In this chapter, I shall briefly look into the notion of sustainable development and the relevance of indigenous environmental knowledge to environmentally sound development. But the detailed study of the notion of "sustainable development" is beyond the scope of this study.
As Worster correctly observes in the 1960s and 1970s, when contemporary environmentalism first emerged, some environmentalists believed that environmental destruction could only be averted by limiting population growth, uncontrolled development of technology, appetite and greed. The progressive, secular, and Western materialist philosophy, on which Western civilization has rested for the past three hundred years, has often been presented as the major cause of environmental degradation. Consequently, challenging the foundation of this philosophy has been claimed to be the only appropriate measure to remove an eminent danger of extinction of humankind and the whole fabric of life on the planet Earth.
It is also worth noting that the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 confirmed for the first time that environmental problems are global concerns and cannot be solved by one nation alone. Delegates from different nations agreed that development should be harmonized with the environment. The conference established The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), one of whose objectives is to monitor the global environment (Kupchella and Hyland 1993, 543). During this conference, Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the Stockholm Conference, coined the concept "eco-development" (Brohman 1996, 307), and in subsequent years this concept has been further developed and popularized by Ignacy Sachs (1974), Glaeser and Vyasulu (1984), and international organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and others (Adams 1990, 51-52). The aim of eco-development is to "change ecosystems in the direction of higher productivity and greater relevance to human needs, while respecting the interdependence between man and nature" (Ambio 1979, quoted in Adams 1990, 52). Eco-development was intended to improve the economic well being of the people without damaging the ecological system. "Eco-development refers to a process which is geared to the satisfaction of basic and essential human needs, starting with the needs of poorest and neediest in society" (Glaeser and Vyasulu 1984, quoted in Adams 1990, 53). The major advocates of eco-development further argue that the adoption of appropriate and intermediate technologies, the encouragement of conservation lifestyles, the promotion of renewable energy bases and the use of bottom-up, participatory approaches are favorable to environmental sustainability (Brohman 1996, 308). Eco-development approach also alerts developing countries to be self-reliant.
By the 1980s it became clear that radical change was unlikely. According to Worster, "since it was so painfully difficult to make that turn, to go in a diametrically opposite direction from the way we had been going, however, many started looking for a less intimidating way. By the mid-1980s such an alternative called `sustainable development' had emerged". In fact, the notion of "sustainable development" appeared in the World Conservation Strategy of International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1980). IUCN and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) have backed it. Moreover, it appeared in the works of Lester R.Brown (1981). It was believed that the concept of "sustainable development" could integrate environmental issues into development planning.
Here, it should be noted that in the 1980s, countries in the South gave priority to development so as to overcome poverty and reverse global economic inequalities. They thought that concern for environment was a luxury, which only developed countries, could afford (Weizsacker 1994,3).
In contrast, developed countries in the North favored environmental protection. They advised the South to strive for economic growth that would enable them to acquire costly Northern pollution control technologies (Weizsacker 1994, 4; Sachs 1995, 431). Sachs explained the conflicting interests of the Northern and Southern countries during the Rio conference in 1992. "While the Northern countries main concern was about nature, the South, in the run up to the conference, managed to highlight the question of justice" (Sachs 1995, 431).
In 1987, the World Commission on environment and development employed the notion of "sustainable development" in order to avoid the conflicting views of the Northern and Southern countries (Weizsacker 1994, 5). Accordingly, owing to the so-called Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, many contending parties have accepted the notion of "sustainable development".
Furthermore, radical ecologists such as deep ecologists13, social ecologists and eco-feminists have tried to elaborate the principles of sustainable development. They called for the reexamination of the ends and the means of development. It is worth noting that many environmental ethicists have tried to base themselves on non-Western traditions in order to derive conceptual resources for the new environmental ethics. They have pointed out that Eastern thinking is holistic in the sense that the human and the natural worlds are inextricably entwined within an organic whole. Culture and nature are inseparable. For instance, Buddhism and Hinduism have developed the principle of compassion for all sentient beings (Clarke 1993). Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism emphasize that humans are linked to the natural environment (De Silva 1993; Ip 1993). Chinese Taoism is a mystic teaching and recognizes the essential unity of humanity with nature and the fundamental harmonization of all things through the balancing of yin and yang (Clarke 1993, 22). Ip (1993) argues that Taoist philosophy can provide the necessary metaphysical underpinnings upon which an environmental ethics should rest since it teaches that everything is inherently connected to everything else, and recognizes the intrinsic values of natural environment.
