STATE OF THE WORLD - United Diversitylibrary.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/... · 2009-10-16 · stunning new cover. As the ﬁnal step, the page proofs were sent to

20o3STATE OF THE WORLD

THE WORLDWATCH INSTITUTES p e c i a l 2 0 t h A n n i ve r s a r y E d i t i o n

Chris Bright Christopher Flavin Gary Gardner Mia MacDonald Anne Platt McGinn Danielle Nierenberg Payal Sampat Janet Sawin

Molly O’Meara Sheehan Linda Starke Howard Youth

Chris Bright Christopher Flavin Gary Gardner Mia MacDonald Anne Platt McGinn Danielle Nierenberg Payal Sampat Janet Sawin

Molly O’Meara Sheehan Linda Starke Howard Youth


Other Norton/Worldwatch Books

State of the World 1984 through 2002(an annual report on progress toward a sustainable society)

Vital Signs 1992 through 2002(an annual report on the trends that are shaping our future)

Saving the PlanetLester R. BrownChristopher FlavinSandra Postel

How Much Is Enough?Alan Thein Durning

Last OasisSandra Postel

Full HouseLester R. BrownHal Kane

Power SurgeChristopher FlavinNicholas Lenssen

Who Will Feed China?Lester R. Brown

Tough ChoicesLester R. Brown

Fighting for SurvivalMichael Renner

The Natural Wealth of NationsDavid Malin Roodman

Life Out of BoundsChris Bright

Beyond MalthusLester R. BrownGary GardnerBrian Halweil

Pillar of SandSandra Postel

Vanishing BordersHilary French

Gary Gardner, Project DirectorChris Bright

Christopher FlavinMia MacDonald

Anne Platt McGinnDanielle Nierenberg

Payal SampatJanet Sawin

Molly O’Meara SheehanHoward Youth

Linda Starke, Editor

W . W . N O R T O N & C O M P A N YN E W Y O R K L O N D O N

A Worldwatch Institute Report on Progress Toward a Sustainable Society

STATE OF THE WORLD20o3

Copyright © 2003 by Worldwatch InstituteAll rights reserved.Printed in the United States of America.

The STATE OF THE WORLD and WORLDWATCH INSTITUTE trademarks are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff; or of its funders.

The text of this book is composed in Galliard, with the display set in Franklin Gothic and Gill Sans. Book designby Elizabeth Doherty; cover design by Lyle Rosbotham; composition by Worldwatch Institute; manufacturing by Phoenix Color Corporation.

First Edition

ISBN 0-393-05173-0ISBN 0-393-32386-2 (pbk)

W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10110www.wwnorton.com

W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., Castle House, 75/76 Wells Street, London W1T 3QT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

This book is printed on recycled paper.

Worldwatch Institute Board of Directors

Øystein DahleChairmanNORWAY

Larry MinearSecretaryUNITED STATES

Thomas CrainTreasurerUNITED STATES

Adam AlbrightUNITED STATES

Lester R. BrownUNITED STATES

Cathy CrainUNITED STATES

James DehlsenUNITED STATES

CHRISTOPHER FLAVIN

UNITED STATES

Lynne GallagherUNITED STATES

John McBrideUNITED STATES

Izaak van MelleTHE NETHERLANDS

Wren WirthUNITED STATES

James Lee WittUNITED STATES

Emeritus:Orville L. FreemanUNITED STATES

Abderrahman KheneALGERIA

Worldwatch Institute Staff

Erik AssadourianStaff Researcher

Ed AyresEditorial DirectorEditor, World Watch

Richard C. BellSenior Policy Advisor

Chris BrightSenior Researcher

Lori A. BrownResearch Librarian

Suzanne CliftExecutive Assistant to the President

Cyndi CramerDevelopment Associate

Barbara FallinDirector of Finance andAdministration

Susan FinkelpearlMedia Coordinator

Christopher FlavinPresident

Hilary FrenchDirector, Global Governance Project

Gary GardnerDirector of Research

Joseph GravelyMail & Publications Fulfillment

Adrianne GreenleesVice President forDevelopment

Brian HalweilResearch Associate

Sharon LapierReceptionist/InformationAssistant

Lisa MastnyResearch Associate

Anne Platt McGinnSenior Researcher

Leanne MitchellDirector of Communications

Danielle NierenbergStaff Researcher

Elizabeth A. NolanVice President for BusinessDevelopment

Kevin ParkerDirector of Foundation Relations

Tom PrughSenior Editor

Mary RedfernDevelopment Associate

Michael RennerSenior Researcher

Lyle RosbothamArt Director

Curtis RunyanAssociate Editor

Payal SampatResearch Associate

Radhika SarinStaff Researcher

Janet SawinResearch Associate

Patrick SettleIT Systems Administrator

Molly O’Meara SheehanSenior Researcher

vii

This twentieth edition of State of the Worldis the product of the shared vision and effortof the entire Worldwatch staff, as well as theInstitute’s friends and supporters. Authors,editors, marketers, administrative and com-munications support, researchers, librarians,and funders all deserve a round of applausefor their various contributions.

To begin with, many chapter authors wereassisted by a willing and able group of col-leagues. The 2002 research interns—Eliza-beth Bast, Cheng Chang, Megan Crimmins,Arunima Dhar, Vanessa Larson, Uta Saoshiro,and Dave Taylor—brought new ideas andenthusiasm to the book. While Dave wasdiligently retrieving data on mining for Chap-ter 6, Elizabeth was busy collecting data andinformation for Chapter 7. Arunima chan-neled her energies into ferreting out obscurestatistics and verifying sources for Chapter 3.Staff researcher Radhika Sarin contributeddata and analysis for Chapters 1 and 3,research associate Brian Halweil providedinstrumental editorial comments and inputon structure for Chapter 3, and staffresearcher Erik Assadourian collected mate-rial for and provided valuable feedback onChapter 8. Research librarian Lori Brownhelped out in numerous ways, from trackingdown articles, journals, and books to keep-ing researchers up to date on the latest infor-mation in their fields.

The initial research and writing were fol-

lowed by a grueling day-long internal reviewprocess in which current Worldwatch staffand alumni gave chapter authors detailedfeedback. Also receiving chapter commentsthis year were former Worldwatcher HowardYouth, now a Madrid-based writer on birdsand other conservation topics, and Mia Mac-Donald, a New York–based consultant whoworks on issues of gender, environment, anddevelopment. To ensure that findings wereaccurate and explanations succinct, authorswere critiqued, complimented, and challengedto strengthen arguments and clarify details.Special thanks go to senior researcher MichaelRenner and to Institute alumni John Youngand David Roodman for their incisive com-ments. Magazine editor Ed Ayres helpedrefine many ideas in Chapter 2 that were pre-sented in an earlier magazine feature article.The director of Worldwatch’s Global Gover-nance Project, Hilary French, who is on sab-batical for six months, was sorely missedduring the staff review process, but we lookforward to her return.

We are also grateful to the experts outsidethe Institute who generously gave us theirtime and reviewed portions of the manu-script. For their thoughtful comments, advice,and information, we would like to thank:Saleem Ali, Kelly Alley, Christine Auclair,Mohammed Awer, Leslie Ayres, J. KevinBaird, Suprotik Basu, Maria Becket, JohnBeier, Stan Bernstein, Sally Bingham, Henk

Acknowledgments

Bouwman, Joel Breman, Yves Cabannes, Cas-sandra Carmichael, Julie Church, Nigel Col-lar, Mario Coluzzi, Chris Curtis, SueDarlington, Roger-Mark De Souza, RobertDesowitz, Steve D’Esposito, Daniel Edel-stein, Robert Engelman, Emilio Escudero,Richard Foltz, Bronwen Golder, Brian Green-wood, John Grim, Simon Hay, BenjaminHensler, Steve Herz, Walter Hook, AlvinHutchinson, Jose Galindo Jaramillo, Nor-man Jennings, Ragupathy Kannan, RachelKyte, Annette Lanjouw, Michael Lippe, RichLiroff, Socrates Litsios, Michael Macdonald,Birger Madsen, Jack Makau, Eric Martinot,Bill McKibben, Julie McLaughlin, ChandanaMendes, Kamini Mendis, David Milborrow,Glenn Miller, William Moomaw, Jay Moor,James O’Meara, Michelle Ozrech, JanicePerlman, Jonas Rabinovitch, Donald Rogich,Mary Rojas, Martha Rosen, Horst Rutsch,Jeffrey Sachs, David Satterthwaite, VinodPrakash Sharma, Courtney Ann Shaw, JosephSheehan, Keith Slack, Robert Snow, AndrewSpielman, Alison J. Stattersfield, RichardStren, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Andreas Wagner,Kathleen Walker, Rasna Warah, and ChrisWilliams.

Through careful edits and polishing ofindividual chapters, independent editor LindaStarke, more accurately known at the Insti-tute as “the enforcer,” made sure authorsreached the finish line gracefully. The Insti-tute is fortunate to have on board a new artdirector, Lyle Rosbotham, whose talent atdesign brought to life the text, tables, and fig-ures of each chapter. He also designed thestunning new cover. As the final step, thepage proofs were sent to Ritch Pope, whocreated the index.

As the authors’ work was ending, that ofour communications team was just begin-ning. Leanne Mitchell, Susan Finkelpearl,and Susanne Martikke, along with senioradvisor Dick Bell, worked closely with

State of the World 2003

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

researchers to craft their messages for thepress and the public. Talea Miller pitched inas communications intern, and Sharon Lapierhelped keep the department running, staffingthe front desk and tracking the thousands ofpress clips we receive during the year. PatrickSettle, our IT systems administrator, kept allcyber-activities flowing smoothly. StephenConklin joined us in the fall as an intern tohelp with the Web site.

Thanks are also due to our superb devel-opment team. Kevin Parker and Mary Red-fern strengthened existing relationships withfoundations, while forging ahead intouncharted territory. Adrianne Greenleesfocused her energies on expanding the Insti-tute’s major donors, with the help of CyndiCramer. On the business development side,Elizabeth Nolan tackled our marketing andsales efforts and coordinated activities withall our publishers. Tina Soumela played ajack-of-all-trades role, assisting with research,communications, and business developmentactivities.

Senior editors Tom Prugh and Curtis Run-yan kept World Watch magazine on scheduleamid pressures on authors to meet too manyoverlapping deadlines. We also want to extendour gratitude and best wishes to several staffmembers who left Worldwatch during thepast year: Janet Abramovitz, Niki Clark, Eliz-abeth Doherty, Seth Dunn, Jonathan Guz-man, David Roodman, and Denise Warden.

A strong administrative staff forms thebackbone of the Institute. Suzanne Clift keptWorldwatch President Christopher Flavin ontrack while also helping researchers organizespeaking engagements and travel plans. Direc-tor of Finance and Administration BarbaraFallin assured the journey was smooth sailing,and Joseph Gravely kept things moving in themailroom.

Amy Cherry, Bill Rusin, Andrew Marasia,and Lucinda Bartley are our energetic col-

leagues at W.W. Norton & Company, ourlong-time U.S. publisher. Thanks to theirefforts, Worldwatch publications can be foundat bookstores throughout the United States.This year we look forward to working withLeo Weigman on some new projects for thecollege market.

On the international front, we would liketo thank the many Worldwatch supportersand international publishers who provideadvice as well as translation, outreach, and dis-tribution assistance around the globe. Stateof the World is regularly published in morethan 20 different languages. Without thededication of a host of publishers, non-governmental organizations, and individualswho work to spread the Institute’s message,we would not be able to live up to our name.

Special thanks for their efforts on the 2002edition of State of the World go to our long-time partners Eduardo Athayde of Universi-dade Livre da Mata Atlantica in Brazil,Gianfranco Bologna of WWF Italy and AnnaBruno of Edizioni Ambiente in Italy, MichaelBaumann and Klaus Milke of Germanwatchin Germany, Soki Oda of Worldwatch Japan,Sang Baek Lee and Jung Yu Jun of the KoreanFederation for Environmental Movement,Magnar Norderhaug and Oystein Dahle ofWorldwatch Norden in Norway, Jose Santa-marta and Marie-Amelie Ponce of G.A.I.A. inSpain, and Jonathan Sinclair Wilson of Earth-scan Publications Ltd in the United Kingdom.

Thanks also go to our newly establishedpartners, Gulay Eskikaya and Yesim Erkan ofthe TEMA Foundation in Turkey and Yian-nis Sakiotis of the Greek Society of PoliticalAnalysis Nikos Poulantzas in Greece. We aredeeply appreciative of the dedicated work ofour many international publishers and part-ners who make it possible for us to continu-ally reach readers and decisionmakersthroughout the world.

The Worldwatch Institute relies on phil-


ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

anthropic funding to provide more than 70percent of its operating budget. The largestsources of support are the private foundationsthat have an abiding commitment to an envi-ronmentally sustainable and socially justworld. This year, we would like to express ourspecial appreciation to The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation for pro-viding grants specifically for State of the World2003. We also want to thank the other foun-dations that have generously supported ourwork in the past year: The Ford Foundation,the Richard & Rhoda Goldman Fund, TheGeorge Gund Foundation, The William andFlora Hewlett Foundation, The Frances LearFoundation, Steve Leuthold Foundation,Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Cur-tis and Edith Munson Foundation, The Davidand Lucile Packard Foundation, the NIBFoundation, The Overbrook Foundation,The Shared Earth Foundation, Surdna Foun-dation, Inc., Turner Foundation, Inc., Wal-lace Global Fund, Weeden Foundation, andThe Winslow Foundation.

Behind every successful nongovernmen-tal organization is a group of leaders whocontribute a combination of prudence andforesight to strategic leadership of the orga-nization. The members of Worldwatch’sBoard of Directors have increased theirinvolvement this past year through theircommitted participation in strategic plan-ning, organizational development, andfundraising. We are especially indebted totheir extraordinary financial leadership thisyear through the creation of a “Board Match-ing Gift Challenge” of nearly $600,000,aimed at inspiring increased individual givingto the Institute.

We are also grateful to the thousands ofindividual contributors who are members ofthe Friends of Worldwatch. We have beenproud to learn that many of our members areactive at the local level in creating sustainable


x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

communities around the world. Thank youfor your support and for your personal effortsto make the world a better place.

Our profound gratitude is extended toWorldwatch Council of Sponsors members—Adam and Rachel Albright, Tom and CathyCrain, and Robert Wallace and Raisa ScriabineWallace—who provide annual support of$50,000 or more to Worldwatch.

Robert Wallace is a shining example of anindividual who was dedicated to fostering abetter world. This past October, Bob passedaway, and Worldwatch lost a longtime friendwho was deeply devoted to international sus-tainable development work. In 1996 Bob,who was President of the Wallace GlobalFund, inspired the creation of the World-watch Council of Sponsors, which contin-ues to provide core support to the Institute

on an annual basis.We are proud to have had such a lasting

relationship with Bob, and are grateful for thelegacy that he and his wife, Raisa, togetherwith his children and the Wallace GlobalFund, have left at Worldwatch. We dedicatethis twentieth anniversary State of the Worldto Bob Wallace.

Finally, in July 2002 the entire staff of theInstitute welcomed the latest additions tothe Worldwatch family—Samuel Carlos andClara Lucia Gardner. When Sally and I trav-eled to Bolivia to adopt Sam and Clara, weknew that this lively pair was going to changeour lives forever. Since we returned, we havediscovered they are a daily reminder of whyour work here at Worldwatch matters.

Gary GardnerProject Director

Acknowledgments viiList of Boxes, Tables, and Figures xiiPreface xvState of the World: A Year in Review xix

Lisa Mastny

1 A History of Our Future 3Chris Bright

The Challenges We FaceOrdinary Miracles

2 Watching Birds Disappear 14Howard Youth

Habitat Loss:The Greatest ThreatFalling to PiecesAn Alien and Danger-Filled ArkBullets, Cages, Hooks, and ChemicalsModern Conveniences and Climate ChangeFlying Straight: For Birds and Humanity

3 Linking Population, Women, and Biodiversity 38Mia MacDonald with Danielle Nierenberg

Exploring the LinkagesWhy Gender MattersContinuing Gaps, Integrated ApproachesNurturing the Next Revolution

4 Combating Malaria 62Anne Platt McGinn

A Modern and Growing ThreatThe Biology and Evolution of the DiseaseThe False Promise of EradicationEnvironmental and Social Changes Alter

the BalanceMexico’s ApproachThe Challenge in AfricaImproving Public Health, Engaging People

5 Charting a New Energy Future 85Janet Sawin

The Case for RenewablesState of the Technologies 2003The German StoryPolicy Lessons From Around the WorldUnlocking Our Energy Future

6 Scrapping Mining Dependence 110Payal Sampat

Minerals InventoryEcosystems, People, and MinesTailing the MoneyDigging Out

7 Uniting Divided Cities 130Molly O’Meara Sheehan

Poverty and Inept Government in an Urbanizing World

The Paradox of SlumsFrom Bulldozing to UpgradingSecuring Homes and JobsOpening Up City Hall

8 Engaging Religion in the Quest for a Sustainable World 152Gary Gardner

The Potential Power of Engaged ReligionCooperation and CautionThe Environment as Sacred GroundEthical ConsumptionAccelerating Engagement

Notes 177

Index 231

Contents

xii

Boxes2 Watching Birds Disappear

2–1 Signs of Birds in Decline 162–2 Saving Blue Swallows: Local Involvement Is Key 312–3 A Dozen Steps Toward a Sustainable Future for Birds and Biodiversity 36

3 Linking Population, Women, and Biodiversity

3–1 The Value of Biodiversity 423–2 The Bushmeat Trade: Population, Biodiversity, and Women in the Congo Basin 443–3 Women, Trees, and Empowerment: Kenya’s Green Belt Movement 513–4 Women and the Environment 523–5 Principles for Integrated Programs on Population, Women, and Biodiversity 57

4 Combating Malaria

4–1 The Environmental and Health Impacts of DDT 684–2 Essential Strategies for Dealing with Malaria 81

5 Charting a New Energy Future

5–1 Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol 885–2 Examples of Advances in Wind Technology 915–3 The Solar Race 945–4 Renewable Energy Targets 1005–5 The Case for Renewable Energy Subsidies 1025–6 Forging a New Energy Future 107

7 Uniting Divided Cities

7–1 Life in Mtumba, a Nairobi Slum 1377–2 Greening Livelihoods in Cotacachi, Ecuador 144

List of Boxes,Tables,and Figures

LIST OF BOXES,TABLES, AND FIGURES


xiii

8 Engaging Religion in the Quest for a Sustainable World

8–1 What Is Religion? 1538–2 Religious Perspectives on Nature 1558–3 The Link Between Ritual, Ecology, and Sustainable Cultures 164

Tables2 Watching Birds Disappear

2–1 Ten Recently Extinct Bird Species 172–2 Some International Agreements That Help Conserve Birds 26

4 Combating Malaria

4–1 Malaria in Asia and the Americas Versus Africa 654–2 Level and Changes in Malaria Prevalence Between 1965 and 1994,

by Climate Zone 734–3 Recent International Malaria Programs 84


5–1 Costs of Electricity With and Without External Costs 89

6 Scrapping Mining Dependence

6–1 Mining in the Global Economy, Late 1990s 1116–2 Major Mineral-Producing Countries, Selected Minerals, 2001 1136–3 Selected Examples of Mining’s Environmental Toll 1166–4 Wastes Produced by Mining Selected Metals, 2000 1176–5 Selected Examples of Mining’s Impact on Local Communities 1196–6 Mineral Dependence and Poverty Rates, Selected Countries, 1990s 1216–7 Employment Losses in Mining, Selected Countries, 1985–2000 123


7–1 World’s 10 Largest Urban Areas, 1000, 1800, 1900, and 2001 1337–2 Selected Microfinance Institutions Operating in Slums 147

8 Engaging Religion in the Quest for a Sustainable World

8–1 Major Religions: Number of Adherents and Share of World Population, 2000 1578–2 Religious Initiatives and Partnerships on Environment and Sustainability 1608–3 Selected Religious Teachings on Consumption 1678–4 Leveraging Religious Assets 172

LIST OF BOXES,TABLES, AND FIGURES


xiv

Figures3 Linking Population, Women, and Biodiversity

3–1 World’s Most Populous Countries, 2001 and 2050 413–2 Population Growth in 25 Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995–2000 453–3 Population Density in 25 Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995 463–4 Education Levels and Fertility Rates for Women and Girls in 12 Developing

Countries, Late 1990s 53

4 Combating Malaria

4–1 Prevalence of Malaria 644–2 Malaria Mortality Rate, 1950, 1970, 1990, and 1997 664–3 Lifecycle of the Malaria Parasite 69


5–1 World Energy Consumption by Source, 2000 875–2 World Electricity Generation by Type, 2000 875–3 Cumulative Global Wind Capacity, 1992–2001 925–4 Cumulative Global Photovoltaic Capacity, 1992–2001 935–5 Wind Power Capacity Additions in Germany, Spain, and the United States,

1980–2002 1015–6 Cumulative Photovoltaic Capacity in Japan and the United States, 1992–2001 103

6 Scrapping Mining Dependence

6–1 Production of Non-fuel Minerals and Metals, 1970–99 1126–2 Metals and Minerals Price Index, 1960–2001 1146–3 Gold Stocks Above and Below Ground, 2000 1256–4 U.S. Copper Stocks Above and Below Ground, 1990s 125


7–1 Link Between Human Development and City Development, 150 Cities, 1998 131

7–2 World Population Growth by Region in 1970 and 2000, with Projection for 2030 134

7–3 The Overlap of Poverty, Urban Growth, and Corruption 136

xv

In late August 2002, several colleagues and Iflew from Washington to Johannesburg, SouthAfrica, to participate in the World Summiton Sustainable Development. The journey isa long one, and not only in terms of the seventime zones, 65 degrees of latitude, or the dis-concerting seasonal transition—from a dampnorthern summer to a refreshing southernwinter. In moving this far from North toSouth, we entered a different world.

While State of the World 2002 focused onthe agenda for the Johannesburg World Sum-mit, State of the World 2003 is informed by ourexperiences in being there. The Summitshowed us much about where the world ispolitically in dealing with the vast problemsrelated to sustainable development, but italso showed us in a more immediate wayhow a large part of the world lives—and howdeeply people are affected by the intersectionof poverty and environmental decline.

The upscale Sandton Convention Center inwhich the official Johannesburg negotiationstook place would nestle easily into the suburbsof Washington, DC, or even Beverly Hills. Butthat splendor gives a misleading perception oflife in South Africa and the rest of the region.

Some of my colleagues saw firsthand thesqualor of Johannesburg’s urban slums, asMolly O’Meara Sheehan describes in Chap-ter 7, where life has improved little in thedecade since apartheid ended. Payal Sampat,author of Chapter 6, met with mine work-

ers at an abandoned gold mine—gold min-ing is the reason that Johannesburg exists atall—and was able to see the enormoushuman and environmental price that waspaid to extract the precious metal embeddedin the jewelry of millions of people aroundthe world.

From its vast human inequality to the coalsoot in its air and the falling water tablesbeneath its surface, Johannesburg is a living,breathing example of why sustainable devel-opment is imperative—and of how far westill must go to achieve it. But South Africaalso provides the world with one of the all-time object lessons about the possibility ofdramatic change. In his speech opening theSummit, President Mbeki drew on SouthAfrica’s precipitous overturning of apartheidas a metaphor for what the world must do toachieve sustainable development.

Other examples of rapid change are moreancient. In Chapter 1 this year, entitled “AHistory of Our Future,” Chris Brightdescribes a remarkable advance in humantool-making among a group of people in theMiddle East some 40,000–50,000 years agothat led to rapid human social evolution—acritical step toward the development ofhuman civilization and everything that fol-lowed. The change seems to have occurredrelatively quickly. And like many subsequenthuman innovations, it demonstrates human-ity’s seemingly limitless potential for change

Preface

in response to outside pressures.Both of these transformations demon-

strate that while dramatic transitions are pos-sible, they only set the stage for continuingcultural, economic, and technological evo-lution that unfolds after a breakthrough ismade. Our ancestors did not move directlyfrom fashioning blades from stone to work-ing on personal computers, but this Auri-gnacian technology, as it is known, doesseem to have set the stage for a surge insocial evolution, leading in due course tosettled agriculture, cities, and the IndustrialRevolution. South Africa’s experience withchange has only begun to unfold, but itshows similar patterns: ending apartheid wasa historic first step in addressing SouthAfrica’s social, economic, and environmen-tal problems. But it will take decades to over-come the legacy of racial inequality andimprove the lives of all South Africans.

From our perch in Johannesburg, lookingback on the Earth Summit in Rio a decadeearlier, we saw many parallels between the ini-tial euphoria that followed that breakthroughconference and the sense that all things werepossible that accompanied the formal endingof apartheid. The Rio agreements providedformal recognition that global trends were notsustainable—and laid out a long-term roadmap for the creation of a sustainable world—but it did not by itself solve all the problemsthat stand in the way. Amid predictable diver-sity of views, the Johannesburg Summitmarked the beginning of a shift from agree-ments in principle to more modest but con-crete plans of action that are needed to movethe world in a new direction.

The Johannesburg agreements do not havethe historic resonance of the Rio treaties, nordo they meet all the tests that we laid out inthe last edition of State of the World. Indeed,according to most assessments of the official54-page Plan of Implementation, including


xvi

PREFACE

the World Summit Policy Brief written bymy colleague Hilary French, the Johannes-burg agreement is something between a mod-est step sideways and a small step backwards.But her analysis of the World Summit alsoindicates a more profound significance, onewith encouraging implications for the future.

One of the first things to be agreed to byWorld Summit negotiators was that the worldstill has a long way to go to achieve the sub-stantial ambitions of the historic Rio treatiesof 1992. Unlike at the earlier Earth Summit,there were no major treaties up for negotia-tion in Johannesburg. Instead, the focus wason concrete steps for moving the Rio agendaforward.

Much of the debate in Johannesburgrevolved around whether the Plan of Imple-mentation should include new targets andtimetables related to sustainable develop-ment—complementing and building on theMillennium Development Goals adopted byheads of state in 2000. Despite oppositionfrom the United States, the Johannesburgplan did in the end include several date-spe-cific targets, including halving the proportionof people without access to sanitation by2015, restoring fisheries to their maximumsustainable yields by 2015, eliminatingdestructive fishing practices and establishinga representative network of marine protectedareas by 2012, reducing biodiversity loss by2010, and aiming by 2020 to use and pro-duce chemicals in ways that do not harmhuman health and the environment.

The lack of detail in these commitmentsand the acrimony that preceded them leftmany Summit participants pessimistic aboutthe world’s ability to move forward on themost important issues facing humanity in thetwenty-first century. The severe North-Southsplits on financial and trade-related issuesseemed deeper than ever, and the U.S. gov-ernment’s opposition to virtually any sub-

stantive multilateral commitments led someto wonder whether a half-century of progressin forging a cooperative global communitywas about to dissolve in chaos.

These well-founded concerns can hardly bedismissed, but they capture only part of whatwas going on in Johannesburg. The govern-ment negotiators who were niggling overthe wording and grammar of deliberatelyambiguous paragraphs were literally and fig-uratively surrounded by one of the largest col-lections of civil society organizations in U.N.history—ranging from environmentalists andfarmers to human rights activists, local offi-cials, and labor union representatives.

More than 8,000 nongovernmental par-ticipants were officially accredited to the Sum-mit. In addition to participating in the officialsummit meetings, nongovernmental groupssponsored a broad range of parallel events,such as meetings of parliamentarians, SupremeCourt justices, local government officials,and trade unionists. An estimated 20,000people representing Africa’s dispossessedmarched from one of Johannesburg’s poor-est areas to the posh neighborhood where theconference was held to protest what they sawas the meeting’s failure to address the con-cerns of the poor.

The corporate world was also vigorouslypresent in Johannesburg. According to Busi-ness Action for Sustainable Development, anestimated 1,000 business representatives par-ticipated in the Summit—with 120 of thembeing CEOs or Board Chairmen. In com-parison, there were 104 world leaders inattendance.

The substantial presence of nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) at an officialmeeting of governments may have pointed toa strategy for accelerating the process of globalchange. Because of their scale and because ofthe politics that surround them, governmentsand international institutions are often influ-


xvii

PREFACE

enced by archaic ideologies or beholden toentrenched economic interests. Outsidegroups with fresh ideas and representing newpolitical pressures are often required to over-come the momentum of the status quo.

The coming together in Johannesburg ofNGOs committed to social betterment, envi-ronmental progress, and the creation of neweconomic opportunities represents a power-ful force for change. And the fact that a largeportion of these groups came from the Southis an even more profound indication that theworld is changing. In response to the failureof governments to agree on any clear princi-ples regarding access to information, NGOsset up a voluntary code of conduct that non-governmental groups, international institu-tions, and even governments can elect to join.

This example of NGOs stepping in to filla gap left by governments provides guidancefor how the world can one day get beyond thesort of impasse that has blocked internationalprogress on many economic, social, and envi-ronmental issues in the past decade. In hisrecent book, High Noon, J. F. Rischard arguesthat the sheer scale and complexity of manyproblems have reached the point where tra-ditional nation-states and intergovernmen-tal processes can no longer cope with them,let alone get ahead of the avalanche of prob-lems now rushing toward us. Rischard goeson to suggest that traditional hierarchicalprocesses at the international level should besupplemented by what he calls “global issuesnetworks”—voluntary alliances of govern-ments and NGOs working under the aus-pices of U.N. bodies such as the U.N.Environment Programme or U.N. Develop-ment Programme on specific challenges thatface the world today.

It is in this area that Johannesburg mayhave yielded its most significant results. Inaddition to the official agreements, the Sum-mit produced roughly 280 “partnership ini-


xviii

tiatives”—agreements among national gov-ernments, international institutions, the busi-ness community, labor groups, NGOs, andother actors to carry out sustainable devel-opment activities. These agreements were asignificant departure from earlier approaches,where the emphasis was on accords amongnation-states. Examples of the new initiativesinclude a partnership for cleaner fuels andvehicles announced at the Summit that willinvolve the United Nations, national gov-ernments, NGOs, and the private sector, anda European Union “Water for Life” projectthat will help provide clean water and sani-tation in Africa and Central Asia.

The growing role of developing coun-tries in setting the international agenda wasalso clearly evident at the Johannesburg Sum-mit. While that fact made North-South gapsmore prominent, it also provided a neededfocus on the fact that we live in a worldwhere growing inequality is one of the mostpronounced and disturbing global trends.To paraphrase U.S. President Lincoln on asimilar division a century and a half ago, aworld divided against itself cannot be sus-tained.

South Africa, itself a hybrid of North andSouth, provides a signal example of a coun-try that is striving to bridge such gaps. But itis also emblematic of one of the biggestadvantages our globalized world presentstoday: diversity. Diversity in South Africa isrepresented not only by its highly complexracial and cultural mixes but by one of the

PREFACE

world’s great “hotspots” of biodiversity. TheCape Floral Kingdom in the southwest, asdescribed in Chapter 3 of this year’s book, ishome to 9,000 plant species. Diversity createstensions and conflicts, but if those are suc-cessfully managed, diversity also spawns inno-vation and resilience that will ultimately makeSouth Africa a stronger country—and hasthe potential to make the world sustainable.

It is far too early to know whether thediversity and innovation that marked theJohannesburg World Summit will ultimatelyfill the gaps left by governments. But as youwill see in State of the World 2003, it is clearthat the world is changing. Slowly, and some-times chaotically, humanity is responding tostress—and is changing its ways, just as ourancestors did 40,000–50,000 years ago. Dailyand powerfully, our fellow Homo sapiensremind us that it is far too early to give up onthe human race.

PresidentWorldwatch Institute

1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.Washington, DC [email protected]

November 2002

xix

events can be a challenge—particularly intoday’s accelerated age of information andmis-information. But we have done our bestto present an accurate yet engaging mix ofboth encouraging and sobering signs of plan-etary change.

Although we made no attempt to be com-prehensive, we hope that this timeline willboost your awareness of the connectionsbetween specific global events and ideas andthe broader, often less tangible, trends thatinfluence and shape our planetary future—from climate change and biodiversity loss tonew milestones in global governance andpublic health. As always, we welcome yourfeedback on this State of the World innovation.

State of the World:A Year in Review

The first chapter of State of the World this yearis about innovation—and we appropriatelyhave an innovation of our own in this edition.As a result of a brainstorming session earlierin the year on how to convey better themany developments and setbacks along theroad to sustainable development, we decidedto add a timeline called “State of the World:A Year in Review.” This germ of an idea wasturned into a fascinating final product byResearch Associate Lisa Mastny and ArtDirector Lyle Rosbotham.

Each year, the timeline will cover signifi-cant announcements and reports during the12 months before State of the World goes topress. Assembling such a chronicle of global


xx

STATE OF THE WORLD: A YEAR IN REVIEW

FORESTSUN reports that

tropical countries losemore than 15 millionhectares of forests

a year to agriculture,logging, and

other threats.

O C T O B E R

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

N O V E M B E R D E C E M B E R

2001 S T A T E O F T H E W O R L D : A Y E A R I N R E V I E W

BIODIVERSITY116 countries vote fornew global treaty giving

farmers the right tosave, trade, and sellseeds and limitingbiotech patents on

plant genes.

HEALTHStudy links nearly 2,000cases of thyroid cancerto the 1986 Chernobylnuclear accident—thelargest group of human

cancers associated with a known cause

and date.

FORESTSSatellite imagery showsMexico’s deforestation

rate is nearly twice as high as previouslythought—and the second highest in

the world.

BIODIVERSITYStudy estimates that 38 million animals aresmuggled from Brazil’s

forests each year for sale on the black

market.

FISHERIESStudy says inflated fish

catch reports fromChina—the largestproducer—have

masked a decade-longdecline in the global

fish harvest.

BIODIVERSITYScientists warn that

native maize in Mexicohas suffered geneticpollution through contact with US

bioengineered corn.

CLIMATEReport says US

carbon emissionsjumped 3 percent in2000 and are up 17percent from 1990.

WATERUN warns that the

world’s reservoirs arelosing storage capacity

as deforestation causes erosion

and sedimentationbehind dams.

OZONE LAYERScientists say Antarcticozone hole has not

grown significantly overthe past three years

and could recover fullyin 50 years.

FISHERIESPathbreaking

international agree-ment on conservationand management of

global fish stocks enters into force.

GOVERNANCETrade ministers from

142 countries meetingin Doha, Qatar, agreeto a new round ofworld trade talks.

CLIMATEUN says 2001 is

expected to be thesecond warmest year

on record since measurements began

in 1860.


xxi


BIODIVERSITYStudy says half of

North America’s mostbiodiverse regions are

degraded, and 235mammal, reptile, bird,and amphibian speciesare now threatened.

CLIMATEStudy finds that the

global ice melt rate hasmore than doubled

since 1988 and couldraise sea levels by 27centimeters by 2100.

POPULATIONUN projects that fertility in many

developing countries is likely to fall below

the replacement levelof 2.1 children per

woman by mid-century.

FISHERIESScientists warn thatprecision mapping,

satellite navigation, andother new fishing

methods are decimating global fish

populations.

TOXICSReport says up to 80 percent of US computers and

electronics collectedfor recycling is sent to

Asia, where it threatensworker health and the environment.

URBANIZATIONUN projects that

nearly all 2.2 billionpeople to be added to world population by 2030 will be inurban areas of the developing world.

CLIMATESome 3,250 square

kilometers of Antarctica’s Larsen B

ice shelf collapse as regional

temperatures warm.

GOVERNANCEAiming to reverse a

decade-long downwardtrend, world

leaders gathered inMonterrey, Mexico,

pledge to boost aid todeveloping countries.

TOXICSUK study finds thatbabies born within

3 kilometers of hazardous waste

landfills are 40 percentmore likely to have

chromosomal defects.

MININGThe Provincial Board of Mindoro Province

in the Philippines votes for a 25-year moratorium on allforms of mining.

ENERGYGermany sets a goal of meeting at least a

quarter of its domesticelectricity needs withwind power by 2025.

CLIMATEA week of incessantrain causes the worstflooding in decades in

Indonesia, killing at least 84 people andinundating up to one

fifth of Jakarta.

2002 Compiled by Lisa Mastny

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

J A N U A R Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

F E B R U A R Y M A R C H

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


xxii


FORESTSNew Zealand pledges

to convert all government-ownedrainforest—130,000

hectares—fromtimberland to

protected areas.

WATERChinese official admits

that cracks haveappeared in the stillincomplete Three

Gorges Dam, adding to reports of shoddy

construction.

HEALTHWorld Health

Organization estimatesthat 5,500 children dieeach day from diseases

linked to polluted food, air, and water.

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Occidental Petroleumagrees to halt its

controversial oil projectin the homeland ofColombia’s U’wa

people.

TOXICSStudy says Americanswill discard some 130million mobile phonesa year by 2005, gener-ating 65,000 tons of

toxic and other waste.

DESERTIFICATIONSchools in Seoul,South Korea, are

canceled as a huge dustcloud blows from

China’s fast-spreadingdeserts, some 1,200

kilometers away.

ENDANGEREDSPECIES

Poachers in Rwanda kill two of the world’s

350 remaining mountain gorillas, in

an attempt to captureand sell their young.

FORESTSBrazil reports a 13 percent drop in the

rate of Amazon rainforest destructionin 2001, though the loss still topped 1.6

million hectares.

HEALTHWorld Health

Organization declaresEuropean region

“polio-free,” marking apublic health milestone.

CLIMATEUS Bush administrationacknowledges for the

first time the linkbetween industrial

emissions and buildupof greenhouse gases—though later disavows

the report.

CLIMATEUK launches the

world’s first sizablespot market for

trading greenhouse gas emissions credits.

FORESTS/MININGCosta Rica sets restrictions on

domestic logging anddeclares a moratorium

on new open-pit gold mines.

CLIMATEEuropean Union ratifies

the Kyoto Protocol,bringing industrialcountries closer tobinding reductions

of greenhouse gas emissions.

ENDANGEREDSPECIES

Mexico designates theworld’s largest national

whale sanctuary,to protect 39 species

in its waters.

CORAL REEFSSurvey finds that

bleaching at Australia’sGreat Barrier Reef in

2002 may be the worston record, affecting upto 60 percent of reefs.

A P R I L

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

M A Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

J U N E

2002 S T A T E O F T H E W O R L D : A Y E A R I N R E V I E W


xxiii


30

POPULATIONUS withholds $34 million in family

planning funds fromUN, saying the organi-zation supports pro-abortion programs

in China.

BIODIVERSITYStudy says habitat

conversion to agriculture and otheruses costs the planet roughly $250 billion

each year.

TOXICSUS President Bush signs

a law mandating thestorage of some

77,000 tons of nuclearwaste permanently

at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

BIODIVERSITYUN says at currentrates of plant and animal extinction,Earth loses one

potential major drugevery two years.

WASTENew York City

suspends collection ofresidential glass andplastic waste, in the

first major rollback of a recycling program in

the United States.

ENERGYStudy says 1.6 billion

people worldwide lackaccess to electricity and

1.4 billion will likely still lack access

in 30 years.

POPULATIONReport says preference

for sons in India andChina has boosted

infanticide and led to achild population withmore boys than girls.

FOOD SECURITYUN says more than 14 million people inSouthern Africa face

starvation, in theregion’s worst food crisis in a decade.

GOVERNANCE104 world leaders atthe World Summit

on Sustainable Development in Johan-nesburg agree on a lim-

ited plan to reducepoverty and protect

the environment.

CLIMATESPD–Green Party

coalition wins surprisevictory in Germany asvoters show concernabout climate change

after devastating floodsin Central Europe.

POLLUTIONUN warns that a

3-kilometer-deep smogstretching across South

Asia is modifyingweather patterns,

damaging agriculture,and endangering health.

FORESTSUS commits $36 million to protect

Africa’s Congo Basin,the world’s second

largest block of intacttropical forest.

FORESTSBrazil creates theworld’s largest

rainforest national park,covering 3.9 million

hectares in the northern Amazon.

POLLUTIONHong Kong suffersfrom its worst air

pollution on record asa blanket of smogshrouds the city.

CLIMATECalifornia becomes

the first state in US toregulate greenhousegas emissions from

vehicles.

HEALTHUN estimates that

25 million children inthe developing worldwill lose one or both

parents to AIDS by 2010.

J U L Y

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

A U G U S T S E P T E M B E R

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 282 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

See page 177 for sources.


Some 40,000–50,000 years ago, a group ofMiddle Eastern people developed a type oftool that seems to have precipitated a radicalexpansion of the human mind. Or to put itmore cautiously, the tool alone may not havedone this—the critical factor may have beena new way of thinking about tools. Or maybeeven a new way of thinking in general. What-ever it was, these Stone Age, preagriculturalpeople apparently touched off the first episodeof rapid, large-scale social change in the his-tory of our species.1

Until their innovation set them apart, thesepeople shared in the general culture that pre-vailed over most of the inhabited Old World.The principal technologies of this generalculture were the use of fire and a relativelysimple kit of stone flake tools. This tool kit wasthe product of nearly 2.5 million years ofdevelopment. Improvement in it had come ata pace that is, by our standards, excruciatinglyslow—so slow that it could be likened to

evolutionary change. You might even arguethat the kit evolved slower than we did, sinceit passed through the hands of at least two ofour precursor species (Homo habilis and H.ergaster) before it arrived in the hands of ourown.

During all that time, the kit underwentonly one major revision: the transition about1.7 million years ago from the rudimentarychoppers and scrapers fashioned by H. habilisto the larger, more specialized stone tools ofH. ergaster. One more major revision, about250,000 years ago, introduced the stone-flake technology that those Middle Easternpeople inherited. Three hominid species, 2.5million years, and only two major bouts ofrefinement: doesn’t sound like much of aprogram for mastering the planet, does it?

What those Middle Eastern people didwas to break that slow, evolutionary tempo oftechnical development and create an openingfor accelerating change. They did this, essen-tially, by fashioning blades from stone. Ingeneral, these new blade-like tools were largerthan the flake tools, and they showed a much

Chris Bright

Chapter 1

A History of Our Future

3

Units of measure throughout this book are metricunless common usage dictates otherwise.

A HISTORY OF OUR FUTURE

greater investment of design. This new tech-nology is known as the Aurignacian, afterthe Aurignac rock shelter in the French Pyre-nees, where anthropologists first identifiedit. Aurignacian blades are simple artifacts ofmodest dimensions—a good-sized blademight be 15 centimeters (about 6 inches)long. But they are beautiful, efficient, andoccasionally somewhat menacing.2

For reasons that remain obscure, this tech-nology broadened rapidly, to create a vastexpansion of social and cultural life. The toolkit itself came to include more and morenovel, specialized equipment like ivory nee-dles, reindeer horn spear points, and rope.More sophisticated tools encouraged moreextensive trade. Sea shells from the Black Seaarrived in the Don River valley, 500 kilome-ters to the north; Baltic amber traveled tosouthern Europe. Flutes were carved out ofbone; music had evidently become a part oflife. Complex visual art appeared for the firsttime as well, in the form of bone pendant jew-elry, cave paintings, and carvings in bone,stone, and ivory. It became a widespreadpractice to include some of those carvings andpendants in human burials—strong evidencefor the emergence of complex religions. Allthese developments got their start in a spanof fewer than 10,000 years, which amountsto less than one half of 1 percent of the entireprevious life of the stone tool kit. In an evo-lutionary instant, without any obvious prece-dent, humanity had reinvented itself.3

The development of the Aurignacian tech-nology, which marks the transition from themiddle to the upper Paleolithic, is arguablythe greatest transformation that our specieshas ever been through. All the major trans-

formations that followed—the developmentof metal tools, agriculture, and the variousindustrial revolutions of more recent times—all these transitions may look more dramatic,but none seems to contain as profound apsychological fault line as does the Aurigna-cian transition. The people on the far side ofthese other transformations are all recogniz-ably human in the fullest sense of the term.But the apparently very simple, nearly staticway of life in pre-Aurignacian times appearsto lack at least one characteristic essential tothe makeup of all modern people: the habitof innovation. In this fundamental respect, theAurignacian transition created us—not bio-logically, but culturally.4

Because it was a kind of cultural equivalentto the primordial Big Bang, the Aurignaciantransition may offer important perspectives onour basic psychology—and especially on ourcapacity for change. Unfortunately, however,the causes of the transition remain obscure,although not for lack of theories. (One expla-nation, for example, invokes environmentalstress: it is known that the transition occurredduring a period of climatic instability, andclimate change might have challenged theingenuity of societies in areas where resourceswere dwindling.)

But turn from causes to consequences,and it is possible to draw some broad con-clusions, which might be useful for under-standing constructive social change in general.Consider the following three characteristics ofthe transition as a whole. First, the transitionseems to have paid an immense “solutiondividend”: it improved aspects of life thatprobably had little to do with whatever causedthe initial wave of innovation. Second, thetransition moved from the merely technical tobecome profoundly cultural: it apparentlybegan as a way of making better tools, but itprogressed into the arts, trade, and religion.And third, the transition magnified the world:


4

We have only one or perhaps two generations in which to reinvent ourselves.


it created new ways of interpreting theworld—new ways of building “deep context”for social and individual life, as is apparent, forexample, from the magnificent cave paint-ings that the peoples of the upper Paleolithicera have left us.

The Challenges We FaceThe people who set the Aurignacian transitionin motion lived perhaps 2,500 generationsago. Fewer than 500 generations later, theworld’s first great culture was well establishedand Homo sapiens had become somethingmore than merely a large, common primate.It took only an eyeblink of evolutionary time.We, the generations who share the planettoday, are facing a challenge to innovate ona level that may be as profound as the achieve-ment of our distant ancestors. But we do nothave 500 generations’ worth of time toaccomplish the task. Depending on the degreeof misery and biological impoverishment thatwe are prepared to accept, we have only oneor perhaps two generations in which to rein-vent ourselves. An eyeblink of an eyeblink.Consider five of the most serious threats thatfuture historians might use to define our era.5

First, ours is a world in which increasingnumbers of people lack the means for a decentlife. Global population now exceeds 6.2 bil-lion, more than double what it was in 1950,and is currently projected to rise to between7.9 billion and 10.9 billion by 2050. Nearlyall of that increase will occur in the develop-ing world, where resources are already underserious strain. In these countries, nearly 1.2 bil-lion people—almost a quarter of the world’spopulation—are classed by the World Bank asliving in “absolute poverty.” These peopleare surviving on less than the equivalent of $1a day, and they are generally very vulnerableto additional misfortune—whether in theform of disease, drought, or food shortage.6

Worldwide, about 420 million people livein countries that no longer have sufficientcropland per capita to grow all their ownfood. These nations must rely on importedfood—a risky form of dependence for thepoorer countries in this group. By 2025, thepopulation of countries that must importfood could exceed 1 billion. The quality ofcropland in many poor countries is also declin-ing; about one quarter of developing-worldcropland is thought to be significantlydegraded, and over the past 50 years the rateof degradation has accelerated. But in manyplaces, the biggest threat will not be a short-age of land; it will be a shortage of water.Already, more than a half-billion people livein regions prone to chronic drought. By2025, that number is likely to have increasedat least fivefold, to 2.4–3.4 billion. It is truethat there are enormous and largely avoidableinefficiencies in the current food and watersupply systems, but a probable minimumpopulation increase of 27 percent over thenext half-century is hardly likely to fostereither social or ecological stability.7

A second threat: our world is in profoundgeochemical flux. Certain forms of pollu-tion are altering the global chemical cyclesthat “regulate” key ecosystem processes. Thecarbon cycle is the best known of these. Avast quantity of carbon that had beenremoved from circulation millions of yearsago—by being absorbed by plants, whichwere in turn converted to coal and oil—isnow being reinjected into the atmosphere.Annual carbon emissions from fossil fuelcombustion reached a record 6.55 billiontons in 2001, driving the atmospheric con-centration of carbon dioxide to 370.9 partsper million, the highest level it has reachedin at least 420,000 years, and probably in 20million years. Because carbon dioxide trapsheat, its increasing concentration is likely toprovoke rapid climate change.8


5


The nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, bothimportant regulators of plant growth, areundergoing a similar amplification. Nitrogenbecomes biologically available when it is con-verted from its inert elemental form by being“fixed” into molecules that also containhydrogen and oxygen. This happens naturally,through the actions of certain soil microbesand through lightning strikes. But humanactivities have greatly increased the rate of fix-ation, primarily through fertilizer produc-tion, fossil fuel combustion, and thewidespread cultivation of plants in the beanfamily, which often have colonies of nitrogen-fixing microbes on their roots. The destruc-tion of forests and wetlands releases a greatdeal of additional, already-fixed nitrogen,which had been sequestered in plants andsoils. All told, human activities appear to haveat least doubled the annual release of fixednitrogen, to 350 million tons per year. (Thatfigure does not account for changes in themarine portion of the nitrogen cycle, whichis not yet well understood.)9

The phosphorus cycle is being augmentedprimarily through fertilizer production. Thephosphorus in fertilizer generally comes frommining—a radical amplification of the naturalprocess of phosphorus release, which resultsfrom the weathering of rock. The annualrelease of phosphorus appears to haveincreased from its natural rate by a factor of3.7, to 13 million tons per year.10

Since both phosphorus and fixed nitro-gen are plant nutrients, their presence invastly greater than natural quantities is liableto cause pervasive ecosystem change. Inaquatic ecosystems, this nutrient pollutionleads to eutrophication—dense algal growththat chokes out sunlight and causes dissolvedoxygen levels to crash. On land, nutrient pol-lution can homogenize diverse plant com-munities by encouraging an overgrowth of theweedy species best able to use the excess

nutrient. Too much nitrogen also apparentlypredisposes many plant species to disease andinsect attack. (Plants, like people, can“overeat.”) In certain forms, excess fixednitrogen is also a major component of aciddeposition, better known as acid rain (eventhough much of the pollution arrives in theform of gases and dust, rather than as rain orsnow). The immediate effect of acid rain is toacidify soil and water, but it also works long-term change in soil chronically subjected toit: it leaches out calcium and magnesium,essential plant nutrients, and it frees alu-minum from the mineral matrix that keeps itbiologically inert. Free aluminum is toxic toplants and aquatic life.11

A third threat: our world is increasinglyburdened by the long-term risks associatedwith toxic chemicals. By a very conservativeestimate, for example, global production ofhazardous waste has reached 300–500 milliontons per year. Depending on what the wasteconsists of, disposal may involve condensing(the usual first step for contaminated waste-water), incineration, recycling, or neutraliza-tion through chemical or biologicaltreatment—all with varying degrees of thor-oughness. Or the waste may be injected intodeep wells or dumped into landfills in thehope that it will stay put—at least longenough to become somebody else’s prob-lem. Of course, many materials not classifiedas hazardous waste—or as waste at all—arealso major pollutants. Pesticides, the antifreezecompounds used to de-ice the wings of air-planes, the chromated copper arsenate inlumber treated for outdoor use: we call suchmaterials products, not wastes, but from anenvironmental perspective, that’s falseaccounting. They are all destined for theGreat Outdoors at some point, either in theiroriginal form or as their (sometimes equallynoxious) breakdown products.12

Our capacity to track the materials moving


6


through our economies is too sketchy to con-vey more than a vague idea of the chemicalinsult that we are inflicting on the naturalworld—and on our own bodies. But there aregood reasons for thinking that this insult isenormous and growing. There is, for exam-ple, widespread evidence of the pollution ofaquifers (underground water deposits) withpetrochemicals, heavy metals, nitrates fromfertilizer, and other toxics. Aquifer pollutionis a serious concern because aquifers fre-quently contribute more than half the volumeof lakes and rivers; they are also a majorsource of irrigation and drinking water. Andbecause water circulates through mostaquifers very slowly—complete renewal gen-erally takes centuries—such pollution is effec-tively irreversible.13

The composition of the pollutants them-selves, especially the synthetic ones, is also amatter of concern. Some 50,000–100,000synthetic chemicals are thought to be in pro-duction, as plastics, pesticides, lubricants, sol-vents, and so forth. Others are createdunintentionally, as manufacturing byprod-ucts or as breakdown products of manufac-tured materials. Many synthetics are notknown to be harmful, but others have beenfound to be extremely dangerous even intrace quantities. Cancer, immunodeficiency,hormonal abnormalities, and birth defectsare among the risks associated with them—in wildlife and in people. Some of these tox-ics bioaccumulate—that is, they contaminateliving things in increasing concentrations athigher links of the food chain, a tendency thatposes special dangers to high-level predatorslike eagles, porpoises, and us. Many synthet-ics are now pervasive in trace quantities, andmany have half-lives that are measured inhundreds of years. So for centuries to come,living things themselves will be a reservoir ofcontamination.14

A fourth threat: our world is subjected to

an unprecedented degree of biotic mixing.Growing numbers of organisms of virtuallyevery type are moving through the globaltrading system and emerging into regionswhere they are not native. These exotic speciestravel in the ballast water of ships, in packingmaterial, in raw wood products, in crop ship-ments, and in many other ways. Most exoticsdo not survive in their new homes, but asmall portion succeed in establishing colonies.If an established exotic finds nothing in itsnew home to keep its population in check, itmay go on a reproduction binge. Dependingon what it is, an invasive exotic may out-compete native species for some essentialresource, or launch an epidemic, or prey onnatives directly.15

The result often goes beyond the sup-pression of the exotic’s immediate victims toinclude other species that depend on thosevictims in some way. For example, the highlyinvasive Argentine ant is displacing manynative ant species in dry areas of the tropicsand warm temperate zones; the loss of thenative ants, in turn, suppresses the plantspecies that rely on them for pollination orseed dispersal. Eventually, a cascade of eco-logical effects may work profound change inthe invaded community by simplifying itsstructure, altering its nutrient cycles, andhomogenizing its species composition. Eventhough comprehensive statistics on the prob-lem are not available, the growth of thetrading system virtually guarantees that therates of invasion are increasing. More andmore of the world’s diverse natural com-munities are in danger of being dominatedby a relatively small number of highly inva-


7

Our world is increasingly burdened by the long-term risks associated withtoxic chemicals.


sive organisms.16

And finally, a fifth threat: by virtually everybroad measure, our world is in a state of per-vasive ecological decline. Primary tropicalforests, in general the most diverse ecosystemson the planet, are disappearing at a rate prob-ably exceeding 140,000 square kilometersper year—an area nearly the size of Nepal.Total global forest cover, which now accountsfor about a quarter of the planet’s land sur-face excluding Greenland and Antarctica,may have declined by as much as half since thedawn of agriculture. About 30 percent ofsurviving forest is seriously fragmented orotherwise degraded, and during the 1990salone, global forest cover is estimated to havedeclined by more than 4 percent. Wetlands,another highly diverse ecosystem type, havebeen reduced by more than 50 percent overthe past century.17

Coral reefs, the world’s most diverseaquatic ecosystems, are suffering the effectsof overfishing, pollution, the spread of epi-demic disease, and rising sea surface tem-peratures that many experts link to climatechange. By the end of 2000, 27 percent ofthe world’s coral reefs were thought to beseverely damaged, up from just 10 percent in1992. Throughout the oceans, overfishing istaking an ever greater toll: some 60 percentof the world’s marine fisheries are now beingexploited at or beyond capacity—an invita-tion to extensive ecological disruption. Andaccording to the IUCN–World Conserva-tion Union, about one quarter of the world’smammals are now in danger of extinction, asare 12 percent of the world’s birds. Com-prehensive figures do not exist for other

major groups of organisms, but in samples ofother vertebrate classes, levels of endanger-ment were similarly high: 25 percent for rep-tiles, 21 percent for amphibians, and 30percent for fish.18

Ordinary MiraclesThese damage assessments often have an airof unreality about them because they bear lit-tle obvious relation to life as it is ordinarilylived—at least by the likely readers of thisbook. There are several reasons for this dis-connect. In the first place, large economiestend to displace the ill effects of behaviorfrom the behavior itself. Few of us everencounter the toxic waste, soil degradation,or unsustainable mining and logging thatsupport our collective consumption patterns.There may be a basic psychological problemat work here as well, since a great deal ofenvironmental degradation cannot be read-ily seen. Human beings understand theirworlds largely on the basis of sight; invisiblethreats, especially long-term ones, do notappear to play to our evolutionary strengths.

More generally, it’s conceivable that ourown inherent adaptability is to some degreeworking against us—preventing us from rec-ognizing the gravity of the situation. Homosapiens is the ultimate all-terrain animal, as isapparent from the successes of our distantancestors. Fire and a few simple stone toolswere all the equipment they needed to colo-nize entire continents. We are a generalistspecies, not a specialist species. We’re notlike pandas, tanagers, or orchids. We aremuch more like dandelions, starlings, andrats. We don’t need a high state of naturalintegrity in order to thrive—and apparently,we are not predisposed to react with alarm atits loss.

But the biggest obstacle to reinventingourselves may simply be a kind of paralysis of


8

What looks perfectly ordinary after the fact would often have seemed like a miracle before it.


hope. It is possible to see very clearly that ourcurrent economies are toxic, destructive ona gargantuan scale, and grossly unfair—tosee all this and yet still have difficulty imag-ining effective reform. It’s not that it is hardto envision the paths that reform would haveto take; at this point, we have a fairly clearsense of where we need to go (on a techni-cal level, at least, if not always on a culturalone). In the energy economy, for example,the path of reform leads away from fossilfuels and toward renewable energy sources,like wind and solar. In materials production,it leads away from a primary reliance on min-ing and toward cycles of continual reuse. Intrade, the path would presumably lead tomeaningful engagement of ecological issueslike bioinvasion, and social ones like the lossof local production. And in internationalrelations, the path might begin with a recog-nition of the obvious: we have built a globaleconomy that assigns one quarter of human-ity to the misery of absolute poverty, whilethe wealthiest 20 percent of the world’s peo-ple account for 86 percent of total privateconsumption. Even apart from the offensesto reason and ethics, it is hard to see how“secure” such a world could ever be.19

And yet despite the obvious need forchange, and despite our obvious technicalcompetence, it can still be hard to believe thatreal, fundamental change is possible. We areused to constant flux in the daily details ofexistence, yet the basic structure of the statusquo always looks so unalterable.

But it’s not. Profound change for the bet-ter does occur, even though it can be difficultto see because one of the most commoneffects of success is to be taken for granted.What looks perfectly ordinary after the factwould often have seemed like a miracle beforeit. Or sometimes maybe more than a miracle:the results of the Aurignacian transition wouldprobably not even have been comprehensible

before the fact. Consider two ordinary mir-acles from our own era—two changes inwhich technical effort has created vast culturalopportunity, and in which benefits are accru-ing far out of proportion to costs.

Consider first the eradication of smallpox.In January 1967, when the World HealthOrganization (WHO) announced a programintended to eliminate smallpox within adecade, the disease was infecting 10–15 mil-lion people every year, primarily children. Itkilled 1.5–2 million of them and left many ofits survivors blind or covered with disfiguringpockmarks. More than 1 billion people, 29percent of the world’s population at the time,lived in countries where the disease wasendemic (that is, continually present). Evenin industrial countries, where comprehensivevaccination programs had eliminated it as anendemic threat, smallpox remained a chronicsecurity problem because of infection risksfrom abroad.20

When it was announced, the WHO pro-gram looked naive at best to many scientistsand public health officials. It had grown outof an agreement reached at the Twelfth WorldHealth Assembly in May 1959, which hadalso called for the elimination of smallpoxbut had achieved almost nothing. The prece-dents with other diseases were similarly dis-couraging. Eradication campaigns had oftenyielded promising results in particular regions,but always seemed to founder when scaled upto the global level. The first of these efforts,a campaign to eradicate the hookworm par-asite, had been launched in 1913 on thestrength of a successful control program in theU.S. Southeast. But by the early 1920s itwas clear that the parasite was not well enoughunderstood to be eliminated everywhere. Theglobal campaign against yellow fever, begunin 1918, had grown out of early successes inPanama and Cuba, but the eradication objec-tive had to be abandoned in the early 1930s


9


after researchers in South America discov-ered yellow fever in wild mammals—reservoirsof the pathogen that they had no way ofeliminating.21

Malaria eradication had taken a similarcourse. In northeastern Brazil in the late1930s, a campaign against a newly arrivedAfrican mosquito, Anopheles gambiae, com-pletely eradicated it in less than two years. Thismosquito is Africa’s most important malariavector. Its removal from Brazil was an aston-ishing achievement, but that success alsoturned out to be a deceptive precedent: globalmalaria eradication, begun in 1955, was run-ning out of steam by the mid-1960s. It wasabandoned in 1969 with the recognitionthat, in most areas with endemic malaria, itwas not possible to suppress the mosquitoeslong enough to clear human populations ofthe parasites that cause the disease. (See Chap-ter 4.) By the mid-1960s, the concept of dis-ease eradication as a policy goal was fallinginto disrepute. In his 1965 book, ManAdapting, the distinguished scientist andphilosopher René Dubos caught the prevail-ing attitude: “eradication programs,” hewrote, “will eventually become a curiosityitem on library shelves, just as have all socialutopias.”22

Lack of credibility was not the smallpoxprogram’s only problem. It was also chron-ically starved for funds; it lacked any author-ity other than moral; and it was not alwaysseen as a priority in developing countries,where smallpox was often just one amongmany serious threats to public health. Butdespite all the obstacles, the program suc-ceeded—thanks to persistence, a willingnessto adapt to varying conditions, and a thor-ough understanding of the pathogen’s weak-nesses. (Smallpox was a good target foreradication because it is not “vectored”—ithas to be transmitted directly from one per-son to another—and because there was a

reliable vaccine for it.) The world’s last “nat-ural” (nonlaboratory) case of smallpox wasdiscovered in Somalia, on October 26, 1977,just 10 months beyond the original targetdate for eradication. The total cost of theWHO program probably amounted to lessthan $300 million (equivalent to $700–800million today). Even in the crudest eco-nomic terms, every country benefitedbecause preventative measures against thedisease were no longer necessary. The UnitedStates, the largest single donor to the cam-paign, is estimated to make back its totalcontribution every 26 days. Barring therelease of the pathogen from one of its arti-ficially maintained stocks, smallpox is a prob-lem solved and the world is a better placebecause of that.23

Smallpox eradication required the coop-eration of thousands of officials and field-workers—and millions of parents ofunvaccinated children. But as a WHO pro-gram, it was still essentially change from thetop down. On many fronts, however, con-structive change will likely depend much moreheavily on public initiative—on a sense ofdirection supplied by nongovernmental orga-nizations and large numbers of individualpeople. Change from the bottom up is likelyto be more diffuse and less “focused,” buthere too there are encouraging precedents.

Consider population growth, one of thebiggest environmental problems of all, yetin a sense one of the least “public.” Theincrease in our numbers is an aggregate con-sequence of personal attitudes toward sexand procreation—subjects that are just aboutas private as you can get. Significant changeon this front is a fundamental type of culturalchange, and in the usual view, that is notsomething that is likely to happen quickly. Insocieties that value large families, we mighthope to see ideal family size shrink, but onlygradually.


10


And certainly this view has some strongevidence to support it. The baseline precedentfor such change is the European demographictransition, a complex development in whichimprovements in sanitation, nutrition, edu-cation, and general standards of living accom-panied declines in child mortality and in theaverage number of births per woman (knownas the total fertility rate, or TFR). The Euro-pean demographic transition took over 100years. In the late nineteenth century, the con-tinent’s TFR was around 4 or 5; today, thecontinental average has dropped below the2.1 “replacement rate.” (Over the long term,a population that maintains a 2.1 TFR will sta-bilize: the number of births will eventuallycome to equal the number of deaths.)24

To demographers, the lesson from theEuropean experience seemed clear: thedecline to replacement rate is gradual becausethe necessary social changes are complicated,expensive, and slow to mature themselves.But by the late 1980s, the experts werebeginning to see a pattern that did not fit theEuropean precedent. Several East Asiancountries were undergoing the “classic” tran-sition (that is, declining TFRs and risingstandards of living), but they were doing itin a radically compressed time frame. InIndonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea,Taiwan, and Thailand, TFRs had been drop-ping at least since the 1960s; today, all thesecountries have reached the replacement rateor will soon do so. Their transitions, most ofwhich took only 25–30 years, are usuallycredited to rapid economic growth accom-panied by several technical and administrativeadvances, primarily well-developed familyplanning programs and substantial improve-ments in health care and education.25

Demographers did not, however, see theseEast Asian transitions as a reason for majorrevisions in the global population projec-tions. Nor, in retrospect, should they have:

world population nearly quadrupled over thetwentieth century, and while it is true thatindustrial-country TFRs now average 1.6,the vast majority of humanity is not living inplaces that are likely to undergo classic demo-graphic transitions, accelerated or otherwise.South Korea is no model for India, China, orNigeria. So as recently as the first half of the1990s, the standard estimates held that globalpopulation was increasing by 86–90 millionper year, and that it would continue to growat that rate for years to come. For example,the report of the International Conference onPopulation and Development, held in Cairoin 1994, cited current U.N. projections for itsestimate that “annual population incrementsare likely to remain close to 90 million untilthe year 2015.”26

But once again, reasonable expectationshave been ambushed by unanticipatedchange. Eight years after the Cairo confer-ence, the annual increment of populationincrease is now estimated at around 77 mil-lion. In part, this lower number results froma sort of accounting restatement: demogra-phers now think that the annual incrementat the time of the Cairo conference was prob-ably around 81 million, not 86–90 million.But the rest of the difference is believed toreflect an actual decline in the increment,on the order of 4 million people. (Note thatthe population as a whole is still increasing;the decline is in the number of people addedto it every year.) This drop in the incrementmarks a new trend. Until the early 1990s, theincrement had been growing; it is nowdeclining, and the decline is projected tocontinue.27


11

The vast majority of humanity is notliving in places likely to undergo classicdemographic transitions.


The new trend results from a couple ofunexpected developments, one of which isvery bad news: the death toll from AIDS isnow large enough to influence global popu-lation statistics. But the main reason for thedecline is not more deaths; it is fewer births.In about a dozen heavily populated develop-ing countries, TFRs have declined substan-tially, even without significant improvementsin standards of living. Iran, for example,reduced its TFR from 5.6 in 1985 to 2.0 in2000, despite a long, debilitating war withIraq from 1980 to 1988, economic stagna-tion, and the Revolutionary government’sinitial hostility to birth control—a positionthat was reversed in 1989.28

Even where the declines have still notbrought the TFR to the replacement rate,they are nevertheless remarkable. For exam-ple, Bangladesh, a very poor country, hasseen its TFR decline from 7 in the 1970s to3.3 between 1996 and 2000. NeitherBangladesh nor Iran has seen major improve-ments in most living standards, but they doshare one important social feature: both havemanaged to develop extensive family planningprograms that enjoy strong official supportand broad public acceptance.29

A looser example of such change can befound in Latin America and the Caribbean, aregion that now has an overall TFR of around2.5, down from 6.0 in the first half of the1960s. It is not surprising that here too thedrop in TFR often correlates with increasedavailability of family planning services, par-ticularly contraception. It is somewhat sur-prising, though, that the trend is apparenteven in some of the region’s poorer coun-

tries—Peru, for instance. In the 2002 HumanDevelopment Index prepared by the U.N.Development Programme, Peru ranks eighthamong the 12 South American countries, yetthis nation has seen its contraceptive usagerate rise from around 40 percent of marriedwomen in the late 1970s to 64 percent by1996. Peru’s TFR fell from over 5 to 3 dur-ing the same period.30

Of course, these partial “transitions onthe cheap” were well under way at the timeof the Cairo conference. And in a sense, theywere in plain sight. But it was very difficult tosee them because the pattern had not beenrecognized.

Do these various TFR declines mean thatpopulation growth will soon cease to be amajor social and environmental concern?Hardly. In fact, the U.N. medium projec-tions for global population growth haverecently been revised slightly upwards. Themedium projections are often considered the“best bet” about where population trendsare headed. (See Chapter 3.) There are sev-eral ways in which current TFRs factor intothose projections. For one thing, there are stillcountries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa,where TFRs remain high and where demog-raphers do not anticipate significant declinesanytime soon. And of course in highly pop-ulated countries, even “moderate” TFRs canyield enormous increases in population size.India is by far the most dramatic example ofthis: with a population of a little over 1 bil-lion and a TFR of 3.2, India is currentlygrowing by 17.6 million people a year. Nor isit inevitable that “moderate” TFRs will justkeep dropping at a steady rate: unfortunately,over the past few years TFR declines haveslowed in several densely populated coun-tries, including Bangladesh, India, and Nige-ria. And even after a country’s TFR dropsbelow the replacement rate, its populationmay continue to expand for decades—a phe-


12

Organic farming is now the fastest-growing sector of the world agriculturaleconomy.


nomenon called “population momentum.”China, for instance, has a TFR of only 1.8, butits population of nearly 1.3 billion is stillincreasing by 11.5 million per year.31

Population momentum is easier to under-stand if you think in terms of the age struc-ture of the population. Societies that have justarrived at the replacement rate tend to bedisproportionately young: there are usuallymany young people but far fewer older ones.Since most deaths occur among older people,there are not initially enough deaths to com-pensate for the births, even at the 2.1 TFR.The compensatory deaths occur later, as thatyoung demographic bulge moves into mid-dle age and beyond. In the meantime, thepopulation keeps growing. Overall, the devel-oping-world TFR is now a little less than 3,about half of what it was as recently as 1970.The current projection, for whatever that isworth, puts the average TFR in developingcountries at 2.17 in 2050.32

These unexpected demographic transitionsoffer no grounds for complacency, but they dooffer reason for hope. We are not inevitablydestined for the demographic worst-case sce-nario—a crowded, denatured planetarydystopia of war, poverty, and disease.

There are reasons for hope in many otherfields as well—developments that are broad-based although often only partially realized,and that are not yet well integrated into thepredominant views of the world. Such changecan be seen, for instance, in organic farming,which is now the fastest-growing sector of theworld agricultural economy and which couldrejuvenate rural communities in countries asvaried as the Philippines, Sweden, and theUnited States. It can be seen in renewableenergy technologies, where rapid technicaladvances and declining production costs are

driving increases in wind and photovoltaicgenerating capacity on the order of 25 per-cent a year or more. (See Chapter 5.)33

Some grounds for hope can be found evenfor that most famous and least successfulcause on the environmental agenda: the con-servation of tropical nature. The park—a con-cept that has often been maligned as politicallyunrealistic in much of the tropics—has overthe past several decades quietly proved itsworth. Parks contain almost all that is left ofnature on a grand scale in Cuba, the Domini-can Republic, Ghana, India, Madagascar, thePhilippines, South Africa, and Thailand; theycontain most of what is left in many otherLatin American, African, and Asian coun-tries. Major investments in this simpleapproach—essentially, setting places aside fornature—are as critical to the well-being of theplanet as investments in renewable energy orfamily planning.34

Roughly 50,000 years after innovationbecame a human trait, we live in a world thatis increasingly of our own making. But it is noless mysterious and challenging than was theworld inhabited by those Stone Age authorsof innovation. By many measures, the distancebetween those people and ourselves is so vastthat it would be difficult to measure. Ourtechnologies and social consciousness wouldhardly seem to have a parallel in their culture.And yet in some fundamental respects, ourstruggles echo theirs. We too rely on techni-cal achievement to catalyze cultural change.We too have a habit of creating “solutiondividends.” And who knows? Maybe 50,000years from now, our distant descendants willwonder how we managed to magnify theirworld in ways that we ourselves could nothave imagined.


13

In the year 2000, Spix’s macaws vanishedfrom northeast Brazil. The large, powder-blue birds’ disappearance was no fluke. Farm-ers and timber cutters cleared their woodedriver forest habitat. Bird traders bagged thebirds, and hunters shot them. Today, only40–60 Spix’s macaws still live in aviaries,where most of them were born. None remainin riverside woodlands where the birds were“discovered” just 183 years ago.1

While scientists puzzle over the prospectsfor breeding these birds and releasing theirprogeny back to the wild, many wonder howre-introduced birds would learn to locatefood. With little habitat left, they would needto fly to other scattered habitat “islands” tofind enough fruit and seeds to survive. Evenif all of this worked out, the birds’ youngwould be threatened by an invasive intro-duced insect—the “Africanized” hybrid hon-eybee—that inhabits 40 percent of remainingtree cavities suitable for macaw nesting.2

The demise of the Spix’s macaw resonatesfar beyond one tiny Brazilian region, for thisis far from an isolated incident. According to

a 2000 study published by the global con-servation organization BirdLife International,the Spix’s macaw and almost 1,200 addi-tional species—about 12 percent of theworld’s remaining bird species—may faceextinction within the next century. Moststruggle against a deadly mixture of threats.Although some bird extinctions now seemimminent, many can still be avoided with adeep commitment to bird conservation asan integral part of a sustainable developmentstrategy. For many reasons, such a commit-ment would be in humanity’s best interests.3

As the growing popularity of bird-watch-ing, or birding, highlights, people have longbeen inspired by the beauty, songs, and var-ied behaviors of birds. Central America’sMayas and Aztecs worshipped Quetzalcoatl,a dominant spiritual character cloaked in theiridescent green feathers of the resplendentquetzal, a bird now sought by binocular-tot-ing birders. Ancient Egyptians similarlyrevered the falcon god Horus, while manyethnic groups around the world still ascribestrong spiritual powers to various bird species,

14

Howard Youth

Chapter 2

Watching Birds Disappear

WATCHING BIRDS DISAPPEAR

as well as deriving protein and ornamentsfrom local birds. Native American tribes con-tinue to incorporate eagle feathers into theirrituals, while East African pastoral tribes dothe same with ostrich feathers. Birds’ powersof flight inspired our flying machines andcontinue to draw the attention of artists andphotographers worldwide.4

But more important, people benefit frominvaluable goods and services that birds pro-vide in habitats worldwide. Scientists are justnow starting to quantify these “behind-the-scenes” contributions. Many birds, for exam-ple, feed on fruits, scattering seeds as they feedor in their droppings as they flap from placeto place. Recent studies revealed that black-casqued, brown-cheeked, and piping hornbillsare among tropical Africa’s most importantseed distributors. In tropical Central andSouth America, toucans and trogons providethis vital service.5

On plains and other open areas, vulturesprovide natural sanitation services by scav-enging animal carcasses. Hummingbirds, ori-oles, and other nectar-feeding birds pollinatea wide variety of wildflowers, shrubs, andtrees, including many valued by people, whilethousands of insect-eating species and hun-dreds of rodent- and insect-eating raptorskeep pest numbers in check. In Canadianforests, for instance, populations of wood-war-blers and evening grosbeaks surge to matchoutbreaks of spruce budworm, an insect thatcan severely damage forests of spruce and fir.Losing these birds and others tears the nat-ural fabric of ecosystems. As conservationistslearned from species like Spix’s macaw, con-serving healthy bird populations early wouldprove far simpler than trying to reconstructthem later.6

In addition, many bird species are easilyseen or heard, making them perfect envi-ronmental indicators. In many cases, theyprovide scientists with the best glimpse at

how humanity’s actions affect the world’secosystems and the more elusive wildlife thatshare their habitats. In Europe, biologistsconsider dippers, which are round-bodiedstream-living songbirds, valuable indicators ofclean water because they feed on sensitivebottom-dwelling insects such as caddisfly lar-vae, which disappear in sullied waters. Dis-appearance of dippers and their prey alsofollows water acidification brought on byacid rain or the replacement of native decid-uous forests with pine plantations. Otherspecies are important indicators of threats tohumanity, including chemical contamination,disease, and global warming.7

Ornithologists are compiling status reportsfor all of the world’s approximately 9,800bird species, but what they already have tal-lied is alarming. (See Box 2–1 for some exam-ples.) Human-related factors threaten 99percent of the species in greatest danger. Birdextinctions are on the increase, already top-ping 50 times the natural rate of loss, with atleast 128 species vanishing over the last 500years—103 of which became extinct since1800. (See Table 2–1.) On islands, human-caused bird extinctions are not new: bysleuthing bits of bone found on far-flungarchipelagos, scientists recently concludedthat even before European explorers sailed tothe region, human colonization of Pacificislands wiped out up to 2,000 endemic (thatis, only found in one place), often flightlessbird species. Today, however, people arecrowding out bird populations on the main-land as well.8

Birds are by no means the only class of ani-mals at risk, of course. Prominent scientistsnow consider the world to be in the midst ofthe sixth great wave of animal extinctions. Thefifth wave finished off the dinosaurs 65 mil-lion years ago. Unlike previous episodes,however, people are the cause of most of thesudden die-offs. One quarter of the world’s


15


mammal species are threatened or nearlythreatened with extinction; of the other well-surveyed species, 25 percent of reptiles, 21percent of amphibians, and 30 percent offish are threatened.9

But if we focus solely on the prospects ofextinction, we partly miss the point. From anecological perspective, extinction is but thelast stage in a spiraling degeneration thatsends a thriving species slipping toward obliv-ion. Species stop functioning as critical com-ponents of their ecosystems well before theycompletely disappear.10

Although birds are probably the best-stud-

ied animal class, a great deal remains to belearned about them—from their life historiesto their vulnerability to environmental change.In the tropics, where both avian diversity andhabitat loss are greatest—in top biodiversitycountries such as Colombia, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), andIndonesia—experts just do not know thescope of bird declines because many areasremain poorly, if at all, surveyed. Species andsome distinct populations that may later beconsidered separate species may vanish evenbefore scientists can classify them or studytheir behavior, let alone their ecological impor-tance. Several new bird species are describedevery year. One of this century’s earliest wasan owl discovered in Sri Lanka in 2001, thefirst new bird species found there in 132 years.These scarce and newly described birds sit ata crossroads, as does humanity. One pathleads toward continued biodiversity and sus-tainability. The other heads toward extinc-tion and imbalance.11

Habitat Loss:The Greatest Threat

Many of the problems faced by birds andother wildlife stem from how we handle ourreal estate. The human population explosionfrom 1.6 billion to 6 billion during the lastcentury fueled widespread habitat loss thatchiseled once-extensive wilderness into waver-ing habitat islands. Today, loss or damage tospecies’ living spaces poses by far the great-est threat to birds and biodiversity in general.12

Timber operations, farms, pastures, andsettlements have already claimed almost halfof the world’s forests. Between the 1960s and1990s, about 4.5 million square kilometersof the world’s tropical forest cover—20 per-cent—were cut or burned. Estimates ofannual deforestation vary widely, from50,000 to 170,000 square kilometers. Per-


16

• A 1994 study revealed that 195 of 514European bird species—38 percent—had “unfavorable conservation status.” InGreat Britain alone, 139 of 247 breedingbird species (56 percent) are in decline,according to annual surveys.

