TALKBACK 1998

 

February/25/1998/ELAN: Re: Article on shrimp

farming in The Economist

Wed, 25 Feb 1998 13:00:26 -0800

By Tom

I see two posting that make claims without pointing to evidence. Each one

points to consequences opposed by political movements. For those of us not

familiar with the issues:

(1)Where are the facts that back up the claims that shrimp farming: "Has

serious social and environmental justice concerns. . .raised. . .by

coastal peoples in the developing world?"

(2) Where are the facts that "thousands of poor fisher folk and farmers in

tropical coastal zones have been deprived of access to vital coastal

resources that, in turn, has negatively affected rural livelihoods?"

(3) Where is the evidence that there are adverse economic or "human

nutritional consequences" to cultured shrimp?

(4) How and where does shrimp farming "destroys the local

environment and the local economies"?

(5) Demonstrate how "science" is used to "to avoid sustainability concerns"?

(6) Where is there information that shows that "costs of these activities

outweight the benefits"?

(7) Do environmental regulations exist for shrimp farming.? If so, why is

it not enforced? Are these not activities permitted and promoted by Ecuador

and Honduras?

Point the Economist to these sources and I'm sure that you will find a

thoughtful and probably sympathetic article and a more sympathetic audience.

Are there some WWW links that might be useful?

Regards,

Tom

 

May/02/1998/ELAN: Sostenido o Sostenible o Sustentable

Fri, 01 May 1998 22:54:26 -0600

comades (comades@concyt.gob.gt)

Estimados Ron y Lucio,

Efectivamente la inquietud planteada en cuanto a la confusion de

terminos en la region es cierta. En primer lugar existe polemica en

utilizar sustentable o sostenible. Al traducir sustainable del ingles

parece que se han utilizado ambos terminos indiferentemente, tal como

ocurre con empowerment traducido como empoderamiento pero que conceptua

mejor la palabra potenciacion.

En una primera simplificacion podriamos decir que ambos terminos

encierran el mismo significado, aunque el concepto sustentable en

español deriva de sustento (con ello se asocia el alimento, seguridad

alimentaria, satisfaccion nutricional) y en ese sentido lo asociamos

directamente a la naturaleza y lo ambiental.

En ese razonamiento al decir sostenible podriamos estar hablando de un

desarrollo que ademas de priorizar lo ambiental (sustentable) incluye lo

económico, cultural, social y politico, aplicando los elementos del

paradigma propuesto por PNUD: sustentabilidad, potenciacion, equidad,

cooperacion y seguridad. Entonces, sostenibilidad incluiria los cinco

conceptos.

Asi las cosas, cuando decimos sostenido hablamos de un desarrollo a

estado estable, es decir, mantenido en el tiempo, pero que no

necesariamente es un desarrollo que proteja el ambiente, o sea no

sustentable, y por ende no sostenible.

Creo que todo esto da origen a confusion. Sin embargo esta claro que

queda desechado el utilizar sostenido para referirse al desarrollo

preservando la naturaleza, puesto que el termino en si no lo garantiza.

Me interesaria escuchar la opinion de Uds.

Federico

 

May/02/1998/ELAN: Re: Sostenido o Sostenible o Sustentable

Sat, 2 May 1998 12:26:24 -0400

anna

Estimados amigos

El término sustentable, del verbo sustentar, tiene el significado de dar

sustento, tal y como lo expresa el diccionario de la Real Academia Española

de la Lengua.

Esto implica la acción de un sujeto a otro sujeto, una acción que viene de

afuera hacia otro determinado sujeto, no la acción de un sujeto sobre sí

mismo.

Para mí el término que puede ser correcto es sostenible, que se sostiene a

sí mismo. O sea, que se mantiene a sí mismo.

Sin querer faltar el respeto a mi religión (además soy practicante

católica), pongo como ejemplo bien descriptivo y con todas las distancias

bien guardadas, la diferencia que existe entre el término sustentable y

sostenible que me lleva a pensar en la diferencia que existe entre la

Asunción de la Virgen María y la Ascención de Jesús.

En relación al término sostenido, estoy de acuerdo con Federico Salazar

Saludos

Anna

 

May/02/1998/ELAN: Re: Sostenido o Sostenible o Sustentable

Sat, 2 May 1998 15:46:39 -0600 (MDT)

Wandemberg

Estimados todos:

Yo tambien prefiero, por ya citados motivos, el usar sostenible. Pero me

parece mucho mas importante la definicion que se le de que el uso del

termino. Todas la definiciones que yo he conocido (comenzando por la de

NU) o son utopicas o demasiado generales e impracticables.

Saludos!

 

May/04/1998/ELAN: Sostenido o Sostenible o Sustentable

Mon, 04 May 1998 19:45:40 +0000

Alan

Estimados y estimadas colegas de ELAN,

Me parecen muy constructivas las observaciones de Ron, Lucio, Federico y

Ana con respecto a las definiciones de los terminos en mencion.

Si me permiten un poco de humor serio, se podria decir que al usar estos

terminos, se trata de comunicar que:

- es deseable lograr la sostenibilidad del sustento (tanto

biofisico-ecologico como economico, social-cultural, y espiritual); y

que

- se reconoce ya que es obvia la insostenibilidad insustentabilidad del

desarrollo tradicional o convencional sostenido.

Ahora, en cuanto a que' termino se "debe" usar en espanhol, me parece

que cada pais o institucion ha tomado ya su decision, basada en su

propia traduccion del ingles "sustainable development", lineamiento

operacional que ha sido traspuesto y comprendido (por lo menos a nivel

teorico) y diseminado por casi todo el mundo.

Me parece que el tratar de estandarizar el termino en espanhol, si bien

es lo ideal, ya no es posible. Cambiar de terminos puede ser como

cambiar de modas: solo causa mas confusion, especialmente a nivel de la

implementacion de proyectos de sustentabilidad ecoamigable en los paises

de habla hispana. Si para estos es "sostenible" y para otros

"sustentable" y para aquellos es "sostenido" (y en lo personal este

ultimo no me parece correcto, pero en fin...), que asi sea, con tal de

que la implementacion del concepto abarque los sub-conceptos de

sustentabilidad ambiental sostenida, potenciacion (libertad), equidad

(justicia), cooperacion y seguridad, etc., que menciono Federico.

Lo que trato de expresar es: que la polemica sobre semantica no afecte

los trabajos innovadores de la gente en el campo, donde los debates de

salon tienen muy poco que ver con la necesidad de alimentarse y

albergarse, ganarse los centavos, educar a los hijos e hijas, y proteger

o rehabilitar el ecosistema que nos da sustento.

