|
Sustainable Development Update Issue 5, Volume 4, 2004 The Sustainable Development Update (SDU) focuses on the links between ecology, society and the economy. It is produced by Albaeco, an independent non-profit organisation. SDU is produced with support from Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Environment Policy Division. Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor Click the miniature below to download in pdf-format: 
To read the PDF you need Acrobat reader, download for free here: http://www.adobe.com 
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Editorial | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Planting trees for peace Finally. A Nobel Prize for the environment. Or at least close enough. The Nobel committee has added a new dimension to peace and, for the first time, recognised the fundamental links between peace and environmental issues. While some people still claim that there are more pressing issues, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, most seem to have gained new insights and now understand how planting trees can contribute to peace. To me it is also a reminder to all environmentalists that it is a must to address social justice and peace if we are to protect the environment. In the words of the Prize winner herself: “If you want to save the environment, you should protect the people first, because human beings are part of biological diversity. And if we can’t protect our own species, what’s the point of protecting tree species?” Wangari Maathai founded the Green Belt Movement in 1977 in order to create livelihood opportunities for poor women and restore the damaged for- est environment with little technology and limited financial resources. The GBM has organised poor Kenyan women who have planted some 30 million trees to preserve local biological diversity and safeguard the supply of ecosystem services. These trees have helped farmers by combating soil erosion, soaking up rain, preserving nutrient-rich topsoil and providing habitat for wildlife. Moreover, trees provide services like supplying oxygen, trapping air pollution particles and absorbing others, some of which are used as nutrients for growth. Despite their great value to society, most services provided by forests have until recently been treated as “commons” without financial worth. However, there is a growing awareness of the many benefits that forests provide, such as climate stabilisation, storm protection, watershed protection, biodiversity conservation and carbon storage – and now even peace. Maathai has gone from being an activist, having even been called Green Militant, to become the Kenyan deputy environment minister. She has, beyond doubt, taken a holistic approach to sustainable development by integrating environmental issues, democracy and women’s rights. The Green Belt Movement has, among many other things, worked to re-establish the use of organic methods and indigenous crops, which many had abandoned for government-promoted export commodities, such as coffee. In the meantime, global military spending is on the rise again. Whereas global foreign aid totals 50- 60 billion dollars a year, the total military spending might break the one trillion dollar barrier this year, according to a recent UN-report. I wonder what percentage of that is used for planting trees. /Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SDU - Feature | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Better bananas? How to decrease the social and environmental impacts of banana cultivation The banana farming is an economic pillar in many poor tropical countries. The industry has, however, long been notorious for its unhealthy working conditions, employee exploitation, excessive use of toxic chemicals and rainforest destruction. Today there is a growing realisation, also among the multinational corporations, that a number of win-win solutions can develop if bananas are produced in a more sustainable way. International trade of bananas is often depicted as a classic case of a North/South conflict. Whereas people in the rich countries of the North get cheap fruit poor people and the environment in producing countries of the South pay a high price. Nonetheless, the banana is the most important food crop after rice, wheat and maize and provides millions of job opportunities in poor tropical countries. In the 1990s, the banana sector was heavily criticised by NGOs and got a lot of negative media coverage for its social and environmental impacts. This revealed how banana farming entailed unhealthy working conditions, excessive use of toxic agrochemicals, rainforest destruction, contamination of soil and food, poor waste disposal, the pollution of coral reefs and nearby watersheds and employee exploitation. Moreover, the multinational banana corporations limited the economic benefits to local people and controlled virtually all aspects of production, transportation and marketing. These revelations shifted many consumers’ preference towards organic (see fig 1 and 2) and fair trade bananas and led some companies to take measures to reduce their environmental and social impacts. Today composting of organic rejects, collection of plastics, and filtering of wastewater has become common practice on many plantations.  Fig 1: Estimated world exports (metric tonnes) of organic bananas 1998-2003. Source: FAO However, due to recent global overproduction, banana companies have had to close many plantations and cut jobs, salaries and benefits. This means that workers' rights are again being undermined and that investments in acceptable social and environmental conditions are being decreased. Critics claim this is why the banana industry is now concentrating production in low-wage, non-union countries such as Ecuador and the south coast of Guatemala.