• Based on the North American BreedingBird Survey’s records between 1966 and1998, some 28 percent of 403thoroughly monitored species showedstatistically significant negative trends.

• A BirdLife International study of Asianbirds published in 2001 found a quarterof the region’s bird species—664—inserious decline or limited to small,vulnerable populations.

• Some Australian ornithologists claim thathalf of their island nation’s land birdspecies—including many endemicparrots—could become extinct by theend of the century, although recentbreeding bird surveys chronicled littledifference in status for most species overthe past 20 years.

SOURCE: See endnote 8.

BOX 2–1. SIGNS OF BIRDS INDECLINE


haps easier to track are dwindling populationsof creatures that must live beneath the trees:habitat loss jeopardizes 1,008 (85 percent)of the world’s most threatened bird species,with recent tropical forest destruction affect-ing 74 percent.13

Foresters herald the regrowth of temper-ate forests as an environmental success story,and in recent decades substantial reforestationdid take place in, for example, the easternUnited States, China, and Europe. Forestmanagement profoundly affects diversity andnatural balances, however, and satellite images

of tree cover do not tell us how much of theregrown habitat is indeed quality habitat.14

In the southeastern United States overthe last five years, for instance, more than150 industrial chip mills have chewed up vasttracts of natural forest to produce paper,rayon, and pressboard. Foresters replace theclearcut area with rows of same-age, same-species pine saplings. For many native animalsand plants, simplified plantation monocul-tures are no substitute for more complex nat-ural forests, with their old, young, living,dead, deciduous, and coniferous trees and


17

Table 2–1.Ten Recently Extinct Bird Species

Atitlán Grebe Gone by 1986, this flightless aquatic bird lived only in Guatemala. Introduced bass,habitat loss, disturbance, and gill nets contributed to its demise.

Colombian Grebe Last seen in 1977 in Colombia, where a combination of introduced trout, pesticidepoisoning, wetland loss, and hunting finished it off.

Wake Island Rail A casualty of World War II, between 1942 and 1945 this island endemic was likelycaptured and eaten into extinction by starving Japanese soldiers.

Canary Islands Seen perhaps as recently as 1981, this shorebird succumbed to loss of its mollusk Oystercatcher prey due to overharvesting by humans, probable predation by introduced cats and

rats, and disturbance by people frequenting its coastal habitats.

Paradise Parrot Probably extinct by 1927, this colorful Australian parrot likely died out due to combined factors including overgrazing, drought, fire suppression, invading exoticprickly pear cacti, disease, trapping, egg collection, introduced predators, and loss of eucalyptus trees.

Bush Wren A ground-nesting bird rousted from New Zealand by introduced predators by1972.

Grand CaymanThrush Last seen in 1938, this wetland songbird disappeared with its habitat.

Aldabra Warbler Discovered in 1967, this bird was gone by 1983 from its namesake Indian Oceanisland due to rat predation and habitat degradation wrought by introduced goatsand native tortoises.

Guam Flycatcher Along with the island’s other native birds, this bird was eaten out of its Pacificisland home by introduced brown tree snakes by 1983.

Kaua’i ‘O’o Last reported in 1987, this Hawaiian forest bird suffered from habitat loss,predation by introduced black rats, and diseases introduced by exotic mosquitoes.

SOURCE: Alison J. Stattersfield and David R. Capper, eds.,Threatened Birds of the World (Barcelona: Lynx Edi-cions, 2000).


their lush, varied undergrowth.15

Even without plantations, the consistentloss of some forest components can causebirds to abandon areas. For example, studiesin intensively managed Finnish forests, whereforesters remove older and dead trees, revealedmarked declines in large forest birds such asa peacock-sized grouse called the capercaillieand the crow-sized black woodpecker.16

Losses of other habitats important to birdsand other wildlife have been less heralded, butno less dramatic. Grasslands, which cloakmore than a third of Earth’s surface, sustainbird populations found nowhere else, butthey also host almost one sixth of the humanpopulation. Few large, undisturbed grasslandareas remain. In North America, the greatgrasslands that once stretched from the Mis-sissippi to the base of the Rocky Mountainsare largely gone, including the tallgrass prairie,of which less than 4 percent remains.17

Following this widespread landscapechange, many North American grasslandbird populations continue to shrivel, accord-ing to the U.S. Geological Survey’s annualNorth American Breeding Bird Survey.Between 1966 and 1998, 15 of 28 charac-teristic grassland bird species steadilydeclined. The victims include the burrowingowl and other birds that maintained ecolog-ical relationships with once-abundant prairiedogs. After the colonial rodents’ populationsplummeted by 98 percent, the owls, whichnest in old prairie dog burrows, are gonefrom much of their former breeding range.Even in the largest remaining swath of tall-grass prairie—the Flint Hills region of Kansasand Oklahoma—the once-abundant greaterprairie-chicken is rapidly losing ground dueto recently intensified burning and cattlegrazing methods.18

In Europe, agriculture covers about half ofthe land. Most of this excludes grasslandbirds because intensive, modern cultivation

often requires higher chemical inputs such asharmful pesticides, while weedy growth orhedgerows—once wildlife-hospitable com-ponents of more traditional, smaller farms—vanished to make way for large machinery andlarger areas of cropland. The last strongholdsfor many grassland species, including largeareas in Portugal, Spain, and central and east-ern European countries, are under or willsoon be under severe pressure from increasedirrigation and modernization programs sub-sidized by the European Union’s CommonAgricultural Policy.19

Grassland remains on about 60 percentof its original span in Asia, Africa, and Aus-tralia, although much of it is degraded. Onewidespread threat is overgrazing. In manyareas, light grazing helps maintain healthygrasslands. But the picture quickly changeswhen a threshold, which varies by region, ispassed. And overgrazing is often but one ofseveral threats to these ecosystems.20

For example, 10 of the world’s 25 bustardspecies are either threatened with extinctionor close to it due to widespread overgrazing,collisions with fog- or darkness-shroudedpower lines, and hunting. The turkey-sizedgreat bustard, once found from Britain toChina, has just a few Spanish, Russian, andChinese strongholds and is disappearing fromwidely scattered populations elsewhere.21

A close relative, the Australian bustard,no longer stalks most of the southeasternpart of its namesake country due to intro-duced rabbits and livestock, which chew downhabitat, and to fire restrictions, which allowthe intrusion of acacias and other woodyplants into grasslands. Argentina’s grasslandsface a similar onslaught brought on by“exotic” trees—pines and eucalyptus intro-duced at nearby tree plantations invade grass-lands to the detriment of native birds andother wildlife.22

Many birds flourish where land and water


18


mix—in wooded swamps, marshes, mangroveforests, coastal mudflats, and other wetlands.Until recently, humanity saw these areas as dis-ease-ridden wilderness asking to be con-quered. Draining, filling, and conversion tofarmlands or cities destroyed an estimatedhalf of the world’s wetlands during the twen-tieth century. Estimates within individualcountries are often much higher. Spain, forinstance, has lost an estimated 60–70 percentof its wetland area since the 1940s.23

Even wilderness areas such as EvergladesNational Park, in the United States, andSpain’s Doñana National Park have not beenspared humanity’s heavy hand. In and aroundthese two greatly compromised protectedareas—both of which are classified as Bios-phere Reserves, World Heritage Sites, andRamsar wetlands of international impor-tance—hydrology has been disrupted, exoticplants and animals have invaded, and pesti-cides and other pollutants wash in fromnearby farms and industries.24

One of Spain’s greatest environmental dis-asters occurred in 1998, when a mine reser-voir just north of Doñana burst, flushing1.58 million gallons of heavy metal–ladenwater down the Guadiamar River, reachingwell into the park’s buffer zone. Thousandsof birds and fish died, and reproduction willlikely be impaired in birds and other aquaticlife for years to come.25

Declining bird populations followed habi-tat degradation in both parks. For example,bird census-takers counted 5,100 white ibisin the Everglades between 1997 and 1999—more than 45 times fewer than were esti-mated to nest there in the 1930s. In DoñanaNational Park, the once-abundant but now-threatened marbled duck barely breeds withinthe park’s borders most years becauseincreased demand for irrigation, among otherfactors, means that marshes dry up by August,before these wetland birds finish nesting.26

Outside protected areas, changes havebeen far more dramatic. Over the last 70years, Armenia’s Lake Sevan suffered dra-matic lowering due to water diversion, andLake Gilli was drained entirely. With theirvital wetlands destroyed, at least 31 locallybreeding bird species abandoned the lakes,including the sensitive black stork and themore adaptable lesser black-backed gull.27

A 1999 survey of 47 wetland sites inMorocco found that only 10 had protectedstatus and that most faced threats from devel-opment, habitat alteration, and exotic fishintroductions. Researchers compared descrip-tions from a similar survey of 24 of thesesites in 1978 and found that 25 percent of thewetlands were destroyed in two decades.28

Aside from being vital nesting groundsfor birds, wetlands also serve as key stopoversites for millions of transcontinental migrants,particularly on coasts, along rivers, or in bayswhere birds pause to rest and refuel beforeor after transoceanic journeys. Major exam-ples of these rest spots include China’s DeepBay, Surinam’s coastal mudflats, Alaska’sCopper River Delta, and Australia’s Gulf ofCarpentaria.29

Other concentration points favored bymigrating storks, hawks, and myriad songbirdsinclude narrow land corridors such as thoseat Gibraltar, Turkey’s Bosporus Strait, Eilat inIsrael, Point Pelee in Canada, and the coastalMexican city of Veracruz. At many of thesesites, development shrinks wetlands and otherhabitats. This means that more migratingbirds must pack into smaller and smallerspaces, increasing the likelihood of botulismand other outbreaks that can kill thousandsof birds.30


19

Wetlands serve as key stopover sites for millions of transcontinentalmigrants.


In many parts of the world, flat lowlandareas have been the first to be exploited fortimber or farming. More difficult to clearand cultivate, mountains often hold theirhabitats longer against human endeavors. Inmany countries, including Jamaica and Mex-ico (in terms of the country’s dry forest),much of the remaining habitat is found onlyin prohibitively steep terrain.31

Once targeted, though, mountain habitatsand wildlife are extremely vulnerable. Altitudeand moisture levels dictate vegetation andwildlife occurrence there, creating narrowribbons of habitat. Humans and migrant birdsalike particularly favor temperate and rain-soaked middle elevations. In the Andes,Himalayas, and Central American highlands,among other areas, middle-elevation forestsare highly degraded, creating severe erosionproblems, fouling watersheds vital to humanpopulations, and providing less and less areafor wintering and resident birds.32

The blazing orange-and-black black-burnian warbler is one bird affected by thewidespread loss of mid-elevation Andeanforests. Weighing just a third of an ounce, thiscolorful insect-eater nests in North Americanspruce and hemlock forests but winters 8,000kilometers away in northwestern SouthAmerica. Conservationists expect a dip inblackburnian warbler populations, a scenariofaced by many of the 200 or so otherNeotropical migrant birds—species that nestnorth of the Tropic of Cancer but winter inMexico, the Caribbean, or Central or SouthAmerica.33

A recent study of another warbler, theAmerican redstart, used carbon isotopes todetermine wintering habitats of birds migrat-ing to New Hampshire to breed. The findingssuggest that earlier-arriving, healthier birdswinter in humid tropical forests, while weaker,less competitive individuals settle fordegraded, drier habitats. This is a likely indi-

cation that optimal redstart wintering areas arealready saturated and limited, and impliesthat although birds can winter in compro-mised habitats, they may be less fit to com-pete and breed.34

In many cases, Neotropical migratorybirds’ winter ranges are more compact thantheir nesting areas, putting concentrated win-tering populations at greater risk from habi-tat loss. For instance, the Oklahoma statebird—the scissor-tailed flycatcher—neststhroughout that state, in most of Texas andKansas, and in portions of Arkansas, Mis-souri, and Louisiana. During the winter, how-ever, most of the population packs into an areaof northwestern Costa Rica about the size ofone Texas county.35

Quite a different situation exists for manytropical birds that do not migrate, many ofwhich live year-round in small areas. All told,just over a quarter of all bird species—2,623—have ranges that are at most the size of CostaRica or Denmark (about 50,000 square kilo-meters). More than half of these species arethreatened or near-threatened; 62 are nowextinct. Within their limited ranges, many ofthese localized species are pigeonholed intoonly those prime habitats that remain. Evenin these last havens, other factors often comeinto play, nudging populations closer toextinction.36

Falling to PiecesEcologically speaking, what happens arounda habitat is as important to its denizens aswhat happens inside it. In recent years, thisrevelation began guiding conservationists,who now view protected areas as part oflarger landscapes that function together tosupport or thwart species. When habitats—and mosaics blending different habitats—arediced into smaller and smaller pieces, theyoften suffer from edge effect, or the negative


20


influences of an edge on a habitat’s interior.37

For instance, when loggers remove a largeswath of trees, light-tolerant plants move intothe clearing and the adjacent forest’s edge.Sunlight penetrates farther into the forestthan before, raising temperatures, drying outthe forest floor, and increasing the likelihoodof fires or of wind or drought damage. Edgeeffect stresses or kills shade-adapted plants,leaving them to dry up or to become moresusceptible to disease or invading competitors.Researchers studying forest fragments in cen-tral Brazilian Amazonia found that theamount of above-ground vegetation wasgreatly reduced, especially within 100 metersof fragment edges, due in good part toincreased tree mortality.38

After trees fall, remaining forest fragmentsmay no longer provide an ideal habitat for for-est interior birds, which must contend withthe invasion of creatures that thrive in moreopen areas. In forest fragments, North Amer-ican forest birds face larger predator popula-tions and brown-headed cowbirds. Ratherthan building their own nests, cowbirds laytheir eggs in nests of host bird species, oftento the detriment of the hosts’ young. In somehighly fragmented forests, cowbird eggs turnup in up to 90 percent of wood thrush and80 percent of warbling vireo nests.39

When isolated in small forest patches,many southeastern Australian birds declinebecause aggressive, edge-favoring birds callednoisy miners out-compete them for food andnesting places. Conservationists now recom-mend setting aside large forest reserves asone of the only ways to protect smaller, lessaggressive species, including many insect-eat-ing birds that live within the miners’ breed-ing range. A similar recommendation is madefor wood thrushes in highly fragmented mid-western U.S. forests. Specialized insectivorousbirds also suffer from fragmentation in otherparts of the world, including Japan.40

Roads and power lines frequently cutthrough forests, increasing the chance of fatalcollisions and providing pathways for edgepredators, competitors, and exotic plants.Traffic noise may also interfere with birds’attempts to mark territory through song. Viaroads, humans and their livestock gain easieraccess to forest fragments, removing under-growth and dead, standing trees important toparrots, woodpeckers, and other cavity-nest-ing birds.41

In equatorial Africa, Amazonia, tropicalAsia, and other regions where forestry roadscut into large remaining tropical forests, inten-sive hunting—made easier thanks to roads—is also widespread. In equatorial Africa andsome other areas, hunters shoot wildlife notonly for subsistence but to supply burgeon-ing urban delicacy markets. On the island ofNew Guinea, increasing hunting pressure,aided by recent road construction, threatensa growing number of endemic bird-of-par-adise species.42

Coming at the fragmentation issue fromthe other side, some researchers highlight theimportance of intact “source” areas—refugiathat produce surplus birds that may later dis-perse to take up slack in more stressed, lessproductive “sink” areas such as woodlandscarved up by suburbs. A 1996–98 survey thattook place mostly within Cherokee and Nan-tahala-Pisgah national forests in the south-eastern United States compared results withsurveys done at the same sites 50 years earlier.Researchers found that this extensive area“retained and probably regained functionalintegrity for forest birds during the latter halfof the 20th century.” Opportunistic, nest-rob-bing blue jays declined during this time, whilenest-parasitizing cowbirds, lacking open feed-ing areas nearby, were virtually absent.Neotropical migrants declining in many otherplaces held steady or increased in these largeforest reserves.43


21


An Alien and Danger-Filled Ark

Visit a Hawaiian garden, and you’ll likely seeBrazilian red-crested cardinals and Asian com-mon mynas, but you will be hard-pressed tofind a native bird. Stroll city streets in NorthAmerica, South Africa, and Australia, andyou may find introduced European starlings,house sparrows, and feral pigeons at yourfeet. What’s happening here? Even in other-wise-undisturbed wildlife habitats, a neworder is taking hold as exotic, or non-native,species—from pathogens to mongooses—are introduced through human blunder,curiosity, or in hopes of providing food orother goods and services, including controlof other rampaging exotics. Over the pastcentury, the pace of introductions greatlyaccelerated in parallel with the rise in globaltrade and travel.44

Today, exotics threaten birds and theirecosystems in myriad ways, constituting thesecond most intense threat to birds world-wide, after habitat loss and degradation. (Forthreatened species, however, exotics rankthird, behind exploitation, particularly hunt-ing and capture for the cage bird trade.)Introduced species contributed to most birdextinctions since 1800, and they now menacea quarter of globally threatened bird species.45

Once introduced, some exotic predatorsbecame all the more lethal on islands, whereendemic species evolved with few or nodefenses against such hunters. To date, 93percent of bird extinctions (119 out of 128)have occurred on islands, where extremelyvulnerable endemic species succumbed to

habitat loss, hunting, and, in most cases,exotic species. In many cases, introducedmongooses, rats, pigs, and other non-nativeanimals have unsettled unique island ecolog-ical balances.46

One reptilian invader, the brown treesnake, ate 12 of Guam’s 14 land bird speciesinto extinction by the 1980s after its acci-dental release following World War II. Inrecent years, this snake has also turned up atHawaiian airports, raising fears that it couldbecome the latest—and one of the great-est—threats introduced there.47

Introduced rats plague many island-nest-ing seabirds, including albatrosses and petrels.Having found their way to islands via explor-ers’ or colonists’ ships, or more recently fish-ing boats, the opportunistic rodents nowdine on bird eggs and young. A recent studyon New Zealand’s northern offshore islandsrevealed that rats not only threaten the islands’nesting petrels, they also eat native plants’seeds, stifling the distribution of 11 out of 17coastal trees and bringing some close to localextinction.48

One of humanity’s constant companionsis another nemesis of wild birds. On far-flungislands, house and feral cats have contributedto the extinction of 22 or more endemicbirds. Their effect on mainland wildlife pop-ulations is also great. Studies in Australia inthe early 1990s documented domesticatedand feral cats killing members of almost aquarter of the country’s 750 bird species.Annually, cats kill an estimated 1 billion birdsin the United States, where at least 40 millionhouse cats regularly roam free and another60–100 million cats live in a feral state. U.S.cats kill at least nine federally listed species,among many other victims, including beach-nesting least terns and piping plovers.49

Tiny predators plague other birds. Theyellow crazy ant, a frenetic, fast-multiplyinginsect, is marching across the Australian ter-


22

Due to their apparent lack ofimmunity, North American birds todayfactor as key indicators of the spreadof West Nile virus.


ritory of Christmas Island following its intro-duction there during the twentieth century.Recently, biologists documented the insectskilling the islands’ abundant land crabs. Likemany other ant species, crazy ants “farm”scale insects—herding and protecting theseforest-damaging insects and drinking a sweetsecretion they extrude while destroying rain-forest trees.50

As they spread across the island, crazy antswill likely kill young native birds, includingthose of two critically endangered species—the endemic Christmas Island hawk-owl andAbbott’s booby, a seabird that nests nowhereelse but in the island’s forest canopy. In com-ing decades, both species are expected todecline 80 percent due to the ant invasion.Introduced crazy ants also threaten birds onthe Hawaiian and Seychelles islands and onTanzania’s Zanzibar.51

In North American forests, sap-feedinginsects called hemlock and balsam wooly adel-gids are changing habitats’ ability to supportbirds and other flora and fauna. These acci-dentally introduced insects now spread bywind and via birds’ feathers and mammals’ fur.First a threat to western forests, the hem-lock wooly adelgid, originally from Asia,moved east by the 1950s and is now eradi-cating Carolina and eastern hemlocks, impor-tant components of eastern woodlands.Meanwhile, the European balsam wooly adel-gid attacks balsam and Fraser firs in north-eastern and Appalachian forests. Heavy loss ofFraser firs leaves intermingled red sprucemore vulnerable to wind damage, changingthe face of forests in such important birdbreeding “source” areas as the Great SmokyMountains National Park. A recent study ina fir-damaged area found that the combineddensity of all breeding birds declined by halfand that 10 of 11 common breeding birdshad declined.52

Sometimes introduced dangers are invisi-

ble. On the Hawaiian Islands, mosquitoes,which originally landed in the archipelago inship-carried water barrels in 1826, unleasheda pair of deadly diseases—avian pox and avianmalaria—upon the island’s non-immune nativebirds. These diseases arrived via introducedbirds and were injected into natives by themosquitoes, contributing to at least 10 extinc-tions and potentially fueling dozens more.Weakened, native Hawaiian birds becomeeven more vulnerable to introduced birds thatcompete with them for food and habitat.53

Whether introduced, naturally occurring,or strengthened by unnatural conditions,other diseases threaten birds. India’s once-abundant long-billed and white-rumped vul-ture populations have crashed—plummetingmore than 90 percent country-wide during thelast decade—most likely due to a virus orother contagious illness. A decade ago, thesebirds swarmed over abundant cow carcassesthat litter fields and dumps around Indiancities and towns. Now they are listed as crit-ically endangered. In their sudden absence,feral dog, crow, and rat populations haveexploded, taking up the slack in scavengers andposing great health risks to people nearby.54

Due to their apparent lack of immunity,North American birds today factor as keyindicators of the spread of West Nile virus,which first appeared in New York in 1999.This mosquito-borne disease, present in Africaand Eurasia for decades, has killed scores ofpeople in the United States so far. West Nilevirus has taken a far higher toll on birds,killing thousands of birds in more than 100species and putting endangered species breed-ing programs in peril. To date, no one knowsif transported pet birds, humans, or—lesslikely—trans-Atlantic migrant birds broughtthe illness.55

Predators and pathogens aside, native birdsalso face both genetic and direct competitionfrom exotic birds. For example, people around


23


the world have dumped familiar domesticatedmallard ducks into ponds and other wetlands.In various countries, these green-headedwaterfowl vigorously interbreed with closelyrelated species, “swamping” or underminingthe native species’ genetic variability. Suchhybridization affects South Africa’s yellow-billed ducks, endangered Hawaiian ducks,American black ducks, and mottled ducks. Asimilar problem occurs in Spain. There, threat-ened white-headed ducks—already pinched byhabitat loss—now mingle and hybridize withNorth American ruddy ducks, which wereintroduced to England in the 1940s but havesince flown over to the continent. New Euro-pean legislation aims to curb ruddy ducknumbers through hunting.56

Introduced plants create their own, verydifferent dangers, changing birds’ habitatsuntil they are eventually uninhabitable.Whether brought over as nursery stock,planted with the blessing of farm programs,or seeded by accident, exotic plant specieshave gone wild in many parts of the world—at the expense of birds and other wildlife.One of North America’s worst plant invadersillustrates the point. Brought over from Eura-sia, rapid-growing cheatgrass has spread farand wide since its introduction to NorthAmerica in the late 1800s. As it overtakessagebrush and bunchgrass habitats, cheat-grass fuels the decline of such sage-dependentbirds as the sage grouse, which nests amongsagebrush shrubs and depends on their leavesand shoots for food. Cheatgrass is now foundon more than 40 million hectares, an arealarger than Germany, and dominates much ofthat grassland and pasture.57

Unknowingly, birds use their formidableseed-distributing abilities to further spreadinvasive exotic plants. This is happening, forexample, on the Pacific island of Tahiti and inthe Hawaiian islands, where birds distributeseeds of the fast-spreading miconia tree, a

South American ornamental that now runsamok, shading out native plant life in morethan half of Tahiti’s forests. Many scientistsconsider this striated, broad-leafed plant to beone of the greatest threats to Hawaii’s remain-ing native forests as well; there it covers about4,400 hectares.58

In Florida, millions of wintering Americanrobins and other native birds eat Brazilianpepper berries and scatter their seeds acrossthe Everglades and other wild areas. Brazil-ian pepper, one of the most widespread exoticplants in the state, is now found on at least324,000 hectares, including 40,400 hectaresof mangrove forest in Everglades NationalPark. Similarly, the introduced common mynais dispersing pervasive South American lantanabush’s seeds in Asia.59

Although overlooked by novice nature-lovers, exotic plants now dominate manylandscapes. Controlling well-establishedexotics is neither cheap nor easy. For exam-ple, perhaps 5 percent of 283 million hectares(700 million acres) of public land is “seriouslyinfested” in the United States, where at least400 exotic plant species have gone out ofcontrol. No longer can we think that naturecan right itself if left alone.60

Dealing with exotic introductions oftenrequires active management, including hunt-ing, poisoning, herbicide spraying, and insome cases introducing natural predators ofthe out-of-control exotic—activities that canalso potentially disturb or harm native birdsand other wildlife. In the United States alone,the annual cost of damage caused by exoticsand the measures to control them reachesan estimated $137 billion.61

Bullets, Cages, Hooks,and Chemicals

It is hard not to marvel at tiny birds’ mightymigratory abilities and delight in their return


24


each year. In some regions, however, humanattention to migrants poses an environmen-tal problem: unregulated hunting alongmigration routes kills huge numbers of birdseach fall and spring. The Mediterranean islandnation of Malta has long had one of the mostpublicized problems. There, throughoutspring and fall migration, hunters take aim atisland-hopping birds during their flights northto mainland European nesting grounds andsouth to African wintering areas.62

Officially protected birds, from swallowsand bee-eaters to harriers and herons, fall toMaltese shooters in staggering numbers. Mostof this hunting is just target practice, andhurts already declining European nestingbird populations. Birds, mainly finches, arealso illegally trapped as cage birds: in 2001,the nongovernmental organization (NGO)BirdLife Malta used aerial photography toidentify more than 5,300 trapping sites,mainly along the coastlines of the country’stwo largest islands, Malta and Gozo. Thanksin good part to NGOs’ efforts, public outcryhas grown in recent years, and the Maltesegovernment recently passed more stringenthunting laws. Enforcement remains lax, how-ever, and the hunting lobby is strong. As ofOctober 2002, the government was waveringas to whether to loosen hunting restrictions.BirdLife Malta estimates that 3 million birdsare shot or trapped in Malta each year.63

Meanwhile, illegal hunting and trapping ofprotected birds of prey and songbirds remainproblems in other parts of Europe, includingCyprus (another important migrationstopover), Greece, France, Spain, and Italy,although growing public support for con-servation efforts has helped reduce this threat,particularly in the latter two countries. On theother side of Eurasia, an upswing in com-mercial hunting of Chinese songbirds raisesconcerns that migratory and resident species,including yellow-breasted buntings and

Eurasian tree sparrows, are being unsustain-ably killed for bite-sized snacks. Despite agovernment ban on killing these birds, sincethe early 1990s more than 100,000 a yearhave been caught, killed, frozen, and thenfried and sold—from Beijing to Guandong.64

While many small species are targeted,robust species attract even more attention.Among the first wildlife species to disappearfrom Central and South American forest frag-ments are turkey-like birds called curassows,chachalacas, and guans, 15 of which arethreatened with extinction. Large, nonmi-gratory, and palatable, these herbivores feedon forest fruits, seeds, leaves, and flowers,and some are important seed dispersers.65

Even where hunting laws protect rareguans, such as in Mexico in the case of thehorned guan, there is insufficient enforce-ment. Large, roadless forest tracts providethe best refuge for these birds, but such realestate is now hard to come by in CentralAmerica and parts of South America. Else-where, unregulated hunting threatens otherlarge birds, including 22 localized Asianpheasant species.66

Hunting is less of a threat for parrots,long loved by people the world over for theircolorful plumages, potential affection towardtheir owners, and, in many species, adept“talking” abilities. For these attributes, wildparrot populations suffer greatly from thewild bird trade. Almost a third of the world’s330 parrot species are threatened with extinc-tion due to habitat loss and collecting pres-sures, part of a burgeoning illegal wildlifetrade valued at billions of dollars a year.67


25

Almost a third of the world’s 330 parrot species are threatened withextinction due to habitat loss and collecting pressures.


Over the last decade, protection measureshelped reduce the international trade in wildparrots. These initiatives include the Con-vention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, whichprotects rare species from the wildlife trade(see Table 2–2), and wild bird export bans inAustralia, Guyana, and other countries. The1992 Wild Bird Conservation Act in theUnited States, which limits or prohibits exoticwild bird imports, greatly reduced wild birdimports and fueled a growing U.S. captive-breeding industry.68

But protection laws in many parrot-richcountries often go unheeded, and parrotpoaching and smuggling remain widespread,due to both domestic and internationaldemand. In addition to parrots, bird tradersseek many other colorful species, including

South America’s yellow cardinal and a cherry-red bird called the red siskin, both of whichhave been collected almost to extinction intheir remaining habitats. Without concertedin-country efforts to stem unbridled collect-ing, these and other species will likely disap-pear.69

Far from South American forests, anotherthreat looms. Seemingly endless oceanexpanses provide an undulating backdrop forlarge-scale seabird die-offs brought on bycommercial longline fishing. At least 23seabird species now face extinction largelydue to this industry, which became domi-nant worldwide following the 1993 ban ondrift-nets, hulking devices that scooped upenormous quantities of untargeted sea crea-tures. Today, longline boats set their lines,which can be 130 kilometers long and stud-


26

Table 2–2. Some International Agreements That Help Conserve Birds

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971)

Nearly 1,200 wetland sites in 133 countries, totaling 103 million hectares, have been designated for protec-tion and monitoring under this international agreement to conserve wetlands and use them sustainably.

Programme on Man and the Biosphere (1972) and World Heritage Convention (1972)

Under UNESCO, these initiatives set a framework for designating, protecting, and monitoring some of theworld’s most important biodiversity and cultural hotspots.As of May 2002, 94 countries had established atotal of 408 biosphere reserves under the Man and the Biosphere Programme.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975)

An international agreement by 160 countries to monitor international trade in wild animals and plants andensure that trade does not put wildlife in jeopardy.

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1983)

Eighty countries have signed this agreement, also known as the Bonn Convention, to protect migratorywildlife species, including birds, throughout their international migratory, breeding, and wintering areas.

Convention on Biodiversity (1992)

A total of 185 countries have signed on to this agreement, which was introduced at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Signatories promise to set up strategies for protecting their biodiversity, including habitatprotection and restoration. Fewer than 40 have drawn up formal plans so far.

SOURCE: Convention and program Web sites.


ded with up to 12,000 baited hooks, laterhauling them in to collect commercial fishsuch as tuna, swordfish, cod, and halibut.Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands ofseabirds drop down on the lines before theysink, grabbing at bait and becoming hooked,only to be submerged and drowned.70

Among the birds hard-hit by this activityare 17 of the world’s 24 albatross species.These slow-breeding, slow-maturing ocean-wanderers—many already under pressure attheir remote nesting sites from introducedpredators—are suffering staggering losses.For instance, from 1997 to 2000, illegal or“pirate” longlining in southern oceans killedan estimated 333,000 seabirds, including67,000 albatrosses. An estimated 10 percentof the black-footed albatross’s breeding pop-ulation perishes each year on longlines set inthe North Pacific.71

To date, no adjustments have been madein fishing practices, despite recent findings thatsimple measures can reduce bird bycatch bymore than 90 percent. Such measures includeinstalling bird-scaring streamers, setting netsat night, and adding weights to lines so thatthey sink faster. At least 33 countries havelongline fleets plying the world’s waters;prominent players include Canada, China,Japan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, and theUnited States.72

This situation may soon change, however.In 2001, seven countries—Australia (whichinitiated the plan in 1997), Brazil, Chile,France, New Zealand, Peru, and the UnitedKingdom—signed the Agreement for theConservation of Albatrosses and Petrels,under the Bonn Convention. When ratified,this treaty will legally bind signatories toreduce longlining bycatch of seabirds and toimplement other seabird conservation mea-sures. One challenge will be to get boats touse these measures uniformly. And then thereis the problem of regulating and policing ille-

gal fishing, which depletes not only bird butalso fish stocks. The U.N. Food and Agri-culture Organization encourages countriesto draw up their own national plans of actionfor voluntarily reducing longlining bird kills.73

The specter of oil spills also hangs overmany seabird populations. An unprecedentedvolume of oil crosses the seas these days, pro-viding a human-transported disaster waitingto happen at any time. African, Magellanic,Galápagos, and five other penguin speciesare among the many seabirds affected by oilspills near their nesting and feeding areas.74

Large-scale spills highlight oil’s effects onecosystems and birds. The 1989 ExxonValdez spill, for instance, perhaps killed morethan 250,000 birds, and a 1999 spill off ofFrance’s Brittany Coast killed an estimated100,000–200,000 birds of at least 40 differ-ent species. But small, less-publicized, dailytanker leaks also kill birds.75

The Galápagos Islands—a cradle ofendemic species and inspiration for Darwin’sevolutionary theories—were similarly threat-ened by oil in 2001, when 150,000 gallonsleaked from an Ecuadorian tanker. Thespreading spill seemed likely to mire many ofthe archipelago’s aquatic species, including sealions, unique marine iguanas, the world’srarest gull, and Galápagos penguins. Fortu-nately, the current swept much of the slickclear of the islands, so dozens rather thanthousands of birds and sea lions died. Somescientists believe, however, that small quan-tities of oil killed the bacteria in the algae-eat-ing iguanas’ guts, causing many to starve. Ifthat proves true, this incident highlights theimpacts that even smaller amounts of spilledoil can have on wildlife.76

Trade in oil is but one industry that pol-lutes the environment, as can be seen in birdpopulations’ reactions to the poisoning oftheir habitats. Effluents released by factoriesinto surrounding waters leave telltale marks


27


on bird populations. A recent study of treeswallows breeding in the PCB-contaminatedHudson River seemed to show that youngfemales there molt into adult coloration ear-lier, a possible sign that the birds’ endocrinesystems have been disrupted by contami-nants.77

In the 1970s and early 1980s, biologistsand toxicologists monitored severe deformi-ties and breeding troubles in fish-eating GreatLakes birds. Since Canadian and U.S. effortsto stem industrial contaminants such as PCBsand DDE began in the late 1970s, the pop-ulations of herring gulls and double-crestedcormorants have grown, and the bald eaglereturned to the region. But scientists continueto keep tabs on birds and fish to assess indus-trial threats not only to wildlife but also tohuman health. They still note bird deformi-ties and breeding troubles in heavily indus-trialized parts of the Great Lakes.78

Chemicals also threaten birds far outsideheavily industrialized zones. Worldwide, bothin water and on land, pesticides kill millionsof birds. For example, the persistentorganochlorine pesticide DDT builds up inpredatory birds’ tissues and causes widespreadnesting failure—as was seen in the UnitedStates and Britain during the 1950s and1960s. After U.S. law banned DDT in 1972,the country’s peregrine falcon, bald eagle,osprey, and brown pelican populationsrebounded. Similar rebounds occurred inBritain in such raptors as sparrowhawks aftera ban was initiated there. In 2001, 120 coun-tries signed a pesticide treaty that included aphaseout of DDT except for limited use incontrolling malaria. (See Chapter 4.) But

DDT has not gone away even where it isnow banned: this pesticide persists in soiland water even in places where its use was dis-continued 30 years ago.79

Although not as persistent, some of thenew generation of pesticides, includingorganophosphates and carbamates, are moretoxic to birds. One of the most dramaticrecent examples of pesticides’ danger to birdscame from the Argentinean pampas, where,in the winter of 1995, an estimated 20,000Swainson’s hawks—about 5 percent of thepopulation—died after feeding in alfalfa andsunflower fields sprayed with the insecticidemonocrotophos.80

In autumn, these western North Americannesters fly 6,000–12,000 kilometers southto feed in flocks on field insects during thesouthern spring and summer. Due to publicoutcry from NGOs and government agenciesin the United States, Canada, and Argentina,a major manufacturer of the organophos-phate insecticide, Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis),agreed to phase out its sales in areas where thehawks winter. The Argentinean governmentalso banned its use there.81

Pesticides also affect birds indirectly, eitherkilling off their prey or destroying vegetationthey need for shelter and nesting. British graypartridges, for example, declined after insec-ticides reduced their chicks’ invertebrate preyand herbicides withered wild plants amongwhich they nest and feed. Bustards, skylarks,and other birds living on agricultural landssuffer similar effects.82

Even within many protected wetland areas,thousands of birds die each year from anotherform of chemical threat—lead poisoning.Carefully regulated hunting is frequently anintegrated part of bird conservation efforts.In fact, hunters continue to be instrumentalin setting aside vital conservation lands inNorth America, Europe, and elsewhere. Butone traditional hunting tool—lead shot—


28

Even within protected wetland areas,thousands of birds die each year fromlead poisoning.


poses grave threats not only to waterfowlbut to eagles and other wildlife. Waterfowl aremost at risk because they guzzle down spentshot either instead of the pebbles they seek asgrit or by accident when rooting underwaterfor food. Several weeks after ingesting theshot, the slowly poisoned birds die. Eagles andother scavengers feeding on shot ducks alsosuccumb to lead poisoning.83

A growing number of countries, includingthe United States, Canada, and many inEurope, have banned lead shot. But manyothers have not. The U.S. Fish & WildlifeService estimates that in 1997 alone, thenationwide ban on lead shot used for water-fowl hunting prevented 1.4 million duckpoisoning deaths. In 2001, a partial banbegan in Spain, where conservationists esti-mate that up to 70,000 birds die of leadpoisoning each year. A similar fate awaitswaterfowl ingesting lead fishing sinkers, aleading cause of death for loons breeding inthe northeastern United States.84

Modern Conveniences andClimate Change

As technologies advance and human settle-ments spread, we tailor the landscape to out-fit our needs for communication, electricity,modern office space, and other amenities.Some of these advances are setbacks for birds,which evolved in far different surroundings.

Strung across open country, power linesare a leading cause of mortality in Europe’swhite storks, threatened great bustards, andraptors. Birds taking off in foggy or darkconditions run into the obscured lines. Oth-ers are electrocuted when they land onexposed cables atop poles. Studies conductedin Spain, Norway, and elsewhere indicate thatputting markers on wires can cut collisions atleast in half. This measure is taken by somecompanies, but it is not yet widespread in

most of the world.85

Skyscrapers and television, radio, and cell-phone towers kill millions of night-flyingmigrants each year, especially during cloudyor foggy nights. In the United States alone,communications towers may kill up to 40million birds annually. The structures’ puls-ing red lights distract the birds, which uselight as one of their migratory cues. Many col-lide with towers or their guy wires while cir-cling the lights. Depending upon weatherconditions, the death tolls can be staggering:During just one cloudy night in January1998, between 5,000 and 10,000 laplandlongspurs—sparrow-like birds that breed ontundra but winter far south on farms in theUnited States—died after hitting one 420-foot-tall Kansas tower. Between 1957 and1994, 121,000 birds of 123 species turned updead beneath one 960-foot television towerin Wisconsin.86

These threats increase as tall towers andbuildings continue to spread across land-scapes. More than 40,000 towers above 200feet are found the United States, and thisfigure may double over the next decade dueto the proliferation of towers needed formobile phones as well as new digital televisiontechnology. Weather is not the only consid-eration—location is important. Towers placedalong migration corridors or hilltops increasethe risks to birds. Few companies or govern-ments have addressed this growing problem,which requires more study to determine thebest measures to minimize the effects of light,towers, and guy wires, as well as tall buildings.Some suggested alternatives include replacingpulsing red lights with white strobe lightsthat might be less confusing to migrants andbuilding lower towers that do not requiredeadly guy wires for support.87

To the threats posed by these human-made structures must now be added the dan-gers of human-caused global warming, which


29


is hastened by many of the same activitiesthat destroy habitat—forest clearing, ram-pant forest fires, road building, and urbanexpansion. Scientists estimate that Earth’sclimate warmed 0.3–0.6 degrees Celsius overthe past century, and that temperature changewill continue and possibly intensify. Already,ecological changes seem to be under way inecosystems around the world.88

For one thing, temperate fauna and floraseem to be changing their schedules. Over thepast few decades, scientists have documentedearlier flower blooming, butterfly emergence,and frog calling—and earlier bird migrationand egg-laying dates in Europe and NorthAmerica. Many temperate bird species’ rangesare creeping northward. While this mightsound exciting to bird-watchers, it is unclearwhether some earlier migrations and north-ward range extensions match rapid habitatchanges. It is unlikely that all natural com-ponents will shift simultaneously, adjustingquickly to rapid climate change. Many prob-ably will not. Habitats may change too quicklyfor many species to adapt. Park boundariesmay be rendered useless, and many localizedspecies may have no place to go as their habi-tat changes around them.89

The Kirtland’s warbler, an endangered,localized songbird, may prove to be one suchvictim. This small, lemon-breasted bird buildsits grass-and-leaf nest beneath young standsof jack pine, a tree found from northernMichigan through much of the lower half ofCanada. The well-draining sand under thewarblers’ nests is not found far outside ofMichigan, however, and the birds nest inonly a few of that state’s counties. If globalwarming erases the southern extent of jackpines, northward-moving birds might be leftwithout well-draining nesting substrate, andnesting may fail.90

Global warming would endanger morethan just temperate-zone songbirds. Vege-

tation and climate models testing moderateclimate change scenarios predict that globallythreatened spoon-billed sandpipers and red-breasted geese may lose respectively 60 andalmost 70 percent of their remaining nestinghabitat as tundra turns to forest.91

Global climate change will also likelyincrease the frequency and severity of weatheranomalies that pound bird populations. ElNiño events, when ocean temperatures riseand fish stocks fall near many importantseabird breeding islands, could finish off suchrare, localized, and declining species such asthe Galápagos penguin, which has evolvedand thrived on an equatorial archipelagoflushed by cool, fish-rich currents. In addition,intensified and more-frequent droughts andfires could accompany El Niño and othercycles, both in the tropics and as far north asCanada’s boreal forests.92

“Additional threats will emerge as climatecontinues to change, especially as climateinteracts with other stressors such as habitatfragmentation,” wrote biologist John P.McCarty in the journal Conservation Biologyin 2001. With climate change upon us, con-servationists and planners must now thinkof landscapes and protections as moredynamic than previously supposed. Barrierscreated by human landscape changes willlikely stifle species’ movements, and conser-vation plans will have to take such dangersinto account and be flexible enough toaccommodate distribution shifts. Some speciesthat are found only in cold regions or onmountaintops may have no place to go asclimate changes.93

Flying Straight: For Birds and Humanity

In 1998, conservation biologists Russell A.Mittermeier, Norman Myers, and Jorgen B.Thomsen wrote in Conservation Biology: “If


30


we are to have a real impact on biodiversityconservation worldwide, it is essential that weplace great emphasis on the biologically mostimportant regions regardless of their politicalor social situation and do whatever possibleto overcome social and political obstacles.”94

Decades of field work, computer modeling,and satellite imagery analysis have pinpointed“hotspots”—areas that harbor dispropor-tionately high diversity and high numbers ofimperiled bird species. (See also Chapter 3.)BirdLife International has been instrumentalin working with organizations, agencies, andbiologists around the world, creating a globalpartnership that coordinates conservationefforts. Increasingly, the efforts of this NGOand many others have focused not only onaffecting government action but also on

working with other NGOs and involvinglocal communities in protecting and learningabout endemic birds and other wildlife.95

Among BirdLife’s most significant accom-plishments in this area has been the identifi-cation of 7,000 important bird areas (IBAs)in 140 countries—critical bird breeding andmigration spots—and 218 endemic bird areas(EBAs), which are places with the highestnumbers of restricted-range and endemicspecies. While not conferring formal pro-tection, these designations offer a frame-work from which to set international,national, and local protection priorities. SomeIBAs and EBAs are already designated pro-tected areas. Some have active programs toinvolve local people in protecting the areas.(See Box 2–2.) Many, however, remain


31

Glossy and streamer-tailed, the blue swallowcatches the eye as it sweeps over moist,montane grasslands in search of insects. But

getting a look at this African species growsharder each year. Only 1,500 pairs survive inscattered parts of eastern and southern Africa.In 2001, a network of conservation groups and government agencies from 9 of the 10 nationshome to blue swallows drew up an action plan for saving the birds. Such internationalefforts are increasingly common, as birds arerecognized as knowing no boundaries. One difference with the swallow plan is an effort totrain local guides who involve not only touristsbut local communities in learning about, saving,and benefiting from the blue swallow’spresence.

In South Africa, where the blue swallow iscritically endangered, BirdLife South Africa andthe Endangered Species Trust Blue SwallowWorking Group initiated a development pro-gram for local blue swallow guides. In 2001, its

first guide, Edward Themba, began work in theBlue Swallow Natural Heritage Site, adesignated important bird area in the village ofKaapsehoop, close to Kruger National Park.

Visiting tourists hire Themba to show themthe birds, although swallow nesting sites arekept secret. After spotting swallows, touristsoften patronize local businesses, some ofwhich provide Themba with essential market-ing and business support. But birds, tourists,and local businesses are not the only beneficia-ries of this effort:Themba also leads trips forunderprivileged students and communities, sothat they can appreciate the unique beauty thatsurvives in their area. “The success of this pro-ject is inspiring,” says BirdLife South Africa pro-ject coordinator Duan Biggs,“and we are usingit as a basis model for the expansion of thesetypes of initiatives to other parts of the coun-try and possibly even beyond.”


BOX 2–2. SAVING BLUE SWALLOWS: LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IS KEY


unprotected and poorly surveyed.96

Linking IBAs and other key habitats andstriking a balance between developed andundeveloped areas will be key in saving birdsin our ever-more-crowded world. Over thepast 20 years, the emergence of the multi-disciplinary field of conservation biology—ablending of biology, conservation science,economics, and social integration—haschanged the focus of biodiversity protectionefforts from the park to the landscape level,incorporating not just protected areas butadjacent lands and water resources and thepeople who inhabit and use them. This land-scape focus increasingly brings conservationgoals alongside—instead of in confrontationwith—business plans.97

The approach is not only progressive butalso pragmatic, since most of the world’sremaining wild areas remain in private handsor are managed by no one at all. All told,between 6.4 and 8.8 percent of Earth’s landarea falls under some category of formal habi-tat protection. These areas are sprinkled acrossthe globe, and many are quite small. Theirmanagement varies from protection only onpaper to a mixed strategy that includes coreareas closed to visitors surrounded by buffersthat allow recreational and commercial activ-ities. In general, the largest and most bio-logically diverse parks, including Peru’s ManuNational Park—where up to 1,000 species,about 10 percent of the world’s bird species,have been recorded—are the least well staffedand protected, as they are in some of theworld’s poorest regions. Local support for

these areas—and the buffer zones and greencorridors needed to protect them ade-quately—is critical.98

But park protection measures aside, mostof the world remains open to alteration, andpeople who are hungry and lack alternativescannot embrace or focus on efforts to protectnatural resources unless they clearly benefit inthe bargain. Boosting economic prospectsand educational opportunities—that is,empowering communities to rise abovepoverty—will allow local people to focus onsaving birds and other natural resources forthe future. These conditions are still lackingin many parts of the world, yet an increasingnumber of efforts highlight the potential forconservation and poverty-fighting measuresto work in tandem.99

The growing awareness that biodiversityprotections can be combined with money-making ventures seems to be bringing enter-prise and environmentalism together.Nowhere are marriages between commercialand conservation interests more apparentthan within the realm of agriculture, the mainemployer and source of income in manydeveloping nations.100

Shade-grown coffee is increasingly popu-lar, for instance. This crop is grown the tra-ditional way, beneath a tropical forest canopythat also shelters resident and migratory birds.Shade-grown coffee requires far fewer chem-ical inputs than coffee grown on pesticide-heavy “sun coffee” farms. Some large coffeeshop chains now sell these specialty varieties,but the largest brand-name companies haveyet to dabble in more environment- and bird-friendly coffees.101

In addition, cultivations of various fruits,cork, cacao (for cocoa), and other crops sup-port many bird species, although they donot fully substitute for natural forests. Farmoperations that minimize use of harmful pes-ticides, such as organic farms and those using


32

Growing awareness that biodiversity protections can be combinedwith money-making ventures seems to be bringing enterprise and environmentalism together.


integrated pest management, provide morediverse food sources and safer habitats forbirds.102

Some successful incentive programs payfarmers to set aside land for wildlife, water,and soil conservation purposes. From 2002to 2007, for example, about 15.9 millionhectares (39.2 million acres) will be enrolledin the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Con-servation Reserve Program (CRP). Hundredsof thousands of farmers enroll land for 10–15years—taking it out of production, plantinggrasses and trees, restoring wetlands, or graz-ing or harvesting hay in a way compatible withwildlife and erosion control. Although somegrasses used in this program are invasiveexotics, since its inception in 1985, the CRPhas helped many declining grassland birdsregain ground, including sharp-tailed grouse,dickcissels, and Henslow’s sparrows.103

Across the Atlantic, some British farm-ers—inspired in part by conservation-ori-ented subsidies that began in the1990s—started preserving hedgerows andwet meadows, and not planting crops thatneed harvesting at peak nesting season forfield birds.104

In the Netherlands, a program set up byDutch biologists offers dairy farmers pay-ments to protect and encourage nesting birdsas a farm product. An experiment conductedbetween 1993 and 1996 found that it wascheaper to pay farmers to monitor and man-age breeding wild birds as if they were acrop rather than compensate them forrestricting farming practices for the sake ofbird protection. The project resulted inincreased breeding success of meadow-nest-ing lapwings, godwits, ruffs, and redshanks,while not interrupting the dairy business.By 2002, about 36,000 hectares (89,000acres) of Dutch farmland were enrolled in thisprogram.105

When the California state government

restricted rice growers from burning theirstubble in the fall, the farmers joined withconservationists to flood their fields and aug-ment available waterfowl habitat in the Sacra-mento Valley, allowing their stubble tobiodegrade instead of going up in smoke.From a pilot project in 1993, the programgrew to embrace about 61,000 hectares(150,000 acres) by 1998. The valley is animportant wintering and migration area forthousands of ducks, geese, ibis, herons, gulls,sandpipers, and other wetland birds.106

Meanwhile, in 2001 the Spanish conser-vation group SEO/BirdLife established anorganic rice-growing farm adjacent to one ofSpain’s most important remaining wetlandsat the Ebro River delta to augment bird habi-tat there, showcase organic agriculture, andpromote compatible bird-oriented tourism.107

Ecotourism, which first arose in CostaRica and Kenya in the early 1980s, is looselydefined as nature-oriented travel that does notharm the environment and that benefits boththe traveler and the local community beingvisited. Most nations now court ecotourists.Although nature-oriented tourism is notalways light on the environment, this indus-try shows signs of improving and is often aneconomically viable alternative to resourceextraction. Unfortunately, a good deal of theecotourism revenue is often earned outsidethe country being toured, limiting the eco-nomic gains that trickle down to local people.Increasingly, however, NGOs, tour opera-tors, and governments are trying to boostcommunity involvement, as local residentsare recognized as critical to the success ofconservation programs.108

To balance human activities with natureprotection, we must ratchet biodiversity pro-tection up to rank high among developmentpriorities such as housing, sanitation, andmunicipal water supply—as part of a sustain-able land use strategy. The increasingly


33


crowded peninsular state of Florida, althoughnot directly comparable to many developingnations, provides a compelling example ofhow local, state, federal, and private con-cerns set priorities on and commercialize con-servation while struggling with relentlessdevelopment and population growth. Floridais at once one of the most biologically diverseand environmentally challenged states. For-tunately, since the 1980s, careful study andplanning have been hallmarks of growingconservation efforts there.109

One study published by three Universityof Florida biologists in Conservation Biologyin 2000 plotted out an interconnected webof wildlife habitat called the Florida Ecolog-ical Network, which embraces the state’smost diverse remaining habitats and wildlife.More than half of the network is alreadyunder protected status, while some of therest is targeted for acquisition. With the mostcritical areas mapped out and many of themtargeted, planners should be better able tosteer and concentrate development into themany areas outside the park and corridornetwork and incorporate protected lands intolandscapes that combine compatible formsof agriculture.110

Another study by two Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission biolo-gists plotted private lands needed to ensurea secure future for the most threatenedwildlife, including the state’s 117 rare andendangered listed animals. The researchersdeduced that a specifically targeted 33 percentof the state’s land area would need protectionto lower significantly the chances of rarespecies extinctions. They included the 20percent of the state that already falls underprotection. Florida has identified at least 6percent more land for future acquisition orprotection through easements.111

As prime wild real estate becomes moreexpensive and hard to find, conservationists

have stepped up efforts to secure targetedFlorida lands. In 2001, the nonprofit orga-nization The Nature Conservancy announcedthat it had helped protect its 1 millionthFlorida acre. This organization secures fund-ing to buy acreage that is later turned overto government protection or kept as privatepreserves.112

Meanwhile, the Florida state governmentruns a land-buying program called FloridaForever, an aggressive 10-year effort that tar-gets properties most in need of conserva-tion. Under this, the state spends about $105million each year to acquire critical conser-vation lands, protect watersheds, restore pol-luted or degraded areas, and provide publicrecreation. Some properties are held in con-servation easements, under which propertyowners receive state payments or tax incen-tives in return for managing property aswildlife habitat.113

A good part of Florida’s economy derivesfrom tourism revenue, and more than 40million people flood into the state each yearon vacation. Meanwhile, almost 20 percentof the state’s population is over 65 years ofage, many of whom are retired and are fre-quent visitors to state tourist attractions.Combining its huge tourism infrastructureand highway system with a newly honedfocus on wild places, the state identifiednature watching as vital tourism with TheGreat Florida Birding Trail, which receivedfederal aid and cooperation from the U.S.Department of Transportation and the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service. Slated for comple-tion in 2005, but already up and running inthe state’s center, this sign-marked drivingroute of some 3,000 kilometers winds itsway past most of the state’s bird hotspots,including county parks, ranches, state forests,private preserves, an alligator farm or two,and federal lands.114

Texas pioneered the first such driving route


34


in 1996, including 300 sites where birdersmay find up to 600 bird species. At least 19other states and several Canadian provincesfollowed suit over the last seven years. Localtowns benefit from nature tourists, a point notlost on local chambers of commerce in cash-strapped areas of southern Texas and else-where.115

The birding trails follow decades of grow-ing interest in birding, a hobby that turnsmost of its participants into supporters ofconservation efforts that protect birds andother wildlife. Two nationwide surveys under-score birding’s rising popularity, listing it asone of the fastest-growing outdoor hobbiesin the United States.

The preliminary findings of the 2001National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, andWildlife-Associated Recreation by the U.S.Departments of Interior and Commerce notethat more than 66 million Americans aged 16or older observed, fed, or photographedwildlife (particularly birds) during the year,spending an estimated $40 billion on bird-seed, binoculars, field guides, and other equip-ment and travel expenses. In comparison, 13million hunters and 34 million anglers werereported pursuing their hobbies in the coun-try that year, spending $20.6 billion and$35.6 billion, respectively.116

Another report, the National Survey onRecreation and the Environment, is con-ducted by government and private organiza-tions and last ran in 2001. It estimated thatat least a third of U.S. residents 16 or older—or about 70.4 million people—go outdoorsto watch birds sometime during the year,and that these numbers more than doubledbetween 1983 and 2001. Surveys conductedin Britain by the Royal Society for the Pro-tection of Birds yielded similar results.117

Economic impact aside, the burgeoningranks of birders also provide a powerful infu-sion of eyes and ears that assist scientists in

monitoring bird and other wildlife popula-tions around the world. For example, morethan 50,000 volunteers participated in the100th annual National Audubon SocietyChristmas Bird Count, the largest and prob-ably longest-running bird census. Theseknowledgeable birders identified and talliedbirds wintering at more than 1,800 localcensus sites throughout North America andin an increasing number of Central andSouth American, Pacific island, andCaribbean countries as well. The century’sworth of wintering bird data gives ornithol-ogists a telling picture of bird abundance anddistribution.118

Each year since 1987, birders have con-ducted similar January surveys across Asia, asteams of local volunteer birders pool theirobservations in the Asian Waterbird Census.And during the spring nesting season, otherlarge-scale monitoring efforts take place inNorth America, Europe, Australia, Japan,and elsewhere to canvas bird breeding. Other“citizen science” programs target decliningbird species, backyard birds, plants, insects,amphibians, and even stream-living inverte-brates to test stream water quality.119

As bird surveyors note, many bird speciesare in decline and prospects remain bleak formany of the world’s most-threatened birdspecies. Governmental and private efforts tosave some, however, are bearing fruit, settinggood examples for future endeavors else-where:• The Seychelles magpie-robin is rebound-

ing after being reintroduced to predator-free islands and after reductions in pesticide


35

Two nationwide surveys underscore birding’s rising popularity, listing it as one of the fastest-growing outdoor hobbies in the United States.


use in its habitat.120

• The Canada-nesting, Texas-winteringwhooping crane has been a hallmark ofconservation efforts between Canada andthe United States—up to about 200 birdsafter a low of 14 adults in 1938. A non-migratory population was reintroduced toFlorida, providing an extra hedge againstextinction (and an added ecotourismattraction).121

• In 1999, the peregrine falcon was liftedfrom the U.S. Endangered Species list fol-lowing the ban on DDT in the 1970s anddecades of protection, captive breeding,and reintroduction programs. The baldeagle may soon follow.122

• Protection combined with apparent adapt-ability to changed landscapes enabled redkites to return to former haunts in theUnited Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, andFrance.123

• Four threatened parrot species on threeCaribbean islands—St. Vincent, St. Lucia,and Dominica—are inching back from thebrink thanks to government and NGOprotections, public education campaigns,and some captive breeding efforts.124

• On the fabled dodo island of Mauritius,habitat protection and exotic plant andanimal eradication efforts benefit now-growing populations of the endemic Mau-ritius cuckoo-shrike and Mauritius kestrel,a species that also benefited from captivebreeding and release programs until theearly 1990s.125

• The bright blue Lear’s macaw, a rare par-rot of northeast Brazil, appears to besteadily rising in number, from about 170in the late 1990s to about 250. A local

landowner, Brazilian conservation orga-nizations, the World Parrot Trust, andfunding from the Disney ConservationInitiative help conservationists plant licurípalms (essential food plants for the birds),monitor the population, and protect nestsites.126

The actions needed to ensure a securefuture for birds are the very same ones neededto achieve a sustainable human future: pre-serving and restoring ecosystems, cleaningup polluted areas, reducing the use of harm-ful pesticides, reversing global climate change,restoring ecological balances, and control-ling the spread of exotic species that knocksuch balances askew. (See Box 2–3.) Wildlifeconservation must be worked into and becompatible with rural, suburban, and urbanplanning efforts that improve the prospectsfor the world’s poor while making our citiesand industries safer for all living beings.

Canadian Wildlife Service biologist F.L.Filion once wrote about birds: “it is difficultto imagine another resource capable of con-tributing as fully and as completely tomankind’s diverse needs.” Birds provide uswith food, inspiration, a link to nature, andsecurity—in this case as indicators of envi-ronmental ills. Today, this feathered resourceis in great need of human attention. As wework toward a more sustainable future, keep-ing an eye on the world’s 9,800 bird specieshelps us keep ourselves in check—if we careto heed the warnings. Along the way, birds’colors, songs, and activity will continue toinspire us, reminding us that in protecting theworld’s biodiversity, we are doing the rightthing for flora, fauna, and ourselves.127


36



37

• Involve local communities inconservation efforts.

• Where possible, combine compatiblecommercial activities with conservationgoals.

• Study bird and other wildlife populationsthoroughly and set aside areas most inneed of protection.

• Include biodiversity protection as a key goal when planning development,industry, or agriculture.

• Control harmful introduced species.

• Ban chemicals dangerous to birds, otherwildlife, and people.

• Improve protections against chemicalspills, including oil spills.

• Reign in uncontrolled hunting of birds,particularly along migration routes and inareas inhabited by localized, threatenedspecies.

• Mitigate harmful fishing techniques, par-ticularly longline nets, which needlesslykill many thousands of seabirds.

• Address and mitigate threats posed tobirds by communications towers, tallbuildings, and power lines.

• Stem the causes of global warming.

• Within communities, raise environmentalawareness through bird-watching andother activities.

BOX 2–3. A DOZEN STEPS TOWARDA SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FORBIRDS AND BIODIVERSITY

38

Travel north by boat from the island city ofLamu on Kenya’s coast toward the KiungaNational Marine Reserve and a scene ofintense beauty unfolds. Stands of slendermangroves form leafy barrier islands in theIndian Ocean, vibrant swaths of green in theblue-gray waters. Pelicans and terns nest onbeaches exposed by retreating tides. Justsouth of the Somali border, the Lamu Arch-ipelago, with the Kiunga Reserve at its top,is part of a rich marine ecosystem thatstretches thousands of kilometers along theEast African coast from Somalia to Mozam-bique. Coral reefs and sea grasses providehomes for many species of fish and crus-taceans, and Olive Ridley, Hawksbill, andGreen turtles lay their eggs on Kiunga’sbeaches. The dugong—a rarely seen sea cow,cousin to the manatee—forages among thesea grass in these waters. A few small villages,with homes constructed of mangrove andpalm, also hug the coastline, quiet but for thesounds of children playing and donkeys bray-ing and drinking at the water’s edge.1

But spend some time in the Kiunga

Reserve and the picture becomes more com-plicated. Brightly colored plastic bags andhuman flotsam mar many of the villagebeaches, including large numbers of plasticsandals carried on Indian Ocean currentsfrom as far away as Malaysia. These are visi-ble clues that this remote corner of Kenya, likeso many places throughout the world, is sub-ject to the forces of demographic and envi-ronmental change, even if the evidence ofsuch changes is not always immediately appar-ent. Although the human population of theLamu Archipelago is small—about 75,000—it is growing by some 2.2 percent a year. Allalong the East African coast, population con-tinues to grow 5–6 percent a year, a result ofrelatively large family size and significantmigration to coastal cities where job oppor-tunities are more abundant. The growth rateis well above that for Kenya (about 1.9 per-cent) and for the world overall (now justabove 1.2 percent a year).2

Nearly all of the 14,000 people livingwithin the boundaries of the Kiunga Reserveor just outside them rely heavily on its nat-

Mia MacDonald with Danielle Nierenberg

Chapter 3

Linking Population,Women,and Biodiversity

LINKING POPULATION, WOMEN, AND BIODIVERSITY

ural resources. Salaried job options for menare few, and for women, they are practicallynon-existent. Just beyond the verdant coastalmangroves, large numbers of trees have beenreduced to stumps—slashed and burned tomake way for agriculture or cut for sale incoastal cities. Their loss contributes to soilerosion and to silt being deposited in theocean waters, and will make it harder infuture years for women to find wood forcooking and heating.3

Kiunga is just one illustration of the waysin which people are transforming Earth’s nat-ural systems. In and around this reserve, as inmany parts of the developing world, localresidents and migrants are intensifying theiruse of resources in a bid to meet their needs.In other parts of the world, including indus-trialized regions, migration—by choice, notdesperation—in tandem with poor land useplanning and overconsumption risks destroy-ing ecosystems or so degrading them thatthey can no longer provide the services peo-ple depend on for daily life.

In Kiunga’s waters, the fish, crustaceans,ocean-dwelling coral, and turtles are showingsigns of stress as people pushed by povertyapply new fishing methods to increase theircatch. Much of Kenya’s coastal waters southof Kiunga have been “fished out,” meaningthat each year seasonal migrants—fishers seek-ing to engage in the only livelihood many ofthem know—enter the reserve, intensifyingthe pressures on sea life.4

As with the ecosystem, pressures on thehuman inhabitants of Kiunga are also increas-ing. Poverty is deepening and privations likea lack of electricity or running water remainunaddressed. Access to health services oreducation beyond primary school is limited,especially for women and girls. Like mothersin many rural regions of the developing world,most mothers in Kiunga say they hope theirchildren will leave the reserve and make a

better life for themselves somewhere lessremote and less poor, where choices are moreplentiful.5

An ocean away, in Florida, a sub-tropicalmarshland known as the Everglades that is ariot of biodiversity also makes the population-environment link clear. Here 25 species oforchid, 300 species of birds, and thousandsof plants and trees from oaks to mangrovesshare habitat with panthers, crocodiles, andalligators. But as in the Kiunga Reserve—andat a larger scale and with greater speed—theneed to accommodate a rising human pop-ulation is transforming natural systems andsqueezing other species into ever-smallerspaces. For more than a hundred years, theEverglades wetlands were drained, divertingwater to agriculture or providing a dry plainon which to build homes, businesses, andhighways. Roads, housing developments,golf courses, and a university have all beenbuilt in prime habitat for the highly endan-gered Florida panther, whose populationhovers at about 60.6

But even with a $7.8-billion Evergladesrestoration plan in place in the southeast,new development in the southwest of thestate is taking off, often following the patternof sprawl seen in other parts of the UnitedStates. As the human population grows, andwith it demands for resources, threats to theunique ecosystems in the Everglades are gath-ering strength. Population is rising fast as aresult not of high fertility but of migrationinto the area from other parts of the countryand the world. Between 1990 and 2000,Florida’s population grew by nearly a quarter;


39

In Florida, the Everglades is a riot ofbiodiversity that makes the population-environment link clear.


in two counties at the edge of the westernEverglades, the annual growth rate hoversat or just above 5 percent.7

World population is now estimated to beover 6.2 billion and growing by 77 million ayear, equivalent to the combined 2001 pop-ulations of Mozambique, Paraguay, Poland,Portugal, and Singapore. The rate of growthis slowing, however. Globally, women nowhave about half as many children as theirmothers did (an average of just under threechildren each). But this trend is not guaran-teed. Between 1998 and 2000, the UnitedNations had to revise its medium populationprojection (the one most likely to occur) for2050 up by more than 400 million people.Fertility rates are not falling as fast as previ-ously projected in 16 poor countries or in ahandful of countries with large base popula-tions, including Bangladesh, Nigeria, and thetwo most populous countries in the world—China and India, both of which are home tomore than a billion people. (See Figure 3–1.)The United Nations now suggests that by2050 about 9.3 billion people will be alive—50 percent more than today. The UnitedNations will soon issue new projections. Whilethese may include slight changes in overallpopulation estimates, they will still show thatsubstantial population growth is expectedover the next half-century, especially in theworld’s poorest countries.8

The interplay among population growth,gender roles, and biodiversity loss is com-plex and can be addressed from several dif-ferent entry points. But at the core we knowthat gender inequity tends to exacerbate pop-ulation growth, and that population increasestend to put pressure on the natural environ-ment, including biological resources.Through a series of global agreements ham-mered out over the past decade, governmentsaround the world have acknowledged theneed to include population realities in sus-

tainable development planning and vice versa.These agreements have also noted the centralrole that increasing women’s status andachieving gender equity—balancing relationsbetween women and men—play both in low-ering fertility and in ensuring the sound man-agement of natural resources. Indeed,women’s roles in the sustainable use and con-servation of natural resources and the need forwomen to participate fully in policymakingand program delivery are among the princi-ples guiding the Convention on BiologicalDiversity that was signed in 1992. AndAgenda 21, the plan of action agreed to thatyear at the Rio Earth Summit, includes awhole chapter on women and naturalresources.9

Even though the importance of genderin shaping the use of biological resources isacknowledged in these international agree-ments, women’s roles have often beenneglected in the global discussion about bio-diversity. The links between biodiversity andgender are especially strong in rural areas ofthe developing world, where women oftenexperience the immediate effects of environ-mental degradation. Unfortunately, they alsousually have limited control over access toresources and decisions on how they are used.According to the 2002 Human DevelopmentReport, while progress has been made onclosing gender gaps in recent years, there isno country in the world where women haveobtained equal political and economic poweror human development with men—makinggender equity a considerable goal for theindustrial world as well as for countries inthe fast-growing developing regions as theywrestle with how to best protect biodiversityand meet human needs.10

Despite the decade-long existence of goalsand even, in some cases, strategies for inte-gration of population, biodiversity conser-vation, and gender, most efforts remain


40


in the early stages.Still, throughout the1990s, increasingnumbers of conser-vation and develop-ment professionals,government agen-cies, and people indecisionmaking oreducational arenashave begun to seeand to act on theconnections betweenpopulation, biodi-versity, and gender.This work, in theshape of a numberof small initiativesunder way in a range of biologicallyrich areas of theworld, provides fer-tile ground for nur-turing larger-scale, more robust actions. Andit comes none too soon, for as Nobelprize–winning economist Amartya Sen pointsout, “The population problem is integrallylinked with justice for women in particu-lar.…Advancing gender equity, throughreversing the various social and economichandicaps that make women voiceless andpowerless, may also be one of the best waysof saving the environment, working againstglobal warming and countering the dangersof overcrowding and other adversities asso-ciated with population pressure. The voice ofwomen is critically important for the world’sfuture—not just for women’s future.”11

Exploring the LinkagesFrom the mountains of southwest China tothe Eastern Himalayas, from the forests ofcentral Africa to Eastern Europe’s Danube

River basin, species, habitats, and ecosystemsin a number of biologically rich areas areunder stress as a result of human activities.Biologists and conservation practitioners nowaccept that changes in human populationdynamics—including growth, migration, anddensity—and in patterns of resource con-sumption are among the root causes of bio-diversity loss. Combined with social andeconomic realities like integration of globalmarkets and the creation of new wealth along-side persistent poverty, demographic andresource use trends demonstrate the vastpower humans have to reshape the naturalworld. They also make clear the need fornew policies and programmatic approaches—sustainable over the long term—that protectbiodiversity for ourselves and other species,that advance human development, and thatredress long-standing inequities betweenwomen and men.12


41

Source: UNPD

Population in Millions

0

400

200

1000

1200

800

600

1600

1400

2001

2050C

hina

Indi

aU

nite

d St

ates

Indo

nesia

Braz

ilPa

kista

n

Bang

lades

h

Japan

Nige

riaM

exico

Ethi

opia

Dem

. Rep

.

of C

ongo

Rus

sian

Fede

ratio

nFigure 3–1.World’s Most Populous Countries, 2001 and 2050


Each new person who joins the planet,even someone at the very low end of theconsumption scale, ratchets up the netdemands on Earth’s natural systems. Andeach new person born in an industrial coun-try has a disproportionate effect on thosedemands. The toll is becoming increasinglyvisible as the biotic communities on which lifedepends exhibit symptoms of decline, themost obvious being the retreat of plants andanimals from parts of Earth both large andsmall. (See Box 3–1.)13

As in the Everglades and the KiungaReserve, the losses tell us just how the dis-ruption of delicate and biologically diverseecosystems—whether in tropical jungles or

the suburbs of major cities—can affect humanand nonhuman lives. Commercial cutting ofIndia’s forests has undermined traditionalsystems of village forest management and hascaused shortages in fuelwood and buildingmaterials for millions of rural villagers. Andwhen overfishing caused the collapse of codstocks off Canada’s coast in the early 1990s,it threw 30,000 people out of work and dec-imated the economies of 700 communities inNewfoundland.14

More people are using more resources,and with more intensity, than ever before. Butnumbers alone do not capture the impact ofthe interactions between human populationsand biodiversity. The size and weight of the


42

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the totalnumber of genes, species, and ecosystems in aregion and the variability between them. Biodi-versity makes life itself possible. Not only doplants and animals provide actual and potentialsources for human medicines and food, biodi-versity has additional benefits that reach farbeyond straightforward economic evaluationsof utility. Scientists have shown that rich anddiverse ecosystems improve water quality,reduce flooding, and absorb and clean wastes.They are also more resistant to environmentalshocks and quicker to recover than regionsdepleted of genetic and species diversity. Agroup of scientists recently estimated the valueof the services provided to humanity by theworld’s ecosystems—the pollination providedby insects, for example, and the water-cleaningcapacity of healthy soils—as up to $61 trillion,which is twice the size of the world economy.

But around the world, plants and animalsand the ecosystems that are their homes arebeing degraded or disappearing, largely as aresult of human actions. Over the past 100years, 20–50 percent of Earth’s original forest

cover has been lost. The U.N. Food and Agri-culture Organization (FAO) estimates thatduring the 1990s, about 146,000 square kilo-meters of natural forest were lost each year.The vast majority of this was in tropicalforests, with losses running at about 142,000square kilometers a year (an area just aboutequal to the size of Nepal). The Central Amer-ican dry tropical forests have practically disap-peared.And in many countries, half or more of the mangroves (costal forests) have beencleared. Such loses are particularly damagingsince forests contain about half the Earth’stotal biodiversity and have the highest speciesdiversity of any ecosystem. Wetlands have alsoshrunk by 50 percent, and in some places only10 percent of grasslands remain. Species loss is also increasing.About 24 percent ofmammals (1,137 species) and 12 percent ofbirds (1,192 species) worldwide are currentlyunder threat of extinction, and manyspecies—the exact number is not known—have already disappeared.


BOX 3–1. THE VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY


“ecological footprint” each person plants onEarth is determined by the ways people useresources, which affects the quantities theyuse. The difference between the footprints ofindividuals can be vast. For instance, a vege-tarian who uses a bike as a major mode oftransportation has a much smaller impactthan someone who eats meat and drives a gas-guzzling sport utility vehicle.

Similarly, the differences in average foot-prints across regions can also be huge, and thecombined footprints of people in a givenregion determine the prospects for saving orpermanently losing the biological diversityfound there. The ecological footprint of anaverage person in a high-income country isabout six times bigger than that of someonein a low-income country—comparable towearing either a size 7 shoe or an outsized 42.The one fifth of the world who live in thehighest-income countries drive 87 percentof world’s vehicles and release 53 percent ofthe world’s carbon emissions.15

Although family size has declined in mostwealthy nations, the U.S. population is grow-ing at the fastest rate of any industrial coun-try. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S.population increased by 32.7 million people(13.1 percent), the largest number in any10-year period in U.S. history. At about 280million people, the United States is now thethird most populous nation in the world andits population is expected to reach nearly 400million by 2050. And fertility rates in theUnited States are at their highest level in 30years, at about 2.1 children per woman. Arecent study suggests that if every personalive today consumed at the rate of an aver-age person in the United States, three moreplanets would be required to fulfill thesedemands. “Because we live so large,” writesenvironmentalist Bill McKibben in a recentbook on the need for Americans to considerhaving only one child, “North Americans

(and Europeans and Asians of the quicklygrowing industrial powers) will largely deter-mine what shape the world is in fifty yearsfrom now.”16

While consumers in the wealthiest coun-tries can and do have vast power to reshapethe natural world through their use ofresources and products, population growthrates themselves remain highest in the poor-est, least-developed countries. Here, biodi-versity is often high and environmentaldegradation already widespread. These arethe same places where women’s status—akey determinant of population growth rates—is low and where governments are leastequipped to provide health care, education,and job opportunities for the vast numbers ofpeople added to the population each year orto moderate the direct demands placed onresources.17

Poor populations in many biodiversity-richregions—largely rural areas where good healthfacilities, schools, and basic infrastructure arefrequently absent—often have no otheroptions but to exploit their local environ-ment to meet subsistence needs. In these set-tings, rapid growth in human numbers canlead to collisions between traditional prac-tices that were ecologically viable when pop-ulation size was small but that are becomingincreasingly less so for species and ecosystemsas population grows and demands rise. Thetrade in bushmeat in Central Africa, forinstance, has accelerated to such a degree thatthe future of forest-dwelling animals, includ-ing primates, is in jeopardy. (See Box 3–2.)18

As a way of focusing conservation efforts,British ecologist Norman Myers and Wash-ington-based environmental group Conser-vation International (CI) defined 25biodiversity “hotspots” around the world—places that are extremely rich in differentplant and animal species and are also threat-ened significantly by human activity. These


43


hotspots, found in both the industrial and thedeveloping world, contain just over half of allland-dwelling plant and animal species.Together, hotspots once covered nearly 12percent of Earth’s land surface; now, theundisturbed original cover in these hotspotsis just 1.4 percent of the world’s total land sur-face area. A study by CI and Washington-based Population Action International foundthat in 1995 about 1.1 billion people—nearlyone fifth of the world—lived inside hotspotboundaries. In all but one of the hotspots, thehuman population is growing, due to a com-

bination of high fertility and migration. Onaverage, populations in the hotspots areincreasing by about 1.8 percent a year, nearly50 percent above the current global average.(See Figure 3–2.) Many hotspots also havehigh population densities, generally linkedto significant losses of biodiversity. (See Fig-ure 3–3.)19

Why are population growth rates inhotspots and many other biodiversity-richareas often high? Researchers point to severalreasons: local populations often live inextreme poverty, and since the areas are


44

Gorillas, chimpanzees, forest buffalo, elephants,and a huge variety of other animal and plantlife inhabit the forests of Central Africa’sCongo Basin, designated as one of only threeremaining major tropical wilderness areas inthe world. But rising demand for bushmeat(the meat of wild animals, including elephant,gorilla, chimpanzee, monitor lizard, and forestantelopes), the main source of protein for arapidly growing and urbanizing population, iscontributing to loss of species at a breakneckpace. As much as 1 million tons of bushmeat—the equivalent of 4 million cattle—are sold inCentral Africa each year. Urban areas are cen-ters of demand, and logging operationsexpanding into the region’s forests provide notonly new markets (the logging camp workers),but also new means of transport on loggingtrucks and along logging roads. If current ratesof hunting continue, the commercial bushmeattrade will decimate, if not eliminate, someendangered species such as great apes, forestelephants, and other fauna from the CongoBasin in coming decades. Conservationistsincreasingly warn of “empty forest syndrome,”where tree cover survives but forest speciesare almost wholly absent.