Por otro lado, y en relacion a lo que mencionaba Lucio, considero que la

"sustentabilidad mantenida (sostenida)" es la meta. Esto tiene

implicaciones a nivel de proceso.

Como ejemplo, la evaluacion de impacto ambiental o EIA, que incluye lo

biofisico y lo socioeconomico (para ponerlo en breve), se usa hoy en dia

como herramienta tecnica y del proceso regulador, para determinar si una

accion (proyecto, programa, politica) es aceptable o no desde el punto

de vista ambiental (y de planificacion y reglamentacion). Hace un par de

anhos un colega canadiense, Jim Norris, planteo que la EIA deberia de

ser sustituida por la evaluacion de sostenibilidad ambiental o ESA.

Decia que ya no se trata solo de evaluar impactos sino de cerciorarse

que la accion propuesta cumple o no con los lineamientos del desarrollo

sostenible.

Claro esta que a nivel del analisis especifico todavia se habra de

considerar los distintos impactos y las medidas de prevencion y

mitigacion, pero a nivel del objetivo del proceso, todo lo anterior va

dirigido hacia la decision sobre la sostenibilidad/sustentabilidad de la

propuesta que se esta evaluando.

Saludos,

Alan.

 

May/05/1998/ELAN: Re: Sostenido o Sostenible o Sustentable

Tue, 05 May 1998 10:45:00 +0000

Alan

Estimado Lucio:

Gracias por tus comentarios y aclaraciones.

La ES (evaluacion de sostenibilidad) se prodria aplicar a cualquier

nivel: pograma, politica o proyecto, no crees? segun la necesidad del

caso. Los operarios a nivel de planificacion nacional (politica) o

regional (programa) la aplicarian de forma un poco distinta de aquellos

que operan a nivel de proyecto.

Idealmente, las criterios de aceptabilidad de un proyecto determinado

serian dados en parte por los lineamientos de una pilitica o programa

basado en la comprension del concepto "sostenibilidad". Sin embargo, no

en todos casos existe ya el programa o la politica que establecen el

contexto en el que se desarrollaria el proyecto. Los criterios

generales que definen la sostenibilidad (o la concordancia con la

ideologia rigente de DS) serian similares; pero los criterios de

aceptabilidad a nivel de proyecto tendrian que ser mas especificos,

porque se trata ya de acciones o comportamientos fisicos sobre el

ambiente.

No cabe duda que el cambio de modalidad del desarrollo, del "sostenido"

al "sostenible", va a tomar tiempo, pero ya se esta dando (vease por

ejemplo, http://arenalproject.org/ ). Me parece que la elegancia y la

esperanza del "sostenible" (por lo menos en base a mis observaciones a

nivel de programa y proyecto en Centroamerica), es el aspecto de

independencia y/o autogestion que mencionas.

Saludos,

Alan

 

May/28/1998/ELAN: Thanks for interesting conversation

Thu, 28 May 1998 09:33:39 -0700 (PDT)

Mary

Thanks to all participants for the interesting and informative conversation

about slash-and-burn agriculture. It's the kind of thing that keeps

non-scientists like me 'listening in' to ELAN.

Mary

 

May/31/1998/ELAN: Sustainable slashing and burning

Sun, 31 May 1998 21:57:01 -0500

Ronald

Lucio asks:

> Dear Friends. The literature suggest that permanent agriculture

>can be made sustainable, and that a lot of efforts are being made in that

>direction. Can slush and burn agriculture be made sustainable too?. It

>seems like it used to be or appeared to be!. What are the pros and cons

>of permanet agriculture and slash and burn agriculture?. I think that the

>careful consideration of these issues may lead to some possible

>ways/options to address the problem at the local level, including

>priorities for funding/incentives.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

>

Greetings to all.

Focusing on the idea of "slash and burn agriculture" confuses the issue of

sustainable agriculture in the tropics. What is slash and burn agriculture?

The practice of clearing and burning a field to prepare it for planting?

Some soils require burning to be productive at all (and probably shouldn't

be planted to begin with). Burning is a land management tool. It can be

used in a variety of situations and is often misused out of ignorance (as

when cattlemen burn grass thinking they are "improving" their pasturelands)

or desperation (as when marginal or refugee farmers clear a patch of forest

somewhere to plant a food crop hoping they might still be around to harvest

it).

Is it "shifting cultivation"? This term also conjures up "shifty" peasants

destroying tropical forests. Yet shifting cultivation, as a system of

integrating agriculture into a managed ecological succession has proved

itself sustainable under certain circumstances. It is usually said that

such a system can only be sustainable under low demographic density due to

the long fallow cycles required. But actually, this is a myth. The

limiting factor is the degree of labor that can be dervoted to management

of the various stages of agroecological succession. Shifting cultivation

is capable of considerable intensification if the rotations are managed

properly. The cycle for recovery of high secondary forest can be as little

as 8 to 10 year under intensive management. Long term residents in

tropical rainforests know how to do this, but their systems are being

replaced almost everywhere by lamd use patterns involving permanent

conversion of forest to other land uses, such as grazing, plantation

monoculture or various forms of "industrial" agriculture. What we think of

most often as "slash and burn" agriculture is usually just a process of

planting a crop on forest ashes on the cleared land before implementing

one of those systems. Forest-fallow farming, in which land uses are cycled

from forest to crops, through forest gardens or diverse plantations and

back to enriched forest again, can certainly be an integral part of a

sustainable agroecosystem in tropical areas. Fire may or may not be a tool

used in these systems. Usually it is more desirable to utilize biomass in

other ways than burning it in such intensive systems.

The real question is when are we going to stop thinking of small farmers in

the tropics as "shifty slashers" and let them (if we can't help them) make

a decent life for themselves. They could significantly contribute to

regional food security and even to global agriculture it they were given

half a chance. They could also contribute greatly to conservation and

restoration of vast degraded rural areas. Indeed it would seem that the

future of natural resources in Latin America largely depend on the fate of

these, million of men, women and children who still live on the land, and

who, in many cases, possess wisdom about how to do that.

regards to all (It raining in Chiapas tonight, folks. Rejoice!)

Ronald

 

June/15/1998/ELAN: Re: Perverse Subsidies

Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:41:21 -0600 (MDT)

Wandemberg

On Mon, 15 Jun 1998, Toledo/Lucio Munoz wrote:

> Just a thought(before reading the book): if economic subsidies

> are perverse, what about social subsidies or environmental subsidies?.

I don't believe the authors claim that ALL economic subsidies are

perverse.

> Given the fact that subsidies(incentives) are usually needed

> to promote desired behaviour, the question is how to make all perverse

> subsidies non-perverse.

