|
Sustainable Development Update Issue 6, 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 | |||||||
|
Poor media coverage and media coverage of the poor Twice a week the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb made of undernourishment, vitamin deficiencies, lack of basic sanitation and insufficient supplies of clean water strikes the toddlers of the third world. This is not depicted as an acute disaster in the major media of the North, rather it is seen as a chronic situation which, as a result, rarely makes it to the headlines. Every event reported in the news has gone through some kind of gatekeeping process, meaning that journalists unconsciously measure a potential news item against a number of criterias. One of these is proximity. The Dutch communications analyst, professor Jaap van Ginneken, has remarked that the media rule is “10.000 deaths on another continent equal 1.000 deaths in another country equal 100 deaths in an outpost equal ten deaths in the centre of the capital equal one celebrity”. Moreover, skin colour, nationality, wealth and profession play important roles for reaching the larger media. Take the eight white Western tourists who were murdered in Uganda in 1999 when visiting the remote Bwindi forest in hopes of seeing mountain gorillas that still inhabit the national park. Many other persons had already been killed in the forest, which remained the refuge for guerrillas, but as long as they were black people from Africa it was virtually unreported in the media. Environmental issues are also underreported in the larger media. Today, much of the damage happening to the environment is a slow process with accumulating effects at a global scale, but nevertheless with local reverberations. This does not easily attract the attention of a media system designed to deliver quick newsflashes or spectacular headlines. While often slow and accumulative, impacts on the world’s ecosystems are increasingly being felt around the world, especially by the poor and marginalised. Unfortunately, it’s not until a catastrophe happens that it turns into news. In 2000 three weeks of severe floods struck Mozambique when a cyclone swept across southern Africa. Helicopters from the major medias filmed thousands of poor families trapped in trees waiting to be saved, but of course much less, or nothing, was reported about how the disaster unfolded. This was due to continuous environmental degradation of vegetation in catchment areas and along riverbanks, which resulted in the land’s inability to absorb rainwater and paved the way for the flooding. Environmental issue are becoming sustainable development issues that integrate environmental, social and economic aspects. Today many argue that environmental reporting will eventually disappear as it mainstreams into all other fields of reporting. I certainly agree. Environmental and sustainable development issues need to move from the media’s margins to the mainstream, and be delivered in ways that increase understanding and inform decision-making. We don’t have time to wait for even bigger catastrophes. /Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor | |||||||
| SDU - Feature | |||||||
|
"You are what you eat. Can you live with that?" In the ‘North’ we live in an increasingly urbanized world, where we are physically and mentally alienated from our ecological being, so the ecological nature of our agriculture and food system has become largely invisible. "Nowhere is the split between the socio-economic and ecological views of reality more marked than in how we feed ourselves." Despite that "we cannot get closer to the environment than by eating it", concludes David Waltner-Toews, Canadian specialist in food and water safety.  An agricultural system is a natural system in which people are the dominant species. We re-arrange and manage the system to suit our needs for sustenance. Yet the common view of food is almost entirely as a social, economic or health issue, according to David Waltner-Toews (Box 1). Because food-borne pathogens and toxins are biological agents, one would think food safety would be based on an ecological view of the agri-food system. Alas, this is not the case; food safety is seen almost entirely as a social and technical issue related to human behaviour and food handling techniques (see Box 2). This can in part be attributed to a dichotomy in global visions: "Nowhere is the split between the socio-economic and ecological views of reality more marked, and more in urgent need of resolution, than in how we feed ourselves." Ecological vs economic visions According to Waltner-Toews, agricultural and food policies tend to be dominated by “single-vision” views of reality. There exist, of course, many global visions, but these can be grouped into two general categories: a social, economic or political vision, and a primarily ecological or natural scientific vision. The first vision is dominated by its economic component, which considers itself to be external to, rather than nested in, social and ecological systems. This economic vision drives much of the policy of organisations such as the WTO and governments worldwide. The ecological vision differs, often dramatically, from the economic one. In this view, we are all globally interconnected in webs of nutrient, energy and information flows, says Waltner-Toews: "Indeed, what is increasingly happening is that the social systems are altering the ecosystems within which they are nested, which then set new challenges and constraints for our social systems. In this ‘drama of life’ there are no outsiders." Yet, our dependence on natural systems remains invisible and disconnected in most people's minds. This view has resulted in, for example, dominance by technology for solving problems in food systems. Food safety has become the major, perhaps the only, constraint on policies for global agricultural trade. Occasionally, issues such as animal welfare arise but these are presented as ethical issues devoid of an ecological context (see Box 2).  Should agricultural development in poor countries avoid the western model? Photo: FAO Shifting risks to poor farmers Without an ecological context, this view of food safety translates into technologies such as food irradiation and heat or chemical treatments, which Waltner-Toews describes as "the agricultural equivalent of using condoms". By combining an obsession with economies of scale with a dependence on technological solutions, which sooner or later always fail, we increase both the risk of and extent of crises. We have in effect fewer options than if we had based food systems more closely to their ecological setting and closer to home, as is the case with organic farming. There are also subsets of social issues that are isolated, marginalized and largely ignored, such as a consideration of the health and safety of workers on farms and in food processing plants. Indeed, many programs designed to reduce risks for wealthy and powerful consumers do so merely by shifting risks to poor and powerless farmers. In the meantime, agriculture and the food systems continue to industrialise, particularly in developing countries. Given the problems already identified by scientists, a few of which have been discussed herein, as being directly related to this technological approach in industrialized food systems, it is important that agricultural development projects in developing countries avoid this western model and instead work to base their agriculture, including the technology used, on existing ecosystems services (see http://www.albaeco.com/ss/text.htm). "…a successful global food safety strategy would do well to reflect the kinds of diversity and complex interactions seen in natural ecosystems". (2) Instead, the global ecological basis of agriculture and food remains largely invisible. Consequently, we need to change our perception of the world, claims Waltner-Toews: "By making… (the ecological basis) visible, we indeed see the world differently, and in seeing differently we will, hopefully, act differently." Changing perception is not easy We need to incorporate this view into our agricultural policy in order to change our current actions. Many scientists have shown there are environmental, social and even economic problems emerging from the present food system, yet there has been little change in our actions. Changing perceptions is not easy. These are often historically well entrenched. One step is to make ecosystem support visible by tracing the origins and trade pathways of specific agricultural products. This way you can at least make it possible to move from preaching to targeted action. Even without caring about tropical ecological and social disruption, governments and the public are now beginning to demand that foods be labelled as to where they come from for health reasons. We must accept the challenge to acknowledge the importance of our dependence on natural systems, broadening our goals from primarily economic to include social and ecological goals when addressing food systems.
/Miriam Huitric and Lisa Deutsch Sources: (1) This article is based on a presentation by Prof. David Waltner-Toews at Stockholm University in October 2004. We are very grateful to Prof. Waltner- Toews for allowing us to edit and publish his lecture as well as for contributing additional information. (2) David Waltner-Toews, 1991: One ecosystem, one food system: the social and ecological context of food safety strategies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4: 49-59. | |||||||
| Sustainability School | |||||||
|
Biosafety is about minimising the potential risks to people and nature from the handling and transfer of living genetically modified organisms (GMOs or LMOs) produced through modern biotechnology, or genetic engineering. This technique means that new genes are transferred from an entirely unrelated species with viruses or bacteria as vehicles. The concept of biosafety came up as a response to the many concerns raised that GMOs could adversely affect other species, disrupt entire ecosystems and cause risks to human health. The means by which this could occur include spread of introduced traits to non-target species leading to genetic contamination, development of pest and herbicide resistance, contamination of food chains, displacement of traditional animal breeds and plant varieties thereby causing genetic erosion. Moreover, there are many potential socio-economic and ethical impacts. For example, introduction of GM-crops can replace locally adapted varieties and traditional export crops. Proponents, on the other hand, claim that these alarms are overstated and that genetic engineering can lead to, for example, increased food production and new medicines. Scientific findings, however, show that the GMOs do spread into the environment and can have negative ecological and even health effects. An increasing number of scientists therefore advocate the precautionary principle in the production, handling and introduction of GMOs. The Cartagena Protocol While many countries with biotechnology industries have had domestic legislation for a while, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is the first international agreement to deal with the transboundary movement of GMOs. It aims to ensure that genetically engineered organisms and products are transported and used safely. It is also the first international treaty to recognise what is known as the precautionary principle, which allows rejection of food imports if there is evidence, but not necessarily proof, that they pose a danger to human health. The Cartagena Protocol is part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and entered into force on 11 September 2003 after the small Pacific island nation of Palau had became the 50th country to ratify it. According to the CBD the Protocol is now ”legally binding in the international legal system and in the legal systems of States that have given consent to be bound by it; and henceforth States must comply with, and implement, all the provisions of the Protocol”. Critics, however, fear the treaty will be subordinated to trade and that GMO exporting countries could use the WTO trade rules to ignore the Protocol altogether. /Fredrik Moberg More at: http://www.biodiv.org/biosafety | |||||||
| In Brief | |||||||
|
"The Millennium Development Goals are going up in smoke" A team of environmental and development organisations have come together to publish a report on the ongoing impacts and foreseen threats of global warming. The message is clear. Climate change is occurring and is having a social and economic impact, particularly in developing countries. While some are adapting to these changes, the only way to stave the scale of change is for the industrialised countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.
If a rise of 1.5oC does not seem like very much, here is some perspective: Over the 20th century, the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6oC, and the evidence points to human activities, the burning of fossil fuels in particular, as the main causal factor. This seemingly small rise has had significant impacts on the environment and to society (Box 1), and the economic costs of global warming are doubling every decade. Heavy toll on the poor The UN’s recently established ”Millennium Development Goals” may already be doomed to disaster, according to this new report. This is because the issue of global warming is intertwined with society’s and its economies’ structures. For example, globalisation depends on fossil fuels for transportation and increased drought means young girls must travel further to collect water rather than go to school. While impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, are affecting coastal communities regardless of their wealth or development, they are, unfortunately affecting the poor the worst, especially those in developing countries. Yet these people are not the main emitters of greenhouse gases.