Ecological and socioeconomic conditions

combine to make bushmeat an attractiveoption.The prevalence of the tsetse fly andsleeping sickness generally precludes cattleraising, and declining global prices for cashcrops like coffee and cocoa leave rural familieswith few ways to earn an income. In addition,poverty and hunger are widespread: a recentFAO study classified half of all people living inCentral Africa as “undernourished.” Hunterscan earn up to $1,100 a year from bushmeatalone—well beyond average householdincomes. Despite the fact that most of thishunting is illegal, it continues due to persistentdemand and lax enforcement of anti-huntinglaws. Poor women, relying on resources athand to provide a livelihood, play importantroles in the trade, processing, and marketingof the meat.About 24 million people live inthe Congo Basin and population growth ratesare among the highest in the world. Moreover,less than a fifth of girls in the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo attend secondaryschool, and almost half the women over theage of 15 are illiterate.

—Arunima Dhar


BOX 3–2. THE BUSHMEAT TRADE: POPULATION, BIODIVERSITY, AND WOMEN IN THE CONGO BASIN


remote, health services, schools, and jobopportunities for women are all scarce, con-tributing to higher fertility. Migration intothe often fragile ecological zones thathotspots occupy may be the last resort forthose who lack other options—landowner-ship or livelihoods elsewhere—or the resultof government agricultural or forest poli-cies, rapid urbanization, or civil conflicts. Inaddition, in countries where a majority of thepopulation is rural, rural-to-rural migrationis still common.20

Of course, population growth is only oneaspect—albeit a crucial one—of the full range

of population dynamics that needs to beexplored when trying to understand theimpacts of human numbers on biodiversity. Inmany regions, migration, increasing popula-tion densities, and consumption patterns arethe most immediate pressures. Studies of thelinks between population density and biodi-versity loss have not been extensive, butresearch suggests that as the number of peo-ple in an area increases, lower levels of bio-diversity result. As habitats are reduced,animals and plants may be crowded increas-ingly into the spaces where human activity isless extensive.21


45

Figure 3–2. Population Growth in 25 Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995–2000

–0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

CaucasusNew Zealand

California Floristic ProvinceCaribbean

Mediterranean BasinPolynesia/Micronesia

Central ChileWestern Ghats/Sri Lanka

Indo-BurmaMountains, South Central China

Atlantic Forest RegionSouthwest Australia

Succulent Karoo, S. Africa/NamibiaWallacea, Indonesia

Cape Floristic Province, S. AfricaNew Caledonia

PhilippinesSundaland, Indon./Brunei/Malay.

E. Arc/Coast Forests, Kenya/TanzaniaMesoamerica

Brazilian CerradoGuinean Forests/West Africa

Madagascar/Indian Ocean IslandsTropical Andes

Chocó-Darién/Western Ecuador

Source: PAI

Annual Growth Rate (percent)

World Population Growth Rate(1.3 percent in 1995–2000)


In Madagascar, about 30 percent of thepeople now live in cities, and the pace ofmigration to urban centers and larger townsis increasing. This migratory pattern, com-bined with rapid increases in human numbers,is leading both directly and indirectly toincreased deforestation. Over 90 percent ofMadagascar’s urban population in the south-west of the country still relies on wood orcharcoal for energy, using up the equivalentof about 10,000 hectares of forest a year. Ifthe urban population in this island nationcontinues to grow at its current rate of 5–6percent a year, and if no alternatives become

available, it is estimated that 42,500 hectaresof forest will be needed annually by 2010 tomeet urban demands for fuelwood and char-coal alone. Even more forest will be lost asrural dwellers also seek to meet their dailyneeds for fuel for heating and cooking.22

This pattern of migration in southwestMadagascar is mirrored throughout thedeveloping world. Each day, about 160,000people move from rural to urban areas, oftenas a result of poverty, landlessness, ordegraded rural environments that are losingtheir productive capacity. In 1950, 30 percentof people lived in urban areas; by 2000, that


46

Figure 3–3. Population Densities in 25 Biodiversity Hotspots, 1995

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Succulent Karoo, S. Africa/NamibiaBrazilian Cerrado

New CaledoniaNew Zealand

Southwest AustraliaMountains, South Central China

Madagascar/Indian Ocean IslandsCentral Chile

Tropical AndesCape Floristic Province, S. Africa

Chocó-Darién/Western EcuadorE. Arc/Coast Forests, Kenya/Tanzania

Wallacea, IndonesiaMesoamerica

Polynesia/MicronesiaCaucasus

Atlantic Forest RegionIndo-Burma

Guinean Forests/West AfricaCalifornia Floristic Province

Mediterranean BasinSundaland, Indon./Brunei/Malay.

CaribbeanPhilippines

Western Ghats/Sri Lanka

Source: PAI

World Population Density(42 per square kilometer in 1995)

Population Per Square Kilometer


number had risen to 47 percent; by 2007,urban dwellers will make up half of theworld’s human population, although it willbe at least two more decades before a major-ity of people in developing regions live inurban areas. Population growth from migra-tion is fastest in smaller cities, where infra-structure to absorb the new arrivals is oftenlacking, leading to helter-skelter patterns ofdevelopment, slums, pollution, and disease.It is often men who move to the cities insearch of paid labor, leaving women behindto provide for children by farming or takingon a job themselves, often in the informal sec-tor, to make ends meet. In some rural areas,gender ratios are highly skewed, with manymore women present than men. In ruralareas of the world’s least developed countries,nearly a quarter of households are headed bywomen. This often reinforces women’sdependence on the natural resources theyhave access to, and at times increases theirburden of labor.23

Cities, too, consume vast amounts ofresources, even if these are out of residents’sight. Urban dwellers rely heavily on water-sheds, fuel sources, and waste processing. Inaddition, rapid growth of urban populationsoften limits cities’ abilities to develop infra-structure adequate to demand, and it outstripsavailable supplies of clean water, electricity,and systems for treating or clearing wastes.And when cities sprawl, through planningor the lack of it, they can consume consider-able amounts of open land or forests, oftenhome to a diverse array of species.24

Unfortunately, the massive movement intocities does not mean there is going to bemore space in rural regions for ecosystemand species recovery in the near future. Ruralpopulations themselves grew from 2 billion in1960 to 3.2 billion in 2000. Between nowand 2030, some regions of the world willsee their rural populations grow, including

south-central Asia and all of Africa exceptthe southern region, although the net increasein the rural population of the less developedregions will be less than 200 million.25

As trading borders have opened, withgreater integration of markets and with pres-sure for poor countries to export raw mate-rials, ecosystems and species have felt theeffects. The world’s farmers, for example, amajority of whom are women, are shiftingfrom cultivating a variety of crops for sale inlocal markets or to be consumed withinhouseholds to growing one crop that is indemand from world commodity markets.Along with many of these “mono crops”comes pressure on producers to maximizeyields in the short term, often at the expenseof plants and animals and overall ecosystemhealth.26

Once exposed to the world trading system,producers in poor countries have to adapt tothe volatility of markets that may threatentheir livelihoods. As markets respond to shift-ing tastes, and as increasing numbers of peo-ple enter these markets as producers,biodiversity can often get trampled. Thisexchange of resources is not solely on aNorth-South axis. Somalia’s acacia forests—or what remains of them in this heavily deser-tified country—are being chopped down,converted to charcoal, and exported torapidly growing neighboring countries onthe Arabian peninsula to fuel cookingstoves.27

At the same time, market forces are creat-ing new middle classes around the worldwhose preferences are more closely alignedwith consumers in industrial nations. As theyconsume more and more when their incomesrise, pressures on resources are likely toincrease exponentially. With mass media mak-ing its way into the most remote regions,the lifestyle of the industrial world is beingrelayed to more and more people. People


47


see how others in the world’s wealthiest coun-tries live—and they want to live that way too.Practicality and equity mean that such aspi-rations cannot go unheeded.

Fortunately, conservation groups arebeginning to recognize that if biodiversitydecline is to be reversed successfully, pro-grams that previously focused on small areasof land or water in or near national parks orreserves will have to operate at much largerscales. At the same time, these groups arebeginning to include in their planning andprogramming the socioeconomic realitiesthat affect biodiversity, including populationdynamics, relationships between women andmen, and the often-distinct ways men andwomen use and control resources. LorenaAguilar, senior gender advisor at IUCN–TheWorld Conservation Union, sees genderequity as the “unavoidable current” deter-mining the impact of conservation policiesand programs, and therefore as deservingmore focused attention than it has received todate. Still, even as awareness increases, veryfew women currently hold key decisionmak-ing positions in the global conservation com-munity.28

Why Gender MattersAt least since the 1994 International Con-ference on Population and Development,held in Cairo, the global community has rec-ognized that greater equality between menand women is an essential component ofadvancing social and economic developmentand slowing population growth. Wherewomen are free to determine when andwhether they will have children, fertility ratesfall. Research also shows that the more edu-cation a woman receives, the fewer childrenshe has and the healthier and better educatedthose children are. Other studies suggest thatif women have the right and ability to man-

age childbearing, they can manage other areasof their lives more effectively too, includingavailable resources. And a recent World Bankreport found that the lack of gender equalitystymies the ability of developing-country gov-ernments to promote economic growth andreduce poverty.29

Throughout the developing world, in par-ticular, gender plays a strong role in howresources are used, controlled, and devel-oped and in how people respond to envi-ronmental challenges. These connections areparticularly strong in rural areas, where peo-ple depend directly on resources on a dailybasis, but there is evidence that they persistin urban settings and in wealthy nations aswell. For the most part, though, men stilldecide how the world’s natural resources areused through, for example, mining, livestockgrazing, logging, and land tenure. By someestimates, women around the world holdtitle to less than 2 percent of the land that isowned.30

In much of the developing world, mil-lions of people’s lives are structured by theirrelationship with natural resources. In par-ticular, though, it is women who rely heav-ily on trees, grasses, and water for livestockproduction, fuelwood, fibers for clothingand mats, roofing materials, basket making,and a variety of plants for medicines—whether to earn income or to meet house-hold needs. Because of their directdependence on resources, when ecosystemsbecome degraded through human activity,women are often the first to feel the effects.They are often the first line of adaptation aswell. It is they who most frequently areresponsible for making up for decliningcapacity in the environment, by, for example,walking farther to get fuelwood as hillsidesbecome denuded. They venture farther fromhome to reach clean water as soil erosiondecreases water retention, and to find new


48


sources of food as customary supplies areoverharvested. They must also make existingresources go further and often are the first toinitiate efforts to reverse degradation—forinstance, raising seedlings, planting trees, orpracticing soil conservation.31

For example, deforestation in the Sudanhas quadrupled the amount of time womenspend gathering wood for cooking, and theenergy used to tote water from rivers andother water sources accounts for one third ofa woman’s daily calorie intake, according tothe World Health Organization. Throughoutrural parts of the developing world, a com-mon sight as days begin is women and younggirls venturing out, alone or in small groups,to gather fuelwood or water, and later—sometimes much later—returning laden withbundles or heavy plastic water canisters ontheir heads.32

In addition to their responsibilities withinhouseholds to ensure daily supplies of fuel,water, and food, women are also responsiblefor many agricultural tasks, including raisingsmall livestock and generating income fromthe sale of food. According to FAO, womenconstitute 51 percent of the world’s agricul-tural labor force. In Southeast Asia, they pro-vide up to 90 percent of the labor for ricecultivation, while in Africa 90 percent of thewood and water gathering is done by women.In Africa and Asia, women work on average13 more hours per week than men, and inmany regions women spend up to 5 hours aday collecting fuelwood and water and up to4 hours preparing food. This work is unpaidand does not appear in any national accountsof productive labor. 33

Too often, however, governments anddevelopment agencies still see women solelyas “housewives,” with men defined as “work-ers” (income earners)—categories that rein-force false distinctions. Researchers lookinginto the threats to biodiversity from gold

mining and the collection of Brazil nuts in theBahuaja Sonene, a protected reserve in Peru,did not consider the meaning of the terms“housewife” and “miner” as applied towomen and men. But the director of a localnongovernmental organization (NGO) did,and discovered that women also moved withmen into the forest to collect nuts and thenworked to dry, peel, and often sell them.Many contracts for collecting the nuts are inwomen’s names. Women also join men insetting up gold mining camps in the forestand, in addition to cooking and managing thetemporary household, often sell the gold thatmen dig up and process. Without this under-standing of both women’s and men’s roles inthe mining and nut trades, any campaigns ofpublic education or promotion of alterna-tive, less environmentally destructive liveli-hoods are unlikely to include women andtherefore less likely to be effective.34

Women without independent resourcesare more vulnerable to poverty. In the devel-oping world, women’s ability to stay on theland is often tied to the presence of a fatheror husband and is often reduced if the mandies or a couple divorces. In addition to thenatural resources on the land, owning prop-erty can provide an important safety net forwomen as collateral to gain credit to improveland stewardship. It can also be used as anasset to be sold or mortgaged during a timeof crisis, including drought, war, or ecosystemdecline. In addition, financial security allowswomen to make long-term investments inresources—planting trees, for instance, build-ing terraces to halt erosion, or investing in effi-


49

For the most part, men still decide howthe world’s natural resources are usedthrough, for example, mining, livestockgrazing, logging, and land tenure.


cient irrigation.35

But low levels of literacy and educationamong women—still widespread in poorcountries—can constrain productivity andlimit women’s ability to manage land effec-tively. And despite women’s multiple andstrong ties to natural resources, agriculturalextension workers, development practitioners,and even conservation field-workers (stillmostly men) have too often ignored the waysthat gender shapes resource use and theprospects for sustainability and biodiversityprotection. But this situation is beginning tochange, with increasing numbers of conser-vation field workers being exposed, slowly, toinformation about gender dynamics andresource use, and including women in effortsto protect biodiversity and secure livelihoodsfrom natural resources. As they do so, they arelearning to provide training when womenare not busy with child care or other respon-sibilities and to be sensitive to the differentspheres that women and men inhabit. With-out such training, opportunities are lost tomake resource use more equitable and effi-cient both within communities and at higherlevels, where district or national planningtakes place.36

In certain settings there is evidence ofgreater on-the-ground recognition of theinequalities between men and women andhow these affect resource use. For example,in a network of locally managed conservan-cies in Namibia, men serve as game guards.But the conservancies have made a commit-ment to gender equity, so women have beenhired to monitor use of non-wildlife resourcesas well as to provide a conduit for bringing

women’s input to conservation decision-makers. Parallel with this, the number ofwomen on local conservancy committees hascontinued to rise, with some previously all-male committees amending their charters toinclude women. Program managers reportthat communities have, over time, embracedthese moves toward gender equity and see thevalue in having diverse perspectives chan-neled into decisions about resource use andconservation.37

“Since rights to natural resources are soheavily biased against women,” reasonsAgnes Quisumbing of the InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, “equaliz-ing these rights will lead to more efficientand equitable resource use.” When govern-ment officials or community leaders fail torecognize the different ways that womenuse natural resources—growing vegetablesfor family consumption in the spacesbetween male-managed cash crops, forexample—the resources are easily destroyed.To protect fragile mangroves in El Salvador,for instance, community officials placedrestrictions on fishing and collecting fuel-wood. The community’s women, whodepended on both the wood and the fishfrom the estuaries to feed their families,were not consulted—but they were mostaffected by the ban because performing theirrole as caretakers became a criminal act.Such a lack of fairness and common sense isno longer tolerable in view of the increasingstresses on croplands and other resourcesimposed by rising populations.38

But women are not only victims of envi-ronmental degradation; they are activists aswell, and many have acted to protect naturalresources by mobilizing their communitiesagainst environmental and health hazards.(See Box 3–3 for one example of this.)Women in India, for instance, are resistinglarge-scale agricultural methods that require


50

Many women have acted to protect naturalresources by mobilizing their communitiesagainst environmental and health hazards.


heavy inputs of chemicals by promoting sus-tainable agriculture in rural communities. Inthe Ogoni region of Nigeria, women havecome together to fight the toll that oil explo-ration and refining—fires, oil waste dumping,and pipe explosions—have taken on the healthof their families and the environment. Theirdemands have included protection of womenenvironmental activists and compensation forhealth damages from the oil industry. In aregion of Louisiana known as Cancer Alley,African-American women are educating oneanother and their communities about theconnections linking industry, environment,and human health.39

In order to raise awareness of the linksbetween gender and biodiversity and theactions that can address them, a few conser-

vation organizations are now providing gen-der training to headquarters and field-basedstaff, as well as to government extensionworkers and local community leaders. Othersare promoting the use of gender analysis, atool that helps illuminate the power dynam-ics that shape the control and use of resourcesand that eliminates blind spots. In 2001, anumber of conservation organizations cametogether to form the Conservation and Gen-der Alliance, an informal group organizedto look at the role of gender in conservationand to share experiences and tools thatadvance the inclusion of gender issues in themainstream of conservation activities. Mem-bers include IUCN, The Nature Conser-vancy, Conservation International, and theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). And in


51

“It is ironic that the poor people who dependon the environment are also partly responsi-ble for its destruction.That’s why I insist thatthe living conditions of the poor must beimproved if we really want to save ourenvironment,” says Wangari Maathai, founderof the Green Belt Movement. Established inKenya on Earth Day in 1977, the Green BeltMovement has created a nationwide networkof 6,000 village nurseries that have worked toavert desertification by encouraging treeplanting and soil and water conservation inrural communities. In 1999, it was estimatedthat Green Belt’s 50,000 women members hadplanted more than 20 million trees, and thatwhile some had been harvested, millions morewere still standing.

The network encourages zero-grazing(keeping livestock penned to control manure)and organic farming as a means of improvingsoil fertility and food production. It alsoencourages farmers to plant native crop vari-

eties, like millet, groundnuts, and sweetpotatoes that are adapted to local conditionsand can weather drought and other shocksthat threaten food supplies. Many of thesecrops had been put aside in favor of coffee, tea,and flowers for export. Because members ofthe group sell seedlings from their nurseries,they gain not only a source of firewood butalso a source of independent income. GreenBelt also works to build women’s self-confidence and create the conditions forgreater gender equality in households and thepublic sphere. “Implicit in the action of plantingtrees,” says Maathai,“is a civic education, astrategy to empower people and to give thema sense of taking their destiny into their ownhands, removing their fear…[so women] cancontrol the direction of their own lives.”

—Arunima Dhar


BOX 3–3. WOMEN,TREES,AND EMPOWERMENT: KENYA’S GREEN BELT MOVEMENT


the run-up to the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development, women from gov-ernments and the NGO community met toconsider women’s roles in the transition tosustainability. (See Box 3–4.)40

Continuing Gaps,Integrated Approaches

In the 1950s and 1960s, a number of devel-oping-country governments adopted nationalplans designed to reduce rapid rates of pop-ulation growth that strained their abilities toprovide enough health care, schools, and jobsfor their citizens. Even more governmentsadopted population policies in the 1970s and1980s. But few of these policies sought to linkreducing population pressures with expanded

protections for biological resources or effortsto raise incomes within a framework of sus-tainability. This situation largely persists today:while the linkages between poverty, environ-mental degradation, and rapid populationgrowth are noted in many policies, they arerarely elaborated. And few environment orpopulation policies address issues of women’sstatus and gender equality.41

Although government thinking hasevolved away from numbers and towardimproving lives, the conditions contributingto continued high fertility have not beendealt with adequately. Poverty remains a hugechallenge, as does gender inequality, highrates of death for children under the age offive, and shortcomings in the systems forproviding reproductive health care and edu-


52

In most of the industrial world, therelationship between women and the environ-ment is perhaps more subtle than elsewhere,partly because women tend to be moreremoved from the natural resources theydepend on. Some advocates note, however,that women’s roles as mothers and as theprime caregivers to children make them morelikely to have a greater awareness of andinterest in avoiding environmental hazards,such as pesticides in food and chemicals thatcan increase reproductive risks. Most womenaround the world, including in industrialnations, still do the majority of householdshopping and cooking. This is why some envi-ronmental groups in these countries have tar-geted women for campaigns around issues offood safety. There are also some indicationsthat women may be more receptive to effortsthat encourage shifts in consumptionpractices. For example, a recent study in theUnited States showed that women tended toenroll in a green electricity program at a

higher rate than men.In March 2002, women environment minis-

ters and representatives from 19 industrialand developing countries, along with womenNGO leaders, met in Helsinki to develop acommon statement on the environment.Theparticipants noted that “women bring a uniquevoice to the challenges and opportunities ofsustainable development.” They called for, inpart, equal rights; access to and control of natural resources for women, including landtenure; policies that give women strongervoices in decisions about sustainable resourceuse; better consumer education, especially forwomen, on the environmental impacts ofproducts; support for women’s consumer ini-tiatives, through recycling, product labeling,and promotion of organic foods; and develop-ment of “policies, legislation and strategiestowards gender balance in environmental pro-tection and in the distribution of its benefits.”


BOX 3–4. WOMEN AND THE ENVIRONMENT


cation, particularly in rural areas. For instance,60 percent of the 113 million children not inprimary school around the world are girls. Yetnumerous studies over the years have docu-mented the impact that education has on thenumber of children a woman bears in herlifetime, particularly secondary schooling.(See Figure 3–4.) And women still account fortwo thirds of the people worldwide who can-not read. A 2002 study estimated that 549million women in the world are illiterate.There is some good news, however. Accord-ing to UNESCO, in all the world’s regionswomen are gaining access to literacy and edu-cation, and at a faster rate than men.(Although given how far women have laggedbehind, this is perhaps not surprising.) TheU.N. Development Programme (UNDP)found that 90 countries, home to 60 percentof the world’s people, are likely to meet globalgoals for ending gender inequalities in primaryschooling by 2015.42

More women than ever are using modernmethods of contraception today: 62 percentof those who are married or in a stable unionglobally (about 650 million women), includ-ing 60 percent of those in less developed

regions. But significant differences existbetween regions. In Africa, only 25 percentof married women use contraception, whilein Latin America and the Caribbean, 69 per-cent do, a rate very similar to the industrial-country average of 70 percent. Still, vastneeds go unmet: overall, according to theUnited Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),350 million women lack access to a range ofcontraceptive services, a number that canbe expected to grow as populations increase.And an estimated 125 million women donot want to be pregnant but are not usingany type of contraception. Millions morewomen would like to avoid pregnancy butare using the wrong type of birth controlbecause they lack information about the bestmethod for them.43

Overall, progress toward the goal agreedto at the Cairo Conference of universal accessto reproductive health care—which includesfamily planning information and services,maternal and infant health care, and preven-tion and treatment of sexually transmitteddiseases, among other services—by 2015 hasbeen slow. Funds to realize this goal havefallen short. In 2000, the support that inter-


53

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Viet NamJamaica

ColombiaPeru

South AfricaIndiaEgyptSyriaKenya

GuatemalaCambodiaEthiopia

020406080100Female Secondary School Enrollment Rate (percent) Total Fertility Rate 1995–2000

Figure 3–4. Education Levels and Fertility Rates for Women and Girls in 12 Developing Countries, Late 1990s


national donors promised at the Cairo con-ference was running at about half thepromised level. And although developingcountries are contributing most of theiragreed portion, significant differences existbetween countries and regions.44

Some population researchers contend thatthe deficiencies in harnessing political will andsufficient budgets mean the declines in fer-tility witnessed over the past 35 years maywell stall. “Many biodiversity-rich areas areamong the last places on Earth for averagefertility to fall from its historic high levels,”observes Robert Engelman of PopulationAction International, “probably because suchplaces tend to be farthest from the reach ofcities, services, and the electronic media. Butthese also are often the places where fertilityis falling fastest,” he continues, “preciselybecause the modern world is just reachingthem, and traditional ideas of childbearingand women’s roles are changing rapidly.”He notes that governments’ and NGOs’inability or unwillingness to provide good-quality reproductive health services in remoteareas often slows down this process alto-gether. And in the industrial world, nationalpolicies remain largely silent on the interac-tion of population trends with overcon-sumption of natural resources. Takentogether, these realities suggest that colli-sions between human populations and bio-logical resources in developing and industrialregions alike will only intensify.45

Still, since the Cairo conference and theglobal women’s conference in 1995 in Bei-jing, governments have acknowledged—atleast rhetorically—that nations suffer whenthey neglect the needs and rights of women.Few leaders have made the needed additionalleap in thinking, however, to see clearly andact on the links between growing popula-tion and resource consumption, genderinequality, and the loss of biodiversity. But at

the community level, programs that seek toaddress the commonalities among the threeareas have been put in place, often as a resultof the initiative of conservation and devel-opment agencies and the participation oflocal NGOs and communities—actors that areincreasingly working in tandem. In some pro-grams, governments themselves have beenimportant partners. While a few of these pro-grams began before the Cairo conference,most have been launched since 1994 andreflect its principles and objectives.

Some programs have health or popula-tion as their entry points. Others stem fromconcern about long-term threats to speciesor habitats. In some cases, conservationgroups have taken the lead; in others, devel-opment organizations working on health orpoverty alleviation have discovered that com-munity needs are better served when repro-ductive health care is provided along withenvironmental inputs, or vice versa. But allare based on the premise that integrated ser-vice delivery leads to greater success inimproving human health, expanding liveli-hood options, and protecting the environ-ment. For several programs, gender equityand increases in the power that women haveto make decisions—whether about their fer-tility or their use of resources—are importantgoals. Most of the current set of programsreach relatively small numbers of people,tens of thousands at the most, but in manycan be found the seeds for a “scaling up” ofthe efforts’ reach and scope.46

In the state of Chiapas, Mexico, forinstance, Conservation International hasrecently begun working with a family plan-ning NGO, Mexfam, and the Mexican SocialSecurity Institute to expand access to repro-ductive health care, including family plan-ning, and to halt the clearing of forests in andaround the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve.Lying within the Mesoamerican biodiversity


54


hotspot, this reserve contains some of NorthAmerica’s last large tropical rainforest. CIprovides natural resource management ser-vices—techniques for improving soil conser-vation and increasing crop yields, for example,and a forest fire prevention program—whileits partners deliver health services. CI also pro-vides information on small loans and income-generating opportunities to women whoparticipate in the program’s health or envi-ronmental activities, and is working to pro-mote ecotourism in the region.47

In the mountainous provinces of centralEcuador, where most women want repro-ductive health services but cannot get them,fertility is high and soil erosion is widespread.World Neighbors, a development organiza-tion, has joined with a local NGO, the Cen-ter for Medical Guidance and FamilyPlanning, to deliver reproductive health careand to promote improvements in local man-agement of natural resources to more than4,000 families. Among the services providedthrough five clinics in 60 rural provinces arefamily planning and maternal and child healthcare and training, along with inputs for sus-tainable agriculture, animal husbandry, andfood security. Successful efforts have beenmade to expand women’s participation in allprogram activities, despite high rates of femaleilliteracy and gender roles that limit women’ssay in community decisions.48

Three government departments in SouthAfrica—Water Affairs and Forestry, Envi-ronmental Affairs and Tourism, and Agri-culture—rolled out a Working for WaterProgramme in 1995 to meet two goals. Thefirst was to remove alien trees and shrubs,brought to South Africa by successive wavesof immigrants and colonizers, that competewith and crowd out indigenous plants andanimals. The second was to create employ-ment options for still-marginalized membersof society, including women and young peo-

ple. The program employs about 20,000people, 60 percent of them women, in 300projects throughout South Africa. One areawhere Working for Water is active is the CapeFloral Kingdom in the southwest, a globalbiodiversity hotspot and home to 9,000 plantspecies. To address high rates of unwantedand unplanned pregnancies among staff, aswell as the HIV/AIDS crisis gripping SouthAfrica, Working for Water has incorporatedan AIDS awareness training program andoffers its workers reproductive health infor-mation and services, including condom dis-tribution and management of sexuallytransmitted diseases.49

In nearby Tanzania, responding to seriousdeforestation outside the borders of theGombe National Park, in 1994 the JaneGoodall Institute established the Lake Tan-ganyika Catchment Reforestation and Edu-cation (TACARE) program. TACARE nowworks in 30 villages to address the combinedpressures of high population growth, limitedeconomic development, and ecosystemdecline—specifically soil erosion and theeffects of deforestation. Gombe itself nowcontains the only forested area left in theregion. TACARE delivers conservation edu-cation in local schools and villages and hassupported the creation of village forestreserves (for fuel and cooking wood) andtree nurseries, as well as the planting of nearly750,000 new trees. With regional govern-ment health authorities, TACARE supportscommunity-based health promoters and con-traceptive distributors who are trained todeliver reproductive health care, preventive


55

Governments have acknowledged—at leastrhetorically—that nations suffer when theyneglect the needs and rights of women.


health services, and HIV/AIDS awareness.Central to TACARE’s activities is developingthe capacities of women for improved house-hold and resource management. Training isprovided to women in the cultivation of fruitand palm oil trees, savings and loans pro-grams support women who launch environ-mentally friendly small businesses, a girls’scholarship program is in operation, and legalsupport is offered to make women’s rightsbetter known and to protect them.50

Yet another example of this integratedapproach, and at a larger scale, is found in theSolomon Islands in the South Pacific, wheremarine biodiversity is rich. WWF has recentlylaunched a public education and media ini-tiative on the connections between populationtrends, resource use, and the health of landand sea ecosystems, including intact rainfor-est. Migration patterns combined with pop-ulation growth (average fertility is above fivechildren for each woman) are threateningcommunities’ livelihoods, which largely con-sist of subsistence farming and fishing. A cen-tral goal of the campaign is to expandawareness and use of family planning ser-vices. Partners in this effort include provin-cial and national government agencies, healthand family planning organizations, educa-tional institutions, and community-basedorganizations, as well as women’s groups.WWF-Solomon Islands has also adopted agender equity policy to guide its internaloperations and provide a potential model ofbest practices for other organizations work-ing in the Solomons, which is still a highlypatriarchal society.51

These initiatives, just a handful of thoseunder way around the world, demonstratethat incorporating improved access to con-traception and a broader range of other repro-ductive health services can increase women’sparticipation in natural resource conserva-tion, education, skills training, and small busi-

ness programs and vice versa. They also showthat addressing health and livelihood needs—and gender realities—can be an importantmeans of successfully protecting biodiversity.And they illustrate the roles that conservationand development organizations, governmentagencies, and communities have to play inaddressing population and biodiversity chal-lenges. As the connections between conser-vation, resource use, and population projectsbecome clearer, the environmental commu-nity and environment ministers can becomean important new constituency for repro-ductive health and women’s rights.

As UNFPA executive director ThorayaObaid has said: “Ten years after the adoptionof Agenda 21, the primary challenge remains:to ensure that access to resources for humandevelopment is in balance with human num-bers; to end extreme poverty; and to advanceequality between men and women.…Manywomen in developing countries still lackaccess to resources, services and the oppor-tunity to make real choices. They are trappedin poverty by illiteracy, poor health andunwanted high fertility. All of these con-tribute to environmental degradation andtighten the grip of poverty. If we are seriousabout sustainable development, we mustbreak this vicious cycle.”52

Nurturing the NextRevolution

As the linkages among population, gender,and biodiversity become better known, thereare more opportunities to take actions inholistic ways that work for people and nature.But time is critical. Collisions between pop-ulation and biodiversity can be expected onlyto intensify as human numbers and resourceuse expand. If we do not address the bondsthat tie population, gender, and biodiversitytogether through large-scale, more compre-


56


hensive, more equitable programs and poli-cies, we will miss an opportunity that may notarise again. Species and habitats lost today asa result of rapid population growth and con-sumption will not be recreated anytime soon.Several principles can guide this effort. (SeeBox 3–5.)

First, policymakers need to target areas ofhigh biodiversity. In areas particularly rich inanimal and plant species and especially threat-ened, efforts should be made not just to pro-tect biodiversity but also to improve women’slives and rights. Concrete steps should betaken by governments to expand the avail-ability of reproductive health care and infor-mation in threatened landscapes or marineareas with high population growth. There isample opportunity here for partnershipsbetween government agencies and interna-tional, national, or regional health, develop-ment, or conservation NGOs. ConservationInternational, for instance, has integratedreproductive health activities into its conser-vation programs in four countries in biodi-versity hotspot zones—Guatemala,Madagascar, Mexico, and the Philippines.When government reproductive health ser-vices are available, CI seeks to expand com-munities’ access to them; when they are not,as is often the case, CI works with local NGOsto establish services.53

It will also be important for governmentsand conservation and development groups toensure that the impact of gender realities onresource use and control is understood andaddressed. They should take steps to ensurethat women fully participate in, and benefitfrom, programs to improve natural resourcemanagement or conserve biodiversity on anequal basis with men. In Nepal and Tanzania,among other places, women’s membership incommunity resource management bodies ismandated by the government. Conservationpractitioners note that not only has this

advanced gender equity and women’s statusin communities, it has also led to improve-ments in management of forests and otherecosystems.54

In addition, supporting improvements ingirls’ education—in enrollment levels andavailable facilities—can promote future con-servation of biodiversity-rich areas andimprove women’s lives. Nearly 1.2 billionadolescents are now entering their repro-ductive years—the largest generation in his-tory. The choices they make today willdetermine the population-biodiversity bal-ance of the twenty-first century. The gov-ernment of Bangladesh, with World Banksupport, has just launched the second phaseof a national effort to improve secondaryschool enrollment rates for girls in rural areasby providing stipends for tuition costs.Although not geared specifically for areas ofhigh biodiversity, the effort is laudable for itsambition and concrete gains. Girls’ enroll-ment levels doubled in areas where the pro-gram operated in its first phase, and rates ofearly marriage (strongly linked to early child-


57

• Target areas of high biodiversity forimprovements in reproductive health, ineducation, and in women’s rights to par-ticipate in natural resource management.

• Increase capacity of key actors to docross-sectoral work.

• Encourage sustainable consumption patterns in all countries.

• Introduce policy changes that willencourage scaling up of successful localprograms.

BOX 3–5. PRINCIPLES FORINTEGRATED PROGRAMS ON POPULATION, WOMEN, AND BIODIVERSITY


bearing and continued high rates of maternaldeath in Bangladesh) have begun to fall.About 1.5 million girls are expected to par-ticipate in this new phase, which also includesmeasures to improve the quality of schooling,at an astonishingly low cost—about $20 a yearfor each girl.55

The World Wildlife Fund in the UnitedStates is supporting a small number of primaryand secondary school scholarships for girls,along with environmental education, in sevencountries in priority biodiversity conserva-tion regions: Bhutan, Colombia, Kenya,Madagascar, Nepal, the Philippines, and Tan-zania. Scholarships are awarded in rural com-munities where girls rarely complete highschool, where women’s literacy levels lag wellbehind men’s, where fertility rates remainhigh, and where women’s roles in resourceuse and its protection are often ignored.56

In schools in the Kiunga Reserve in Kenya,it is not unusual for eighth-grade classes tohave no girls in them. But in a sign of change,some lower grades have more girls than boys.This trend toward valuing girls’ education isgrowing, partly as a result of local commu-nities’ efforts. At weekly barazas (communitymeetings), teachers report urging parents tosend girls to school and keep them there.Nineteen year-old Fahima is a World WildlifeFund scholarship recipient from Kiunga whoattends a girls’ boarding school in the city ofLamu. “If you are a girl who is educated, youwill be a very important person in society. Youcan uplift yourself and your family,” she says.57

Efforts in Kiunga to get more girls into

school have naturally been paired with effortsto get conservation education into schools aswell. And girls, along with boy scholarshiprecipients, attend a week-long conservationcamp. Here they get hands-on conservationexperience—restoring coral, counting turtleeggs, tagging nesting turtles—as well as con-servation education. They also learn tosnorkel, with many seeing live coral for thefirst time, even though they have lived on theshore of the Indian Ocean all their lives. Girlsand boys leave with a better understanding ofthe conservation challenges in Kiunga, and inmany cases a greater commitment to takingaction to reduce the pressures placed onmarine resources. Swabra, a 16-year-old girlliving in Kiunga, says, “In our area, peoplewere eating turtles. Now I know the impor-tance of conserving turtles. If we eat all ofthem there will be no species of turtles.…They will not be able to save them.…I’veeducated the whole community by tellingthem it is not good to eat turtles.”58

The second key principle is to increase thecapacity of organizations large and small—from governments and the World Bank tointernational conservation and developmentagencies and local family planning clinics—toundertake cross-sectoral work on population,gender, and biodiversity, and to make thiswork part of the way they do business. Agreat deal of interest exists in better under-standing and acting on these linkages, butuncertainty on how to move forward is slow-ing efforts on the ground. In many agen-cies, government and nongovernmental alike,it is rare to find expertise that crosses sectors.Even in large development agencies, withmany experts on staff, managers and divi-sions in an area such as health may have lim-ited contact with those working onbiodiversity protection. Such divisions willneed to be broken down through, for exam-ple, building awareness within environment


58

At the community level, productivepartnerships need to be nurtured amonghealth and population organizations,community groups, and key stakeholders.



59

departments of the gender dimensions ofnatural resource management. Anotherpotentially useful strategy, particularly forlarge international agencies or governmentministries, is creation of policy and programworking groups with representation frompopulation, biodiversity, and gender orwomen’s divisions. Such groups, called for inthe Cairo agreement, could also usefully becreated at more local levels, within govern-ment structures and across NGOs, as a meansof joining efforts in separate sectors.59

Actions are also needed to improve theunderstanding and skills of NGOs, commu-nity-based organizations (like women’sgroups), and field-based line managers whooversee government- or donor-funded pro-grams. Conservation and development orga-nizations have important roles to play here inspurring capacity development by supportingor providing training, for example, in theareas of gender and population. Develop-ment of partnerships between NGOs andgovernment agencies can also increase theirability to act on population, gender, and bio-diversity linkages, from local to district tonational levels.

At larger scales, strategic partnershipsamong these various agencies and groupsmay be most useful, though it may take sometime to develop and sustain joint venturesamong international development agenciesthat provide health or education services;conservation groups; research institutes thatwork on population and that have usefultechnical skills, such as mapping populationand biodiversity variables; gender and devel-opment organizations with analysis or pro-gram expertise; institutes with proficiency intechnical skills or demography analysis; andregional health or development NGOs. At thecommunity or district level, productive part-nerships need to be nurtured among healthand population organizations; community

groups, including women’s groups and asso-ciations; and key stakeholders in communities,such as teachers and elders. One place to cre-ate such partnerships is through the districtdevelopment committees that are increas-ingly common local policymaking bodies indeveloping countries; their membership gen-erally includes government as well as com-munity representatives.

Building the steps for gender equity andenvironmental sustainability at many levels isalso likely to create the grounding from whichto launch future actions. Moreover, strongpartners at national, regional, and local lev-els can facilitate more strategic thinking,action, and follow-up. They can also sharetools and information or provide an entrypoint for further work. For example, IUCNis in the midst of a multiyear project with envi-ronmental ministries in the eight Mesoamer-ican countries to integrate gender equity intonatural resource policies and the action plansto implement them. Four U.N. agencies—UNFPA, UNDP, UNESCO, and FAO—areplanning to work with national governmentsand IUCN on a comprehensive program tomanage and conserve biodiversity in the Sun-darbans region of India and Bangladesh. TheSundarbans is the largest mangrove ecosystemin the world—home to the Bengal tiger andGanges dolphin—but ecological degradationthere is gathering speed as human activitiesexpand. When launched in mid-2003, theprogram will support skills development forsustainable livelihoods for women and men,promote communities’ participation in con-servation activities, and improve the capacityof governments to provide reproductivehealth services.60

A third area for action is encouraging moresustainable consumption, given local andglobal impacts of current choices—and neces-sities—on biodiversity and equity. As per-sonal action has been fairly limited to date,


widespread change is unlikely to come with-out government and institutional policies—and without more public information andguidance on the effects of consumptionchoices. Many countries have already takensteps in the right direction. In Brazil, forexample, ethanol produced from fermentedsugarcane juice is used as a gasoline substituteto power 10 million cars with high-com-pression engines. This has reduced gasolineuse by 50 percent and prevents nearly 10million tons of carbon dioxide emissions ayear. Another significant benefit has been thecreation of more than 700,000 jobs at theprocessing plants used for ethanol production.Other countries could adopt similarly or evenmore ambitious fuel-saving measures if thepolitical leadership existed.61

Many private nonprofit groups, however,including those working for environmentalprotection and sustainability, are not wait-ing for governments to act. For instance, theU.S.-based Center for a New AmericanDream has launched a Web-based Turn theTide campaign that asks North Americansto take nine actions—from skipping a car tripor a meal of beef once a week to replacingfour standard light bulbs with energy-effi-cient compact fluoresents—that produce mea-surable impacts on global warming, waterand energy conservation, and wildlife andforest habitat protection. It is worth notingthat about two thirds of those who havesigned up so far are women. And theWomen’s Environmental Network in theUnited Kingdom has a local foods programand other campaigns to encourage women

and, by extension, men and children tochange the way they consume.62

In the developing world, it is also impor-tant to raise public awareness and providealternatives that shift or reduce consumptionof resources that may put biodiversity underpressure. Prime areas for further actioninclude reducing the cutting of forests forwood and charcoal and the hunting of forestmammals or marine species for householdconsumption or sale. Also important is devel-opment of alternative livelihoods that are lessresource-dependent, especially for women,and skills and entrepreneurship training tomake this possible; needs for these remain vastand will only increase as populations grow. Anarea of considerable interest and action isexpanding use of solar cookers and fuel-effi-cient stoves that require less wood. Of course,significant pressures on developing regions’biodiversity as well as on the livelihoods of thepoor, who rely heavily on local environments,stem from the operations of extractive indus-tries like logging, mining, and oil explorationand refining; their impacts will also need tobe acknowledged and addressed within theconsumption equation.

A final guiding principle is to use policychanges to transform current programs intonational or regional-level initiatives, drawingon the lessons learned from smaller-scaleefforts. Most on-the-ground programsaddressing population, gender, and biodi-versity operate in relatively small geographicareas and reach only a fraction of those whocould benefit. Few are backed up by policiesthat call for coordination between ministriesof health or natural resources, or that makewomen’s participation or gender equity oper-ational principles. Such policy innovation—as endorsed in the series of internationalagreements that stretches from Rio to Cairoto Beijing—is an important component ofscaling up current efforts and increasing


60

Population growth is slowing and the statusof women is improving—two hopeful trendsin an otherwise rather dismal picture.


their reach and impact. “Even if there is a lotof emphasis on population and gender atlocal levels, without attention to this at pol-icy levels, we are wasting our time,” saysDaniel Mavella, project manager for anational park program in Tanzania. “Policiesare the frameworks that give us the room andthe confidence [to work].”63

Policies could help spur big-picture think-ing by policymakers on the population trendsmost forcefully affecting biodiversity and themeans of dealing with the underlying condi-tions driving them—such as limited accessto reproductive health care and education inrural areas, women’s low status, high levels ofilliteracy, intense use of resources at subsis-tence level, and women’s low levels oflandownership and poor access to agricul-tural extension services or credit. They canalso ensure that integration of sectors, suchas population or health, with environmenthappens on the ground, at the district andmunicipal levels, where operational decisionsare often made. Policies can and should makegender equity and women’s full and equal par-ticipation bedrock principles. The Ministry ofPopulation and Environment in Nepal, forinstance, may well ease the way for integratedactions across sectors and, potentially, at largerscales. Its mandate is to coordinate govern-ment activities in the areas of population,reproductive health, and environment.64

Policy changes may also redirect money

streams so that they, too, cross sectors. Atest case in coming years will be funds spenton population programs by the U.S. Agencyfor International Development. Due torecent changes in the legislation guidingU.S. spending, some of the population fundsare to be used in areas where populationgrowth “threatens biodiversity or endan-gered species.”65

There is no question that much remains tobe done to reverse the ecological degradationthat has been experienced around the worldbecause of unsustainable population growthand consumption. But population growth isslowing and the status of women is improv-ing—two hopeful trends in an otherwiserather dismal picture. And efforts are underway to protect areas rich in biodiversity acrossthe world by recognizing the links betweengender equity, population realities, and envi-ronmental protection. These efforts set anexample for all nations to recognize that whatis good for women—improved access toreproductive health care and family planning,increased access to education, greater eco-nomic opportunities and decisionmaking onnatural resource use—is also good for biodi-versity. Current actions need to be nurturedand accelerated if we are to have a real chanceof creating a more secure, equitable, biolog-ically rich world, both for ourselves and for therest of nature.


61

62

No other disease in the course of human his-tory has had as profound an effect on humandevelopment and well-being as malaria.Africans in Neolithic times, ancient Chineseand Greeks, Roman emperors, and hundredsof millions of other people—rich and poor—have died from this disease. For centuries,Africa was known as the White Man’s Gravebecause so many Europeans who went therelost their lives to malaria. During the earlystages of World War II, General DouglasMacArthur lost more soldiers in the Pacificarena to malaria-carrying mosquitoes thanto the Japanese. Today, up to 7,000 people,primarily children in sub-Saharan Africa, diefrom this disease every day. “There is nodoubt that malaria has caused the greatestharm to the greatest number,” notes Sir FrankMacfarlane Burnet, a Nobel Prize–winningimmunologist.1

Malaria is still known as the King of Dis-eases in Hindi, and with good reason: foreach person who dies from malaria itself,another three who have it succumb to moremundane problems such as malnutrition, ane-

mia, or diarrhea. The death toll from malariaand malaria-related illnesses exceeds that ofAIDS, which now kills about 3 million peo-ple annually.2

Despite its unrelenting grip on humanityand the fact that about 2.5 billion people areat risk of contracting the disease, malaria is arelatively low public health priority on theinternational scene. It rarely makes the news.Between 1975 and 1999, only 4 of the 1,393new drugs developed worldwide were anti-malarials.3

The low priority assigned to malaria wouldbe easier to understand if the threat werestatic. Unfortunately, it is not. Although thegeographic range of the disease has con-tracted substantially since the mid-twentiethcentury, over a few decades malaria has beengathering strength in several different dimen-sions. The parasites now resist most anti-malarial drugs, making treatment vastly morecomplicated and expensive. Poverty, war, andcivil strife make it hard for governments toimplement preventive and curative measures.Environmental change and human migra-

Anne Platt McGinn

Chapter 4

Combating Malaria

COMBATING MALARIA

tions have always exacerbated the potential forthis disease to spread, but the global scale ofthese factors today makes malaria even moredifficult to contain.4

Like so many problems that are especiallyacute in developing countries, malaria costsmore to ignore than to treat. Malaria costsAfrica some $3–12 billion a year, but it couldbe controlled with available prevention andtreatment measures for much less. By 2007,about $2.5 billion a year will be needed tocontrol malaria globally, according to recentestimates. Although such an investmentwould pay off in human and economic terms,it is not being made. International funding formalaria research currently comes to about$150 million annually, only about 5 percentas much as proposed U.S. government fund-ing for AIDS research in 2003.5

The reality is that malaria is a disease ofpoor countries. If it were a constant threat inindustrial countries, the story would be com-pletely different. Although the funding situ-ation looks much better today than it has inyears, the newly created Global Fund to FightAIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria and the Med-icines for Malaria Venture are still vastlyunderfinanced compared with the scale ofthe problem. Moreover, money alone is notenough to fight malaria. It will take politicalwill and concerted international cooperationto confront this global threat. And it willtake a change in mindset: people must appre-ciate that human and environmental healthare intimately linked on a local and globalscale. Adopting this thinking is perhaps thegreatest challenge—and the greatest oppor-tunity—for curbing malaria.

A Modern and Growing Threat

Malaria is predominantly a disease of thetropics (see Figure 4–1), but as recently as 60

years ago it was found throughout the moretemperate regions of southern Europe, NorthAfrica, East Asia, and the southeastern UnitedStates. Although the disease’s geographicreach has shrunk, more than 40 percent of theworld’s population now lives in areas wheremalaria transmission occurs regularly. Else-where, people are at risk from the occasionaloutbreak of “airport malaria,” when infectedmosquitoes hitchhike on international air-craft and bite people living near airports.6

By virtue of ecology, demographics, andclimate, sub-Saharan Africa is home to some90 percent of the world’s malaria cases anddeaths. In the early 1990s, outpatient clinicsthroughout the region routinely treated morepeople for malaria than for any other disease.(The rapid spread of HIV/AIDS has undoubt-edly altered the resources dedicated tomalaria, but not the absolute burden from thedisease.) The mosquito species most closelyadapted to human blood and the most debil-itating malaria parasites are common in theseareas, taking an especially high toll on preg-nant women and the very young. Childrenmay have as many as five different strains ofmalaria in their bodies at once. In many areasof Africa, the parasite is almost always circu-lating in people’s blood, though not alwaysat levels high enough to be detected by amicroscope. Whether or not these parasitescause severe, debilitating disease depends onthe person’s immunity and genetic suscepti-bility, among other factors.7

In Africa, the typical person infected withmalaria lives where a large share of the pop-ulation gets the disease each year, whereinfected people are disabled, weakened, oroccasionally killed by it, and where people suf-fer from many bouts of the illness duringtheir lifetimes. In contrast, environmentaland human factors and the mosquito speciesthat carry malaria are all quite different inmuch of Asia and the Americas, manifesting


63

COMBATING MALARIA

a different disease. (See Table 4–1.) In theseareas, people of all ages are affected bymalaria, but they rarely die from it.8

A severe bout of malaria can trigger pro-longed, repeated illness and chronic anemiaand can have life-long effects on cognitivedevelopment, behavior, and educationalachievement. In Kenya, one in 20 children isso anemic from repeated bouts with malariathat in the United States the child would berushed to a hospital for an emergency bloodtransfusion. In sub-Saharan Africa, childrensuffer about 600,000 attacks of cerebralmalaria—a severe infection in the brain—each year, with one in five patients dying.Those fortunate enough to survive sufferfrom a range of neurological difficulties,including learning disorders, behavioral prob-lems, speech disorders, hearing impairment,paralysis, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy.9

Pregnant women are especially vulnera-ble to malaria. In sub-Saharan Africa, as manyas 400,000 pregnant women contractedsevere anemia induced by malaria in 1995. Upto 10,000 of them died. Pregnant womenwith malaria are at higher risk of miscarriages,stillbirths, and having babies with low birthweight. In sub-Saharan Africa, malaria isdirectly responsible for about 30 percent ofchildhood deaths and is a contributing factorin up to 60 percent of infant and childdeaths.10

Where infant and child mortality rates arehigh, parents often react by having more chil-dren. Higher fertility rates, in turn, promptlower investments in education per child.Moreover, children who are sick with malariahave higher rates of school absenteeism, whichincreases the chances they will fail classes,possibly repeat a school year, or drop out


64

Figure 4-1. Prevalence of Malaria

Malaria-free areasAreas where malaria has been largely eliminatedMalaria transmission areas, mid-1990s

Source: Gallupand Sachs

COMBATING MALARIA

entirely. In Kenya, primaryschool students miss up to 11 percent of schooldays per year because ofmalaria.11

The problem withmalaria is not just medical,but also the way it deepensthe poverty of people whoare just barely scrapingalong. Many of the 1.2 bil-lion people who live on $1a day in developing coun-tries are at risk for malaria.In some areas, malaria-stricken households spendup to $40 a month on malaria prevention andtreatment. Devoting as much as one third oftheir total income to fighting this plague,families also suffer a loss of income when awage-earning member is home sick.12

A country that is branded high-risk formalaria is essentially isolated from the globaleconomy. It typically loses potential foreigninvestment, tourism revenue, and tradebecause companies, governments, and trav-elers are reluctant to be in areas where peo-ple could contract malaria. This isolationstrengthens the cycle of disease and poverty.As noted earlier, malaria costs Africa some$3–12 billion each year, an estimated 1–4percent of the continent’s collective grossdomestic products. Over the past 35 years,this one disease has led to nearly $100 billionin losses from Africa’s economy, roughly fivetimes as much as the continent received ininternational development aid in 1999.13

After progress against the disease in the1960s, malaria is now staging a strong globalcomeback. (See Figure 4–2.) From 1970 to1997, global mortality rates from malaria(the number of deaths per 100,000 popula-tion) increased by 13 percent. Death rates insub-Saharan Africa jumped by 54 percent

during this time. By 1997, Africa’s death ratefrom malaria stood at 165 per 100,00 people,nine times the global average that year. Chil-dren are now suffering even more frommalaria. From mid-century to the 1990s,mortality rates from all diseases among Africanchildren under the age of five declined by 34percent. But malaria-specific death ratesamong children have increased 30 percentsince the 1960s, offsetting nearly all the gainsmade in other childhood illnesses.14

Despite our long history with this disease,malaria remains one of the world’s leadinghealth threats. Officially, some 300–500 mil-lion cases of clinical malaria occur each year,and at least 1 million people die from malaria,but these data are vast underestimates.Because many illnesses and deaths occur athome and are never formally registered, theactual number could be as much as threetimes as high. Recent studies show, for exam-ple, that people in malarious areas suffer atleast 1 billion high-fever episodes each yearthat resemble malaria and should be consid-ered for malaria treatment. If effective con-trol strategies are not introduced, the numberof malaria cases could double in the next 20years, simply due to population growth in


65

Table 4–1. Malaria in Asia and the Americas Versus Africa

Asia andCharacteristic Americas Africa

Risk of infection Very low Very high

Acquired immunity No Yes

Case fatality following infection High Low due to immunity

Population at risk of death All ages Infants, young children, and women pregnant for first time

History of vector control Effective Not widely applied

SOURCE: J. Kevin Baird,“Resurgent Malaria at the Millennium,” Drugs,April 2000, p. 734.

COMBATING MALARIA

areas with high rates of this disease.15

Three key factors explain why malaria isgetting worse. First, virtually all areas wherethe disease is endemic (native) have seendrug-resistant strains of the parasite emerge.Chloroquine was the drug of choice for fight-ing malaria for generations. It was long addedto table salt to dose entire populations andprevent malaria. But overuse and misuse havepromoted the survival of drug-resistantstrains. Now chloroquine is useless in virtu-ally all malaria-ridden areas of the world—more than 100 countries.16

The loss of chloroquine is especially greatbecause it is cheaper and easier to administerthan other anti-malarial drugs. It is also fast-acting: patients normally feel better within 24hours. These characteristics contributed toboth its usefulness and, more recently, itsdownfall. Plasmodium falciparum, the dead-liest of the four malaria parasites, has becomeeven tougher and more expensive to treatafter decades of exposure to chloroquine andother anti-malarial drugs. Consequently, deathrates are rising.17

Replacement drugs are suffering a similarfate. In parts of Southeast Asia and EastAfrica, for example, multi-drug-resistant par-

asites have already developed from theheavy use of the second-line anti-malar-ial drug, sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine.And in northwestern Thailand, localparasites are becoming resistant toevery known anti-malarial drug.18

While the available medical arsenalshrinks, some scientists have concen-trated on genetic blueprints to findclues for new therapeutic agents. In2002, a group of international scientistsdecoded the genome sequences for themost dangerous malaria parasite andmosquito. Although such informationwill be useful for developing new anti-malarial medicines and narrowing the

search for a reliable vaccine, widespread appli-cation of such tools is still years away.19

Second, malaria is gaining ground becauseof environmental and social changes. Thedisease occurs where people are poor andthe environmental conditions are right. Irri-gation, dam building, deforestation, and otheractivities can boost the chances that malariawill spread, particularly in the world’s “malariabelt.” In countries as varied as Afghanistanand Sierra Leone, the lack of basic sanitationand medicines in areas disrupted by war hashelped spread the disease, as has the inter-ruption of health coverage in places like Northand South Korea and Tajikistan. Even thoughmalaria is regarded as predominantly a ruraldisease, people living in rapidly expandingtropical cities are not immune to its spread,especially as some mosquitoes now showsigns of adapting to the urban landscape.20

To make matters worse, climatic instabil-ity may allow malaria parasites and mosqui-toes to survive in places that have been freeof them for years. By 2050, for example,some experts predict a return of malaria to thesouthern United States, southern Brazil, west-ern China, and regions across Central Asiadue to climate change.21


66

Deaths Per 100,000 Population

Source: WHO

0

50

100

150

200

1997199019701950

WorldSub-Saharan Africa

Figure 4–2. Malaria Mortality Rate, 1950, 1970,1990, and 1997

COMBATING MALARIA

The third reason for the global resurgenceof malaria is the scant use of safe, effective, andaffordable means to control the mosquitothat carries the disease. Given the absence ofa reliable way to kill the parasite, control-ling, repelling, or simply killing mosquitoesthat bear it—a practice known as vector con-trol—remains fundamental to controllingmalaria today. This has led to the use of toxicinsecticides, including one of the most noto-rious—DDT. (See Box 4–1.)22

While the use of DDT may seem necessary,especially in light of the global resurgence ofmalaria, there are good reasons for thinkingthat progress against the disease may allow usto minimize this approach. Insecticide-treatedbednets, indoor spraying of less persistentinsecticides, and carefully designed environ-mental measures to control larval breeding,for example, all help reduce the burden ofmalaria. Despite their proven benefits, thesemeasures are not widely applied in regionsthat desperately need protection. Ensuringthat these and other tested tools are availableand adopted and that outside funding issecured to purchase and distribute them is acentral challenge to combating malaria in theworld’s poorest regions.

The Biology and Evolution of the Disease

Malaria is principally a vector-borne disease(one carried by an intermediary, in this casea mosquito) that is caused by four proto-zoan parasites in the genus Plasmodium. Themalaria parasite is a highly complex organismthat goes through four distinct stages in itslifecycle that cannot be completed withoutaccess to both a mosquito and a mammal.These parasites are spread exclusively by cer-tain mosquitoes belonging to the genusAnopheles. Understanding the interplaybetween parasite, vector, human host, and

environment is important to appreciatingwhy it is so difficult to control the variousforms of malaria. Indeed, malaria is not asingle disease, but a disease complex, a hostof illnesses that are related by ecology.23

A malaria infection begins with a singlemosquito bite. (See Figure 4–3.) A femaleAnopheles mosquito needs blood from ahuman (or other mammal) to make eggs.She repeatedly probes the skin with hermouthpiece, basically a pair of sharp, nee-dle-like tubes. With each exploratory prick,one tube sends a mix of anti-coagulationcompounds and other chemicals into thebloodstream, ensuring a steady supply ofhuman blood up into her body. When she hitsa capillary, the other tube sucks up a micro-liter or two of blood, which triples the mos-quito’s body weight. Sometimes her salivacontains thousands of thread-like sporozoites,the infective form of malaria parasite. Onlyabout 1 percent of a mosquito’s sporozoitesare deposited with each meal. Within minutesof being transferred from mosquito to person,the sporozoites move from the bloodstreamto the liver, well before the body can musteran effective defense.24

In the second stage of the parasite’s life,sporozoites multiply asexually in the liver.Each one matures into tens of thousands ofmerozoites, a round form of the parasite,that are contained in a schizont, which is likea hard capsule. In about a week’s time, theschizonts rupture, spewing forth millions ofmerozoites that invade the body’s red bloodcells, where they feed on the oxygen-carryinghemoglobin.25

At this stage, some 7–20 days after theinitial mosquito bite, a person will feel the firstsigns of infection: high fever, chills, and pro-fuse sweating. These symptoms come in wavesas the merozoites continue to reproduce incycles. By the time the body’s immune systemresponds to these symptoms, the process of


67

COMBATING MALARIA

amplification is well under way. The parasiteload increases 20-fold every 48 hours. As theparasite infects red blood cells, it starves thebrain and other tissues of oxygen and blood,

triggering severe anemia, coma, and some-times death.26

Some of the parasites in red blood cells donot stay in the body, however. Instead, they


68

DDT (dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane) is apersistent organic pollutant—one of a group ofsynthetic compounds that share four commonproperties: they are toxic, they bioaccumulate inthe food chain, they persist in the environment,and they have a high potential to travel long dis-tances from their source.Animals and peoplebioaccumulate DDT in their bodies, primarilyfrom the food they eat.As the chemicals moveup the food chain, each link or species takes upthe previous link’s exposure, adding it to theirown and magnifying the effects.Arctic cod andturbot, for example, have up to 1,000 timeshigher concentrations of DDT per gram of fatthan the zooplankton they consume. One of themost commonly detected synthetic chemicals inhumans is DDE—a highly persistent breakdownproduct of DDT.

Most of the problems with DDT relate toenvironmental contamination and its effects onanimals. In 1999, the U.S. National Academy ofSciences stated that “it is now well-establishedthat the DDT metabolite, DDE,…causeseggshell thinning” and that the bald eagle popu-lation in the United States declined “primarilybecause of exposure to DDT and itsmetabolites.”

In its 2000 toxicological profile of DDT andDDE, the U.S.Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) cited studies of thehormone-disrupting impacts of DDT and DDEin wildlife and laboratory animals. It noted that“key endocrine processes can be profoundlyaffected by exposure to extremely smallamounts of active chemicals during critical win-dows of embryonic, fetal, and neonatal develop-ment.” ATSDR also noted that these studiesraise concerns about human health effects.

DDT has already been linked to human dis-

orders. In a 2001 study, researchers focused onsamples of mothers’ blood that had beenstored when babies were born during the1950s and 1960s.They used new chemical tech-niques to measure DDE levels, and then lookedat the relationship between these and the likeli-hood of premature birth.They found a strongassociation.The higher the contamination level,the more likely a preterm birth was.They alsoshowed that contamination was linked to thebaby’s size, with babies more likely to be smallfor their gestational age if their mothers hadhigher DDE levels. Premature babies not onlyhave a higher death rate, they are also morelikely to suffer from neurodevelopmental handi-caps, chronic respiratory problems, and infec-tions.The authors warn that “in tropicalcountries, where DDT is used for malaria con-trol, blood concentrations of DDE can greatlyexceed the range observed” in the sample theystudied.

Workers in DDT production facilities andmalaria control programs have also developedchronic health effects. For example, retiredDDT-exposed malaria control workers in CostaRica performed, on average, up to 20 percentworse on a series of tests than a control groupof retired drivers and guards.The longer themalaria control worker had been on the job, thegreater the decline in their performance.Theirreaction times were slower, they had lower ver-bal attention and visual motor skills, and theyshowed more problems with dexterity andsequencing.They also experienced more psychi-atric and neuropsychological symptoms thanthe control group.


BOX 4–1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS OF DDT

COMBATING MALARIA

develop into a sexual, egg-like form known as a game-tocyte. Gametocytes aretaken up by other mosqui-toes when they bite aninfected person, promptingthe fourth and final stage inthe life of the malaria parasite.Once inside Anopheles, game-tocytes spend about 9–12days maturing into anothercrop of infective sporozoites.These are then transmittedto other victims via a mos-quito bite, continuing thecycle of disease.27

Of the roughly 380 mos-quito species in the genusAnopheles, about 60 are ableto transmit malaria in peo-ple. Many of these samespecies are widespreadthroughout the tropics andwarm temperate zones andare very efficient at spreadingthe disease. Species in the An.gambiae complex are the most importantvectors in Africa.28

Malaria has an extremely high potential fortransmission, as is apparent from a measure-ment that epidemiologists call the basic repro-duction number (BRN). The BRN indicates,on average, how many new cases a singleinfected person is likely to cause. For exam-ple, among the diseases caused by pathogensthat travel directly from person to personwithout an intermediary like a mosquito,measles is one of the most contagious. TheBRN for measles is 12–14, meaning thatsomeone with measles is likely to infect abouta dozen other people. (There is an inherentlimit in this process: as a pathogen spreadsthrough any particular area, it will encounterfewer and fewer susceptible people who are

not already sick, and the outbreak will even-tually subside.) HIV/AIDS is on the other endof the scale: it is deadly, but it moves througha population slowly. On average, each AIDSpatient infects one other person. Its BRN isjust above one, the minimum necessary forthe pathogen’s survival.29

With malaria, the BRN varies consider-ably but is generally higher in sub-SaharanAfrica than elsewhere. Malaria can have aBRN as high as 100: conceivably, an infectedperson can be bitten by more than 100 mos-quitoes in one night, each of which canbecome infected and able to transmit theinfection.30

To comprehend why malaria has such astrong hold on sub-Saharan Africa, it helps tounderstand the evolution of the disease.


69

Figure 4-3. Lifecycle of the Malaria Parasite

1.Transmission of infec-tive form of parasite(sporozoite) by femaleAnopheles to person.

2. Sporozoites infect liver cells and mature intomerozoites.

3. Merozoitesinvade red bloodcells, multiply,and release.

4. Mosquito vectoringests gametocytesafter biting infectedperson.

Inside the mosquito,gametocytes matureinto sporozoites.

Some merozoites develop into gametocytes.

COMBATING MALARIA

Before the introduction of agriculture, peo-ple contracted malaria on the continent butnever in large numbers. Movement to andfrom areas with mosquitoes offered somerelief for victims. Then people began to set-tle down and clear areas of the rainforest togrow yams and other root crops. These islandsof cultivation within forests became idealbreeding grounds for mosquitoes. They weresunlit and had clean water. With a semi-per-manent population of people to feed on, themosquito vectors developed a strong prefer-ence for human blood. As the landscapechanged and human population increased,malaria became more entrenched. Mosquitoesthat fed almost exclusively on people ratherthan cattle, birds, or primates emerged as theprimary vectors.31

Africa is home to the mosquito that is bestsuited to spreading malaria, one of the mostdeadly and efficient malaria vectors, An. gam-biae. Unlike other mosquitoes, An. gambiaehave a high affinity for human blood andbite people rather than animals 95 percent ofthe time. Thus, they can maintain diseasetransmission at extremely low mosquito pop-ulation densities. These efficient vectorsencouraged the emergence of a more virulentspecies of the malaria parasite, P. falciparum.During epidemic bursts of disease, a fast-growing, more aggressive parasite had anadvantage over slower-growing ones. It couldcomplete development to disease faster andtake advantage of frequent transmission.32

Additional evidence of malaria’s long anddeadly history in Africa comes from the per-sistence of the sickle-cell trait, a defectiveform of hemoglobin in the blood. Peopleliving throughout the tropics may have thisgenetic mutation because it confers partialimmunity to the most lethal forms of malaria.But people who live in areas of highlyendemic malaria, such as tropical sub-SaharanAfrica, India, and the Middle East, are most

likely to have it. Experts believe that sickle-cell hemoglobin causes red blood cells to“sickle” (collapse) when oxygen in the blood-stream is low.33

In the absence of sickle-cell hemoglobin,a person experiences the worst effects ofmalaria. If a child inherits the sickle-cellhemoglobin gene from one parent and anormal hemoglobin gene from the other,the child gains the advantage of a partialgenetic defense: a single dose of the genedoes not prevent the child from acquiringmalaria infections, but it fends off the worsteffects and virtually guarantees the survivalof the child, despite numerous bouts with thedisease. If a child inherits the gene fromboth parents, however, he or she will diefrom sickle-cell anemia before reaching repro-ductive age. The evolution of this trait under-scores the fact that malaria was an ancientkiller of immense proportions. (Other, milderforms of blood diseases, such as thalassemia,persist in populations of southern Europeand Asia, conferring some protection againstthe less virulent forms of malaria found inthose areas.)34

Malaria transmission in Africa is highlyvariable. Depending on where people live inendemic areas of Africa, they receive any-where from 1 to 1,000 infective bites perperson a year. In contrast, people in South-east Asia and South America generally suffer1 infective mosquito bite at most each year.The average Tanzanian gets bitten more eachnight than the average Thai or Vietnamesedoes in a year because the vector and humansare so closely associated. (Not every bite byan infected mosquito results in malaria; theprocess has about a 10 percent success rate.)The less efficient vectors that are common inAsia and the Americas mean that the risk ofinfection is low and infrequent for people. Butthe infections that do happen can take a stifftoll, quickly progressing to severe forms of dis-


70

COMBATING MALARIA

ease that are sometimes life-threatening.35

In Africa, frequent infectious mosquitobites manifest a very different picture of dis-ease and health. In much of sub-SaharanAfrica, malaria is a chronic infection thatcauses recurring bouts of devastating fever,life-draining anemia, and general weaken-ing of the body. But older children whomanage to survive repeated cases of malariaearly in life acquire partial immunity. Unlikeimmunity to other diseases, which conferstotal protection from illness, people who areimmune to malaria are protected only fromthe worst effects of the disease; they remainsusceptible to the illness throughout life andwill lose this protection if infections stoprecurring. Children are especially vulnera-ble, as their bodies have not had time todevelop even this partial immunity. Mostchildren in this area battle several bouts of theillness each year and become weaker, untilthey finally succumb to it.36

The course of infection has a direct bear-ing on control measures. For example, chil-dren who are exposed to fewer infective bitesexperience a lower level of parasites in theirblood. Even in the absence of complete elim-ination, effective, locally tailored controlefforts can save many lives and reduce the bur-den of disease. The critical point is that inhighly endemic areas such efforts need to bemaintained over the long term to have anyhope of keeping the ever-evolving Anophelesand malaria parasite in check.37

The False Promise of Eradication

“Malaria” comes from the Italian term “mal’aria.” For centuries, European physicians hadattributed the disease to “bad air.” Apartfrom a tradition of associating bad air withswamps—a useful prejudice, given the amountof mosquito habitat there—early medicine

was largely ineffective against the disease. Itwasn’t until the mid-1890s that scientistsidentified the parasites and mosquitoes thattransmit malaria and began to understandhow the disease works.38

These discoveries had an immediateimpact. The U.S. administration of TheodoreRoosevelt recognized malaria and yellow fever(another mosquito-borne disease) as perhapsthe most serious obstacles to the constructionof the Panama Canal. (An earlier and unsuc-cessful French attempt to build the canal isestimated to have lost between 10,000 and20,000 workers to disease.) So Americanworkers put up screens, filled in swamps, dugditches, poured oil into standing water tosuffocate air-breathing larvae, and swattedadult mosquitoes. This intensive effortworked: the incidence of malaria declined. Onaverage, just 2 percent of Americans werehospitalized with malaria, compared with 30percent of workers during the French project.Malaria could be suppressed, it turned out,with a great deal of mosquito netting and byeliminating as much mosquito habitat as pos-sible. But such elaborate and labor-intensivecampaigns were difficult and costly to sustain,especially in poor and often remote areas ofthe tropics.39

That is why DDT proved so appealing. In1939, Swiss chemist Paul Müller discoveredthat dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane was anextremely potent pesticide. First used in WorldWar II as a delousing agent, DDT was laterused to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoesbefore Allied soldiers moved through south-ern Europe, North Africa, and Asia. In 1948,Müller won a Nobel Prize for his work, andDDT was hailed as a miracle chemical. For thecontrol of mosquito-borne diseases, it wasseen as a panacea.40

A decade later, DDT had inspired anotherkind of war—a global assault on malaria. Forthe first time, malaria eradication seemed not


71

COMBATING MALARIA

only feasible but imminent. With DDT inhand, the recently formed World HealthOrganization (WHO) launched a global pro-gram to eliminate malaria. In 1957, morethan 66 nations enlisted in the cause. Fund-ing for DDT factories was donated to poorcountries, and production of the insecticideclimbed, as did distribution of anti-malarialmedicine, chloroquine.41

The goal of the global program was not tokill every single mosquito but to reduce thedaily rate of survival for mosquitoes andthereby reduce the frequency of bites andtransmission. By suppressing the mosquitoes,human populations were relieved of newinfections and had an opportunity to cleansetheir bodies of the parasite in circulation.Once a local human population was clearedof infection, mosquitoes could go about bit-ing people without picking up the parasite—at least, that was the theory.42

Rather than spraying DDT outdoors, as inthe 1940s, mosquito control experts fine-tuned their approach. They used DDT selec-tively indoors. After mosquitoes take theirblood meal, they usually rest in the vicinity,on a wall inside a house. If those walls werecoated with a thin film of insecticide, themosquitoes would absorb a lethal dose. (DDTis also known to have a repellent effect,prompting mosquitoes to quickly flee out-doors or avoid biting people indoors at all.)Unlike other insecticides that can lose theirpotency in a matter of days, DDT is long-last-ing: one dousing could protect a family for sixmonths. In the early euphoria, DDT did notseem to cause any harm to other species. Andit was cheap.43

Relying heavily on DDT, the global pro-gram saved millions of lives. The islands ofTaiwan, Jamaica, and Sardinia were soondeclared malaria-free. Tropical countries suchas Sri Lanka and India witnessed stunningdeclines in the incidence of malaria. Tem-

perate countries rooted it out entirely. By1961, malaria had been eliminated or dra-matically reduced in 37 countries.44

But the strategy relied on a centralizedapproach that proved difficult to maintainover time. Logistical problems were hard toovercome, and local variations in mosquitobehavior and patterns of disease transmissionwere often ignored. At the same time, mos-quitoes evolved resistance to the pesticide.This was reported as early as 1948, only oneyear into a major public health campaign touse DDT (an effort to suppress mosquitoesand flies in Greece). This knowledge was, inlarge part, why the global campaign becameso urgent. Time was of the essence, giventhe estimated three years that was needed toclear the protozoan from human circulationand the four to seven years it seemed to takemosquitoes to become resistant to DDT.45

By the late 1960s, the urgent campaignground to a halt. The political landscape hadshifted considerably with respect to DDT,thanks in large part to Rachel Carson’s influ-ential book, Silent Spring, which was pub-lished in 1962. No longer were people willingto accept protection for human health at sucha high ecological cost. Thus in spite of initialsuccesses, the global program was abandonedin 1969. That year, WHO significantly revisedits strategy from malaria eradication to con-trol. While control was a far more realistic andachievable goal, it had far less appeal to coun-tries and health agencies with limited finan-cial resources and many other pressing healthconcerns. Eradication had been sold as atime-limited opportunity; controlling malariarequired maintaining a solid effort almostindefinitely.46

In many ways, the global program of the1960s has made the modern malaria problemfar worse. It introduced the dynamics ofinsecticide and drug resistance, it encour-aged some vectors to change their behavior,


72

COMBATING MALARIA

it virtually eliminated malariology as a spe-cialty, it created a void in interest and fund-ing for malaria control that is only nowturning around, and it engendered the ideaof DDT as a first resort against mosquitoes.While most countries experienced a decline inthe prevalence of malaria between 1965 and1994, tropical countries actually registered anincrease. (See Table 4–2.)47

Environmental and SocialChanges Alter the Balance

During the mid-twentieth century, indoorspraying with DDT helped eradicate An.darlingi in Guyana and, along with it, the fearof malaria. Aided by disease control mea-sures, Guyanese society slowly developed.Trade improved and the economy began togrow. Horses, donkeys, oxen, and other workanimals were replaced by motorized vehicles.But as the society gradually modernized,malaria came back.48

Officials responded by spraying DDT, asit had worked in earlier campaigns. It didnot work this time, however, because the pri-mary vector was a different species—one thatbit people outdoors. An. aquasalis had alwaysbeen present in Guyana, but it had neverbeen a serious problem because it fed on ani-mals. Once the vectors lost their primarysource of food, the mosquitoes adapted tohuman blood and started spreading the infec-tion to city-dwellers. By this time people hadlost their previous immunity, so the healthrisks were much greater.49

Thus some of the projects and trends thathave been central to rural economic devel-opment ironically can make malaria a moreformidable foe. Human-induced environ-mental changes create new habitat areas formosquitoes to breed in and expand theirrange, and the overuse of anti-malarial drugscan affect the severity of the disease. When

irrigation is introduced, when dams or roadsare built, or when certain crops are culti-vated, mosquitoes are often not far behind.50

There is also a direct human element:such changes attract people looking for work.Often these workers and their families havelittle or no previous exposure to malaria andare susceptible to the full-blown disease.Migrating human populations carry themalaria parasite with them to new areas andinadvertently infect others. Interactionsbetween mosquitoes, people, and the envi-ronment determine the opportunities forAnopheles to develop more lethal fangs, so tospeak, because more infective mosquito bitestranslate into more new cases of human dis-ease. But as Guyana’s experience demon-strates, the consequences of a changingenvironment are often difficult to predict.51

In Sri Lanka, for example, the MahawehliRiver project of the late 1970s brought waterto seasonally dry areas, increasing the amountof land under cultivation. But malaria becameprevalent again in areas where it had beennearly eradicated. In Ethiopia’s northernprovince of Tigray, children living nearrecently constructed small dams showed a


73

Table 4–2. Level and Changes inMalaria Prevalence Between 1965

and 1994, by Climate Zone

Malaria Average Predominant Index, Change,Climate 19651 1965–94

Temperate 0.2 –0.2Desert 27.8 –8.8Subtropical 61.7 –5.0Tropical 64.9 +0.5

1Index ranges from 0 to 100.SOURCE: John Luke Gallup and Jeffrey D. Sachs,“TheEconomic Burden of Malaria,” American Journal ofTropical Medicine & Hygiene, January/February 2001(supp.), p. 88.

