Rural Displacements - Statistical Analysis

Click here to view PDF

 

 

 

	An Indepth Look at the Conservation Movement in the United States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

Rural Clearances............................................................................................................. 3

Rural Clearances by Economic Sector............................................................................ 3

Direct and Indirect Effects and the Social Accounting Matrices.................................. 4

Economic Sector Analysis............................................................................................. 6

Ranching and Livestock................................................................................................. 6

     Capsule Analysis Livestock Industry……………………………………………………………………    7

     Forestry………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

Mining........................................................................................................................... 14

Fishing and Hunting.................................................................................................... 14

Conservation: Land Trusts and Easements............................................................. 15

Total Land Conservation.............................................................................................. 15

Land Trusts.................................................................................................................. 16

Easements....................................................................................................................... 17

 

The Economics of The Conservation Movement.................................................... 17

The Money Trail........................................................................................................... 17

Attachments................................................................................................................... 20

Chart 1.......................................................................................................................... 20

Chart 2.......................................................................................................................... 23

Chart 3.......................................................................................................................... 25

Chart 4.......................................................................................................................... 27

Chart 5.......................................................................................................................... 29

Chart 6.......................................................................................................................... 30

Chart 7.......................................................................................................................... 33

Chart 8.......................................................................................................................... 34

Chart 9.......................................................................................................................... 35

 

 

Rural Clearances and Displacements

 

Rural clearance definitions:

From Dan Brokington and Jim Igoe, Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview, Conservation and Society, Vol 4, Issue 3, Page 424-470:  Conservation displacement, like other forms of displacement, compromises two processes (CERNEA 2005b):

1) The forced removal of people from their homes; or

2) Economic displacement, the exclusion of people from particular areas in their pursuit of a livelihood

People dwelling on the edge of a park, but unable to gather firewood or wild foods, to hunt or fish, or unable to walk to their farms on the other side of the park, would be unable to live as they were before.  Exclusion of economic activity which does not lead to moving house still displaces that activity elsewhere (eg Horowitz 1998). 

Beyond material loss to their livelihoods or dwellings, protestors are fighting their symbolic obliteration from the landscape – their removal from its history, memory and representation (Shama 1996).

 

Rural Clearances by Economic Sector

 

Using conservative estimates for rural clearances from 1980 to present, Table 2 depicts how many people have been economically displaced from their lands due to conservation efforts, environmental regulation and consolidation of the food and fiber chain since NAFTA. Since 1980, nearly 39.5 million people have been impacted by the loss of the use of land, and the economic prosperity that the land fostered.  

Table 2: Direct and Indirect Rural Clearance by Economic Sector

Economic Sector	Direct Clearance	Indirect Clearance	Total Clearance
Forestry	2,704,000	6,760,000	9,464,000
Farming	1,800,000	2,700,000	4,500,000
Ranching and Livestock	8,400,000	16,800,000	25,200,000
Mining	72,000	180,000	252,000
Fishing and Hunting	7,500	15,000	22,500
Total	12,983,500	26,455,000	39,438,500

 

The ranching and livestock sector was the largest casualty of the conservation movement with 25.2 million people being cleared from their land which, represents 64 percent of all people cleared from their land since 1980. The forestry sector had the second most people cleared with nearly 9.5 million (24 percent of the total), followed by farming with 4.5 million people cleared (11 percent of the total cleared). These 3 sectors of the economy account for 99 percent of all people cleared from their land due to job loss in the keystone economic sectors. Figure 5 shows the each sector’s clearance as a percentage of the total clearance since 1980.

 

 

Direct and Indirect Effects and the Social Accounting Matrices

 

To estimate the total amount of people cleared from their land, both direct and indirect effects need to be measured.  

 

1. Direct effects take place only in the industry immediately affected: if a forestry company lays-off 39 employees, the forestry sector loses 39 employees.  In our model of estimation, each household member is “internalized” within the model because we are attempting to measure not only the impact of lost economic benefit to the individual, but also, the impact upon the family unit who can no longer derive economic utility from their land. Thus, the 39 employees are multiplied by the remaining number of household members to determine the total direct effects.
2. Indirect effects concern inter-industry transactions: because company X is closing, they will no longer have a demand for locally produced materials needed to produce their product. This will affect all of their suppliers, possibly resulting in a further loss of more jobs, most of them family wage jobs. Supplier employment loss as a result of the direct effects would be the indirect effects.  Employment loss includes the loss of income to the family of that employee.
3. Induced effects measure the effects of the changes in household income: employees laid-off by Company X and suppliers may reduce their expenditures in restaurants and shops since they are no longer employed. These changes affect the related industries.  For the purpose of our analysis, the Induced effects will be included in the “Indirect” category.
4. Impacts the total changes to the original economy as the result of a defined event. i.e. Direct effects + Indirect effects + Induced effects = Impacts