The report provides many low-tech examples of adaptations to these changes and calls for increased work and assistance to further these adaptations. Yet given that the main culprit of this climate change appears to be the burning of fossil fuels, these adaptations are necessary but cannot stave the predicted global warming. In order to prevent an increase in temperature beyond 1.5oC, greenhouse gas emissions by industrialised countries need to be cut by 60-80% by 2050. Yet fossil fuel consumption continues to rise. In the late 1990s, the fossil fuel sector in rich countries received $73 billion in annual subsidies (2). Surely a redistribution of these subsidies to alternative energy sources would be an effective first step in reducing our output of greenhouse gases? /Miriam Huitric Sources: (1) Up in smoke? Threats from, and responses to, the impact of global warming on human development. 2004. Simms A, and others. http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_ PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=196 (2) The price of power. Poverty, climate change, the coming energy crisis and the renewable revolution. 2004. Simms A and others: http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_ publicationdetail.aspx?pid=182 More at: If you are interested in measures you can take as an individual: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=27338&pic=1 http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/392_20%20Simple%20Steps.htm Four perspectives of poverty and conservation The connections between poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation are perceived very differently in different organisations and groups. In a recent article in Science four ways of looking at the connections and disconnections are presented. Recognising these different positions, stakeholders searching for win-win solutions will have a better chance for success, claim the authors. The researchers behind the new study have identified four different ways of looking at the connections and disconnections between poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation. Recognising these different positions “is essential if there is to be success in identifying common ground and differences between biodiversity and development organisations”. 1. Poverty and conservation are separate policy realms Work in both areas should be carried out independently. This position sees conservation as a legitimate objective that can be pursued independently of any benefits in poverty reduction (and vice versa). If poverty is a cause of conservation failure, the management response should be stronger defence of protected areas. 2. Poverty is a critical constraint on conservation Biodiversity management needs to tackle poverty, as it is a cause of conservation failure. Hence, according to this view, poverty reduction is a means to achieve the conservation goals. 3. Conservation should not compromise poverty reduction Conservation still is the main goal but an acknowledgement of moral issues leads stakeholders to recognise the issue of human poverty. Conservation must at minimum be achieved without increasing poverty or undermine the livelihoods of the poor. 4. Poverty reduction depends on living resource conservation Financially poor people often depend more directly on living species. Conservation is a tool for poverty reduction. Protected areas are not a solution, but rather sustainable use of natural resources. This starting point emphasises that the livelihoods of poor and marginalised people can be improved through appropriate conservation of biodiversity as it secures the longterm capacity of ecosystems to produce natural resources and ecosystems services. This position is also reflected in the “ecosystem approach” adopted by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. In essence, the researchers claim that even though the elimination of poverty and the preservation of biodiversity are two different objectives, there is considerable overlap in practice. Consequently, the interactions between biodiversity and development organisations will be facilitated if they can understand their mutual positions. Finally, the authors note: “the larger challenge is to allow human society to meet its potential and share the fruits of economic growth while sustaining a biosphere that not only sustains full ecological functions but retains its living diversity”. /Louise Hård af Segerstad Source: Adams and others. 2004. “Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty”. Science 306: 1146-1149. More at: “Protected areas and benefits beyond boundaries” SDU-Feature article that advocates that in the long run we must protect nature for rather than from humans: http://www.albaeco.com/sdu/12/ Overfishing and EU-subsidies threaten wildlife in West Africa The multibillion-dollar trade in bushmeat is often accused of being an immediate threat to African wildlife. Now a new report shows that the hunt for wildlife is tightly linked to decreases in fish catch. Part of the solution is to prevent foreign, heavily subsidised, EU-fleets to fish off West Africa. Researchers have found a tight connection between declining fish catch and the hunt for wildlife in Ghana. In a recent study, presented in Science, a group of researchers compared the decline in wildlife species with fish catch during three decades and found that decreases in fish catch increases the pressure on terrestrial wildlife. The Science study also notes that the bushmeat hunt is not a luxury but a secondary protein resource that people turn to when their primary protein source – fish – decreases. With bad fish catch the number of hunters in nature reserves increased, followed by accelerated declines in wildlife. Corresponding correlations where also found in fish and bushmeat availability in local markets and their prices. Finding alternative protein sources Hence, finding alternative protein sources is a necessity for the long-term survival of more than 400 species of wildlife. A failure to conserve the existing wildlife populations