Globalization, Unequal Ecological Exchange, and Climate Justice: the Case of Turkey and the European Union
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 GLOBALIZATION, UNEQUAL ECOLOGICAL EXCHANGE, AND CLIMATE JUSTICE: THE CASE OF TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION A dissertation presented by Lora Karaoğlu to The Department of Sociology and Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Sociology Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts December 2011 2 GLOBALIZATION, UNEQUAL ECOLOGICAL EXCHANGE, AND CLIMATE JUSTICE: THE CASE OF TURKEY AND THE EUROPEAN UNION by Lora Karaoğlu ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology in the Graduate School of Northeastern University December, 2011 3 ABSTRACT Analyses of physical trade flows over the last decade reveal that the global South is running ever higher physical trade deficits. These deficits are being magnified by the increased export of both resource-intensive and pollution-intensive commodities onto the world market. A primary aim of this dissertation is to empirically demonstrate support for the theory of unequal ecological exchange in the case of Turkey and the European Union. This research undertakes three levels of analysis: cross-national, national, and local. The dissertation attempts to answer the following questions: To what extent have Turkey’s natural resources been appropriated at the global level through the process of unequal ecological exchange? What are the economic and political conditions that give rise to unequal ecological exchange? To what extent is unequal ecological exchange occurring between Turkey and the EU? What are the socio-ecological impacts of unequal ecological exchange in the Köprülü Canyon and its buffer zones? Answers to these questions are derived from both quantitative (physical accounting and regression analyses) and qualitative methods (20 semi-structured interviews and previous research results from my unpublished MA thesis), relying heavily on long-time data series analysis. In contrast to the Netherlands Fallacy, the findings showed that Turkey increases its impacts on the environment within “her” borders through the exportation of resources and importation of wastes—a process which is conceptualized as the Turkish Fallacy— the over- consumption of resources in both primary and secondary sectors of the economy. The increase in physical flows of agricultural exports has resulted in deterioration of both “cropland” and “agroforestry” reserves over four decades. As articulated by the theory, resource consumption and ecological degradation paradox, and a decrease in biocapacity, are at least partly a function 4 of cores that utilize their advantageous positions in the global economy to externalize their consumption-based environmental costs to Turkey. These findings showed that not only the materials but also the consumption of fossil fuels embedded in agricultural trade has increased. This finding supports climate change for the Turkish case. Turkey had the largest increases in “energyland deficit”; whereas, the core has been able to outsource energy inefficient sources of income to Turkey, increasing the “entropy” of Turkey. This study also reveals how environmental surpluses are extracted from Turkey through trade. Turkey has been a net-exporter of “dirty” manufacturing over forty years. As “dirty” physical net-exports created pollution havens—an indication of the second contradiction of capital— the amount of “energyland” embedded in “dirty” manufacturing production has also increased. The findings run counter to macroeconomic orientations that predict an environmental Kuznets curve. The results show that the energy embedded in Turkish manufacturing production, and the carbon intensity of Turkish trade is the dissipated energy and carbon dioxide produced by trade. The deeper analysis of unequal ecological exchange showed that through the export of ‘dirty’ products, the EU is creating a ‘pollution haven’ in Turkey, contributing to cropland degradation while protecting the EU's cropland through trade. The expansion of European capital accumulation is predicated on the consumption of growing quantities of natural resource flows from Turkey to the EU-15. This study reveals that the physical exports of Turkey are more pollution-intensive in comparison to the flows of the EU-15. Also, Turkey’s embodied crop/grazing land in exports is higher than that of the EU-15. The EU appropriates ecological space through trade without having to deal with its local ecological consequences. 