 

For our model the equation is defined as: Direct effects+ Indirect effects =Total Clearance where:

Direct Effects= Job loss * Average household size

Indirect Effects= Direct Effects*(SAM-1)

 

The SAM (social accounting matrices) is a multiplier that allows for the calculation of indirect effects. SAM multipliers vary across economic sector and geographic location. For the purpose of our estimation, SAM multipliers used were gathered from experts in the field and national data. In all cases the SAM multipliers applied were the most conservative estimates from the available data.[1]

 

Figure 6 shows the direct and indirect clearance for the three economic sectors that accounted for 99 percent of all clearance.

Economic Sector Analysis

Ranching and Livestock

Since 1980, the U.S. has lost 1.4 million ranches and livestock operations, largely because of proliferating environmental regulation and the actions of land trusts buying easements or land or water rights when the rancher hits hard times. [2]As demonstrated by the Hage case, described in the book, and exhaustively documented, Forest Service or BLM employees target a keystone ranch in an area for acquisition, thereby destroying the money churn from that ranch, property tax revenue, and many of the direct and indirect jobs.

On average, each operation employs two people.  Using the low-end of the SAM multiplier of three jobs supported by each ranch (Patrick Dorinson of the Western Legacy Alliance asserts that one ranching job supports seven direct and indirect jobs), and using a family of 3 (husband, wife, one child), rather than the more typical 4-8 family size in ranching country, we have a loss of 25,200,000 people in the ranching and livestock community. This is a conservative number. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the numbers used to derive the total loss of people in the ranching and livestock industries since 1980.

Table 3: Ranching and Livestock Clearance

 

SAM Multiplier	3
Average Number of Employees	2
Average Family Size	3
Direct Clearance	8,400,000
Indirect Clearance	16,800,000
Total Clearance	25,200,000

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 : Loss of U.S. Livestock Operations

 

Livestock Industry in Crisis:

 

 

 

Figure 8: Cattle Operations Shrink

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9:  Industry Shrinks as Consumption Increases

Figure 10: Cow and Calf Producers Receive Depressed Prices.

Figure 11:  Cattle Feeders Suffer Long-Run Losses while Beef Prices Steadily Climb to Record Levels

 

 

 

As acres under cultivation or range in use declined, along with the economic position of ranchers and farmers, the number of land trusts and easements rose approximately 400% from 1980.

Figure 4:[3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forestry

In forestry, the numbers are based on the closing of mills across the country, the closing of forests due in part to Endangered Species regulation, and the accompanying loss of timber-based manufacturing, along with the suppliers of all three sub-sectors.  According to several sources, logging in the U.S., has dropped 80% since 1980.  According to the Global Forests Resource Assessment at the U.N., in 2005, 169,000 were employed in the forest sector in the U.S..[4]

Given the 87,000,000 rise in population in the U.S. since 1980, if the forestry sector were at full employment (though 50% would have saved many counties), 845,000 would be employed, logging in the forest, working in the mills and secondary timber based manufacturing or supporting those activities. Therefore, 676,000 men lost their jobs either logging, millwork, and secondary timber-based manufacturing.  Forestry analysts place the SAM multiplier for forestry jobs at 2.5 – 3, however, County Commissioners in forested communities place the multiplier at 4 based on data gathered in their communities. In this estimation we split the difference and use 3.5.    Using the most conservative number of direct and indirect jobs, the family wage jobs lost run about 2,366,000.  With a family of four, that means a loss of 9,464,000 people in the forested communities of America.

Table 4: Forestry Clearance Data

SAM Multiplier	3.5
Average Number of Employees	n/a
Average Family Size	4
Direct Clearance	2,704,000
Indirect Clearance	6,760,000
Total Clearance	9,464,000

 

 

 

 

 

Farming

Since 1980, according to the USDA, the U.S. has lost 300,000 farms, despite a rise in the population of the U.S. of 87 million people, and therefore a rise in the demand for food.[5]  Let’s say each farm employs only one worker aside from the farmer, and the multiplier effect for direct and indirect jobs is 2.5.  Given a family of three, the population loss for family farms is 4,500,000.  Again this is a conservative estimate.

These numbers are particularly alarming given that the price of food and fiber has risen precipitously since 2000, as described in the book, and between 25% and 50%[6] since 2010, hurting the least advantaged most.

Table 5 shows the numbers used to derive rural clearance totals in the U.S. since 1980.