Moreover, animism has been practiced by North American Indians. Most of them believe that spiritual forces activate nature. The sacred writings of the Hindus also embodied the principles of animism (Clarke 1993, 17). Callicott (1982) confirms that American Indian representation of nature is more animistic and symbolic than mechanical. Traditional American Indians regard all features of the environment as inspirited. The American Indian conceives nature as an element in which he exists (Momaday 1994). All humans and the non-human natural entities possess a consciousness, reason, volition, and are coequal members of a natural social order. They all have personalities. People belong to a human community and a community of all nature as well. "Existence in this larger society, just as existence in a family and tribal context, place people in an environment in which reciprocal responsibilities and mutual obligations are taken for granted and assumed without question or reflection" (Callicott 1982, 306). All creatures are believed to be the children of one father and one mother. The bonds of kinship, mutuality, and reciprocity bound diversified and complex world together. Callicott maintains that traditional American Indian attitude toward nature provides the foundations for ethical restraint in relation to non-human nature. In other words, American Indians worldviews involve principles of an environmental ethic (Callicott 1982).
Likewise, The Maori people in New Zealand conceive the environment as a community of kin rather than as resources to be exploited. Patterson (1994) contends that the Maori traditions can be considered as symbolic representations of ecological principle.
Other writers seem to assert that some Eastern traditions do not lead to the establishment of a harmonious relationship between humans and the natural environment. Tuan, for instance, doubts whether attitude and values determine behavior. He says that Western humanists appreciate the virtues of Oriental's quiescent and adaptive approach towards nature. In China, the philosophical-ethical precepts of Taoism and later, Buddhism served as the basis for adaptive attitude towards nature. Although Tuan (1968) recognized that old traditions of forest care existed in China, he lamented that both Mediterranean Europe and China have engaged in gigantic transformations of the environment that has led to deforestation and erosion. Forests were depleted for the making of charcoal, export, the construction of old Chinese cities, and to deprive dangerous animals their hiding places. He adds that although Buddhism is responsible for the preservation of trees around temple compounds, it has contributed to the depletion of the timber resources by introducing to China the idea of the cremation of the dead. He underlines that there are intractable discrepancies between environmental behavior and attitude. In other words, what people think is less closely related to how people live (Tuan 1968, 188).
In contrast to Tuan, Callicott argues that the environmental impact of Greek and Roman civilization was consistent with the general thesis that world views substantively affects behavior. He states that "[a]mong the Chinese before Westernization, the facts that Yi-Fu Tuan presents, indicates as many congruencies as discrepancies between the traditional Taoist and Buddhist attitude toward nature and Chinese environmental behavior" (Callicott 1982, 308). White also states that "[w]hat people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny--that is, by religion" (White 1994, 48-49).
Personally, I share the view held by Callicott and Ames that "[b]ehavior does not flow exclusively from attitude and values; but neither are attitudes and values simply irrelevant to what people do and how they live" (Callicott and Ames 1989, 285). Callicott and Ames seem to argue that the present environmental crisis had its roots in both Eastern and Western civilizations. "Reflection on the ancient record of human depredation and environmental destruction suggests that the roots of our ecological crisis reach far beyond the variable topsoil of intellectual history, whether Eastern or Western, into the common substrata of human nature itself" (Callicott and Ames 1989, 282).
In line with Native American philosophy and the Eastern traditions, deep ecologists have tried to foster a new ecological consciousness and sensibility, which recognizes humanity as one part of the ecosystem in metaphysical, moral and social terms without overlooking the irreducible individuality of human beings (Marshall 1995). They suggest that to realize sustainable development, industrial activities on earth should be reduced, consumption lifestyles should be changed, the size of the human population should be stabilized and wild ecosystems should be restored and protected. According to Naess, sustainable development does not merely reflect the protection of special spectacular items--pounds, wolves, acid-rain, ozone layer and the like but "ecologically sustainable development will automatically refer to the whole planet and not to ecologically arbitrary boundaries of nations" (Naess 1990,90). Deep ecologists advocate that while narrow ecological sustainability is concerned with the protection of humans from great ecological catastrophes, wide ecological sustainability has much to do with overall ecological conditions in which development ensures the full richness and diversity of life forms on the Earth (Naess 1995b, 464; MacLaughlin 1995, 89). Deep ecologists see human population as a problem and call for the reduction of the number of population. Naess criticized the so-called Brundtland Commission Report (1987), for neglecting the population issue. He thinks that without subsequent population reduction, sustainable future development is impossible (Naess 1990, 92-93; Tokar 1988, 135; MacLaughlin 1995, 88). Deep ecologists also argue that recycling, appropriate technology and renewable sources of energy are required to be used by human beings in order to minimize the destruction of non-renewable limited resources. In short, deep ecologists suggest that to realize sustainable development, industrial activities on earth should be reduced, consumption lifestyles should be changed, the size of human population should be stabilized and wild ecosystems should be restored.
Similarly, social ecologists have challenged traditional development approaches. They comment that the latter overlooked the role of cultural traditions, myths, folklore, spiritual beliefs, cosmology, ritual beliefs, ritual forms, political associations, technical skills and the knowledge of a local community for development. This indifference to people's cultural values and cosmology led to the breakdown of local community and its subjugation to the culture of domination (Chodorkoff 1990, 72 and 73).
Thus, social ecology urges human beings to build an ecological, harmonious, and peaceful world. It calls on local communities to become more self-reliant on the basis of their own indigenous resources and talents. Self-reliance promotes interdependence among communities, sustainable ethos in the realms of production and consumption, decentralization in the political sphere, and healthy respect for diversity. Accordingly, social ecologists suggest that ecologically sustainable and locally self-reliant society could be developed through decentralization and community scaled technologies (Chodorkoff 1990, 74-75).
Although various scholars have theorized about sustainable development, it seems to me that much of this effort is wasted. The notion of "sustainable development" has become obscure and controversial. It has been defined in various ways, and thus it is difficult to provide a clear and simple definition. As Brohman rightly observes, "alternative theories of sustainable development often appear contradictory and utopian" (Brohman 1996, 320). Many of the proponents of sustainable development do not address the political economy of the development process and the distribution of power. Hence the concept of sustainable development remains reformist, calling for a modification of development practice. The plentiful "green" talk by politicians and development bureaucrats has not led to enough radical change in ideas, aims or policies. According to Sachs, " `Sustainable development' calls for the conservation of development not for the conservation of nature" (Sachs 1995, 343). For Sachs development experts have used the concept of sustainable development to maintain the ideology of development. Some writers also criticized the Rio Conference. Worster argues that the Brundtland report failed to explain the intrinsic value of nature because "the `Our' in its title refers to people exclusively" (Worster 1995, 424).
The adherents of development see radical ecologists as antagonistic to development and Third World countries. Particularly, deep ecology is considered as a new variant of Western domination and "neo-colonialism" which favors sustaining spectacular animals over the people. Ramachandra Guha, for instance, states that deep ecology's exclusive focus on wilderness is positively harmful when applied to the Third World, for the protection of wilderness can result in the physical displacement of existing villages and their inhabitants. Therefore, the social consequences of an exclusive focus on wilderness might be different for different countries (Guha 1995).
Johns (1995), on the other hand, charges that Guha is partly wrong in claiming that deep ecology equate environmental protection with wilderness. Because deep ecology recognizes the place of humans in nature, "with regard to places where it is appropriate for humans to settle, how to combine livelihood with environmental integrity is a major emphasis and how to move toward the re-establishment of a real community, embedded in the local system is a priority of the deep ecology movement" (Johns 1995,255). Naess (1995a) also reveals that deep ecology is not a threat to the poverty stricken people of the Third World. He underlines that there is no deep ecologist who suggests that "Third World People" should stop using any trees or stop any new human settlement in any wilderness whatsoever.