5 The undervaluation of natural resource exports is a key mechanism of unequal ecological exchange and valuation fails to account for local negative externalities associated with natural resource extraction. Hence, these costs are encountered at local levels, such as in the destruction of the subsistence base and sustainable ecological and social system of the yayla-farmers at Köprülü Canyon who are subsidizing the profits of foreign capital. The yayla-peasants became exporters of various crops and became more dependent on external market conditions. They experienced the degradation of their cultivated land due to the pressure of production on resources rather than due to excessive population pressure on these resources. The forest ecosystem of the Köprülü Canyon shows an unsustainable growth path over several decades. As a result of social class transformation, the exporting corporations become the winners; whereas, the majority, including semi-yayla farmers, become victims of unequal ecological exchange. 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to thank the Northeastern University Provost’s Office for their generous support of the writing of this dissertation through their Dissertation Completion Fellowship. I am very grateful for the invaluable guidance, patience, and insightful comments of my dissertation committee chair Daniel Faber. With his exceptional mentorship qualities, Danny Faber always stood by me, believed in me, and challenged me in developing theories. During this long journey, I learned tremendously from him, and his scholarly works inspired me from day one. To Gordana Rabrenovic, thank you for serving on my committee and for your unwavering willingness to be of assistance. Gordana’s open door policy helped me to seek her endless guidance over the years. Thomas Koenig, who also served on my committee, invested thoughtful academic advice, support, and encouragement for which I am greatly thankful. To Berch Berberoglu, my outside reader, thank you for your interest in my work and your prompt comments. Thank you to Georgi Ivanov and Glenn Pierce for their statistical advice. I also thank Judith Perrolle, Silvia Dominguez, and Kathrine Dolan. My great appreciation also goes to Mathis Wackernagel who granted me access to a very comprehensive database on Turkey’s ecological footprint and an extended version of a trade section on Turkey. Without these databases, I would not have been able to develop a number of chapters in this dissertation. I also thank Daniel Moran who encouraged me to conduct an EU- Turkey based analysis. As I had to finalize and defend my dissertation during my stay in Turkey, I would like to thank the International Students and Scholars Office at Northeastern University, especially Salvatore Mazzone, for his special assistance. I truly appreciate all the support that I have 7 received from my neighbors in my hometown Ankara: the Poyraz, Kizilbey, and Bora Families. Thanks also to my long-time colleagues and friends: Nahide Konak, Marta Rodriguez Galan, C. Ditmar Coffield, and Lihua Wang. To my aunt and my cousin, Sibel, thank you for your unwavering support. And finally, I am enormously indebted to my mom, my sister, my brother in-law, and my precious little nephew, Victor, for their continual encouragement and unconditional love throughout my life, and especially during my doctoral studies. And for my father, Joseph, I am very grateful for the memories of his love and his optimistic attitude. 8 DEDICATION To my mom and my sister, I am always indebted. 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . 3 Acknowledgments . 6 Dedication . 8 Table of Contents . 9 List of Tables . 10 List of Figures . 12 Chapter 1: Introduction . 14 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework to Analyze Unequal Ecological Exchange within the Context of Environmental & Climatic Injustices . 41 Chapter 3: Political Economy of Turkish Agricultural Trade in the Age of Neoliberal Globalization . 97 Chapter 4: Unequal Agricultural Exchange and Turkish Fallacy in the Age of Climate Change . .. .. 136 Chapter 5: Pollution Havens and Unequal Ecological Exchange: Trade Flows of “Antiwealth” . 176 Chapter 6: Unequal Ecological Exchange: Turkey and the EU Environmental and Climate Injustices . 225 Chapter 7: Köprülü Canyon National Park and Its Buffer Zones: A Local Case Study of Unequal Ecological Exchange . 273 Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks. 312 Appendix A . 334 Appendix B . 336 Appendix C . 339 Bibliography . 340 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: FDI inflows in Turkey . 112 Table 3.2: Foreign Direct Investments in Agriculture (2002-2009) in Turkey . 112 Table 3.3: Foreign Direct Investments in Agriculture/Forestry/Fishery . 113 Table 3.4: Fertilizer Consumption in Turkey (1960-2006) . 115 Table 3.5: Agricultural Support in OECD Countries, 2000–2002 . 127 Table 3.6: Agricultural Protection Rates in Selected Developing Countries . 128 Table 3.7: Proportion of Non-Ad-Valorem Tariff Lines by Degree of Processing . 129 Table 4.1: Trade Balance in Agriculture . 153 Table 4.2: Ecological Supply vs. Ecological Demand .