SAM Multiplier	2.5
Average Number of Employees	2
Average Family Size	3
Direct Clearance	1,800,000
Indirect Clearance	2,700,000
Total Clearance	4,500,000

Table 5: Farming Clearance

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mining

US Forestry, Fishing and Mining Data show that 24,000 jobs have been lost in mining since 1990. Using this, the total clearance in the mining sector since 1990 is 252,000 people.[7]

Table 6: Mining Clearances

SAM Multiplier	3.5
Average Number of Employees	n/a
Average Family Size	3
Direct Clearance	72,000
Indirect Clearance	180,000
Total Clearance	252,000

 

Fishing and Hunting

US Forestry Fishing and Mining Data show that 2500 jobs lost between 2000 and 2008 have been lost in the fishing and hunting industries. This equates to 22,500 people being cleared from their lands during the 8- year period.[8]

SAM Multiplier	3
Average Number of Employees	n/a
Average Family Size	3
Direct Clearance	7,500
Indirect Clearance	15,000
Total Clearance	22,500

Table 7: Fishing and Hunting Clearances

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Economics of The Conservation Movement

 

The Money Trail

 

Breakdown of Money

 

According to Robert Bruelle, The U.S. environmental movement is perhaps the largest, most long lived, and complex social movement in the U.S.. “With over 6,500 national and 20,000 local environmental organizations, along with an estimated 20-30 million members, this movement dwarfs other modern social movements such as the civil rights or peace movements. It is also the longest running social movement.” 

 

Researchers have been measuring the financial power of the environmental movements since the late 1980’s, focusing primarily on the money spent by ENGO’s.  While this remains interesting, it is no longer helpful in understand just how powerful the movement has become.  Since the early 90’s, when private foundations became prescriptive, the movement’s power has grown to be become monolithic. We are all green now.  Sustainability is considered to be wholly good.  As a result, in the past twenty years, its leaders have insinuated movement goals into every sector of the economy, changing the direction of businesses, senior and local governments, foreign development aid, law, biology and social policy.  Despite that success, few have measured either the power of the movement or analyzed its results.   Or looked at just how much capital the movement has directed towards its goals.

 

I have attempted to measure the current financial heft of the movement in what is commonly known as the west.  Since the movement is global, and since the goals, strategies and tactics are designed by officials at the U.N., the largest private foundations in the U.S. and Europe, and the dominant ENGO’s, I have divided the money into two sections, the first which funds the design of the programs, the second, describes how much the west spends to make our culture and business sector green.  The most surprising figure is how much private corporations spend, or plan to spend on sustainable business practices.  The second most surprising figure is how much developed nations contribute to what was known as the third world, to prosecute sustainable development.

 

All figures are the most current available, with the caveat that to obtain a full picture of the financial might of the movement, a team of researchers would have to work for a year to analyze the budgets of each government agency, corporation, and ENGO.  Each figure is endnoted with a hyperlink to the data I used. Some EU numbers are estimated based on data in release.

 

 

 

 

 

Designing the Programs

 

1.  UNEP (UN Environment Program)                                $260 million^[i]

2.  International Union for Conservation of Nature          $153.6 million^[ii]

3.  European Union                                                               $260 million^[iii]

4.  ENGO’s (US and Canada)                                                            $9.7 billion^[iv]

5.  EU ENGO’s est.                                                                  13.58 billion

 

Total                                                                                   $23,950,600,000

 

Prosecuting the Programs

 

6.    Agenda 21- Western contribution to

       developing countries for sustainable development   $68 billion^[v]   

7.    U.S. Environmental spending

         by state                                                                         $12,653,977,830^[vi]

8.    US Business Sustainable Business                               $60,000,000,000^[vii]

9.    Canadian business                                                         $9,100,000,000^[viii]

10.  Canadian Environmental spending

           by province                                                                   4,769,000,000^[ix]                    

11. EU sustainable business spending                               97,980,000,000

12. EU state environmental spending                                70,000,000,000

13. US government spending                                              31,900,000,000^[x]

14. Cdn federal spending                                                         872,114,000^[xi]                  

15. Obama stimulus environmental spending                                

  $78,610,000,000^[xii] (over 4 years)                                                  19,652,500,000

 

Total                                                                                       $374,927,591,000

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 12: The Pyramid Of Money

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

 

Chart 1:  This chart lists the income, assets and giving of the foundations that fund the environmental movement and the annual receipts of the top ten environmental NGO’s.   Figures taken from 2009 IRS 990’s and Revenue Canada.  Canadian foundations and ENGO’s are included because campaigns are trans-national.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 2:  This chart lists the foundations that measure and contest the findings of the environmental movement.  The environmental movement marshal 649% more funds than their critics:

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 3:  This chart lists the grants given from foundations to ENGO’s in the Boreal Forest Campaign in Canada, the reasons for those grants, and the recipients.  It describes how a campaign for no-use is structured financially.