This is very simple (at least in theory), simply by eliminating them!

> The answer should point toward "sustainability", not toward sustainable

> development, but it seems not to be the case. Any

> comments?.

What is the difference? or should I say, what is your difference?

Cheers,

Wandemberg

 

July/01/1998/ELAN: On the Comments About Industrialization,

Environmental Impact, and Country Size.

Wed, 1 Jul 1998 06:41:22 -0400

JAMES

Lucio,

Thanks for the clarification. I've always wondered why Mexico, Brazil, and

Venezuela had been saved from any environmental problems associated with

industrialization!

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On June 30, 1998, 7:11pm, Toledo/Lucio Munoz Wrote:

Just a comment:

The apparent correlation between environmental problems

and industrialization may be affected by the size of the country and the

rate of industrialization. The smaller the country and resource base and

the higher the rate of industrialization, the more severe the

environmental problem should be expected to be. Apparently El Salvador

has had historically one of the highest rate of industrialization(eg. land

convertion with respect to its size) among Central American Countries and

it is a fact that it is the smallest.

Hence, the level of environmental degradation should not be a suprised

given that those models of industrialization were being promoted in the

past as the best way to go and environmental impacts were assumed

to be minimal.

On the other hand, it may be possible that the level of

environmental degradation was already critical before the land reform and

conflict that took place in el Salvador since the late 1970s. Hence the

model described below may be working, but not as desired or planned

because the enviromental impacts may be close the the maximum.

Greetings;

Lucio

Note:

Comments are welcome to exchange ideas.

On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, bunny wrote:

> ****************************************************

> 2. SAN FRANCISCO GOTERA, El Salvador

>

> Some economists argue that developing nations invariably experience

> severe environmental problems as they industrialize their economies.

> But many argue that the model doesn't work for this tiny Central

> American nation because its problems are already critical.

 

July/22/1998/ELAN: Re: "Subsidizing Unsustainable Development"

Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:09:47 -0700

Kathy

>ELAN:

>

>Is there any country in the world where corporations and their

>development schemes are not subsidized to some extent?

>

>John Newcomb

Good question. None that I know of.

One of the most important things that states do in capitalist countries,

and in their international aid programs, is to collect a portion of surplus

value from workers, farmers, etc. & channel it to support capital

accumulation. They do this through direct subsidies, tax breaks, and

social spending (transport, education, etc.)

In would-be socialist countries, subsidies and the role of the state in

distributing value have been taken for granted, the idea being that the

welfare of all is thus served--and sometimes it has been. Capitalist

states make the same claim, but it's mediated by the disingenuous notion

that the welfare of corporations = social welfare.

In the neo-liberal era, we a shift of subsidies away from social subsidies

and toward more direct and and indirect subsidies to the private sector

(infrastructure projects, even more regressive taxation, privatizations of

public enterprizes & resources, etc.) But it's done in the name of

"reducing the role of the inefficient state" -- as if private firms were by

definition more efficient-- and allowing "the market" to foster the

"optimal" distribtion of values and resources on the mythical "level

playing field".

This theory is one half of the rationale for the currently-popular attack

on "perverse subsidies" in the name of environmentalism. If states stop

giving away irrigation water, for eg., it will be used more efficiently,

the reasoning goes. But this ignores the fact that in many places, those

forced to give up farming as result of the higher costs of water are likely

to be smaller-scale farmers, who, in many cases, are practicing relatively

sustainable forms of agriculture compared to those who can afford the

market prices of water (in part because they're probably continuing to get

other forms of subsidy, and in part because of their economies of scale and

monopoly advantages). Reduction of subsidies for agrochemical inputs may

have good environmental effects, although not necessarily positve social

results, at least in the short term.

The other half of the rationale for reducing "perverse subsidies" is the

environmental economics argument that "realistic pricing" of natural

resources and the "internalization" of environmental "externalities"

(resource depletion and pollution) is the key to greening the world

economy. That's a good theory in the idealized world of economics, but it

ignores the power of corporate and elite interests in the real world.

The problem is, no firm wants to pay more than its competitors for the

resources it uses or the damage it causes. So either there must be strict,

enforced state mechanisms (aided by public monitoring) to force them to do

so. But this so-called "command and control" approach to regulation is

very much out of fashion.

Instead we get the call for "incentives"-- ways of massaging markets to

persuade private economic actors to adopt more efficient, less polluting,

more "sustainable" technologies and resource use choices.

I have yet to hear about an "incentive" that doesn't boil down to some form

of subsidy from states or multilaterial institutions (eg, below-market rate

loans) and/or consumers (eg, higher prices for "eco-friendly" timber

products").

A year ago, I quizzed a representative of the IFC (the World Bank's private

sector arm.) I asked him to explain the basis of IFC's "environmental"

projects, and he wasn't able to come up with any program that did not

involve some sort of subsidy. But I haven't made a systematic survey, so

I'd really like to hear of an "incentive" that isn't a subsidy.

It's important because the whole notion of market-managed environmentalism,

or greening + unrestricted growth, or what I call "green developmentalism,"

is based on the notion that pollution prevention and efficient, sustainable

resource use can be made profitable, so that neither strong state

regulation nor subsidies are necessary.

But markets are ALWAYS structured, regulated, and subsidied by states or

supra-state institutions. The issue is not "subsidies vs no subsdiies,"

but rather "subsidies for what and for whom."

KATHY MCAFEE

>>From: earthnet@terra.ecouncil.ac.cr

>>Date: 22 Jul 98 19:22:56

>>To: jnewcomb@uvic.ca

>>Subject: Now On-line: Subsidizing Unsustainable Development

>>X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: jnewcomb@uvic.ca

>>

>> NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/econ/sud

>>

>> Report prepared for the Earth Council's

>> Van Lennep Programme on Economics

>> and Sustainable Development

>>

>> ** SUBSIDIZING UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT **

>> Report Finds that Government Subsidies to Many Sectors are Damaging

>> the Environment and Undermining Sustainable Development

>>========================================================================

>>

>>Government subsidies are drastically undermining both the environment as

>>well as government deficit-fighting, according to a study conducted for

>>the Earth Council by the Dutch Institute for Research on Public

>>Expenditure.

>>

>>The study, now available in electronic format, was prepared for the 1997

>>Rio+5 Forum and found that subsidies from the public purse in just four

>>sectors - water, agriculture, energy and road transportation - are now

>>costing the world upwards of $700 billion, or as much as the arms race.

>>It concludes that many current subsidies no longer serve their original

>>purpose and actually harm long-term economic prospects. A central

>>finding is that far too many subsidies encourage development that is

>>unsustainable in both environmental and economic terms.