could have serious effects on the long-term food security in the region as the harvest of terrestrial wildlife consitutes an important buffer for the poor that often turn to gathering a wide range of wild species in times of crisis, such as a drought. Now both fish and wildlife are declining and a buffer is lost. In Ghana, the biomass of 41 species of mammals declined by 76% in 28 years. Species are locally going extinct. Fish biomass has decreased by at least 50%. To prevent further decline of wildlife the researchers suggest that the fishing pressure from EU-based, heavily subsidised, fishing fleets must be limited. EU maintains the largest foreign presence off the coast of West Africa, with financial subsidies jumping from $6m in 1981 to more than $350m in 2001. Reduced EU-subsidies will not likely decrease the total fish catch, but if the fish is locally consumed the pressure on wildlife will be reduced. A more long-term response would be to build livestock that will take the pressure off from both fish and wildlife. /Louise Hård af Segerstad More at: Brashares J.S. and others. 2004. “Bushmeat Hunting, Wildlife Declines, and Fish Supply in West Africa”. Science 306. Hunting for development in Zimbabwe Too often commercial, tourist and wildlife interests in the West have asked how wildlife can survive, not, how can wildlife survive amongst poor people? This is concluded in a new dissertation from Gothenburg University in Sweden.  Photo: FAO Local communities in Africa, particularly southern Africa with its ethnically divided land pattern, have seen few economic benefits, apart from subsistence ones, from the region’s wildlife during the twentieth century. And this is at least partly caused by commercial, tourist and wildlife interests in the North. Too often their main question is, how can wildlife survive, not, how can wildlife survive amongst poor people? This is claimed in a recent dissertation by Per Zachrisson from Gothenburg University, Sweden. Zachrisson is not the first to conclude that the conventional approach to protected areas has tended to exclude or restrict local people from the resources on which they rely, without providing alternative livelihoods. More recently, however, this is beginning to change. There is a growing realisation that protected areas can provide numerous benefits beyond boundaries and contribute to human development and poverty alleviation (see Feature article SDU 5/2003). Shaking off the colonial heritage Per Zachrisson has in his thesis investigated the development programme CAMPFIRE, “Communal Areas Management for Indigenous Resources” in the Gwanda District, southern Zimbabwe, which aims to create sustainable exploitation of wildlife and combating poverty. In particular, the thesis has investigated how poor people can survive amongst wildlife and studied local peoples’ perception of the programme. He argues that the outcome of CAMPFIRE depends on people’s historically constructed and culturally mediated conceptions of land, game, and development combined with their utilitarian view of wildlife. – Local people are appreciating the programme, but problems arise when the ideas are going to be implemented in reality, due to corruption, lack of influence, and the current political instability in Zimbabwe, says Zachrisson to a local Swedish newspaper. Moreover, it is concluded in the thesis that Western ideas about the African people and their wildlife confront the local people’s thoughts and livelihood strategies in the infertile countryside. The study confirms that the lack of power and influence over the exploitation of local natural resources is an obstacle to development. This situation for the local population in the Gwanda District is aggravated by the international claims on the use of African wildlife (a phenomenon that Zachrisson labels as “globalisation of indigenous natural resources”). In essence, the study emphasises that the prospect for sustainable use of natural resources in this part of Africa is not only a matter of equality and democracy but also involve shaking off a colonial heritage of dominating Western interests and views regarding how best to make use of Africa’s indigenous resources. /Fredrik Moberg More at: “Hunting for Development. People, Land and Wildlife in Southern Zimbabwe.” Per Zachrisson, Gothenburg University: http://www.samfak.gu.se/Disputationer/disp0405/ zachrisson_press.htm From hand-outs to hands-on: Local communities are teaching aid agencies how to deal with world disasters
Humanitarian aid must deal with natural disturbances and wars and all of the health, psychological, environmental, economic and social impacts these have. Disasters are changing from sudden high impact to chronic events. Disease, drought, malnutrition, poor healthcare and poverty have together created a complex catastrophe situation, which claims more lives than “natural disasters”. Even the developed world has to deal with these changes in types of disaster. In Europe, for example, up to 35,000 elderly died during the five degree above average summer experienced in 2003. This heat wave was possibly related to climate change but the disaster was caused by the conjunction of high temperatures with neglected and reduced welfare systems. Europe was no longer prepared for this type of event, yet it is just this type of event that is predicted to increase in frequency due to global warming. While humanitarian organisations and states remain in an old mind-set, there are many cases where local