 

 

 

Chart 4:  This is a funding map of how Pew Charitable Trusts is financing the anti-pipeline, anti-tar sands campaign:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 5:  This chart lists the assets and giving of the 50 largest foundations in the U.S., most of whom fund the environmental movement.

 

 

 

Chart 6:   Income Distribution - Top 50 U.S. Environmental Organizations, 2003 Baird Straughan and Tom Pollak  “The Broader Movement:  Nonprofit Environmental and Conservation Organizations 1989–2005”  National Center for Charitable  Statistics at the Urban Institute.

 

Organization                                                              Income                       %

NATURE CONSERVANCY                                         972.368,6221           8.85

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY                     3.475.336,74             6.74

SIERRA CLUB FOUNDATION, THE                           241,236,005              4.68

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL

 FOUNDATION                                                           229,267,098              4.44

POPULATION COUNCIL                                            197,888,299              3.84

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND                                         175,582,103              3.40

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY                              172,642,826              3.35

TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND                                        153,915,522              2.98

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION                       132,004,722              2.56

SIERRA CLUB                                                               88,203,029                          1.71

TIDES CENTER                                                          69,567,396                1.35

AMERICAN LAND CONSERVANCY                           68,110,320                1.32

FRESH AIR FUND                                                       65,459,125                1.27

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION                           61,007,116                1.18

CONSERVATION FUND                                             60,133,583                1.17

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION                  55,418,970                1.07

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE                                   51,657,887                            1.00

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL           50,063,972                            0.97

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE                             48,241,872                           0.93

BRANDYWINE CONSERVANCY                                  39,007,586              0.76

EARTHJUSTICE                                                            34,266,715              0.66

OCEAN CONSERVANCY                                              31,981,555              0.62

DUCKS UNLIMITED                                                    31,475,354              0.61

INSTITUTE OF ECOSYSTEM STUDIES                      30,206,097              0.59

ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL

  PRESIDENTS                                                              29,865,852              0.58

PHEASANTS FOREVER                                                27,824,126              0.54

YOSEMITE FOUNDATION                                          25,967,512              0.50

WILDERNESS SOCIETY, THE (TWS)                         23,180,201              0.45

NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION

 ASSOCIATION                                                             22,147,238              0.43

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE                                         21,779,921              0.42

NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION                     21,337,542                          0.41

AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION                           18,861,831                          0.37

STUDENT CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION               18,714,956                          0.36

WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION                     18,687,081                          0.36

PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL

  TREATMENT OF ANIMALS                                     18,652,096                            0.36

WETLANDS AMERICA TRUST                                  17,171,656                            0.33

ANTI-CRUELTY SOCIETY                                         16,932,539                            0.33

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL

  WELFARE                                                                 16,634,365                0.32

ENERGY FEDERATION INC

  INCORPORATED                                                      15,537,392                0.30

ENVIRONMENTAL CAREERS

  ORGANIZATION                                                       15,468,856                0.30

SAVE THE REDWOODS LEAGUE                              14,546,107                0.28

AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION                         14,351,443                0.28

COASTAL CONSERVATION

ASSOCIATION                                                            14,265,263                0.28

CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL

FORESTRY RESEARCH                                              12,466,225                0.24

ASPEN CENTER FOR

   ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES                                 12,402,810                0.24

WATER ENVIRONMENT

   RESEARCH FOUNDATION                                                 12,042,492                0.23

NATIONAL SAVE THE SEA

  TURTLE FOUNDATION                                           11,349,324                0.22

MANOMET CENTER FOR

   CONSERVATION SCIENCES                                   11,212,735                0.22

GREENPEACE FOUNDATION                                   10,986,369                0.21

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST                     10,715,102                0.21

 

Total                                                                          $4.98 billion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 7:   International development aid for sustainable development:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 8:  This chart lists the assets and income for the top foundation funders and ENGO’s for the years 2000-2008.  Taken from IRS 990’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 9:  Regional NGO’s and conservation government expenditures in a rural community with a population of 25,000:

 

Organization	Money (2008)
Islands Trust	$6,976,000
Land Trust Alliance	$165,995
Saltspring Island Conservancy	$861,996
Saltspring Island Foundation	$746,589
West Coast Islands Conservancy	$500
Total	$8,751,080.00

 

 

Notes: