oil and gas wealth is considered critical to its economic development. In late 2013, Myanmar's oil ministry, the Myanmar Gas and Oil Enterprise, opened up bidding for shallow and deep water offshore gas in the Bay of Bengal, the body of water to the west of the country. From October 2013 to March 2014, Myanmar awarded 36 major oil and gas blocks to a mix of eastern and western companies, mostly working with local partners. 14
Woodside in Myanmar
Woodside was one of the earliest investors in this region and is now one of the largest offshore petroleum acreage holders in Myanmar, with some significant finds and projects in the pipeline. 15 Woodside has outlined a potential plan to develop gas in its “Southern hub” to supply either the local market or for piping to Thailand. This could be developed by connecting into the existing Yadana platform, operated by Total or as a standalone project. Its “Northern hub” gas resources could be suitable for piping to China through existing infrastructure.
There are a number of concerns regarding Woodside's activities: ongoing issues with pipelines, development of an onshore gas hub at Daweii in Mon State, and its partnership with Total. Pipelines have caused concern since their inception. Environmental impact issues include land grabs, loss of agricultural land and springs for water, and deforestation. 16 Now public anger is rising over planned deep-sea ports and refineries set to displace tens of thousands of villagers, and many have complained about the lack of fair compensation when forced to leave their homes to make way for construction. Despite rhetoric surrounding environmental responsibility and sustainability from Woodside, it is not apparent in any of its reports on Myanmar that these issues have (1) been acknowledged or (2) will be addressed.
Discussion
In 2013, The Wilderness Society, one of the key protagonists in the Kimberley campaign, stated that “the world breathed a collective sigh of relief when Woodside Petroleum pulled the pin on their destructive gas hub project planned for James Price Point.” 17 But whose world? Certainly not those of the villagers in Myanmar who are holding their breath in anticipation of the social and environmental outcomes of a similar project on their shores. These locals are primarily from the Mon ethnic group, one of the first groups to settle in ancient Myanmar (then Burma), possibly before the first millennium BCE. There is also a large number of ethnic Bamar, as well as members of the Kayin and Pa-O ethnic groups and a small dwindling Anglo-Burmese community. Like Indigenous peoples around the globe being impacted by globalization, global warming, climate change, and industrialized development, Indigenous peoples in Mon state, alongside later arrivals, are already suffering from compound injustices and this development will exacerbate them. Although Woodside's entry into the Myanmar gas industry is not a direct result of the actions of environmentalists in Australia, there is a distinct correlation between the James Price Point campaign and Woodside's movements. This leads to a number of questions:
Should our activism consider others? If our activism results in oppression elsewhere, are we responsible?
To answer this (and related) question, it is necessary to refer to the literature on the global environmental justice movement 18 and to the concept of consequentialism. Consequentialism (very simply put) states that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. 19 This theory implies that the actions with the best consequences, in this case the least environmental and social “bads,” are morally best; “our actions can be judged by the extent to which they further these goals.” 20 The notion of consequentialism in environmental justice or ethics is, in many respects, a new field of enquiry. 21 As in the case study already presented, there are moral implications relating to the negative consequences of (our) behavior—environmental injustice(s)—and we are, therefore, morally bound to act. Furthermore, it is argued that, in light of this geological era of the Anthropocene, and our contemporary global socioecological crisis, there are instrumental/utilitarian reasons why we should.
With the restructuring of the global economy, nearly all manufacturing and extraction processes are being rapidly offshored—from wealthy to poorer nations and, concurrently, environmental justice claims are becoming offshored. 22 We, as academics and activists, are cognizant of the transboundary and global dimensions of environmental degradation and injustice and becoming increasingly aware of the myriad (and growing) project-based campaigns and place-based struggles around the world—like those at James Price Point. In light of this, we become part of the broad structural oppression and silencing if we are aware of it and do not act.
It has been said that environmentalism per se caters to the wants and needs of wealthy people and harms the poor—what Guha and Martinez-Alier refer to as the full-stomach environmentalism of the North compared with the empty-belly environmentalism of the South. 23 While we agitate for the protection of special places, seeking to preserve our lifestyle and livelihoods, locals in Myanmar are fighting for their very lives, survival, needs, and to uphold their culture. We are in privileged positions, and one way to address environmental issues for the world's most disempowered is to use our awareness and this position of privilege. Acting in response to negative impacts resulting from our activism (although indirect) may involve us desisting from certain aspects of our activism; absorbing some of the injustices and environmental “bads” ourselves, while agitating for better outcomes for others. We have a shared responsibility.