>>

>>Maurice Strong, Chairman of the Earth Council, writes in the Foreword

>>that this report "demonstrates dramatically how, in so many cases, the

>>subsidies provide disincentives to sustainable development while

>>denying to the poor the benefits which better deployment of these

>>resources could produce."

>>

>>Subsidizing Unsustainable Development also concludes that policymakers

>>and others are effectively "addicted" to these damaging subsidies and

>>face entrenched opposition to any change from strong, vested interests.

>>It calls for a coordinated international plan of eliminating many

>>subsidies and reforming those remaining. Specific examples of the high

>>price tag on subsidies include:

>>

>> - Agriculture: Only 20 percent of $335 billion in annual agriculture

>> transfers actually ends up as additional farm income; the bulk of

>> this huge taxpayer subsidy encourages unsustainable agricultural

>> production, including the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides.

>>

>> - Water: Subsidization of irrigation water worldwide, estimated at

>> anywhere from $50 billion to $100 billion, is a major cause of

>> widespread soil salinization, which is reducing food production in

>> regions already short of food.

>>

>> - Energy: The western industrialized world spends between $70

>> billion and $80 billion a year on energy subsidies; these subsidies

>> encourage excessive use of fossil fuels, the most ecologically

>> harmful energy source, and contribute directly to air pollution, acid

>> rain and global warming.

>>

>> - Road Transportation: Motorists who pay the actual costs of their

>> travel are the exception rather than the rule. In both

>> industrialized and developing countries, road transportation is

>> extensively subsidized (anywhere from $100 billion to $215 billion

>> a year), contributing to urban sprawl, air pollution, and traffic

>> congestion and deaths.

>>

>>In each of these four sectors, the report contains detailed assessments

>>of the economic, environmental and social impacts of the subsidies on a

>>global basis. The report concludes with specific recommendations for

>>overcoming the barriers to subsidy reform.

>>

>>The report was researched by André de Moor, an economist on the staff

>>of the Institute for Research in Public Expenditure, and written by

>>Peter Calamai, a veteran Canadian journalist experienced in covering

>>environmental issues.

 

August/27/1998/ELAN: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:14:18 -0700

Newcomb

Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2pm (EST), Wednesday, August 26, 1998

Hopkins Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages

today. By 2025 the number will explode fivefold to 2.8 billion

people--35% of the world's projected total of 8 billion

people--according to a new report from The Johns Hopkins University

School of Public Health.

"To avoid catastrophe...it is important to act now" to reduce demand for

water by slowing population growth, according to the Population Reports

issue, Solutions for a Water-Short World, published by the Johns Hopkins

Population Information Program. At the same time, warns the Hopkins

report, countries must conserve water, pollute less, and manage supply

and demand better.

TO SEE AN ADVANCE OF THE FULL REPORT GO TO:

http://www.jhuccp.org/popreport/m14edsum.stm

By 2025, according to the report, one in every three people will live in

countries short of water. Today, thirty-one countries are facing water

stress or water scarcity. By 2025 population pressure will push another

17 countries, including India, onto the list. China, with a projected

2025 population of 1.5 billion, will not be far behind. A country faces

water stress when annual water supplies drop below 1,700 cubic meters

per person. Water-scarce countries have annual water supplies of less

than 1,000 cubic meters per person.

Much of the world is caught trying to meet a growing demand for

freshwater with finite and increasingly polluted water supplies,

according to Population Reports. But the situation is worst in

developing countries, where some 95% of the 80 million people added to

the globe each year are born, and where the competition between

industrial, urban, and agricultural use for water is mounting.

"Freshwater is the liquid that lubricates development," says Don

Hinrichsen, lead author of the report and a Consultant with the United

Nations Population Fund. "In many developing countries lack of water

could cap future improvements in the quality of life. Populations are

growing rapidly in many of these countries, and at the same time per

capita use must increase--to grow enough food, for better personal

health and hygiene, and to supply growing cities and industries.

"Meanwhile, there is no more freshwater on earth than there was 2,000

years ago, when population was 3% of its current size, " says

Hinrichsen.

Even in the United States, where there is plenty of water on a national

basis, in some areas "people are depleting groundwater reserves at a 25%

greater rate than nature can replenish," adds Hinrichsen.

Regional conflicts over water are brewing and could turn violent as

shortages grow, warns the Hopkins report. In Africa, Central Asia, the

Near East, and South America, some countries are already bickering over

access to rivers and inland seas. Even within a country competition for

use can be fierce. The water in China's Yellow river, for example, is

under so much demand that the river has dried up before reaching the

ocean. In 1996, when there was enough water, the government ordered

farmers not to use it; a state-run oil field further downstream needed

the water to operate.

 

Overuse and Pollution

In 1996, people used an estimated 54% of all accessible freshwater. The

next 30 years of population growth will raise the number to 70%--and by

much more if per capita water use continues to rise at its current pace,

write Hinrichsen and co-authors Bryant Robey and Ushma D. Upadhyay. As

people use more water, less is left for vital ecosystems on which humans

and other species depend. Globally, over 20% of all freshwater fish

species are endangered or vulnerable, or recently have become extinct.

In Egypt diverting water from the Nile has virtually wiped out some 30

of 47 commercial species of fish. Africa's Lake Chad has shrunk from

25,000 square kilometers to just 2,000 over the past 30 years through

overuse and drought. In Europe the Rhine River is so polluted that 8 of

its 44 fish species have disappeared and another 25 are rare or

endangered. In Colombia, South America, annual fish production in the

Magdalena River has plunged from 72,000 metric tons to 23,000 metric

tons

in 15 years; a similar drop occurred in Southeast Asia's Mekong River.

The US state of California has lost over 90% of its wetlands, resulting

in two-thirds of the state's native fish becoming extinct or in decline.

Even in the face of impending shortages, water pollution continues to

spoil this essential resource. Agriculture is the biggest polluter,

even more than industries and municipalities, according to Hopkins

researchers. "In virtually every country where agricultural fertilizers

and pesticides are used, they have contaminated groundwater aquifers and

surface waters," they write. Europe and North America confront enormous

pollution problems. Over 90% of Europe's rivers have high nitrate

concentrations, mostly from agrochemicals. In developing countries, on

average, 90% to 95% of all domestic sewage and 75% of all industrial

waste are discharged into surface waters without any treatment. All of

India's 14 major rivers are badly polluted and over three-quarters of

China's 50,000 kilometers of major rivers are unable to support fish.

Polluted water causes major public health problems worldwide, killing

millions of people each year and preventing millions more from leading

healthy lives. About 2.3 billion people in the world suffer from

diseases that are linked to water, such as dysentery, cholera, typhoid,

and schistosomiasis.

The authors call for a "Blue Revolution" to conserve and manage

freshwater supplies but concede that "it may already be too late for

some water-short countries with rapid population growth to avoid a

crisis." They argue that a blue revolution will require politically

difficult coordinated responses to the problem at the local, national,

and international levels. They conclude development agencies need to

focus more on assuring the supply and management of freshwater resources

and on providing sanitation as part of development and public health

programs.

Don Hinrichsen is a Consultant with the United Nations Population Fund

and author of the recently-published book, Coastal Waters of the

World: Trends, Threats, and Strategies, published by Island Press.

Bryant Robey is Population Reports Editor; Ushma D. Upadhyay is a

research analyst with the Population Information Program. Population

Reports is an international review journal of important issues in

population, family planning, and related health matters. It is

published four times a year in four languages by the Population

Information Program at the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication

Programs for more than 170,000 family planning and other health

professionals worldwide, with support from the US Agency for

International Development (USAID). USAID administers the US foreign

assistance program, providing economic and humanitarian assistance in

more than 80 countries worldwide.

 

August/28/1998/ELAN: Re: Water Crisis Looms as

World Population Grows

Fri, 28 Aug 1998 12:18:25 -0700

Newcomb

Lucio and ELAN:

Looking at the Johns Hopkins website, I see that while the research

may include many factors, the report is by the Population Information

Program of Johns Hopkins. That may suggest a reason for the emphasis

they give to considering First population among various factors. They

say:" In the long run, slowing population growth will slow the increase in

demand for water and help buy more time to develop better water

conservation and management strategies"

[http://www.jhuccp.org/popreport/m14/m14chap6.stm#top]

If supply-side management means that you try to provide more water per

capita Through building "engineered" responses, I guess their ultimate

"demand side management" means that you not only reduce the demand for

water by a population, but that you also

reduce the size of the population who depend on the water source.

John

Population/Water Report website: http://www.jhuccp.org/popreport/m14edsum.stm

At 10:07 AM 8/28/98 -0700, you wrote:

>

> Just a comment: This report indicates that there are many factors

>affecting water quality and supply: people(human waste),industries

>(industrial waste), and agriculture(quimicals used plus

>waste)... The report also seems to indicate that people impacts

>are not the primary source of water pollution, so why the conclusion that

>population is the main problem and it must be reduced. Any other

>explanation?.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

>

>On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, John Newcomb wrote:

>

>> Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

>>

>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2pm (EST), Wednesday, August 26, 1998

>>

>> Hopkins Report: Water Crisis Looms as World Population Grows

>>

>> Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages

>> today. By 2025 the number will explode fivefold to 2.8 billion

>> people--35% of the world's projected total of 8 billion

>> people--according to a new report from The Johns Hopkins University

>> School of Public Health.

>>

>> "To avoid catastrophe...it is important to act now" to reduce demand for

>> water by slowing population growth, according to the Population Reports

>> issue, Solutions for a Water-Short World, published by the Johns Hopkins

>> Population Information Program. At the same time, warns the Hopkins

>> report, countries must conserve water, pollute less, and manage supply

>> and demand better.

 

 

November/05/1998/ELAN: Rapid Environment Decline of Central America

Thu, 05 Nov 1998 20:53:46 -0800

John Newcomb (jnewcomb@uvic.ca)

Central America: Quality of Environmental Shows Rapid Decline

WASHINGTON, (Nov. 3) IPS - At the same time that Central America had

developed ecological reserves, the environmental quality of the

biologically-diverse region was in rapid decline, according to "State of

Environment," a joint report by non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

the United Nations, and international financial institutions.

A grim reminder of the impact of environmental ills in Central America

came this past week when the remnants of Hurricane Mitch ravaged the

region and caused an estimated 7,000 deaths.

Flash floods and mudslides caused most casualties -- the result of

deforestation and soil erosion which is on the rise throughout Central

America, according to the State of Environment and Natural Resources in

Central America 1998, released yesterday.

"Forests are disappearing at a rate of 388,000 hectares per year... and

soil loss is the norm due to lack of land planning, mining and the

construction of hydroelectric dams," the report said. It was produced by

the Central American Commission on Environment and Development, the

Organization of American States (OAS), the World Resources Institute, the

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Bank, the World

Conservation Union and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

For the most part, the environmental situation was deteriorating because

existing international laws, or regulations in Central American nations,

were not enforced or were ineffective, the report said.

"Current legislation is deficient, incongruent and duplicated... the

majority of laws are not regulated and have gaps," it declared. "In spite

of having approved general environmental legislation in practically all

nations in the 1990s, regulations are fragmented and relate to individual

natural resources rather than having a more holistic focus."

The interplay of poverty and unequal distribution of land is another

main cause of environmental problems in the region. "In the rural sector,

the concentration of land is greater than that shown in statistics, as

frequently the best land is occupied by those who have the means and the

technology at their exploitation, consigning the needy to poor quality

land found mainly on slopes," the report said.

This pressure on fragile land causes "deforestation and the high levels

of erosion and soil loss which are affecting the region." Central America

possessed seven percent of the world's biodiversity and is one of the

richest regions in terms of variety of plant and animal species. Many

species, including many frogs and the harpy eagle, are found only in this

region.

In recent years, as loss of habitat from deforestation became apparent,

governments mapped out protected reserves where these species could take

refuge. But despite these efforts, 44 hectares of Central American forest

-- including protected land -- continued to disappear every hour, the

report said.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that, between

1990 and 1995, the region lost around 2,284,000 hectares of forest.

Species are rapidly becoming extinct as wildlife became isolated and

fragmented in small reserves. Such populations were especially vulnerable

to disease or natural disasters, like floods or fires, the report said.

Besides increasing the enforcement of already existing protected areas,

the report urged the formation of a "meso-American corridor" which would

connect reserves from Panama to Guatemala. This connection would prevent

plants and wildlife from being trapped in small reserves and allow them

to reproduce and evolve -- as they have for thousands of years throughout

Central America.

"Creation of the much needed corridor will be a very challenging task,"

said Jim Nations, vice president of Mexico and Central American programs

at the Washington-based Conservation International. "Countries are not

only going to have to better enforce their environmental laws but they

will have to cooperate together for this project to succeed."

Acknowledging that the general poverty of Central America caused people

to cut down forests for fire wood or to produce small plots of farm land,

the report urged governments to increase employment and educational

opportunities for their countries poor.

Another major environmental problem was pollution caused by motor

vehicles, industry and energy generation through the burning of oil and

gas, says the report.