COMBATING MALARIA

sevenfold increase in malaria incidence com-pared with children living in villages far fromthe dams. Moreover, Ethiopian researchersfound that the dams strengthened malaria’sgrip, extending its season from a brief periodjust after the rains to a nearly year-roundoccurrence.52

Between 1974 and 1991, Brazil witnesseda 10-fold increase in malaria cases, largelydue to logging in the Amazon. Expansioninto frontier areas brought non-immune, sus-ceptible people into newly disrupted forestareas. Health services were largely nonexis-tent. The people were poor and often had lit-tle education or access to political power.Housing consisted of temporary shelters madefrom palm fronds, so indoor spraying wasout of the question. The vector, An. darlingi,thrived in the newly exposed forest fringeareas because it prefers partial shade anddeep, sunlit water to the rainforest, wherethere is too little sunlight and the water is tooacidic for its tastes. Breeding on the forestedge also gave this mosquito easy access tohuman blood.53

Gold mining in the Amazon also con-tributed to the spread of malaria. Miners usemercury to extract the gold from ore, wash-ing the mix in pits filled with water. Once thepits are abandoned, they collect rainwaterthat is less acidic than streams in the regionand therefore attractive to An. darlingi.54

In addition to changes in the landscape,mosquitoes are also sensitive to their micro-environment. Malaria patterns often varyfrom one part of a village to another, depend-ing on the mosquito species, sources of stand-ing water, and characteristics of the builtenvironment, for example. Throughout ruralAfrica, mud bricks are the most commonchoice of housing materials. A mixture ofwater and easily crumbled soil provides analmost endless source of construction mate-rial and malaria-bearing mosquitoes. The

problem is that mud brick houses requirefrequent replastering and repair, so people cre-ate pits adjacent to or very close to theirhome for when they need more construc-tion materials. Because the pits are so close topeople, the source of Anopheles’ fuel for repro-duction, they are quickly inhabited by mos-quito larvae. Based on field research inEthiopia and Namibia, scientists have recentlyshown that windblown pollen from nearbycorn fields settles in these pits and serves asa ready source of food for mosquito larvae.55

Changes in water flow can limit the spreadof malaria by altering or removing larval habi-tats. In Karnataka, India, for example, An. flu-viatilis (one of six epidemiologicallyimportant vectors in India) disappeared ascoffee plantations, deforestation, and damsvirtually eliminated the streams where thisspecies bred. During the 1950s in the south-eastern United States, the Tennessee ValleyAuthority (TVA) built a series of dams andflood control projects. Conscious of the needto control Anopheles larvae, engineers con-structed the sides of the artificial canals withcarefully angled slopes, so periodic changes inwater levels would leave the mosquitoes highand dry.56

Urban areas have long been free fromendemic malaria because of better housing,access to medical treatment, and water pol-lution. Anopheles typically do not lay theireggs in water bodies that are contaminatedwith high organic content or chemical pol-lution. They usually prefer clean, still or slowlymoving fresh water, not the polluted waterfound in crowded urban areas. A notableexception is An. stephensi, which is endemicin some cities in South Asia, where it lays itseggs in household water storage tanks andcement rooftop cisterns. However, the urbanlandscape is changing in favor of other mos-quitoes. In Accra, Ghana, for instance,researchers have found An. gambiae breeding


74

COMBATING MALARIA

in household water containers, a sign thatthese species can adapt to the urban envi-ronment.57

Recent evidence also shows that malaria isgaining ground in densely populated settle-ments surrounding urban areas in Africa.People migrating from rural areas to theedges of cities typically retain rural activitiesand habits for a time, such as household gar-dens, irrigation, and informal housing mate-rials. These bring with them the pattern ofrural transmission, and disease consequentlyspreads. Over time, as these areas becomemore settled, they become less susceptibleto local malaria transmission because thewater is usually too polluted to supportAnopheles.58

As in Guyana, environmental factors alsointeract with economic circumstances inunpredictable ways. This was the case in sev-eral farming communities in Tanzania. Sci-entists who analyzed entomological datapredicted that the incidence of malaria wouldbe higher in villages where people grew riceand where paddies provided breedinggrounds with higher rates of vector survivaland density than where farmers grew sugar-cane or savannah crops. What theseresearchers initially failed to appreciate, how-ever, is that the villagers growing rice hadmore income and were able to buy bednetsand arm themselves with anti-malarial drugs,so they had less exposure to malaria.59

The growing problem of drug resistanceis complicating the malaria picture world-wide even further. This is especially true inAfrica. Chloroquine-resistant strains of P. fal-ciparum first appeared in East Africa in 1978.Within 10 years, authorities reported chloro-quine resistance in virtually every country insub-Saharan Africa. The effects of this devel-opment were immediate. In the 1980s, sev-eral African countries showed a two- tothreefold increase in deaths and hospital

admissions for severe malaria, a trend thatcoincided with the spread of chloroquineresistance. Health officials in Kinshasareported that not only were children gettingmore severe forms of the disease and dyingmore frequently, but the incidence of relatedhealth problems, especially anemia andHIV/AIDS, was higher too. (Children whohave severe anemia require frequent bloodtransfusions, which raises the risks of HIVtransmission.) Today, hundreds of thousandsof African children succumb to malaria eachyear because P. falciparum is no longer sus-ceptible to chloroquine. 60

Despite these failures, most African coun-tries have yet to change their drug policies.Chloroquine is still widely used as a first stepin treating malaria because most people can-not afford other drugs, which can cost 5–10times more per dose, because it is widelyavailable without a prescription, and becausedecades of chloroquine use have made it dif-ficult to phase in alternatives. Even if suchdrugs were readily available, parasites in someareas already resist them. Complicating the sit-uation is the fact that many patients whoreceive chloroquine become asymptomatic:they show no outward signs of illness, butthey still have drug-resistant strains of theparasite circulating in their blood. These peo-ple become a reservoir of the more compli-cated form of the disease.61

Mexico’s ApproachCommunities struggling to counteract theeffects of malaria, whether from environ-mental, economic, or social changes, maybenefit from an approach to disease controlthat Mexico has successfully developed. It isbased on community involvement, wide-spread prevention, locally tailored treatments,and use of the least toxic option first.

As recently as the mid-twentieth century,


75

COMBATING MALARIA

malaria was one of the top 10 causes of deathin Mexico; roughly 2.4 million people wereinfected annually. The country began anindoor spraying program with DDT in thelate 1940s, well before the WHO effort waslaunched. In 1955, Mexico expanded theprogram into a National Eradication Cam-paign, which continued through the early1960s. The campaign did not achieve itsostensible goal, but it did push the numberof cases down to about 20,000 annually, alevel that remained relatively constantthroughout the 1970s. The campaign alsolargely eliminated the most dangerous speciesof the parasite, P. falciparum.62

Mexico could well have continued usingDDT had the chemical not become a majortrade liability. In 1972, the United Statesbanned DDT and began to reject shipmentsof imported Mexican produce that were con-taminated with the chemical. At first, theMexican response was confined largely tofarmers in the northern part of the country.They were heavily dependent on exports, sothey switched to other pesticides to get theircrops into the United States. Farther south,farmers relied on crops for local consumptionrather than for export income, so DDTremained in use as an agricultural pesticidethrough the mid-1980s.63

But by the early 1990s, DDT had becomea domestic issue as well. The Mexican pub-lic was growing increasingly uneasy aboutthe high levels of DDE (a breakdown prod-uct of DDT) in the milk of nursing mothers.These domestic concerns reinforced the tradeissue: in the 1994 North American Free Trade

Agreement, Mexico, the United States, andCanada agreed to develop a regional approachto persistent pollutants. DDT became thefirst order of business; in 1997, Mexico agreedto a 10-year plan to phase out the pesticideentirely.64

In the meantime, however, malaria wasre-emerging. In the early 1980s, annual infec-tions rose to 133,000. The timing was unfor-tunate: a severe economic recession cut intoproduction and supplies of DDT; financialresources for malaria control evaporated.Another outbreak occurred in 1988. The fol-lowing year the federal government dele-gated malaria control to the states, whichrevived the rural networks set up decadesago under the eradication program. Over thenext eight years, certified community volun-teers collected blood samples, which weresent to regional laboratories for testing. Thepresence of parasites triggered visits frommedical teams and from mosquito controlpersonnel. DDT was sprayed on the insidewalls of houses to kill adult mosquitoes; out-side, less persistent insecticides were sprayedon standing water to kill larvae.65

Because it was highly targeted and sensi-tive to environmental conditions, this newmosquito control strategy was a vast improve-ment over the old, broadcast spraying tech-niques. But as concerns about pesticidesspread, mosquito control came under greaterscrutiny. The pesticide teams were called“cat killers” because so many neighborhoodcats died after their visits. In some areas,poor people complained that the teamswashed their equipment in streams, killingthe fish they depended on for food. And inthe state of Oaxaca, organic farmers andenvironmentalists categorically opposed theuse of DDT.66

As a result of this public pressure, relianceon DDT diminished greatly by the mid-1990s, replaced by less persistent pyrethroid


76

By 2000, Mexico had achieved its goal of phasing out DDT seven years ahead of schedule.

COMBATING MALARIA

pesticides. (Indoors, deltamethrin was usedinstead of DDT; outdoors, permethrinreplaced malathion.) These were incorpo-rated into an “integrated vector manage-ment” approach that includes the occasionalapplication of pyrethroids but no DDT. Localofficials now reserve indoor repellant spray-ing for areas where the need has been care-fully determined. They use a combination ofremote sensing maps, geographic informationsystems, and on-the-ground sampling to pin-point areas to target spraying and larvicides.Other environmental management tech-niques, such as water removal and personalprotection measures, are also used. Mosquitohabitat is reduced without using pesticides atall, by removing algae that serves as a breed-ing site and source of food for some mos-quitoes, for instance.67

Since the 1988 outbreak, malaria has beenlargely confined to several “hotspots” on thePacific coast of Mexico—poor parts of thestates of Oaxaca and Chiapas. These areasare common destinations for immigrants fromCentral America. Blood screening and mos-quito control programs are now largely lim-ited to these areas.68

Mexico’s approach has worked. In 2000,the only Mexican manufacturer of DDT,Tekchem, halted all production. Mexico hadachieved its goal of phasing out DDT sevenyears ahead of schedule. And despite the1988 outbreak, no one is known to havedied from locally acquired malaria in Mexicosince 1982.69

Mexico’s experience offers several lessonsfor malaria control efforts in other parts of theworld. Environmental management is a cen-tral focus of the program, with several inter-ventions acting at once (such as differentcombinations of larvicides, vegetation clear-ance, drainage of standing water, housescreening, and surveillance of mosquito lar-vae). The malaria control strategies rely on a

wide range of expertise, including peopleknowledgeable about entomology, hydrol-ogy, epidemiology, ecology, and clinicalaspects of malaria. Community participationand local knowledge about malaria and theenvironmental impacts of control measuresare highly valued and help tailor solutions.Last, the program has been fine-tuned overa number of years, adjusting to changingdemographics, public perceptions, and sci-entific knowledge.70

The Challenge in AfricaIn December 2000, representatives of gov-ernments, environmental groups, and indus-try associations from more than 100 countriesmet in Johannesburg, South Africa, for thefinal round of negotiations on the StockholmConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs). One of the remaining sticking pointsin the treaty talks was DDT, which had beenbanned from agricultural use in nearly 90countries. Its role in disease control was highlycontroversial, especially in light of SouthAfrica’s recent experience with malaria.71

South Africa had stopped using DDT tofight malaria in 1996—a move that was notquestioned at the time, since decades ofDDT use had greatly reduced Anopheles pop-ulations and largely eliminated one of themost troublesome vectors, the appropriatelynamed An. funestus (“funestis” means death-bearing or funereal). Like Mexico, SouthAfrica seemed to have beaten the DDT habit:the chemical had been used to achieve aworthwhile objective; it had then been setaside. Mosquito control could henceforthbe accomplished with pyrethroids. And theplan worked—until a year before the POPssummit.72

In 1999, malaria infections in South Africarose to 61,000 cases, a level not seen indecades. An. funestus reappeared as well, in


77

COMBATING MALARIA

KwaZulu-Natal, in a form resistant topyrethroids. In early 2000, the authoritiesreintroduced DDT in an indoor sprayingprogram. By the middle of the year, the num-ber of infections had dropped by half. Initially,the spraying program was criticized. But whatreasonable alternative was there? This is saidto be the African predicament, although theSouth African situation is hardly representa-tive of sub-Saharan Africa as a whole. Whathappened in South Africa suggests that DDTwill remain an important tool for malariacontrol in epidemic situations in parts ofAfrica where the mode of transmission is sus-ceptible, such as an outbreak that occurred inMadagascar in the late 1980s.73

Since its first use in the 1940s, DDT hassaved countless millions of lives, and underspecific conditions it still helps to reduce thetransmission of malaria. But to imply thatroutine—let alone increased—use of DDTis key to controlling malaria today, especiallyin Africa, where human suffering and theneed for treatment and control are greatest,is misleading. As the Pan-American HealthOrganization recently concluded, indoorinsecticide spraying is inadequate in much ofthe developing world because of changingenvironmental conditions, migrating humanpopulations, and informal housing and shel-ters. Even at the height of the global programin the 1960s, WHO planners limited effortsto Ethiopia, South Africa, and southernRhodesia (now Zimbabwe), where eradicationwas thought to be feasible.74

Although the global campaign largelypassed Africa by, DDT has not. Many Africancountries have attempted mosquito controlduring particularly severe outbreaks, but theprimary use of DDT on the continent hasbeen as an agricultural insecticide. Conse-quently, in parts of West Africa especially,DDT resistance is now widespread in An.gambiae. But even if it were possible to reduce

An. gambiae populations substantially, thatalone would not effectively control malariabecause An. gambiae is such a highly efficientvector that it challenges the theoretical under-pinnings of house spraying and vector control.This mosquito can bite people up to 2,000times more frequently than is needed to main-tain endemic malaria.75

In Africa, the key to progress includes thegeneral suppression of mosquito populationsin their larval and adult stages, a shorteningof mosquito longevity, and the reduction ofhuman-vector contact. To this end, a verypromising option is bednets—mosquito net-ting or other material that is treated with apyrethroid insecticide, such as deltamethrinor permethrin, and that is suspended over aperson’s bed or hammock.76

Bednets alone cannot eliminate malaria,but they can deflect some of the burden.Because Anopheles generally feed in theevening and at night, a bednet can radicallyreduce the number of infective bites that aperson is subjected to. The individual wouldprobably still have the parasite in his or herblood, but most of the time it would be at alevel low enough for normal functioning.77

Even though bednets do not prevent infec-tion, they can in a sense prevent a good dealof disease. Children who sleep under bednetshave shown declines in malaria incidence of14–63 percent and in overall mortality of upto 25 percent. Pregnant women who usebednets tend to give birth to healthier babies.Treated bednets also have a significant com-munal benefit. People sleeping near a treatedbednet in the same bedroom, house, or evenneighborhood benefit from a “herd effect” asthe nets reduce the number of mosquitoes,the number of infections, and the number ofsevere cases.78

In parts of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, andSenegal, bednets are becoming standardhousehold items. In the tiny West African


78

COMBATING MALARIA

nation of The Gambia, somewhere between50 and 80 percent of people have bednets.Sadly, these places are notable exceptions. Inmuch of Africa, where transmission rates arehigh, people have only begun to learn or hearabout bednets, let alone use them regularly.79

And bednets are hardly a panacea. Theyhave to be used properly and re-treated withinsecticide occasionally. Many people cannotafford to buy the net or insecticide. And theinsecticides themselves pose a risk to humanand environmental health. Plus, there is stillthe problem of insecticide resistance, althoughthe nets themselves are hardly likely to be themain cause of it. (Pyrethroids are used exten-sively in agriculture as well.) Nevertheless, arecent U.S. Agency for International Devel-opment study concluded that the publichealth benefits from these materials justifytheir “apparently modest risks.” Quite simply,bednets can help transform malaria fromchronic disaster to manageable disease.80

So it is unfortunate that in much of cen-tral and southern Africa, the nets are a rarity.It is even more unfortunate that as recentlyas 1998, 28 African countries levied importtariffs on bednets; most people in these coun-tries would have trouble paying for a neteven without the tax. This problem wasaddressed in the Abuja Declaration, a plan ofaction to control malaria signed by the Headsof State from 44 African countries in April2000. The Declaration included a pledge toremove “malaria taxes.” Since then, 15 coun-tries have acted on the pledge, although insome cases only by reducing rather than elim-inating the taxes. In the meantime, severalmillion Africans have died from malaria.81

This failure to follow through with theAbuja Declaration casts the concern aboutDDT in a rather poor light. To date, 28 of thecountries that have signed the POPs treatyhave indicated that they are reserving theright to use DDT as a public health mea-

sure; 18 of these countries are in Africa. Andof those, 10 are apparently still taxing orimposing tariffs on bednets. (Among theAfrican countries that have not signed thePOPs treaty, some are almost certainly bothusing DDT and taxing bednets, but the exactnumber is difficult to ascertain because thestatus of DDT is not always clear.) A strongcase can be made for the use of DDT in sit-uations like the one South Africa encoun-tered in 1999—an infrequent flare-up of thedisease in a context that lends itself to control.Throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa,however, routine spraying of DDT for malariacontrol is difficult to imagine given the ver-tical, top-down structure needed to imple-ment it.82

In recent years, some scientists have pre-sented the use of DDT as an all-or-nothingsituation for malaria control. They argue thatrich, northern countries successfully abol-ished endemic malaria 40 years ago by usingDDT, and are now trying to convince othercountries not to use it. Without DDT, pro-ponents argue, millions of people in poorcountries will die.83

The justification for such use sets up afalse dichotomy—DDT or disease—therebyperpetuating both. This line of argument alsooversimplifies the complexities of malaria con-trol and trivializes the efforts of malariologists,public health officials, and vector controlexperts who carefully adjust solutions to localconditions. Moreover, it fails to acknowledgethat in northern, temperate countries, pub-lic health applications of DDT coincided withoverall improvements in housing, waterdrainage, and economic development—con-


79

Bednets alone cannot eliminate malaria,but they can deflect some of the burden.

COMBATING MALARIA

ditions that have yet to be met in much of thetropical South.84

The most effective programs today relyon a range of tools, including drug policies,environmental management, strengthenedhealth systems, community involvement, andthe selective and appropriate use of methodsfor vector control and personal protection,such as bednets. In some areas, controlling thelarvae and vector will require a change inhousing materials. This, in turn, requiresinvestment in other materials that are some-times less convenient and costlier. Real pre-vention in Africa requires combininganti-malaria measures with anti-poverty pro-grams that can reinforce economic develop-ment so that people and governments canafford adequate health care, education, andsocial services that help interrupt the cycle ofpoverty and disease.85

Improving Public Health,Engaging People

Malaria is complex, but combating it does nothave to be complicated. (See Box 4–2.) Whensimple, easy-to-use, low-tech preventive toolsare made available, their benefits are undeni-able. Just as condoms have proved effectivein preventing HIV/AIDS and oral rehydrationsalts have helped ameliorate diarrheal dis-eases, malaria control through a combina-tion of insecticide-treated bednets, bettercase detection and treatment, elimination ofmosquito habitat, and insecticide spraying asa last resort will reduce malaria’s human toll.

Not only does a multifaceted approachmake sense from a public health perspective,it is a wise economic course as well. “Onehealthy year of life is gained for every $1 to$8 spent on effectively treating malaria cases,which makes malaria treatment as cost-effec-tive a public health investment as measlesvaccinations,” according to Dr. Ann Mills of

the London School of Hygiene and TropicalMedicine. An annual investment of $2.5 bil-lion—just 1¢ for every $100 of the grossdomestic product in industrial countries—would go a long way toward combatingmalaria in Africa. And its rewards would bereaped many times over in human, social,and economic benefits.86

One of the first steps is to make the mostof simple solutions and technologies andadjust them to local conditions. In Namibia,for example, irrigation water is a necessityfor agriculture and nourishment, but it alsoserves as a catalyst for malaria. Farmers inthis semiarid nation have found that fixingleaky pipes is sometimes all that is needed tokeep malaria in check. In Chennai, India,public health specialists have worked withcommunity representatives to design betterlids on water tanks to stop Anopheles frombreeding.87

A second area for action is for policymak-ers to abolish malaria taxes. As noted earlier,many African countries still have taxes or tar-iffs on imported nets and insecticides, whichis undercutting disease control efforts. InSenegal, for example, foreign net manufac-turers have refused to enter the market untilthe government eliminates taxes and tariffs onbednets, despite a proven need and demandfor such products.88

Health economists have shown that insec-ticide-treated nets are as cost-effective aschildhood vaccinations, arguing that netsshould be provided for free or at least at a sub-sidized price. China has the largest insecticide-treated net program in the world. In VietNam, users buy their own nets and the gov-ernment provides insecticide for free in reg-ular net treatment services. In Zambia, thegovernment is creating a voucher system tohelp the poor buy into the system. People whoqualify would pick up vouchers in health clin-ics to be redeemed at a local store for nets.89


80

COMBATING MALARIA

Many tropical disease experts arguethat malaria eradication eradicated themalariologists. Research since the1960s has focused heavily on vaccines,genetically modified mosquitoes, andgenome sequencing, sometimes at theexpense of research on the environ-mental aspects of malaria transmis-sion. Given the scale of tropicalecosystem degradation today, it isimperative that funding for suchresearch is increased. Monitoring themosquitoes and characteristics ofmalaria transmission before projectsare approved and during the imple-mentation phase can sensitize agricul-tural officials, urban planners,economists, and health officials to thenature of malaria and offer an earlywarning system for outbreaks of dis-ease. Increased awareness, in turn, sparksgreater responsiveness to its control and bet-ter preparedness.90

Although it is difficult to predict the effectof environmental changes on the spread ofmalaria, officials can better anticipate thespread of disease and adopt some basic safe-guards in their work. To offset the negativeeffects of dams, for example, authorities andengineers can site them at higher altitudes oraway from communities and can managewater levels carefully, much as U.S. authori-ties did with TVA dams. Irrigated rice paddieshave long been associated with malaria, butdraining paddies intermittently will kill mos-quito larvae that hatch there. As shown inmany Asian countries, this practice has theadditional benefit of raising rice yields bybringing more oxygen to the plants’ roots.91

Researchers with the Kenya-based Inter-national Centre for Insect Physiology andEcology are forging new ground in the searchfor natural insect repellants. They have stud-ied the chemical defense tactics that plants use

to repel insects and to deter feeding andreproduction. Researchers have now identi-fied at least a dozen plants native to EastAfrica that proved successful in lab tests atfending off An. gambiae, the primary vectorin Africa. Biologists and ethnobotanists arealso testing native plants in South Asia and theAmazon basin.92

Paying for research and the implementa-tion of costly alternatives is an enormouschallenge. The United States and other well-off nations need to invest in the research andassistance programs critical to helping poorernations combat malaria in a healthier way.The highest priority for existing fundingmechanisms is to build stronger capacity indeveloping nations for delivering malaria con-trol services, including case detection andmanagement and focused vector control.

Public-private partnerships also have animportant role to play. In the mid-1990s,for example, public authorities teamed upwith the private sector in the Ifakara districtof rural Tanzania to promote insecticide-


81

• Make the most of simple, cost-effective tools.

• Abolish so-called malaria taxes and distribute insecticide-treated bednets.

• Fund research on the environmental dimensions of malaria.

• Fund demonstration projects on and further the use ofintegrated vector management strategies.

• Provide financial assistance to poorer countries.

• Engage public-private partnerships to reach people.

• Use more targeted diagnosis and treatment.

• Slow drug resistance.

• Incorporate malaria treatment into existing programs.

• Invest in malaria drug and combination therapydevelopment and distribution.

BOX 4–2. ESSENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR DEALINGWITH MALARIA

COMBATING MALARIA

treated bednets. Health officials educatedpeople about their use and maintenance, andthe local government subsidized their pur-chase. The private sector focused on publi-cizing the benefits of using nets, marketingthem, and distributing them widely. Byencouraging market competition and footingpart of the bill for the cost of nets, the gov-ernment was able to leverage its resourcesto bring prices down. Between 1997 and1999, there was a sixfold increase in net own-ership, a 60-percent drop in severe anemia,and a 27-percent increase in survival ratesamong children who slept under a net.93

Greater public education is vital in orderto target malaria diagnosis and treatmentmore effectively. In the Tigray region ofnorthern Ethiopia, for instance, nearly half ofthe population is at risk of malaria, yet mostpeople have no access to formal health ser-vices. Mothers in the local community starteda network in 1992 to teach each other howto diagnose and treat malaria at home. Today,more than 700 volunteers work to use properdrugs to treat malaria early on, before itbecomes life-threatening. Nearly a half-mil-lion people are protected by this network ofmothers each year in Ethiopia.94

People on the frontlines who dispensedrugs and determine treatment protocolsalso need education and better information ondrug efficacies and the spread of drug-resis-tant parasites. In 1998, health officials andresearchers from Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania,and Uganda teamed up to create the EastAfrican Network for Monitoring Antimalar-ial Treatment to share data, monitor drug

resistance, develop more effective treatmentpolicies, and reduce malaria. Based onimproved communication, this new approachhas been vital to detecting the presence ofdrug-resistant cases and selecting the appro-priate treatment. Other countries coulddevelop similar online, publicly available data-bases to monitor drug resistance.95

To reach the youngest victims of disease,the Integrated Management of ChildhoodIllness program now includes malaria as oneof its five key health conditions. Health careproviders and staff learn to diagnose and treatmalaria as part of their basic training. A newimportant tool to protect children isartemisinin suppositories. (Artemisinin andrelated compounds come from an ancientChinese herb known as qinghaosu. Arte-sunates have proved to be among the safest,most effective, fastest-acting of all anti-malar-ials.) The suppositories could significantlyreduce deaths in children, who often developsevere malaria quickly and commonly areunable to get the necessary hospital-basedcare in time.96

In Tanzania, health researchers recentlyestablished a program to dispense anti-malar-ials with routine vaccinations. Combiningintermittent, preventive malaria treatmentwith vaccines reduces the number of clinicalcases of malaria and the rate of severe anemiaand is a good way to reach children whowould otherwise receive no treatment. Thevaccine programs are already in place andthe malaria component can be added on eas-ily. Similarly, intermittent drug treatment andthe provision of free bednets for pregnantwomen are important low-cost ways to pre-vent the effects of malaria in pregnancy, andthey can be readily added to existing prena-tal care programs.97

In Southeast Asia, it makes sense to investin better diagnosis methods because the drugsfor drug-resistant malaria are expensive and


82

Even with new programs in place,malaria has continued to kill one childevery 30 seconds in sub-Saharan Africa.

COMBATING MALARIA


83

few fevers are actually malarial. One of the lat-est tools in Cambodia’s fight against malariais a rapid diagnostic kit that is similar to ahome-based pregnancy test. The person usingthe rapid diagnostic test (known as a dip-stick) pricks the patient’s finger, swipes theblood on a reactive strip, and in a matter ofminutes has results that are easy to interpret.Because there is no need for costly equipment,dipsticks are especially useful in areas far fromclinical settings or where power supplies areunreliable, and they can reduce the relianceon presumptive treatment, with its unin-tended results.98

Recently, Cambodian authorities joinedwith private marketers to supply dipstick testsand the latest anti-malarial combination ther-apy (mefloquine and artesunate) to treatmulti-drug-resistant strains. This combinationtherapy is effective even when the malariaparasite has developed high levels of resistanceto mefloquine because it takes longer forgenes to resist two different drug compoundsat the same time. These efforts have reducedsignificantly the number of severe cases ofmalaria, as people are diagnosed earlier andhave effective treatments readily available. Infrontier areas with seasonal outbreaks andlow transmission rates, such as the BrazilianAmazon, or in emergency situations, packetsof dipsticks and prepackaged anti-malarialdrugs are now proving extremely useful.99

Minimal investment in malaria drug devel-opment is still a major roadblock. The malariaparasite is about 100 times more complexthan the virus that causes AIDS, but it receivesonly about one tenth as much funding for

research. While most pharmaceutical com-panies have turned a blind eye on malariabecause it is seen as a money-losing venture,there are a few notable exceptions. In May2001, for example, WHO announced a part-nership with Swiss-based Novartis AG to dis-tribute the company’s new combinationtherapy anti-malarial drug, Coartem, atgreatly reduced cost to poor countries.100

In May 1998, Gro Harlem Brundtlandbecame Director-General of WHO. One ofher first priorities was to address malaria andother diseases of poverty. Under her leader-ship, WHO has taken a more active role inadvocating for renewed attention and fund-ing for malaria. In the past five years, fourmajor international initiatives were launchedto raise the profile of malaria control and totackle issues of funding, research coordina-tion, and public and private cooperation.(See Table 4–3 on page 84.) All representa new infusion of political interest and finan-cial commitments.101

Even with these new programs in place,malaria has continued to kill one child every30 seconds in sub-Saharan Africa. The newvisibility that this disease has achieved is justa first step in dedicating resources and takingaction to stop malaria. But these programs sig-nal a much needed move away from the viewof malaria as strictly a health issue, and as apoor person’s disease at that, and toward anunderstanding that malaria is a truly globalchallenge of improving public health, secur-ing economic and social well-being, andadvancing sustainable development.102

COMBATING MALARIA


84

Table 4–3. Recent International Malaria Programs

Global Fund to Fight AIDS,Tuberculosis & Malaria

Launched in 2002, the fund was created to attract, manage, and disburse financial resources through a newpublic-private partnership to reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria and to contributeto poverty reduction.Total budget confirmed: $1.2 billion; $72 million in multiyear grants for malaria con-trol approved in April 2002.

Roll Back Malaria (RBM)

Launched in 1998 by WHO, the World Bank, UNICEF, the U.N. Development Programme, and other part-ners, RBM aims to cut malaria burden by half by 2010 and to distribute insecticide-treated bednets to allpregnant women and children in sub-Saharan Africa by then. RBM is not a financing mechanism. It works byencouraging others to dedicate resources to malaria control, to strengthen health systems, and to use avariety of tools through existing networks and partnerships. Budget: $24 million in 2002.

Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV)

The joint public-private venture was initiated in 1998 by WHO, the World Bank, and several drug compa-nies.The goal is to develop at least one new anti-malarial drug or drug combination every five years and tomake them available in poor countries. Seven drug discovery projects and five development projects nowin progress, making MMV “the largest anti-malarial drug pipeline since World War II.” Budget: $15 million in2002; goal of $30 million per year. In 2001, the program received $5 million per year from the Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation for the next five years.

Multilateral Initiative on Malaria (MIM)

Launched in 1997, this international effort coordinates malaria research funding and promotes greatermalaria research and control capacity in Africa. Scientists, funding agencies, governments, pharmaceuticalcompanies, and other members of public and private sector are involved. MIM provides training andresearch grants. Budget: $2 million per year.


For eight years, people in the Thai provinceof Prachuap Khiri Kan have fought propos-als to build two large coal-fired power plantsin the region out of concern for the envi-ronmental and health impacts of the plants.When Thailand’s Prime Minister visited onepossible site in January 2002, he was met by20,000 protesters. With help from the inter-national environmental organization Green-peace, people of this province have beguninstalling what they really want—wind andsolar power. Meanwhile, halfway around theworld, the state legislature in California passeda groundbreaking law in September 2002that sets a target of generating 20 percent ofelectricity from new renewable sources by2017. From Southeast Asia to California,leaders in business, government, and civilsociety are calling for a transition to a renew-able energy economy.1

Between the late 1990s and 2020, globalenergy consumption is projected to rise nearly60 percent due to population growth, con-tinued urbanization, and economic and indus-trial expansion. Consumption of electricity,

the most versatile form of energy, will increaseeven more sharply by most estimates—nearly70 percent. The largest share of this growthis expected to occur in the developing world,where some 2 billion people have no accessto modern forms of energy such as electric-ity and piped gas.And most of the additionalenergy is projected to come from fossil fuels,according to national and international agencyforecasts. But meeting these demands withconventional fuels and technologies will fur-ther threaten the natural environment, pub-lic health and welfare, and internationalstability.2

Renewable energy technologies have thepotential to meet world energy demand manytimes over and are now ready for use on alarge scale. Wind and solar power are thefastest-growing energy sources in the world.By some estimates, “new renewables” (whichexcludes large-scale hydropower and tradi-tional biomass) already account for morethan 100,000 megawatts (MW) of grid-con-nected electric capacity. Globally, new renew-able energy supplies the equivalent of the

Janet Sawin

Chapter 5

Charting a New Energy Future

85

CHARTING A NEW ENERGY FUTURE

residential electricity needs of more than 300million people.3

In 1999, the International Energy Agencynoted that “the world is in the early stages ofan inevitable transition to a sustainable energysystem that will be largely dependent onrenewable resources.” This is a bold state-ment for an organization that represents NorthAmerica, Europe, and Japan—areas thatdepend so heavily on fossil fuels. But it seemslogical, given the many problems associatedwith the use of conventional energy and thetremendous surge in renewable energy invest-ments over recent years. The world now uses10 times as much wind energy as it did onlya decade ago, and solar power consumptionhas risen sevenfold. Political support for renew-ables is on the rise as well. Several countrieshave recently passed strong new legislationto support renewable energy, opening marketsin a rapidly growing list of countries.4

Yet change is never easy, and there arestrong forces—including politically power-ful industries—that wish to maintain the sta-tus quo. The forces for and against changewere on full display at the World Summit onSustainable Development, held in Johannes-burg, South Africa, in summer 2002. TheEuropean Union and Brazil proposed theadoption of specific numerical targets for theuse of new renewable energy worldwide.Strong opposition arose from the fossil fuelindustry and from the governments of mostoil-producing nations and major fossil fuelusers such as China and the United States.The battle in Johannesburg ended in awatered-down, non-numerical goal toincrease renewable energy use. But the factthat the issue even arose at a global summitwas highly significant. While the world issharply divided on what kind of energy futuremust lie ahead, many nations now viewrenewable energy as a credible alternative tofossil fuels.5

Resistance to change is inevitable, but theworld cannot afford to be held back indefi-nitely by those who are wedded to energy sys-tems of the past. Each year new power plants,refineries, pipelines, and other forms of con-ventional infrastructure—facilities that willbe around for at least a half-century—areadded to the global energy system to replaceexisting capital stock and to meet ever-risingdemand, much of it in the developing world.An estimated $200–250 billion is invested inenergy-related infrastructure every year, andanother $1.5 trillion is spent on energy con-sumption, with nearly all of this investmentgoing to conventional energy. As a result,societies are in the process of further lockingthemselves into indefinite dependence onunhealthy, unsustainable, insecure energystructures.6

We have a brief window of opportunity tostart down the path to a more sustainableworld—one in which rising demand forenergy is met without sacrificing the needs ofcurrent and future generations and the nat-ural environment. Nongovernmental orga-nizations, working with local communities,can make a difference on a small scale, as inThailand, but alone they will not bring aboutthe transformation necessary for movementtoward a renewably powered world.

The rapid expansion of renewable tech-nologies over the past decade has been fueledby a handful of countries that have adoptedambitious and deliberate government poli-cies aimed to advance renewable energy. Thesesuccessful policy innovations have been themost important drivers in the advancementand diffusion of renewable technologies suchas wind and solar photovoltaics (PVs). Byexamining the policies that have workedtoward this end over the past two decades, aswell as those that have failed, we can get someidea of what is required to launch a globaltakeoff in renewables in the decade ahead.


86


The Case for RenewablesNew renewable resources provide only a smallshare of global energy production today. (SeeFigures 5–1 and 5–2.) Yet the advantages ofshifting away from fossil fuels and nuclearenergy and toward greater reliance on renew-ables are numerous and enormous. Severalcountries have begun this transition inresponse to rising demand for energy, increas-ing concerns about fuel supplies and globalsecurity, the growing threat of climate changeand other environmental crises, and significantadvances in renewable technologies and thebenefits they offer.7

Global oil production is expected to peakearly in this century. “In 20–25 years thereserves of liquid hydrocarbons are begin-ning to go down so we have this window oftime to convert over to renewables,” accord-ing to Harry Shimp, president and chief exec-utive officer of BP’s solar division. But ofgreater concern to many is not when or if eco-nomically recoverable fossil fuel reserves willbe depleted, but the fact that the world can-not afford to use all the conventional energyresources that remain.8

The Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, a body of approximately 2,000 sci-entists and economists who advise the UnitedNations on climate change, has concludedthat global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

must be reduced at least 70 percent over thenext 100 years to stabilize atmospheric CO2

concentrations at 450 parts per million (ppm),which would be 60 percent higher than pre-industrial levels. The sooner societies begin tomake these reductions, the lower the impactsand the associated costs—of both climatechange and emissions reductions—will be.(See Box 5–1.) Because more than 80 percentof human-made CO2 emissions are due to theburning of fossil fuels, such reductions are notpossible without significant and rapidimprovements in energy efficiency and a shiftto renewable energy.9

Additional environmental costs of con-ventional energy production and use includedestruction wrought through resource extrac-tion; air, soil, and water pollution; acid rain;and biodiversity loss. Conventional energyrequires vast quantities of fresh water. Min-ing and drilling affect the way of life and thevery existence of indigenous peoples world-wide. In China, the environmental and healthcosts of air pollution, due mainly to coalburning, totaled approximately 7 percent ofgross domestic product (GDP) in 1995. TheWorld Bank estimates that under business asusual, these costs could rise to 13 percent ofChina’s GDP by 2020. After a decade-longstudy, U.S. and European researchers calcu-lated that the environmental and health costsassociated with conventional energy are equiv-


87

Fossil Fuels (77 percent)

Nuclear (6 percent)

Hydro and Traditional Biomass (15 percent)

New Renewables (2 percent)

Source: IEA

Figure 5–1. World Energy Consumption by Source, 2000

Fossil Fuels (64 percent)

Nuclear (17 percent)

Hydropower (17 percent)

Other Renewables (2 percent)

Source: IEA

Figure 5–2. World Electricity Generation by Type, 2000


alent to 1–2 percent of the European Union’sannual GDP, and that the price paid for con-ventional energy is significantly lower than itstotal costs. (See Table 5–1.) These estimatesdo not include the costs of climate change—potentially the most expensive consequence.Global economic losses due to natural disas-ters, which are in line with events anticipatedas a result of global warming, appear to bedoubling with each decade, and annual lossesfrom such events are expected to approach$150 billion over the next 10 years.10

The direct economic and security costsassociated with conventional energy are alsosubstantial. Nuclear power is one of the mostexpensive means of generating electricity,even without accounting for the risks ofnuclear accidents, weapons proliferation, and

problems associated with nuclear waste. Polit-ical, economic, and military conflicts overlimited resources such as oil will becomemore significant as demand increases world-wide. Similarly, the price of fossil fuels willbecome increasingly erratic as demand risesand conflicts rage in oil-rich regions, which inturn would affect the stability of economiesaround the world. The economic costs ofrelying on imported fuels are extremelyhigh—it is estimated that African countriesspend 80 percent of their export earnings onimported oil. Likewise, the benefits of reduc-ing imports can be significant. If not forBrazil’s 25-year ethanol program, which nowdisplaces 220,000 barrels of oil per day, thecountry’s foreign debt would be about $140billion higher, according to one estimate.11


88

In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change found that “there is newand stronger evidence that most of the warm-ing observed over the last 50 years is attribut-able to human activities” that have increasedatmospheric concentrations of CO2. Pre-indus-trial concentrations were 280 ppm; today theyare 371 ppm. Between 1990 and 2100, globaltemperatures are projected to increasebetween 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius, and landareas will likely warm faster than the globalaverage.To stabilize CO2 “at 450… ppm wouldrequire global anthropogenic [human-made]emissions to drop below 1990 levels, within afew decades.” Even if greenhouse gas emissionswere to stabilize at present levels, it is expectedthat average temperatures and sea level wouldcontinue rising for centuries, but the rate ofchange will slow once stabilization is achieved.

Under provisions of the Kyoto Protocol tothe U.N. Framework Convention on ClimateChange, industrial countries must reduce theirCO2 emissions an average 5.2 percent below

their 1990 levels by the end of the first “com-mitment period” (2008–12).The protocol willenter into force 90 days after ratification by 55countries accounting for at least 55 percent ofindustrial-country 1990 CO2 emissions. As ofmid-October 2002, 96 nations had ratifiedKyoto, including the European Union and Japan,representing 37.4 percent of industrial-countryemissions. Russia (17.4 percent) and Poland (3percent) have officially declared their intentionto ratify it soon—which would raise the totalto 57.8 percent and thus bring the protocolinto effect.

The United States represents 25 percent ofcurrent global emissions, and 36.4 percent ofindustrial-country 1990 emissions. Its March2001 withdrawal from negotiations on the pro-tocol dealt a blow to international efforts tobattle climate change, but it also pushed therest of the world to move forward and reachfinal agreement on the treaty in July 2001.


BOX 5–1. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL


Renewable resources are gen-erally domestic, pose no fuel ortransport hazards, and are muchless vulnerable to terrorist attack.They can be installed rapidly andin dispersed small- or large-scaleapplications—getting powerquickly to areas where it isurgently needed, delaying invest-ment in expensive new electricplants or power lines, and reduc-ing investment risk. All renew-ables except biomass energyavoid fuel costs and the risksassociated with future fuel pricefluctuations. They pose signifi-cantly lower social, environmen-tal, and health costs than conventional energyfuels and technologies do.

Further, “renewables is not just aboutenergy and the environment but also aboutmanufacturing and jobs.” This ringingendorsement came from U.K. Energy Min-ister Brian Wilson in July 2002, after thecommissioning of a new 30-megawatt windfarm atop Beinn an Tuirc, a hill in the north-ern reaches of Argylle, Scotland. The KintyrePeninsula of Argylle once thrived on its fish-eries, whiskey production, and textile manu-facture. These traditional sources ofemployment are in decline, and now windpower is breathing new life into the region’seconomy, generating enough electricity tosupply 25,000 homes. A new turbine manu-facturing plant on the peninsula will providesteady jobs and produce the first large-scalewind turbines ever built in Britain.12

Using renewables stimulates local econ-omies by attracting investment and touristmoney and by creating employment not onlyin northern Scotland but elsewhere aroundthe world. Renewable energy provides morejobs per unit of capacity or output and perdollar spent than conventional energies do.

Many of the jobs are high-wage and high-tech, and require a range of skills, often inareas that are rural or economically depressed.Economic woes and high unemploymentrates influenced Spain’s 1994 decision toinvest in renewable energy. In Germany, thewind industry has created 40,000 jobs, com-pared with 38,000 in nuclear power—anindustry that generates 30 percent of Ger-many’s electricity.13

A recent study in California concludedthat increasing renewable energy technologiesin that state would create four times more jobsthan continued operation of natural gasplants, while keeping billions of dollars inCalifornia that would otherwise go to out-of-state power purchases. According to Gover-nor Gray Davis, over a five-year period the netbenefits of renewable energy, compared withbusiness as usual, include $11 billion in eco-nomic development benefits for Californiabecause of associated job creation and in-state investments.14

In developing countries such as Brazil andIndia, where millions of people lack access topower, renewables can provide electricitymore cheaply and quickly than the extension


89

Table 5–1. Costs of Electricity With and Without External Costs

Electricity Generating External Total Source Costs1 Costs2 Costs

(cents per kilowatt-hour)

Coal/lignite 4.3–4.8 2–15 6.3–19.8Natural gas (new) 3.4–5.0 1–4 4.4–9.0Nuclear 10–14 0.2–0.7 10.2–14.7Biomass 7–9 1–3 8–12Hydropower 2.4–7.7 0–1 2.4–8.7Photovoltaics 25–50 0.6 25.6–50.6Wind 4–6 0.05–0.25 4.05–6.25

1For the United States and Europe. 2Environmental and healthcosts for 15 countries in Europe.SOURCE: See endnote 10.


of power lines and construction of new plantscould, and can aid in economic development.Renewables are also sources of reliable powerfor businesses in countries such as India wherepower cuts are common. M. Kannappan,India’s Minister of Non-Conventional EnergySources, has stated that renewables have“enormous potential to meet the growingrequirements of the increasing populations ofthe developing world, whilst offering sus-tainable solutions to the threat of global cli-mate change.”15

The energy services delivered by renew-ables provide communities with access toeducation, clean water, improved health care,communications, and entertainment. Theseresources, in turn, improve the quality of life(particularly for women), raise living stan-dards, increase productivity, and reduce thepotential for economic and political instabil-ity. In Inner Mongolia, thousands of peoplenow have access to education, information,and other benefits for the first time thanks tothe use of televisions and radios powered bysmall wind and solar systems. As a result,they have become more productive andincreased their monthly household incomesby as much as $150. (The average per capitaannual net income in Inner Mongolia rangesfrom about $120 to $240.)16

Many of the components if not the entiresystems for solar homes, wind farms, andother renewable technologies are now man-ufactured or assembled in developing coun-tries, creating local jobs, reducing costs, andkeeping capital investments at home. Chinaand India have both developed domesticwind turbine industries. Brazil’s ethanol pro-gram, begun in 1975, has created more than1 million jobs while also bringing the nation’sCO2 emissions 20 percent below what theywould have been otherwise. Brazil nowexports ethanol fuel and will soon beginexporting its technologies as well. And in

Kenya, more than 100 firms (6 of themdomestic) provide PV systems or service,with numerous companies selling solar homesystems in almost every town.17

Developing countries that invest in renew-ables will discover that they are energy-rich—that they can leapfrog over dirty technologiesrelied on earlier in industrial countries and candevelop their economies with clean, domes-tic, secure sources of energy that avoid long-term and costly imports.

In light of the many advantages of renew-ables, the Task Force on Renewable Energyof the Group of Eight industrial countriesconcluded in 2001 that “though there will bea higher cost in the first decades, measuredsolely in terms of the costs so far reflected inthe market, successfully promoting renew-ables over the period to 2030 will prove lessexpensive than taking a ‘business as usual’approach within any realistic range of dis-count rates.”18

State of the Technologies 2003Since the 1970s and 1980s, renewable tech-nologies have improved significantly in bothperformance and cost. Some are experiencingrates of growth and technology advancementcomparable only to the electronics industry.Global clean energy markets exceeded $10billion in 2001 and are expected to surpass$82 billion by 2010, and major corporationsare entering the renewables marketplace—including Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, and Gen-eral Electric. Technical progress of manyrenewables—particularly wind power—hasbeen faster than was anticipated even a fewyears ago, and this trend is expected to con-tinue. While costs are still a concern withsome technologies, these are falling rapidlydue to technological advances, learning bydoing, automated manufacturing, andeconomies of scale through increased pro-


90


duction volumes.19

Solar and wind are the most commonlyknown renewables, but inexhaustible energysupplies are also offered by biomass; geo-thermal; hydropower; ocean energy fromthe tides, currents, and waves; and oceanthermal energy. This chapter principallyfocuses on wind power and solar photo-voltaics—which produce electricity from sun-light—because they are the fastest-growingrenewables and have the greatest potential forhelping all countries achieve more sustainabledevelopment.

During the past 15–20 years, wind energytechnology has evolved to the point where itcompetes with most conventional forms ofpower generation. In many instances, wind isnow the cheapest option on a per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) basis. The main trends in windenergy development are toward lighter, moreflexible blades, variable speed operation,direct-drive generators, and taller machineswith greater capacity. The average turbinesize has increased from 100–200 kilowatts(kW) in the early 1990s to more than 900 kWtoday, making it possible to produce morepower with fewer machines. (One 900 kWmachine can provide the electricity needed forabout 540 European homes.) Turbines withcapacity ratings of 2,000–5,000 kW (2–5MW) are being manufactured for use off-shore. At the same time, small wind machinesthat can be installed close to the point ofdemand—atop buildings, for example—arealso under development. (See Box 5–2.)Advances in turbine technology and powerelectronics, along with a better understand-ing of siting needs and wind energy resources,have combined to extend the lifetime oftoday’s wind turbines, improve performance,and reduce costs.20

Since the early 1980s, the average cost ofwind-generated electricity has fallen fromabout 44¢ (in 2001 dollars) per kilowatt-

hour to 4–6¢ at good wind sites. Costs varyfrom one location to the next due primarilyto variations in wind speed and also to dif-ferent institutional frameworks and interestrates. Globally, wind costs have declined bysome 20 percent over just the past five years,and the Danish turbine manufacturer Vestaspredicts that the generating costs of windenergy will continue to drop annually by 3–5percent. As this happens, it will become eco-nomical to site turbines in regions with lowerwind speeds, increasing the global potentialfor wind-generated electricity.21

Global wind capacity has grown at an aver-


91

• At the Rocky Flats test site in Colorado,the U.S. Department of Energy is testinga lightweight turbine with two bladesrather than the usual three. It isexpected to be 40 percent lighter thantoday’s standard turbines, require lessmaterial, and thus be 20–25 percentcheaper.

• Vestas is now equipping offshoreturbines with sensors to detect wearand tear on components, along withbackup systems in case of power elec-tronic system failures.

• A turbine developed in Germany candesalinate water, generate electricity, ormake hydrogen by electrolysis.

• Mathematical climatic models have beendeveloped in Germany and Denmark topredict wind resources 24–36 hours inadvance with reasonable accuracy.Thiswill be important for managing windpower as it reaches a high percentage ofthe total electric system.


BOX 5–2. EXAMPLES OF ADVANCESIN WIND TECHNOLOGY


age annual rate over 30 percent dur-ing the past decade. (See Figure5–3.) An estimated 6,824 MW ofwind capacity were added world-wide in 2001, bringing the total tomore than 24,900 MW—enough toprovide power to approximately 14million households. While Europeaccounts for more than 70 percent oftotal capacity, wind is now generat-ing electricity in at least 45 countries.Sales in 2001 surpassed $6 billion,nearly double the total two yearsearlier, and it is estimated that morethan 100,000 people are nowemployed in the wind industry worldwide.22

The majority of turbines operating todayare on land, but wind power is now movingoffshore. This is due to a shortage of sites onland, particularly in Europe, and the fact thatwind speeds offshore are significantly higherand more consistent. Stronger winds gener-ate more electricity, while consistency reduceswear and tear on machines. More than 80MW of turbines are now spinning offshore,all of them in Europe, with an additional5,000 MW in the pipeline worldwide andmore than 20,000 MW proposed for areassurrounding northern Europe.23

Experts estimate that onshore windresources could provide more than four timesglobal electricity consumption. Offshoreresources are substantial as well. While someof that potential is too costly to exploit overthe near term, the promise of large amountsof wind power at competitive prices is enor-mous.24

As with all energy technologies, there aredisadvantages associated with wind power.The environmental factor that has caused themost controversy and concern is bird mor-tality. This is a site-specific problem, however,and it is relatively low compared with otherthreats to birds such as vehicles, buildings, and

cell phone towers. (See Chapter 2.) Further,such problems have been mitigated in recentyears through the use of painted blades,slower rotational speeds, tubular turbine tow-ers, and careful siting of projects.25

Both wind and sun are intermittentresources, meaning they cannot be turnedon and off as needed. But there is no guar-antee that any resource will be available whenit is required, and utilities must have backuppower for generation every day. Assessmentsin Europe and the United States have con-cluded that intermittent sources can accountfor up to 20 percent of an electric systemwithout posing technical problems; higherlevels might demand minor changes in oper-ational practices. The wind already provideselectricity to the grid (transmission lines) thatgreatly exceeds 20 percent in regions of Ger-many, Denmark, and Spain, and distributedgeneration—for example, the use of solarpanels on rooftops, or clusters of turbinesalong the path of a power line—can improveelectric system reliability.26

The challenges posed by intermittency arenot of immediate concern in most countriesand will be overcome with hybrid systems,improvements in wind forecasting technology,and further development of storage tech-


92

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000Megawatts

200220001998199619941992

Source: BTM, EWEA, AWEA, press reports

Figure 5–3. Cumulative Global Wind Capacity, 1992–2001


nologies. New storage technologiescould also help tap renewableresources that are far from demandcenters. Furthermore, what is mostsignificant is the per kilowatt-hourcost of electricity generated. Windpower is already cost-competitivewith most conventional technolo-gies. Solar PVs are likely to see dra-matic cost reductions, and theyproduce power in the middle of hotsummer days when demand is great-est and electricity costs are highest.27

According to the U.S. NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory(NREL), PVs have the “potential to becomeone of the world’s most important indus-tries.” The potential PV market is huge, rang-ing from consumer products (such ascalculators and watches) and remote stand-alone systems for electricity and water pump-ing to grid-connected systems on buildingsand large-scale power plants.28

Each year the sun delivers to Earth morethan 10,000 times the energy that humanscurrently use. While PVs account for a smallshare of global electricity generation, theyhave experienced dramatic growth over thepast decade. Since 1996, global PV ship-ments have increased at an average annual rateof 33 percent. It took nearly 30 years, up until1999, for the world to produce its firstgigawatt (GW) of solar PVs (see Figure 5–4),but some experts expect a doubling as soonas 2003. The PV industry generates businessworth more than $2 billion annually andprovides tens of thousands of jobs. Morethan a million households in the developingworld now have electricity for the first timefrom solar PVs, while more than 100,000households in industrial countries supple-ment their utility power with PV systems.29

The production of solar cells is concen-trated in Japan, Europe, and the United

States, but there are growing markets andmanufacturing bases in developing countriesas well, including China and India. Global PVoutput is expected to increase at annual ratesof 40–50 percent over the next few years. Aslarger factories come into operation, manu-facturers can increase the degree of automa-tion.30

Such evolving industrial processes, alongwith technological advances in PVs andeconomies of scale, have led already to sig-nificant cost reductions. Since 1976, costshave dropped 20 percent for every doublingof installed PV capacity, or about 5 percentannually. PVs are now the cheapest option formany remote or off-grid functions. Whenused for facades of buildings, PVs can becheaper than other materials such as marbleor granite, with the added advantage of pro-ducing electricity. Currently, generating costsrange from 25¢ to $1 per kWh, which is stillextremely high, and cost remains the pri-mary barrier to more widespread use of solarPVs. But companies around the world are ina race to create future generations of productsto make PVs cost-competitive even for on-grid use. (See Box 5–3.)31

In addition to cost, one of the primaryconcerns regarding PVs’ ability to meet a


93

2002200019981996199419920

500

1,000

1,500

2,000Megawatts

Source: Maycock

Figure 5–4. Cumulative Global PhotovoltaicCapacity, 1992–2001


major portion of global electricity demand isthe length of time they must operate to pro-duce as much energy as was used to manu-facture them. The energy “pay-back” periodfor today’s cells in rooftop systems is one tofour years, with expected lifetimes of up to 30years, depending on the technology. Themanufacture of PVs also requires a number ofhazardous materials, including many of thechemicals and heavy metals used in the semi-conductor electronics industry. There aretechniques and equipment to reduce envi-ronmental and safety risks, however, andthese problems are minimal compared withthose associated with conventional energytechnologies.32

Global markets for renewables such as

solar and wind power are only just begin-ning a dramatic expansion, starting from rel-atively low levels. It is useful to point out,however, that despite increasing concernsregarding safety and high costs, it took lessthan 30 years for nuclear power to developinto an industry that provides 16–17 per-cent of global electricity. The same can hap-pen with renewable technologies. In fact,during 2001 the nuclear industry added only25 percent as much capacity to the grid aswind did. If the average growth rates of windand solar PV over the past decade were tocontinue to 2020, the world would haveabout 48,000 MW of installed solar PV capac-ity and more than 2.6 million MW of wind—equivalent to 78 percent of global electriccapacity in 2000, or about 45 percent of pro-jected 2020 capacity. Such continued growthis unlikely, but recent industry reports haveconcluded that if the necessary institutionalframework is put in place, it is feasible forwind to meet 12 percent of global electricitydemand by 2020 and for PVs to meet 26percent by 2040.33

The German StoryWhen the 1990s began, Germany had virtu-ally no renewable energy industry, and in theview of most Germans the country wasunlikely ever to be in the forefront of thesealternative energy sources. Regulations gov-erning the electricity sector, which datedfrom the 1930s, granted utilities monopolyrights to produce, distribute, and sell elec-tricity. Utility opposition, entrenched nuclearand coal industries, and a general tendency toconservatism made Germany barren groundfor renewable energy advocates. JochenTwele, a German wind energy expert, recallsthat, “when I started my job on wind energyin 1981, I thought that wind energy hadonly a chance in remote areas of developing


94

• An Australian company is the first tomanufacture solar PVs that can beincorporated into glass walls of buildings.When light falls on the glass from anyangle, it will generate electricity.

• The U.S. National Renewable EnergyLaboratory and Spectrolabs have devel-oped a Triple-Junction Terrestrial Con-centrator Solar Cell that is 34 percentefficient and that can be manufacturedfor less than $1 per watt, according toNREL. (The maximum recorded labora-tory efficiency is 24.7 percent, while theaverage cost of today’s PVs is $5–12 per watt.)

• Spheral solar technology, beingdeveloped in Canada, will bond tiny sili-con beads into an aluminum foil.Whilemass market application could takedecades, this technology could halve thecost of power generation.


BOX 5–3. THE SOLAR RACE


countries. So I concentrated on Africa.” Dueto the strength of labor unions—traditionallystrategic partners with the Social DemocraticParty (known as SPD)—the indifference torenewables in the German left was at least asstrong as it was among the industry-friendlyand strongly pro-nuclear Christian Democ-rats. Even today, utilities and the govern-ment maintain strong ties. For example, in thestate of North Rhine–Westphalia, many localpolitical representatives are board members ofthe state utility company.34

Yet by the end of the 1990s, Germanyhad been transformed into a renewable energyleader. With a fraction as much potential inwind and solar power as the United States,Germany has almost three times as muchinstalled wind capacity (more than one thirdof total global capacity) and is a world leaderin solar PVs as well. In the space of a decade,Germany created a new, multibillion-dollarindustry and tens of thousands of new jobs.This metamorphosis provides helpful lessonsfor the scores of countries that have not yetdetermined how to unleash the potential oftheir own indigenous renewable energysources.

The German story began in the 1970s,when high oil prices sparked a growing inter-est in alternative sources of energy and thegovernment began funding renewable energyresearch and development (R&D). But theresulting sporadic efforts were unsuccessful inspurring commercial development. The majorpolitical parties remained comfortable withthe strategy that nuclear power would be thelong-run replacement for fossil fuel plants.

All of this changed with the Chernobylnuclear power plant accident in 1986, whichled the public to turn firmly against nuclearpower and to begin a serious search for alter-natives. For the first time, Germans began toquestion their energy supply system. Twoyears later, rising awareness of climate change,

brought on by record high temperatures andmounting scientific evidence of human-induced warming, heightened people’s con-cerns. In 1990, the German Bundestagprepared a study on protecting Earth’s cli-mate, with the goal of developing new strate-gies for a less risky (meaning less nuclearpower) and less carbon-intensive energyfuture.35

In response to mounting public pressure,in late 1990 the Bundestag passed a newenergy law that required utilities to purchasethe electricity generated from all renewabletechnologies in their supply area, and to paya minimum price for it—at least 90 percentof the retail price in the case of wind andsolar power. This new “Electricity Feed-inLaw” (EFL)—Stromeinspeisungsgesetz—provided fair access and standard pricing fornew renewables. It was a dramatic break frompast regulation as it enabled private produc-ers to sell their renewably generated electric-ity to utilities at a competitive price, and itprevented electric utilities from further stallingdevelopment.36

The German law was inspired in part bysimilar policies that had proved effective inDenmark. It was strongly supported by own-ers of small hydropower plants in southernmountainous areas of Germany and by farm-ers on the northern plains who envied theirDanish neighbors’ ability to profitably installwind turbines and sell their power. Theseconservative Christian Democrat supportersof renewables were joined by Social Democ-rats and Greens who favored legislation toprotect the environment and create a marketfor renewable energy. Hermann Scheer, aSocial Democrat in the Bundestag who isconsidered one of the “fathers” of Germanrenewable energy policy, also played an impor-tant role by helping to draft and push throughthe revolutionary one-page EFL. For theirpart, the coal industry and electric utilities did


95


not take renewables seriously, and chose notto actively oppose the legislation, and thelaw was adopted unanimously by the GermanBundestag.37

Wind energy development began a steadyand dramatic surge soon after the EFLentered into force on 1 January 1991. Farm-ers, small investors, and start-up manufac-turers created a new industry from scratch,and a growing number of turbines rose upfrom the flat plains of the northern coastwhere the wind blows strongest.

Because most of the initial wind develop-ment was in the north, the coastal states andtheir utilities bore the greatest financial bur-den for Germany’s renewable energy pro-jects. The strong regional variations fosteredopposition to the law and to wind poweritself among utilities and conservative fac-tions of the German government, leading toefforts to declare the EFL unconstitutional.But there was increasing support for renew-ables as well. In September 1997, 5,000 peo-ple flocked to the streets of Bonn to rally infavor of wind power and continuation of theEFL. Opponents failed to overturn the law,although it was amended in 1998 to set a capon electricity generated by renewable energy.38

The 5 percent cap, combined with fallingelectricity prices (and thus declining pay-ments for renewable electricity) due to dereg-ulation of the market, threatened the viabilityof existing and planned renewable energyprojects. This was of great concern not onlyto renewable energy developers and produc-ers, but also to major German financial insti-tutions that were underwriting these projects.In response, the Bundestag adopted the

Renewable Energy Law (REL) in April2000.39

The Renewable Energy Law removed thecap on renewables, and required that renew-able electricity be distributed among all sup-pliers based on their total electricity sales,ensuring that no one region would be overlyburdened. The law also required companiesthat operate the transmission system to paythe costs of connection to the electric grid,eliminating barriers that arose when utilitiesdiscouraged wind development throughinflated connection charges. Perhaps mostimportant, it established specific per kilo-watt-hour payments for each renewable tech-nology based on the real costs of generation.Electric utilities qualify for these payments aswell, a change driven by liberalization of theelectricity sector, which the government cor-rectly expected would reduce utility opposi-tion while further stimulating the renewablesmarket.40

Although the vote on this new law was notunanimous, broad support from the Germanpublic—including labor unions, farmers, envi-ronmentalists, and renewable industries—enabled the SPD-Green coalition to push itthrough Parliament. Again, utilities chal-lenged the law, claiming that it was a subsidyand not legal within the European Union.The government responded that preferen-tial payments for renewable energy wereintended to internalize the costs of conven-tional energy and compensate for the bene-fits of renewables. In March 2001, theEuropean Court of Justice ruled that thepayments were not state aid and therefore nota subsidy. Utilities have since realized thatthey, too, can benefit from the REL.41

After the first access and pricing law wasenacted, some barriers to wind energyremained. A major obstacle to German winddevelopment in the mid-1990s was lengthy,inconsistent, and complex procedures for sit-


96

The average cost of manufacturing wind turbines in Germany fell by 43 percent between 1990 and 2000.


ing wind turbines. As the number of tur-bines installed in some regions began to sky-rocket, local opposition to wind power startedto emerge as well. The German governmentresponded by encouraging communities tozone specific areas for wind—a step that bothaddressed issues that created opposition towind power, such as noise and concern aboutaesthetic impacts, and assured prospectiveturbine owners that they would find sites fortheir machines.

Worldwide, one of the major barriers torenewable technologies has been the highinitial capital costs of these projects. Thusthe cost of borrowing plays a major role in theviability of renewable energy markets. Ger-many addressed this through low-interestloans offered by major banks and refinancedby the federal government. In addition,income tax credits granted only to projectsand equipment that meet specified standardshave enabled people to take tax deductionsagainst their investments in renewable energyprojects. Over the years, these credits havedrawn billions of dollars to the wind indus-try. The combination of these two policies andthe access and pricing laws has enabled adiverse group of Germans to invest in windpower, leading to significant increases ininstalled capacity, associated jobs, and a broadbase of political support for the industry.42

In the late 1980s, before the access andpricing laws and investment tax credits, theGerman government established a small, sub-sidized demonstration program that wasinspired by Denmark’s experiences, in aneffort to change its approach to R&D. Theprogram offered a one-time investment rebateor an on-going production payment to peo-ple who installed wind turbines, in exchangefor participation in a long-term measurementand evaluation effort. It funded the installa-tion of only 350 MW, a fraction of today’stotal wind capacity, but was significant because

it encouraged wind development and enabledGerman manufacturers to sell their machinesat higher prices to finance internal R&D.The program has also made it possible for theGerman government to track and publishyears of useful data on capacity, generation,and operation of wind machines, which con-tinues to this day.43

Several state governments have offeredincentives for renewable projects, have fundedstudies of onshore wind potential, and haveestablished institutes to collect and publishwind energy data. The federal governmentrecently carried out an offshore resourcestudy, and has advanced awareness aboutrenewable technologies through architec-tural, engineering, and other relevant voca-tional training programs, as well as throughpublications on the potential of renewablesand available subsidies.44

Although all these policies have played animportant role, the fair access and standardpricing laws (EFL and REL) have had thegreatest impact on Germany’s renewablesindustries, particularly wind power. Theyended uncertainties regarding whether pro-ducers could sell their electricity into the gridand at what price, and they provided investorconfidence—making it easier for even smallproducers to obtain bank loans and drawinginvestment money into the industries.Increased investment drove improvementsin technology, advanced learning and expe-rience, and produced economies of scale thathave led to dramatic cost reductions. Theaverage cost of manufacturing turbines inGermany fell by 43 percent between 1990and 2000. As a result, it became more prof-itable to install turbines in areas with lowerwind speeds, thereby distributing turbinesmore evenly around Germany and reducingconflicts with competing land uses.45

German wind capacity mushroomed from56 MW at the beginning of 1991 to more


97


than 6,100 MW a decade later, with additionsincreasing steadily each year. Wind capacitywas expected to reach nearly 12,000 MW bythe end of 2002, meeting 3.75 percent ofGermany’s electricity needs. In northernreaches of the country, where most of thedevelopment is concentrated, wind powerprovides as much as 26 percent of annualelectricity needs, close to nuclear power’sshare for Germany as a whole. Some 40,000people work in Germany’s wind industry,producing turbines for domestic use andexport. So many Germans own shares in tur-bines or work in the industry that there is nowbroad public support for wind power.46

Germany has promoted solar energy withpolicies similar to those for wind power.Incentives to encourage PVs began in 1991with the 1,000 Roofs program, which like theearly wind programs offered support inexchange for ongoing evaluation and moni-toring of systems. It was upgraded in 1999 to100,000 Roofs, a five-year program that offers10-year low-interest loans to individuals andbusinesses for installation of solar PVs. Since1992, PVs have experienced an averageannual growth rate of nearly 49 percent. Ger-many surpassed the United States in 2001,ending the year with 192 MW of capacity,most of which is on-grid. When the 100,000Solar Roofs program expires at the end of2003, it is expected that Germany’s PV capac-ity could reach nearly 440 MW.47

By lowering the cost of capital, the100,000 Solar Roofs program effectivelyreduced the price of PV installation by 37 per-cent. Combined with the mandated paymentsof 45¢ per kWh under the REL, this programhas had a major impact on the PV market.Total PV system prices have fallen 39 percentover the past decade, and full-time jobs in thePV industry have more than quadrupled, to6,000, since 1995. To meet rapidly risingdemand, major German manufacturers plan

to expand PV manufacturing facilities signif-icantly over the next five years, which willfurther reduce costs and increase employ-ment.48

Germany has pledged to reduce its CO2

emissions 21 percent below 1990 levels by2010, and the nation will accomplish muchof this through increased use of renewableenergy. Total renewable energy revenues inGermany and electricity produced by renew-able sources both increased 35 percentbetween 2000 and 2001. For the longerterm, the German government aims for windto generate 25 percent of electricity needs by2025, with 20,000–25,000 MW of capacityoffshore, and considers solar PVs as a viablelong-term option for large-scale power gen-eration.49

Policy Lessons From Around the World

It is difficult to claim that something is impos-sible once it has already occurred. This iswhy it is globally significant that the world’sthird largest economy, a country with no tra-dition of renewable energy development, wasable to transform itself from laggard to leaderin less than a decade. What Germany hasaccomplished can be replicated elsewhere—if a successful mix of policies is in place.

The main obstacles that have kept newrenewables from producing more than a smallshare of energy in most of the world, despitetheir tremendous advantages and potential,are lack of access to the grid, high cost, lackof information, and biased, inappropriate,and inconsistent government policies. Ger-many’s dramatic success over the past decadestems from a range of policies introduced toaddress all these barriers. The experiences ofGermany and other countries provide anarray of promising policy options that canbe disseminated around the world.


98


There are five major categories of relevantpolicies:

• regulations that govern capacity access tothe grid and utility obligations,

• financial incentives,• education and information

dissemination,• stakeholder involvement, and• industry standards and permitting.There is not necessarily a direct link

between these policy types and the four obsta-cles just described, as some of the policyoptions tackle a combination of barriers. Anadditional critical element is the need for ageneral change in government perspectiveand approach to energy policy.

As Germany’s experience demonstrates,access to the grid is imperative for renewablesto gain a foothold. Three main types of reg-ulatory policies have been used to open thegrid to renewables. One guarantees price,another ensures market share (mandated tar-gets), and the third guarantees utility purchaseof excess electricity from small-scale, distrib-uted systems. The first is the fair access andstandard pricing law. The marriage of a guar-anteed market and long-term minimum pay-ments has reduced the risks associated withinvesting in renewables, making it profitableto invest in wind, solar, and other technolo-gies and easier to obtain financing. By creat-ing demand for renewable electricity, theaccess and pricing law has attracted privateinvestment for R&D, has spread the costs oftechnology advancement and diffusion rela-tively evenly across a nation’s population,and has enabled the scale-up in productionand experience in installation, operation, andmaintenance needed to bring down the costsof renewable technologies and the powerthey produce.

Laws similar to Germany’s access and pric-ing law have been enacted in Denmark, Spain,and several other European countries, includ-

ing France, Italy, Portugal, and Greece. WhenSpain passed an access and pricing law in1994, relatively few wind turbines were spin-ning in the Spanish plains or mountains; bythe end of 2000, the country ranked third inthe world for wind installations, surpassedonly by Germany and the United States.Spain now generates 2 percent of its electricitywith the wind—but more than 20 percent insome regions—and is home to the world’ssecond largest wind turbine manufacturer.50

While fair access and standard pricing lawsestablish the price and let the market deter-mine capacity and generation, mandated tar-gets work in reverse—the government sets atarget and lets the market determine theprice. (See Box 5–4.) A mandated capacity tar-get, called a Renewables Portfolio Standard(RPS), is primarily responsible for the rapidgrowth of wind energy in Texas since 1999,when the state required that 2,000 MW ofadditional renewable capacity be installedwithin a decade. Texas was more than halfwaythere with wind alone by mid-2002, and thetarget will likely be met before 2009. Butthe mandates have done little to encouragethe use of more expensive technologies suchas solar PVs, despite vast solar resources inTexas. Nationwide, about a third of the 50states have RPS laws, many of them with lesssuccess than Texas.51

The United Kingdom passed legislation onmandated targets in 1989. Between 1990and 1998, renewable energy developers com-peted for contracts to provide electric capac-ity in a series of bidding rounds. While thissystem made it easier to obtain financing anddrove wind costs down through competi-tion, it created major problems. The biddingsystem led to flurries of activity followed bylong lulls with no development, making it dif-ficult to build a domestic turbine manufac-turing industry and infeasible for small firmsor cooperatives to take part. In addition,


99


competition to reduce costs and win con-tracts led developers to seek sites with thehighest wind speeds, which are often alsoareas of scenic beauty. This increased publicopposition to wind energy and made it moredifficult to obtain project permits. When theprogram ended in late 1999, more than 2,670MW of wind capacity were under contract,but only 344 MW had been installed.52

Another option used in a number of coun-tries, including Japan, Thailand, Canada, andseveral states in the United States, permitsconsumers to install small renewable systemsat their homes or businesses and then to sellexcess electricity into the grid. This “netmetering” is different from the access andpricing laws in Europe primarily in scale andimplementation. In the United States, 36states—including California and Texas—had

net metering laws by mid-2002, with varyingdegrees of success. Neither California norTexas saw much benefit for wind power, letalone for more costly renewables like solarPVs, until other incentives were added tothe mix. Success in attracting new renewableenergy investments and capacity depends onlimits set on participation (capacity caps,number of customers, or share of peakdemand); on the price paid, if any, for netexcess generation; on the existence of grid-connection standards; on enforcement mech-anisms; and on other available incentives.Mandated targets and net metering can beused simultaneously.53

Of all these regulatory options, the fairaccess and standard pricing laws have consis-tently proved to be the most successful. Whilemore than 45 countries have installed wind


100

Although no agreement was reached at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development onnumerical targets for new renewables with spe-cific deadlines, countries around the world aresetting their own targets.“Targets” can be goalsor obligations.They can be highly effective ifused to guide policies that encourage the useof renewables. But targets alone achieve little.For example, renewable energy targets forcapacity and generation have been set in theUnited States since the mid-1970s, often in fed-eral legislation, but rarely achieved.An extremeexample is President Jimmy Carter’s goal forwind energy to produce 500 billion kWh ofelectricity by 2000—actual wind generationreached only about 1 percent of this target.

Germany, on the other hand, has exceededmost if not all of its targets to date. Denmarkhas also set national targets, or goals, for windand other renewables since the country’s earli-est national energy plans, nearly three decadesago.Time and again, Denmark’s targets for wind

energy have been surpassed: for example, in1981, the national energy plan called for windto generate 10 percent of the nation’s electric-ity by 2000; this target was met three yearsearly. In 1999 the government aimed to doublethe nation’s share of electricity generated byrenewables to 20 percent by the beginning of2003, a goal that has been met with wind alone.The current energy plan aims for renewableresources to meet 35 percent of Denmark’senergy needs by 2030 in order to meet ambi-tious CO2 emissions reduction targets. Suchpolicies send strong signals to the market,announcing that the wind industry is a goodplace to invest for the long term. But targets inDenmark and Germany have had meaning onlybecause appropriate, consistent, long-term poli-cies have been enacted to achieve them. Unfor-tunately, changes in Danish policies since 1999could jeopardize existing targets.


BOX 5–4. RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGETS


capacity during the1990s, just three—Ger-many, Denmark, andSpain—accounted formore than 59 percentof total additions for theperiod 1991 through2001. More than 80percent of the 1,388MW of wind capacityinstalled worldwide dur-ing the first half of 2002was located in threecountries with guaran-teed minimum prices—Germany, Spain, andItaly. (See Figure 5–5.)54

Financial incentives, the second categoryof policies, directly reduce the costs of renew-able energy. Market compensation in theform of tax credits, rebates, and paymentssubsidizes investment in a technology or theproduction of power. (See Box 5–5.) This hasbeen used extensively in Europe, Japan, theUnited States, and India (the only develop-ing country that has enacted tax credits todate).55

In the early 1980s, the initial capital costsof renewable projects were far higher thanthey are today. To encourage investment inrenewables, the U.S. government and Cali-fornia offered investors credit against theirincome tax, making it possible for people torecoup a significant share of their money inthe first few years and reducing their level ofrisk. The credits played a major role in a windboom that many called California’s secondgold rush. The lessons learned and economiesof scale gained through this experienceadvanced wind technology and reduced itscosts. But enormous tax breaks and a lack oftechnology standards encouraged fraud andthe use of substandard equipment. Inexperi-enced financial companies and former shop-

ping center developers flocked to the windbusiness, and untested designs were rushedinto production—all to take advantage ofcredits that enabled wealthy investors torecoup anywhere from 66 to 95 percent oftheir investment over the first few years, insome cases without even generating a kilo-watt-hour of power.56

A decade later, India saw a similar boom,due to a combination of investment tax cred-its, financing assistance, and accelerated depre-ciation. India is now the world’s fifth largestproducer of wind power and has developeda domestic manufacturing industry. As inCalifornia, however, investment-based sub-sidies and a lack of turbine standards or pro-duction requirements led wealthy investors touse wind farms as tax shelters, and severalprojects experienced poor performancedespite the significant technology advance-ments since the early 1980s. In both cases,wind energy markets and industries slowedconsiderably when investment creditsexpired.57

Japan has provided investment subsidiesthrough rebates and has seen dramatic successwith PVs. As with the early wind subsidies inGermany and a similar effort in Denmark, PV


101

Megawatts

2004200019961992198819841980

Source: Gipe, AWEA, BWE, Wagner, IDAE

(est)

(est)

(est)

–500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500GermanyUnited StatesSpain

Figure 5–5. Wind Power Capacity Additions in Germany, Spain,and the United States, 1980–2002


users receive a rebate in return for providingdata about system operations. By 2000, theJapanese government was investing $200million annually in this program. The goal wasto create market awareness and stimulate PVproduction in order to reduce costs througheconomies of scale and technology improve-ments, and thereby enable large-scale powergeneration and the export of PVs to the rest

of the world. And the policy has succeeded.Total capacity has increased an average ofmore than 41 percent annually since 1992,and Japan now leads the world in the manu-facture and use of solar PVs, having surpassedthe United States at both in the late 1990s.(See Figure 5–6.) To keep up with demand,Japanese PV manufacturers have dramaticallyincreased their production capacity. As aresult, PV system costs in Japan have dropped75 percent since the mid-1990s, and Sharp isnow the world’s leading producer of solarcells.58

Since 1994, the U.S. government hasoffered a production tax credit for peoplewho supply wind-generated electricity to thegrid. The credit has encouraged wind devel-opment, but only in those states with addi-tional incentives, and it provides greaterbenefit to those with higher income levels andtax loads. California has enacted a productionincentive that awards a per kWh payment,rather than a tax credit, for existing and newwind projects. The program has kept 4,400MW of existing renewable capacity onlineand led to the development of another 1,300MW. It is financed through a small per kWhcharge on electricity use, meaning that Cali-fornians share the cost of the program accord-ing to the amount of power they consume.Provided that such payments are high enoughto cover the costs of renewable generation andare guaranteed over a long enough timeperiod, this policy is a possible alternative tothe fair access and standard pricing law—similar in effect and perhaps more politicallyfeasible in some countries.59

Experiences to date demonstrate that pay-ments and rebates are preferable to tax cred-its. Unlike tax credits, the benefits of paymentsand rebates are equal for people of all incomelevels. In addition, investment grants result inmore even growth over time rather thanencouraging people to invest at the end of tax


102

While some observers argue that incen-tives to encourage the development anduse of renewables are costly and unneces-sary, market compensation is warrantedfor several reasons. First, it begins toaccount for the environmental, social, andsecurity costs of conventional energy thatare not incorporated into the price of theenergy. Second, nuclear power and fossilfuels have feasted on decades of subsidies,and in most cases continue to receive farmore subsidies than renewables, creatingan uneven “playing field.” Renewables havebeen competing against moving targets, ascontinued subsidies and research for con-ventional energy have reduced their costsas well.As a result, renewables are behindon the learning curve and need compensa-tion in order to close the gap. Germanparliamentarian Hermann Scheer hasnoted that “no energy source was everestablished without political support. Pol-icy support for the initiation of renewableenergy is a matter of market fairness forabolishing the existing bias.” Finally, theelectricity sector in most countries is gov-erned by regulations that were enacted toaid in the development of conventionalelectric systems and now favor them atthe expense of renewables.