Even though sustaining wilderness is not the single goal of deep ecologists, I am of the opinion that deep ecologists paid more attention to wilderness than to human communities. I am against the segregation of land from the local population without solving their problem. Deep ecologists did not clearly show how developing countries could alleviate poverty and prevent further environmental degradation. As has been stated earlier, in many developing countries, the problem is not lack of environmental consciousness. The point is that the people cannot protect the environment at the expense of their survival. They have no choice other than to continue to use the already degraded environment. I believe that without paying attention to the needs of the present generation, we cannot consider the needs of future generations, for the future generations are unthinkable without the survival of the present generation. To put matters another way, we have to pay attention to issues of justice in the distribution of resources between the present and future generations.
Social ecologists rightly suggest that decentralization of power, where real authority and resources devolves to local communities, can accelerate the process of development, since it provides greater opportunities for people to participate in decisions that affect their immediate environment. This is fine enough, but the proposals of social ecologists do not seem to go beyond theoretical speculation in a world, which is dominated, by powerful capitalist countries and transnational corporations.
On top of that although one can maintain that indigenous belief systems can be either environmentally friendly or destructive, some Western and Eastern environmental ethicists including, Callicott 1982; Hargrove 1989; Ip 1993; Patterson 1994; Momaday 1994; Marshall 1995; Sessions 1995 and others have overlooked the contribution of Africa to environmental ethics. They either kept quiet or what they said about Africa was rather thin compared with what they said about Native Americans and Asians. Hargrove, for instance, did not say anything about African traditions when he boldly asserted that "[a]n open-minded comparative study of Eastern environmental attitudes and values will enable Western environmental philosopher better to recognize and criticize their most ingrained and otherwise unconscious assumptions inherited from the long and remarkably homogeneous history of Western thought " (Hargrove 1989, xx). I would like to underline that anyone who believes that there is nothing to be learned from Africa is terribly ignorant of Africa or possibly a racist. There is a lot to be learned from those who are sufficiently familiar with the ecological insights of African peasants. An environmental ethicist who overlooks African environmental ethics will make his or her subject incomplete.
One may object that Africa has the worst environmental record on earth and therefore has no contribution to make for global environmental management. Africans have not overcome their own environmental and developmental crisis. As it stands, this seems to be the correct assessment of African environmental record. But the real issue is not as simple as that. One has to examine how and why Africa has faced environmental and developmental crisis before concluding that Africans are environmentally unfriendly.
The foregoing discussion about Oromo attitudes towards the environment suggests that Oromo environmental knowledge can offer a good foundation for modern environmental ethics and science. One may argue that this claim would not stand up well for people who do not share Oromo beliefs. Although this could be a valid criticism, my intention is not to suggest that Oromo environmental ethics can generate universal principles by which worldwide environmental problems will be put under control. What I am suggesting is that modern environmental ethicists can make use of the wealth of biological and ecological insights and sustainable resources management systems developed by the Oromo people and other cultural groups in order to effectively deal with environmental problems. To put matters another way, Oromo attitudes towards the environment may offer insights for redirecting the behavior of neo-technic societies towards a more sustainable path. Better-said, global environmental problems can be tackled through more cross-cultural and interdisciplinary approaches.
Modern environmental scientists can enrich their knowledge by making systematic ethical inquiry into environmentally sound practical experiences and religious beliefs of Oromo and other cultures. Although moral and empirical claims seem to be of logically different sorts, empirical facts about the natural environment is important for modern environmental ethics. In fact, Hume asserts that we cannot rightly infer any normative claim from any set of purely empirical premises. He was concerned with the distinction between fact and value. He seemed to argue that science cannot be a basis for ethics, and normative policy recommendation cannot be grounded on science. However, experience confirms that "empirical suppositions play a crucial role in moral argument" (VanDeVeer and Pierce 1994a, 9). Science is useful to explore particular issues in applied ethics. "Thus, many explorations in environmental ethics must make good use of the results of biology, botany, chemistry, geology, climatology, marine science, forestry, and so on (both basic and derivative and mixed fields) " (VanDeVeer and Pierce 1994a, 9). Likewise, modern environmental ethics and science may make use of peasant's environmental and agricultural science. As I have argued elsewhere, modern environmental scientists can derive the following lessons from the Oromo environmental ethic: the ethics of preservation, an ethic of production--the fact that without production and transformation of nature human life is unthinkable; the green environment is a sine qua non for the survival of all living things; the positive relationship with the environment and the appreciation of the earth as a mother of life (Workineh 1995b, 1997a). Western and other modern scholars should also take cognizance of the fact that mental knowledge, which came from communing with nature, is equally significant for the health of the environment. Hence, "[o]ne thing Western man must learn from the African is that mental analysis and generalizations must come last rather than first in our knowledge of anything, we must first live and tangle with that thing" (Kaboha 1992, 76).