While the Central American region does not emit nearly as much carbon

dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" -- blamed for the increase in the

average global temperature -- as industrialized countries, air pollution

remained a major problem for many urban areas in the region, the report

said.

Central America had not employed the type of "clean technologies" used

in Europe and North America that reduced sulphur dioxide and emissions of

nitrogen oxide -- the chemicals responsible for causing acid rain. Lead

from gasoline and industry also polluted the urban landscape, the report

said.

"State of Environment" also described how water scarcity, and poor water

quality, would be one of the more urgent environmental problems of the

region next century.

"I know that right now, because of the floods, everyone is worried about

having too much water in Central America... but the great environmental

crisis still to come will be a lack of water," said Kirk Rodgers, former

director of the Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment at the

Organization of American States.

The report said that such scarcity often was "the result of watershed

degradation, higher demands on the resource and population increases --

mainly in urban areas and Central America's Pacific region where less

water is available than on the Atlantic side."

Water quality was another problem. Lack of access to clean drinkable

water remained a major cause of disease in the region, said the report.

Between 60 and 80 percent of all diseases in the region could be

attributed to poor water quality as more than 95 percent of municipal

sewage waste and industrial waste flowed untreated into river systems.

"Underground waters which supply a large number of the region's

municipalities are being increasingly polluted as a result of the

inappropriate disposal of municipal and industrial wastes," said the

report. "It is common for excreta to be dumped untreated into river

systems or the sea."

Pesticide and fertilizer run-off from agricultural areas -- especially

off of heavily farmed fields of monoculture crops -- also contributed to

water contamination.

"Clearly an overall water management plan for the region is needed,"

Rodgers declared. "But it's going to be quite a process -- none of the

Central American countries have even their own water

management plans."

 

November/19/1998/ELAN: Re: Deforestation and Devastation

Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:02:41 -0700

Ecoturismo Internacional de Nicaragua S.A.

Lucio,

I couldn't agree more - a pro-active, vigorous, and intelligent

reforestation process must be undertaken to rebuild the tropical forests in

Central and South America. This needs to go hand-in-hand with active

conservation efforts, including development of alternatives to traditional

exploitation patterns.

I also personally believe there is a direct correlation between the level

of deforestation and the level of damage. However, it hasn't been studied

here yet. That's one of the questions we plan on trying to answer. In

addition, there have been some anecdotal and second-hand reports that

appear anomolous. My team has a kind of unique opportunity - we have great

baseline data on several sites in the disaster zones. We can at least begin

to look at changes and comparing the level of damage in forested areas and

deforested. Our plan is to conduct baseline environmental impact

assessments on several sites (forested, deforested, and frontier) then

compare it with previous data from the same sites. I think we're going to

see a positive correlation, but that's only my hypothesis.

My objective in commenting on the ACERCA article was cautionary: let's

remember the scientific method and avoid making unsupported statements.

Especially if the purpose is for pointless political gamesmanship.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Atentamente,

Fletcher

 

November/22/1998/ELAN: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

Tue, 24 Nov 1998 13:10:10 -0500 (EST)

Dewalt

The following was published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Forum section

on Sunday, November 22, 1998.

HURRICANE MITCH: HUMAN CAUSES OF A NATURAL CATASTROPHE

By now, all of us have seen the photographs and read the accounts of the

terrible devastation caused in Honduras and Nicaragua by Hurricane Mitch.

Amid the outpouring of grief and offers of aid to the people of Central

America what has been lost is an appreciation of how much human use and

abuse of the environment in the region exacerbated the natural disaster

and greatly magnified its scale of death and destruction.

Unless reconstruction efforts in the region address these longer-term

problems, we will have failed to grasp what may be the most important

lesson for humanity of this tragic storm.

The destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch was not due to the Category

Five high Winds the storm had during part of its life over the Caribbean

Sea. Instead, the damage came because the storm first lingered off the

north coast and then meandered over Honduras for a total of six days.

The storm continued picking up moisture from the sea and unleashing

catastrophic rains. on the isthmus over Honduras and Nicaragua. By the

time the storm moved inland over Honduras, it had winds of only about

60 mph but continued to Dump massive quantities of rain on the land

below. In some locations, two feet of rain fell in a single day.

The devastation is only partially captured by the official estimates. In

Honduras alone, as of Nov. 12, the government was estimating more than

6,500 people confirmed dead, more than 6,500 missing, and almost 2

million people homeless (40 percent of the population).

In Nicaragua too, whole communities were wiped out most notably when

the crater of the La Casita Volcano filled with water and burst,

obliterating the village of Posoltega below.

Damages have been estimated at nearly $4 billion in Honduras, and

approximately $1.5 billion in Nicaragua.

What has escaped notice in much of the international press is that the

most catastrophic destruction did not occur along the north coast where

the rains pummeled the region for the longest period of time. . To be

sure, the banana plantations along the coast were destroyed, many bridges

were damaged or destroyed, and a substantial number of people were killed

or displaced by the floods. Many of the most horrific images, however,

came from the central and the southern parts of Honduras and Nicaragua -

far from the path taken by Hurricane Mitch. In particular, the destruction

of Honduras' capital, Tegucigalpa, and the damage in southern Honduras,

southwestern Nicaragua, and eastern El Salvador occurred in areas that

received much less rainfall than along the Caribbean coast.

The destruction was so severe in these regions because, in many ways, this

was a human-made disaster. Like so many other Latin American cities,

Tegucigalpa is ringed by squatter settlements constructed by poor people

who have few economic alternatives. These people have built their precarious

houses on the hillsides destroying the vegetation for a Building site,

construction materials and fuel to cook their meals. In many other parts of

the densely populated central and southern parts of the country, deforestation

has occurred as poor people try to scratch out a living growing basic grains

on hillside lands.

Deforestation is often blamed on the poor who are its most direct agents.

Their poverty,however, coexists alongside wealth created by melon-growers

producing for the export market, shrimp producers who now cultivate this

commodity in ponds along the coast, and especially cattle producers who

have appropriated much of the best land for their ranches.

The Pacific Coast of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua has long been

characterized by vast differences between the wealthy few who have

appropriated the best, flat lands, often for commodities like cattle

that require little labor to produce. The Honduran Central

Bank estimated in 1988 that 48 percent of the valley lands in the country

were sown in pasture for cattle. The poor majority is left with the

alternatives of deforesting the steep slopes for a patch of land to

cultivate, migrating to the cities or invading the protected

areas of Honduras' rainforest.