Young noted nearly 30 years ago that the root of unjust distribution is oppression, encompassing practices of exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, 24 and three types of violence: structural, cultural, and direct. 25 Lack of recognition is a harm, an injustice, as much as an inequitable distribution of goods. Our activism, and participation in a collective harm, has indirectly resulted in oppression, so we are complicit. 26 We are complicit in this injustice due to our lack of recognition. We are not addressing the structural violence that affects others as a result (although indirect) of our activism and that is resulting in direct violence. Our actions alone, of course, have not resulted in Woodside going to Myanmar—they might have gone anyway, but, increasingly we are global citizens with global responsibilities and our knowledge of outcomes makes us responsible. Furthermore, in light of human-induced global warming and climate change, it is in our (collective) best interests to act.
If we are responsible, how should we respond? Considering our interconnectedness and interdependence what relationships should we be forming?
To uphold the basic principles of environmental justice, we must fight for ethical, balanced, and responsible use of land and renewable resources, through opposing the destructive operations of multinational corporations but, increasingly, by assisting those fighting compound injustices of repression and exploitation. Forty years on from the advent of the environmental justice movement in the United States, 27 the suffering has changed and become global. 28 We are all members of the earth community, sharing a political space. 29 Our considerations, therefore, must be global, or in the case study already outlined, regional at least. We should respond by assisting subaltern environmentalism 30 through forming regional communities of interests. One way we can use our privilege, wealth, and resources is to stop firms from simply moving around the globe to locate in places with the weakest regulations—we need to make cross border links—the question, of course, is how?
The contest over James Price Point unfolded on country, in the courts, the corridors of parliament and through the media. 31 Like the majority of contemporary social movements, opponents established an extensive virtual campaign network to raise awareness of the issue and build a community of supporters. Using the realms of transnational, social, cultural, and economic life, we can influence world public affairs. It may be difficult for us to assist on the ground in areas such as Myanmar, but we are able to by utilizing social media and networking.
We must explore further the political potential of unofficial realms of collective action. One way is to create “just” partnerships—building bridges across cultures and situations particularly between those of us who have shared enemies and issues. We can begin with horizontal networking, mentoring, and providing knowledge and resources—all identified as effective in addressing environmental injustices. 32 We can join those already supporting Myanmar—transnational environmental justice groups such as Earthrights International, International Rivers, and Global Witness, in striving to empower local victims of environmental injustice with the capacity for self-provision, self-organization, and self-governance, addressing the impact of institutional systemic flaws resulting in structural violence.
Exchanges between organizations with similar interests and motives, as well as developing networks at multiple scales, can produce successful joint mobilizations with the potential to create pathways that can change the power balance in favor of local communities. 33 This can be done with regard to Myanmar by highlighting environmental justice and human rights abuses, framing them in climate change and Anthropocene discourse. Finally, we should be forming mobile arrangements that welcome dynamic, heterogeneous, and informal ties, remaining silent until needed. 34
Conclusion
The concept of environmental justice has come a long way since its inception 40 years ago, expanding to include notions of recognition, difference, and participation. The Anthropocene highlights the need to act urgently and, preferably, globally. Ultimately we need a sound system of global environmental justice: a sense that we really are one community with obligations to assist one another. We do this through awareness and consumption behaviors but not yet sufficiently through our activism. Using a regional case study, this article has argued that our activism must consider others, that we are complicit in environmental injustice if we do not. However, the shift from a nationalistic perspective to a regional and then global one involves changing the way we think about ourselves as well as our moral obligations. This is not easy, but it should be done. This article suggests that this can be done by forming communities of interest, with resource-rich national organizations assisting local community service organizations and activist groups through networking. By identifying ourselves as global citizens with an obligation to every other person, as opposed to simply those in our own countries, we make a psychological shift that has moral and social, economic, and political ramifications. In light of the case study presented, this article argues that we should be expanding the sphere of discourse ever further for it is not your place or mine but ours.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
1
This stems from the discussions by David Schlosberg. “Theorizing Environmental Justice: The Expanding Sphere of a Discourse.” Environmental Politics 22 (2013): 37–55; and David Schlosberg. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. (Oxford University Press, 2007). As Schlosberg notes, most discussions on environmental justice focus on maldistribution.
2
Kathie Muir. “Politics, Protest and Performativity: The Broome Community's ‘No Gas on the Kimberley Coast’ Campaign.” Australian Humanities Review 53 (2012): 1–17.
3
Goolarabooloo. Looking After Country. <
4
Muir, Op. cit.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.; Save the Kimberley. <
8
See Patrick Devine-Wright. “Rethinking NIMBYism: The Role of Place Attachment and Place Identity in Explaining Place-Protective Action.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19 (2009): 426–441.
9
Myanmar is considered one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Southeast Asia. According to the 1982 Citizenship Law, those “ethnic groups” who have been present in the current geographical area of Myanmar/Burma since before 1823 (the beginning of the first British annexation) are considered taing yin tha, which is usually translated as “Indigenous” people. The government claims that all full citizens of Myanmar/Burma are Indigenous. However, Myanmar/Burma's 2008 Constitution makes no mention of Indigenous peoples, their collective rights, or customary land use practices in Indigenous peoples' territories. See Coalition of Indigenous Peoples in Myanmar/Burma. 2015. <
10
The military, which formed the previous authoritarian regime, retains 25% of the seats in parliament, the majority of voting rights in the parliament and control of three ministries: Defense, Border Security, and Home Affairs. Liam Cochrane. “Myanmar: How the Military Still Controls the Country, Not Aung San Suu Kyi.” (September 24, 2017). ABC News Online.
11
See Burma Environmental Working Group (BEWG). Burma's Environment: People, Problems, Policies. (Wanda Press, 2011), for example.
12
See Christina Fink. Living Silence; Burma Under Military Rule. (Zed Books, 2001).
13
See Lex Rieffel. The Myanmar Economy: Tough Choices. Global Economy and Development Working Paper 51, September 2012. Brookings Institute. <
14
Global Witness. The Shell Starts to Crack? Real Owners of Myanmar's Oil and Gas Blocks Come Forward. October 2014. <
15
See Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB). “Australian Firm Strikes Record Burma Offshore Gas Reserve.” January 5, 2016. <
16
Human rights abuses and environmental degradation associated with the development of the Yadana pipeline and local ethnic groups have been well documented by Earth Rights International (ERI), Total Impact: The Human Rights, Environmental and Financial Impacts of Total and Chevron's Yadana Gas Project in Military-Ruled Burma (Myanmar). (2009). <
17
The Wilderness Society. “James Price Point: A Sacred Place Saved from Desecration.” <
18
Andrew Dobson. Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental Sustainability and Theories of Distributive Justice. (Oxford University Press, 1998); Adrian Martin. “Global Environmental In/Justice, In Practice: Introduction.” The Geographical Journal 179 (2013): 98–104; Schlosberg (2013), Op. cit.; Schlosberg (2007), Op. cit.
19
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consequentialism (2018). <
20
Peter Singer. Practical Ethics. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
21
Avram Hiller. “Consequentialism in Environmental Ethics.” In Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Edited by Stephen M. Gardiner and Allen Thompson. (Oxford University Press, 2017).
22
Martin, Op. cit.
23
Ramachandra Guha and Joan Martinez-Alier. Varieties of Environmentalism: Essays North and South. (Earthscan, 1997).
24
Iris Young. Justice and the Politics of Difference. (Princeton University Press, 1990).
25
See Johan Galtung. “Violence, Peace and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6 (1969): 167–191. re typology of violence
26
Christopher Kutz. Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
27
Robert Bullard. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots. (South End Press, 1993).
28
Martin, Op. cit.; Schlosberg (2013), Op. cit.
29
Jeremy Bendik-Keymer. The Ecological Life. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).
30
Laura Pulido. Environmentalism and Economic Justice. (University of Arizona Press, 1996).
31
Muir, Op. cit.
32
Cem Iskender Aydin, Begum Ozkaynak, Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos, Taylan Yenilmez. “Network Effects in Environmental Justice Struggles: An Investigation of Conflicts Between Mining Companies and Civil Society Organizations from a Network Perspective.” PLoS One 12 (2017): e0180494.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.