Moreover, modern environmental ethicists and scientists can learn about the nature and specific features of the local flora and fauna, climates, diseases and other threats to health, pharmacological remedies, beekeeping, agricultural and fishing practices from Oromo peasants and other local communities.
The foregoing discussion about Oromo environmental and agricultural sciences suggests that protection of the environment and promotion of economic development are complementary; they are the basis of sustainable development. Peasants use various modes of sustainable resource management, various sustainable methods that enable them to secure food, income, employment, social welfare, diversification of crops, and preservation of animal and crop species. As a matter of fact, the social and economic activities of traditional societies correspond to many key goals of sustainability. The evidence indicates that many regions of the South contain the seed of their own sustainable future (Noerberg-Hodge and Goering 1995, 23). Furthermore, many writers confirmed the positive role of indigenous knowledge in sustainable agricultural development (Brokensha et al 1980; Norgaarad 1984; Thrupp 1989; Waters-Bayer 1992; Medani Mohamed Ahmed 1994).
There have been well organized rural institutions from which all members more or less equally benefit in rural Ambo in particular and Ethiopia in general. Indigenous mutual aid associations involve Eddir (neighborhood burial associations) and Iqqub (savings exchange groups). Both women and men can form Eddir. The rich and poor individuals have the same status in the Eddir. It operates on the basis of elaborate written by-laws. Iquub is a saving association where each member agrees to pay periodically into a common pool a small sum so that each, in rotation, can receive one large sum. In rural areas Iquub has many economic advantages. When a member faces economic crises he/she will be allowed to collect the pool free of charge. As Dejene suggests, "[t]he iqqub could be used as a launching pad for savings mobilization schemes (such as savings and credit cooperatives) in the rural areas. Such savings may help the promotion of small and micro enterprises in rural areas where banks are not available" (Dejene 1993, 259). Deboo, the village-based mutual help arrangement, is also practiced in Ambo. It is a tradition of supporting each other, especially elders, sick peasants who do not have their own oxen, by groups of friends and neighbors. What interests me is that the social interactions among the members of mutual help organizations are strong. I think that these organizations can be used to enhance environmentally sound development. "Cooperatives which grow out of mutual aid organizations may be better equipped to mobilize the energies of the rural population, and may therefore also achieve better economic results" (Pausewang et al 1990, 8). Popular participation in local organizations is essential for self-reliant economic development. Environmentally sound development can be maintained through optimum use of resources, adoption of an integrated development strategies, implementation of local level land use planning, adoption of appropriate farming practices, promotion of public cooperation and environmental education.
However, we need to approach indigenous knowledge and its possessors with caution. As has been stated earlier, many writers have identified the negative aspects of the knowledge of various cultural groups in the world. One might want to look at how things developed in Japan where the dominant religion--Shinto--is basically animistic and would, therefore, be expected to have had a more positive impact on human-environment relations. But, it has, in fact, hardly prevented Japanese industrial development from being exceedingly destructive.