BOX 5–5. THE CASE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SUBSIDIES


periods (as tax credits tend to do). Fur-ther, production incentives are generallypreferable to investment subsidiesbecause they promote the desired out-come—generation of electricity. Theyare most likely to encourage optimumperformance and a sustained industry.However, policies must be tailored toparticular technologies and stages ofmaturation. Investment subsidies in theform of tax credits or, preferably, rebatescan be helpful when a technology isstill maturing and relatively expensive,as seen with PVs in Japan.60

Financing assistance in the form oflow-interest, long-term loans and loan guar-antees is also essential to overcome barriersdue to the high up-front capital costs ofrenewables. Lowering the cost of capital canbring down the average cost of electricityand reduce the risk of investment, as seen inGermany. Even in the developing world, allbut the very poorest people are able and will-ing to pay for reliable energy services, and therate of on-time payment is extremely high.But the poor also need access to low-costcapital and the opportunity to lease systems.61

One of the most successful means for dis-seminating household-scale renewable tech-nologies in rural China has been throughlocal public-private bodies that offer suchservices as technical support, materials sale,subsidies, and government loans for locallymanufactured technology. These bodies fre-quently provide revolving credit, with repay-ment linked to the timing of a household’sincome stream—for example, payments comedue after crops have been harvested. As aresult of this program more than 140,000small wind turbines, producing power formore than a half-million people, have beeninstalled in Inner Mongolia—the greatestnumber of household-scale wind plants oper-ating anywhere in the world. In India, the

terms of long-term, low-interest loans vary bytechnology, with the most favorable onesbeing for PVs. Through small-scale lendingprograms, even low-income people are ableto purchase small systems. In addition, thenational government has worked to obtainbilateral and multilateral funding for large-scale projects, particularly wind.62

Information dissemination is the third keypolicy component. Even if a governmentoffers generous incentives and low-cost cap-ital, people will not invest in renewable energyif they lack information regarding resourceavailability, technology development, thenumerous advantages and potential of renew-ables, the fuel mix of the energy they use, andthe incentives themselves. During the 1980s,several states in the United States offeredsubstantial subsidies for wind energy—includ-ing a 100 percent tax credit in Arkansas, astate with enough wind to generate half of itselectricity. But these subsidies evoked littleinterest due to a lack of knowledge aboutwind resources. By contrast, it was windresource studies in California, Hawaii, andMinnesota that led to interest in wind energythere.63

Past experiences—from failed Californianwind projects in the 1980s to early develop-


103

Megawatts

200220001998199619941992

Source: PVPS, EPI

0

100

200

300

400

500

United States

Japan

Figure 5–6. Cumulative Photovoltaic Capacityin Japan and the United States, 1992–2001


ment projects in Africa—or lack of experiencehave left people in much of the world with aperception that renewables do not work, areinadequate to meet their needs, are too expen-sive, or are too risky as investments. Above all,it is essential that government leaders rec-ognize the inherent value of renewable energy.Then governments, nongovernmental orga-nizations, and industry must work togetherto educate labor organizations about employ-ment benefits, architects and city plannersabout ways to incorporate renewables intobuilding projects and their value to localcommunities, agricultural communities abouttheir potential to increase farming incomes,and so on. In India, the government’s SolarFinance Capacity Building Initiative educatesIndian bank officials about solar technologiesand encourages them to invest in projects.The Indian government has also used print,radio, songs, and theater to educate the pub-lic about the benefits of renewable energyand government incentives, and has estab-lished training programs.64

Knowledge is power, as the saying goes,and disseminating information about renew-ables far and wide will beget more renewablepower. At the local, national, and internationallevels, it is essential to share informationregarding technology performance and cost,capacity and generation statistics, and policysuccesses and failures in order to increaseawareness and to avoid reinventing the wheeleach time. While several countries now do thison a national level, a centralized global clear-inghouse for such information is clearlyneeded.

A fourth strategy that has increased sup-port for renewables—particularly windpower—is encouraging individual and coop-erative ownership. In Germany and Den-mark, where individuals singly or as membersof cooperatives still own most of the turbinesinstalled, there is strong and broad public

support for wind energy. Farmers, doctors,and many others own turbines or shares ofwind farms, and stand beside labor and envi-ronmental groups in backing policies thatsupport wind power. The largest offshorewind farm in the world as of late 2002—the40 MW Middelgrunden project off the coastof Copenhagen—is co-owned by a utility andseveral thousand Danes who have purchasedshares in the project. Through cooperatives,people share in the risks and benefits of windpower; often avoid the problems associatedwith obtaining financing and paying interest;play a direct role in the siting, planning, andoperation of machines; and gain a sense ofpride and community. Several surveys havedemonstrated that those who own shares ofprojects and those living closest to wind tur-bines view wind power more positively thanthose who have no economic interest or expe-rience with it.65

Public participation and a sense of own-ership are as important in the South as inthe North. When technologies are “forced”on people without consultation regardingtheir needs or desires or are donated as partof an aid package, people often place littlevalue on them and do not feel they have astake in maintaining them. On the flip side,when individuals and communities play a rolein decisionmaking and ownership, they are lit-erally empowered and become invested inthe success of the technologies.

The fifth essential ingredient in the policypackage is industry standards—ranging fromtechnology certification to siting and per-mitting requirements. Germany established aninvestment tax credit for wind energy in 1991,and while it too has been abused as a taxloophole for the wealthy, Germany hasavoided the quality control problems experi-enced in California and India by enactingturbine standards and certification require-ments. Standards can include everything from


104



105

turbine blades, electronics, and safety sys-tems to performance and compatibility withthe transmissions system. Denmark adoptedwind turbine standards in 1979, largely dueto pressure from the wind industry itself.The sharing of information among turbineowners and manufacturers and the Danishtechnology standards program have com-bined to enable manufacturers to recognizeand address problems with their technologiesand to create pride in Danish machines. Stan-dards prevent substandard technologies fromentering the marketplace and generate greaterconfidence in the product, reducing risk.They are credited with playing a major rolein Denmark’s rise to become the world’sleading turbine manufacturer. Eventually,technology standards should be established atthe international level.66

Standards and planning requirements canalso reduce opposition to renewables if theyaddress other potential issues of concern,such as noise and visual or environmentalimpacts. Siting or planning laws can be usedto set aside specific locations for develop-ment or to restrict areas at higher risk ofenvironmental damage or injury to birds, forexample. Both Germany and Denmark haverequired municipalities to reserve specificareas for wind turbines and have set restric-tions on proximity to buildings and lakes,among other things. These policies have beenextremely successful, reducing uncertaintyabout if and where turbines can be sited andexpediting the planning process. The UnitedKingdom offers the best example of how thelack of planning regulations can paralyze anindustry. Despite having the best windresources in Europe, the nation added littlewind capacity under its renewables obligationregulations, in great part because a lack ofplanning regulations virtually halted theprocess for obtaining planning and environ-mental permits.67

Perhaps the most important step govern-ments can take to advance renewables is tomake a comprehensive change in their per-spective and approach to energy policy. Gov-ernments need to eliminate inappropriate,inconsistent, and inadequate policies thatfavor conventional fuels and technologiesand that fail to recognize the social, envi-ronmental, and economic advantages ofrenewable energy. Fossil fuels and nuclearpower have received the lion’s share of gov-ernment support to date, and continue toget $150–300 billion a year in subsidiesworldwide. Most of these subsidies—80–90percent by some estimates—are found in thedeveloping world, where the price for energyis often set well below the true costs of pro-duction and delivery. Even relatively smallsubsidies in developing countries for keroseneand diesel can discourage the use of renew-able energy.68

Mature technologies and fuels should notrequire subsidization, and every dollar spenton conventional energy is a dollar not investedin clean, secure renewable energy. These sub-sidies should either be eliminated or shiftedto wind, solar PVs, and other renewable tech-nologies. Pricing structures must account forthe significant external costs of conventionalenergy and the advantages of renewableenergy, as Germany has begun to do throughthe Renewable Energy Law and other coun-tries are doing with energy or carbon taxes.As the single largest consumers of energy inmost, if not all, countries, governmentsshould purchase ever-larger shares of energyfrom renewables and thereby set an example,increase public awareness, reduce perceived

Every dollar spent subsidizingconventional energy is a dollar notinvested in clean, secure renewable energy.


risks associated with renewable technologies,and reduce costs through economies of scale.

At the international level, the Global Envi-ronment Facility has allocated $650 millionto renewable energy projects in developingcountries since 1992. However, this is but asmall fraction of global investments in carbon-intensive energy projects through interna-tional financial institutions like the WorldBank and taxpayer-funded export credit agen-cies. According to one study, between 1992and 1998, the World Bank Group put 100times more money into fossil fuels than itdid in renewables. Even a small shift inresources would have a tremendous impact onrenewables industries and markets, althoughmore than a small shift is needed.69

Policies enacted to advance renewableenergy can slow the transition if they are notwell formulated or are inconsistent, piece-meal, or unsustained. For example, becauseearly investment credits in California wereshort-lived and extensions were often uncer-tain, many equipment manufacturers couldnot begin mass production for fear that cred-its would end too soon. When incentivesexpired, interest waned and the industriesand markets died with them. In the case ofwind power, the impact was felt as far awayas Denmark, which relied on selling its tur-bines in California. The U.S. Production TaxCredit for wind energy has been allowed toexpire several times, only to be extendedmonths later. As a result, the credit has stim-ulated wind capacity growth but has createdcycles of boom and bust in the market.70

This on-and-off approach to renewableshas caused significant uncertainties, bank-

ruptcies, and other problems and has madethe development of a strong industry in theUnited States a challenge, at best. Indeed, theUnited States is the only country to haveseen a decline in total wind generating capac-ity over the last decade. In India, uncoordi-nated, inconsistent state policies andbottlenecks imposed by state electricity boardshave acted as barriers to renewables devel-opment. Even in Denmark, years of success-ful wind energy growth ended in 1999 whenthe government changed course, and uncer-tainty overtook years of investor confidence.The future of some planned offshore windfarms is now uncertain, as is Denmark’s tar-get to produce half its electricity with wind by2030.71

Consistent policy environments are nec-essary for the health of all industries. Con-sistency is critical for ensuring stability in themarket, enabling the development of adomestic manufacturing industry, reducingthe risk of investing in a technology, andmaking it easier to obtain financing. It is alsocheaper. Government commitment todevelop renewable energy markets and indus-tries must be strong and long-term (see Box5–6), just as it has been with fossil fuels andnuclear power.72

Unlocking Our Energy FutureRenewable energy has come of age. Aftermore than a decade of double-digit growth,renewable energy is a multibillion-dollarglobal business. Wind power is leading theway in many nations, generating more than20 percent of the electricity needs in someregions and countries, and is cost-competitivewith many conventional energy technolo-gies. Solar cells are already the most afford-able option for getting modern energyservices to hundreds of millions of people indeveloping countries. Renewable energy can


106

The United States is the only country to have seen a decline in total wind generating capacity over the last decade.


generate electricity, can heat and cool space,can do mechanical work such as water pump-ing, and can produce fuels—in other words,everything that conventional energy does.73

Renewable technologies are now attract-ing the funds of venture capitalists and multi-national corporations alike. The major oilcompanies BP and Royal Dutch/Shell haveinvested hundreds of millions of dollars inrenewable energy development. While thisis a fraction of what they devote to oil and gas,it is a move in the right direction. BP currentlyhas 20 percent of the global market sharefor solar cells and plans to enlarge its solarbusiness to $1 billion by 2007, while Shellintends to become an industry leader in off-shore wind energy. Commitments from majorfirms to invest in renewable energy over thenext few years total at least $10–15 billion,and clean energy investment worldwide isexpected to increase more than eightfold

between 2001 and 2010, to over $80 billionannually.74

As a result of such investments, the use ofrenewable energy is expanding rapidly. If cur-rent growth rates continue, economies ofscale and additional private investments inR&D and manufacturing capability willachieve further dramatic cost reductions,making renewable energy even more afford-able in both North and South. A classic exam-ple of the impacts of scale economies andlearning is Ford’s Model T car, which declinedin price by two thirds between 1909 and1923 as production increased from 34,000 to2.7 million. A simple calculation shows thatif wind power continues to grow at the paceof the past decade, it will exceed 2.6 millionMW by 2020. At that level, wind energyalone would provide nearly three times asmuch electricity as nuclear power does today.75

Whether growth continues at this level


107

• Enact renewable energy policies that are consistent, long-term, and flexible, with enough leadtime to allow industries and markets to adjust

• Emphasize renewable energy market creation.

• Provide access to the electric grid and standardized payments that cover the costs of generationwith policies similar to the fair access and standard pricing laws used in much of Europe.

• Provide financing assistance to reduce up-front costs through long-term, low-interest loans,through production payments for more advanced technologies, and through investment rebatesfor more expensive technologies such as solar PV, with gradual phaseout.

• Disseminate information regarding resource availability, the benefits and potential of renewableenergy, capacity and generation statistics, government incentives, and policy successes and failureson local, national, and international levels.

• Encourage individual and cooperative ownership of renewable energy projects, and ensure thatall stakeholders are involved in the decisionmaking process.

• Establish standards for performance, safety, and siting.

• Incorporate all costs into the price of energy, and shift government subsidies and purchases fromconventional to renewable energies.

BOX 5–6. FORGING A NEW ENERGY FUTURE


will hinge largely on policy decisions by gov-ernments around the world. The growth ofthe past decade has occurred because of sub-stantial policy changes in a half-dozen coun-tries, and those nations alone are not largeenough to sustain the needed growth at theglobal level. But recent developments suggestthat political support for renewables is risingaround the world.

One example is Europe, where the windpower industry is now centered. Tony Blair,Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,which so far has been a European straggler onrenewables, calls his nation’s investment inrenewable energy technology “a major down-payment in our future” that will “open uphuge commercial opportunities.” And theEuropean Union has adopted the goal ofhaving renewables generate 22 percent ofEurope’s electricity by 2010. Developingcountries such as China and India haverecently strengthened their renewable energypolicies, and Brazil is leading the way in LatinAmerica with a comprehensive and ambi-tious renewable energy law. Even in theUnited States, despite an oil-oriented WhiteHouse, nearly half the members of Congresshave joined the Renewable Energy andEnergy Efficiency Caucus. Although thispolitical support has not yet translated into theneeded federal legislation, many states—including Arizona, California, Nevada, andTexas—have enacted pioneering laws in recentyears.76

Despite the substantial strides being madein technology, investment, and policy, renew-ables continue to face a “credibility gap.”Many people remain unconvinced that renew-

able energy could one day be harnessed on ascale that would meet most of the world’senergy needs. Renewable energy sourcesappear too ephemeral and sparsely distrib-uted to provide the energy required by amodern post-industrial economy. But thoseassumptions are outdated. In the words ofPaul Appleby of BP’s solar division, “the nat-ural flows of energy are so large relative tohuman needs for energy services that renew-able energy sources have the technical poten-tial to meet those needs indefinitely.”77

The Group of Eight Renewable EnergyTask Force projects that in the next decade upto a billion people could be served withrenewable energy. BP and Shell have pre-dicted that renewable sources could accountfor 50 percent of world energy production by2050, and David Jones of Shell has forecastthat renewables could emulate the rise of oila century ago, when it surpassed coal andwood as the primary source of fuel.78

Not only is solar energy alone sufficientlyabundant to meet all of today’s energy needsthousands of times over, harnessing it is notparticularly land- or resource-intensive. AllU.S. electricity could be provided by wind tur-bines in just three states—Kansas, NorthDakota, and South Dakota—or with solarenergy on a plot of land 100 miles square inNevada. Farming under the wind turbinescould continue as before, while farmersenjoyed the supplementary revenues fromspinning wind into electricity. In cities aroundthe world, much of the local power needscould be met by covering existing roofs withsolar cells—requiring no land at all. Addi-tional energy will be provided by wind andocean energy installations located several kilo-meters offshore, where the energy flows areabundant.79

The other credibility gap that must befilled is how to provide renewable energywhen and where it is needed—how do you


108

The European Union has a goal of having renewables generate 22 percent of Europe’s electricity by 2010.


get wind or sunshine into a gas tank, forexample, and on a still, dark night? Thatquestion, which has stumped generations ofengineers, has now been answered by auto-mobile and energy companies around theworld. Hydrogen will be the fuel of choice—to be produced from renewable energy, storedunderground, and carried to our cities andfactories by pipeline. Major automobile man-ufacturers around the world are developinghydrogen fuel cell–powered cars that willemit only water from their tailpipes. Daim-lerChrysler, BMW, General Motors, and Nis-san plan to sell their first such cars in 2003,and in 2002 Toyota and Honda raced to seewho would be first to put a fuel cell car on theroad. Full commercialization of fuel cell carsis expected as soon as 2010.80

In early 2001, the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change released its most recent

report, confirming that in order to stabilizethe world’s climate, “eventually CO2 emis-sions would need to decline to a very smallfraction of current emissions”—meaning closeto zero. If the world is to achieve this—whichit must—countries must begin today, nottomorrow, to make the transition to a renew-able, sustainable energy future.81

We still have a long way to go to achievethese visions. Today most of the world islocked into a carbon-based energy systemthat is neither better nor necessarily cheaperthan renewable energy—it is the product ofpast policies and investment decisions. Break-ing the lock will not be easy. But Germanyand other countries are proving that changeis indeed possible. The key is ambitious, for-ward-looking, consistent government poli-cies that drive demand for renewable energyand create a self-reinforcing market.


109

110

In 1886, in the dry and dusty high veldt ofSouth Africa, a man named George Harrisonstumbled across an outcrop of gold. Thisaccidental discovery had significant conse-quences. The remote farming region wassoon transformed into a hive of activity:financiers and mining companies arrived fromLondon and Amsterdam, as did tens of thou-sands of workers from other parts of south-ern Africa. The city of Johannesburg grew outof this gold rush. The deposit that lies belowthe metropolitan area has since produced,by some estimates, a third of all the goldever mined.1

Although Harrison chanced upon nuggetsof the metal on the soil’s surface, most ofJohannesburg’s gold lies several kilometersunderground, scattered through a giant“reef” of rock and earth. To get to this reef,miners must burrow very deep, extractingseveral tons of rock and soil in order to pro-duce just a few ounces of the yellow metal.The material is then treated with cyanide inorder to separate out the specks of gold fromthe dirt. More than a century of such digging

has completely transformed the landscapearound Johannesburg. Pale yellow moun-tains of waste ore and rock rise above theflat city, towering over its poor, predomi-nantly black neighborhoods. Some of theseheaps span several hundred hectares each andare 45 meters high. Winds carry dust con-taining cyanide and heavy metals from theseheaps into nearby homes and schools.2

During the first hundred years after Har-rison’s discovery, South Africa’s mining indus-try flourished using a series of practices thatwere damaging to both the environment andthe mine workers. The mines paid low wages,operated under dangerous working condi-tions, and employed an almost exclusivelyblack work force—mainly workers brought infrom Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, andother neighboring nations. Once theapartheid policies that enabled these prac-tices were ended in the late 1980s, the minesbegan to lose some of their apparent luster.Less than a decade later, world prices forgold and other metals took a nosedive. Com-panies began to close down mines where

Payal Sampat

Chapter 6

Scrapping MiningDependence

SCRAPPING MINING DEPENDENCE

operating costs far exceeded returnsand to downsize the work force. Inthe span of just a decade, miningcompanies laid off half of all mineworkers—nearly 400,000 people.3

Johannesburg’s history is unique,of course, but many of its experi-ences as a mining-dependent regionare not. Mining has left a lastingmark on people and landscapesaround the world. Each year miningactivities take more materials out ofthe earth than the world’s riversmove. A single mine in Papua NewGuinea, the Ok Tedi, generates anastounding 200,000 tons of waste aday on average—more than all thecities in Japan, Australia, and Canadacombined. Mines have uprootedtens of thousands of people fromtheir homelands and have exposedmany more to toxic chemicals and pollu-tion. And mining is the world’s most deadlyoccupation: on average, 40 mine workersare killed on the job each day, and manymore are injured.4

If an accountant were to weigh the costsand benefits of extracting minerals from theearth and then processing and refining them,the balance sheet would reveal this: an indus-try that consumes close to 10 percent ofworld energy, spews almost half of all toxicemissions from industry in some countries,and threatens nearly 40 percent of the world’sundeveloped tracts of forest—while generat-ing only a small share of jobs and economicoutput. (See Table 6–1.)5

Clearly, minerals themselves have broughtbenefits to those who have had access to them.People use minerals extensively in their dailylives—in utensils used to cook dinner, in bicy-cles or trains or cars taken to get to work, andin pipes or pitchers that carry water to homes.But is it necessary to extract mountains of

ore from the earth in order to improve thequality of our lives? Thankfully, it is not. Thebillions of tons of material already mined andcirculating in cities and factories or lying inlandfills can serve the same functions as under-ground ores, with far fewer ecological costs.Through improved design of cities, transport,homes, and products, societies can find waysto use the existing stock of minerals far moreefficiently—and to use smaller amounts ofmaterials overall—dramatically reducing theneed to mine underground ores.6

Minerals InventoryThe term “minerals” refers to a variety ofmaterials found in the earth. It includes met-als such as iron, copper, and gold; industrialminerals, like lime and gypsum; constructionmaterials such as sand and stone; and fuels,such as coal and uranium. The first three cat-egories of minerals are the primary focus ofthis chapter.7


111

Table 6–1. Mining in the Global Economy,Late 1990s

Global Indicator Mining’s Share Value

(percent)

Gross world product 0.9 $361 billion1

Employment 0.5 13 million workers2

Energy use 7–10 4,900–6,600terawatt hours

Sulfur dioxide emissions 13 142 million tons3

Frontier forests threatened 39 5.3 million square kilometers4

1Based on gross domestic product data for 1998, in currentU.S. dollars. Includes some extraction of oil and natural gas.2Employment in nonfuel minerals and metals mining, process-ing, and basic manufacturing in the formal sector. 3Data for 1995.4Refers to undeveloped tracts of forest. 1997 estimate; includessome oil and gas extraction.SOURCE: See endnote 5.


People have extracted mineralsfrom the earth since ancient times.Babylonians, Assyrians, and Byzan-tines mined for copper and leadthousands of years ago in what istoday southern Jordan, for example.Since the Industrial Revolution,however, minerals have beenextracted and used in much largerquantities. In recent times, thistrend has accelerated greatly: in1999, some 9.6 billion tons of mar-ketable minerals were dug out ofthe earth, nearly twice as much as in1970. (See Figure 6–1.) This figureaccounts for minerals that finallyreach markets, but does not include the wastesgenerated in producing these minerals—theunused portion of the ore (the rock or earththat contains minerals), or the earth movedto reach the ore, which is known as over-burden. If these categories were included inthe total amount of materials mined eachyear, the figure would be considerably larger.8

By weight, most of the minerals extractedare used for construction, such as stone,sand, and gravel. Although metals are minedin smaller quantities, they are more valuableper unit of weight. Iron is by far the mostmined metallic ore. Much of this iron ore isused to make steel—some 845 million tonsof raw steel were produced in 2000. About135 million tons of bauxite ore were minedthat same year, which produced some 24million tons of aluminum—a lightweightmetal used in cars, aircraft, and beveragecans. And about 15 million tons of refinedcopper were produced in 2000, much ofwhich was used in electrical equipment,cables, and construction.9

Although gold is produced in much tinierquantities—less than 2,500 tons a year—itbrings in a disproportionate share of the rev-enue from metals mining. Metals mined in

2001 were valued at $125 billion—and about$21 billion of this was gold.10

After metal ores are extracted from theearth, the material has to go through severalstages in order to produce usable metal. Theserefining and smelting processes vary, depend-ing on the type of metal. The ore is crushedand ground, and then the metal is separatedout through different kinds of processes: goldore is treated with chemicals, for instance,while aluminum is separated out by exposingthe processed ore to an extremely powerfulelectric current.

Construction materials are typically minedrelatively close to where they are to be used.But more valuable minerals have historicallytraveled quite long distances—gold wasshipped from the Americas to Europe in thesixteenth century, for example. With the avail-ability of cheap energy and improved trans-portation networks in the twentieth century,some metal ores travel thousands of milesjust to be refined and processed. For instance,some copper that is mined in Chile getssmelted in Europe—and may end up in radi-ators of cars made in Japan and driven inCalifornia.11

Minerals are found all over the world—


112

Million Tons

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Metals

Construction and Industrial Minerals

Source: USGS, UN

Figure 6–1. Production of Non-fuel Mineralsand Metals, 1970–99


Pacific islands, Andean mountains, NorthAmerican deserts, and African rainforest.Some of the world’s largest countries are alsothe major producers and consumers of min-erals. (See Table 6–2.) China, for instance,produces 22 percent of the world’s iron ore,29 percent of the silicon, and 39 percent ofthe tin. Australian mines produce nearly 40percent of all bauxite, 27 percent of dia-monds, and almost a quarter of all lead. About14 percent of all gold and a quarter of allphosphate are mined in the United States.12

Some ores are mined in just one or only afew regions. Most of the world’s bauxite, forinstance, comes from Australia, Guinea, Brazil,or Jamaica. South Africa produces 44 per-cent of the world’s chromium, which is usedin making stainless steel, and more than halfof the world’s platinum. Chilean mines pro-duce more than a third of the world’s copper.13

Mineral consumption is also most con-centrated in a few parts of the world. TheUnited States, Canada, Australia, Japan, andWestern Europe, with 15 percent of theworld’s population, together consume mostof the metals produced each year: about 61percent of all aluminum, 60 percent of lead,59 percent of copper, and 49 percent ofsteel. On a per capita basis, the different lev-els of consumption are especially marked:the average American uses 22 kilograms ofaluminum a year, the average Indian uses 2kilograms, and the average African uses just0.7 kilograms.14

How are these billions of tons of mineralsused? Most go into expanding the built-upenvironment: constructing roads, railways,bridges, factories, or residences. In addition toneeding sand and gravel to make concrete,construction activities account for 34 percentof the use of steel, 30 percent of copper, 17percent of lead, and 19 percent of the alu-minum consumed in industrial countries. Thetransportation sector—including vehicle

fleets—uses about 70 percent of lead pro-duced each year, 37 percent of steel, 33 per-cent of aluminum, and 27 percent of copper.15


113

Table 6–2. Major Mineral ProducingCountries, Selected Minerals, 2001

Share of WorldMineral Countries Production

(percent)

Bauxite Australia 39 Guinea 11 Brazil 10

Copper Chile 35 United States 10 Indonesia 8

Diamond Australia 27 Dem. Rep. of Congo 25 Russia 21

Gold South Africa 16 United States 14 Australia 11

Iron ore China 22 Brazil 20 Australia 16

Lead Australia 24 China 19 United States 14

Mercury Spain 36 Kyrgyz Republic 18 Algeria 16

Nickel Russia 21 Australia 15 Canada 15

Platinum group South Africa 53 Russia 35 United States 5

Silicon China 29 Russia 14 Norway 11

Tin China 39 Indonesia 21 Peru 16

SOURCE: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral CommoditySummaries 2001 (Reston,VA: 2001).


In industrial nations, the amount ofmaterial being added to the built-upenvironment each year has continuedto grow, even though most of thesecountries have already put in placemuch of the urban infrastructure andtransportation networks that consumelarge amounts of materials. Every year,the United States adds another 2 bil-lion tons of material to interstate high-way systems, railroads, factories, andbuildings that have been in place fordecades.16

In addition to the minerals newlyextracted from the earth each year,factories and builders get some of their rawmaterials from recycled or secondary sources.About half of the world’s lead comes fromrecycled supplies, as does a third of aluminum,steel, and gold. But for some metals, therecycling rate is far lower and appears to befalling: for instance, just 13 percent of cop-per is from recycled sources, down from 20percent in 1980. Merely 4 percent of theworld’s zinc is obtained from recycledsources.17

It is far less energy-intensive to producemetals from secondary sources than from“virgin” or newly mined ores. Yet recycling’spotential is poorly realized. In many parts ofthe world, governments heavily subsidizethe extraction of virgin materials by offeringmining firms tax write-offs and inexpensiveaccess to land and by subsidizing diesel andother fuels—making it more expensive toproduce minerals from recycled sources thanto dig up new supplies from underground.Although minerals are nonrenewable andare mined in greater quantities each year,prices for virgin minerals have been in steadydecline since the oil crisis in the early 1970s.(See Figure 6–2.)18

The minerals sector is a relatively smallplayer in the global economy. Even though

the world consumes enormous volumes ofminerals each year, quarrying and extractingminerals generates less than 1 percent ofglobal economic product. The global miningindustry includes several large multinationalcorporations (such as Anglo American, RioTinto, and BHP Billiton), state-owned com-panies such as Chile’s Codelco and several inIndia, and smaller mining companies that areknown as “juniors.” In addition, some 13million artisanal or small-scale miners workover productive seams of metal or preciousstones alone or in cooperatives. Most of theseminers are in the developing world, con-verging near gold deposits in the BrazilianAmazon and Ghana, in diamond-rich areas inWest Africa, and near columbite-tantalite(coltan) ores in the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo.19

The Johannesburg gold reef is an excep-tionally rich lode of metal that has beenworked for over a century. But firms todaydevelop some mineral deposits with life spansestimated in decades, or even years—and arealways in search of new, untapped deposits ofminerals. Multinational mining companieshave increasingly focused their quest in thedeveloping world, where mines can be workedmore cheaply as labor costs are lower and


114

Dollars

(1990 dollars)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: World Bank

175

150

125

100

75

50

Figure 6–2. Metals and Minerals Price Index,1960–2001


environmental regulations are typically not asstrict as in Australia, Western Europe, orNorth America. In 2001, mining companiesspent $566 million exploring for nonferrousmetals deposits in Latin America—almost 30percent of the $2 billion they spent overall—and another $272 million in Africa. Almosttwo thirds of the exploration expenditure in1997 was spent in search of gold deposits, butthis share fell to about 40 percent in 2001.Since global metals prices took a downturn inthe late 1990s, mining companies haveinvested much less in their quest for newmineral lodes. Total exploration spending fellby half between 1997 and 2001.20

Ecosystems, People, and MinesThe Lorentz National Park in the Indonesianprovince of West Papua, which is the westernhalf of the island of New Guinea, is one of theworld’s most biologically diverse and leastexplored places. At 2.5 million hectares—about the size of Vermont in the UnitedStates—it is the largest protected area inSoutheast Asia. It is a naturalist’s dream cometrue. In the span of about 125 kilometers, thepark covers a dramatic range of ecosystems:mangrove swamps at sea level, highland cloudforest, and snow-peaked mountains. Its geo-graphic isolation and the sweeping changes inelevation and climate have made it home tounique plant, amphibian, and insect species;visiting biologists recently discovered a newtype of tree kangaroo.21

But the area has more than just biologicalwealth. Lorentz lies next to what is consideredthe world’s richest lode of copper and goldore, valued at about $50 billion. The U.S.mining company Freeport McMoRan firstdug open the deposit in 1973, and hasexpanded its foothold ever since. The com-pany now dumps 70 million tons of wasteeach year into the nearby Ajkwa River, and by

the time it closes in 30 years, it will haveexcavated a 230-square-kilometer hole in theforest that is visible from outer space. Theregion’s population has increased from 6,000to 70,000 in the last 30 years—most of theseare immigrant workers—and the area nowboasts an 18-hole golf course for miningexecutives.22

Lorentz is one of many world biologicaltreasures that are seriously endangered bymining. Much new mining development istaking place in or near ecologically fragileregions around the world—including WorldHeritage sites such as the Bystrinski NationalReserve in Russia and the Sierra ImatacaReserve in Venezuela. By one estimate, min-ing projects threaten nearly 40 percent ofthe world’s large, untouched forests. Theseinclude a titanium mine being developed ina Madagascar forest that is inhabited by rarelemurs, birds, and indigenous plant species;gold exploration in Peru’s Andean cloudforests; and columbite-tantalite mining inthe Okapi Reserve in the Democratic Repub-lic of the Congo, home to the endangeredlowland gorilla. Also in the works is a nickeland cobalt mine on Gag Island, off the coastof Papua New Guinea. The reefs off the islandare inhabited by an astounding variety ofcoral, fish, and mollusks.23

The environmental impact of minesextends beyond the threats to habitat. Themining industry is one of the planet’s leadingpolluters. (See Table 6–3.) Smelting metalscontributes some 19 million tons of acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide to the atmosphereannually—about 13 percent of global emis-sions. In the United States, processing min-erals contributes almost half of all reportedtoxic emissions from industry, sending 1.5million tons of pollutants into the air andwater each year.24

Extracting, processing, and refining min-erals is extremely energy-intensive. Between


115


7 and 10 percent of all oil, gas, coal, andhydropower energy produced globally eachyear is used to extract and process minerals.(This figure does not include the energy usedto ship ores and metals around the world.)Mining and processing just three materials—aluminum, copper, and steel—consumes anastounding 7.2 percent of world energy. Thisis more than the entire Latin American regionuses each year.25

A sizable share of the energy used inextracting and refining minerals comes fromfossil fuels such as oil and coal, whose burn-ing emits the carbon that is implicated inglobal climate change. In the United States,half of the electricity used to smelt aluminumcomes from coal-burning power plants, forinstance. But mining’s role in global climatechange does not end with its fossil fuel use.Producing cement from limestone releases anadditional 5 percent of annual carbon emis-sions to the atmosphere each year. The alu-minum smelting process releases about 2

tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of pri-mary aluminum produced, and another 3tons of perfluorocarbons, or PFCs—whichare very rare gases not emitted through anyother industrial activity. PFCs are extremelypotent greenhouse gases: a ton of PFCs isequivalent to the greenhouse potential of6,500–9,200 tons of carbon. In 1997, PFCemissions from aluminum smelters in Aus-tralia, Canada, France, Germany, the UnitedKingdom, and the United States were equiv-alent to about 19 million tons of carbon—although at least this is 50 percent less thantheir emissions in 1990, thanks to improve-ments in smelter efficiencies.26

In the last century, lower energy costs andthe development of new mining technologieshave made it possible to transform landscapescompletely. Earth-moving equipment is usedto literally move mountains in order to get toa mineral deposit. These technologicaladvancements have led to two trends: theextraction of minerals from lower-grade


116

Mining for coltan—used to make capacitors for cell phones andother electronics—has resulted in an 80–90 percent decline inthe population of the eastern lowland gorilla in the Reserve.Only 3,000 gorillas remain.

On average, 200,000 tons of contaminated tailings and waste rockdumped each day into Ok Tedi River, which feeds into the FlyRiver.This has silted up the two rivers to four or five times morethan normal, flooding nearby villages and killing off plant life in a2,000-square-kilometer area near the river basin.

The smelter is the country’s largest source of sulfur dioxide andother air pollutants, which have destroyed an estimated 3,500square kilometers of forest and harmed the health of localresidents.

Mines in the Nevadan desert pumped out more than 2.2 trillionliters of groundwater between 1986 and 2000—as much water as New York City uses each year.

Biodiversity loss

Water pollution

Air pollution

Water use

Okapi Reserve andKahuzi-Biega NationalPark, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo

Ok Tedi,Papua New Guinea

Norilsk nickel smelter,Russia

Gold mines in north-eastern Nevada


Table 6–3. Selected Examples of Mining’s Environmental Toll

Impact Example Details


ores—ores that contain very small amounts ofmineral—and the development of surfacemines instead of underground ones. Today,about two thirds of metals are extracted fromsurface mines. These “open-pit” mines usemore diesel fuel and generate a lot morewaste than the subterranean kind. On aver-age, open-pit mines produce 8–10 times morewaste than underground mines do.27

The amount of wastes generated by minesis staggering: every year, Canadian minesgenerate more than a billion tons—60 timeslarger than the amount of trash Canadiancities discard. To transport these wastes, somemines now use a kind of giant dump truckthat can move 360 tons of material—eachbehemoth tire on this truck weighs 4.5 tonsand stands almost 5 meters feet high.28

In 2000, mines around the world extractedsome 900 million tons of metal—and leftbehind some 6 billion tons of waste ore. Thisfigure does not include the overburden earthmoved to reach the ores. Much of this wastecame from the production of just iron ore,copper, and gold. (See Table 6–4.) For everyusable ton of copper, 110 tons of waste rockand ore are discarded, and another 200 tonsof overburden earth are moved. For gold, theratio is more staggering: about 300,000 tonsof wastes are generated for every ton of mar-ketable gold—which translates into roughly3 tons of wastes per gold wedding ring. Muchof this waste is contaminated with cyanide andother chemicals used to separate the metalfrom ore.29

The amount of waste generated by mineshas increased as ore grades have declined fora number of metals. As the more easily acces-sible and rich veins of metal have been dugout, miners have turned to less abundantsources—using more energy and chemicals toextract the same amount of metal while gen-erating more wastes. In 1906, U.S. copperores yielded on average 2.5 grams of metal for

every 100 grams of ore. In 2000, U.S. min-ers extracted copper from ore with an aver-age grade of 0.44 grams of metal per 100grams of ore, meaning that five times morewaste is now generated per gram of mar-ketable metal.30

Chemical innovations have also con-tributed to the dual trends in low grading andsurface mines. In the late 1800s, U.S.chemists patented cyanide heap-leaching as amethod of separating gold from ore. Today,gold mines everywhere from South Africa toNevada use this technique. Cyanide is mixedwith water and then is poured or sprayedover heaps of crushed ore in order to dissolvebits of gold. Once the usable gold is removed,the stacks of crushed ore—known as tail-ings—are treated to reduce cyanide concen-trations, although the chemical is neverentirely diluted. When gold prices shot up inthe early 1980s, this method gained newpopularity as miners rushed to extract goldfrom deposits containing even tiny amountsof the metal. Between 1983 and 1999, U.S.consumption of crystalline sodium cyanidemore than tripled, reaching 130 million kilo-grams—about 90 percent of which was usedin gold mining. A teaspoon containing a 2percent cyanide solution can kill an adult.31

Where do these chemical-laced wastes end


117

Table 6–4.Wastes Produced by MiningSelected Metals, 2000

Share ofWaste Metal Ore That is

Metal Produced Produced Usable Metal

(million tons) (million tons) (percent)

Iron Ore 2,113 845 40Copper 1,648 15 0.91Gold 745 0.0025 0.00033Lead 260 7 2.5Aluminum 104 24 19



up? They are piled into heaps, walled intoconstructed holding areas (called dams), andin some parts of the world simply dumpedinto rivers, streams, or oceans. (Tailings damsare typically built by stacking piles of wastesabove ground or in freshwater ponds.) Todayonly three mines in the world—all of them onthe Pacific island of New Guinea—officiallyuse rivers to dump tailings. Even so, minewastes elsewhere have spilled out of wastesites and poisoned drinking water suppliesand aquatic habitat. In the U.S. West, min-ing has contaminated an estimated 26,000kilometers of streams and rivers.32

There is no reliable way to dispose of bil-lions of tons of materials discreetly. Cata-strophic spills of mine wastes in recent yearshave resulted in enormous fish kills, soil andwater pollution, and damage to human health.In 2000, for instance, a tailings dam splitopen at the Baia Mare mine in Romania.This accident sent some 100,000 tons ofwastewater and 20,000 tons of sludge con-taminated with cyanide, copper, and heavymetals into the Tisza River, and eventuallyinto the Danube—destroying 1,240 tons offish and polluting the drinking water sup-plies of 2.5 million people. That same yearmajor accidents took place at mines in Galli-vare (Sweden), Guangxi (China), Cajamarca(Peru), Tolukuma (Papua New Guinea),Sichuan (China), and Borsa (Romania). Theaccident at a copper mine in Guangxi killed29 people and destroyed more than 100homes. Of the hundreds of mining-relatedenvironmental incidents since 1975, about 75percent have involved tailings dam ruptures.According to the U.N. Environment Pro-gramme, there are 3,500 tailings storage facil-ities in active use around the world and severalthousand others that are now closed, all ofwhich pose potential risks.33

Mining’s effects frequently persist longafter an operation is closed. Acid drainage is

an especially long-lived problem. This hap-pens when a mining operation excavates rockthat contains sulfide minerals. When thesematerials are exposed to oxygen and water,they react to form sulfuric acid. This acid willcontinue to form, and to drain out of therock, as long as the rock is exposed to air andwater and the sulfides have not beendepleted—a process that can take hundredsor thousands of years. The Iron Mountainmine in northern California, for instance,has been closed since 1963 but continues todrain sulfuric acid, along with heavy metalssuch as cadmium and zinc, into the Sacra-mento River. The river’s bright orange wateris completely devoid of life, and has a pH ofminus 3—which is 10,000 times more acidicthan battery acid. Experts report that themine may continue to leach acid for another3,000 years.34

Mines have not only transformed land-scapes, but have also dramatically altered thelives of local people who live near mineraldeposits. (See Table 6–5.) Hundreds of thou-sands of people have been uprooted in orderto make way for mine projects. Many othershave had to forsake traditional occupationsand endure the effects of living beside a minethat poisons their water supplies or near asmelter that pollutes the air they breathe. Atthe same time, mines have brought jobs,roads, and electricity to poor regions. Menwith little other choice for work and com-munities living in extreme poverty have hadto make the Faustian tradeoff—typically notout of their own choice: incur increased risksof lung disease and other health problems inexchange for jobs and income.35

Each year 14,000 mine workers are killedat accidents on the job, and many more areexposed to chemicals or particulates thatincrease their risks of respiratory disordersand certain kinds of cancers. There have beensignificant improvements in mine safety in


118


the last few decades, but mining is still theworld’s most hazardous occupation. Accord-ing to the International Labour Organization,the sector employs less than 1 percent of allworkers but is responsible for 5 percent of allworker deaths on the job.36

Prostitution and drug use are serious prob-lems at mining camps where migrant work-ers live, which has led to a high incidence ofsexually transmitted diseases, includingHIV/AIDS. In South Africa, between 20and 30 percent of workers at gold mines areHIV-positive (although this is not signifi-cantly higher than the average infection ratefor adults there).37

Mine workers in some countries, includingColombia, China, Myanmar, and Russia, arestill prevented from forming independenttrade unions for collective bargaining. Unionorganizers there face serious threats: at the LaLoma mine in Colombia, for example, threeunion leaders were murdered in 2001 becauseof their efforts to organize workers.38

Indigenous peoples have been especially

hard hit by mining projects. By one esti-mate, as much as 50 percent of the goldproduced between 1995 and 2015 will comefrom indigenous peoples’ lands, in places asdiverse as the Kyrgyz Republic and Nevada.The impacts of this intrusion into nativelands can be diverse, affecting autonomy,traditional lifestyles, health, occupations, andeven physical safety. For instance, the Indone-sian Human Rights Commission has con-firmed that the Indonesian army isresponsible for rapes and the continued useof armed force against Amungme andNdunga villagers near Freeport McMoRan’sGrasberg mine on West Papua. In Australia,the Mirrar—an aboriginal people—have con-tested a huge uranium mine that is beingdeveloped on their traditional lands andsacred sites. This area, the Kakadu Reserve,was declared a World Heritage site in 1998.And in French Guiana, the Wayana people,who live downstream from gold mining oper-ations, suffer from mercury poisoning—theirhair sample tests showed mercury levels two


119

Mining for gold has destroyed Spirit Mountain, a sacred site forthe Assiniboine and Gros Ventre tribes.The mine was abandonedby the Pegasus Gold company in 1998, when it went bankrupt,leaving the tribes a toxic legacy of cyanide waste and acid drainage.

Farmers have opposed a proposed Canadian gold mine, complain-ing that it will drain water supplies, take over farmland, and conta-minate their soils. In a referendum in June 2002, 94 percent of thearea’s residents voted against the proposed mine.

The Burmese military government has partnered with the Cana-dian firm Ivanhoe to develop the copper mine and build railways,dams, and other infrastructure. Nearly a million laborers havebeen forced to work on the project.

Heavy metals emissions from lead, silver, and bismuth refinerieshave resulted in lead poisoning in children, which can cause per-manent brain damage.

Mining onindigenouslands

Loss of traditionaloccupations

Humanrights abuses

Health hazards

Zortman–Landuskymine, Montana,United States

Tambo Grande, Peru

Monywa Copper Mine,Myanmar (formerlyBurma)

Metals refineries,Torréon, Mexico


Table 6–5. Selected Examples of Mining’s Impact on Local Communities

Impact Example Details


to three times higher than World HealthOrganization limits—which can lead to neu-rological and behavioral problems, especiallyin children.39

Tailing the Money More than 200 years ago, Adam Smithobserved in The Wealth of Nations: “Of allthose expensive and uncertain projects whichbring bankruptcy upon the greater part of thepeople that engage in them, there is none per-haps more perfectly ruinous than the searchafter new silver and gold mines.” In contrast,the industry’s proponents have held that min-ing can serve as a powerful and necessaryengine of economic development. They arguethat poor countries that put up with the eco-logical and social costs of mining will bene-fit over the long term because of the incomeand jobs that mining can help generate.Results on the ground, however, do not bearout these claims.40

Mineral dependence has been shown toslow and even reduce economic growth indeveloping countries—a phenomenon econ-omists have dubbed “the resource curse.”Harvard economists Jeffrey Sachs and AndrewWarner studied 95 developing countries thathad high ratios of natural resource exports rel-ative to gross domestic product (GDP) for theperiod between 1970 and 1990. They foundthat the higher the dependence on naturalresource exports, the slower the growth ratesper capita. Economist Richard Auty of theUniversity of Lancaster in the United King-dom looked at economic growth in 85 coun-tries between 1970 and 1993 and found thatin this period small countries that were richin hard minerals (such as copper, bauxite,and tin) actually had negative GDP growthrates, averaging –0.2 percent a year.41

This inverse relationship between min-eral wealth and economic affluence has held

true even in wealthy countries that mine.Between 1980 and 2000, for example, min-ing-dependent counties in the United Statesgrew at half the rate of other counties onaverage. Thomas M. Power, who heads theEconomics Department at the University ofMontana, notes that in the United States“the historic mining regions have becomesynonymous with persistent poverty, notprosperity.” He points to the Appalachianregion, with its coal; the Black Hills of SouthDakota, which were dug over for gold andsilver; and lead mines in the Ozarks, amongothers. “Persistent poverty” is common toseveral other historically mined regionsaround the world: Rio Tinto in Spain, Biharin India, and Potosí in Bolivia rank amongthe poorest in their respective countries.42

Ten countries—six of them in Africa—derive more than 30 percent of their exportincome from trading minerals. (See Table6–6.) Most of these also number among theworld’s most impoverished nations: almosttwo thirds of Niger’s population lives belowthe poverty line, for instance, as does nearlyhalf of Peru’s.

Several of these mineral-exporting coun-tries are heavily indebted to internationallenders. Much of what they earn from min-erals and other exports never enters thenational economy at all but goes instead toservice their huge debts. Mauritania, forinstance, spends a quarter of its export earn-ings repaying interest on its external debt—which is 1.3 times the size of its gross nationalincome.43

Conditions in mining-dependent coun-tries have been steadily declining in the lasttwo decades. According to the UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Develop-ment, the proportion of people living on lessthan $1 a day in developing countries that aremineral exporters rose from 61 percent in1981–83 to 82 percent in 1997–99.44


120


Why are mining-dependent countries morelikely to be poor and to grow more slowly?Economists have explained the resource cursein different ways. One is that extracting rawmaterials for export is far less lucrative thanprocessing the materials or manufacturingfinished goods. Second, countries that havemade mining the centerpiece of theireconomies have found that laying all theirstakes in this one sector has proved an unsafebet, given the swings and overall downwardtrend in world mineral prices.45

Other reasons may have to do with theway the resource revenues are distributed.Mineral-rich countries have typically investedlittle in social services, such as education orhealth care. Several countries dependent onmining are among the world’s most corrupt;others are beleaguered by conflicts overresources and the resulting political instabil-

ity. A study by Transparency Internationalabout the extent of corruption in differentparts of the world revealed that 26 out of 32mineral-dependent countries evaluated—someof which are also oil-dependent—had gov-ernments that were categorized as corrupt orhighly corrupt. Bolivia, Indonesia, the Philip-pines, and Zambia all feature on this list.46

Although countries such as the UnitedStates, Canada, and Australia have histori-cally extracted minerals and continue to do so,the industry has not been the primary driverof their economic development. ThomasPower of the University of Montana notesthat these three countries “were high-income,advanced nations with stable political andeconomic institutions when they started todevelop their natural resources.” The domes-tic availability of natural resources provideda competitive advantage for these nations.But as transportation costs have fallen andtrade has expanded, a domestic supply ofminerals is no longer a prerequisite for eco-nomic growth, as it was a century ago. In fact,countries that are resource-poor, such asJapan or South Korea, have grown far morerapidly than many mineral-rich nations.47

By extracting minerals, countries are essen-tially running down their stocks of nonre-newable resources. Under traditionaleconomic accounting, however, this extrac-tion appears on the credit side of the ledger.By conventional measures, mining in Chilecontributed between 7 and 9 percent of thecountry’s GDP during the first half of the1990s. In order to arrive at a more ecologi-cally accurate measure of Chile’s income frommining, economists from the University ofChile and Chile’s National Commission forthe Environment calculated the long-termlosses that nation was incurring by depletingits natural resources. They concluded thattraditional accounting methods “overesti-mated the economic income generated by


121

Table 6–6. Mineral Dependence andPoverty Rates, Selected Countries,

1990s

Share of Non-Fuel PopulationMinerals in Value Below Poverty

Country of Total Exports Line1

(percent) (percent)

Guinea 71 40Niger 67 63Zambia 66 86Jamaica 53 34Chile 43 21Peru 40 49Dem. Rep. of Congo 40 n.a.Mauritania 40 57Papua New Guinea 35 n.a.Togo 30 32

1National Poverty Line.SOURCE: UNCTAD, Handbook of World Mineral TradeStatistics 1994-1999 (New York: 2001);World Bank,World Development Indicators 2001 (Washington,DC:2001);U.N.Development Programme,Human Devel-opment Report 2001 (New York: 2001).


the Chilean mining sector…by 20–40 per-cent.” The conventional measure is likely tobe even more off the mark than this, for theresearchers did not factor in environmental orhealth losses from mining, such as air or waterpollution.48

Mining, then, has not proved to be aneconomic winner in either the short term orthe long term. Its frequently short-livedappeal contributed the term “ghost town” tothe American lexicon a century ago. Arumored gold strike would bring droves ofminers into an area, which would be aban-doned once the deposit was picked over.49

In many ways, mining economies today aresubject to the same boom-and-bust cycles.Their fortune is linked to a number of factorssuch as global mineral prices, labor and fuelcosts, and the productiveness of the lodebeing mined. Take Papua New Guinea, forexample. New Guineans have had to endurethe development of four of the world’s mostpolluting mines, which together provideabout 15 percent of the country’s GDP.Three of these—Misima, Ok Tedi, and Porg-era—are scheduled for closure between 2004and 2011, less than 20 years after they werefirst opened. At that point, 5,000 workers willlose their jobs and the country will be left todeal with the legacy of billions of tons ofhighly contaminated wastes.50

Mining provides only a thin trickle of jobs:globally, extracting non-fuel minerals employsjust 5 million people, or less than 0.2 percentof all workers. (Processing and refining min-erals employs about another 8 million.) Andin many parts of the world, these jobs are indecline. An International Labour Organiza-tion study reveals that 32 percent of mineworkers in 25 key mining countries lost theirjobs between 1995 and 2000.51

Mine workers are getting laid off as oper-ations close down, cut back on expenses, orinvest in labor-saving technological improve-

ments. When minerals prices plummeted inthe 1990s, mining companies in Australia, theUnited States, the Philippines, and elsewherelaid off tens of thousands of workers. (SeeTable 6–7.) Between 1985 and 2000, Aus-tralian mines laid off some 36,000 workers—almost half the work force. Some 40,000workers lost jobs in Philippine mines between1985 and 1995, amounting to a 60-percentdecline. And in China, 2.4 million mine work-ers (most of them coal miners) lost their jobsbetween 1995 and 2000, as minerals pricesfell and ores petered out. Job attrition is likelyto continue there: another 100 coal and non-fuel mines are scheduled to close in the nextfew years.52

In countries where labor and civil rightslaws are strong, mine workers have been paidwell in comparison with the prevailing wage—in large part due to the occupational haz-ards they face and to the efforts of mineworkers’ unions. But contrary to industryclaims that mining boosts local economies,


122

Table 6–7. Employment Losses inMining, Selected Countries, 1985–2000

Employment Employment Change,in 19851 in 20001 1985–2000

(thousands) (thousands) (percent)

India 755 600 –21South Africa 807 417 –48United States 344 227 –34Romania 205 77 –62Mexico 83 682 –182

Canada 78 53 –31Australia 84 48 –43Bolivia 70 47 –33Thailand 58 17 –71

1Data for some countries may include coal mining.21999 figure.SOURCE: International Labour Organization, The Evo-lution of Employment,Working Time and Training in theMining Industry (Geneva: 2002).


many mining jobs have not gone to localpeople near the mine site but to a mobile ormigrant work force. Companies have fre-quently imported labor to operate mines andmachinery, as happened in South Africa,where miners were brought in from Lesotho,Mozambique, and Namibia.53

If the benefits of mining are so mixed andminerals prices so low, why are mining oper-ations still expanding? Mining firms haveprofited from direct and indirect subsidieshanded out to them by governments in manyparts of the world. For starters, mining firmsbenefit immensely from the cheap fuel andfrom the roads and other infrastructure madeavailable to them.

In traditional mining countries, severalpro-mining laws were originally developedin the nineteenth century in an effort toexpand the frontiers of colonial control. In theUnited States, for instance, an 1872 mininglaw gives miners the right to explore for andextract minerals for as little as $12 a hectareon public lands—with no royalty payments forminerals removed. This law has generatedimmense profits for mining interests. Between1993 and 2001, mining firms hauled $11billion worth of gold, silver, and other min-erals off U.S. federal lands, having paid afraction of 1 percent of that in fees and per-mits—leading former U.S. Secretary of theInterior Bruce Babbitt to dub the law “alicense to steal.”54

Until 1991, Australia charged no federalincome tax to gold miners. Even today, min-ing firms there pay state governments smallamounts of royalties, ranging from 1 to 5percent. And until 2002, when they werenationalized, most mines in South Africawere privately owned and did not pay royal-ties or taxes on profits.55

In recent years, other countries have triedto emulate some of these outdated laws. Since1990, more than 100 countries—almost all in

the developing world—have rewritten theirlaws, and in some cases amended their con-stitutions, in order to attract foreign invest-ment in mining. Countries such as Ecuador,Argentina, and Tanzania now offer fast-trackapproval processes, allow 100-percent for-eign ownership of mines, charge no taxes forimported equipment, let companies repatri-ate all profits, and in some cases, such as inPapua New Guinea, provide immunity tocompanies against compensation claims.56

The final handout of public money comeswhen mines close down or are abandoned,and governments and taxpayers are stuckwith cleanup bills for the mess left behind.U.S. taxpayers have been left with hefty tabsfor cleanup after companies have gone bank-rupt or just walked away from uneconomicalprojects. Altogether, it will cost $32–72 bil-lion to try and mop up toxic messes at thehalf-million abandoned mines across theUnited States—and most of these costs willbe footed by taxpayers. Galactic Resources,Inc., a Canadian mining company, stuck U.S.taxpayers with a $200 million bill when itdeclared bankruptcy and walked away fromthe Summitville gold mine in Colorado in1992. The 3,300-hectare mine had beenleaking cyanide into the Alamosa River sinceits first week in operation and had destroyed25 kilometers of the river by the time it wasclosed. When Galactic left, it had mined $130million worth of metals at Summitville inexchange for $7,000 in mining permits.57

International financial institutions anddevelopment agencies have also helpedbankroll extractive industries. The AsianDevelopment Bank, the World Bank Group,and assorted export credit agencies haveactively promoted mining in developingcountries through loans, investment guar-antees, and influence over mining and invest-ment laws. Between 1995 and 1999, theWorld Bank Group spent close to $6 billion


123


to fund mining projects around the world,and the Inter-American Development Bankspent another $1 billion. The World Bank’sMultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency(MIGA) has underwritten investment todevelop mines in sub-Saharan Africa, Peru,Central Asia, and Russia; in 2000, 12 percentof its guarantees supported the mining sec-tor. MIGA has provided more than $100million in guarantees and equity coverageto developers of the Antamina mine in Peru,which is being built next to the HuascaránNational Park, a World Heritage Site. And itreinsured the Omai Gold Mine in Guyana,where a tailings dam collapse in 1995 released3 billion liters of contaminated effluent intothe Essequibo River. The U.S. Overseas Pri-vate Investment Corporation has also backedmine projects that have harmed people andthe environment, including the Kumtor Minein the Kyrgyz Republic, where there havebeen a series of mine accidents involvingcyanide spills.58

Digging Out An ecologically inclined accountant study-ing the balance sheet for mining might be baf-fled by our situation. It seems absurd that theworld continues to obtain minerals in a waythat uses so much energy and generatesuntenable amounts of pollution, and thatpoor regions are encouraged to yoke theirfutures to an unstable and short-lived sourceof income at risk to the health and safety oftheir citizens. This accountant would bepleased to learn that there are less-damagingways to obtain materials and jobs—many ofwhich have been in use for a long time—andthat these practices could help balance out thecost-and-benefit account books more evenly.

Most of the energy use and environmen-tal damage associated with minerals produc-tion occur during extraction, refining, and

smelting of virgin materials. Tapping intominerals that have already been extracted andrecirculating them through the economywould eliminate much, although certainlynot all, of this damage. For example, pro-ducing the most energy-intensive metals—aluminum, steel, and copper—solely fromrecycled metal could reduce the energy usedeach year to obtain metals by as much as 70percent. This savings exceeds the amount ofenergy used annually by the entire SouthAsian region—which is home to a quarter ofthe world’s people. This is because it takes farless energy to recycle discarded materials thanto extract, process, and refine metals from ore.It takes 95 percent less energy to produce alu-minum from recycled materials than frombauxite ore, for instance. Recycling coppertakes between five and seven times less energythan processing ore; recycled steel uses twoto three-and-a-half times less.59

To make up for losses due to recycling, ordissipation, a closed-loop economy mightsupplement above-ground stocks with someamount of newly mined materials. Truly sus-tainable use of resources would require usingsmaller amounts overall and maximizing theamount of service obtained from each kilo-gram of material. This would require morethan just finding ways to recirculate materi-als through the global economy. For planners,it would involve designing cities and trans-portation systems in ways that are less spreadout and materials-intensive than they are atpresent. For consumers, using fewer miner-als may well involve a shift in what is valued:for many, the “good life” might not beequated to the amount of stuff accumulated.

To comprehend just how absurd it is tocontinue to mine new metals while existingstocks lie untapped, consider two of the mostenvironmentally damaging metals mined:gold and copper. Currently, three times moregold is sitting in bank vaults, in jewelry boxes,


124


and with private investors than is waiting inthe reserves identified in underground mines.(See Figure 6–3.) This is enough gold—150,000 tons—to meet the current demandfor 17 years.60

But even if we are able to tap into thisabove-ground gold mine, a more funda-mental question is, Does the world reallyneed an additional 2,400 tons of gold eachyear? Gold industry advertising campaignstry to convince people that this yellow metalis indeed a necessity, but in fact 80 percent ofit is used to make jewelry. Much of this is usedin wedding dowries in India and the MiddleEast. Reducing our dependence on newlymined gold—and its sizable environmentalimpact—will thus undeniably involve culturalchange there and elsewhere.61

Global data on where copper ends up aremore sketchy than for gold. For the UnitedStates, however, analysts have estimated theamount of mined copper that is in use or inlandfills. (See Figure 6–4.) They surmise thatin the United States, about 70 million tons ofcopper are in products that are currently inuse. Some of this copper is built into long-

lived products such as buildings and elec-tricity cables, where it has a useful life span of40 years, on average. Copper is also con-tained in shorter-lived items such as elec-tronic products and durable goods such aswashing machines, whose useful life rangesfrom one to seven years, on average. Eventhough copper and its alloys can be easilyrecycled, about 40 million tons of the metalsits in U.S. landfills—as discarded car stereos,pipes, or other products. (An exception iscopper contained in scrap iron and steel,which is nearly impossible to separate outfrom the ferrous metal.) And U.S. recyclingrates for copper are much higher than theglobal average. Just 13 percent of copperconsumed worldwide comes from recycledsources.62

This is unfortunate, because metals areeminently recyclable. Used copper or alu-minum can be transformed back into thesame amount of metal with very little addi-tional supplement of new metal. Aluminumfrom a beverage container can be melteddown, refabricated, and used to make a newcan just weeks after it is dropped into a recy-


125

Figure 6–3. Gold Stocks Above and BelowGround, 2000

Figure 6–4. U.S. Copper Stocks Above andBelow Ground, 1990s

Private Investors (24,000 tons)

Fabrication(31,000 tons)

Banks and Institutions(31,000 tons)

Jewelry(65,000 tons)

Unmined Reserves(50,000 tons)

Above ground

Below ground

In Landfills(40 million tons)

In Use(70 million tons)

Unmined Reserves(90 million tons)

Above ground

Below ground

Source: Zeltner et al.Source: Lehman Bros.


cling bin. Had the 7 millions tons of cansthrown away by Americans between 1990and 2000 been recycled, they would haveyielded enough aluminum to make 316,000Boeing 737 planes—which is about 25 timesthe size of the world’s entire commercialairfleet.63

Why do we expend so much energy tryingto find new underground mines if so muchuseful metal lies in cities and landfills? In sev-eral countries, the subsidies offered for virginmaterials extraction make it cheaper to dig upnew minerals than to recycle existing, above-ground supplies. Mining companies havefought hard to maintain this status. In theUnited States, for instance, the industry hasstaunchly opposed any reforms to the 1872mining law—and has invested large amountsof money to maintain this support. Betweenmid-1997 and mid-2000, U.S. mining inter-ests contributed almost $21 million to polit-ical campaigns.64

Current materials systems are aligned alongthe uneven playing field that favors miners andplaces recyclers at a disadvantage. Forinstance, most smelters and refineries are notset up to accept secondary sources of mate-rial. In Germany, the government introducedaggressive laws in the 1990s to encouragerecycling—without first ensuring that mate-rials markets could absorb an avalanche of sec-ondary materials, much of which ended uplanguishing in warehouses.65

Another constraint to recycling is thatmany modern products are made of a com-plex set of alloys and materials, which arenot easy to separate out and reprocess. Butthis is hardly insurmountable: products rang-ing from computers to cars are being designedto be disassembled for repair, reuse, and, ulti-mately, recycling. Mitsubishi makes a wash-ing machine that can be taken apart using justa screwdriver; Audi makes a 100-percent recy-clable car. To aid recycling, some manufac-

turers now put bar codes on parts to identifythe different materials.66

Recognizing the value of scrap metals,auto recyclers in the Netherlands recycleabout 86 percent by weight of discarded cars.Most cars there are taken apart andreprocessed to reclaim materials in hubcaps,batteries, and other car parts, and this isfunded by a $130 disassembly fee that new carbuyers pay. Encouraged by the Dutch model,the European Union (EU) has proposed aScrap Car Directive, which requires manu-facturers to take responsibility for cars at theend of their useful lives. Under the proposal,carmakers will have to recycle all recyclableparts of the vehicle, and 85 percent of allmaterials by weight. The EU proposal alsorequires manufacturers to discontinue use ofheavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, andlead in auto parts because of the health risksthey pose during mining, use, and disposal.67

In a similar vein, in June 2000, the Euro-pean Commission passed a Directive on Wastefrom Electronics and Electronic Equipment,which is slated to become European law inearly 2003. The directive calls for electronicsmanufacturers to stop using heavy metals by2006, and for producers to take financial andphysical responsibility for recycling, includingproviding a place for households to return dis-carded equipment free of charge. Still undernegotiation are recycling and reuse targets forproducers. Currently, 90 percent of the EU’selectronic waste—from computers, televi-sions, stereos—ends up in landfills. Manycountries outside Europe, including Aus-tralia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, haveintroduced or proposed similar laws requir-ing electronics firms to take back and recycletheir products.68

Producing materials from secondarysources has significantly smaller impacts thanvirgin sources would in terms of energy use,toxic emissions, and occupational health haz-


126


ards—but it does not eliminate them entirely.In a sustainable materials system, repair, reuse,and remanufacture are the methods of firstchoice. Recognizing this, the Danish gov-ernment has banned aluminum cans in favorof reusable glass bottles—nearly 100 percentof bottles there are returned and reused.69

Secondary materials options are labor-intensive and have the potential to createmany more jobs than mining. But this may notbe reassuring to skilled mine workers in placeswith few alternative income sources. If weare to move to an economy based on less vir-gin materials mining, a key component will beinvestment in transition plans to provide safetynets and employment opportunities to work-ers and communities. The Canadian LabourCongress (CLC) has worked hard to pro-mote “just-transition” plans for workers fromsectors such as chemicals, pulp and paper,and mining, noting that “just-transition is anessential part of environmental change.” It hasrecommended that displaced workers beretrained for high-paying, “green” jobs. TheCLC has highlighted the need for unions andgovernments to be prepared for change: toanticipate that environmental imperativeswill—or should—determine the viability ofcertain industries and jobs. Trade union fed-erations elsewhere, such as the AFL-CIO inthe United States, and the European TradeUnion Congress, have also endorsed similarfair transition plans.70

With mining jobs in decline around theworld, governments, firms, and unions havea tremendous opportunity to create safer,more meaningful, ecologically sustainableemployment for these workers and the fam-ilies they support. Following the enormouslayoffs of the 1990s, the South AfricanEmployment Bureau and the National Unionof Mine workers there developed transitionplans to retrain and employ former mineworkers—some whom have found new jobs

in steel and paper recycling, for instance. Inthe United States, recycling and remanufac-turing employ more than a million people—many more than its mines, which have about220,000 workers.71

Many towns around the world are lookingaway from mining and toward more ecolog-ically sustainable industries. Chloride, Ari-zona, a former silver mining town in theUnited States, for instance, is looking towardwind energy to reinvigorate its economy.China has 4.3 million mine workers—almosta third of the world’s work force in mining—in nearly 400 mining towns. The mines insome 80 percent of these towns have beenlargely depleted, and about 100 nonferrousmetal mines are expected to close down in thenext few years. Li Rongrong, the minister incharge of the State Economic and TradeCommission, has urged these moribund min-ing regions to expand their economies “in linewith sustainable development.”72

Even if we are able to reconfigure ourmaterials economy so that most of ourresources come from secondary sources, somemining will likely continue. And there aremany immediate opportunities for improvingthe way mines operate. For instance, it makessense to do away with some practices that arevery damaging and yield so little benefit—such as pouring cyanide over tons of ore toproduce a few kilograms of gold that are ulti-mately used for ornamental purposes. Anotherpractice ripe for change is the dumping of tail-ings and other mine wastes into rivers and theocean. And any mining that continues must


127

Why do we expend so much energytrying to find new underground minesif so much useful metal lies in citiesand landfills?


be out of the boundaries of protected areas,and must be conducted with the free, prior,and informed consent of local communities.73

In Costa Rica, intact forests are very valu-able to the country—ecotourism is the sec-ond-largest source of the country’s revenue.In June 2002, President Abel Pachecodeclared a moratorium on all open-pit mines,noting that “the true fuel and the true goldof the future will be water and oxygen; theywill be our aquifers and our forest.” Similarly,the county of Cotacachi in Ecuador hasbanned all forms of mining in order to pro-tect its cloudforest and people.74

In many parts of the world, a few far-sighted leaders are taking strong stands againstthe continued use of cyanide, mercury, andother toxic chemicals in mines. The BaiaMare spill in Romania in 2000 prompted theCzech Senate and the German Parliament toban gold mining that used cyanide leachingmethods. The Provincial Board of the Min-doro province in the Philippines passed a 25-year moratorium on mining in January 2002,following controversies over cobalt and nickelmining. And in 1998, a citizens’ initiative inMontana led to a ban on the use of cyanideleaching for new mines or expansions of exist-ing mines in the state.75

Removing subsidies handed out to miners,such as those granted under the U.S. mininglaw, would have considerable environmentalbenefits—reducing pollution, for instance,and helping to boost secondary materialsproduction. It would also add income to thepublic treasury—resources that could be

directed toward developing more sustainablematerials paths or toward improving socialservices such as education or health care.Charges for mining permits will also need tobe adjusted, to better reflect the long-termcosts of depleting nonrenewable resources.

Polluters must also be held responsiblefor damage caused during mine operationsand for the ongoing expenses of mine clo-sure. The cost of trying to clean up hundredsof thousands of abandoned mines in theUnited States alone is estimated as between$32 billion and $72 billion. Although nooverall estimates exist for cleanup costs atmines in China, India, South Africa, or East-ern Europe, it is certain that their govern-ments face very large tabs as well. Legislatorsand environmental agencies must ensure thatpolluters, not taxpayers, foot these bills, byrequiring companies to provide financialguarantees such as surety bonds before theyare allowed to start mining. Unfortunately,the Bush administration in the United Statesis currently attempting to roll back rules thathave required mining companies to postreclamation bonds to cover cleanup expensesat mines.76

Many community groups, environmen-tal and human rights organizations, tradeunions, and policy think tanks around theworld are working together to campaign forsome of these changes, which is contributingto the momentum for a new approach toour dependence on minerals and mining.These regional and international networksinclude the Western Mining Activist Net-work in North America; the African Initiativeon Mining, the Environment, and Society;the Mines, Minerals, and People network inIndia; and the Global Mining Campaign.77

Agencies whose expressed purpose is toreduce poverty are beginning to reconsidertheir role in financing an industry that hashurt the poor and the environment. Respond-


128

Any mining that continues must be out ofthe boundaries of protected areas and conducted with the free, prior, andinformed consent of local communities.


ing to pressure from environmental andhuman rights groups, MIGA cancelled itsrisk insurance to Freeport McMoRan’s Gras-berg mine in West Papua in 1997. In Octo-ber 2002, the International FinanceCorporation, the private arm of the WorldBank Group, decided not to back the con-troversial Rosia Montana gold mine projectin Romania, under directions from Bank pres-ident James Wolfensohn. The World Bank iscurrently undertaking an Extractive IndustriesReview to evaluate its future funding to min-ing, oil, and gas. The report is due to becompleted at the end of 2003.78

The mining industry itself has begun toexamine its impact on the environment andcommunities. In 1998, nine of the world’slargest mining companies joined together toreview the pressing issues they faced; thisled to a two-year research effort—the Min-ing, Minerals and Sustainable Development(MMSD) Project—which issued a report in2002. Mining companies also jointly formedan International Council on Mining & Met-

als, which is now charged with implement-ing the conclusions of that report. TheMMSD study acknowledges some aspects ofthe industry’s role in environmental damageand human rights violations, but critics notethat it “adds little to the existing debateabout how the minerals sector should evolveto meet the challenge of sustainable devel-opment.”79

There is no question that mineral use hasdone much to improve the lives of billions ofpeople and to foster the development of mod-ern societies. But we are several eons pastthe Iron and Bronze Ages of our ancestors—and should no longer need to use pollutingand destructive methods to continue to obtainthese benefits. Our success in acceleratingthe transition to materials systems that are lesspolluting, that create healthy and safe jobs,and that tap into existing supplies will helpdetermine our legacy to future generations—and whether ours will be the age that at longlast puts harmful mining practices on thescrap heap of history.


129

130

When South Africa’s apartheid regime top-pled 10 years ago, it captured the imaginationof the world. No other country had plungedso deep into the twentieth century governedby laws that brutally divided, by skin color, allof its cities, towns, and villages. A decadeinto a new era, Johannesburg, South Africa’slargest city, still has a long way to go to over-come this history. Sandton, its prime north-ern suburb, is a vision in concrete, chrome,and glass—its skyline punctuated by gleam-ing five-star hotels, office complexes, andupscale shopping malls. Soweto, the bestknown of the townships erected by blacksnot permitted in the “official” city, remainsfor the most part dusty and ramshackle. Allof Johannesburg’s white population had atoilet in their home in 1995; only half of theblack population did. And as of 1998, only 13percent of households in Johannesburg’sblack township of Alexandra had one. Thisdisparity in neighborhoods is echoed ingrossly inadequate access to education andhealth care for the black majority.1

While South Africa’s history of racial divi-

sions enshrined in law is unique, its citiesare not the only ones that need to be united.Cities divided into rich and poor, healthyand unhealthy, “legal” and “illegal,” are alltoo common worldwide. In some sense, thisis nothing new. Plato observed around 400BC that “any city, however small, is in factdivided into two, one the city of the poor, theother of the rich.” Centuries of technologi-cal innovations and social progress have donelittle to close the gap. Priced out of the“legal” real estate market, hundreds of mil-lions of people seek shelter in the most pre-carious places, on steep hillsides orfloodplains, living not only with the con-stant threat of possible eviction but also morevulnerable to natural disasters, pollution,and disease from lack of water and toilets.More than half the people in Cairo, Nairobi,and Mumbai (formerly Bombay), for exam-ple, lack adequate housing—living in slumsor even on the pavement.2

Slum residents have not gained much fromsociety’s intense use of key resources overthe last century, a use that has pushed the

Molly O’Meara Sheehan

Chapter 7

Uniting Divided Cities

UNITING DIVIDED CITIES

planet’s support systems to their limits. Onegroup of scientists has estimated that peoplehave transformed half of Earth’s land sur-face through agriculture, forestry, and urban-ization; contributed to a 30-percent increasein atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrationsince the beginning of the Industrial Revo-lution; and today use more than half of allavailable surface fresh water. The benefits ofall this activity, however, have accrued to a rel-atively wealthy minority. In 2001, 52 per-cent of the gross world product went to the12 percent of the world living in industrialnations—the same group responsible for a dis-proportionate share of industrial timber con-sumption, paper use, and carbon emissions.These inequities are perhaps most glaring inthe world’s slums, where the poor are exposedto the worst environmental conditions,including pollution from the wealthy.3

While the inequalities of wealth, power,opportunities, and survival prospects thathobble humanity are crystallized in cities,these places will have an important role toplay in any shift toward development thatdoes not destroy the environment. At theroot of sustainable development—which canbe defined as meeting the needs of all todaywithout endangering the prospects offuture generations—is the challengeof improving the welfare of billions ofpeople without further underminingEarth’s support systems. Cities arewhere most of the world’s peoplewill live and where an even greatershare of key planetary resources willbe used in the coming decades. Keyglobal environmental problems havetheir roots in cities—from the vehi-cle exhaust that pollutes and warmsthe atmosphere, to the urbandemand for timber that denudesforests and threatens biodiversity, tothe municipal thirst that heightens

tensions over water. 4

Cities will have to be the building blocksof development that values nature and peo-ple—and they do hold enormous potential forboth environmental and social progress.When people are concentrated in one place,they ought to be able to use fewer materials,and to recycle them with greater ease, thanwidely dispersed populations can; at the sametime, they should be more easily linked toschools, health care, and other key services.Compared with higher forms of government,city halls are closer to people, so organized cit-izens theoretically have a better chance ofchanging the status quo on matters of envi-ronmental and social concern. Throughouthistory, higher levels of health and educa-tion have come after periods of urbanization;today, the countries that rank highest in sur-veys of freedom and human development arealso the most urbanized. City-level invest-ments in water infrastructure, waste provision,health, and education match up with nationalrankings of human development that takeinto account life expectancy and literacy. (SeeFigure 7–1.) Many cities perform better orworse in these measures of “development”than could be explained by income alone,


131

City Development Index, 1998

Niamey, Niger

Stockholm, Sweden

Hum

an D

evel

opm

ent

Inde

x, 1

998

0 20 40 60 80 1000.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Figure 7–1. Link Between Human Developmentand City Development, 150 Cities, 1998


suggesting that municipal policies can makea big difference.5

By ensuring that their poorest slumdwellers feel secure in their own homes, canmake a living, and are healthy, the world’s rel-atively poorer cities could leapfrog theirwealthier counterparts in the North, creatingan urban model that values both people andnature. Cities typically are responsible forgranting titles to property, providing waterand waste disposal, organizing public trans-portation, and making building codes andland use rules. These activities could be car-ried out in a way that makes it easier for poorpeople to survive, while also having environ-mental benefits for the whole city and theworld. Local governments can, for instance,promote metals recycling, organic waste com-posting, and urban agriculture, can give pri-ority to cheap public transportation, and canallow people to run small businesses out oftheir homes. Such activities have the poten-tial to green cities, create job opportunities,and reduce the demand for materials fromlogging, mining, and industrial agriculture, allof which take an enormous environmentaltoll.