communities have been adapting to and successfully dealing with these changes. According to the report, understanding how these communities have obtained this knowledge and why it works are key questions that need to be answered in order to change current frameworks for dealing with disasters. Aid continues to be equipped for sudden-impact, high-profile disasters focusing on handouts following these events. A new aid paradigm needed? The report stresses a shift in aid is now a necessity due to changes in the disasters. The framework used by aid and government agencies must be changed from being top-down to adapting to local conditions and providing tools to cope with events. This call for active change is in part based on the documented cases where local communities have proven to be resilient to change. The report goes as far as to call for the need to identify successful responses that can be scaled up to larger scales. It is then important that aid organisations and governments enable, rather than undermine, this capacity of local communities. /Miriam Huitric More at: The World Disaster Report 2004 is published by the International Federation of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies. For details visit: http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2004/ Environmental mainstreaming into poverty reduction strategies is improving At present most so-called Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) do not sufficiently emphasise environmental issues, but they are slowly improving. These PRSPs play a central role in today’s foreign aid and development cooperation. As such they should reflect the growing realisation, not to say consensus, that poverty alleviation and environmental issues are closely linked. There is a growing realisation, not to say consensus, that poverty alleviation and environmental health are closely linked. Links are primarily due to livelihoods based on a diversity of natural resources, environment-related disease burden, dependence on ecosystem services and vulnerability to natural disasters. There are many poverty-environment opportunities and the environment simply cannot wait for economic growth and for people to clean up later. It is therefore crucial to mainstream the environment into the so called Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which are comprehensive, results-oriented frameworks for reducing poverty prepared by developing countries.  Unfortunately for this man, riding a bicycle in the New Delhi traffic, poverty reduction strategies tend to overlook the urban environment, according to a new World Bank report. Photo: FAO Biodiversity and gender issues neglected In a new World Bank publication, Environment in Poverty Reduction Strategies and Poverty Reduction Support Credits, it is acknowledged that PRSPs show considerable variation across countries; an average level of mainstreaming that is low, and a strong tendency for full PRSPs to better integrate environmental considerations than interim PRSPs. Even though the investigated PRSPs score a low average on the report’s 0–3 scale of environmental mainstreaming, they are slowly improving. This year’s average score was 1.5, compared to 0.9 in 2002 and 1.3 in 2003. In general, environmental health issues get more attention than natural resources management issues. More specifically, the investigated PRSPs emphasise water supply, sanitation, vulnerability to natural hazards, land tenure, and institutional capacity rather than biodiversity, gender and environmental relationships, urban environment, and the impacts of macroeconomic policies on the environment. Surprisingly, only 14 of the 53 reviewed PRSPs have targets and indicators aligned with the Millennium Development Goal 7 (ensuring environmental sustainability), and when they do the attention is almost entirely focused on the water and sanitation target. Moreover, few quantified, time-bound, and costed environmental targets and indicators are presented in the PRSPs. The authors used 17 variables within four major areas of environmental mainstreaming: (1) diagnosis of environmental issues; (2) analysis of poverty-environment links; (3) environmentally relevant actions; and (4) the extent to which participation and consultation processes have allowed environmental concerns to be heard. Countries with PRSPs that scored high were from many different regions and include: Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Ghana, Honduras, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Yemen, and Zambia. /Fredrik Moberg More at: “Environment in Poverty Reduction Strategies and Poverty Reduction Support Credits”. 2004. by Jan Bojö, Kenneth Green, Sunanda Kishore, Sumith Pilapitiya and Rama Chandra Reddy. Download the report at: http://www.worldbank.org/environment The quote: "... I suggest they change their tune and come up with a hit demanding that the West drop its agricultural subsidies, cancel more debt and urge Africa’s worst leaders to go. How about something like: ‘It’s Christmastime/ There’s no need to block trade/ At Christmastime/ We can buy African and banish farm aid/ And in our world of Western plenty/ We can spread our wealth around/ Throw out Africa’s despots/ At Christmastime.’ Get 1.5 billion people singing along to that, and you could really make a difference in Africa." Simon Robinson, TIME’s Africa bureau chief based in Johannesburg http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/ article/0,13005,901041206-832155,00.html |