Personally, I do not think that Oromo indigenous environmental knowledge is perfect. It has certain limitations. For instance, in the Oromo culture, women do not have equal status with men. They were considered as weak and ignorant. In most cases, higher education is restricted for males. The Oromo culture supports polygamy, which again restricts the rights of women. This attitude needs to be changed. I think that environmentally sound development cannot be materialized without active participation of women. In some cases, depending on their wealth and power, some elders and religious leaders may appear as autocratic elitists. They may use their knowledge against their opponents by violating the principles of Oromo religion and ethics. The informants, for instance, report that some Qaalluu leaders ask the poor people to provide them with bull and heifer and thereby compel the poor to avoid traditional Oromo religion. The Qaalluu also asks the children of the dead persons to be responsible for the mistakes committed by their fathers and grand fathers during their lifetime. Also, some individuals who are responsible to present the case of believers to Ayyaana need bribe. The informants suggest that all this should be changed (Infs: Berhanu; Takele). In fact, as Lewis noted, "[t]roubled people bring cattle, money, food, liquor, grain, clothing, pots, kerosene, and all manner of goods to the spirits" (Lewis 1970, 176). Some Qaalluu leaders associate themselves with politicians and help the latter to exploit the people (Inf: Merga Anga'a) although the Qaalluu does not possess political power. In fact, in the past candidates for the Gadaa offices are required to participate in political debates at the Qaalluu village since the latter is the spiritual center.
Some peasants and Oromo intellectuals doubted whether eker-dubbiftuu could really communicate with the spirit of the dead persons. They said that the so-called eker-dubbiftuu is a deceiver (Infs: Dagaga Cuche; Gamtessa) .
Development agents in Ambo and Oromo intellectuals argue that the position of peasants towards holidays should be changed. Most Orthodox Christian peasants don't work on saints' days. This tradition hinders the process of development and needs to be changed (Infs: Adanu; Hailemariam). Also, Oromo intellectuals criticized the followers of traditional Oromo religion for sacrificing animals during religious rituals. This, they said, is economically harmful. It does not change anything.
Moreover, although there are exceptions, some peasants hesitate to adopt new technologies, particularly the poor peasants are the last to adopt modern agricultural knowledge. Peasants may not easily adopt new varieties of crops (Infs: Haileyesus; Tujuba). On top of that, indigenous knowledge may not solve wide range problems of the society. It may easily solve local problems. Indigenous technologies are not universally applicable, but are locally grounded.
Thus, peasants can make use of the knowledge of environmental ethicists. Environmental ethicists may alert peasants to understand the long-range effects of environmental degradation which are beyond the purview of local peasants and otherwise unavailable. Peasants by themselves may not meet the growing demands of population on the basis of local knowledge. Modern science and technology are required to increase productivity and to satisfy the growing demands of population.
In any case, indigenous environmental knowledge should be given due attention if we are to promote sustainable development in developing countries. Concern about sustainable development should focus on the environments in which the poor live and from which they draw their sustenance (Adams 1990, 87). The empty talk about sustainable development which has been so far the concern of environment and development theorists should be replaced by concrete measures that will satisfy the needs of local peoples, and improve environmental quality for both the present and future generations. Development agents in Ambo realized that without taking the knowledge of peasants into account development and environmental plans couldn't be translated into practice. Some development agents reported that initially they tried to impose their ideas on peasants and failed to appreciate their knowledge. Their advice resulted in crop failure. Because by ignoring the basic features of the local soils and crops, they forced peasants to apply the knowledge they received from schools. They now realized that peasants are scientists themselves and can teach development agents and also receive knowledge from the latter. It is noteworthy that development agents and Oromo intellectuals agree that indigenous knowledge should be integrated into modern environmental protection efforts. Unfortunately, the instruments to realize this wish are not in place. I have been informed that in addition to their own duties, development agents are forced to collect tax and promote the political ideology of the ruling party in Ambo. In fact, peasants do not trust development agents and are not willing to cooperate with them. Development agents and their leaders lamented that they faced the same problem during the military government. This suggests that development agents should not be forced to participate in unnecessary activities that may isolate them from the majority of peasants. Both development agents and peasants can learn from one another. The respondents themselves suggested that environmental and developmental problems could be solved through the joint efforts of government officials and peasants, environmental education, protection of natural resources, population control and so on. For this purpose, we need to ask environmentally sound development for what? for whom? run by whom? for the benefit of whom? Can we go beyond utilitarian, economic and anthropocentric definitions of sustainability? How can we integrate ecological sustainability and economic development? How much resource utilization is consistent with conservation?
