We will be posting the talks and discussion from ‘The People’s Forum on Water’. Here is Professor Diane Bell’s presentation in the section of the Forum - Who speaks for the environment?
Living Sustainably
Everything is connected. It’s a key concept in ecology; a key concept in Ngarrindjeri culture; a key aspect of anthropological analyses. We look for the rhythm of whole cultures, the underlying structure of societies and we map the gap between rhetoric and reality.
If I were undertaking anthropological fieldwork amongst the ‘water tribe’ with whom I am living and working, I would report on a highly conflicted and conflictual culture that is at once very wise and very stupid. We dwell in contradictions, that is part of what makes us human, but we need to find a story that will allow us not only to survive but to flourish.
My anthropological notes would record that the society of the ‘water tribe’ was on the verge of collapse. The river that had been the spiritual, economic and aesthetic lifeblood of communities, that was celebrated in song and story, had been broken into pieces. It needed to be made whole again for the river, for the economies, and for the communities it sustained.
The Basin Plan is part of the sustaining story but, as it stands, it is disconnected from the society it hopes to heal and that is one reason why the story is of conflict – of environmentalist against irrigator, state against state, industry against industry, expert against expert.
There is no big picture. The plan relies of the market, renders water a commodity and forgets that water is life and has social value. In so doing it skews the question of value because water is only valued as long as it is being used – listen to the language – the plan speaks of environmental ‘assets’. This conceptualisation of a living system as a ‘thing’ disappears attachments other than monetary and therefore identifies stake-holders as those with an economic stake. The river is required to optimise these outcomes but who speaks for the river?
It appears we all agree the river must be healthy, but then we begin to broker, balance, bicker and block.
We have a science driven plan but everything is negotiable.
We have an independent authority but it is rendered mute in the face of challenge.
The government establishes more reports, promises to listen, seeks opinions.
The cost of over-allocation has been borne by the environment. It is mismanagement by states that got us into this mess and it is the states that rail against the reforms.
We are asked to place our faith in the market but the market cannot deliver equity of justice for the river. The river has been silenced.
This anthropologist is looking for the big picture, for the story of the dilemma and asking: ‘In what kind of society do we wish to live? What will the post-plan society be like? Will it value a fair go? Will it be a socially just world or will we find we cannot ‘manage’ our water, because it has been exported to the highest bidder, decoupled from the land to which it is connected.
If we are looking towards a socially just future, try this thought experiment: it is one that asks you to apportion burdens and benefits. If you did not know what race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, geographic region, culture or physical attributes you might be born into or with, what values, laws and policies would you want your society to hold dear? I think equity and openness would rank high. The world we might imagine behind this ‘veil of ignorance’ would be one where the fair-minded flourish, greed would not be good, well-informed citizens would participate in politics, science would not be for hire, advice to decision-makers would be forthright and fearless, and those who critique and challenge entrenched power would be valourised. Human rights including the right to clean water would be respected. The quality of our democracy would be judged by the quality of life enjoyed by those living on the margins. I am imagining a country of modest proportions, living sustainably, growing its own food, managing its resources for the greater good, a country where we all have a future, where we are good stewards for future generations.
With which part do you disagree? Why?
Adelaide, 18 October 2010
Diane Bell is Professor Emerita of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052; Writer and Editor in Residence, Flinders University; Visiting Professor, School of Social Sciences, University of Adelaide; Chair of the River, Lakes and Coorong Action Group.