My research and that of many other social scientists who have worked in

Central America has documented the socioeconomic causes of the destruction

of the dry tropical forests. Still vivid in my mind was an interview I did

with a poor farmer in 1981 when I asked him if he was not aware of the

dangers of cutting the forest to sow his patch of maize and beans. He said:

"Of course I know that I am destroying the land, but I and my

family have to eat today. What choice do we have?"

The results of so much deforestation were quite evident when heavy rains

hit the region in 1982. In imagining what the destruction must look like

today, I remember my photographs from that El Nino year - landslides from

seemingly every hill, the Panamerican Highway washed out in several

locations, and houses buried in the silt carried by the flooding. What

occurred in Central America this time was a much heavier concentration of

rain, falling on hillsides that have continued to be denuded of forest and

other vegetation. Large portions of Tegucigalpa were destroyed. Rapid runoff

of water filled the tributaries of the Choluteca River. The rain caused

landslides from the denuded hillsides and the mud and rocks blocked the river,

creating a huge lake that inundated large areas of the city. Some barrios

simply slid into the swollen creeks and river. As the flooding Choluteca

RRivermade its way to the Pacific Coast, it carried more destruction in its

path. Riverside communities disappeared, landslides contributed tons more

silt to the swirling mass, melon farms and the ponds of shrimp farmers

were destroyed, and bridges, telephone and power lines, and highways were

destroyed. Several large warehouses with dangerous pesticides were demolished, contaminating the water supplies of the region and perhaps ofthe Gulf of

Fonseca.

It is telling that a large portion of this disaster occurred far from

the path of the storm. The Honduran government has estimated that 108

bridges were destroyed or damaged. More than half of the bridges

destroyed and 43 percent of those damaged were in the two southern

provinces of Choluteca and Valle. The death toll from this storm will

never be known because many so many people were buried in the mudslides

or washed away. It is likely, however, that a surprising number of its

victims were from areas along the Pacific Coast that were much less

directly affected by rains from the storm. Areas of northwestern

Nicaragua and northeastern Honduras, where large areas of forest still

remain, were much less affected despite receiving much larger quantities

of rainfall.

The economies of Honduras and of Nicaragua have been shattered by the

effects of Hurricane Mitch. William Handel, vice president of Honduras,

says that it may take 30-40 years for them to recover. The banana

plantations have already laid off their workers and there is a possibility

that companies will not reinvest because they can produce bananas in

other countries. The shrimp farms that produced Honduras' third largest export

earner have been largely destroyed. Coffee farms have been severely hit, and

basic grain harvests were affected. Many industries have also been damaged.

The resulting unemployment will put an extraordinary strain on these poor

countries.

Humanitarian aid is pouring into the region, and some of the massive foreign

debt of these two countries is being forgiven or rescheduled. These measures

are necessary and extremely important in the short term. Humanitarian aid to

provide drinking water, food, and construct shelter for the homeless is

particularly critical because of the threat that the

spread of dengue, malaria, cholera, and diarrheal diseases poses.

It would be a tragedy, however, if the reconstruction efforts did not also

address the human-made dimensions of this natural disaster. Estimates are

that Nicaragua has lost nearly 60 percent of its forest cover in the past

50 years. In Honduras, the losses have been as significant, and few forest

patches exist in El Salvador. The past half-century and

more of environmental destruction in Central America contributed to this

disaster.

Juan Blas Zapata, a Honduran who is the Executive Secretary of the Central

American Forest Council, is one of the few who have spoken out about this

aspect of the devastation caused by Mitch. Last week he told the press that

because of the "immense deforestation," the soils could not absorb the great

quantities of water and this resulted in the large numbers of landslides.

Ironically, the results of the storm may actually increase the environmental

degradation of the remaining forest areas. The poor whose homes and small

plots of land were destroyed by this storm are likely to move into the

remaining areas of forest in the Mosquitia region of the country. This

movement of population from the densely populated regions of

Honduras and Nicaragua had already been occurring but pressures to do so will

undoubtedly increase.

With fewer economic alternatives in the cities and in their areas of

origin, the poor will move to environmentally fragile areas; those who

can may move further and seek better alternatives in the United States

or other wealthy countries.

What can be done? Once the initial needs for humanitarian assistance

have been satisfied and the disaster has faded from the world's

consciousness, foreign aid for economic reconstruction will be required

for these poor countries. Major long-term commitments from the United

States and other developed countries will be needed. This foreign aid

must have environmental sustainability as its major method and goal.

Policy changes are necessary in Nicaragua and in Honduras to provide

incentives for wealthy landowners to plant labor-intensive crops on

the most productive lands and to dissuade farmers from cultivating

marginal lands. The reconstruction of shrimp farms along the Pacific

should be regulated to protect important nature reserves and rich

mangrove environments.

Massive reforestation of denuded hillsides must be done, but this will

require means to ensure resource-poor landowners that they will be

rewarded for caring for these trees.

Governments must also invest heavily in nutrition, health and education

programs to improve the human capital in the region. This will be

necessary before significant private foreign investments will be made

in these countries. Ultimately, of course, the creation of decent jobs

or the region's poor will be the only ultimate answer to arresting

environmental destruction. If Hurricane Mitch serves as a

wake-up call to the political and economic elites of Central American

countries and to the world community, some good may ultimately come of

this horrendous destruction.

If the world's attention is too quickly displaced to other problems,

then this disaster is likely to be followed by others that are equally

as devastating.

 

November/25/1998/ELAN: Re: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

Wed, 25 Nov 1998 12:59:39 -0800

Tanimoto

Lucio,

I think you are all correct in the colonial/post-colonial era. But C.A. has

undergone at least two major deforestation epochs- the first was implemented

by, and believed to have caused the downfall of, the Mayan civilization. By

the time of Spanish settlement, the land had largely recovered.

Your excellent question about what can be done to bring the poor down the

hills is highly appropriate, and, in my belief requires multiple spearheads

involving:

1. economics

2. education

3. population

4. political empowerment

and potentially,

5. tourism

6. research

However, adding up derivatives of this list will lead to the following:

CREATE CONDITIONS WHERIN THOSE HIGH ELEVATION AREAS ARE WORTH MORE AS

FORESTS THAN FIELDS.

With best regards,

Tanimoto

-----Original Message-----

From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 12:16 PM

Subject: Re: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

>

> Just a comment: By the time of the Central American independence

>from Spain(1821), deforestation was not a problem in Central America,

>neither in El Salvador. Then, a model of agro-export led development was

>made priority, which has been constantly shifting as a result of the very

>volatil nature of the global demand for those agricultural products.