The monoculture problem There are more than 300 varieties of bananas in the world, ranging from giant red ones to tiny yellow baby bananas, and even ”square” bananas that taste like apples. Yet, bananas on the European and US markets are almost all of the type ”Dwarf Cavendish”. As a consequence of this preference most commercial plantations grow bananas that come from the same genetic source. Another problem is that cultivated banana varieties are seedless. These sterile hybrids can reproduce asexually but crossing them cannot produce new banana varieties that resist pests. This in combination with the fact that plants are planted close to each other means that outbreaks of pests frequently wipe out whole plantations. In order to reduce pest damage, increase yields, and comply with the quality standards of importing countries many farms employ frequent and heavy agrochemical applications. Pesticide use can be almost 20 times greater than average pesticide use on crops in industrialised countries. This entails pesticide exposures and illness among workers as well as pollution of land, watercourses and aquifers, and a reduction in biological diversity. This has also led to the emergence of pest strains that are pesticide resistant. Recently, thousands of banana pickers in Costa Rica have filed a lawsuit in the US against two chemical companies (Shell Chemical and Dow Chemical) and three banana producers (Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte). The lawsuit claims that exposure to the toxic pesticide DBCP (brand names Nemagon and Fumazone) has caused sterility, testicular atrophy, miscarriages, birth defects, liver damage and cancer when inhaled or absorbed by the skin. DBCP was banned in the United States in 1979.  Pesticide use in a banana plantation can be 20 times greater than the average on crops in industrialised countries. Photo: Nils Kautsky. The alternatives Around the world small-scale farmers grow many other banana varieties that are not threatened by the most feared diseases Black sigatoka and the ”Panama disease”. Actually, the Cavendish banana accounts for only 10 percent of bananas produced and consumed globally, according to FAO statistics. In order to decrease the use of agrochemicals many suggest so called “integrated pest management” (IPM). It is a set of methods to manage pests through mechanical and biological means as much as possible and restrict the ”inevitable” use of pesticides to those that are less toxic and persistent. IPM does not aim at eradicating pests entirely but rather limiting their population and damage at economically acceptable levels. Many small-scale producers, operating independently of multinational corporations, are able to grow bananas without heavy agrochemical inputs, often organically (entirely free from chemical pesticides). Some produce so-called shade grown bananas together with many other crops such as coffee. In 2002 global exports of certified organic bananas accounted for more than 1 percent of total banana trade. The largest supplier of organic bananas in the world is the Dominican Republic. The main hindrance to the increased implementation of organic small-scale systems is the lack of market demand in many importing countries. Hence, there is still a growing need to increase awareness amongst consumers about the problems associated with conventional banana production. In Sweden for instance, eco-labelled bananas has been a successful tool to increase awareness among retailers, importers and consumers. Today, 3.5 % of the bananas sold in Sweden are eco-labelled. Chiquita has its own certification under the so called Better Banana Project. A couple of years ago Chiquita announced they had received certification for all of their own plantations in Latin America. However, NGOs claim that workers on some farms knew nothing about it. The Better Banana Project is much better than companies doing nothing, and environmental improvements have indeed been made, but critics claim the company could be doing much more. The close relationship between Chiquita and the certifying organisation and the continued use of pesticides on certified farms have also been questioned. Many question if it will ever be possible to grow bananas sustainably in intensive, specialised large plantations based on a narrow genetic source. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has called for: development of more diversity in the banana, especially for export bananas; promoting awareness of the inevitable consequences of a narrow genetic base in crops and the need for a broader genetic base for commercial bananas; strengthening plant breeding programmes in developing countries for banana and other basic staple crops. Many also call for re-establishing the use of indigenous crops and organic methods, which many developing countries have abandoned following a long period of focus on export commodities. Getting the prices right Today consumers are increasingly concerned about banana production conditions and buy more and more organic and fair-trade bananas. And it seems like the banana industry has finally realised there are a number of win-win solutions that can develop if bananas are produced in a more sustainable way. In many respects parts of the industry have worked hard to improve its reputation. Consumers, producers, governments, trade unions, farmer organisations, development organisations all have a common interest in solving these problems. One key driving force for banana farming to become more sustainable is to get the prices right. Within the field of environmental economics this is called ”internalising the external effects”, that is, the price of a commodity should include external social and environmental costs incurred at every stage of production. In the banana’s case this means consumers will have to pay a price that reflects social and environmental costs and the necessary investment costs to provide acceptable social and environmental conditions on plantations. /Fredrik Moberg More at: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5102e/y5102e00.htm http://www.bananalink.org.uk/ http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/trade/ wto_bananas.htm | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sustainability School | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Institutions are central within the social science of natural resources management. Institutions are, in this context, defined as the norms and rules governing human interactions. They can be formal such as rules and laws, but also informal (unwritten) such as norms and conventions of society. Institutions set transaction costs for human actions and govern resource use by controlling access to and extraction of natural resources. By establishing defined courses of action, institutions minimise uncertainty and risk when actors exchange. For complex exchange problems, however, institutions can never be fully free of incompatible incentives. This can create the temptation to cheat. In the case of natural resources, institutions often fail to take the externalities of exploitation into account, which results in transaction costs that benefit the extractor but with environmental and social costs that are paid by no one and suffered by all. Existing knowledge will influence the development of institutions and, at the same time, institutions steer the development of knowledge. This partly explains the variety of institutional approaches to similar problems. Today a growing number of interdisciplinary environmental scientists emphasise institutions that deal with property rights and so-called common property resources, that is, institutions controlling access to a natural resource and how it can be used. There are four categories of property, though there is overlap between them: state-owned, private property, common property (group ownership) and open access (no rules). Common property (or common pool) resources, such as fisheries, have long been subject to overexploitation and misuse due to lack of institutions or their implementation (a situation called the tragedy of the commons). In recent years many scholars have, instead of promoting either centralised governmental regulation or privatisation, suggested the design of institutions that are organised and governed by the resource users themselves as a way to resolve the problem of the commons. /Miriam Huitric More at: North D, 1990: Institutions, institutional change and economic preferences. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom E, 1990: Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. IHDP Report No. 9: http://www.ihdp.uni-bonn.de/html/publications/ reports/report09/index.htm | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In Brief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sink or Swim? How to deal with rising sea levels Coastal communities around the world are at the frontline of climate change with rising sea levels and changing weather patterns encroaching on their land. Should these communities act in an anticipatory manner or react to changes as they occur? And who should enforce and pay for these measures?  Bangladesh is one of the most floodprone countries in the world. Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Photo: FAO There is a growing need for a greater diversity of solutions addressing climate change due, not only to the variation of impacts at local levels, but also to the diversity in local stakeholders’ needs, resources and expectations. This will demand re-thinking of the top-down approaches imposed by many states and international development agencies, said Professor Katrina Brown, from the School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia (UK), in a recent seminar at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Brown and colleagues have compared how communities on the Orkney Islands in the north and in Christchurch Bay in the south of the UK, would prefer to deal with foreseen impacts of climate change on their coastlines. The responses chosen by the respective communities were as separated as the communities themselves. On the Orkney Islands, stakeholders opted for dealing with impacts as they arose, and that the local decisionmaking body should deal with this. In contrast, stakeholders in Christchurch Bay preferred an anticipatory approach to dealing with the impacts of climate change, which would be carried out by a centralised authority. Adapt projects to local conditions This study, while based in an industrialised country, is pertinent to those involved in addressing the impacts of climate change and sea level rise everywhere. More than 40% of the global population live within 100 km of a coastline. Sea levels are predicted to rise 9-88 centimetres over the next 100 years, according to the UN’s panel of expert advisers (IPCC). This could annihilate many low-lying islands such as those in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and all coastlines are likely to suffer from land loss and saltwater intrusion. Climate change is also expected to increase storm intensities and frequencies and this will also affect coastal areas, particularly in developing countries where costly precautions are not always possible. In earlier work Professor Brown has studied reasons why conservation and development projects often clash and fail to work in the long-term, particularly in developing countries. She concluded that a misfit of institutions (see this issue’s Sustainability School) was often to blame. Institutions must accommodate diverse stakeholders and interests, as well as fit ecosystem dynamics. There are no homogenous or simple solutions. Locally, communities are economically and socially very diverse, as are their interactions with the environment and natural resources. The failure of higher-level decision makers, state or international organisations, to adapt their projects to local conditions potentially dooms them to failure. In conclusion, the responses to climate change will need to be varied not only due to the variety of expected impacts but also due to the diversity among affected communities. This is a further challenge for those tackling the impacts of climate change, but one that they will, soon, have to confront. /Miriam Huitric For more information: School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/ Few, R, Brown K and Tompkins, EL. 2004. Scaling adaptation: climate change response and coastal management in the UK: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/ wp60.pdf "Markets and biodiversity can be strong allies" It might well be this year’s most important conservation event, the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress, starting in Bangkok on November 17. It will in particular address the role of business in conserving biodiversity and achieving sustainable development. It is an enormous challenge to meet the needs of growing populations and emerging markets while at the same time sustaining the very basis of our survival: the long-term productivity of the life-supporting ecosystems. This challenge will be taken on by the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress, ”People and Nature – only one world”, which will open on the 17th of November in Bangkok. The congress is yet another sign that the environment movement is no longer putting plants before people. There is increasing recognition that social, economic and environmental issues are interconnected. Consequently, working with the corporate world is increasingly seen as an effective way to safeguard the environment. Whereas some companies continue to be hungry profit hunters, neglecting environmental and social aspects, more and more of them want to change. While the present economic indicators still do not account for the costs of environmental loss or health, new market incentives for caring for the environment are emerging. An example is the Clean Development Mechanism. This allows industrialised countries to invest in clean industries or conserving forests in developing countries, thereby providing them with credits for greenhouse emissions. Other examples of how conservation efforts can be profitable include: the Nakivubo wetland in Uganda that performs water purification functions equal to a US$ 2 million per year waste treatment facility and investment in upper watershed forest management in Ecuador that saves the Paute Hydroelectric Scheme up to US$ 40 million in direct costs. Integrating conservation in Poverty Reduction Strategies The Congress will attract more than 3000 delegates and be the world’s biggest conservation event in 2004 to explore the relationships between human development and nature conservation. A number of poverty-related issues will be covered, for example how environmental and human health relate to poverty and conservation. In particular, it will include an assessment of the role of wild species in the livelihoods of the poor; how to integrate conservation in Poverty Reduction Strategies; and providing more benefits of conservation to the rural poor. It will also consider lessons learned from around the world to manage land and seascapes for wise use of the goods and services provided by their ecosystems. /Fredrik Moberg More at: http://www.iucn.org/congress/documents/capitalism-planet.htm The impasse of modernity: Debating the Future of the Global Market Economy
"At a time when so many societies are being profoundly dislocated… when statistics show constant annual rises in world poverty and ecological degradation, when key international conferences break up because they cannot agree on an agenda for trade negotiations, and when public opinion in the privileged countries is itself stirring over its abuses of the near-total liberty granted in practise to the large private corporations – at such a profoundly chaotic time, is it not crucially necessary to challenge the goals (and no longer just the organizational forms) of the so-called ‘system’ that governs our economies…?" Rather than simply picking on present-day problems, Comeliau describes the underlying ideologies of this system and places them in their historical context. Modernity is described as a development model that places exceptional importance on economic concerns, particularly on market economy. Market economy was originally a tool but has been transformed into a model believed to be all encompassing that is being implemented worldwide. It is an economic and social organisation based on individualism that focuses on profit maximisation, which in turn requires indefinite quantitative growth of consumption (and therefore of production). Among the many problems the author identifies with this system, three seem to be overarching: 1) The principle of indefinite accumulation of profit as the sole criterion for choices in economic and social organisations can only be a short-term goal. Continued growth is not possible in a world of finite resources. 2) Profit maximisation tends to increase the demand for more efficient production, which involves mechanisation of jobs or moving production to lowest wage/costs areas. This results in a loss of jobs “at home”, increased inequality in society, and a concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a few multinational organisations that lack organisations that can govern them. 3) Because the market is based on individual benefit, social goals that are good for society at large, are deemed unprofitable/undesirable by the market. Hence, modernity is not equipped to deal with collective issues, be they social, environmental or economic. Changing the present model will be difficult Comeliau concludes that changing the present model will be difficult, as it has grown so rapidly and with little control by national governments. The main motors are a handful of multinationals that have political and economic powers comparable to nations, but the freedom of not falling under anyone’s jurisdiction. This system is morally wrong, according to Comeliau, and consequently he suggests many fundamental changes, including: the need to put the economic system in its place vis à vis the biosphere and ecosystems as these are not luxuries but necessities; that the economy must be placed at the service of society and not vice versa; and that market economy must be replaced in relation to economics as a whole. The author conveys his arguments in a form that, while dense, is clear and accessible also to non-economists. It is topical and timely and no doubt enlightening to readers standing on either side of this debate. I strongly recommend it to anyone dealing with connections between environmental, social and/or economic issues. /Miriam Huitric Source: The impasse of modernity. Christian Comeliau, 2000. Zed Books, London & Fernwood Publishing, Canada. The Financial Times' focus on Sustainable Business The Financial Times recently published a report considering the strengths and weaknesses of ”the environmentalist pressures facing companies”. The focus on environmental sustainability in this respected financial newspaper is encouraging, but environmental health seems to remain a secondary concern to, rather than a prerequisite for, economic health.  On October 14th, the Financial Times published a Special Report on the issues facing sustainability in the business world. Overall, the report focused on the economic costs and benefits of improving environmental profiles. The lack of a clear definition of “sustainability”, however, made it difficult to gauge the real degree of environmental friendliness of mentioned endeavours. Environmental health seems to remain a secondary concern to, rather than a prerequisite for, economic health. Nevertheless, the focus on environmental sustainability in this respected financial newspaper is encouraging as this is a crucial medium through which the gap between the economic and environmental sectors can be bridged. Reduced emissions, increased savings While most of the articles focused on the rich parts of the world, one article dealt with new guidelines in the banking sector, such as the Equator Principles, established for handling environment and human rights issues in connection with project financing in developing countries. Environmental groups have welcomed these principles with caution: while seen as a good first step, they are criticised for lacking transparency. The report also includes a series of articles that discuss the implications of new and proposed regulations. It is concluded that Russia’s decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol, together with rising fuel costs, will result in regulatory measures by signatory nations and voluntary measures by many industries to reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The report summarises the concerns of companies protesting against the costs of Kyoto-related policies and planned EU regulations that will demand the screening of chemicals for human and environmental health impacts before being released, but several success stories are also presented where companies have reduced their emissions while increasing savings. It also looked at the increased interest in environmentally sustainable production, including agriculture and fishing, by multi- nationals and the finance sector. /Miriam Huitric More at: The report is accessible to Financial Times subscribers at: http://www.ft.com/susbusiness2004 Fishing: there's more than meets the eye There have been many reports on the negative impacts of fishing on targeted stocks; one has only to think of cod, sharks and sea turtles. A heavy toll is falling on developing countries, where fish is a more important part of diet than in developed countries. But what of the less visible ecological effects of fishing?  The indirect impacts of fishing were the focus of an e- conference in April 2004, as a part of the EU’s evaluation of the objectives of its Biodiversity Action Plan for fisheries. The over-arching issues identified at the conference were: gaps in understanding, political unwillingness to limit fishing activity, and, suitable management tools. We are fishing faster than we gain understanding of the ecosystems. Yet fishing has many indirect impacts including dumping of non-targeted species, known as by-catch, and habitat damage due to dragging gear along the bottom. We are in essence fishing entire ecosystems though we only use a small portion. The functions of many of the targeted species, and particularly of the by-catch species, remain unknown, as do the interactions among these species and the effects of habitat loss on these species. The focus of ongoing monitoring needs to move on from species’ stock assessments to include the rest of the ecosystem. Scientists have, in fact, been issuing warnings for certain fish stocks for many years. Politicians have not, however, been willing to limit fishing activity due to the political costs of change. This response to socio-economic drivers rather than to signals from the resource is indicative of a vicious circle leading to continued blind extraction of the resource. Managing the Known and the Unknown The conference stressed that dependence on technological fixes and marine protected areas cannot substitute for reducing fishing activity. Managers cannot control fish stocks only fishermen, yet finding suitable management tools remains a challenge. National quotas are the most common tool and are allocated yearly. These have two key problems: 1) Most are set too high and 2) They do not necessarily control fishers’ behaviour in the desired way. Quotas can increase by-catch wastage as fishers rush to fish their part of the quota and quotas have even been found to increase fishing activity in response to decreased abundance. All management tools have shortcomings and none are applicable region-wide. What is clear from existing scientific information is that fishing activity must be reduced, which will entail short- and medium-term costs. A precautionary approach to fishing is needed to protect habitats and organisms until their interactions are better understood. Given the scale of uncertainty and unknown it will be difficult to determine what “precautionary” limits to fishing are. This means that existing measures need to be tailored to existing scientific information (vs. political costs), to local conditions of both stocks and the fishing fleet (vs. region wide policies) and be adaptable (to incorporate new information). /Miriam Huitric Source: Kaiser MJ, Austen MCV and Ojaveer H, 2004: European biodiversity action plan for fisheries: issues for non-target species. Fisheries Research 69: 1-6. "Donors must quit funding destructive shrimp farming" The environmental and socio-economic impacts of intensive shrimp aquaculture in mangroves are unacceptable. Donor agencies should restrict funding to socially and environmentally responsible farming initiatives instead, said Dr. Jurgenne Primavera from the Philippines when visiting Stockholm recently. On the 22nd of September, Dr. Jurgenne Primavera of the University of the Philippines held a public lecture at Stockholm University. She has been working to increase understanding of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of shrimp aquaculture in mangroves. While increasing in popularity, it is difficult to give tiger prawns a good environmental or social image. Shrimp trawling is wasteful, with 85 to 95% bycatch. Aquaculture, which in Asia has focused on tiger prawns, has its own series of problems. Intensive shrimp ponds usually have a life span of only 5 to 10 years because of self-pollution and disease. Operators move on to other areas, in a pattern of shifting aquaculture, and the remaining degraded lands are no longer suitable for agriculture or aquaculture.  Some 50% of the global mangrove forest loss since the 1980s is a result of shrimp aquaculture. Photo: Nils Kautsky Shrimp farming interferes with local food security Moreover, it is estimated that 50% of the global mangrove loss since the 1980s is a result of shrimp aquaculture, which will affect many wild stocks including tiger prawns as they use mangroves as nurseries. Shrimp feed contains fishmeal and oil from fish caught around the world, affecting distant stocks. Seepage and release of untreated water cause various pollution problems to surrounding soils, water tables and seawater. Furthermore, shrimp farming often interferes with local food security as most shrimp are exported. Shrimp may also compete with locals for food as: “…in the Philippines no fish is too small to be eaten”. On average more than two kilograms of wild-caught fish are used in feed to produce one kilogram of shrimp. Pond pollution degrades surrounding mangroves and fisheries further affecting food security. Lowered, salinised and polluted water tables affect access to drinking water and agriculture. Can tiger prawns improve their image? Prof. Primavera stressed that the industry must be based on ecosystems’ capacity to deal with production externalities and identified three fields for improving the industry. 1. Technological improvement to reduce pond externalities (such as integrated farming of shrimp, fish, crabs and mangrove). 2. Governments must establish and implement human rights and environmental laws. If donor agencies restricted funding to socially and environmentally responsible farming initiatives, it would encourage governments to develop these. 3. Tiger prawns are exported so trade instruments must support national legislation. Most importantly, the industry’s income does not reach those working on farms. This inequity and the environmental and socio-economic impacts have led to violent conflicts, which in Central America alone have resulted in 150 deaths. Dr. Primavera concluded that while ecological sustainability is an important goal, if the industry’s equity problems are not solved, it will remain an unsustainable industry. /Miriam Huitric More at: http://www.albaeco.com/sdu/01/htm/main.htm#aqua http://www.palawan.com/agriculture/shrimp.html http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdfs/farming_the_sea.pdf The quote: "Let's score these goals" UNDP Goodwill Ambassadors: Soccer superstars Ronaldo and Zinédine Zidane in a 30- second television spot promoting the Millennium Development Goals. The spot was aired worldwide in October to mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. http://www.undp.org/ronaldo-zidane.pdf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