> Every shift in this agro-export model was apparently accompained

>by more new areas being deforested. In some cases, the over all export

>model had to be changed and in others, it was put through a process of

>"diversification". The expropriation of communal lands around cities(or

>easy accesible) or restrictions imposed on traditional users of those

>lands on future use exacerbated more the problem and forced them to move

>to the remaining forest area, but usually not to steep hill sides since

>flat land was still accesible.

> As this model continue its constanly shifting process, they took

>over the new deforested areas created by the poor and the landless that

>were appropriate to it(it was more cost efficient than opening new areas

>from the ground up), and started pushing the poor and the landless more

>and more into steeper areas every time. Right now we are reaching the

>top pushing effect of this model of development and the landless and poor

>have no more ground to climb.

> Hence, the increasing trend in deforested areas in Central America

>started a long time ago when the poor and the landless had plenty of land

>accessible to them to practice "sustainable shifting agriculture". All

>national and international statistics about the amount of deforested areas

>are public and therefore well known as well as the risk of not doing

>something about it. However, no much was done then, and has been

>done up to the day Mitch hit. Mitch is a clear example that the

>assumption of the neo-economic model that social and environmental impacts

>are minimal is false.

> The focus in the region since the 1970s has been on

>protecting/regulating the remaining forest areas, aparently because it is

>more cost-effecient than reforesting 50 % to 60% of Central America.

> From the above, it can be concluded that the model of

>agro-export development has been the driving force pushing rich(to the

>best open lands) that fit the model at each time, and the poor and

>landless to the everytime to higer ground and steeper hills.

> The question is what can be done to bring the poor and the

>landless down the hills?. They can not go to the protected areas by

>law(at least in paper), they can not go to the remaining forest areas

>because that means new deforestation(at least it is a difficult option for

>government officials to choose). And they can not just move to the

>private best open lands due to the respect for private property. Hence,

>if reforestation is now made a priority, where can the landless and the

>poor(the majority of the population) go to carve their daily living?.

> Yes, at the pick of the development model the poor and the

>landless have a clear role in deforestation, but that was not the case at

>indepencence time.

> Comments are welcome.

>

>...........

>

>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Billie R Dewalt wrote:

>

>> HURRICANE MITCH: HUMAN CAUSES OF A NATURAL CATASTROPHE

 

November/26/1998/ELAN: Re: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

Thu, 26 Nov 1998 07:40:55 -0800

Pastore )

"Philip D. Tanimoto" wrote:

> Lucio,

>

> I think you are all correct in the colonial/post-

colonial era. But C.A. has

> undergone at least two major deforestation epochs- the

first was implemented

> by, and believed to have caused the downfall of, the

Mayan civilization. By

> the time of Spanish settlement, the land had largely

recovered.

This notion was refuted by me successfully during a

discussion some two years back on the Pre-Columbian

History Maillist for Meso-America, Aztlan.

Very basically I said that the European perception for

urbanization may not apply to ancient Meso-America: that

all city-sites within a given epoch were designed to be

populated simultaneously, and the assumption by the

arriving Spaniards that some of the cities were

'abandoned' was incorrect.

The idea that the limestone shelf that is the Yucatan

peninsula, for example, was deforested for 'intense'

cultivation rather than slash and burn was borne for the

need to explain how so many city-sites presumed to be

simultaneously populated could support the entirety of

more or less correct population estimates for each city-

site -while there is no indication that the absolute

sieve that is the limestone shelf ever supported a clay

cover which in turn could support a viable topsoil, much

less water for the 'intense' cultivation of a deforested

plain.

The alternative perception for urbanization I offered was

based on a systematic migration within each of the

Yucatan's ancient architectual zones. I proposed instead

that each architectual zone's band rotated their fields

for slash and burn agriculture on a very grand scale by

systematically migrating from one of their city-sites, to

allow it and its adjacent terrain to lie follow, to

another of their city-sites, for its restoration and use

of rejunventated adjacent terrain whenever nature (such

as hurricanes), the spirit, or even the calendar

dictated. When the Itzaes first arrived to Chichen-Itza,

they too thought the city-site 'abandoned'.

The theory expains alot more than merely allowing for a

total population of the Yucatan which did not need an

impossible explanation of 'intense' agriculture, and such

indigenous histories as the 'Xul Papers' seem to support

it.

If you should care to seek further into this two month

discussion, it was archived at Aztlan under the headings

"Maya Collapse" and "Maya Collapse (?)" about two

Christmas seasons ago.

Cheers,

Pastore

 

November/28/1998/ELAN: Re: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

Sat, 28 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0800

Tanimoto

Lucio,

Agree completely,

-- Which is why I believe (with the unintened by inevitable consequence of

raising the ire of some of the participants in the ELAN forum) that

population pressure, at some time, must be addressed.

Philip Tanimoto

-----Original Message-----

From: Toledo/Lucio Munoz <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: Philip D. Tanimoto <tanimoto@turbonet.com>

Cc: elan@csf.colorado.edu <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 2:43 PM

Subject: Re: Op-Ed on Hurricane Mitch

>

> Given the limitations I mentioned in my previous message and

>assuming they are binding, there seems to be two remaining options to

>bringing the poor people and landless people down the hills: a) if the

>reforestation process of critical areas is done with the permanent goal of

>not allowing them to comeback or stay, then they have to be relocated to

>less critical deforested areas or to cities(internal migration) or to other

>countries(legal/ilegal external migration). Hence while the critical

>areas recover, the pressure goes to else where, but the source is still

>there, and now in a mixed form. Usually mixed forms are more explosive;

>and b) if reforestation is done in a way that sustainably atached the poor

>and the landless to those trees, or to sustainably re-incorporate them

>later perhaps minimizing their environmental demage post reforestation,

>then perhaps the forces can be dissipated in situ.

> However, each choice has the potencial to backfire, and sent this

>poor people and landless pressure faster back to the ramining forest, or

>protected areas or private property if not well planned. This is because

>if the reforestation program leads to just to another contraint to access

>to land(already constraint almost to the maximum), then the landless and

>the poor have nothing to lose anyway(under this conditions life is usually

>worthless).

> Comments welcome;

> Lucio

>

>On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Philip D. Tanimoto wrote:

>

>> Your excellent question about what can be done to bring the poor down the

>> hills is highly appropriate, and, in my belief requires multiple

spearheads

>> involving:

 

December/04/1998/ELAN: Re: Proposed study/possible contradictions

Fri, 04 Dec 1998 06:30:43 -0700

Ecoturismo Internacional de Nicaragua S.A.

Lucio,

Thank you again for your comments. I have forwarded your concerns to the

principal investigator and his staff. I'm sure they will find them useful.

Warmest regards,

Fletcher