Urban centers in the developing Southnow dominate the ranks of the world’s largestcities, so they are well positioned to capturethe public’s imagination. While most of theworld actually lives in smaller cities, towns,and villages, big cities command special atten-tion. Many people either know of or havebeen to large metropolises, which often serveas national capitals, financial hubs, sites formajor airports, and centers of commerce andmedia. The cities of the industrial North werecenter stage in this regard for just a briefmoment in history, claiming all the slots in thetop 10 in 1900. By 2001, however, onlyTokyo and New York remained on that list.(See Table 7–1.) Demographers expect thatby 2015, Los Angeles and Shanghai will be

bumped from the top 10, as Karachi andJakarta move up. Why shouldn’t some of thecities that lead us toward a more equitable andenvironmentally friendly model of develop-ment be some of these behemoths of thetwenty-first century?6

In many cases, municipal reforms that ben-efit the poorest people and nature will bemore likely if city halls become more open andaccountable. Local governments usually donot boldly address the needs of their poorestpeople in ways that would yield wide-rangingenvironmental benefits because people whohave more money and influence—from realestate developers to leaders of polluting indus-tries—often push a different agenda. In thelast decade, some cities have started to includetheir poorest citizens in decisionmaking, oftenwith national and international support. Fromslum dwellers federations worldwide to aninnovative budgeting process in many Brazil-ian cities, poor people’s voices are rising inopen political arenas. If they are to help unitedivided cities, governments will have to workeven more closely with large numbers of poorurbanites, many of whom live in slums.7

Poverty and IneptGovernment in an Urbanizing World

Slums are an intensely local phenomenonwith growing global significance. A neigh-borhood-by-neighborhood look at theworld’s cities would reveal that not all poorpeople live in slums, and that not all slums areuniformly poor. As urban poverty concen-trates in slums, however, these neighbor-hoods offer government officials distinctplaces on the ground where they could findand work with some of their poorest con-stituents.

Although “slums” are generally under-


132


stood to be urban areas with miserable livingconditions, they vary dramatically from placeto place and are described by a universe ofoverlapping terms—some of them are color-ful; many of them, like “slum,” are franklynegative; and few are synonymous. “Squattersettlements” are formed when poor peoplebuild shelter on land that does not belong tothem. Such settlements may also be called“illegal” or “informal,” terms that are oftenused interchangeably when describing theoff-the-books nature of some slums. Otherdevelopment authorized by landowners thatis not in the squatter category may still be ille-gal or informal because the land is not zonedfor building, or because it has been unlawfullysubdivided into smaller parcels, or because thedwellings are not up to the standards of build-ing codes.8

All these terms can give a false impressionof the character of communities without con-veying the basic problem of insecurity. Law-abiding people often live in “illegal” housing.Many “squatter settlements” are packed withrent-paying tenants. Neighborhoods settled

by squatters decades ago may no longer beslums. And some illegally built or subdividedneighborhoods may be upscale from the out-set. As every city has its own history, cul-ture, economy, and real estate peculiarities,each slum has its own look and feel—whetherit’s a kampung in Indonesia, a favela in Brazil,a gecekondu in Turkey, or a bidonville in partsof francophone Africa. Despite the tremen-dous variation, one common characteristicof slums tends to be the insecurity that resi-dents feel in their own homes, which oftenthwarts them from improving their livingconditions and reaching their full potential.9

The United Nations estimates that 712million people lived in slums in 1993 andthat their ranks swelled to at least 837 millionby 2001, with slum dwellers accounting for56 percent of the urban population in Africa,37 percent in Asia and Oceania, and 26 per-cent in Latin America and the Caribbean.These rough numbers, drawn from surveysand census data that may be incomplete orout of date, give some sense of the scale of theglobal slum population, although they may


133

Table 7–1.World’s 10 Largest Urban Areas, 1000, 1800, 1900, and 2001

1000 1800 1900 2001

(million population)

Cordova1 0.45 Peking3 1.10 London 6.5 Tokyo 26.5Kaifeng 0.40 London 0.86 New York 4.2 São Paulo 18.3Constantinople2 0.30 Canton4 0.80 Paris 3.3 Mexico City 18.3Angkor 0.20 Edo5 0.69 Berlin 2.7 New York 16.8Kyoto 0.18 Constantinople 0.57 Chicago 1.7 Mumbai 7 16.5Cairo 0.14 Paris 0.55 Vienna 1.7 Los Angeles 13.3Baghdad 0.13 Naples 0.43 Tokyo 1.5 Calcutta 13.3Nishapur 0.13 Hangchow6 0.39 St. Petersburg 1.4 Dhaka 13.2Hasa 0.11 Osaka 0.38 Manchester 1.4 Delhi 13.0Anhilvada 0.10 Kyoto 0.38 Philadelphia 1.4 Shanghai 12.8

1Cordoba today. 2Istanbul today. 3Beijing today. 4Guangzhou today. 5Tokyo today. 6Hangzhou today.7Formerly Bombay.SOURCE: 1000–1900 from Tertius Chandler, Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census (Lewiston,NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987); 2001 from U.N. Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision (New York: 2002).


well underestimate it. Another U.N.study suggests that more than 1 billionpeople worldwide live in slums.10

Urban growth is meeting up withpoverty and inept governments to fuelthe current proliferation of slums. Worldpopulation increased by some 2.4 bil-lion in the past 30 years, and roughlyhalf of that growth took place in cities.Over the next three decades, the indus-trial North is not expected to expand intotal population very much. In contrast,demographers believe that in many devel-oping countries, urban migration andgrowth combined with high birth rateswill mean that between 2000 and 2030nearly all of the 2.2 billion people added toworld population will end up in urban cen-ters of the developing world. (See Figure7–2.) While the size and growth of the urbanpopulation in developing nations dominatesglobal population projections, there is alwaysa lag between censuses, and all nations havetheir own definitions of “urban” that tend tochange over time, so these estimates arerough.11

Poverty may be even harder to measure ona global basis than population size is, butvarious studies do point to greater numbersof urban poor. One U.S. dollar will buy farless food in Jakarta or São Paulo than inDacca or Nairobi—and it will buy even lessin New York. For that reason, the interna-tional standard of a $1 a day income to denote“extreme poverty” or lack of money to meetbasic food needs invariably underestimatespoverty in cities. Still, the World Bank sug-gests that some 1.2 billion people worldwidewere extremely poor as of 1998, with ruralsub-Saharan Africa and South Asia hardest hit.Martin Ravallion of the World Bank esti-mates that the urban share of extreme povertyis currently 25 percent worldwide, and likelyto reach 50 percent by 2035. By then the

urban share of world population is likely tohave grown from nearly 50 percent today tomore than 60 percent.12

While rural people tend to have less accessto cash, education, clean water, and sanitationthan city dwellers do, the deficits cause moresevere problems in an urban setting. Peopleare less able to grow their own food in cities,so they must rely on the cash economy forsurvival. Urban jobs tend to require higherlevels of education. And inadequate sanitationbrings infectious disease to more people incities, where dense populations make it eas-ier for disease to spread. Addressing the WorldBank in April 2002, economist Jeffrey Sachsnoted that too often the fact that most of thepoor live in rural areas is used to argue foronly a rural-led growth strategy to endpoverty. “We need a better urban-based strat-egy as well,” he pointed out.13

Slums take root when local governmentsfail to serve large numbers of poor people.Many cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin Amer-ica have housing laws and codes copied fromthose written in nineteenth- or twentieth-century Europe that make little sense in theircurrent context. Poor people, by buildingtheir own shelters, have become the devel-


134

1970 2000 2030

Billion People

0

2

4

6

8

10DEVELOPING NATIONS

Urban population Rural population

MORE DEVELOPED NATIONS

Total population

Figure 7–2. World Population Growth byRegion in 1970 and 2000, with

Projection for 2030


oping world’s “most important organizers,builders, and planners,” in the words ofresearchers Jorge Hardoy and David Sat-terthwaite. Yet most codes are written not forthese local builders but for engineers or archi-tects in a different time and place. In Nairobi,for example, Kenyan codes call for the build-ing materials standard in the United King-dom.14

Even if appropriate housing codes were onthe books, the larger problem of govern-ments being unable or unwilling to enforcelaws and provide needed urban services wouldremain. In many countries, national govern-ments have given local governments moreresponsibility for providing services in thelast several decades, but have been slower togive cities money from national tax revenueor to allow local governments to raise theneeded funds themselves. Moreover, the dis-parity between the budgets of rich and poorcities is striking. A survey of 237 cities world-wide shows an average municipal revenueper person of just $15.20 in Africa, $248.60in Asia, $252.20 in Latin America, and$2,763.30 in Western Europe, the UnitedStates, Japan, and the rest of the industrialworld. The ratio of city budgets in Africa tothose of the industrial world, 1:182, is farhigher than the 1:51 ratio of per capitaincome between sub-Saharan Africa and high-income nations.15

As money buys political influence virtuallyeverywhere in the world, bribes and kick-backs often keep cash-strapped local officialsin developing nations from operating in theinterests of their poorest constituents. Thenongovernmental organization (NGO) Trans-parency International, in a ranking of 102nations, found corruption rampant in manynations with large or growing numbers ofurban poor, including Bangladesh, Bolivia,Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda.16

The available data on population, poverty,

and corruption, while patchy, thus suggestthat the conditions for large and growingslums exist in many parts of the world. Theareas of particular concern include sub-Saha-ran Africa, South Asia, and parts of LatinAmerica. (See Figure 7–3).17

The Paradox of SlumsA slum can demonstrate both the very bestand the very worst in society, showing theingenuity of poor people in desperate cir-cumstances as well as the failure of govern-ment to make the most of this human energy.People who are not born into informal set-tlements may find their way there becausetheir other options are far bleaker. While theenergy that people in slums may invest insecuring a better future for their familiesshows the resiliency of the human spirit, ifgovernment were functioning well, peoplewould not have to try so hard to achieve adecent standard of living. Mtumba, an infor-mal community in Nairobi, is one place whereit is easy to see both the good and the badaspects of life in a slum. (See Box 7–1.)18

All over the world, people move to newplaces for better opportunities, and whenthey choose informal settlements in urbanareas it is often because these slums, shanty-towns, or squatter settlements offer the bestchance for them to survive. In some cases,slums may offer the most affordable lodgingclose to jobs, even if the location still requiresa very long commute. In general, the “off-the-books” nature of informal communitiesconfers certain advantages. People can skirtzoning laws that separate residences frombusinesses, and can set up shop inside theirhome or just outside. Plus they face lowshort-term costs: low rent and no propertytaxes.

But the same informality that may helppoor people gain a tenuous toehold on the


135


ladder toward economic security can alsoprevent them from moving up that ladder. Asinformal settlements legally do not exist, peo-ple who live there often lack not only moneyand political power, but any legal means ofsolving problems. The owners of slumdwellings can more easily get away with charg-ing exorbitant rents. Although the share ofresidents who are owners versus renters variesamong communities, the proportion ofrenters is often higher than commonlythought (people assume that most, if not all,inhabitants are recent migrants who havebuilt their own accommodation). The shackscan be lucrative investments, but their own-ers do not typically reinvest their profits byrepairing them or hooking them up to elec-tricity or water, and tenants have no way tohold landlords accountable.19

A related irony is that the poorest urban

residents often pay the highest price for essen-tial goods and services that are delivered bygovernment at much lower cost to wealthierresidents. In some cases, this is because ahousehold without a formal address does notqualify for hookup to the public water system,entry into public schools, or other essentials.In Mumbai, for example, pavement dwellershave trouble obtaining the cards that qualifypoor people for food aid and health care.What makes informal settlements so cheap inthe short term is that the cost of urban ser-vices are not factored in from the beginning,as they would be in the formal constructionsector; in the latter case, the governmentprovides streets and services and someonebuys the land at the outset, then the buildingsare constructed, and only afterwards do peo-ple move into finished houses. In contrast,informal settlements begin with people mov-


136

Figure 7–3. The Overlap of Poverty, Urban Growth, and Corruption

42 countries (of 77 surveyed) where at least 10 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day

67 countries with urban growth rate over 4 percent

35 most corrupt countries (of 102 surveyed)Source:World Bank, UNPD,Transparency Intl.


ing onto land, then building homes and busi-nesses over time, and only later, if at all,negotiating connections to urban streets,water systems, and electricity grids and obtain-ing title to property.20

As a result, poor people often end up

building their own schools and latrines andpurchasing water, at a very high cost, fromprivate vendors. The price of water in theslums may be 7–11 times the tap price ofpiped water in wealthier areas in Nairobi,12–25 times the tap price in Dhaka, 16–34


137

The view from a mound of dirt and rubbish onthe edge of Mtumba, a Nairobi neighborhood, isstriking.To the south, acacia bushes dot thegrass plains of Nairobi National Park as far asthe eye can see; to the north lies the dense col-lection of one-story shacks that constituteMtumba—5–6 hectares where roughly 6,000people crowd into 800 makeshift structuresthat are cobbled together with mud, wattle,plastic tarps, and iron sheets. Priced out of the“formal” real estate market, like 55 percent ofNairobi’s residents, the people of Mtumba havesettled in “informal” housing—and this can beboth cheered and despaired. Many have foughthard to make it to Nairobi, and surmount dailychallenges not only to survive but to improvetheir community. If government worked prop-erly, it would tap this human potential ratherthan squander it.

On paper—in local maps and laws—theborders of the National Park’s 11,700 hectaresare well defined, helping to protect the rhinosand giraffes that live there.What does notshow up on any map is Mtumba.This meansthat its residents are endangered, receiving noprotection from the law. Mtumba’s families havemoved twice, landing in their current locationin 1992, where they have had their homes com-pletely demolished once and been threatenedwith eviction several times.“Every day we arewaiting for the demolition squad,” says GeorgeNg’ang’a.“We are refugees in our own country.”

Ng’ang’a, like others, came to Mtumbabecause it offered a respite from rural violenceand a closer proximity to jobs. He says his fam-ily’s land was taken by the colonial Kenyan gov-ernment in 1952 to build a golf course.“My

father was a businessman,” he says,“so we wentto different places, like nomads.” Ng’ang’a con-tinued the itinerant lifestyle, always looking forbetter opportunities for himself, his wife, andtheir children.“We came to the Nairobi slums,even though I have an education.”

For several years in a row the people ofMtumba have chosen George Ng’ang’a to bethe leader of the community’s governing coun-cil in informal elections. Residents have electeda committee that has built a school, where fourteachers juggle morning and afternoon shifts toteach more than 400 children. On Sundays,community leaders convene committee meet-ings in the school, Mtumba’s sturdiest structure,with a wood frame and corrugated metal wallsand roof.

Even with this concerted effort, Mtumbaremains ineligibile for basic urban services. Res-idents share three pit latrines and two watertaps.“It’s expensive,” says Tom Werunga of thewater that private companies truck in andhook up to the taps.“A family needs 100 litersper day for drinking and cleaning.” This costs 25Kenyan shillings, nearly half the earnings ofsomeone who makes 50–60 shillings per day, asWerunga does. Nairobi’s slum dwellers paymore than residents of wealthy housing estatesfor water—as a result, they use less thanenough to meet health needs.The under-fivemortality rate is more than 151 per thousandbirths in Nairobi slums, far higher than theaverage for the city as a whole (61 perthousand) and 25 percent more than in ruralKenya (113 per thousand).


BOX 7–1. LIFE IN MTUMBA, A NAIROBI SLUM


times the tap price in Tegucigalpa, 20–60times the tap price in Surabaya, and 28–83times the tap price in Karachi. Toilet stalls,generally operated by governments ratherthan private vendors, are not as pricey but farless common. Pointing to deficiencies in datasupplied by governments, researchers at theUK-based International Institute for Envi-ronment and Development (IIED) have esti-mated that as much as two thirds of the urbanpopulation in Africa, Asia, and Latin Amer-ica has no safe way to dispose of humanwaste.21

Water that is too expensive for slumdwellers to use in adequate amounts, com-bined with few toilets, leads to disease. Whenasked at an international conference to sumup the worst environmental health threatsto poor people in cities of the developingworld, IIED’s David Satterthwaite showed aslide with a single word: “shit.” At a latermeeting, renowned epidemiologist SirRichard Doll provided a more thorough sum-mary: “bugs and shit.” Slum dwellers paymore for each liter of water they consumethan wealthier residents hooked up to munic-ipal water mains and sewers, and they dis-proportionately suffer from water- andwaste-borne pathogens—from diarrhea-caus-ing E. coli and rota virus to roundworm. “Putbluntly,” writes health researcher CarolynStephens, “the poor pay more for theircholera.” Gullies filled with stagnant wateroften serve as cesspools in slums, and attractmosquitoes, so slum residents are also morevulnerable to malaria. (See Chapter 4.)22

Furthermore, the money slum dwellersspend on water, kerosene, or other key itemsfrom private vendors does not reach publiccoffers, where it could then be used to extendpublic services, from water pipes to healthclinics, into slums. In Mumbai, local author-ities are beginning to understand that bring-ing slum dwellers “onto the books” will help

the city, and they are now working with theNational Slum Dwellers Federation and itspartners, other NGOs. “From sanitation toaccess to policymaking—when poor peopleare allowed these things, government has aneasier job,” says Sheela Patel, who directs anNGO in Mumbai, the Society for the Pro-motion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC),that works with slum dwellers.23

Slums can also breed disease that threatensbroader public health. While pathogens travelquickly in crowded slum conditions, they donot stop at the gates of wealthier enclaves. Byweakening people’s immune systems, theAIDS virus makes people more susceptible toother communicable diseases, speeding thetransmission of airborne pathogens such as thetuberculosis bacteria. Both HIV and tuber-culosis are spreading rapidly in urban centersof the developing world.24

Moreover, economic inequality, in theform of glaring disparities between poor slumsand posh gated enclaves, may itself be a dragon public health. Researchers comparing U.S.metropolitan areas found a higher level ofpremature deaths in the places with the high-est income inequality, while in 13 industrialcountries there were lower levels of prematuredeaths from certain diseases in more egali-tarian countries. One theory to explain thesefindings is that cities or countries with highlevels of inequality may be underinvesting inimportant physical and social infrastructure,such as education, that could serve to preventsome diseases. Another possibility is that highlevels of inequality contribute to social ten-sions that stress people; as the immune systemtakes cues from both body and mind, peopleunder stress are more susceptible to illness.25

The persistence of slums in an era ofunprecedented prosperity may also contributeto tensions that threaten local, national, andeven global security. Slums do not createcriminals, but the lack of policing in bad


138


neighborhoods allows criminals to victimizea city’s poorest people. Following the Sep-tember 2001 attacks on the United States,New York Times columnist Thomas Fried-man wrote that in an increasingly intercon-nected world, it will be impossible to ignorethe problems of people living in desperateconditions at home or abroad: “If you don’tvisit a bad neighborhood, a bad neighbor-hood will visit you.” The educated and rela-tively wealthy young hijackers who usedplanes as weapons on September 11 did notcome from the slums; however, the contrastof poverty in the Middle East with wealth inthe United States and Western Europeappears to have been at least one factor moti-vating their actions.26

From Bulldozing to UpgradingGovernments around the world have takenvarious tacks to address slums over the years,with spurts of change as urbanization trans-formed the United Kingdom and othernations of the west from the mid-nineteenthto early twentieth centuries, then Latin Amer-ica in the mid-twentieth century, and thenmuch of Asia and Africa in recent years.Whether razing blighted neighborhoods orbuilding giant public housing projects, gov-ernments have been slow to consult poorpeople when making plans to improve theirliving conditions. Over time, the potentialfor organized citizens to transform their ownneighborhoods has become much clearer.

Individuals working in Latin America ledthe way in showing policymakers the contri-butions of poor people. John F. C. Turner, aBritish architect, helped secure a major WorldBank loan in 1958 to work with communi-ties to rebuild after a devastating earthquakein Lima, Peru. He says that he and his col-leagues “soon realized that our professionalassumptions of design, construction and man-

agerial superiority were exaggerated, to say theleast. We soon learned that we needed oursupposed clients’ own knowledge and theskills of local builders—and how badly ourown bright ideas ignored their realities.”27

Turner drew on his experiences working inLima and elsewhere to give a scathing critiqueof prevailing government policy in 1976:“Comparing the cities that the poor buildwith the ‘redevelopment’ schemes built to‘rehabilitate’ the poor, one could paraphraseChurchill: Never in urban history did so manyof the poor do so much with so little; andnever before did so few of the rich do so lit-tle with so much.” That same year, U.S.scholar Janice Perlman published the findingsof her research in the favelas of Rio de Janeiroin The Myth of Marginality: Urban Povertyand Politics in Rio de Janeiro, which foundthat policymakers’ assumptions about fave-lados were “empirically false, analytically mis-leading, and pernicious in their policyimplications,” as these poor people gave muchmore to the city than they got in return.28

To better support the efforts of poorurbanites, governments and NGOs adoptedtwo general tactics. One was to set aside landfor them, and in some cases equip that landwith water taps or other services. This becameknown as the “sites” or “sites-and-services”approach. Governments were not always ableto find suitable land to do this, however.With the second method, “upgrading,” gov-ernments worked with residents to extendstreets or sewers into existing communities.A few countries launched into this on anational scale. In many other cases, commu-nity groups or NGOs took the lead.29

Indonesia was one of the first of just a fewcountries to make a national policy of help-ing slum residents upgrade their neighbor-hoods. As urban populations grew in themid-twentieth century, local governmentsthere responded by evicting people who set-


139


tled on land not designated for housing. Butby the late 1960s, government officials alsobegan to focus on improving conditions inexisting informal settlements, or kampungs.With the first Kampung Improvement Pro-grammes, city governments provided con-crete slabs and gutters on demand tokampung residents in Indonesia’s two largestcities, Jakarta and Surabaya. People used theseto construct paths and drains. In the 1970s,as these efforts attracted the support ofnational government and international agen-cies such as the World Bank, Asian Develop-ment Bank, and the Government of theNetherlands, the program was extended tohundreds of cities and towns.30

Initially, the program in Surabaya was seenby some as proceeding too slowly. TheSurabaya Institute of Technology helped tobroker extensive agreements between thekampung communities and the local gov-ernment, which made the process more time-consuming. People in Surabaya’s kampungsended up with more ownership of andresponsibility for the improvements theymade—which is often given as a reason thatimprovements in Surabaya’s kampungs con-tinue to be made to this day. As of 1990, theliving conditions of some 1.2 million peoplewere improved; a more recent annual reviewdone by the Surabaya Institute of Technologyin 2001, found that the bulk of low-incomepeople had benefited in some way.31

In the slums of Cairo, NGOs have helpedto strengthen the capabilities of industriousresidents—in particular, the Zabbaleen, amarginalized social group who survive as

wastepickers (zabbaleen is Arabic for garbagecollector). In the 1940s, this group startedcollecting garbage to bring back to their set-tlements, where they would sort out the recy-clable, nonorganic material and use theorganic waste (food scraps and so on) to feedanimals they bred in their homes for milk,eggs, and meat. By the 1970s, Cairo’s bur-geoning population was creating more wastethan the collectors could handle. In 1981, anNGO called Environmental Quality Inter-national received a Ford Foundation grant towork with the Zabbaleen—in particular, withZabbaleen Gameya, a group formed in the1970s to focus on the welfare of garbagecollectors.32

Over the next decade, the resulting Zab-baleen Environment and Development Pro-gramme helped improve both the livingconditions of the Zabbaleen and the wastecollection capacity of the city. In 1984, tech-nical advisors working with the Zabbaleenset up a composting plant in the communityof Mokattam, where many of them lived.Residents could take waste from any animalsthey bred to the plant, removing a healthhazard from their homes. The income fromthe compost sales supported the start-up ofrag and paper recycling, another incomesource, the proceeds of which were used tolaunch literacy classes and health projects. In1986, the garbage collectors’ group intro-duced some low-cost technologies that maderecycling nonorganic waste much easier. As aresult, Mokattam became Cairo’s main trad-ing post for plastic, paper, cardboard, andmetal.33

Although the program has fallen short ofsome of its goals, the Zabbaleen have madereal gains, building water and wastewater sys-tems, schools, and health clinics—and theycould do better still with government support.Between 1979 and 1991, infant mortalitydecreased from 240 per thousand to 117.


140

Activists from Mumbai have been atthe forefront in mobilizing a globalpush for the rights of slum residents.


Today, about 40,000 Zabbaleen work in thedaily pickup and recycling of some 3,000tons of household trash, about one third ofthe city’s total garbage output, at no cost tothe government. As Cairo moves toward con-tracting with private companies for waste ser-vices, the city risks destroying the Zabbaleen’sdoor-to-door system that generates seven toeight full-time jobs per ton of waste and recy-cles 80 percent of the waste it collects. WhileNGOs have taken the lead in working withthe Zabbaleen, the city government couldnow step in, using the funds it would spendon a large international waste contractor topartner with the Zabbaleen and improve theirworking conditions.34

In India, since 1987 the National SlumDwellers Federation (NSDF) has partneredwith social workers, researchers, students,doctors, and other professionals in the Soci-ety for the Promotion of Area Resource Cen-tres, as well as with a collective of women’sgroups called Mahila Milan (“womentogether”), to engage government officials aspartners in improving the living conditions ofpoor people in Mumbai. Some 40 percent ofpeople there live in slums or other forms ofdegraded housing, while perhaps another 10percent live with no roof above their heads,on the pavement.35

The coalition of NSDF, SPARC, andMahila Milan, known as the Alliance, hasorganized communities around a project ofcommon interest—say, improving workingconditions or building a toilet—and thenused that project to negotiate with officialsand to give local authorities, national gov-ernment, and international agencies an ideaof what might be accomplished with greatersupport. Refusing to deliver slums as “votebanks” to local politicians, the Alliance insteadoffers to work with whomever is in power.36

Among other achievements, this coalitionhas shown that when poor people have set-

tled in places that are not safe, communitiesand government officials must cooperate tofigure out a better solution. Many of Mum-bai’s poor people made their homes inshanties on the land alongside the rail lines,where they are ineligible for basic servicesand risk being hit by trains. With the Alliance,these shanty dwellers began to organize them-selves in the late 1980s, conducting a census,starting a savings group, and approachingthe government with proposals for reloca-tion. They made some headway in the mid-1990s, when the government began tonegotiate with the World Bank on a majorproject that would expand Mumbai’s rail net-work and construct new roads—and in theprocess displace many families. The govern-ment invited railway communities to partic-ipate in organizing their relocation. Whenrail authorities started illegally demolishingshacks in February 2000, the Alliance docu-mented the activity, forcing the bulldozers tostop. The next month, some 4,000 familiesmoved into new accommodations.37

Activists from Mumbai have also been atthe forefront in mobilizing a global push forthe rights of slum residents. In 1996, theNational Slum Dwellers Federation of India,partner NGOs, and the Asian Coalition forHousing Rights joined forces with the SouthAfrican Homeless People’s Federation toforge Shack/Slum Dwellers International(SDI). Today, SDI boasts members fromArgentina, Cambodia, Colombia, India,Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia, Nepal, thePhilippines, South Africa, Swaziland, Thai-land, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Through thisnetwork, slum residents are organizing them-selves and learning from each other. Com-munities collect data on their neighborhoods,set up savings accounts that eventually can beturned into revolving loan funds, and nego-tiate with officials to change governmentpolicies in their favor.38


141


The importance of local governmentsworking with their poorest citizens comesthrough in these stories from Indonesia,Egypt, and India: extensive consultation withneighborhood residents in Surabaya helpedthe government improve slums there; inCairo, NGOs helped the wastepickers developtheir living areas—an improvement that couldbe lost if government does not join in now;and Mumbai’s slum dwellers, together withNGOs, are showing government officials howthey would gain by better partnerships.

Securing Homes and JobsPolicymakers often describe “slum upgrad-ing” in terms of discrete projects—but thatmindset will not yield the kind of systematicchanges in land rules, city services, and accessto finance needed to encourage and buildon the work of communities. Surveyingpapers on the performance of “aid” projects,the editors of Environment and Urbanizationfound poor urban people puzzled, and insome cases angered, by the activity in whichthey had little chance to participate and thatfizzled out when the advisors left. Govern-ments could better use their power to beeffective partners with slum dwellers in twobroad areas: helping residents secure theirhomes and improving their prospects of mak-ing a living.39

A central problem blocking wider adoptionof “self-help” solutions is that—in the eyes ofthe law—residents of informal settlementsdo not belong on the land they live on. Peo-ple have difficulty convincing themselves, letalone anyone else, to invest in improvingtheir neighborhood if there is a widespreadperception that it all could be bulldozed thenext day. In the Mokattam settlement ofCairo and the kampungs of Surabaya, in con-trast, people had a sufficient sense of securitythat they would not be summarily evicted.

And in Mumbai, activists negotiated dealswith local governments before proceedingwith upgrading projects. Thus governmentscould take steps to ensure that more poorpeople feel safe in their own homes.40

The most obvious way for a family tosecure their home is by getting a title to theproperty. If governments were to grant peo-ple in informal settlements this legal recog-nition, it theoretically could open up newopportunities for development, and evencredit—a point made most famously by Peru-vian economist Hernando de Soto, whodescribes buildings without titles as “deadcapital,” useful only for whatever shelter theyprovide. Buildings with titles, in contrast,can have a whole other “life” in capital mar-kets, where their owners can leverage them.De Soto was instrumental in prompting Peruto undertake a massive titling program thatformalized some 1 million urban land parcelsbetween 1996 and 2000, first in the pueblosjovenes of Lima, and then in other cities.41

Evidence from various cities, includingLima, suggests that titling may not be a “one-size-fits-all” first step, however, as it is not justred tape but murky questions of land own-ership that separate the informal from theformal world. In Lima, as in many LatinAmerican cities, numerous informal settle-ments took shape as groups of settlers planned“invasions” of unused public land. Switchingthe title from the state to the residents hastherefore been fairly straightforward. Lima’sland titling operation has been criticized forstarting with these easy cases and avoiding set-tlements on private land, where the ownershipsituation may be much more complex.42

Indeed, in much of Africa and Asia, manyinformal settlements are on private land, andsorting out ownership can be complicatedby a mix of colonial land laws and indigenous,customary laws. Shlomo Angel, who sur-veyed housing indicators in more than 50


142


cities worldwide for a joint World Bank/UN-HABITAT program in the 1990s, argues thatthe formal land market simply has not workedwell for poor people in these places, so thateven if governments could formalize everyparcel of land quickly, this would raise pricesand ultimately not serve the interests of manypoor people.43

Rather than two clearcut categories of“legal” and “illegal” settlement, a contin-uum exists with varying degrees of security,as intermediate forms of tenure confer someof the advantages of property rights to peo-ple who lack legal titles. Some ad hoc arrange-ments have arisen over time and becomewidely accepted, whereas others were intro-duced by governments. Reviewing more thana dozen examples of non-title means ofachieving secure tenure from around theworld, British development analyst GeoffreyPayne concludes that governments should“maintain a wide range of statutory, cus-tomary, and non-statutory tenure options,so that all households, especially the poorand vulnerable, can obtain access to land,shelter, services and livelihood opportunitiesin ways that meet their short- and longer-termneeds.” 44

Over the years, policymakers have morewidely recognized people’s right to securehousing. UN-HABITAT launched a newglobal campaign for secure tenure in 1999,helping national and local governmentschange laws and policies to promote housingrights and oppose forced evictions. Heads ofstate meeting in New York for the UnitedNations Millennium Summit in 2000 pledgedto achieve a significant improvement in thelives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020,with the two measures of “improvement” tobe access to better sanitation and security oftenure—a goal initially set forth by the CitiesAlliance, a joint effort of the World Bank,UN-HABITAT, associations of local author-

ities, and bilateral aid agencies launched in1999.45

When asked how improved security will bemeasured, Billy Cobbett of the Cities Allianceacknowledges: “It’s tricky.” Many govern-ments do not count slum dwellers in theircensuses, let alone measure their sense ofsecurity. Nonetheless, says Cobbett, this goalis forcing national governments, local author-ities, and the World Bank to begin to realignthemselves to better serve the needs of thepoor.46

The second area where governments needto take action is in improving the livelihoodprospects of the poor. Most people come tocities seeking a better life, holding out thehope of finding a job. Indeed, the top con-cern of mayors worldwide, according to onesurvey, is jobs. Many cities, in their quest foreconomic development, look outward ratherthan inward—trying to lure large companiesto set up shop within their borders, for exam-ple. Some mayors will overlook lax environ-mental standards or poor working conditionsas long as companies bring much-neededjobs to their people. But cities could do muchmore to match the desire of poor people foremployment with work that would actuallyimprove the local environment. One localgovernment that has just started to makestrides in this area is the tiny county of Cota-cachi in Ecuador. (See Box 7–2.) Whilenational governments often retain control ofeducation, which is central to boosting jobskills, cities can carry out many of their dutiesin ways that widen poor people’s access toemployment. Key areas for cities to targetinclude water and waste services, urban agri-culture, transportation and land use deci-sions, and small-scale credit operations.47

Mounds of refuse and inadequate waterand sanitation in poor urban communitiessuggest jobs in construction and service pro-vision that desperately need to be filled. To


143


this end, municipal authorities could part-ner with slum dwellers who need both wagesand cleaner streets. The system of garbage col-lection and recycling in Cairo discussed ear-lier is an example of an opportunity formunicipal authorities to partner with peoplein low-income settlements for mutual bene-fit. Starting in 1997, the municipality of SantoAndre in São Paulo, Brazil, started a pro-gram that employs people, many of whompreviously could not find work, to collectand recycle garbage.48

City governments could also do muchmore to link water and waste services tourban agriculture, which by itself stands toprovide both jobs and nutrition. When com-

posted, organic trash—paper, food scraps,and even human waste—turns into a valuableresource that could be used on crops withinor around cities. Rosario, a city of more than1 million in Argentina, is one place wherepeople are nourishing farms and gardens withurban compost, reducing the problems andcosts of waste management while growingfood. People in Rosario’s Empalme Graneros,a villa miseria or slum, separate organic wastefrom trash they collect, compost it, and sellit as fertilizer or use it on their own gar-dens.49

While composting offers a natural linkbetween sanitation and agriculture, somecities in Latin America have introduced a


144

In Cotacachi County, Ecuador, a localgovernment is working with an umbrella orga-nization of NGOs and some 37,000 citizens totransform the economy so that people will bemaking a living in ways that do not harm theenvironment. Cotacachi County lies betweenthe western slope of the Andes mountains andthe Pacific Ocean, in Ecuador’s largely ruralnorthern province of Imbabura.While Cota-cachi is small and relatively rural, even theworld’s biggest cities could take lessons fromthe way its local leadership is striving to creategreen jobs for poor citizens.

“One of the significant driving forces for the creation of the ecological county was ourencounter with some typical faces of unsustain-able development,” writes Carlos Zorrilla,president of an environmental NGO calledDECOIN. Since the 1960s, land reform policieshad encouraged small farmers to farm moun-tainous areas covered by tropical forestsunsuited to the task, while the World Bank,Mitsubishi, and others had proposed large mining projects.

In 1996, the county elected a new mayor,

Auki Tituaña, who introduced annual participa-tory assemblies.The next year, members ofDECOIN proposed the creation of an “eco-canton.” Over the course of three years,citizens and local authorities hammered out anew ecological ordinance, which clearly statesthings that are not to be done: no mining, nologging near water sources, no farming ofgenetically modified crops, and no industriesthat could introduce toxic elements, such ascyanide, mercury, lead, or other heavy metals,to the environment. But it also provides mea-sures for positive change—from requiringgarbage to be separated and recycled, to finan-cial incentives to owners of native forests forsustainable management, to promotion oforganic farming.To pursue less damaging busi-nesses, the county is studying the flower indus-try, researching cleaner technologies for leathercrafting, and seeking markets for “green prod-ucts” such as shade-grown organic coffee. In2002, UNESCO awarded Cotacachi a Cities forPeace Prize for these and other efforts.


BOX 7–2. GREENING LIVELIHOODS IN COTACACHI, ECUDAOR


“human-made” way of connecting the two.Since 1991, Curitiba, Brazil, a city whosemetropolitan region includes some 2.5 mil-lion people, has taken the money it wouldhave paid waste collectors to fetch garbagefrom hard-to-reach slums and has spent itinstead on food from local farms on the urbanperiphery. For every bag of garbage broughtto a waste collection site, a low-income fam-ily gets a bag of locally grown vegetables andfruits. In Juiz de Fora, a city of about 600,000inhabitants in the Brazilian state of MinasGerais, families receive a liter of milk for each10 kilograms (22 pounds) of garbage.50

In the first global survey of urban agri-culture for the U.N. Development Pro-gramme, Jac Smit and colleagues at TheUrban Agriculture Network estimated that800 million urban farmers harvest 15 percentof the world’s food supply in a variety ofways, from growing vegetables on rooftops orin market gardens on vacant plots to raisingfish in wastewater filtered through aquaticplants. Tilapia and carp cultivated this way inCalcutta provide safe food and a source ofincome. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, policiesto promote urban agriculture have been inplace since 1982; today, some 90 percent ofleafy vegetables come from urban agricul-ture, which employs 20 percent of residents,ranking as the city’s second largest source ofemployment. To bring more poor peopleinto urban agriculture, city governmentsworldwide could include space for farmers’markets in land use plans, grant temporaryleases for gardens in vacant lots, link urbanfarmers to sources of credit, and promoteorganic farming methods that use local com-post and eliminate the need for chemical fer-tilizers and pesticides.51

Other municipal decisions that affect thejob prospects of the poor include those con-cerning transportation and land use. Whetheror not someone can find a job in a city is inor-

dinately influenced by the famous real estatemaxim: location, location, location. The bestlocations for people who do not have extramoney to spend on transportation are thosethat are not far from places of business. Zon-ing laws that separate homes from businessesdiscriminate against the poor, as do decisionsto invest in infrastructure for private carsrather than dedicated bus lanes, cheap para-transit (such as mini-buses), safe pedestrianwalkways, or bicycle paths.52

Jeff Maganya, former East Africa TransportProgram Manager of the Intermediate Tech-nology Development Group, notes that politi-cians and policymakers in Nairobi, as in othernational capitals, generally have cars them-selves and are often out of touch with thetransportation realities of Nairobi’s car-lesspopulation. “More than 95 percent of moneythat is meant to tackle transport issues inKenya goes to motorization, while less than5 percent of Kenyans actually own cars,” saysMaganya. “Most people who make deci-sions,” he adds, “have only seen bicycles as apastime, as something they buy for their kids.So bicycles have been seen as recreationalthings, and have been heavily taxed.” Indeed,for many years, a large fee for registeringbicycles prevented poor people from buyingthem. When Kenya reduced its tax on bicy-cles from 80 percent to 20 percent between1986 and 1989, bicycle sales surged by 1,500percent.53

Curitiba, Brazil, launched a public bussystem in the 1970s that showed that givinghigher priority to the transport and locationneeds of the less affluent majority paid city-wide dividends—and some other cities inSouth America have followed suit. InCuritiba, several main roadways radiatingfrom the city’s core serve as express busways.Bus stops are futuristic glass tubes wherepeople pay in advance while protected fromthe elements, and then quickly step directly


145


onto the bus without having to walk upsteps—all elements of a subway system at afraction of the cost. Before the buildingsalong the transportation corridors were fullydeveloped, the city bought up strategic landand set it aside for affordable housing. In1998, Mayor Enrique Peñalosa started sim-ilar transformations in Bogotá, Colombia.The city commissioned a fleet of cleaner,more efficient buses, invited bus operators tobid on them, and gave the buses their ownlanes to circumvent traffic. Electronic ticket-ing makes transferring between buses easier,and satellite-based communication boostssafety, as bus drivers can call for help whenneeded. Lima, Peru, is planning a similar sys-tem, and activists in Santiago, Chile, are alsopushing for one.54

A final area where governments could domore to help the survival prospects of thepoor is credit. Even in the United States,which has a long tradition of credit, it tooka spate of bank mergers in the 1990s to makebanks take note of a pioneering 1977 law, theCommunity Reinvestment Act. This requiredbanks proposing to merge with another com-pany to prove that they had met the creditneeds of low-income people in their com-munities. The effect was dramatic, write PaulGrogan and Tony Proscio in Comeback Cities:“It was as if the flat earth of retail banking hadsuddenly found its Columbus. Banks by thehundreds were planting new flags in the for-mer terra incognita of the inner city.” Totallending in poor U.S. neighborhoods aver-aged $3 billion a year between 1977 and1989; it soared to $43 billion in 1997.55

Finance is important in slums because thelack of affordable credit prevents people frombuilding infrastructure into poor settlementsfrom the beginning. In much the same waythat intermediate forms of tenure may offerpeople enough security to improve their liv-ing conditions, smaller-scale financial insti-

tutions may allow people to take a step towardworking themselves out of poverty. FromIndia to Brazil, small-scale lending or “micro-credit” is growing in significance as a sourceof loans for shelter and small business in poorurban neighborhoods. (See Table 7–2.)56

Just as titling programs might not be apractical first step in securing tenure for manypeople, a loan is a long shot for most of theworld’s urban poor. People need to be ableto document their solvency before they cancontemplate taking out a loan. For this rea-son, Shack/Slum Dwellers Internationalmakes group efforts to save money the cor-nerstone of its approach. In South Africa,slum communities that have joined the SouthAfrican Homeless People’s Federation haveestablished savings groups. They pooled theirsavings to start a revolving loan fund, whichopened for business in 1995 and attracted thesupport of the South African government.Slum residents in Cambodia, India, thePhilippines, Thailand, and Zimbabwe havelaunched similar savings groups. Assessingthe results of community-savings schemesworldwide, one analyst concludes that “whenmoney goes into community savings, it cir-culates many times—helping build housesand start small businesses; helping people incrisis; paying school fees and doctor’s bills—generating more assets and options for peo-ple’s future.”57

Opening Up City HallFinding ways for poor people to feel securein their homes and make a living are thingsgovernments should place at the top of their“to do” lists—but too often do not. Oppor-tunities to meet the needs of the pooresturban residents while making cities more ver-dant and vibrant places are rarely seized, as thewealthy, even if a small minority, have greaterpolitical power, especially when politicians


146


can be bribed. Since the 1990s, poor peoplehave gained some measure of political poweras slum dwellers have united within cities andeven across national borders, as a number ofBrazilian cities have opened city budget deci-sions to public scrutiny, and as various citiesworldwide have started to truly engage citi-

zens in setting local priorities. National gov-ernments and international agencies must domore to support these efforts to open upcity halls around the world.58

In 2002, Patrick McAuslan, an expert onurban land law at the University of London,reflected on his decades of experience advis-


147

Table 7–2. Selected Microfinance Institutions Operating in Slums

Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) Bank,Ahmedabad, India

SEWA, which started in 1972, opened a bank in 1974. It now has 35,936 clients and nearly $11 million inoutstanding loans, half of which are for housing.All SEWA members are self-employed women, and 70 per-cent live in urban Ahmedabad.They make monthly savings deposits, held as lien against defaults, and have a 96 percent repayment rate.The municipal government and the private sector match savings of SEWAmembers to provide infrastructure in slums through the Parivartan slum upgrading project, which hashelped reduce serious illness in slums.

Payatas Scavengers’ Association Savings and Loan, Quezon City, Philippines

The association started in 1993, and loans began in 1997. It has 5,953 clients and $1.3 million in outstand-ing loans. Payatas is a village of 300,000 on a 15-hectare municipal dump outside Manila. Scavengers’ asso-ciation members are wastepickers in the bottom 30 percent of the national income distribution.About 80percent use their homes, made of scavenged building materials, for sorting trash to sell, reuse, or recycle.Members make weekly savings deposits and can take out loans for small businesses, land, or housing.Women receive 98 percent of all the housing loans.The government has asked the Payatas community to consult on housing issues.

uTshani Fund, for members of the Homeless People’s Federation, South Africa

The organization started in 1990, and began loans in 1995. It has 70,000 clients and $2.7 million inoutstanding loans. Homeless People’s Federation members are shack dwellers in the bottom 20 percentof national income distribution. Some 80 percent live in cities and 15 percent in peri-urban areas; 60 per-cent use their home for sewing, selling fruit, carpentry, or other micro-enterprises. Some 10 percent ofmembers are homeless and 60 percent live on land with no secure title, which is needed to receive hous-ing subsidies from the South African government.An NGO called People’s Dialogue helps memberssecure title and receive the subsidies, while uTshani provides loans.There is a repayment rate of 95 per-cent for enterprise loans and 93 percent for housing loans.Women receive 90 percent of loans, and allthe housing loans.

Banco Palmas, Palmeira District, Fortaleza, Brazil

The institution started in 1998 and had 900 clients as of 2001. Palmeira is a favela of 30,000, including 1,200 street children.With an initial loan of 2,000 reales from an NGO, the Palmeira Residents Associationstarted Banco Palmas to guarantee micro-loans with low interest rates without proof of income (neighborsserve as guarantors of good credit) and to issue credit cards, which are now used by more than 500 fami-lies. Between 1998 and 2000, local business sales increased by 30 percent and generated 80 new jobs. Bankclients have worked through a solidarity network to pave streets, clean drainage canals, and construct aschool. Some 65 percent of all bank clients are women.



ing policymakers: “I began to wonderwhether one of the problems that we’ve hadin dealing with land issues is that we’ve neveraddressed sufficiently the politics of land.The fact is that the current land tenure situ-ation generally accommodates the elites.”McAuslan also noted: “I think the singlemost important thing is to ensure that thepoor have a voice.”59

Government corruption not only mufflesthe voices of slum residents, it also exacts aprice. “When you take a complaint to a localauthority employed by the government,” saysIsaac Mburu, who lives in Nairobi’s Mtumbaslum, “if you go without cash, you won’t beserved.” A recent study by TransparencyInternational–Kenya found that 67 percent ofthe interactions that people had with publicofficials required bribes, but that the poorestand least educated encountered bribery in75 percent of their interactions with publicinstitutions. “Corruption is a tax on thepoor,” says Transparency International’sMichael Lippe.60

The emergence of Shack/Slum DwellersInternational and the national federations ofslum dwellers that constitute it have helpedto amplify the concerns of poor urban resi-dents. In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, to takejust one example, poor people formed the Sol-idarity and Urban Poor Federation in 1994to save money and convince the municipalgovernment to stop evicting people frominformal settlements. Through SDI, sidewalkslum dwellers from Mumbai helped PhomnPenh’s poor start their first savings groups.Pooling $5,000 in savings that attractedmatching funds from aid agencies, in 1998the Cambodians opened a fund that providesloans for housing and small businesses andthat has served 1,500 families so far. Today,the government has stopped evictions andworks with the federation to secure alterna-tive land for families displaced by development

projects.61

Another positive sign comes from Brazil,where local authorities have pioneered “par-ticipatory budgeting.” Several municipalitiestried different approaches to consulting moreactively with their constituents in the 1970sand 1980s. Then, in 1988, a new nationalconstitution devolved more power to sub-national governments and introduced sev-eral instruments that could be adopted atthe local level, including participatory bud-geting—a process that requires elected offi-cials to engage citizens in setting publicpriorities and to show clearly how funds willbe allocated, bringing democracy closer to thepeople.62

Porto Alegre, a city of 1.3 million in thesouth of Brazil, began to gain internationalfame after it adopted participatory budgetingin 1989. In the early 1990s, Brazil was rockedby scandals that pointed to private moneybuying political influence and public fundsbeing used for politicians’ private enjoymentat every turn. In 1992, President Collor wasimpeached on charges of influence peddlingand graft; in 1993, the same lawmakers thathad hounded Collor came under fire them-selves for taking bribes to dole out federalfunds to construction companies, charities,and municipal governments; and in 1994,politicians were among those implicated in amajor organized crime ring. The huge gulchbetween rich and poor—the wealthiest 10percent of Brazil claims 48 percent of thenation’s output, whereas the poorest 10 per-cent has less than 1 percent—only heightenedpublic outrage. Yet in the midst of all this,Porto Alegre was trying to change its localpolitics so that votes would mean more thanbribes.63

Local officials in Porto Alegre now presentinformation about the city budget in a firstround of public meetings in each of 16 dis-tricts. More than half the budget typically


148


goes to salaries of city employees, while otherfunds may be earmarked to service municipaldebt. The share that is set aside for infra-structure to be determined through the par-ticipatory process varies from city to city andyear to year, but it is generally 10–20 percentof Porto Alegre’s total budget. After the ini-tial assembly, each neighborhood within eachdistrict holds an open meeting to rank theirmost pressing needs—for instance, do theyneed better water supply or a paved roadfirst?64

Then the jockeying for specific projectsbegins in earnest. In a second round of dis-trict meetings, citizens elect delegates to rep-resent their district on a city-wide budgetcouncil. These representatives take the neigh-borhood concerns and negotiate amongthemselves to agree on district-wide prioritylists to bring to the municipal budget coun-cil. That council, which also has memberselected in city-wide elections, then decideshow to distribute funds among districts.65

This experiment has amplified the voices ofPorto Alegre’s poor. Between 1992 and2002, citizens have directed more than $700million to needed projects. A survey doneafter the first year of participatory budgetingrevealed that most of the city’s poor peoplewanted clean water and toilets, whereas thegovernment previously assumed that theirtop priority was public transport. Today, 85percent of the city has sewer connections,compared with 46 percent in 1989. Streetpaving is another high priority in the poorestneighborhoods; 30 kilometers of streets arenow paved, drained, and lighted each year.66

In 1994, another Brazilian city, Belo Hor-izonte, took the same basic approach, adapt-ing it over time to the particular concerns ofits residents. Once district representatives areelected in Belo Horizonte, for instance, theytake a district-wide bus tour to see firsthandthe top priorities identified by each neigh-

borhood and to get a better sense of the rel-ative needs in each place. Housing quicklyemerged as a priority of many neighbor-hoods, and the issue was popularized by theHomeless Movement. In response, the citycreated an additional participatory budgetingprocess to address housing needs, allocatingabout $8 million in 2001–02.67

Today, people in more than 140 cities inBrazil are benefiting from participatory bud-geting. In July 2001, the government enacteda national City Statute that requires munici-palities to include citizens in urban planningand management through participatory bud-geting, among other measures. Only a bit ofthe budget is up for grabs, and invariablymore needs are identified than there is cashto address them. But the process does getimportant issues on the agenda and thwartscorruption. Even if only a small share of acity’s budget is open to the participatoryprocess, local authorities have to explainwhere the rest of the money is going.68

Another way that some local governmentshave been engaging citizens is by adopting alocal version of the Agenda 21 for environ-ment and development that national leadersendorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio.At the urging of an association of local author-ities, the International Council for LocalEnvironmental Initiatives (ICLEI), delegatesin Rio included the goal that “by 1996, mostlocal authorities in each country should haveundertaken a consultative process with theirpopulation and achieved a consensus on aLocal Agenda 21.”69

To draft a Local Agenda 21, each gov-


149

Porto Alegre was trying to change itslocal politics so that votes would meanmore than bribes.


ernment must consult extensively with citizensto survey existing social, economic, and envi-ronmental conditions and to draft a list oflocal priorities. By 1996, some 2,000 munic-ipalities worldwide had introduced some ver-sion of a Local Agenda 21, and by 2002 thefigure reached 6,416 local governments in113 countries. Mayors in mostly northerncountries initially dominated the effort, withLeicester in the United Kingdom and Hamil-ton-Wentworth in Canada being early pio-neers, but southern cities are now emergingas strong leaders. For example, once citizensbecame engaged in Porto Alegre’s budgeting,the city revamped its environmental plan-ning to include greater citizen involvement.Manizales in Colombia and Nakuru in Kenyaare also showing the way.70

Mayors, local leaders, and citizens are verymuch on the front lines of reconciling theneeds of poor people for a better standard ofliving with the health of the environment—and they need support from their nationalgovernments. In 2001, local authoritiesengaged in developing Local Agenda 21swith their citizens identified three areas wherethey could use such help: sufficient funds toimplement new efforts; political support byheads of state and other national leaders; andrevision of a wide variety of national taxes,regulations, and standards to reward sus-tainable development practices. By grantingmore power to local governments whileallowing citizens to elect local officials, somenational governments have allowed the poorto have more say than ever before. RichardStren, Director of the Centre for Urban andCommunity Studies at the University ofToronto, points to national laws enacted byBrazil, India, the Philippines, and South Africain the last decade or so that have helped openup city halls.71

A whole chapter of South Africa’s 1996constitution focuses on local government

and has opened the way for more inclusivegovernance in Johannesburg and all its cities.In 1999, Johannesburg’s local governmentlaid out a three-year plan, iGoli 2002, tobegin to make up for the imbalances betweenservices afforded to wealthy white neighbor-hoods and poor black townships that becameentrenched through years of apartheid. Whilethe plan represents a step forward, a great dealof debate has centered on whether serviceswill be provided by government or privatecontractors, and it is still too early to measuresuccess.72

International agencies could also be moreeffective advocates for the urban poor. Onechallenge the World Bank has in supportingurban development is that its negotiationshave to be with national, not local, govern-ments. In February 2002, the Bank solicitedthe advice of Jane Jacobs on this point. Jacobsrose to prominence in the 1960s by analyz-ing policymakers’ approach to slums in theUnited States, but much of what she observed40 years ago in New York City resonates withpeople familiar with slums in many otherparts of the world today. Writing in The Deathand Life of Great American Cities in 1961, forexample, she noted: “Conventional planningapproaches to slums and slum dwellers arethoroughly paternalistic. The trouble withpaternalists is that they want to make impos-sibly profound changes, and they chooseimpossibly superficial means for doing so.To overcome slums, we must regard slumdwellers as people capable of understandingand acting upon their own self-interests,which they certainly are. We need to discern,respect, and build upon the forces for regen-eration in real cities. This is far from trying topatronize people into a better life, and it is farfrom what is done today.”73

When queried by the World Bank in 2002,Jacobs similarly pulled no punches: “If youreally are serious about supporting cities, you


150



151

should be able to lend directly to cities andnegotiate directly with them….If you areintimidated into dealing only with nationalgovernments, your intended help for cities willbe inefficient at best and perhaps self-defeat-ing.” With the formation of the Cities Alliancementioned earlier, the World Bank is still notlending directly to local governments, but ithas taken an important step toward buildingstronger relationships with them.74

International agencies can lend some mea-sure of political support by bringing localauthorities to the table to figure out how tomake urban development work for peopleand the planet. There is no legally bindingtreaty that compels nations to improve the liv-ing conditions of their cities while at thesame time reducing the demands that urbanareas make on Earth’s resources. But in 1976,in Vancouver, delegates from national gov-ernments did zero in on the role of humansettlements in the international push to rec-oncile environmental and development con-cerns. Twenty years later, at a Cities Summitin Istanbul, hundreds of local governmentsand NGOs joined representatives of 171countries in endorsing a Habitat Agenda towork toward a better urban future.75

The United Nations agency charged withcarrying out the Habitat Agenda is UN-HABITAT. For much of the 1990s it strug-gled without a permanent head, solidmanagement, or stable funding to raise theprofile of its twin goals: to ensure adequateshelter for all people and to make cities,towns, and villages greener and more equi-table places to live. But in the twenty-first cen-tury, UN-HABITAT has turned a corner,led by a charismatic new Executive Director,Anna Tibaijuka, who has inspired the confi-dence of national governments to give theorganization needed funds.76

For local authorities, the run-up to the

World Summit on Sustainable Developmentheld in Johannesburg in August-September2002 was somewhat similar to the receptionthey received in Rio 10 years earlier. The factthat local authorities and NGOs were engagedat all in the talks was a big step forward. ButUN-HABITAT, ICLEI, and other advocatesof good urban governance faced an uphillbattle in trying to focus national leaders onthe importance of cities to the future of sus-tainable development. They had to fight toinclude in official documents acknowledge-ment of the important role that cities could,should, and must play in charting a course fordevelopment that takes into account the needsof the poorest as well as the finite capacity ofthe planet.77

But if the negotiations and discussions atthe World Summit were not as useful as theycould have been for local governance andthe role of cities, the backdrop of Johannes-burg, South Africa, provided a compellingimage of a divided city that had thrown off theyoke of apartheid—and might, just possibly,begin to unite itself and chart a course forurban development that put its poorest peo-ple and their need for a healthy environmentfirst. In the coming decades, with most of theworld’s people living in cities for the firsttime in history and at least one in six peoplemired in extreme poverty, uniting dividedcities will become an even greater global chal-lenge. To rise to the task, governments mustcombat corruption and open city halls up toall their citizens, especially the poorest ones.

South Africa’s 1996 constitution focuseson local government and has openedthe way for more inclusive governancein all its cities.

As the U.S. debate over drilling for oil inAlaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) gathered steam in early 2002, anunusual ad appeared on television. Over mag-nificent shots of seacoasts, forests, and moun-tains, the narrator intones a Jewish prayer inwhich God says, “This is a beautiful world Ihave given you. Take care of it; do not ruinit.” The ad then argues against drilling inANWR, and proposes that America’s energyneeds be met through conservation, higherfuel efficiency standards, and greater use ofsolar and wind power. Perhaps the mostarresting statement is the last one: “Broughtto you by the Sierra Club and the NationalCouncil of Churches.”1

The teaming of a prominent U.S. environ-mental organization and a coalition of main-line Christian churches is especially surprisingbecause environmentalists and people of faith

have had limited contact since the start of themodern environmental movement. Never-theless, it may represent an emerging trend.Spiritual traditions—from large, centralizedreligions to local tribal spiritual authorities—are beginning to devote energy to what somesee as the defining challenge of our age: theneed to build just and environmentally healthysocieties. Worldwide, the major faiths are issu-ing declarations, advocating for new nationalpolicies, and designing educational activities insupport of a sustainable world—sometimes inpartnership with secular environmental orga-nizations such as the Sierra Club, sometimeson their own. Responding to the global crisis,smaller traditions are reviving ancient ritualsand practices in the service of sustainability. Thequickening of religious interest in environ-mental issues suggests that a powerful newpolitical alignment may be emerging that couldgreatly strengthen the effort to build a sus-tainable world.

The budding rapprochement of religiousand environmental groups could be of historicsignificance. Should it blossom, it could help

152

Gary Gardner

Chapter 8

Engaging Religion in the Questfor a Sustainable World

An expanded version of this chapter appeared as Worldwatch Paper 164, Invoking the Spirit:Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World.

heal the centuries-old rift in the West betweenreligion and the sciences (including eco-nomics and other social sciences). These twostreams of thought have diverged since theEuropean enlightenment, as science has grad-ually replaced religion as the authoritativesource for some of humanity’s grandest ques-tions, such as how the universe was formed.In the process, however, the scientific focuson writing an objective story about “what is”was achieved largely without reference to theemotive story of “what ought to be,” a tra-ditional strength of religion. (See Box 8–1.)By the twentieth century, industrial societiesin particular were strongly oriented to thecognitive, the rational, and the logical, withdevastating consequences: science, largelyunrestrained by ethics (whether from reli-gion or anywhere else), helped to deliver themost violent and most environmentally dam-aging century in human history.2

Our civilization’s challenge is to reintegrateour societal heart and head, to reestablishspirituality as a partner in dialogue with sci-ence. To accomplish this, the two groupswill need to surmount the suspicion and mis-understanding that have kept them at arm’slength for at least 40 years. The checkered his-tory of religious involvement in societalaffairs—multiple episodes of warfare, oppres-sion, intolerance, and hypocrisy—is com-monly cited by environmentalists as a reasonto avoid engagement with religion, evenamong those who acknowledge the selfless-ness and the passionate defense of marginal-ized people that are a major part of religioushistory. While acknowledging its shortcom-ings, the religious community can rightlyclaim enormous capacity for self-reform.

At the same time, the environmental com-munity has often alienated potential allieswith what is perceived as scientific aloofness,even self-righteousness. Its “left-brain”approach to its work is partly to blame for its

inability to connect with greater numbers ofpeople, to inspire profound commitment ona large scale. Given the central place of cul-ture in national development—and the cen-tral place of religion in most cultures—asustainable world cannot effectively be builtwithout full engagement of the human spirit.But with great effort, the two communitiescan bring about a historic reconciliation andgenerate the societal energy needed to sustainthe planet and its people.3


153

A single, authoritative definition of religionremains elusive, despite religion’s status asone of the oldest of human institutions.Still, several characteristics common tomany definitions can help to stake out therough boundaries of the discipline. In themost general terms, religion is an orienta-tion to the cosmos and to our role in it. Itoffers people a sense of ultimate meaningand the possibility for personal trans-formation and celebration of life.To thisend it uses a range of resources, includingworldviews, symbols, rituals, ethical norms,traditions, and (sometimes) institutionalstructures. Religion also offers a means ofexperiencing a sustaining creative force,whether as a creator deity, an awe-inspir-ing presence in nature, or simply thesource of all life.

Many of these characteristics give reli-gion substantial influence over the environ-ment.Worldviews shape attitudes towardthe natural world; rituals have been used to govern resource use, especially amongindigenous peoples; ethics influencesresource use and distribution; and institu-tional power can be wielded in ways thathave an impact on the environment.


BOX 8–1. WHAT IS RELIGION?

ENGAGING RELIGION IN THE QUEST FOR A SUSTAINABLE WORLD


The Potential Power ofEngaged Religion

Religious institutions and leaders can bring atleast five strong assets to the effort to builda sustainable world: the capacity to shapecosmologies (worldviews), moral authority, alarge base of adherents, significant materialresources, and community-building capac-ity. Religions are experienced at informing ourperspectives on issues of ultimate concern.They know how to inspire people and how towield moral authority. Many have the polit-ical clout associated with a huge base ofadherents. Some have considerable real estateholdings, buildings, and financial resources.And most produce strong community tiesby generating social resources such as trustand cooperation, which can be a powerfulboost to community development. Manypolitical movements would welcome any ofthese five assets. To be endowed with most orall of them, as many religions are, is to holdconsiderable political power.

Indeed, religion is an important source ofchange within individuals and across soci-eties. Cultural historian Thomas Berry seesreligion as one of the major societal drivers ofchange in the world, along with education,business, and government. And a recent text-book on psychology and the natural envi-ronment lists religion as one of four keysources of individual behavior changethroughout history. Indeed, major societalchanges of recent decades support these asser-tions. The Nicaraguan revolution (which wasstrongly supported by proponents of “liber-ation theology”), the U.S. civil rights move-ment led by the Reverend Martin LutherKing and energized by thousands of religioussupporters, and the Shi’ite-inspired Iranianrevolution are just a few societal-level changesin the twentieth century that were strongly

influenced or led by religious institutions orpeople of faith. Meanwhile, the global boy-cott of Nestlé products in the 1970s inresponse to the company’s aggressive mar-keting of baby formula is an example of indi-vidual (consumer) behavior change that wasstrongly bolstered by religious groups.4

The first key asset that religion brings tobear on societal change is the capacity toprovide meaning for a person’s life by shap-ing the individual’s cosmology—the funda-mental philosophical grounding out of whicha person lives his or her life. A cosmologyoffers answers to the most profound questionshuman beings ask: Who am I? Why am Ihere? What are my obligations to the worldaround me? Cosmologies are typicallyexpressed in the form of stories—tools ofcommunication that can engage people at adeep, affective level. The creation stories ofmany religious traditions, for example, offerways of interpreting not only the origin of theuniverse, but peoples’ place and purpose in itas well. Thus cosmologies give rise to ethicsbecause they help people to understand theirrelationship with each other and, in sometraditions, their relationship to the naturalworld. (See Box 8–2.) The capacity to influ-ence cosmology therefore translates into influ-ence over ethics and, in turn, over behavior.5

Religious cosmologies regarding the nat-ural environment are diverse, and the broadrange of teachings might suggest that somereligions are naturally “greener” than others.But the reality is more complex. Nearly all reli-gions can be commended and criticized forone aspect or another of their posture towardthe environment. A religion’s environmentalcredentials may depend on whether its teach-ing, its practice, or its potential for “greening”itself is being assessed. And scholars see greatpotential for developing environmental ethicseven within traditions that have lacked them.6

Religion’s capacity to provide meaning is


154



155

In the three western monotheistic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—morality hastraditionally been human-focused, with naturebeing of secondary importance and with Godtranscending the natural world.Thus the nat-ural world can be seen as a set of resourcesfor human use, a perspective that someobservers blame for the wasteful and destruc-tive development of the past two centuries.Yet scholars in each of these traditions findsubstantial grounds for building a strong envi-ronmental ethics.The Judaic concept of acovenant or legal agreement between God andhumanity, for example, can be extended to allof creation.The Christian focus on sacramentand incarnation are seen as lenses throughwhich the entire natural world can be viewedas sacred.And the Islamic concept of vice-regency teaches that the natural world is notowned by humans but is given to them intrust—a trust that implies certain responsibili-ties to preserve the balance of creation.

Hinduism and Buddhism in South Asia con-tain teachings concerning the natural worldthat are arguably in conflict. Some scholars inthese traditions emphasize the illusory natureof the material world and the desirability ofescaping suffering by turning to a timelessworld of spirit, in the case of Hinduism, or byseeking release in nirvana, in the case of somemeditative schools of Buddhism.This other-worldly orientation, some scholars argue,minimizes the importance of environmentaldegradation. On the other hand, both religionsplace great emphasis on correct conduct andon fulfillment of duty, which often includesobligations to environmental preservation.Thus Hindus regard rivers as sacred, and in the concept of lila, the creative play of thegods, Hindu theology engages the world as a creative manifestation of the divine.Meanwhile, Buddhist environmentalists oftenstress the importance of trees in the life of theBuddha, and “socially engaged” Buddhism inAsia and the United States is active in environ-

mental protection, especially of forests.The East Asian traditions of Confucianism

and Taoism seamlessly link the divine, human,and natural worlds.The divine is not seen astranscendent; instead, Earth’s fecundity is seenas continuously unfolding through nature’smovements across the seasons and throughhuman workings in the cycles of agriculture.This organic worldview is centered around theconcept of ch’i, the dynamic, material force thatinfuses the natural and human worlds, unifyingmatter and spirit. Confucianists and Taoistsseek to live in harmony with nature and withother human beings, while paying attention tothe movements of the Tao, the Way. Despitethe affinity of these traditions with an environ-mental ethic, however, deforestation, pollution,and other forms of environmental degradationhave become widespread in contemporaryEast Asia due to many factors, including rapidindustrialization and the decline of traditionalvalues in the last 50 years with the spread ofCommunism.

Finally, indigenous traditions, closely tied to their local bioregion for food and for mate-rials for clothing, shelter, and cultural activities,tend to have their environmental ethicsembedded in their worldviews. Gratitude forthe fecundity of nature is a common feature of their cultures. Ritual calendars are oftenderived from the cycles of nature, such as the appearance of the sun or moon, or theseasonal return of certain animals or plants.Indigenous traditions often have a very lightenvironmental footprint compared with indus-trial societies. Still, many indigenous traditionsrecall times of environmental degradation intheir mythologies. Since the colonial period,the efforts of indigenous people to livesustainably in their homelands have been hurtby the encroachment of settlements and bylogging, mining, and other forms of resourceexploitation.


BOX 8–2. RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVES ON NATURE


rooted deep in the human psyche. This capac-ity is often expressed through symbols, ritu-als, myths, and other practices that work at thelevel of affect. These speak to us from a pri-mal place, a place where we “know” in a sub-conscious way. Ritual, for example—therepeated patterns of activity that carry theoften inexpressible meaning of human expe-rience—is a deep form of communicationthat is tapped by both religious and secularleaders. A president or prime minister singingthe national anthem at a sporting event, handover heart, is engaging in powerful ritualisticbehavior that speaks to compatriots in a pro-found way. Because religious and spiritualtraditions have needed tools to express spir-itual concepts that are well beyond the capac-ity of language to convey, they have formillennia turned to ritual for help.7

Ritual communication, it turns out, hasalso had an important role in environmentalprotection among traditional societies. Whereresources have been managed well, the creditoften goes to “religious or ritual representa-tion of resource management,” according tocultural ecologist E. N. Anderson. Beforestripping bark from cedar trees, for instance,the Tlingit Indians of the Pacific Northwestperform a ritual apology to the spirits theybelieve live there, promising to take onlywhat they need. Among the Tsembaga peo-ple of New Guinea, pig festivals, ritual pigslaughters, and pig-eating ceremonies play akey role in maintaining ecological balance,redistributing land and pigs among people,and ensuring that the neediest are the first toreceive limited supplies of pork. Rituals suchas these are often dismissed as superstition bymodern peoples, yet anthropologists assertthat skilled use of ritual made many traditionalsocieties far more successful in caring fortheir environment than industrial societieshave been. The key, says Anderson, is tradi-tional societies’ understanding that ritual

helps people make emotional connectionswith the natural world, connections thatindustrial societies are slow to make.8

Growing out of the religion’s capacity toshape worldview is a second asset: the capac-ity to inspire and wield moral authority. Thisis a subtle asset, easily overlooked. Asked in1935 if the Pope might prove to be an ally ofthe Soviet Union, Josef Stalin is said to havereplied scornfully, “The Pope? How manydivisions has he got?” The dictator’s responsebetrays a dim understanding of the powerthat accrues to persons and organizationsskilled in appealing to the depths of thehuman spirit. Ironically, papal influence exer-cised through the Solidarity protest move-ment in Poland in the early 1980s was animportant factor in the eventual unraveling ofCommunist rule in Eastern Europe. Simi-larly, the Dalai Lama strongly affects Chi-nese government policy toward Tibet, eventhough he has lived in exile since 1959.Charisma and moral suasion are not the exclu-sive reserve of religious leaders, of course,but religious leaders have extensive experiencein spiritual matters, and understand well thepower inherent in touching people at thelevel of spirit.9

Turning to the more worldly assets, athird source of power for religions is thesheer number of followers they claim.Although only estimates are available, itseems that some 80–90 percent of people onthe planet belong to one of the world’s10,000 or so religions, with 150 or so ofthese faith traditions having at least a millionfollowers each. Adherents of the threelargest—Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism—account for about two thirds of the globalpopulation today. Another 20 percent of theworld subscribes to the remaining religions,and about 15 percent of people are nonreli-gious. (See Table 8–1.)10

Degrees of adherence among the billions


156


of religious people vary greatly, of course, asdoes the readiness of adherents to translatetheir faith into political action or lifestylechoices. And many believers within the samereligion or denomination may interpret theirfaith in conflicting ways, leading them to actat cross-purposes. But the raw numbers are soimpressive that mobilizing even a fraction ofadherents to the cause of building a just andenvironmentally healthy society could advancethe sustainability agenda dramatically. Addingnonreligious but spiritually oriented people tothe totals boosts the potential for influenceeven more.

Influence stemming from having a largenumber of followers is further enhanced bythe geographic concentration of many reli-gions, which increases their ability to makemass appeals and to coordinate action. In

120 countries, for example, Christians formthe majority of the population. Muslims arethe majority in 45 countries, and Buddhistsare in 9. When most people in a society havesimilar worldviews, leaders can make massappeals using a single, values-laden language.Pakistan did this in 2001 when, as a result ofthe National Conservation Strategy, the gov-ernment enlisted Muslim clergy in the NorthWest Frontier Province to launch an envi-ronmental awareness campaign based onteachings from the Koran. Government lead-ers and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) saw the religious leaders as a criticalpart of their mass awareness campaign, giventheir broad presence in the country and thefact that in some regions more people go tomosques than to schools.11

Of course, size is not always the mostimportant determinant of the potential tohelp shape a sustainable world. Indigenoustraditions, typically small in number, oftenpossess great wisdom on how to live in har-mony with nature. Most have an intimateknowledge of their local bioregion, which inturn is the source of revelation, ritual, and col-lective memory for them. And their world-views tend to integrate the temporal andspiritual realms. Although the stereotype ofindigenous people as good stewards of theirresource base is overstated, specialists in reli-gion and ecology see indigenous cultures ashaving an especially small environmental foot-print, as well as rituals of reciprocity andrespect for nature. These characteristics givethem particular moral relevance that can bean important source of knowledge and inspi-ration in building a sustainable world.12

The fourth asset that many religions canbring to the effort is substantial physical andfinancial resources. Real estate holdings aloneare impressive. The Alliance of Religions andConservation (ARC), an NGO based in theUnited Kingdom, estimates that religions


157

Table 8–1. Major Religions:Number of Adherents and Share

of World Population, 2000

Share of WorldReligion Adherents Population

(million) (percent)

Christianity 2,000 33.0Islam 1,188 19.6Hinduism 752 12.4Confucianism and

Chinese folk religion 391 6.5Buddhism 360 5.9Indigenous religions 228 3.8Sikhism 23 0.4Judaism 14 0.2Spiritualism 12 0.2Bahá’í faith 7 0.1Jainism 4 0.1Shintoism 3 0.05Taoism 3 0.05Zoroastrianism 3 0.05

Total 4,988 82.4



own up to 7 percent of the habitable area ofthe world. And buildings abound: Pakistanhas one mosque for every 30 households;the United States has one house of worshipfor every 900 residents. In addition, clinics,schools, orphanages, and other religiouslyrun social institutions give religious organi-zations a network of opportunities to shapedevelopment efforts. A large share of schoolsare run by religions, especially in developingcountries. Confucian and Indian Vedic healthcare make important religious contributionsto the health systems of China and India.And in the United States, the largest providerof social services after the federal govern-ment is the Catholic Church.13

While headlines regularly expose the lessthan ethical use of religious wealth, someexemplary cases illustrate the impact that reli-gious institutions could have in helping tonudge the world toward sustainability. In theUnited States, the Interfaith Center for Cor-porate Responsibility (ICCR), representing275 Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish insti-tutional investors, has been a leader for morethan three decades in shaping corporate oper-ating policies through the use of social pol-icy shareholder resolutions. More than half ofall socially oriented shareholder resolutionsfiled in the United States in the past threeyears were filed or co-filed by religious groups;on more than a third of them, religiousgroups were the primary filers. This role hascaught the attention of secular activists on cor-porate responsibility. “One of the first thingswe do when we run a campaign is make surethat the ICCR is on board,” says Tracey

Rembert of the Shareholder Action Network,which advocates ethical investing and share-holder action.14

Finally, religion has a particular capacity togenerate social capital: the bonds of trust,communication, cooperation, and informa-tion dissemination that create strong com-munities. Development economists began torecognize in the 1970s and 1980s that eco-nomic development is fueled not just bystocks of land, labor, and financial capital butalso by education (human capital) and healthyecosystems (ecological capital). By the 1990s,many theorists added social capital (commu-nity building) to the list because of its impor-tance as a lubricant and glue in manycommunities: it greases the wheels of com-munication and interaction, which in turnstrengthens the bonds that community mem-bers have with one another.15

While social capital is built by a broadrange of groups in civil society, from politicalparties to civic clubs and hobby groups, reli-gion is especially influential. Religions are pre-sent throughout most societies, including inthe most difficult to reach rural areas. Theytend to bring people together frequently, andthey encourage members to help one anotheras well as the dispossessed. Perhaps mostimportant, the beliefs shared among membersare an especially strong unifying force. “Sacredmeaning is one of the deepest bonding forcessocieties possess,” notes Mary Clark, a writeron historical change. Moreover, she adds,where sacred meaning is absent, societies tendto disintegrate.16

Data from the United States support thisinterpretation of religion as communitybuilder. Analyzing survey data, sociologistAndrew Greeley showed that religious insti-tutions or persons, which are responsible for34 percent of all volunteerism in the UnitedStates, generated volunteers not just for reli-gious work but for other society-building


158

The pace of meetings and collaborationsamong religious and environmental groupshas increased markedly since 1986.


efforts as well. About a third of the educa-tional, political, youth, and human servicesvoluntarism, about a quarter of the health-related voluntarism, and about a fifth of theemployment-related volunteer work wasundertaken by people motivated by theirfaith. The willingness to work for societalbetterment, not just for the particular inter-ests of a religious group, holds potential forthe movement to build a sustainable world,especially because the environment is an issueof common concern for the planet and forfuture generations that transcends religiousand national differences.17

Cooperation and CautionAs deforestation, climate change, water short-ages, extensive poverty, and other global illshave assumed greater prominence in thepublic mind, and as the religious and envi-ronmental communities increasingly appre-ciate their common interest in combatingthese problems, the two communities havebegun to work together on the agenda of sus-tainable development. The trend is hopefuland could represent the budding emergenceof a powerful new alliance for sustainability.But significant obstacles to cooperation alsoexist, and these must be managed well if thefull engagement of earth and spirit is to berealized.

On the positive side, the pace of meetingsand collaborations among religious and envi-ronmental groups has increased markedlysince the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF) sponsored an interreligious meetingin Assisi, Italy, in 1986 that brought togetherrepresentatives of five of the world’s majorreligions. That seminal meeting was followedby other major conferences and important ini-tiatives, both between the two communitiesand among religious traditions. (See Table8–2.) Some of the initiatives have blossomed

into networks: the National Religious Part-nership for the Environment in the UnitedStates and the Alliance for Religions andConservation in the United Kingdom bringtogether diverse faith groups to plan strate-gies for raising awareness and taking action onenvironmental issues. The increased activityand commitment represented by the initiativessuggests that environmentalism is not just apassing fad for religious groups.18

One development of particular note was a10-part conference series on world religionsand ecology held at Harvard University’sCenter for the Study of World Religions from1996 to 1998. The series brought togetherthe most diverse spectrum of individuals andinstitutions ever convened on the topic, withmore than 800 scholars and environmentalactivists from major religious traditions andfrom six continents participating. The con-ferences are noteworthy not only for thescholarship they produced—nine volumes onenvironmentalism from the perspective ofmajor religious traditions, with another forth-coming—but also for their extensive engage-ment of people from outside of religion andreligious studies. Scientists, ethicists, educa-tors, and public policymakers all took anactive part. A culminating conference washeld at the American Museum of NaturalHistory, and the United Nations Environ-ment Programme hosted conference orga-nizers for their press briefing announcing theconferences’ findings. Perhaps most significantfor the religion/environment dialogue, theForum on Religion and Ecology (the fol-low-on organization to the conferences) ishoused at Harvard’s Center for the Envi-ronment, so that scholars of religious tradi-tions can be in continuing contact withenvironmental scientists and policymakers.19

Despite the many laudable advances, seri-ous obstacles remain to more extensive reli-gious/environmental collaboration. These


159



160

Initiatives

World Wide Fund for Nature conference, Assisi, Italy, 1986

World Council of Churches (WCC)Climate Change Programme, 1988

Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, 1988, 1990,1992, and 1993

Parliament of World Religions, 1993and 1999

Summit on Religion and Environment,Windsor, England, 1995

Harvard conferences on Religions ofthe World and Ecology, 1996–98

Religion, Science and EnvironmentSymposia, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2002

Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders,August 2000

Sacred Gifts for a Living Planet con-ference, Nepal, 2000

International Seminar on Religion,Culture, and Environment,Tehran,Iran, June 2001


Description

In the first major meeting of its kind, representatives of five of the world’s faiths discuss strategies for helping their com-munities to assist in protecting the environment.

The WCC creates a program to lobby governments andinternational organizations to fundamentally reorient “thesocioeconomic structures and personal lifestyles” that haveled to the current climate change crisis.

In their 1990 statement, 32 globally renowned scientistsappeal to the world religious community “to commit, in wordand deed, and boldly as is required, to preserve the environ-ment of the Earth.”

Commemorating the first Parliament in 1893, representativesof the world’s religions gather and issue declarations onethics regarding global issues, from environmental degradationto violations of human rights.

Hosted by Prince Phillip, leaders of nine world religions,along with secular leaders, gather to discuss implementationplans for religion-based conservation projects. Theconference results in the creation of the Alliance of Religionsand Conservation.

Some 800 scholars from a broad range of religious traditionsdo research and outreach work on the religion/ecology con-nection. Nine volumes, each focusing on a different tradition,are published.The Forum on Religion and Ecology emerges tocontinue the work.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew convenes a series of ship-board symposia focusing on regional water-relatedenvironmental issues. The symposia involve scientists, policy-makers, religious leaders, and journalists.

More than 1,000 religious leaders meet at the United Nations;environment is a major topic of discussion. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls for a new ethic of global stewardship.

Organized by WWF and ARC,11 major religions, representing4.5 billion people, offered 26 conservation gifts to helpimprove the environment.

Sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programmeand the Islamic Republic, conference discusses the importanceof fighting environmental degradation.The Seminar culminatesin the signing of the Tehran Declaration, which reaffirms commitments made at the Millennium World Peace Summit.

Table 8–2. Religious Initiatives and Partnerships on Environment and Sustainability


fall into two major categories: mutual mis-perceptions, and differences in worldviewthat produce opposing positions on sensitiveissues.

Today’s misperceptions of religion by envi-ronmentalists, and of the environmentalmovement by people of faith, are manifesta-tions of the centuries-long growing chasmbetween science and spirituality, a chasm thatwidened by the twentieth century. Near-mys-tical writings like those of John Muir, founderof the Sierra Club, which testified to the awe-inspiring power of nature, gave way to morescientific analysis. And in recent decades, withthe emergence of the agenda that becamethe sustainability movement (which includedthe environment, women’s issues, and otherareas on which many religions had not beenvocal), the gap between the two has at timesappeared unbridgeable.

In this context, a landmark 1967 essayby historian Lynn White may have helpedwiden the breach, at least between groups inthe United States. White argued that theJudeo-Christian mandate to subdue Earthand to be fruitful and multiply set the philo-sophical foundation for environmentallydestructive industrial development in theChristian West. The claim is controversialand has been strongly critiqued by manyreligious scholars, not least because White’sargument is founded on just a few lines ofscripture. Still, many critics of White acknowl-edge that parts of the Bible may have helpedcreate an instrumentalist view of natureamong Jews and Christians.20

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Popetakes the critique of White in a differentdirection, arguing that an entire generationof environmentalists was soured on religionby their skewed reading of White’s essay. Henotes that environmentalists have widelyignored the fact that whatever the merits ofthe critique, White also asserted that religion

would need to be part of the solution to thegrowing environmental crisis. He even endedthe essay by suggesting that St. Francis ofAssisi, the Tuscan lover of nature and thepoor, become the patron saint of ecologists.21

The incomplete reading of White’s essay,Pope argues, gave many environmentaliststhe belief that religion is the problem, and ledmany environmental groups to shun reli-gious communities in their work. But hesees this as a great mistake: Environmental-ists have “made no more profound errorthan to misunderstand the mission of religionand the churches in preserving the Cre-ation,” Pope says. “For almost thirty years,we…acted as though we could save futuregenerations, and…unnamed…species, with-out the full engagement of the institutionsthrough which we save ourselves….Werejected the churches.”22

Although the situation is improving,uneasiness between the two groups continuestoday, at least in the United States. Cassan-dra Carmichael, Director of Faith-Based Out-reach at the Center for a New AmericanDream, a U.S. NGO that helps Americansconsume responsibly, notes that environ-mentalists and religious people—both ofwhom she works with closely—have troubleunderstanding each other. “Their perspec-tives are often different…[they] may not haveexperience talking or working [with eachother], which is a shame, because they oftenshare the same values when it comes to envi-ronmental sustainability.” The challenge, shesays, is to develop a common language thatwould help the two communities work aspartners.23

At the same time, some negative percep-tions of religion are not entirely unfounded,and these pose special challenges to religiousinstitutions and people of faith. To the extentthat religion acts as a conservative social force,it may correctly be perceived as an obstacle to


161


sustainability, since a sustainable world will notbe built without major changes to the world’seconomies. Where religions neglect theirprophetic potential and their calling to becritics of immoral social and environmentalrealities, they are likely to be distrusted bythose working to change those trends.Indeed, some would argue that religions andreligious people today too seldom wear themantle of the prophet, in the sense of beinga critic of the established order. Franciscanwriter and author Richard Rohr asks, “Whyis it that church people by and large mirrorthe larger population on almost allcounts?...On the whole, we tend to be just asprotective of power, prestige, and posses-sions as everyone else.”24

But Rohr does not despair. He sees a longtradition of reform of religion that allows itto get back to its roots—and to the power andinfluence found there. Paradoxically, thatcharismatic power emerges from an embraceof powerlessness, of vulnerability, and of spir-itual freedom (liberation from undue attach-ment to the material world) that are found atthe core of the great religions. Thus the veryreform of religion that could benefit the effortto heal the planet and its people would alsolikely give religion a critical new relevance.25

Beyond the differences in perception lietensions that emerge from differing world-views. Consider the issue of the status ofwomen. Advocates of sustainability oftenview women as being denied equality andeven oppressed by some religions, while somereligions see the question of gender equalityas a non-issue, given their view that familyand societal roles played by men and womenare naturally different. Because of the centralrole of women in combating malnutrition,reducing infectious disease, promoting edu-cation, and stabilizing populations (see Chap-ter 3), the perception that religioncontributes to the marginalization of half of

humanity is a serious obstacle for collabora-tion on development issues. On the otherhand, the fact that women are more involvedthan men in nearly all religions offers hopethat their voices will one day carry equalweight with those of men.26

Similarly, divergent views of when humanpersonhood begins—at conception, or later—have left many religious people and sustain-ability advocates at odds over abortion, anespecially sensitive issue. Representatives ofthe Vatican and of Muslim countries, forexample, battled with proponents of repro-ductive rights over language to be includedin the final declaration from the InternationalConference on Population and Developmentin Cairo in 1994—a battle that left each sidemore wary than ever about prospects forfuture dialogue, much less cooperation. Aslong as the two communities hold their cur-rent positions, cooperation is unlikely onthose issues.27

The profound issue of what constitutestruth is another difference in worldview thatcan separate the two communities. Some reli-gious positions are based on a belief that theuniverse contains a set of objective truths—things that are true in all places, at all times—such as that God exists, or that all sentientbeings have a right to live. For many peopleof faith, objective truth is not negotiable.When the two communities are separated byan issue that religious people see as contain-ing an objective truth, compromise wouldseem to be impossible. On such issues, thetwo sides may simply need to agree to dis-agree, respecting each other’s views whileputting disagreements aside and workingtogether on areas of agreement.

In addition, different perspectives on theplace of humanity in the natural order canalso separate the two communities—and cre-ate divisions within them. Some deep ecol-ogists, for example, see humans as just


162


another of many species in the natural world,with no greater or lesser moral value thanother species, while more mainstream envi-ronmentalists would assign a special placeto humanity, even as they demand thathumans live in a way that respects the entirenatural world. Similar divisions can be foundamong spiritually inclined people as well,with some spiritual adherents to the Gaiahypothesis—the idea that the planet is a sin-gle, interconnected organism, all of which isvital—taking positions similar to those ofdeep ecologists.28

Despite the tremendous challenges, col-laboration is possible, even between science-oriented environmentalists and scripturallycentered religious traditions. EvangelicalChristians in the United States, for example,have formed an Evangelical EnvironmentalNetwork to promote conservation and envi-ronmental stewardship—not only because ofscientific arguments for conservation, butbecause the natural world is God’s creationand must therefore be protected. The groupis credited with playing a pivotal role in block-ing attempts in the U.S. Congress in 1996 toweaken the Endangered Species Act, callingit the “Noah’s Ark of our day” for its role inpreserving species, and accusing Congress of“trying to sink it.” The credibility of theevangelical group with moderate members ofCongress—combined with a $1 million lob-bying effort—helped persuade some of thosemembers not to dilute the act.29

The Environment as Sacred Ground

Ritual, as noted earlier, was central in regu-lating the use of trees, rivers, and otherresources among indigenous peoples andcould conceivably be adapted to other cul-tures. (See Box 8–3.) More broadly, the val-ues that mold our perspective of nature

“come primarily from religious worldviewsand ethical practices,” according to MaryEvelyn Tucker and John Grim of the Forumon Religion and Ecology at Harvard Uni-versity’s Center for the Environment. Giventhe power of religion to shape our views ofnature, religious teachings about the naturalworld in this era could influence how quicklyor easily the world makes the transition tosustainable economies. Growing religiousinterest in environmentally friendly ethicsand practices suggest that the world’s reli-gions are beginning to use their many assetsto advance this teaching role.30

Consider, for example, the many state-ments in recent years by religious leaders onbehalf of the environment. The Dalai Lamahas made environmental protection the themeof numerous major statements since the mid-1980s—including several speeches at theEarth Summit in 1992—and environmentalprotection is one of the five points of hispeace plan for Tibet. Ecumenical PatriarchBartholomew, symbolic leader of the 250-mil-lion member Orthodox Church, has been inthe forefront of bringing scientists and reli-gious leaders together to study water-relatedenvironmental issues. And Pope John Paul IIissued major environmental statements in1990 and 2001, and a joint statement withPatriarch Bartholomew in June 2002.31

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, inparticular, has effectively leveraged moralauthority and church resources for environ-mental and social ends. Elected by the HolySynod in 1992, the Patriarch has made envi-


163

On some issues, the two sides may needto agree to disagree, respecting eachother’s views while working together onareas of agreement.


ronmental awareness and ecumenical dia-logue an important pursuit of his patriar-chate. In addition to regular environmentalstatements, he established Religion, Scienceand the Environment (RSE) in 1994, anorganization that has brought religious andpolitical leaders, scientists, journalists, andtheologians together for symposia and train-

ing; in the process he has raised the profile ofenvironmental issues in the Aegean and BlackSeas, down the Danube River, in the AdriaticSea, and in the Mediterranean.32

Perhaps the most influential RSE initiativehas been the shipboard symposia hosted bythe Patriarch and focusing on water-relatedenvironmental issues. Aboard a chartered


164

For thousands of years, ritual has played a cen-tral role in governing sustainable use of thenatural environment.The Tsembaga people ofNew Guinea, for example, use ritual to allocatescarce protein for their people in a way thatdoes not cause irreversible damage to theland.The Tukano of the Northwest Amazonuse myth and ritual to prevent overhunting andoverfishing in their territory.And in the longestcontinually inhabited place in the UnitedStates, the Hopi village of Oraibi, people spendup to half of their time in ritual activity duringcertain parts of the year.Among all enduringcultures, ritual has been “a sophisticated socialand spiritual technology” that has helped peo-ple to live in harmony with the natural world.

A recent example of the use of ritual forconservation comes from Thailand, where“environmentalist monks” are finding ways to engage Buddhism in the effort to save thecountry from further deforestation. In 1991,in the village of Giew Muang, a monk namedPrhaku Pitak helped to breathe life into anineffective local forest conservation move-ment.The effort focused on a forest used by10 surrounding villages that had been degradedand denuded by decades of exploitation. Pitakfirst used slide shows, environmental educationprograms, and agricultural projects to teach villagers the importance of forest conserva-tion, finding ways to make his case in aBuddhist framework. He dubbed the Buddha“the first environmentalist,” for example,

because the Buddha’s life was closelyintegrated with forests.And he stressed theinterrelatedness of trees, water supply, andfood production, capitalizing on the Buddhistteaching of “dependent origination,” the interdependence of all things.

Pitak’s use of religious rituals to supportthe conservation efforts was perhaps his mostcreative and effective initiative. Because manyof the villagers followed indigenous religions as well as Buddhism, Pitak first followed theirsuggestion to enlist a village elder in asking thevillage’s guardian spirit to bless the conserva-tion effort.A shrine was built to the spirit,and offerings were made, involving everyhousehold in the village.Then Pitak turned toBuddhist rituals. Joined by 10 other monks andsurrounded by the villagers, Pitak “ordained”the largest tree in the forest, wrapping asaffron robe around it and following most ofthe rite used in a normal ordination ceremony.No villager actually viewed the tree as a monkof course, but the ordination gave the conser-vation effort a sacred meaning.Villagers nolonger dismissed the effort, because it wasnow more than a civic activity. In seeing thetrees not just as resources but as part of a larger ecological and mystical reality, the villagers were part of the millennia-long chainof generations that have used ritual to helpmaintain sustainable resource use.


BOX 8–3. THE LINK BETWEEN RITUAL, ECOLOGY, AND SUSTAINABLE CULTURES


ship for approximately a week, scientists andtheologians hear dozens of lectures on theenvironmental problems facing the area theyare traveling in. The participants tend to beinfluential: in addition to the Patriarch, the2002 Adriatic Sea symposium included aspecial consultant to the U.N. Secretary-General, the former head of the U.N. Envi-ronment Programme, the head of the U.N.Development Programme, two RomanCatholic cardinals, the Primate of the Churchof Sweden, imams from Egypt and Syria, asheikh from Albania, the grand imam ofBosnia and Herzegovina, several ambas-sadors, several heads of environmental anddevelopment-oriented NGOs, the presidentof the U.N. Foundation, and some 40 jour-nalists. Sharing meals and living quarters,lectures and field trips, these high-profileparticipants and other attendees learn andnetwork with each other, to impressive effect.The Adriatic symposium ended in Venicewith the Ecumenical Patriarch and PopeJohn Paul II signing a joint declaration onenvironmental protection.33

The gatherings focus on bodies of water inreal trouble, such as the Black Sea, now themost degraded marine area in Europe. Dam-age to the sea in the past three decades hasbeen described as “catastrophic,” due tocoastal development, invasion of exoticspecies, damming of rivers feeding the sea,and the growing burden of fertilizer runoffand other pollutants. The 1997 Symposiumvisited ports in seven countries, sponsoredfield trips to degraded areas, and offeredmore than 30 lectures. Beyond building rela-tionships among scientists and religious lead-ers and raising public environmentalawareness through the hundreds of newsreports generated by participating journalists,the trip inspired concrete initiatives on behalfof the environment. It gave rise to the HalkiEcological Institute, for example, a two-week-

long program in 1999 to introduce Ortho-dox priests and seminary students and jour-nalists to the environmental ills of the BlackSea. The World Bank increased funding for aBlack Sea program, one of its few grant ini-tiatives, in part because a World Bank vicepresident was at the 1997 symposium. And aneducational and environmental remediationcampaign for the Black Sea region, spon-sored by the U.N. Environment Programmeand the World Council of Churches, is nowbeing planned, again because of contactsmade at the symposium.34

Similar fruits are being reaped from the1999 symposium on the Danube River. Par-ticipants testify to the role of this gatheringin creating a sense of connection among thepeople of the river’s nine host countries, evenin the face of the ongoing Yugoslav war.“Divided peoples felt united by the river,”explains Philip Weller, then a program direc-tor of the WWF Danube Carpathian projectand a meeting participant. “The symposiumhelped people to feel connected to nature.”This emotional connection was possiblebecause of the great interest generated bythe Ecumenical Patriarch’s participation.“People are still talking about…the Patri-arch’s involvement, three years after theevent,” notes another participant. This is aprime example of how the moral authority ofreligion might be focused on building a sus-tainable world. 35

Far from the Danube, a very differentcase—the effort to clean up the Ganges Riverin India—illustrates the role that worldviewsplay in setting attitudes toward the environ-ment. It also demonstrates the hard work andrespect needed to bring together people withwidely divergent religious and secular world-views. The Ganges, also known as the Ganga,is one of the world’s major rivers, running formore than 2,500 kilometers from theHimalayas to the Bay of Bengal. It is also one


165


of the most polluted, primarily from sewagebut also from animal carcasses, human corpses,and soap and other pollutants from bathers.Indeed, scientists measure fecal coliform lev-els at thousands of times what is permissible,and levels of oxygen in the water are similarlyunhealthy. Renewal efforts have centered pri-marily on the government-sponsored GangaAction Plan (GAP), started in 1985 with thegoal of cleaning up the river by 1993. Severalwestern-style sewage treatment plants werebuilt along the river, but they were poorlydesigned, poorly maintained, and prone toshut down during the region’s frequent poweroutages. The GAP has been a colossal failure,and many argue that the river is more pollutednow than it was in 1985.36

There is another view of the river, however,that parallels the scientific one. Hindus reverethe Ganga as a goddess, a sacred river whosewaters are, by definition, pure. Believers flockto it to bathe in the conviction that the river’swater will cleanse them, even removing theirsins. Indeed, along the seven-kilometer stretchat Varanasi (also known as Banaras), one ofIndia’s most sacred cities, some 60,000 pil-grims take a “holy dip” each day. In addition,many Hindus long to have their crematedremains disposed of in the Ganga in order torelease them from the ongoing cycle of suf-fering that governs life in the material world.To Hindus, the river is much more than aconduit for Himalayan snowmelt. It is MotherGanga, the source of eternal life.37

The difference in Hindu and secular per-spectives on the river could not be morestark. Indeed, to many Hindus it is a graveinsult to describe Mother Ganga as polluted.They do not deny that foul material has beendumped in the river, nor do they dispute thescientific reality of high levels of fecal coliform.But for many Hindus, these are mundaneissues with no relevance to the Ganga’s spir-itual essence. Indeed, Mother Ganga’s essen-

tial purity leaves some Hindus unmoved bythe calls for a cleanup, since such an effortwould make no difference to Mother Ganga’sessential identity. Others, however, seecleanup as a way of respecting and honoringMother Ganga. In any case, the sensitivitiesabout language complicate religious involve-ment in ending abuse of the Ganga.38

Yet such engagement is possible, as evi-denced by the activities of Dr. V. B. Mishra,a hydrologist and professor of civil engineer-ing who has been working for more thantwo decades to rid the river of contaminants.He is also the mahant, or head priest, of theSankat Mochan Temple in Varanasi. With histwo professional hats, Mishra embodies thedivergent secular and religious worldviews—and finds both necessary for a completeunderstanding of the river. “Science and tech-nology are one bank of the river,” he explains,“and faith is the other.…Both are needed tocontain the river and ensure its survival.”With only one bank, he says, the river wouldspill away and disappear.39

Mishra has brought his integrated per-spective to his activism, although he is care-ful about which hat is given the greaterprominence at any particular moment. In1984, he founded the Sankat Mochan Foun-dation—a secular organization that workswith many people who are driven by theirHindu faith—to launch a Clean Ganga Cam-paign, intended to rid the river of its conta-minants. The efforts of his group helped toprompt the government to launch the GAPin 1985. (The foundation later opposed thegovernment efforts, however, once theyfailed.) More recently, the foundation hasworked to bring alternative sewage technol-ogy to the river—technology that will bemore reliable than the high-tech but fragileprojects built by the GAP.40

Today the Clean Ganga Campaign is care-ful to respect the distinction between phys-


166


ical cleanness and purity in its campaign forthe Ganga. It maintains respect for religiousbelief in Ganga’s purification power even asit promotes measures to reduce the materialwaste load on the river. By carefully makingthe distinction between cleanness and purity,the Campaign earns the respect of both sides,and helps to create a fusion of Hinduismand science.41

Ethical ConsumptionReligions have long had a strong interest inrestraining consumption, although for reasonsvery different from the concerns of environ-

mentalists. The ecological argument againstexcessive consumption—that populationgrowth, ever-greater levels of individual con-sumption, and one-time use of materials havecombined to deplete stocks of raw materialsand to degrade ecosystems—is solid, wellestablished, and stands strongly on its own.But religious traditions broaden the discus-sion by citing the corrosive effect of excessiveconsumption not only on the environment,but on the development of character, both ofindividuals and of societies. (See Table 8–3.)Living simply, many religions teach, frees upresources for those in need and frees thehuman spirit to cultivate relationships with


167

Religion or Faith

Indigenous: Micmacchief, North America

Judaism: Isaiah 55:2

Christianity:1 John 3.17

Islam: Koran 7.31

Taoism:Tao Te Chingchapter 33

Hinduism:Acarangasutra 2.114–19

Confucianism:Confucius, XI.15

Buddhism:Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

Bahá’í:The Bahá’íStatement on Nature

Quotation

Miserable as we seem in thy eyes, we consider ourselves…much happier thanthou, in this that we are very content with the little that we have.

Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor forthat which does not satisfy?

How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees abrother or sister in need and yet refuses to help?

Eat and drink, but waste not by excess; verily He loves not the excessive.

He who knows he has enough is rich.

On gaining the desired object, one should not feel elated. On not receiving thedesired object, one should not feel dejected. In case of obtaining anything inexcess, one should not hoard it. One should abstain from acquisitiveness.

Excess and deficiency are equally at fault.

The deep sense of calm that nature provides…protects our heart and mind.Thelessons nature teaches us lead to a new birth beyond suffering caused by ouracquisitive self-preoccupation.

The major threats to our world environment…are manifestations of a world-encompassing sickness of the human spirit, a sickness that is marked by anoveremphasis on material things and a self-centeredness that inhibits our abilityto work together as a global community.

Table 8–3. Selected Religious Teachings on Consumption



neighbors, with the natural world, and withthe world of spirit. Adding these social andspiritual arguments for moderation to thenewer ecological one yields a powerful case forsimplicity, and situates consumption moreclearly in a comprehensive understanding ofwhat it means to be a developed person anda developed society.42

Despite a history of teachings on the spir-itual corruption associated with excessiveattachment to wealth or material accumula-tion, religious leaders and institutions inindustrial nations have largely failed to addressthe consumerist engine that drives industrialeconomies, aside from issuing occasionalstatements on the topic. Concrete initiativesto promote simple living—such as simplicitycircles in pockets of the United States andEurope, where neighbors gather to discusshow to achieve simplicity in a high-con-sumption culture—are few, and most are notpromoted or sponsored by organized reli-gion. The newly installed Archbishop of Can-terbury, Rowan Williams, has said thatcurbing the culture of consumption will be alarge focus of his ministry as head of theAnglican Church. But he must be sobered bythe experience of Pope John Paul II, who setas a strategic goal of his papacy a dampeningof the influence of consumerism in indus-trial cultures. Despite centuries of experiencepreaching against the illusion of satisfactionprovided by earthly wealth, religion in indus-trial countries is struggling in its efforts tocounter the consumerist tide.43

These traditions might find encourage-ment in the spiritually rooted ethic of mod-

erate consumption found in a developingcountry, Sri Lanka. Since 1958, a grassrootsdevelopment effort there known as SarvodayaShramadana has promoted village-baseddevelopment programs that explicitly inte-grate material and spiritual development. Themovement, whose name roughly means“awakening of all through sharing,” motivatesvillagers to undertake a broad range of devel-opment projects, from latrine building toestablishment of preschools and cultural cen-ters, within a framework of Buddhist princi-ples. The movement has grown to encompassmore than half of the country’s 24,000 vil-lages and is now the largest developmentNGO in Sri Lanka. Its success draws on twomajor assets that religion brings to develop-ment: the motivational power of religiousprinciples and the capacity to generate and use“social capital” for development.44

Buddhist principles are central to Sarvo-daya’s vision of development, and from thisvision emerges the Sarvodayan ethic of con-sumption. In the Buddhist worldview, thegoal in life is spiritual awakening, or enlight-enment, which requires a person to over-come desire—the source of all humansuffering, according to the Buddha. Over-coming desire, in turn, requires a spiritualdetachment from material goods, so that theindividual is indifferent to them, neither crav-ing goods nor rejecting them. This posture ofindifference is difficult to achieve in a cultureof mass consumption, where advertisers delib-erately confuse needs with desires and encour-age acquisitiveness. Thus for Sarvodayans,consumption is not an economic end, as itoften is in the West, where consumption isregarded as a prime engine of economicgrowth. Instead, Sarvodayans see consump-tion as a tool: it provides the material platformneeded to support the spiritual work of arriv-ing at enlightenment.45

Indeed, one of the distinguishing features


168

Religion in industrial countries isstruggling in its efforts to counter theconsumerist tide.


of the Sarvodayan vision of development isthat it explicitly and deliberately includesnot just the material requisites for a dignifiedlife, but also the educational, social, cultural,and spiritual requirements. This broad per-spective is reflected in the list of 10 majorhuman needs that guide Sarvodayan devel-opment work:

• a clean and beautiful environment,• a clean and adequate supply of water,• basic clothing,• a balanced diet,• a simple house to live in,• basic health care,• simple communications facilities,• basic energy requirements,• well-rounded education, and• cultural and spiritual sustenance.46

The list of 10 basic needs helps to supportan ethic of moderate consumption. By plac-ing nonmaterial needs on a par with mater-ial ones, the list underlines the importance ofthe nonmaterial dimension of development.And it implicitly suggests where to limit con-sumption: if meeting the 10 needs essen-tially provides for a decent life, seeking morewould seem to signal “greed, sloth, or igno-rance,” in the words of one Sarvodayaobserver, and would not therefore further aperson’s development.47

The Sarvodayan consumption ethic is fur-ther shaped by a principle of social justicethat underlies the Sarvodayan vision of devel-opment. Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, founder of themovement, notes that one purpose of thelist of 10 basic needs is to analyze the devel-opment status of the weakest group in thecommunity, then work to improve its posi-tion. This recalibration function is far morefeasible from a list of 10 basic needs than itwould be if the list essentially embraced awide range of human desires. Indeed, theSarvodaya goal is a “no poverty, no afflu-ence” society.48

In a more subtle but still powerful way, thesocial capital created by Sarvodaya activitieslikely reinforces an ethic of moderate con-sumption. The word shramadana refers tothe voluntary gift of labor made by villagersin Sarvodaya projects, such as road building,clearing an irrigation ditch, or other activi-ties that benefit the village as a whole. Shar-ing pervades the movement’s philosophy: aspart of their work project, villagers eattogether, sharing food that each has con-tributed. They share chants, prayers, andmeditation as part of the project. They shareideas. And in the ideal, they share a com-mitment to what Buddhists know as “rightspeech”—encouragement, praise, and theavoidance of gossip and slander.49

The emphasis on sharing creates strongcommunity ties; in fact, studies identifyincreased cohesion and village unity as one ofthe most important outcomes of the projects.This social outcome may in fact be moreimportant than the physical achievements ofthe project, because it fosters long-lasting tiesof mutual trust and communication that makeother community initiatives possible. In onevillage, for example, the practice of sharingfood during the work camp prompted vil-lagers to institute a monthly potluck mealafter the project ended.50

While Sarvodaya is far ahead of most oth-ers in inspiring adherents to moderate con-sumption, western religions are showing signsof flexing their market muscle to steer con-sumption in a greener direction. Such activ-ities are an adaptation of the establishedreligious practice of using boycotts to influ-ence corporations on issues of social justice.Religious support globally for the boycottof Nestlé products in the 1970s, for example,pressured that company to end its aggres-sive marketing of baby formula in developingcountries, where it had too often displacedbreast-feeding, the healthier approach. And


169


churches were strong supporters of grapeand lettuce boycotts in support of the UnitedFarm Workers in California in the 1960s and1970s.51

Today some congregations are movingbeyond boycotts to help steer consumptiontoward green companies, largely by harness-ing another great religious asset—the sheermass of adherents. Because of the substantialmarket presence of people of faith, thesefledgling efforts could potentially have a largeimpact. One creative example in the UnitedStates is the work of the Regeneration Pro-ject in California, an initiative of the Episco-pal Church. It includes Episcopal Power andLight (EP&L), a ministry that promotesgreen energy and energy efficiency. EP&L wasstarted in 1996 when Reverend Sally Bing-ham realized that she might capitalize on thestate’s deregulation of energy to persuade abloc of customers—the state’s Episcopalians—to choose energy generated from renewablesources, such as wind, geothermal, and bio-mass. The project also encourages partici-pating parishes to undertake an energy auditof their buildings. The Regeneration Projectincludes California Interfaith Power andLight, which does political advocacy to pro-mote renewable energy.52

In its short life, the Regeneration Projecthas spread to seven states, and it could havea substantial effect on energy consumptionpatterns if adopted by religious groups andadherents nationwide. In addition to offer-ing a shot in the arm for emerging renewableenergy companies, the project could helpboost energy conservation. The U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) calcu-lated in 1995 that an energy efficiencyupgrade of the country’s 269,000 houses ofworship—which account for about 5 per-cent of U.S. commercial building floorspace—would prevent 6 million tons of car-bon dioxide from being released to the

atmosphere, while saving congregations morethan $500 million.53

The carbon savings would be only a tinyfraction of U.S. carbon emissions, but thereal returns would come from enlisting con-gregant support for similar conservation activ-ities in their homes. Of the 12 categories ofcommercial buildings designated by the U.S.Department of Energy and used in the EPAsurvey, only office buildings are visited bymore adults more frequently than houses ofworship. Indeed, the 44 percent of the Amer-ican public who visit a church, synagogue, ormosque at least monthly constitutes a hugepool of potential converts to energy effi-ciency and green energy sources, especially ifefforts to green the church are accompaniedby efforts to raise consciousness among con-gregants, as in the EP&L program.54

Another effort to tackle ethical con-sumption is religious participation in theInterfaith Coffee program run by EqualExchange, a for-profit U.S. company. Thecompany sells only coffee that is “fair-traded,”which means that participating farmers areguaranteed a minimum price for their harvest,no matter what market conditions mightdictate. This helps farmers avoid the erraticprice swings that characterize many interna-tional commodity markets, which gives themgreater economic stability. Equal Exchangeis also committed to helping farmers securecredit at rates they can afford, and to encour-aging ecologically sustainable farming prac-tices, including organic and shade-growncultivation.55

Equal Exchange recognized that its ethi-cal approach to coffee might appeal to peo-ple of faith. They knew, too, that manyAmericans are regular churchgoers, and thatsome of these attend “coffee hours” afterservices. So they established their InterfaithCoffee Program to encourage congregationsand individuals to switch to fair-traded cof-


170


fee. Begun in 1997 as a partnership with theaid agency Lutheran World Relief, the pro-gram now includes the American FriendsService Committee, the Presbyterian ChurchUSA, and the Unitarian Universalist ServiceCommittee. While small, it has grownrapidly: more than 3,500 congregations par-ticipated at the end of 2001, just over 1 per-cent of all houses of worship in the UnitedStates, but up from a handful when the pro-gram started. The Interfaith program is thefastest-growing segment of Equal Exchange’sbusiness, and now accounts for 11 percent ofthe firm’s sales.56

As with green energy, the potential forpeople of faith to change coffee consumptionpatterns is huge. Coffee is the second mostwidely consumed beverage in the UnitedStates, and its ethical consumption requireslittle or no sacrifice. Yet drinking fair-tradedcoffee yields great personal satisfaction—it’s“drinking a cup of justice,” in the words ofone Lutheran Interfaith Coffee participant.With 99 percent of the institutional religiousmarket untouched, the program would havea major impact on the U.S. coffee market ifreligious groups nationwide were to climb onboard—and if participating congregants werepersuaded to take their new habit home.57

The coffee program offers extensiveopportunities to educate congregations abouta host of justice issues, from the terms oftrade in international commerce to the valueof co-ops and organic farming. It can helppeople of faith, who have long supportedaid and relief programs, to broaden theirefforts beyond charity and into justice. Grasp-ing this bigger picture, one participant notedthat “our consumer dollars are hurting thevery people our offering dollars are trying tohelp.” Such consciousness-raising can sparka “virtuous circle,” as consumers begin toconsider the effects of other patterns of con-sumption on far-flung people and places.58

Another potentially high-leverage area forintroducing ethics into economic decisions isthrough financial investments. As noted ear-lier, religious institutions are already active inholding corporations accountable for theirpractices through the use of shareholder res-olutions. This consciousness, extended toreligious individuals, could have a substantialeffect on investment patterns. Socially respon-sible investment (SRI) accounted for only12 percent of all investments in 2000. Reli-giously led campaigns to persuade the 44percent of Americans who attend religious ser-vices at least monthly to shift their investmentdollars to SRI could give a substantial boostto the SRI movement.59

Accelerating EngagementIn pockets of activity worldwide, many reli-gions are beginning to show interest in build-ing a sustainable world, as the record of thepast decade demonstrates. At the same time,advocates of sustainability are becomingsomewhat more receptive to spiritual appeals,as seen in the WWF collaboration withchurches along the Danube River or the adinitiative by the Sierra Club and the NationalCouncil of Churches in the United States.More extensive engagement of environmen-talism by the religious community, and ofspirituality by the environmental and devel-opment communities, is possible—andneeded. Some of this can occur in the formof partnerships. Some can take place withineach community. If the conditions are indeedripe to build bridges between the two disci-plines, such initiatives could conceivably con-tribute to a historic ending to the schismbetween society’s head and heart.

At the international level, several organi-zations have shown leadership in tackling thisengagement head-on, setting an example forthe work of local religious and environmen-


171


tal communities. The U.N. EnvironmentProgramme, for example, has publishedreports on faiths and the environment datingback to 1991. It has given guidance and sup-port to the Interfaith Partnership for theEnvironment, a group of scholars from diversefaiths, in various projects, including the pub-lication of a book describing the posture ofmajor religions toward the environment. TheWorld Bank has held major interfaith meet-ings on development questions since 1998,out of which has emerged the World FaithsDevelopment Dialogue, which has increasedreligious input to the work of the Bank. Onthe religious side, the World Council ofChurches’ Climate Change Programme wasformed in 1988 to lobby governments andinternational organizations to work for poli-

cies to combat climate change.60

Each side has important assets to bring tothe table. Religions could use their assetbase—their ability to shape worldviews andtheir authority, numbers, material resources,and capacity to build community—toadvance the work of sustainability. Each reli-gious tradition will know how it might bestuse its particular strengths; the mix of actionswill vary from tradition to tradition and fromplace to place. For each of the five asset areas,any number of activities is possible. (SeeTable 8–4.)

In the arena of moral authority—perhapsthe most powerful asset religions possess—several initiatives are possible. First, religiousleaders might use their elevated social stand-ing to call for an end to systematic abuse of


172

Asset

Worldview development

Moral authority

Numbers

Material resources

Community building

Approaches to Consider

• Assess teachings; ensure that the natural world is sufficiently represented in worldviewand ethics.

• Use the pulpit to address the global crisis of sustainability.• Use the congregational newsletter, bulletin, or Web site as a platform.• Make effective use of the media, through placement of op eds, letters to the editor,

and coverage of congregation’s environmental activities.• Engage political leaders who make decisions affecting sustainability.

• Encourage members to write letters, join boycotts or protests, or in other wayscreatively bring their full political weight to bear on these issues.

• Educate members about consumption and encourage them to consume less and to buyproducts that have low environmental impact.

• Encourage members to shift investments to companies with exemplary environmentaland labor records.

• Use physical facilities as a venue for discussing issues of sustainability or for organizingsustainability activities.

• Use physical facilities as a showcase of simplicity and for renewable energy, energy con-servation, organic gardening, or other activities that could promote sustainable living.

• Shift purchasing and investment decisions to favor a sustainable world.

• Increase bonds of trust and communication, and deepen emotional ties to the environ-ment, by organizing environmentally oriented service activities.

• Build on existing social ties to support congregants in attempts to simplify their lives.

Table 8–4. Leveraging Religious Assets


the environment and for the creation of ajust and environmentally healthy world in away that would capture the attention of manypeople.

Efforts such as the WWF-sponsored meet-ing of religious leaders in Assisi in 1986 or theEcumenical Patriarch’s symposia for religiousleaders and scientists are good models of theecumenical spirit needed to expand the open-ness of each community to the perspective ofthe other. Imagine stepping up a few notchesthe bold initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchin co-signing an environmental declarationwith the Pope. Suppose that these westernreligious leaders, along with the Dalai Lama,the Grand Muftis of Syria, and leaders of adozen other religions, were to travel to theNorth Pole to bear witness to a meltingworld, and to call for action to stop it. Or sup-pose they were to hold an interreligious prayervigil outside the annual meetings of the WorldBank, calling attention to policies that serveto increase the miseries of the poor. Surelysuch leadership would lift discussion of theseissues to an entirely new level, and mightwell increase pressure for action. It wouldalso likely enhance the prestige of religion, asfollowers and critics alike would gain newrespect for leaders who demonstrated a will-ingness to grapple seriously with contempo-rary challenges.

Wrestling with such challenges might helpreligions to increase their moral authority inanother way. By reading the “signs of thetimes” through the lens of their own scrip-tures, religious traditions might demonstratethe relevance of their teachings for the majorissues of our day, even as they help address thetremendous environmental and social needsof this moment in history. Several tools—retrieval, reevaluation, and reconstruction—are used by some theologians for evaluatingscripture and tradition in the light of con-temporary circumstances.61

The first is to retrieve teachings that havelain dormant but that are especially relevanttoday. One example of this was the revival lastdecade of the Hebrew tradition of theJubilee—the teaching from Leviticus thatdebts should be forgiven, and slaves freed,every 50 years—to generate support for thegoal of reducing the debt of the world’s poor-est nations. Known for millennia, this scrip-tural teaching became particularly evocativein the 1990s because of contemporary cir-cumstances: poor countries struggled underthe burden of huge debt payments, whichwere siphoning off the money available forinvestments in health and education. As theyear 2000 approached, and nations searchedfor a meaningful way to mark the millen-nium, the Jubilee tradition spoke to the globalcommunity in a new and fresh way.62

Arguably the most powerful latent teach-ing in many faith traditions is the exhortationto avoid preoccupation with wealth and mate-rialism. Excessive consumption is the enginethat runs the world’s most powerfuleconomies, and the arguments used to resistit—it is bad for the environment, and oftenbad for human health—have made only smalldents in the trend. Religions are in a positionto weigh in more strongly with the spiritualand moral case against excessive consumption:that it diverts attention from the most impor-tant goals of life, and that it squandersresources that might be used to help thepoor. And beyond preaching, they couldbecome more active in the community bysponsoring neighborhood groups that seek topromote simplicity and by otherwise offeringsupport to those who seek to live simply.

Religions also reevaluate and reconstructtraditional teachings in light of present real-ities. A good example of this comes fromAfrica, where the high rates of HIV infectionhave pushed some churches and mosques torethink their teachings on condom use.


173


Increasingly uncomfortable with prohibi-tions of condom use as they watch masses ofpeople—often their own congregants—liesick and dying from a disease that prophy-lactics could largely prevent, many local lead-ers have questioned the policy. Muslimcommunities in several African nations havechanged direction on teachings about con-doms. And a Catholic bishop in South Africahas called for a reversal of his church’s teach-ing on condom use.63

Whether these particular reevaluations andreconstructions should be adopted broadly byvarious religions is a question to be decidedby each tradition. The point here is simplythat established religions have centuries ofexperience reading their central tenets in thelight of contemporary realities. Indeed, it isthe adaptability of religion, which resultsfrom the universality and timelessness of theircore teachings, that helps to make it one ofthe most enduring of human institutions.Some scholars even suggest replacing theterm “religious traditions” with “religiousprocesses,” so consistent is the theme of adap-tation in the history of most religions.64

The challenge for environmentalists andother advocates of sustainability, meanwhile,may be to build a greater appreciation for theimportance of spirituality into their own work.Public overtures toward people’s spiritualsensibilities could be a powerful step forwardfor sustainability. This is important not sim-ply to win religious people as allies, butbecause spirituality is important for develop-ment. All development activities are embed-

ded in a cultural context; if pursued unwisely,they can provoke a cultural backlash. TheShah of Iran, in his attempt to “modernize”that country between the 1950s and 1970s,paid too little attention to religious sensibil-ities in the process and learned firsthand,through the 1979 revolution that dethronedhim, how costly this insensitivity can be.

A good demonstration of the sensitivityneeded is found at the United Nations Pop-ulation Fund (UNFPA), which works aroundthe world on issues of reproductive health.In Kenya, where UNFPA seeks to preventthe spread of AIDS by halting the contrac-tion of HIV among sex workers, the agencycollaborates with Catholic parishes and withsecular health clinics—but in different ways.UNFPA underwrites the provision of con-doms at the health clinic. But at the parishes,the agency follows a policy sensitive toCatholic teaching about condom use andfunds programs that offer income-generat-ing projects as an alternative to the sex work.In sum, UNFPA identifies common groundfor collaboration rather than focusing onareas of difference—a helpful model for tra-versing the bumpy spots in the relationshipbetween sustainability groups and some reli-gious communities.65

In addition to respecting the religious sen-sibilities of a culture, environmentalists mightseek ways to express spirituality in their ownprograms and communication efforts. Suchexpressions need not be religious, of course,but might instead focus on creating an emo-tional/spiritual connection between the pub-lic and the natural environment—anindispensable and largely missing link in theeffort to generate commitment to sustain-ability. As Harvard biologist Stephen JayGould has suggested, “We cannot win thisbattle to save species and environments with-out forging an emotional bond between our-selves and nature as well—for we will not


174

The challenge for advocates of sustainability may be to build a greaterappreciation for the importance of spirituality into their work.


fight to save what we do not love.”66

Building on Gould’s thought, environ-mental educator David Orr challenges sci-entists (including environmentalists) to kneademotion into their work. He notes that mostbiologists and ecologists “believe that coldrationality, fearless objectivity, and a bit oftechnology” will get humanity out of its envi-ronmental predicament. But those tools havelong been used, with minimal success. Whatis missing, Orr unabashedly asserts, is love.“Why is it so hard to talk about love, the mostpowerful of human emotions, in relation toscience, the most powerful and far-reachingof human activities?” Orr asks. He notes thatpassion and good science, far from beingantithetical, are as interdependent as the heartand the brain. Both are needed if we are tofully understand our world and our role in it.67

Environmentalists can help to infuse asense of emotion into their work by gettingback to the movement’s own roots. Althougha rare voice today, passionate environmentalwriting was once the norm for conservation-ists. Consider this from the writings of JohnMuir, founder of the Sierra Club: “Perchedlike a fly on this Yosemite dome, I gaze andsketch and bask…humbly prostrate beforethe vast display of God’s power, and eager to

offer self-denial and renunciation with eter-nal toil to learn any lesson in the divine man-uscript.” Such prose reaches people in adifferent place than the one that takes inanalysis and statistics—the necessary yet lim-ited language of modern environmentalism—and it motivates in a way that the sciencealone cannot.68

By combining their considerable skills andcomplementary perspectives, environmen-talists and religious people can help reuniteour civilization’s head and heart, re-engagingreligion in the quest for a new cosmology, anew worldview for our time. Cultural histo-rian Thomas Berry calls this emerging per-spective a New Story—the story of a peoplein an intimate and caring relationship withtheir planet, with their cosmos, and with eachother. Its ethics would deal not just withhomicide and suicide, but equally with bio-cide and geocide, in Berry’s words. It wouldbe as comfortable with awe and wonder aswith weights and measures. It would rewritethe story of unrestrained science and tech-nology, of a human species alienated from itsown home. It would be the vehicle to guideus to a socially just and environmentally sus-tainable future.69


175

177

State of the World: A Year in Review

October 2001. U.N. Food and Agriculture Orga-nization (FAO), “Deforestation Continues at aHigh Rate in Tropical Areas; FAO Calls UponCountries to Fight Forest Crime and Corrup-tion,” press release (Rome: 3 October 2001);U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration, “NOAA, NASA Report 2001 OzoneHole Similar in Size to Holes of Past Three Years,”press release (Washington, DC: 16 October 2001);cancer study presented at European Cancer Con-ference, Lisbon, and cited in “Counting Cher-nobyl’s Cancer Cost,” Environment News Service,23 October 2001.

November 2001. FAO, “International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources for Food and AgricultureApproved by FAO Conference,” press release(Rome: 3 November 2001); U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Agency, “U.S. Car-bon Dioxide Emissions Increase by 3.1 Percent in2000—1 Percentage Point Lower than GDPGrowth,” press release (Washington, DC: 9November 1999); World Trade Organization,“Conference Ends With Agreement on New Pro-gramme,” press release (Geneva: 14 November2002); “Smugglers Steal 38 Mln Animals fromBrazil’s Forests,” Reuters, 14 November 2001;Reg Watson and Daniel Pauly, “Systematic Dis-tortions in World Fisheries Catch Trends,” Nature,29 November 2001, pp. 534–36; David Quistand Ignacio H. Chapela, “Transgenic DNA Intro-gressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oax-aca, Mexico,” Nature, 29 November 2001, pp.541–43.

December 2001. “Mexican Officials Report

Deforestation Worse Than Previously Thought,”Associated Press, 4 December 2001; U.N. Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP), “Felling of ForestsAdding to World’s Water Shortages as Dams FillUp With Silt,” press release (Nairobi: 4 Decem-ber 2001); United Nations, Division for OceanAffairs and the Law of the Sea, “The UnitedNations Agreement for the Implementation ofthe Provisions of the United Nations Conventionon the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982relating to the Conservation and Management ofStraddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory FishStocks (in force as from 11 December 2001),” at<www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm>, viewed 12September 2002; World Meteorological Organi-zation, “WMO Statement on the Status of theGlobal Climate in 2001,” press release (Geneva:18 December 2001).

January 2002. North American Commission forEnvironmental Cooperation, “Significant Biodi-versity Loss Across North America, NAFTA Body’sState of the Environment Report Says,” pressrelease (Montreal: 7 January 2002); M. Vrijheidet al., “Chromosomal Congenital Anomalies andResidence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites,”The Lancet, vol. 359 (2002), pp. 320–22; MarcosA. Orellana, “Unearthing Governance: Obstaclesand Opportunities for Public Participation in Min-erals Policy,” in Carl Bruch, ed., The New “Pub-lic”: The Globalization of Public Participation(Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute,2002), p. 238; Government of Germany, “Trittin:Zukunft der Windenergie Liegt auf See,” pressrelease (Berlin: 25 January 2002).

February 2002. “Worst Flooding in DecadesInundates Indonesia,” Environment News Service,

Notes

NOTES, A YEAR IN REVIEW

7 February 2002; Mark F. Meier, “Shrinking Glac-iers and Rising Sea Level: Has the Impact BeenUnderestimated?” presentation at the 2002 AnnualMeeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS), Boston, 16 Feb-ruary 2001; Charles Birkeland et al., “New Tech-nologies Make Marine Reserves Imperative,”presentation at the 2002 Annual Meeting of theAAAS, Boston, 18 February 2001; Basel ActionNetwork, “High-Tech Toxic Trash from USAFound to Be Flooding Asia,” press release (Seat-tle: 25 February 2002).

March 2002. U.N. Population Division (UNPD),“Experts Concur: Fertility In Developing Coun-tries May Fall Below Two-Child Family Norm,”press release (New York: 21 March 2002); idem,Department of Economic and Social Affairs, WorldUrbanization Prospects: The 2001 Revision, DataTables and Highlights (New York: United Nations,2002); U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center,“Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses,” press release (Boul-der, CO: 21 March 2002); United Nations, “Mon-terrey Conference on Development FinancingConcludes; Participants Resolve to EradicatePoverty, Achieve Sustainable Economic Growth,”press release (New York: 22 March 2002).

April 2002. Bob Burton, “New Zealand EndsRainforest Logging on Public Lands,” Environ-ment News Service, 1 April 2002; David Buchan,“Market in Greenhouse Gas Allowance TradingOpens,” Financial Times, 2 April 2002; HowardW. French, “China’s Growing Deserts Are Suffo-cating Korea,” New York Times, 14 April 2002;“Cracks in China’s Three Gorges Dam,” BBCNews Online, 12 April 2002.

May 2002. “Occidental Petroleum Abandons OilDevelopment on U’wa Land,” Environment NewsService, 3 May 2002; Inform, “130 Million CellPhones Will Be Discarded Annually in the US by2005,” press release (New York: 8 May 2002);“Poachers Kill Rwandan Endangered MountainGorillas,” Reuters, 15 May 2002; World HealthOrganization (WHO), “Pollution-related Dis-eases Kill Millions of Children a Year,” press release(New York: 9 May 2002); CRC Reef ResearchCentre, “Too Much Stress for the Reef?,” pressrelease (Townsville, Australia: 23 May 2002);

Office of the President of Mexico, “The FederalGovernment Makes the Seas of Mexico a NationalWhale Sanctuary,” press release (Mexico City: 24May 2002); Katharine G. Seelye, “President Dis-tances Himself From Global Warming Report,”New York Times, 5 June 2002; European Com-mission, “European Union Ratifies the KyotoProtocol,” press release (Brussels: 31 May 2002).

June 2002. “Costa Rica Cracks Down on Mining,Logging,” Environment News Service, 11 June2002; Axel Bugge, “Brazil’s Amazon Destruc-tion Down But Still Alarming,” Reuters, 12 June2002; WHO, “Europe Achieves Historic Mile-stone as Region Is Declared Polio-Free,” pressrelease (Geneva: 21 June 2002).

July 2002. Office of the Mayor of New YorkCity, “Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Signs Tem-porary Recycling Requirements,” press release(New York: 1 July 2002); UNICEF, “Joint ReportDetails Escalating Global Orphan Crisis Due toAIDS,” press release (New York: 10 July 2002);Julie Eilperin, “U.S. Withholds $34 Million inFamily Planning Funding to UN,” WashingtonPost, 23 July 2002; Office of the Governor ofCalifornia, “Governor Davis Signs Historic GlobalWarming Bill,” press release (Sacramento, CA:22 July 2002); “Bush Signs Yucca Mountain Res-olution,” Environment News Service, 24 July 2002.

August 2002. UNEP–World Conservation Mon-itoring Centre, “‘World Atlas of Biodiversity’ FirstMap-Based View of Earth’s Living Resources,”press release (Cambridge, UK: 1 August 2002);Andrew Balmford et al., “Economic Reasons forConserving Wild Nature,” Science, 9 August 2002,p. 950; UNEP, “Regional and Global Impacts ofVast Pollution Cloud Detailed In New ScientificStudy,” press release (Nairobi: 12 August 2002);Feminist Majority Foundation, “Male PreferenceContinues to Grow in Asia,” press release (Arling-ton, VA: 15 August 2002); International EnergyAgency, “Energy and Poverty: IEA Reveals aVicious and Unsustainable Circle,” press release(Paris: 21 August 2002); Conservation Interna-tional, “World’s Largest Rain Forest National ParkCreated in Northern Amazon,” press release(Washington, DC: 22 August 2002).


178

NOTES, A YEAR IN REVIEW AND CHAPTER 1

September 2002. United Nations, “With a Senseof Urgency, Johannesburg Summit Sets an ActionAgenda,” press release (3 September 2002); Con-servation International, “U.S. Government Com-mits $36 Million to Protect Congo’s Forests,”press release (Washington, DC: 4 September2002); Keith Bradsher, “A Rosy, Pink Cloud,Packed With Pollution,” New York Times, 10 Sep-tember 2002; World Food Programme, “South-ern Africa Crisis Worsens: 14.4 Million People InDire Need,” press release (Rome: 16 September2002); Mike Linstead, “Greens Save Schroeder’sSkin,” BBC News Online, 23 September 2002.

Chapter 1. A History of Our Future

1. Except where otherwise noted, account ofStone Age people drawn from Paul R. Ehrlich,Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the HumanProspect (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000); fora popular article on the transition that they evi-dently started, see Jared Diamond, “The GreatLeap Forward,” Discover, May 1989, pp. 50–60.

2. Henri Delporte, Les Aurignaciens: PremiersHommes Modernes (Paris: Maison des roches,1998), pp. 56–69.

3. Needles and spear points from ibid., pp.63–66; rope and amber from Diamond, op. cit.note 1, p. 57; music, art, and burial grounds fromClive Gamble, The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe(Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press,1999), pp. 337, 310, 405.

4. This is the main point of Diamond, op. cit.note 1.

5. A generation, the interval between birth andreproduction, is here assumed to be 20 years.

6. Robert Engelman, Brian Halweil, andDanielle Nierenberg, “Rethinking Population,Improving Lives,” in Worldwatch Institute, Stateof the World 2002 (New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2002), p. 130; Danielle Nierenberg,“Population Growing Steadily,” in WorldwatchInstitute, Vital Signs 2002 (New York: W.W. Nor-ton & Company, 2002), p. 88; absolute povertyfrom World Bank, World Development Report

2000/2001 (New York: Oxford University Press),p. 23.

7. Food imports and drought from Engelman,Halweil, and Nierenberg, op. cit. note 6, p. 134;cropland quality from Brian Halweil, “FarmlandQuality Deteriorating,” in Worldwatch Institute,Vital Signs 2002, op. cit. note 6, p. 102.

8. Seth Dunn, “Carbon Emissions Reach NewHigh,” in Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs 2002,op. cit. note 6, p. 52; idem, “Carbon EmissionsContinue Decline,” in Worldwatch Institute, VitalSigns 2001 (New York: W.W. Norton & Com-pany, 2001), p. 52.

9. Danielle Nierenberg, “Toxic Fertility,” WorldWatch, March/April 2001, pp. 30–38.

10. Elena Bennett and Steve R. Carpenter, “PSoup,” World Watch, March/April 2002, pp.24–32.

11. Nierenberg, op. cit. note 9; Bennett andCarpenter, op. cit. note 10.

12. Anne Platt McGinn, “Toxic Waste LargelyUnseen,” in Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs2002, op. cit. note 6, p. 112; disposal proceduresfrom Travis Wagner, In Our Backyard: A Guide toUnderstanding Pollution and Its Effects (NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1994), pp. 133–39.

13. Payal Sampat, “Groundwater Shock,” WorldWatch, January/February 2000, pp. 10–22.

14. Anne Platt McGinn, Why Poison Ourselves? APrecautionary Approach to Synthetic Chemicals,Worldwatch Paper 153 (Washington, DC: World-watch Institute, November 2000).

15. Overviews of bioinvasion from YvonneBaskin, A Plague of Rats and Rubbervines: TheGrowing Threat of Species Invasions (Washington,DC: Island Press, 2002), from Harold A. Mooneyand Richard J. Hobbs, Invasive Species in a Chang-ing World (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000),and from Chris Bright, Life Out of Bounds (NewYork: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998).


179

NOTES, CHAPTER 1

16. For the Argentine ant, see Caroline E. Chris-tian, “Consequences of Biological Invasion Revealthe Importance of Mutualism for Plant Commu-nities,” Nature, 11 October 2001, pp. 635–39.

17. Rate of tropical forest decline from U.N.Food and Agriculture Organization, Global For-est Resources Assessment 2000 (Rome: 2001), pp.9–10; global forest decline from Janet N.Abramovitz, “Forest Loss Unchecked,” in World-watch Institute, Vital Signs 2002, op. cit. note 6,p. 104; wetlands from Janet Larson, “WetlandsDecline,” in Worldwatch Institute, op. cit. note 8,p. 96.

18. Lisa Mastny, “World’s Coral Reefs DyingOff,” in Worldwatch Institute, op. cit. note 8, p.92; Gary Gardner, “Fish Harvest Down,” inWorldwatch Institute, Vital Signs 2000 (New York:W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), p. 40; IUCNSpecies Survival Commission, 2002 IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species (Gland, Switzerland:IUCN–World Conservation Union, 2002), p. 8.

19. Consumption statistic from United NationsPopulation Fund (UNFPA), The State of WorldPopulation 2001 (New York: 2001), chapter 1.

20. Smallpox eradication campaign from F. Fen-ner et al., Smallpox and Its Eradication (Geneva:World Health Organization, 1988); for worldpopulation in 1967, see the U.S. Census Bureau,International Database, at <www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html>.

21. Fenner et al., op. cit. note 20.

22. René Dubos, Man Adapting (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 379.

23. Fenner et al., op. cit. note 20.

24. David E. Bloom and Jeffrey G. Williamson,“Demographic Transitions and Economic Miraclesin Emerging Asia,” The World Bank EconomicReview, vol. 12, no. 3 (1998), pp. 422–24; Ans-ley J. Coale, “The Decline of Fertility in EuropeSince the Eighteenth Century as a Chapter inHuman Demographic History,” in Ansley J. Coaleand Susan Cotts Watkins, eds., The Decline of Fer-

tility in Europe: the Revised Proceedings of a Con-ference on the Princeton European Fertility Pro-ject (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1986), p. 27.

25. East-West Center, The Future of Populationin Asia (Hawaii: East-West Center, 2002), pp.25, 106–09; Bloom and Williamson, op. cit. note24, p. 419.

26. Population increase in the twentieth centuryfrom U.S. Census Bureau, World Population Infor-mation, Historical Estimates of World Population,at <www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html>,viewed 10 October 2002; industrial-country totalfertility rate (TFR) from UNFPA, op. cit. note 19;United Nations, Report on the International Con-ference on Population and Development, 18 Octo-ber 1994, chapter 6, section 6.1.

27. Estimates of annual increments in populationgrowth (recent years and projections) availablefrom U.S. Census Bureau, op. cit. note 20, andfrom United Nations Population Division, WorldPopulation Prospects, Population Database, at<esa.un.org/unpp/>.

28. Ann Hwang, “AIDS Passes 20-Year Mark,”in Worldwatch Institute, Vital Signs 2002, op. cit.note 6, pp. 90–91; the dozen countries with sub-stantial declines in TFRs are Bangladesh, India,Iran, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nige-ria, the Philippines, Syria, Turkey, and Viet Nam;Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Iran’s Family PlanningProgram: Responding to a Nation’s Needs (Wash-ington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, June2002); TFR data from United Nations PopulationDivision, op. cit. note 27.

29. Radheshyam Bairagi and Ashish KumarDatta, “Demographic Transition in Bangladesh:What Happened in the Twentieth Century andWhat Will Happen Next?” Asia-Pacific PopulationJournal, December 2001, pp. 4–7; TFR data fromUnited Nations Population Division, op. cit. note27.

30. TFR data from United Nations PopulationDivision, op. cit. note 27; Thomas McDevitt, Pop-ulation Trends: Peru (Washington, DC: U.S. Cen-


180

NOTES, CHAPTERS 1 AND 2

sus Bureau, March 1999), p. 2; U.N. DevelopmentProgramme, Human Development Report 2002(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

31. Population Reference Bureau, 2001 WorldPopulation Data Sheet, wallchart (Washington,DC: 2001).

32. Developing-world TFR from United NationsPopulation Division, op. cit. note 27.

33. Brian Halweil, “Where Have All the Farm-ers Gone?” World Watch, September/October2000, pp. 12–28; Christopher Flavin, “WindEnergy Surges,” in Worldwatch Institute, VitalSigns 2002, op. cit. note 6, p. 42; Molly O. Shee-han, “Solar Cell Use Rises Quickly,” in ibid., p. 44.

34. John Terborgh and Carel van Schaik, “Whythe World Needs Parks,” in John Terborgh et al.,eds., Making Parks Work: Strategies for PreservingTropical Nature (Washington, DC: Island Press,2002), pp. 5–6.

Chapter 2.Watching Birds Disappear

1. “The Extinction of Spix’s Macaw in theWild,” World Birdwatch, March 2001, pp. 9–11;Alison J. Stattersfield and David R. Capper, eds.,Threatened Birds of the World (Barcelona: LynxEdicions, 2000), p. 258; Josep del Hoyo, AndrewElliott, and Jordi Sargatal, eds., Handbook of Birdsof the World, Volume 4 (Barcelona: Lynx Edicions,1997), p. 419; Renato Caparroz et al., “Analysisof the Genetic Variability in a Sample of theRemaining Group of Spix’s Macaw by DNA Fin-gerprinting,” Biological Conservation, vol. 99, no.3 (2001), pp. 307–11.

2. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1.

3. Ibid.

4. Josep del Hoyo, Andrew Elliott, and JordiSargatal, eds., Handbook of the Birds of the World,Volume 6 (Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, 2001), pp.100–01; idem, Handbook of the Birds of the World,Volume 2 (Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, 1994), p.239; Hussein Adan Isack, “The Cultural and Eco-nomic Importance of Birds Among the Boran

People of Northern Kenya,” in A. W. Diamondand F. L. Filion, The Value of Birds (Cambridge:International Council for Bird Preservation, 1987),pp. 91–95.

5. Kenneth D. Whitney et al., “Seed Dispersalby Certatogymna Hornbills in the Dja Reserve,Cameroon,” Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 14(1998), pp. 351–71; del Hoyo, Elliott, and Sar-gatal, Volume 6, op. cit. note 4, pp. 91–92.

6. Deborah J. Pain and Michael W. Pienkowski,eds., Farming and Birds in Europe (New York: Aca-demic Press, 1997), pp. 128–37; Josep del Hoyo,Andrew Elliott, and Jordi Sargatal, eds., Handbookof the Birds of the World, Volume 5 (Barcelona:Lynx Edicions, 1999), pp. 499, 523; A. W. Dia-mond, “A Global View of Cultural and EconomicUses of Birds,” in Diamond and Filion, op. cit.note 4, pp. 106; Daniel A. Walsh, “Birds as Indi-cators of Forest Stand Condition in Boreal Forestsof Eastern Canada,” in Diamond and Filion, op.cit. note 4, pp. 261–64.

7. David Peakall and Hugh Boyd, “Birds asBio-Indicators of Environmental Conditions,”and S. J. Ormerod and Stephanie J. Tyler, “Dip-pers and Grey Wagtails as Indicators of StreamAcidity in Upland Wales,” in Diamond and Filion,op. cit. note 4, pp. 113–18, 191–207.

8. Alison J. Stattersfield, BirdLife International,e-mail to author, June 2002; Stattersfield andCapper, op. cit. note 1; David W. Steadman,“Human-Caused Extinction of Birds,” in Mar-jorie L. Reaka-Kudla, Don E. Wilson, and EdwardO. Wilson, eds., Biodiversity II: Understandingand Protecting Our Biological Resources (Wash-ington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1996), p. 148.Box 2–1 from the following sources: Graham M.Tucker and Melanie F. Heath, Birds in Europe:Their Conservation Status (Cambridge, U.K.:BirdLife International, 1994), p. 13; U.K. Environ-ment Agency, at <www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/wildlife/ 213126/?version=1&lang=_e>, viewed May 2001; U.S. Geo-logical Survey, at <www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/guild99.html>, viewed May 2001;Mike Crosby, “Asia’s Red Data Birds: The Facts,”World Birdwatch, June 2001, p. 17; “Half of Aus-


181

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

tralia’s Land Birds Predicted to Become Extinct by End of 21st Century,” at <www.nccnsw.org.au/member/cbn/news/media/19990803_HalfALBExt.html>, viewed April 2002; surveyresults from Stephen Garnett, “Atlas of AustralianBirds: Winners and Losers,” Wingspan, December2001, p. 23.

9. Edward O. Wilson, The Diversity of Life(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992), pp. 29–32; Russell Mittermeier, in Stat-tersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, p. vii; C.Hilton-Taylor (compiler), 2002 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species (Gland, Switzerland:IUCN–World Conservation Union, 2002).

10. Colin J. Bibby, “Recent, Past and FutureExtinction in Birds,” in John H. Lawton andRobert M. May, eds., Extinction Rates (New York:Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 98; Nigel Col-lar, BirdLife International, e-mails to author,August 1993 and January 2002.

11. Collar, op. cit. note 10; Alison J. Stattersfieldet al., Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Prioritiesfor Biodiversity Conservation (Cambridge: BirdLifeInternational, 1998), p. 21; “New Owl Species inSri Lanka,” World Birdwatch, June 2001.

12. John P. McCarty, “Ecological Consequencesof Recent Climate Change,” Conservation Biology,April 2001, pp. 320–29; Stattersfield and Capper,op. cit. note 1.

13. Janet Abramovitz, “Sustaining the World’sForests,” in Lester R. Brown et al., State of theWorld 1998 (New York: W.W. Norton & Com-pany, 1998), pp. 21–22; D. Bryant, D. Nielson,and L. Tangley, The Last Frontier Forests (Wash-ington, DC: World Resources Institute (WRI),1997); WRI, World Resources 2000–2001 (Wash-ington, DC: 2000), p. 90; Stattersfield and Cap-per, op. cit. note 1.

14. “Temperate Woodland Gains,” Oryx, vol.33, no. 2 (1999), p. 989.

15. Southern Environmental Law Center, “Envi-ronmental Groups Demand Immediate Morato-rium on New Chip Mills,” press release

(Charlottesville, VA: 25 April 2000); DeborahSchoch, “Mistaking Trees for a Forest?” Los Ange-les Times, 23 May 2002; Jane A. Fitzgerald, RobertP. Ford, and Joseph C. Neal, “Bird ConservationRegions: The Central Hardwoods,” Birding, April2002, pp. 156–58; Sue Anne Pressley, “ReportPredicts Major Forest Loss in South,” WashingtonPost, 28 November 2001.

16. Robert A. Askins, Restoring North Amer-ica’s Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,2000), pp. 138–43.

17. WRI, op. cit. note 13, p. 119–22; David S.Wilcove, The Condor’s Shadow (New York: W.H.Freeman and Company, 1999), pp. 78–80.

18. North American Breeding Bird Survey datafrom U.S. Geological Survey, op. cit. note 8; PeteGober and Mike Lockhart, “As Goes the PrairieDog…So Goes the Ferret,” Endangered SpeciesBulletin, November/December 1996, pp. 4–5;Mark B. Robbins, A. Townsend Peterson, andMiguel A. Ortega-Huerta, “Major NegativeImpacts of Early Intensive Cattle Stocking onTallgrass Prairies: The Case of the Greater Prairie-Chicken,” North American Birds, vol. 56, no. 2(2002), pp. 239–44.

19. Zoltán Waliczky, “Habitats for Birds inEurope,” World Birdwatch, September 1997, pp.16–19.

20. WRI, op. cit. note 13, p. 122; Amy Jansenand Alistar I. Robertson, “Riparian Bird Com-munities in Relation to Land Management Prac-tices in Floodplain Woodlands of South-easternAustralia,” Biological Conservation, vol. 100, no.2 (2001), pp. 173–85.

21. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1.

22. Josep del Hoyo, Andrew Elliott, and JordiSargatal, Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol-ume 3 (Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, 1996), p. 264;Kate Fitzherbert, ornithologist, Australia, e-mailto author, October 2001; Adrián S. Di Giacomo,“Afforestation Threatens Argentina’s Grasslands,”World Birdwatch, September 2001, pp. 24–25.


182

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

23. WRI, op. cit. note 13, p. 104; Cosme Morilloand César Gómez-Campo, “Conservation in Spain,1980–2000,” Biological Conservation, vol. 95,no. 2 (2000), p. 170.

24. Everglades conservation challenges fromWRI, op. cit. note 13, p. 168–75; Doñana Parkprofile from World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF),at <www.panda.org/europe/donana/>, viewedJanuary 2002.

25. “Disaster Hits Doñana Wetland,” WorldBirdwatch, June 1998; “Doñana After the Spill,”World Birdwatch, December 1999, pp. 20–22;“EU Commissioner Brands Toxic Spill Firm Boli-den ‘Filthy’ and ‘Crooks’,” El País, 15 August2002.

26. WRI, op. cit. note 13, citing J. C. Ogden, “AComparison of Wading Bird Nesting ColonyDynamics (1931–1946 and 1974–1989) as anIndication of Ecosystem Conditions in the South-ern Everglades,” in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden,Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration (Del-ray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press, 1994); Andy J.Green, “Clutch Size, Brood Size, and BroodEmergence in the Marbled Teal in the Marismasdel Guadalquivir, Southwestern Spain,” Ibis, no.140 (1998), pp. 670–75.

27. Luba V. Balian et al., “Changes in the Water-bird Community of the Lake Sevan–Lake GilliArea, Republic of Armenia: A Case for Restora-tion,” Biological Conservation, vol. 106, no. 2(2002), pp. 157–63.

28. Andy J. Green et al., “The ConservationStatus of Moroccan Wetlands with Particular Ref-erence to Waterbirds and to Changes Since 1978,”Biological Conservation, vol. 104, no. 1 (2002), pp. 71–82.

29. Scott Weidensaul, Living on the Wind: Acrossthe Hemisphere with Migrating Birds (New York:North Point Press, 1999); Mary Deinlein, “TravelAlert for Migratory Birds: Stopover Sites inDecline,” Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, at<natzoo.si.edu/smbc/fxshts/fxsht6.htm>, viewedMay 2001; “Herons, Egrets, and Fish Ponds inHong Kong,” Oryx, vol. 33, no. 1 (1999), p. 14;

Brett A. Lane, Shorebirds in Australia (Melbourne,Australia: Nelson Publishers, 1987), pp. 2–9.

30. Weidensaul, op. cit. note 29, pp. 105–25,243–46, 334.

31. Stattersfield et al., op. cit. note 11, pp.154–57; Irma Trejo and Rodolfo Dirzo, “Defor-estation of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest: ANational and Local Analysis in Mexico,” Biologi-cal Conservation, vol. 94, no. 2 (2000), pp.133–42.

32. John Terborgh, Where Have All the BirdsGone? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1989), p. 149.

33. Jon Dunn and Kimball Garrett, A Field Guideto the Warblers of North America (New York:Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997), pp. 395–97;Kenn Kaufman, Lives of North American Birds(New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996),p. 532; John H. Rappole, The Ecology of MigrantSongbirds: A Neotropical Perspective (Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995), p. 86;Mary Deinlein, “Neotropical Migratory BirdBasics,” Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, at<natzoo.si.edu/smbc/fxshts/fxsht9.htm>, viewedMay 2001.

34. Peter P. Marra, Keith A. Hobson, andRichard T. Holmes, “Linking Winter and SummerEvents in Migratory Birds by Using Stable-carbonIsotopes,” Science, 4 December 1998, pp.1884–86; “Winter is Key to Songbird BreedingSuccess,” Environmental News Network, 8 Decem-ber 1998.

35. Terborgh, op. cit. note 32, pp. 95, 146–47;National Geographic Society, Field Guide to theBirds of North America (Washington, DC: 1999),pp. 302–03; F. Gary Stiles and Alexander F.Skutch, A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica (Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 306.

36. Stattersfield et al., op. cit. note 11, pp.400–05, 27.

37. Gary K. Meffe and C. Ronald Carroll, Prin-ciples of Conservation Biology (Sunderland, MA:


183

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

Sinauer Associates, Inc., 1997), pp. 276–302.

38. Ibid.; William F. Laurance et al., “BiomassCollapse in Amazonian Forest Fragments,” Science,7 November 1997, pp. 1117–18.

39. Peter T. Fauth, “Reproductive Success ofWood Thrushes in Forest Fragments in NorthernIndiana,” The Auk, vol. 117, no. 1 (2000), pp.194–204; Cheryl L. Trine, “Wood Thrush Pop-ulation Sinks and Implications for the Scale ofRegional Conservation Strategies,” ConservationBiology, June 1998, pp. 576–85; David Ward andJames N. M. Smith, “Brown-headed CowbirdParasitism Results in a Sink Population in WarblingVireos,” The Auk, vol. 117, no. 2 (2000), pp.337–44.

40. Hugh A. Ford et al., “Why Have Birds in theWoodlands of Southern Australia Declined?” Bio-logical Conservation, vol. 97, no. 1 (2001), pp.71–88; Richard E. Major, Fiona J. Christie, andGreg Gowing, “Influence of Remnant and Land-scape Attributes on Australian Woodland BirdCommunities,” Biological Conservation, vol. 102,no. 1 (2001), pp. 47–66; Yosihiro Natuhara andChobei Imai, “Prediction of Species Richness ofBreeding Birds by Landscape-level Factors ofUrban Woods in Osaka Prefecture, Japan,” Bio-diversity and Conservation, vol. 8 (1999), pp.239–53.

41. Richard T. T. Forman and Lauren E. Alexan-der, “Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects,”Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 29(1998), pp. 207–31.

42. David S. Wilkie, John G. Sidle, and GeorgesC. Boundzanga, “Mechanized Logging, MarketHunting, and a Bank Loan in Congo,” Conser-vation Biology, December 1992, pp. 570–579;U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), State of the World’s Forests 2001, at<www.fao.org/docrep/003/y0900e/y0900e00.htm>, viewed February 2002; Stattersfield andCapper, op. cit. note 1, pp. 616–17.

43. J. Christopher Haney, “A Half-CenturyComparison of Breeding Birds in the SouthernAppalachians,” The Condor, vol. 103, pp. 268–77.

44. Kaufman, op. cit. note 33; HawaiianAudubon Society, Hawaii’s Birds (Honolulu, HI:1997), pp. 93–94; “100 of the World’s WorstInvasive Alien Species,” Invasive Species Special-ist Group, at <www.iucn.org/biodiversityday/100booklet.pdf>, viewed January 2002.

45. “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive AlienSpecies,” op. cit. note 44; Stattersfield and Cap-per, op. cit. note 1, p. 8.

46. Thomas Brooks, “Extinct Species,” in Stat-tersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp. 701–08;Bibby, op. cit. note 10; John Tuxill, Losing Strandsin the Web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Con-servation of Biological Diversity, Worldwatch Paper141 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, May1998), p. 16.

47. Chris Bright, Life Out of Bounds (New York:W.W. Norton & Company, 1998), pp. 114–18;Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1; WilliamClaiborne, “Trouble in Paradise?: SerpentlessHawaii Fears Snake Invasion,” Washington Post, 23August 1997.

48. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.45–72; D. J. Campbell and I. A. E. Atkinson,“Depression of Tree Recruitment by the Pacific Raton New Zealand’s Northern Offshore Islands,”Biological Conservation, vol. 107, no. 1 (2002), pp.19–35; M. Thorsen et al., “Norway Rats on Fré-gate Island, Seychelles: The Invasion, SubsequentEradication Attempts and Implications for theIsland’s Fauna,” Biological Conservation, vol. 96,no. 2 (2000), pp. 133–38; Mark D. Sanders andRichard F. Maloney, “Causes of Mortality at Nestsof Ground-nesting Birds in the Upper WaitakiBasin, South Island, New Zealand: A Five-yearVideo Study,” Biological Conservation, vol. 106,no. 2 (2002), pp. 225–36.

49. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.701–07; Ford et al., op. cit. note 40, pp. 79–80,citing Paton 1991, 1993; “Domestic Cat Preda-tion on Birds and Other Wildlife,” a report by theAmerican Bird Conservancy at <www.abcbirds.org/cats/catre/pdf>, viewed May 2002, citing theUniversity of Wisconsin cat study from J. S. Cole-man and S. A. Temple, “How Many Birds Do


184

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

Cats Kill?” Wildlife Control Technology, vol. 44(1995); George W. Cox, Alien Species in NorthAmerica and Hawaii (Washington, DC: IslandPress, 1999), p. 220, citing R. Stallcup, “AReversible Catastrophe,” Observer, spring/summer1991, pp. 18–29.

50. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.73, 300; Eric Dorfman, “Alien Invasives in theTropical Pacific,” Wingspan, vol. 11, no. 4 (2001),p. 23; “Attack of the Crazy Ants,” Time, 19 April1999; “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive AlienSpecies,” op. cit. note 44.

51. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.73, 300.

52. Wilcove, op. cit. note 17, p. 47; Askins, op.cit. note 16, p. 234; Cox, op. cit. note 49, pp.102–03; Kerry N. Rabenold et al., “Response ofAvian Communities to Disturbance by an ExoticInsect in Spruce-Fir Forests of the SouthernAppalachians,” Conservation Biology, February1998.

53. “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive AlienSpecies,” op. cit. note 44; Stattersfield and Cap-per, op. cit. note 1, pp. 706–07.

54. “Reports from the Workshop on Indian GypsVultures,” a summary of recent studies presentedat the fourth Eurasian Congress on Raptors inSeville, Spain, September 2001; reports availableat The National Birds of Prey Centre Web site, at<www.nbpc.co.uk/ivr2001.htm>.

55. John H. Rappole, Scott R. Derrickson, andZdenek Hubálek, “Migratory Birds and Spread ofWest Nile Virus in the Western Hemisphere,”Emerging Infectious Diseases (Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention), July/August 2000;Michael E. Ruane, “At-Risk Birds Also in Path ofWest Nile,” Washington Post, 21 April 2001.

56. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, p. 96;Cape Metropolitan Area, South Africa, at<www.cmc.gov.za/peh/soe/biota_1.htm>, viewedMay 2002; Kaufman, op. cit. note 33, pp. 83–84;A. Green and B. Hughes, “Action Plan for theWhite-headed Duck in Europe,” in Globally

Threatened Birds in Europe: Action Plans (Stras-bourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 1996), pp.119–45; “Tough Measures Against Invasive RuddyDucks,” World Birdwatch, March 2002, p. 4.

57. Richard Manning, Grassland: The History,Biology, Politics, and Promise of the AmericanPrairie (New York: Penguin Books, 1995), pp.178–80; Bright, op. cit. note 47, pp. 37–41; Kauf-man, op. cit. note 33, p. 153.

58. “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive AlienSpecies,” op. cit. note 44; Stephanie Flack andElaine Furlow, “America’s Least Wanted,” NatureConservancy, November/December 1996, p. 22;Cox, op. cit. note 49, p. 178.

59. Amy Ferriter, ed., The Brazilian Pepper Man-agement Plan for Florida: A Report from the FloridaExotic Pest Plant Council’s Brazilian Pepper TaskForce, July 1997, at <www.fleppc.org/pdf/schinus.pdf>, viewed March 2002; Cox, op. cit. note49, p. 115; Ragupathy Kannan and Doublas A.James, “Common Myna,” No. 583 in The Birdsof North America series (Philadelphia, PA: TheBirds of North America, Inc., 2001).

60. Steve Mirsky, “Alien Invasion,” Audubon,May-June 1999, pp. 71–77.

61. David M. Richardson, “Forestry Trees asInvasive Aliens,” Conservation Biology, February1998, pp. 18–25; Jim Hone, “Feral Pigs inNamadgi National Park, Australia: Dynamics,Impacts, and Management,” Biological Conser-vation, vol. 105, no. 2 (2002), pp. 231–42; DavidPimentel et al., “Environmental and EconomicCosts Associated with Non-indigenous Species inthe United States,” BioScience, vol. 50, no. 1(2000), pp. 53–65.

62. Howard Youth, “The Killing Fields,” WildlifeConservation, July/August 1999, p. 16; BirdLifeMalta at <www.birdlifemalta.org/>, viewed Sep-tember 2002.

63. BirdLife Malta, op. cit. note 62; trappingsites from “5,317 Bird-Trapping Sites,” BritishBirds, July 2001, p. 335.


185

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

64. British Birds, op. cit. note 63; “Working toChange Attitutes,” World Birdwatch, October1999 ; “Dos Nuevos Informes Tratan de Impedirel ‘Parany’ en la Comunidad Valenciana,” La Gar-cilla, no. 111 (2001), p. 33; buntings from “Wide-spread Hunting of ‘Rice Birds’ in China,” WorldBirdwatch, September 2001, p. 8; “MigratingBirds Hunted in China,” Oryx, vol. 33, no. 3(1999), p. 203; Chris Buckley, “China’s SparrowsImperiled, Again,” International Herald Tribune,4 April 2002; World Birdwatch, December 2001,p. 3.

65. Del Hoyo, Elliott, and Sargatal, Volume 2, op.cit. note 4, pp. 325–27, 336–41.

66. Ibid. and pp. 533–50.

67. Timothy F. Wright et al., “Nest Poaching inNeotropical Parrots,” Conservation Biology, June2001; N. Snyder et al., eds., Parrots: Status Sur-vey and Conservation Action Plan (Gland, Switzer-land: IUCN, 1999).

68. Snyder et al., op. cit. note 67.

69. Ibid.; Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1,pp. 545, 594.

70. “Longlining: A Major Threat to the World’sSeabirds,” World Birdwatch, June 2000, pp.10–14; American Bird Conservancy, “SuddenDeath on the High Seas,” at <www.abcbirds.org/policy/seabird_report.pdf>, viewed June 2002;Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp. 45–53.

71. American Bird Conservancy, op. cit. note70; “Keeping Albatrosses Off the Hook in theNorth Pacific,” World Birdwatch, June 2001, pp.14–16.

72. Svein Løkkeborg and Graham Robertson,“Seabird and Longline Interactions: Effects of aBird-scaring Streamer Line and Line Shooter onthe Incidental Capture of Northern Fulmars,”Biological Conservation, vol. 106, no. 3 (2002), pp.359–64; E. J. Belda and A. Sánchez, “SeabirdMortality on Longline Fisheries in the WesternMediterranean: Factors Affecting Bycatch andProposed Mitigating Measures,” Biological Con-

servation, vol. 98, no. 3 (2001), pp. 357–63;Pablo Inchausti and Henri Weimerskirch, “Risksof Decline and Extinction of the EndangeredAmsterdam Albatross and the Projected Impact ofLong-line Fisheries,” Biological Conservation, vol.100, no. 3 (2001), pp. 377–86.

73. BirdLife International, at <www.birdlife.org.uk/news>, viewed October 2002; “Agreement onthe Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels,”Environment Australia, at <www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/international/albatross/>, viewed June2002.

74. Susie Ellis, John P. Croxall, and John Cooper,eds., Penguin Conservation Assessment and Man-agement Plan, on the September 1996 workshopin Cape Town, South Africa, organized by BritishAntarctic Survey, SCAR Bird Biology Subcom-mittee, Percy Fitzpatrick Institute of AfricanOrnithology, and the Conservation Breeding Spe-cialist Group of the IUCN/SSC (Apple Valley,MN: IUCN/SSC, August 1998).

75. Curtis Runyan and Magnar Norderhaug,“The Path to the Johannesburg Summit,” WorldWatch, May/June 2002, p. 33; Euan Dunn,“Europe’s Worst Ever Atlantic Coast Oil SpillDisaster,” World Birdwatch, March 2000.

76. Samantha Newport, “Oil Spill HighlightsHazards of Galápagos Isles’ Growth,” WashingtonPost, 27 January 2001; “Oil Spill Threatens Galapagos Islands,” Oryx, vol. 35, no. 2 (2001),p. 109; “La Especie de Gaviota Más Rara delMundo Amenazada por el Vertido de Gasoil Pro-ducido en las Galápagos,” SEO/BirdLife, at<www.seo.org/es/noticias/nprensa.html>, viewed25 January 2001; marine iguanas and oil fromAndrew C. Revkin, “Iguanas Died after Spill,”International Herald Tribune, 6 June 2002.

77. John P. McCary and Anne L. Secord, “Pos-sible Effects of PCB Contamination on FemalePlumage Color and Reproductive Success in Hud-son River Tree Swallows,” The Auk, vol. 117, no.4 (2000), pp. 987–95.

78. Neil W. Tremblay and Andrew P. Gilman,“Human Health, the Great Lakes, and Environ-


186

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

mental Pollution: A 1994 Perspective,” Environ-mental Health Perspectives, vol. 103, supp. 9(1995), pp. 3–5; John P. Giesy, “Dioxins andDioxin-like Residues in and Their Effects on Fishand Wildlife of the North American Great Lakes,”at <www.niehs.nih.gov/external/usvcrp/conf2002/abs_pdf/diox-041.pdf>, viewed August 2002.

79. Mary Deinlein, “When it Comes to Pesti-cides, Birds are Sitting Ducks,” Smithsonian Migra-tory Bird Center at <natzoo.si.edu/smbc/fxshts/fxsht8.htm>, viewed April 2001; British spar-rowhawks from G. R. Potts, The Partridge: Pesti-cides, Predation and Conservation (London:Collins, 1986), as cited in Dan E. Chamberlain andHumphrey Q. P. Crick, “Population Declines andReproductive Performance of Skylarks in Differ-ent Regions and Habitats of the United King-dom,” Ibis, vol. 141 (1999), pp. 38–51; pesticidetreaty from Anne Platt McGinn, “Malaria, Mos-quitoes, and DDT,” World Watch, May/June2002, pp. 10–16; “WWF Efforts to Phase OutDDT,” WWF Global Toxics Initiative, at<www.worldwildlife.org/toxics/progareas/pop/ddt.htm>, viewed May 2002.

80. Deinlein, op. cit. note 79; “AgreementReached to Save Swainson’s Hawks,” press release(Washington, DC: American Bird Conservancy, 15October 1996); Santiago Krapovickas, “Swain-son’s Hawk in Argentina: International Crisis andCooperation,” World Birdwatch, December 1997;“Swainson’s Hawk Recovery,” World Birdwatch,March 1997.

81. Krapovickas, op. cit. note 80; “Swainson’sHawk Recovery,” op. cit. note 80.

82. Potts, op. cit. note 79; J. Hellmich, “Impactodel Uso de Pesticidas Sobre Las Aves: El Caso dela Avutarda,” Ardeola, vol. 39, no. 2 (1992), pp.7–22.

83. “Service Continues to Expand Non-toxicShot Options—Study Shows Ban on Lead ShotSaves Millions of Waterfowl,” press release (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 25October 2000); “Lead Shot Ban ThroughoutSweden,” Oryx, vol. 33, no. 3 (1999), p. 198; A.Acosta, “El Gobierno Prohíbe la Caza y el Tiro con

Plomo en los Humedales Españoles,” ABC, 31May 2001.

84. “Service Continues to Expand Non-toxicShot Options,” op. cit. note 83; “El Plomo se Alejade las Aves,” Biológica, November 2001, p. 9;Steve Nadis, “Getting the Lead Out,” NationalWildlife, August/September 2001, pp. 46–50;“EPA to Ban Lead Fishing Sinkers,” EDF Letter,September 1993; “State Acts for Loons,” Oryx,vol. 33, no. 4 (1999), pp. 285–93.

85. Guyonne F. E. Janss, “Avian Mortality fromPower Lines: A Morphologic Approach of aSpecies-specific Mortality,” Biological Conservation,vol. 95, no. 3 (2000), pp. 353–59; “Entre OndasElectromagnéticas,” Biológica, June 2002, p. 12;Juan C. Alonso, Javier A. Alonso, and RodrigoMuñoz-Pulido, “Mitigation of Bird Collisionswith Transmission Lines Through GroundwireMarking,” Biological Conservation, vol. 67 (1994),pp. 129–34; Kjetil Bevanger and Henrik Brøseth,“Bird Collisions with Power Lines—An Experi-ment with Ptarmigan,” Biological Conservation,vol. 99, no. 3 (2001), pp. 341–46.

86. “Environmental Groups File PetitionDemanding Halt to All Construction of Com-munication Towers in Gulf Coast—-Say Threat toBirds Must be Addressed,” press release (Wash-ington, DC: American Bird Conservancy and For-est Conservation Council, 28 August 2002);“U.S.A. Towerkill Summary,” at <www.towerkill.com/issues/consum.html>, viewed March2002; Wendy K. Weisensel, “Battered by Air-waves?” Wisconsin Natural Resources, February2000, at <www.wnrmag.com/stories/2000/feb00/birdtower.htm>, viewed March 2002.

87. “U.S.A. Towerkill Summary,” op. cit. note86; Weisensel, op. cit. note 86, based on FederalAviation Administration figures.

88. McCarty, op. cit. note 12.

89. Ibid.; Mones S. Abu-Asab et al., “EarlierPlant Flowering in Spring as a Response to GlobalWarming in the Washington, DC, Area,” Biodi-versity and Conservation, vol. 10 (2001), pp.597–612; Alvin Breisch and James Gibbs, “Climate


187

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

Warming and Calling Phenology of Frogs NearIthaca, New York, 1900–1999,” ConservationBiology, August 2001, pp. 1175–78; Bright, op. cit.note 47, pp. 191–94; Abu-Asab et al., op. cit.this note.

90. Askins, op. cit. note 16, p. 44; D. B. Botkin,D. A. Woodby, and R. A. Nisbet, “Kirtland’s War-bler Habitats: A Possible Early Indicator of Cli-matic Warming,” Biological Conservation, vol. 56,no. 1 (1991), pp. 63–78.

91. Christoph Zockler and Igor Lysenko, “WaterBirds on the Edge: Impact Assessment of ClimateChange on Arctic-breeding Water Birds,” Execu-tive Summary, Biodiversity and Climate ChangeWeb site, U.N. Environment Programme andWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre, <unep-wcmc.org/climate/waterbirds/executive.htm>,viewed March 2002.

92. “Galapagos Penguins Under Threat,” WorldBirdwatch, December 1998; Stattersfield and Cap-per, op. cit. note 1, p. 43; Maarten Kappelle, Mar-gret M. I. Van Vuuren, and Pieter Baas, “Effectsof Climate Change on Biodiversity: A Review andIdentification of Key Research Issues,” Biodiver-sity and Conservation, vol. 8 (1999), pp. 1383–97;Glen Martin, “The Case of the DisappearingDucks,” National Wildlife, April/May 2002.

93. McCarty, op. cit. note 12; Meffe and Carrollop. cit. note 37, p. 299; Cox, op. cit. note 49, pp.310–11; L. Hannah et al., “Conservation of Bio-diversity in a Changing Climate,” ConservationBiology, February 2002, pp. 264–68.

94. Russell A. Mittermeier, Norman Myers, andJorgen B. Thomsen, “Biodiversity Hotspots andMajor Tropical Wilderness Areas: Approaches toSetting Conservation Priorities,” ConservationBiology, June 1998, pp. 516–20.

95. Stattersfield, op. cit. note 8.

96. Ibid.; L. D. C. Fishpool and Michael I. Evans,eds., Important Bird Areas in Africa and its Asso-ciated Islands (Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLife Inter-national, 2001); Melanie F. Heath et al., ImportantBird Areas in Europe (Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLife

International, 2001); Nigel J. Collar et al., eds.,Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife Interna-tional Red Data Book (Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLifeInternational, 2001); BirdLife International, at <www.birdlife.net/sites/ibaprogramme.cfm>,viewed March 2002; Stattersfield et al., op. cit. note11, p. 29; Box 2–2 from Duan Biggs, BirdLifeSouth Africa, e-mail to author, August 2002, andfrom Stephen W. Evans, “Blue Swallow ActionPlan Workshop,” BirdLife South Africa, at<www.birdlife.org.za/news/news_front.cfm?ipkNewsID=334>, viewed August 2002.

97. Meffe and Carroll, op. cit. note 37, pp. 7–21.

98. WRI, op. cit. note 13, p. 244; 8.8 percentfrom M. J. B. Green and J. R. Paine, “State of theWorld’s Protected Areas at the End of the Twen-tieth Century,” presented at the IUCN WorldCommission on Protected Areas Symposium atAlbany, Australia, November 1997 (figure includesmarine reserves).

99. Richard L. Knight, “Private Lands: TheNeglected Geography,” Conservation Biology, April1999, pp. 223–24; Catherine M. Allen andStephen R. Edwards, “The Sustainable-UseDebate: Observations from IUCN,” Oryx, vol.29, no. 2 (1995), pp. 92–98; Jon Paul Rodríguez,“Impact of Venezuelan Economic Crisis on WildPopulations of Animals and Plants,” BiologicalConservation, vol. 96, no. 2 (2000), pp. 151–59.

100. Jeffrey A. McNeely and Sara J. Scherr, Com-mon Ground, Common Future (Washington, DC,and Gland, Switzerland: Future Harvest andIUCN, 2001).

101. Robert A. Rice and Justin R. Ward, Coffee,Conservation, and Commerce in the Western Hemi-sphere (Washington, DC: Smithsonian MigratoryBird Center and Natural Resources Defense Coun-cil, June 1996); Lisa J. Petit, “Shade-grown Cof-fee: It’s for the Birds,” Endangered Species Bulletin,July/August 1998, pp. 14–15; Brian Halweil,“Why Your Daily Fix Can Fix More than YourHead,” World Watch, May/June 2002, pp. 36–40.

102. “La Biodiversidad en Torno a la Aceituna,”Bio Andalucia, June 2002, p. 37; cacao, inte-


188

NOTES, CHAPTER 2

grated pest management, and organic farmingfrom mission statement for 1998 sustainable cacaoconference, Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centerand Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,Panama City, Panama, 30 March 1998, at <natzoo.si.edu/smbc/Research/Cacao/cacaomission.htm>, viewed February 2002; “The Biodi-versity Benefits of Organic Farming,” Soil Asso-ciation briefing paper, 27 May 2000, at<www.soilassociation.org/>, viewed April 2002.

103. 2002 Farm Bill, U.S. Department of Agri-culture (USDA), at <www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/farmbill/fbfaqhome.asp>, viewed June 2002; FarmService Agency, USDA, “The ConservationReserve Program,” PA-1603, revised October2001; Tina Adler, “Prairie Tales: What HappensWhen Farmers Turn Prairies into Farmland andFarmland into Prairies,” Science News, 20 January1996, pp. 44–45; Dan L. Reinking, “A CloserLook: Henslow’s Sparrow,” Birding, April 2002,pp. 146–53, citing J. R. Herkert, “PopulationTrends of the Henslow’s Sparrow in Relation tothe Conservation Reserve Program in Illinois,1975–1995,” Journal of Field Ornithology, vol.68, pp. 235–44.

104. D. W. Macdonald and P. J. Johnson, “Farm-ers and the Custody of the Countryside: Trends inLoss and Conservation of Non-productive Habi-tats 1981–1998,” Biological Conservation, vol.94, no. 2 (2000), pp. 221–34; M. Ausden and G.J. M. Hirons, “Grassland Nature Reserves forBreeding Wading Birds in England and the Impli-cations for the ESA Agri-environment Scheme,”Biological Conservation, vol. 106, no. 2 (2002), pp.279–91.

105. C. J. M. Musters et al., “Breeding Birds asa Farm Product,” Conservation Biology, April2001, pp. 363–69; C. J. M. Musters, Environ-mental Biology Institute of Evolutionary and Eco-logical Sciences, Leiden University, TheNetherlands, e-mail to author, May 2002.

106. “California Compromise: Farmers FloodFields for Birds,” Audubon Activist, April 1993, p. 7; “Rice Habitat Swells,” at <www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/news/newsletter/est9712.html>,viewed December 2001.

107. SEO/BirdLife, “SEO/BirdLife Promueveel Cultivo de Arroz Ecológico en el Delta delEbro Través de Riet Vell, Una Empresa Constituidapor sus Cocios y Simpatizantes,” press release(Madrid: 8 June 2001); “La Fundación AvinaApoya el Delta del Ebro,” La Garcilla, no. 111(2001), p. 42.

108. Martha Honey, Ecotourism and SustainableDevelopment: Who Owns Paradise? (Washington,DC: Island Press, 1999), pp. 3–25.

109. Thomas S. Hoctor, Margaret H. Carr, andPaul D. Zwick, “Identifying a Linked ReserveSystem Using a Regional Landscape Approach:The Florida Ecological Network,” ConservationBiology, August 2000, pp. 984–1000.

110. Ibid.

111. Randy S. Kautz and James A. Cox, “State-gic Habitats for Biodiversity Conservation inFlorida,” Conservation Biology, February 2001,pp. 55–77.

112. The Nature Conservancy, Nature Conser-vancy Landmarks: A Quarterly Report (Arling-ton, VA: spring 2002), p. 14.

113. Ibid.; Florida Forever, at <www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/carl__ff>, viewed May 2002.

114. William Shepard, “Birding Trails in NorthAmerica,” Birding, vol. 33, no. 5 (2001), pp.416–27; “Birding Florida on the Great BirdingTrail,” at <www.floridabirdingtrail.com>, viewedApril 2002.

115. Shepard, op. cit. note 114.

116. U.S. Department of Interior and U.S.Department of Commerce, 2001 National Surveyof Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation: National Overview, May 2002, at<www.fws.gov/>, viewed June 2002.

117. H. Ken Cordell and Nancy G. Herbert,“The Popularity of Birding is Still Growing,”Birding, vol. 34, no. 1 (2002), pp. 54–61.


189


118. Frank Gill et al., American Birds: Ninety-ninth Christmas Bird Count (CBC) (New York:National Audubon Society, 1999); U.S. Geolog-ical Survey CBC introduction, at <www.mp1-pwrc.usgs.gov/birds/cbc.html#intro>, viewed April2002; 101st CBC summary, at <www.audubon.org/bird/cbc/101stsummary.html>, viewed April2002.

119. Asian Waterbird Census from <www.wetlands.agro.nl/wetlands_icu/ap/inf2000.doc>,viewed May 2002; other citizen science projectsfrom <www.birdsource.org>, viewed May 2002.

120. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.453.

121. Ibid., p. 167.

122. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “The PeregrineFalcon is Back: Babbitt Announces Removal ofWorld’s Fastest Bird from Endangered SpeciesList,” press release (Washington, DC: 1999); U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service, “The Bald Eagle is Back,”press release (Washington, DC: 2 July 1999). Thebald eagle remained on the Endangered SpeciesList through 2001 and into 2002.

123. Red kite from Ward J. M. Hagemeijer andMichael J. Blair, eds., The EBCC Atlas of EuropeanBreeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance(London: T & A D Poyser, 1997), pp. 134–35.

124. Stattersfield and Capper, op. cit. note 1, pp.280–81.

125. Ibid., pp. 122, 417.

126. Ibid., p. 257; “Lear’s Macaw PopulationIncrease,” World Birdwatch, March 2002, p. 3.

127. Filion quoted in Diamond and Filion, op.cit. note 4, p. 8.

Chapter 3. Linking Population,Women,and Biodiversity

1. Based on author’s visit, May 2002, and onWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and KenyaWildlife Services (KWS), “Kiunga Marine National

Reserve Kenya,” brochure (Nairobi/Lamu: 2001).

2. Based on author’s visit, May 2002, and onWWF and KWS, op. cit. note 1; Lamu Archipeligopopulation growth from Johnson M. Kazunga etal., Socio-economic Root Causes of Biodiversity Lossin the Priority Sites of the East African MarineEcoregion, Country: Kenya, Priority Sites: Lamu-Kiunga and Mida-Malindi (Kenya/Tanzania:WWF, October 2001), p. 2; East African coastpopulation growth from WWF, Tanzania Pro-gram Office, The Eastern African Marine Ecore-gion: A Large-scale Approach to the Managementof Biodiversity (Dar es Salaam: 2001), p. 7; Kenyapopulation growth rate and global rate from U.N.Population Division (UNPD), World PopulationProspects: The 2000 Revision, CD-ROM edition,(New York: 2001).

3. Based on author’s visit, May 2002, and onJulie Church, project executant, WWF/KWSKiunga Marine National Reserve project, EAMESupport to the Secondary School Girls ScholarshipProgram, Kiunga Marine National Reserve Area,Lamu District, Kenya, Progress Report, January2001 to January 2002, report prepared for WorldWildlife Fund, pp. 3–4.

4. Based on author’s visit, May 2002.

5. Ibid.; Church, op. cit. note 3.

6. Biodiversity from “Everglades National ParkInformation Page,” Everglades National Park, at<www.everglades.national-park.com/info.htm#eco>, viewed 29 July 2002; history from G.Thomas Bancroft, “United States of America: TheEverglades National Park,” presented at HumanPopulation, Biodiversity, and Protected Areas: Sci-ence and Policy Issues, American Association forthe Advancement of Science, 20–21 April 1995,Washington, DC; new development from MichaelGrunwald, “Growing Pains in Southwest Fla.,”Washington Post, 25 June 2002; panther popula-tion from National Wildlife Federation, People &Wildlife: A World Connected (Washington, DC:2002).

7. New development and restoration plan fromGrunwald, op. cit. note 6; impact of growing


190

NOTES, CHAPTER 3

populations from Bancroft, op. cit. note 6; Floridapopulation growth from U.S. Census Bureau,“State and County QuickFacts: Florida,” at <quick-facts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html>, viewed20 July 2002; Lee and Collier county populationgrowth from “Florida Population Change forCounties sorted in Alphabetical Order,” Popula-tion Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 29 April 2002,at <eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties/tables/CO-EST2001-08/CO-EST2001-08-12.php>,viewed 20 July 2002.

8. Figure 3–1 and other population data fromUNPD, op. cit. note 2; new projections expectedfrom Stan Bernstein, Senior Research Adviser,United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), NewYork, discussion with author, 27 September 2002,based on research presented at UNPD meetingsin 2001 and 2002.

9. Preamble, Convention on Biological Diver-sity, United Nations, June 1992, at <www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp>, viewed 27 Sep-tember 2002; United Nations, Agenda 21: TheUnited Nations Programme of Action from Rio(New York: U.N. Department of Public Infor-mation, undated), Chapter 24.

10. U.N. Development Programme (UNDP),Human Development Report 2002 (New York:Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 22–23.

11. Amartya Sen, “Population and GenderEquality,” The Nation, 24/31 July 2000, p. 18.

12. China from Conservation International,“Biodiversity Hotspots: Mountains of SouthwestChina,” at <www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/Hotspots/china/>, viewed 19 September 2002;Eastern Himalayas from Paul Harrison and FredPearce, American Association for the Advance-ment of Science Atlas of Population and Environ-ment (Berkeley: University of California Press,2000); Central Africa and Danube River Basinfrom Alexander Wood, Pamela Stedman-Edwards,and Johanna Mang, eds., The Root Causes of Bio-diversity Loss (London: Earthscan, 2000).

13. Root causes from Wood, Stedman-Edwards,and Mang, op. cit. note 12, p. 15. Box 3–1 from

the following: definition of biodiversity from WorldResources Institute (WRI), “What is BiologicalDiversity?” at <www.wri.org/biodiv/biodiv.html>,viewed 7 July 2002; resilience of ecosystems fromAnthony C. Janetos, “Do We Still Need Nature?The Importance of Biological Diversity,” Conse-quences, vol. 3, no. 1 (1997), p. 9; value of ecosys-tem services from Andrew Balmford et al.,“Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature,”Science, 9 August 2002, p. 950; estimates of for-est loss over past 100 years from WRI et al., WorldResources 2000–2001 (Washington, DC: WRI,2000), p. 51; data on forest loss from U.N. Foodand Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global For-est Resources Assessment 2000 (Rome: 2001), pp.9–10; Nepal comparison from Oxford Desk Ref-erence Atlas (New York: Oxford University Press,2001), p. viii; forest biodiversity from U.N. Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP), Global Environ-ment Outlook 3 (London: Earthscan, 2002), p.94; Central American, mangrove, wetland, andgrassland losses from WRI et al., op. cit. this note,p. 51; species loss from IUCN–World Conserva-tion Union, 2002 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies (Gland, Switzerland: 2002); past extinctionsfrom UNEP, op. cit. this note, pp. 121–22.

14. India from World Commission on Forestsand Sustainable Development, Our Forests, OurFuture (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1999), p. 59, and from Madhav Gadgil andRamachandra Guha, This Fissured Land: An Eco-logical History of India (Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress, 1992), cited in WRI et al., op. cit. note 13,p. 10; Newfoundland from Lenard Milich,“Resource Management Versus Sustainable Liveli-hoods: The Collapse of the Newfoundland CodFishery,” Society and Natural Resources, 1 Sep-tember 1999, pp. 625–42, cited in ibid.

15. Footprint from WWF, UNEP World Con-servation Monitoring Centre, and RedefiningProgress, Living Planet Report 2002 (Gland,Switzerland: WWF, June 2002), p. 4; vehicles andcarbon emissions from UNDP, Human Develop-ment Report 1998 (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1998), pp. 2, 4.

16. Family size decline from UNPD, op. cit.note 2; U.S. Census Bureau, “Largest Census-


191

NOTES, CHAPTER 3

to-Census Population Increase in U.S. History asEvery State Gains, Census Bureau Reports,” pressrelease (Washington, DC: 2 April 2001); U.S.population current and expected from UNPD,op. cit. note 2; U.S. fertility rates from Centers forDisease Control and Prevention, “Women areHaving More Children, New Report Shows,”press release (Atlanta, GA: 12 February 2002);planets from Peter H. Raven, “Foreword” in Har-rison and Pearce, op. cit. note 12, p. x; Bill McK-ibben, Maybe One: A Personal and EnvironmentalArgument for Single-Child Families (New York:Simon & Schuster, 1998), p. 12.

17. UNFPA, The State of World Population 2001(New York: 2001), pp. 2–3.

18. Wood, Stedman-Edwards, and Mang, op.cit. note 12, pp. 40–41. Box 3–2 from the fol-lowing: species from World Wildlife Fund, TheWestern Congo Basin Moist Forest: An EndangeredSpace (Washington, DC: 2001), p. 1; tropicalwilderness designation from Conservation Inter-national, “Conservation Strategies: TropicalWilderness: Congo Forest,” at <www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/strategies/tropical_wilderness/tropical_wilderness.xml#congo>, viewed 19September 2002; details of bushmeat trade, incomefrom hunting, and Congo Basin population fromBushmeat Crisis Task Force, Bushmeat: A WildlifeCrisis in West and Central Africa and Aroundthe World (Silver Spring, MD: 2000); food inse-curity from FAO, The State of Food Insecurity inthe World 2000 (Rome: 2000), p. 4; populationgrowth rates from UNPD, op. cit. note 2; school-ing rates from UNESCO, 1999 UNESCO Statis-tical Yearbook (Paris: 1999), and from UNESCO,World Education Report 2000 (Paris: 2000), withliteracy data from UNESCO, February 2000assessment, all cited in UNFPA, op. cit. note 17.

19. Hotspots designation from Norman Myers etal., “Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Pri-orities,” Nature, 24 February 2000, pp. 853–58;Figures 3–2 and 3–3 based on Richard P. Cincottaand Robert Engelman, Nature’s Place: HumanPopulation and the Future of Biological Diversity(Washington, DC: Population Action Interna-tional, 2000), pp. 40–41, 56–63.

20. Population growth in hotspots and reasonsfrom UNFPA, op. cit. note 17, p. 22, from Wood,Stedman-Edwards, and Mang, op. cit. note 12, pp.63–65, and from Cincotta and Engelman, op. cit.note 19, pp. 63–64; rural-to-rural migration fromUNPD, Population, Environment and Develop-ment: The Concise Report (New York: UnitedNations, 2001), p. 29.

21. UNFPA, Population & Sustainable Devel-opment: Five Years After Rio (New York: 1999), p.23; Cincotta and Engelman, op. cit. note 19, pp.41, 63–64.

22. World Wildlife Fund, Conservation StrategiesUnit, Disappearing Landscapes: The Popula-tion/Environment Connection (Washington, DC:2001), pp. 15–18.

23. Daily rural-to-urban migration from UNEP,Global Environment Outlook 2000 (Nairobi: 1999),p. 47; urban population and migration data fromUNPD, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2001Revision; Data Tables and Highlights (New York:United Nations, 2002), pp. 1–2; impacts of fasturban growth from United Nations, Economic andSocial Council, “Demographic Dynamics and Sus-tainability,” Report of the Secretary-General, Com-mission on Sustainable Development acting as thepreparatory committee for the World Summit onSustainable Development, Organizational Session,30 April–2 May 2001, p. 2; women-headed house-holds from FAO, Gender and Food Security, Division of Labor, Facts and Figures, at<www.fao.org/gender/en/labb2-e.htm>, viewed29 July 2002.

24. Urbanization and infrastructure fromJonathan G. Nash and Roger-Mark De Souza,Making the Link: Population, Health, Environ-ment (Washington, DC: Population ReferenceBureau, 2002); impacts of sprawl from SierraClub, “Sprawl Factsheet,” at <www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/factsheet.asp>, viewed 19 September 2002.

25. Past and expected rural population growthfrom UNPD, op. cit. note 23, pp. 46–49.

26. Women farmers from FAO, op. cit. note 23.


192

NOTES, CHAPTER 3

27. Marc Lacey, “To Fuel the Mideast’s Grills,Somalia Smolders,” New York Times, 25 July 2002.

28. Conservation International, IUCN, TheNature Conservancy, WRI, and WWF, Conserva-tion in the 21st Century (Washington, DC: Sep-tember 1999); Lorena Aguilar, ExecutiveSummary—The Unavoidable Current: GenderPolicies for the Environmental Sector in Mesoamer-ica (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 2002); LorenaAguilar, senior gender advisor, IUCN, Moravia,Costa Rica, discussion with author, 30 July 2002.

29. United Nations, The Programme of Action ofthe International Conference on Population andDevelopment (New York: 1994); fertility declinefrom United Nations, Economic and Social Coun-cil, Commission on Population and Development,Concise Report on World Population Monitoring,2000: Population, Gender, and Development (NewYork: 2001), p. 10; women’s rights and manage-ment of natural resources from Carolyn GibbVogel and Robert Engelman, Forging the Link:Emerging Accounts of Population and Environ-ment Work in Communities (Washington, DC:Population Action International, 1999), pp.33–36, and from UNFPA, op. cit. note 17, pp.40–41; World Bank, Engendering Development:Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, andVoice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001);impact of education from Population Council andRockefeller Foundation, Accelerating Girls’ Edu-cation: A Priority for Governments (New York:Population Council, 1995), and from World Bank,World Development Report 1993 (New York:Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 42–43.

30. Gender and resources from UNFPA, op. cit.note 17, pp. 37–41; land tenure estimate fromKatherine Spengler, “Expansion of Third WorldWomen’s Empowerment: The Emergence of Sus-tainable Development and Evolution of Interna-tional Economic Strategy,” Colorado Journal ofInternational Environmental Law and Policy, sum-mer 2001, p. 320.

31. Rekha Mehra, Gender in Community Devel-opment and Resource Management: An Overview(Washington, DC: International Center forResearch on Women and World Wildlife Fund,

1993), pp. 3–5; UNFPA, op. cit. note 17, pp.38–39, 41.

32. Mayling Simpson-Hebert, “Water, Sanita-tion, and Women’s Health: The Health Burden ofCarrying Water,” Environmental Health Newslet-ter (World Health Organization), 1995, cited inJustine Sass, Women, Men, and EnvironmentalChange: The Gender Dimensions of EnvironmentalPolicies and Programs (Washington, DC: Popula-tion Reference Bureau, 2002), p. 4.

33. Women’s agricultural work from Mehra, op.cit. note 31, p. 4; data on agricultural labor forceand women’s workloads from FAO, op. cit. note23.

34. Mary Hill Rojas, Working with Community-Based Conservation with a Gender Focus: A Guide(Gainesville, FL: MERGE, Center for Latin Amer-ican Studies, University of Florida, June 2000), p. 4.

35. Bina Agarwal, Are We Not Peasants Too?:Land Rights and Women’s Claims in India (NewYork: Population Council, 2002), pp. 5–7.

36. Mehra, op. cit. note 31, pp. 11, 16, 18.

37. Namibian Association of Community BasedNatural Resource Management Support Organi-zations, Namibia’s Community-Based NaturalResource Management Programme: EnhancingConservation, Development and Democracy inNamibia’s Rural Areas (Windhoek, Namibia:2001), p. 14.

38. Agnes Quisumbing, Senior Research Fellow,International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington, DC, discussion with Brian Halweiland Danielle Nierenberg, 24 July 2001; El Salvadorfrom Sass, op. cit. note 32, p. 3.

39. India from UNFPA, op. cit. note 17, p. 39;Nigeria and Louisiana from Women’s Environmentand Development Organization (WEDO), Risks,Rights, and Reforms: A 50-Country Survey Assess-ing Government Actions Five Years After the Inter-national Conference on Population andDevelopment (New York: 1999), pp. 17, 48. Box


193

NOTES, CHAPTER 3

3–3 from the following: Maathai quote from Ethi-rajan Anbarasan, “Wangari Muta Maathai: Kenya’sGreen Militant,” UNESCO Courier, December1999; Green Belt founding and network fromFrances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé, Hope’sEdge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet (New York:Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 2002), pp. 170–71;1999 estimates from Wangari Maathai, The GreenBelt Movement: Sharing the Approach and the Expe-rience (New York: Lantern Books, 2002), p. 63;tree planting, crops, conservation activities, andincome generation from Lappé and Lappé, op. cit.this note, pp. 167–93; final Maathai quote fromKerry Kennedy Cuomo, Speaking Truth to Power(New York: Crown Publishers/Random House,2001), cited in “Human Rights Heroes,” Ms.,April/May 2001, pp. 58–60.

40. Information on gender and conservationorganizations from WIDTECH, MainstreamingGender in Conservation (Washington, DC: Devel-opment Alternatives, Inc., May 2002). Box 3–4from the following: gender and environment inindustrial nations from Susan Buckingham-Hat-field, Gender and Environment (London: Rout-ledge, 2000), pp. 1, 74, 98, and from StakeholderForum, “Gender and Sustainable Consumption:Bridging Policy Gaps in the Context of Chapter 4,Agenda 21, Changing Consumption and Pro-duction Patterns,” April 1999, at <www.unedforum.org/publ/consumption/summary.htm>,viewed 6 July 2002; food safety and gender fromBuckingham-Hatfield, op. cit. this note, p. 74;receptivity to shifts from Stakeholder Forum, op.cit. this note; green electricity from Matthew J.Kotchen, Michael R. Moore, and Christopher F.Clark, “Environmental Voluntary ContractsBetween Individuals and Industry: An Analysis ofConsumer Preferences for Green Electricity,” inEric W. Orts and Kurt Deketelaere, eds., Envi-ronmental Contracts: Comparative Approaches toRegulatory Innovation in the United States andEurope (London: Kluwer Law International,2001), p. 419; statement excerpt from “FinalConclusions, Meeting of Women Leaders on theEnvironment, 7–8 March 2002, March 2002,Helsinki, Finland,” at <www.mtnforum.org/resources/library/mwlen02a.htm>, viewed 9 Sep-tember 2002.

41. Population policies from Gayle D. Ness withMeghan V. Golay, Population and Strategies forNational Development (London: Earthscan, 1997),pp. 92–95; population and environment in currentpolicies from UNPD, World Population Monitor-ing 2001 (New York: United Nations, 2001), pp.24–27.

42. Poverty from World Bank, “New WorldBank Report Urges Broader Approach to Reduc-ing Poverty,” press release (Washington, DC: 12September 2000); children not in school fromUNESCO, Education for All: Year 2000 Assess-ment, Statistical Document (Paris: UNESCO,2000), p. 10; research on fertility and girls’ edu-cation from Population Reference Bureau/Mea-sure Communication, Is Education the BestContraceptive? Policy Brief (Washington, DC:2000); Figure 3–4 based on total fertility ratesfrom UNPD, op. cit. note 2, and on female sec-ondary school enrolment rates for school years1998–99 and 1999–2000 (or an average if data forboth years were available), from UNESCO, Insti-tute for Statistics, Education Sector, Gross and NetEnrolment Ratio at Secondary School Level byCountry and by Gender for the School Years1998/1999 and 1999/2000 (Paris: 2002); illiter-acy data from UNESCO, Institute for Statistics,Literacy and Non-Formal Education Sector,Regional and Adult Illiteracy Rate and Popula-tion by Gender (Paris: UNESCO, 2002); changesin women’s access from UNESCO, “StatisticsShow Slow Progress Toward Universal Literacy,”press release (Paris: 2 September 2002); UNDP,op. cit. note 10.

43. Contraceptive usage figures from UNPD,“Majority of World’s Couples Are Using Contra-ception,” press release (New York: 20 May 2002);350 million from UNFPA, The State of WorldPopulation 1999 (New York: 1999), p. 2; estimatesof unmet need from John A. Ross and William L.Winfrey, “Unmet Need in the Developing Worldand the Former USSR: An Updated Estimate,”unpublished manuscript, received 1 November2001.

44. Financial resources from UNFPA, op. cit.note 17, p. 52.


194

NOTES, CHAPTER 3

45. John C. Caldwell, “The Contemporary Pop-ulation Challenge,” prepared for Expert GroupMeeting on Completing the Fertility Transition,UNPD, New York, 11–14 March 2002; RobertEngelman, vice president, research, PopulationAction International, Washington, DC, e-mail toauthor, 26 September 2002; industrial-countrypolicies from UNPD, op. cit. note 41.

46. Components of community-based programsfrom Population Action International, “Commu-nity-Based Population and Environment Pro-grams: Integrating Resource Conservation andReproductive Health,” fact sheet (Washington,DC: 2001).

47. Tropical rainforest from UNESCO, Bios-phere Reserves: Special Places for People and Nature(Paris: 2002); program information from Con-servation International, “Conservation Interna-tional’s Field-Based Population-EnvironmentPrograms,” unpublished document, 2002.

48. “Building Organizational Capacity for Inte-grated Reproductive Health Programs,” WorldNeighbors in Action, spring/summer 2001; WorldNeighbors, “World Neighbors—Ecuador AnnualReport, October 2001,” unpublished report,2001; World Neighbors, “Three Year ProgramPlan FY 02—Integral Development Bolivar,”unpublished document, 2002.

49. Working for Water, at <www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/>, viewed 27 September 2002; CarolineHanks, “The Working for Water Program in SouthAfrica,” Women’s Health Project Newsletter, August2000, pp. 4–5; Cape Floral Kingdom from Con-servation Planning Unit, Scientific Services Divi-sion, Western Cape Nature Conservation Board,Footprints in the Fynbos: Humans and BiodiversityMeet in the Cape Floristic Region (Stellenbosch,South Africa: June 2002), p. 5.

50. Jane Goodall Institute, at <www.janegoodall.org/jgi/programs/tacare.html>, viewed 6 July2002; Jane Goodall Institute, “TACARE ProjectAnnual Report 2001,” unpublished report, 2002;Christina Ellis, director, Africa Programs, JaneGoodall Institute, e-mail to author, 30 July 2002.

51. Biodiversity details from Conservation Inter-national, “Conservation Regions: Asia-Pacific,Melanesia,” at <www.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/regions/asia_pacific/melanesia/melanesia.xml>, viewed 19 September 2002; programinformation from WWF—Solomon Islands, “Rais-ing Awareness on Population and EnvironmentIssues in Western and Choiseul Provinces of theBismarck Solomon Seas Ecoregion,” unpublishedproposal, January 2002; gender equity policy fromWorld Wildlife Fund, Conservation StrategiesUnit, Social Dimensions in a Biological World:Integrating Gender and Conservation in PriorityEcoregions (Washington, DC: 2001), pp. 13–14;fertility figure from UNPD, op. cit. note 2.

52. Statement by Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, exec-utive director, UNFPA, at Panel Discussion at theThird Preparatory Committee for the Johannes-burg Summit, New York, 29 January 2002.

53. Conservation International, op. cit. note 47.

54. Nepal from author’s discussions with WWF—Nepal Program Office staff, other conservationpractitioners, program participants, and govern-ment agency staff, Kathmandu, Phakding, andNamche, March 2002; Tanzania from author’sdiscussions with WWF—Tanzania Program Officestaff, Dar es Salaam, May 2002.

55. Figure on adolescents from UNPD, op. cit.note 2; World Bank, “Bangladesh: Girls’ Educa-tion Gets US$121 Million in World Bank Sup-port,” press release (Washington, DC: 12 March2002); “Early Marriage Linked to High MaternalMortality, UNICEF Says,” UN Wire, 8 July 2002.

56. World Wildlife Fund, Conservation StrategiesUnit, “Gender and Ecoregion Conservation: TheBurning Questions,” Sharing Across Boundaries,March 2001; Bronwen Golder, senior researchfellow, World Wildlife Fund, e-mail to author, 26September 2002.

57. Based on author’s visit, May 2002, and onMia MacDonald, Deborah Snelson, and CarolineStem, “Report of the WWF—U.S. Populationand Gender Project Review,” unpublished report,June 2002.


195


58. Ibid.

59. Working groups from Ness with Golay, op.cit. note 41, pp. 40–44.

60. IUCN from Aguilar, Executive Summary,op. cit. note 28; Sundarbans project from UNDPand UNFPA, “Biodiversity Management in theSundarbans World Heritage Site: An IntegratedTwo Country Approach in India and Bangladesh,2002,” project proposal, 2002.

61. Brazil from José Goldemberg, LeapfrogEnergy Technologies (San Francisco, CA: EnergyFoundation, 1997), cited in UNDP, op. cit. note15, p. 84.

62. “Turn the Tide: Nine Actions for the Planet,”at <www.newdream.org/turnthetide/>, viewed18 September 2002; information on women’sparticipation from Seán Sheehan, national out-reach director, Center for a New American Dream,Takoma Park, MD, discussion with author, 11October 2002; Women’s Environmental Network,at <www.wen.org.uk>, viewed 19 September 2002.

63. Daniel Mavella, project executant, WWFTanzania Program Office, Dar es Salaam, Tanza-nia, discussion with author, 6 May 2002.

64. UNFPA and U.N. Department of Economicand Social Affairs, Population, Environment andPoverty Eradication for Sustainable Development—Actions Toward Johannesburg 2002, BackgroundPaper No. 14, World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, second preparatory session, 28 Jan-uary–8 February 2002, p. 9.

65. H.R.2506, Foreign Operations, ExportFinancing, and Related Programs AppropriationsAct, 107th Congress, 1st session, 2002, and Con-ference Report 107-345, Title II, Child Survivaland Health Programs Fund; Lisa Moreno, seniorlegislative policy analyst, Population Action Inter-national, discussion with author, 23 July 2002.

Chapter 4. Combating Malaria

1. Figure of 7,000 based on range of annualdeaths from Joel G. Breman, “The Ears of the Hip-

popotamus: Manifestations, Determinants, andEstimates of the Malaria Burden,” American Jour-nal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, January/Feb-ruary 2001(supp.), p. 1; history and Burnet quotefrom Andrew Nikiforuk, The Fourth Horseman: AShort History of Epidemics, Plagues, Famine andOther Scourges (New York: M. Evans & Company,Inc., 1991), p. 14, 17–18.

2. Hindi from Nikiforuk, op. sit. note 1, p. 17;Ann Hwang, “AIDS Passes 20-Year Mark,” inWorldwatch Institute, Vital Signs 2002 (New York:W.W. Norton & Company, 2002), pp. 90–91.

3. Population at risk from World Health Orga-nization (WHO), The World Health Report 1999(Geneva: 1999), p. 49; Patrice Trouiller et al.,“Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: ADeficient Market and a Public-Health Policy Fail-ure,” The Lancet, 22 June 2002, pp. 2188–94.

4. WHO, WHO Expert Committee on Malaria:Twentieth Report, WHO Technical Report SeriesNo. 892 (Geneva: 2000).

5. Figure of $3–12 billion from WHO, “Eco-nomic Costs of Malaria Are Many Times Higherthan Previously Estimated,” press release (Geneva:25 April 2000); $2.5 billion from Report of theCommission on Macroeconomics and Health,Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health forEconomic Development (Geneva: WHO, 20December 2001), p. 161; $150 million estimatefrom Jeffrey D. Sachs, Center for InternationalDevelopment, Harvard University, Cambridge,MA, e-mail to author, 5 March 2002; U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, “HHS Bud-get for HIV/AIDS Increase 8 Percent,” pressrelease (Washington, DC: 4 February 2002).

6. Figure 4–1 adapted from John Luke Gallupand Jeffrey D. Sachs, “The Economic Burden ofMalaria,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine& Hygiene, January/February 2001 (supp.), p. 86;geography from ibid.; percent from WHO, op. cit.note 3; Norman G. Gratz, Robert Steffen, andWilliam Cocksedge, “Why Aircraft Disinsection?”Bulletin of the World Health Organization, August2000, pp. 995–1004.


196

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

7. Figure of 90 percent from WHO, op. cit.note 4, p. 3, and from Joel G. Breman, AndréaEgan, and Gerald T. Keusch, “The IntolerableBurden of Malaria: A New Look at the Num-bers,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine &Hygiene, January/February 2001 (supp.), p. iv;outpatient clinics from UNICEF Programme Divi-sion and WHO, “The Global Malaria Burden,”The Prescriber, January 2000; five strains fromDonovan Webster, “Malaria Kills One Child Every30 Seconds,” Smithsonian, September 2000, p. 40;B. Greenwood, “Malaria Mortality and Morbid-ity in Africa,” Bulletin of the World Health Orga-nization, August 1999, p. 617.

8. J. Kevin Baird, “Resurgent Malaria at theMillennium,” Drugs, April 2000, pp. 721, 733–36.

9. Sean C. Murphy and Joel G. Breman, “Gapsin the Childhood Malaria Burden in Africa: Cere-bral Malaria, Neurological Sequelae, Anemia, Respiratory Distress, Hypoglycemia, and Com-plications of Pregnancy,” American Journal ofTropical Medicine & Hygiene, January/February2001 (supp.), pp. 57–67; Kenya from Ellen Rup-pel Shell, “Resurgence of a Deadly Disease,”Atlantic Monthly, August 1997, p. 49; cerebralmalaria from P. A. Holding and R. W. Snow,“Impact of Plasmodium falciparum Malaria onPerformance and Learning: Review of the Evi-dence,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine &Hygiene, January/February 2001 (supp.), pp.68–75.

10. Helen L. Guyatt and Robert W. Snow, “TheEpidemiology and Burden of Plasmodium falci-parum-related Anemia among Pregnant Womenin Sub-Saharan Africa,” American Journal of Trop-ical Medicine & Hygiene, January/February 2001(supp.), pp. 36–44; miscarriages, stillbirths, andlow birth weight from Murphy and Breman, op.cit. note 9, p. 57; 30 percent and 60 percent fromJeffrey Sachs and Pia Malaney, “The Economic andSocial Burden of Malaria,” Nature, 7 February2002, p. 682.

11. Sachs and Malaney, op. cit. note 10, pp.682–83; Catherine Goodman, Paul Coleman, andAnne Mills, Economic Analysis of Malaria Controlin Sub-Saharan Africa (Geneva: Global Forum for

Health Research, May 2000), pp. 162–63.

12. Number living in poverty from Molly O.Sheehan, “Poverty Persists,” in Worldwatch Insti-tute, op. cit. note 2, pp. 148–49; Goodman,Coleman, and Mills, op. cit. note 11, pp. 159–73.

13. Isolating cycle from Sachs and Malaney, op.cit. note 10, p. 684; costs and development aidfrom WHO, op. cit. note 5.

14. Figure 4–2 from WHO, op. cit. note 3, p. 50;Thomas C. Nchinda, “Malaria: A ReemergingDisease in Africa,” Emerging Infectious Diseases,July-September 1998, pp. 398–403; Robert W.Snow, Jean-François Trape, and Kevin Marsh,“The Past, Present and Future of ChildhoodMalaria Mortality in Africa,” Trends in Parasitol-ogy, December 2001, pp. 593–97.

15. Official estimates from WHO, op. cit. note3, p. 49; three times higher from Ebrahim Samba,“The Malaria Burden and Africa,” American Jour-nal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, January/Feb-ruary 2001 (supp.), p. ii; high-fever episodes andpotential doubling from Breman, op. cit. note 1,pp. 1, 7.

16. Andrew Spielman and Michael D’Antonio,Mosquito: A Natural History of Our Most Persistentand Deadly Foe (New York: Hyperion, 2001), p.95; Jean-François Trape, “The Public HealthImpact of Chloroquine Resistance in Africa,”American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene,January/February 2001 (supp.), p. 15.

17. Baird, op. cit. note 8, pp. 719, 728–30;WHO, op. cit. note 3, p. 52.

18. Replacement drugs from Nchinda, op. cit.note 14, and from WHO, op. cit. note 4, pp. 5,31; Thailand from Eliot Marshall, “Reinventing anAncient Cure for Malaria,” Science, 20 October2000, p. 437.

19. Martin Enserink and Elizabeth Pennisi,“Researchers Crack Malaria Genome,” Science,15 February 2002, p. 1207; Malcolm J. Gardneret al., “Genome Sequence of the Human MalariaParasite Plasmodium falciparum,” Nature, 3 Octo-


197

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

ber 2002, pp. 498–511; Robert A. Holt et al.,“The Genome Sequence of the Malaria MosquitoAnopheles gambiae,” Science, 4 October 2002, pp.129–49.

20. Malaria belt from Webster, op. cit. note 7, p.36; Afghanistan and Sierra Leone from UNICEFProgramme Division and WHO, op. cit. note 7;North and South Korea, Tajikistan, and urbanareas from WHO, op. cit. note 4, p. 6; urbanmalaria also from Vincent Robert et al., “MalariaTransmission in Urban Africa,” American Journalof Tropical Medicine & Hygiene (in press).

21. David J. Rogers and Sarah E. Randolph,“The Global Spread of Malaria in a Future, WarmerWorld,” Science, 8 September 2000, pp. 1763–66.

22. Box 4–1 from the following: J. B. Opschoorand D. W. Pearce, “Persistent Pollutants: A Chal-lenge for the Nineties,” in J. B. Opschoor andDavid Pearce, eds., Persistent Pollutants: Econom-ics and Policy (Boston, MA: Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 1991); cod and turbot from WorldWildlife Fund (WWF), Resolving the DDTDilemma: Protecting Human Health and Biodi-versity (Washington, DC: June 1998), p. 11; DDEfrom Matthew P. Longnecker, Walter J. Rogan,and George Lucier, “The Human Health Effectsof DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) andPCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls) and anOverview of Organochlorines in Public Health,”Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 18 (1997),pp. 211–44; animal effects from H. Burlington andV. F. Lindeman, “Effect of DDT on Testes andSecondary Sex Characteristics of White LeghornCockerels,” Proceedings of the Society for Experi-mental Biology and Medicine, vol. 74 (1950), pp.48–51, and from V. Turusov, V. Rakitsky, and L.Tomatis, “Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane(DDT): Ubiquity, Persistence, and Risks,” Envi-ronmental Health Perspectives, February 2002, pp.125–28; Committee on Hormonally Active Agentsin the Environment, Board on EnvironmentalStudies and Toxicology, National Research Coun-cil, Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000),pp. 165, 289; Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry, “Toxicological Profile for DDT,DDE, DDD: Draft for Public Comment” (Atlanta,

GA: September 2000); W. R. Kelce et al., “Per-sistent DDT Metabolite p,p’-DDE Is a PotentAndrogen Receptor Antagonist,” Nature, 15 June1995, pp. 581–85; Matthew P. Longnecker et al.,“Association Between Maternal Serum Concen-tration of the DDT Metabolite DDE and Pretermand Small-for-Gestational-Age Babies at Birth,”The Lancet, 14 July 2001, pp. 110–14; GreenpeaceInternational, Unseen Poisons: Levels of Organochlo-rine Chemicals in Human Tissues (Amsterdam:June 1998); Costa Rica from Berna van Wendel deJoode et al., “Chronic Nervous-System Effects ofLong-Term Occupational Exposure to DDT,”The Lancet, 31 March 2001, pp. 1014–16.

23. Institute of Medicine (IOM), Malaria:Obstacles and Opportunities (Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1991), pp. 90–129;Leonard Jan Bruce-Chwatt, Essential Malariology(London: William Heinemann Medical Books,Ltd., 1980), pp. 10–30, 97–124; Andy Coghlan,“Four-Pronged Attack,” New Scientist, 20 Feb-ruary 1999, p. 11.

24. Figure 4–3 from U.S. Navy Bureau of Med-icine and Surgery, Navy Environmental HealthCenter, Navy Medical Department Pocket Guide toMalaria Prevention and Control, Technical Man-ual (Iowa City: University of Iowa, Virtual NavalHospital, 2000); IOM, op. cit. note 23; microlitersfrom Martin Enserink, “Building a Disease-Fight-ing Mosquito,” Science, 20 October 2000, p. 440;share deposited from J. C. Beier et al., “Quanti-tation of Malaria Sporozoites Transmitted in vitroDuring Salivation by Wild Afrotropical Anopheles,”Medical and Veterinary Entomology, vol. 5 (1991),pp. 71–79; rapid dispersal period from GaryTaubes, “Malaria Parasite Outwits the ImmuneSystem,” Science, 20 October 2000, p. 435.

25. Taubes, op. cit. note 24.

26. Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, pp. 13–29,35–41; 20-fold from Taubes, op. cit. note 24.

27. J. C. Beier, “Malaria Parasite Developmentin Mosquitoes,” Annual Review of Entomology, vol.43 (1998), pp. 519–43.

28. IOM, op. cit. note 23, p. 27; Bruce-Chwatt,


198

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

op. cit. note 23, pp. 97–114.

29. Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, pp. 158–59;explanation and examples from Spielman andD’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, pp. 96–97.

30. Spielman and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, p.97.

31. Mario Coluzzi, “The Clay Feet of the MalariaGiant and Its African Roots: Hypotheses and Infer-ences About Origin, Spread and Control of Plas-modium falciparum,” Parassitologia, September1999, pp. 277–83; Robert S. Desowitz, TheMalaria Capers: More Tales of Parasites and Peo-ple, Research and Reality (New York: W.W. Nor-ton & Company, 1991), pp. 146–47.

32. Figure of 95 percent from Malcolm Gladwell,“The Mosquito Killer,” New Yorker, 2 July 2001,p. 45; emergence of parasite from Coluzzi, op. cit.note 31.

33. Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, pp. 58–59;Desowitz, op. cit. note 31, p. 148; Gallup andSachs, op. cit. note 6, p. 89.

34. Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, pp. 58–59;Desowitz, op. cit. note 31, p. 148; Gallup andSachs, op. cit. note 6, p. 89; A. Ashley-Koch, Q.Yang, and R.S. Olney, “Sickle Hemoglobin (HbS)Allele and Sickle Cell Disease: A HuGE Review,”American Journal of Epidemiology, May 2000, pp.839–45; K. Pattanapanyasat et al., “Impairment ofPlasmodium falciparum Growth in ThalassemicRed Blood Cells: Further Evidence by UsingBiotin Labeling and Flow Cytometry,” Blood, 1May 1999, pp. 3116–19.

35. Range of bites in Africa from J. C. Beier, G.F. Killeen, and J. I. Githure, “Short Report: Ento-mologic Inoculation Rates and Plasmodium fal-ciparum Malaria Prevalence in Africa,” AmericanJournal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, July1999, pp. 109–13, and from Yeya Tiémoko Touréand Mario Coluzzi, “The Challenges of DoingMore Against Malaria, Particularly in Africa,” Bul-letin of the World Health Organization, December2000, p. 1376; success rate from J. Kevin Baird,Parasitic Diseases Program, U.S. Naval Medical

Research Unit, Jakarta, Indonesia, e-mail to author,18 August 2002; risk and toll from Baird, op. cit.note 8, pp. 719–43.

36. Baird, op. cit. note 8, pp. 734–37; partialimmunity and course of infection from Shell, op.cit. note 9, pp. 47–49.

37. Baird, op. cit. note 8, pp. 734–37; P. D.McElroy et al., “Dose- and Time-Dependent Rela-tions between Infective Anopheles Inoculation andOutcomes of Plasmodium falciparum Parasitemiaamong Children in Western Kenya,” AmericanJournal of Epidemiology, May 1997, pp. 945–56.

38. W. F. Bynum, “Mosquitoes Bite More ThanOnce,” Science, 4 January 2002, pp. 47–48; Des-owitz, op. cit. note 31, pp. 143–52.

39. David McCullough, The Path Between theSeas: The Creation of the Panama Canal,1870–1914 (New York: Simon and Schuster,1977); percentages from Spielman and D’Antonio,op. cit. note 16, p. 125.

40. Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, p. 4; Glad-well, op. cit. note 32, pp. 42–44.

41. IOM, op. cit. note 23, pp. 41–43; Spielmanand D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, pp. 157–59.

42. IOM, op. cit. note 23, pp. 41–42; Gladwell,op. cit. note 32, pp. 47–48.

43. WWF, op. cit. note 22, p. 3; Spielman andD’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, p. 165; Bruce-Chwatt,op. cit. note 23, p. 4.

44. Gladwell, op. cit. note 32, p. 50; Spielmanand D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, pp. 157–59;Bruce-Chwatt, op. cit. note 23, pp. 280–85.

45. Spielman and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16,pp. 148–50; IOM, op. cit. note 23, p. 42.

46. IOM, op. cit. note 23, p. 44; Desowitz, op.cit. note 31, p. 213–16.

47. Desowitz, op. cit. note 31, pp. 217–18; M. A. Farid, “The Malaria Campaign—Why Not


199

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

Eradication?” World Health Forum, vol. 19 (1998),pp. 417–27.

48. Spielman and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16,pp. 179–83.

49. Ibid.

50. David Brewster, “Is It Worth a Dam If ItWorsens Malaria?” British Medical Journal, 11September 1999, pp. 651–52.

51. J. F. Walsh, D. H. Molyneux, and M. H.Birley, “Deforestation: Effects on Vector-borneDisease,” Parasitology, vol. 106 (1993) (supp.), pp.S55–75; migrations from R. Danis-Lozano et al.,“Risk Factors for Plasmodium vivax Infection inthe Lacandon Forest, Southern Mexico,” Epi-demiology and Infection, June 1999, pp. 461–69;Beier, Killeen, and Githure, op. cit. note 35.

52. Sri Lanka from R. Ramasamy et al., “MalariaTransmission at a New Irrigation Project in SriLanka: The Emergence of Anopheles annularis asa Major Vector,” American Journal of TropicalMedicine & Hygiene, November 1992, pp.547–53, and from Spielman and D’Antonio, op.cit. note 16, p. 176; Tigray from Brewster, op. cit.note 50, pp. 651–52, and from Tedros A. Ghe-breyesus et al., “Incidence of Malaria among Chil-dren Living Near Dams in Northern Ethiopia:Community Based Incidence Survey,” BritishMedical Journal, 11 September 1999, pp. 663–66.

53. Burton H. Singer and Marcia Caldas de Cas-tro, “Agricultural Colonization and Malaria onthe Amazon Frontier,” Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences, December 2001, pp. 187,191.

54. Ibid., p. 189.

55. Y. Ye-Ebiyo, R. J. Pollack, and A. Spielman,“Enhanced Development in Nature of LarvalAnopheles arabiensis Mosquitoes Feeding on MaizePollen,” American Journal of Tropical Medicine &Hygiene, July/August 2000, pp. 90–93; Spiel-man and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, pp. 220–21.

56. V. P. Sharma, “Re-emergence of Malaria in

India,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, Jan-uary 1996, p. 32; Tennessee Valley Authority fromSpielman and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16, pp.152–53.

57. Preferences from Walsh, Molyneux, and Bir-ley, op. cit. note 51, from Spielman and D’Anto-nio, op. cit. note 16, p. 211, and from Donald R.Roberts and Kevin Baird, “DDT Is Still Neededfor Disease Control,” Pesticide Safety News, firsttrimester 2002, p. 2; McWilson Warren et al.,“Malaria in Urban and Peri-Urban Areas in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Environmental Health Project,Activity Report No. 71 (Washington, DC: U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID),August 1999), and from Robert et al., op. cit. note20.

58. Warren et al., op. cit. note 57.

59. J. N. Ijumba, F. W. Mosha, and S. W. Lind-say, “Malaria Transmission Risk Variations Derivedfrom Different Agricultural Practices in an IrrigatedArea of Northern Tanzania,” Medical and Vet-erinary Entomology, March 2002, pp. 28–38.

60. U. D’Alessandro and H. Buttiens, “Historyand Importance of Antimalarial Drug Resistance,”Tropical Medicine & International Health,November 2001, pp. 845–48; deaths, hospitaladmissions, and today from Trape, op. cit. note 16,pp. 12–17.

61. Cost from WHO, op. cit. note 3, p. 59;without prescription from Donald G. McNeil Jr.,“New Drug for Malaria Pits U.S. Against Africa,”New York Times, 28 May 2002; complicated naturefrom Trape, op. cit. note 16, p. 15.

62. Ministry of Health, Mexico, “Experience inReducing Use of DDT in Mexico,” prepared forthe Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical SafetyExperts Meeting on POPs, Manila, Philippines,17–19 June 1996; 20,000 average annual casesbetween 1959 and 1975 (except for peak in1968–71 of 60,000) from Lizbeth López-Car-rillo et al., “Is DDT Use a Public Health Problemin Mexico?” Environmental Health Perspectives,June 1996, p. 585.


200

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

63. Ministry of Health, op. cit. note 62.

64. López-Carrillo et al., op. cit. note 62, pp.584–88; Ministry of Health, op. cit. note 62;Keith E. Chanon et al., “Cooperative Actions toAchieve Malaria Control Without the Use ofDDT,” International Journal of Hygiene andEnvironmental Health (in press).

65. Rise in annual infections from Roberts andBaird, op. cit. note 57; Fernando BejaranoGonzález, “The Phasing Out of DDT in Mexico,”Pesticide Safety News, fourth trimester 2001; H.Gómez-Dantés and A. E. Birn, “Malaria and SocialMovements in Mexico: The Last 60 Years,” Paras-sitologia, June 2000, pp. 69–85.

66. González, op. cit. note 65.

67. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO),Report on the Status of Malaria Programs in theAmericas (Based on 2000 Data), Forty-thirdDirecting Council, Fifty-third Session of theRegional Committee, Washington, DC, 24–28September 2001 (Washington, DC: 19 September2001), p. 8; Gómez-Dantés and Birn, op. cit.note 65, p. 80.

68. José Manuel Galindo Jaramillo, “Promot-ing Health Through Sustainable Development,”presentation at World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, Preparatory Commission 3, UnitedNations, New York, 1 April 2002; José ManuelGalindo Jaramillo, North American Commissionfor Environmental Cooperation, Mexico City, e-mail to author, 31 July 2002.

69. Rich Liroff, “DDT’s Future Under theStockholm Convention,” Pesticide Safety News,first trimester 2002, p. 3; Jaramillo, e-mail toauthor, op. cit. note 68.

70. Burton Singer, “We Can Do SomethingAbout Malaria Today,” HMS Beagle (BioMedNetmagazine, at <bmn.com>, Elsevier Science Lim-ited), 13 October 2000.

71. U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP),“Governments Finalize Persistent Organic Pollu-tants Treaty,” press release (Johannesburg: 10

December 2000).

72. Henk Bouwman, “Malaria Control and theParadox of DDT,” Africa: Environment andWildlife, May 2000, p. 56.

73. Ibid.; South African Broadcasting Corpora-tion, “Malaria Below Acceptable Levels,” at <www.sabcnews.com/south_africa/health>,viewed 17 August 2002; Roger Thurow, “Choiceof Evils: As a Tropical Scourge Makes a Comeback,So, Too, Does DDT,” Wall Street Journal, 26July 2001.

74. PAHO, “Situation of Malaria Programs in theAmericas,” Epidemiological Bulletin, March 2001;Peter Trigg and Anatoli Kondrachine, “The GlobalMalaria Control Strategy,” World Health,May/June 1998, p. 4.

75. Resistance from B. Sina and K. Aultman,“Resisting Resistance,” Trends in Parasitology,July 2001, pp. 305–06, and from M. Akogbeto,H. Noukpo, and G. Ahoueya, “Overview of Fac-tors Influencing the Emergence of InsecticideResistance,” presentation at Multilateral Initiativeon Malaria Conference, Insecticide Resistance inMalaria Vectors, Harare, Zimbabwe, 5–9 March2001; frequency of bites from Gallup and Sachs,op. cit. note 6, p. 89.

76. WHO, op. cit. note 4, pp. 57–64; Gerry F.Killeen, Ulrike Fillinger, and Bart G.J. Knols,“Advantages of Larval Control for African MalariaVectors: Low Mobility and Behavioural Respon-siveness of Immature Mosquito Stages Allow HighEffective Coverage,” Malaria Journal, 21 June2002, pp. 1–7; Michael Macdonald, USAID Envi-ronmental Health Project, Arlington, VA, e-mailto author, 19 March 2002.

77. Geoffrey A. T. Targett and Brian M. Green-wood, “Impregnated Bednets,” World Health,May/June 1998, pp. 10–11; Martin Enserink,“Bed Nets Prove Their Mettle Against Malaria,”Science, 14 December 2001, p. 2271; Macdonald,op. cit. note 76.

78. Incidence from WHO, “Malaria Major Killerin Africa—But Bednets Can Save Lives,” press


201

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

release (Geneva: 25 April 2001), and from C.Lengeler, “Insecticide-treated Bednets and Cur-tains for Preventing Malaria,” Cochrane Databaseof Systematic Reviews, 2000 (2):CD000363 (soft-ware update); 25 percent from U. D’Alessandroet al., “Mortality and Morbidity from Malaria inGambian Children after Introduction of anImpregnated Bednet Programme,” The Lancet,25 February 1995, pp. 479–83, and from JoannaR. M. Armstrong Schellenberg et al., “Effect ofLarge-scale Social Marketing of Insecticide-treatedNets on Child Survival in Rural Tanzania,” TheLancet, 21 April 2001, pp. 1241–47; herd effectfrom Enserink, op. cit. note 77.

79. Malaria Consortium et al., “Chapter 4: Chal-lenges to Expanding Coverage and Use,” in Insec-ticide Treated Nets in the 21st Century: Report ofthe Second International Conference on InsecticideTreated Nets, held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,11–14 October 1999 (London: Malaria Consor-tium of the London School of Hygiene & Trop-ical Medicine, 1999), p. 4–3.

80. USAID, Bureau for Africa, Office of Sus-tainable Development, Division of Agriculture,Natural Resources and Rural Enterprise, Pro-grammatic Environmental Assessment for Insecti-cide-Treated Materials in USAID Activities inSub-Saharan Africa (Washington, DC: January2002).

81. Program for Appropriate Technology inHealth Canada, Barriers to Trade in Mosquito Netsand Insecticides in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ottawa,ON, Canada: April 1998); Kabir Cham, List ofAfrican Countries Which Have Reduced and/orWaived Taxes and Tariffs on Nets, Netting Mate-rials and Insecticides (Geneva: WHO, Roll BackMalaria, March 2002).

82. DDT user status from WHO, “Final DDTAgreement Endorses RBM Objectives,” RBMNews, February 2001, p. 6; United Nations TreatyCollection, “List of Signatories and Parties to theStockholm Convention (as of 4 October 2002)”at <www.pops.int/documents/signature/signstatus.htm>, viewed 16 October 2002; UNEP,“Revised List of Requests for Specific Exemptionsin Annex A and Annex B and Acceptable Pur-

poses in Annex B Received by the Secretariat Priorto the Commencement of the Conference ofPlenipotentiaries on 22 May 2001” (Geneva: 14June 2001); possible existing taxes based on Cham,op. cit. note 81.

83. Amir Attaran et al., “Balancing Risks on theBacks of the Poor,” Nature Medicine, July 2000,pp. 729–31; Todd Seavey, The DDT Ban Turns30—Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban,More Deaths Likely (Washington, DC: AmericanCouncil on Science and Health, June 2002).

84. Spielman and D’Antonio, op. cit. note 16,pp. 219–20.

85. J. F. Trape et al., “Combating Malaria inAfrica,” Trends in Parasitology, May 2002, pp.224–30; housing from Spielman and D’Antonio,op. cit. note 16, pp. 220–21; Malaria Consor-tium, Malaria and Poverty: Opportunities toAddress Malaria through Debt Relief and PovertyReduction Strategies, background paper for theFourth RBM Global Partners Meeting, Washing-ton, DC, 18–19 April 2001 (London: MalariaConsortium of the London School of Hygiene &Tropical Medicine, April 2001).

86. Mills quoted in WHO, op. cit. note 5; $2.5billion from Commission on Macroeconomicsand Health, op. cit. note 5; 1¢ for every $100 isa Worldwatch estimate based on industrial-coun-try gross domestic product in David Malin Rood-man, “Economic Growth Falters,” in WorldwatchInstitute, op. cit. note 2, p. 58.

87. S. Meek, J. Hill, and J. Webster, The EvidenceBase for Interventions to Reduce Malaria Mortal-ity in Low and Middle-Income Countries, Com-mission on Macroeconomics and Health, WorkingPaper Series No. WG5:6 (London: Malaria Con-sortium of the London School of Hygiene &Tropical Medicine, September 2001), p. 26.

88. David McGuire, NetMark Africa (USAIDand the Academy for Educational Development),Washington, DC, discussion with author, 12December 2001.

89. Cost-effectiveness from D. B. Evans, G.


202

NOTES, CHAPTER 4

Azene, and J. Kirigia, “Should Governments Sub-sidize the Use of Insecticide-impregnated Mos-quito Nets in Africa? Implications of aCost-effectiveness Analysis,” Health Policy andPlanning, June 1997, pp. 107–14; China andViet Nam from WHO, op. cit. note 3, p. 55, andfrom Tran Duc Hinh, “Use of Insecticide-Impreg-nated Bed Nets for Malaria Control in Vietnam,”Mekong Malaria Forum (Regional Malaria Con-trol Programme in Cambodia, Laos, and Viet-nam), April 2000; Zambia from McGuire, op. cit.note 88, and from Michael Macdonald, USAIDEnvironmental Health Project, Arlington, VA, e-mail to author, 14 February 2002.

90. Malariologists eradicated from Farid, op. cit.note 47, p. 426; A. J. McMichael and R. Beagle-hole, “The Changing Global Context of PublicHealth,” The Lancet, 5 August 2000, pp. 495–99;M. F. Myers et al., “Forecasting Disease Risk forIncreased Epidemic Preparedness in PublicHealth,” Advances in Parasitology, vol. 47 (2000),pp. 309–30.

91. Difficulties of predictions from P. Carnevaleet al., “Diversity of Malaria in Rice Growing Areasof the Afrotropical Region,” Parassitologia, Sep-tember 1999, pp. 273–76; high altitudes fromBrewster, op. cit. note 50; benefits of drainingrice paddies from Gladwell, op. cit. note 32, p. 51.

92. A. Seyoum et al., “Traditional Use of Mos-quito-Repellent Plants in Western Kenya and TheirEvaluation in Semi-field Experimental HutsAgainst Anopheles gambiae: Ethnobotanical Stud-ies and Application by Thermal Expulsion andDirect Burning,” Transactions of the Royal Societyof Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, May/June 2002,pp. 225–31; G. P. Bhat and N. Surolia, “In vitroAntimalarial Activity of Extracts of Three PlantsUsed in the Traditional Medicine of India,” Amer-ican Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene,October 2001, pp. 304–08; S. J. Moore, A.Lenglet, and N. Hill, “Field Evaluation of ThreePlant-Based Insect Repellents Against MalariaVectors in Vaca Diez Province, the Bolivian Ama-zon,” Journal of the American Mosquito ControlAssociation, June 2002, pp. 107–10.

93. S. Abdulla et al., “Impact on Malaria Mor-

bidity of a Programme Supplying InsecticideTreated Nets in Children Aged Under 2 Years inTanzania: Community Cross Sectional Study,”British Medical Journal, 3 February 2001, pp.270–73; child survival from Schellenberg et al., op.cit. note 78.

94. G. Kidane and R. H. Morrow, “TeachingMothers to Provide Home Treatment of Malariain Tigray, Ethiopia: A Randomised Trial,” TheLancet, 12 August 2000, pp. 550–55; “EthiopiaMothers Spread Home Treatment Message,”RBM News, December 2000, p. 3.

95. East African Network for Monitoring Anti-malarial Treatment, “Monitoring AntimalarialDrug Resistance within National Malaria ControlProgrammes: The EANMAT Experience,” Trop-ical Medicine & International Health, Novem-ber 2001, pp. 891–98.

96. Integrated Management of Childhood Illnessfrom WHO, op. cit. note 3, pp. 57–58;artemisinins from Robert G. Ridley, “MedicalNeed, Scientific Opportunity and the Drive forAntimalarial Drugs,” Nature, 7 February 2002, pp.686–93; suppositories from WHO, Communica-ble Diseases 2000: Highlights of Activities in 1999and Major Challenges for the Future (Geneva: Jan-uary 2000), p. 82, and from Julie McLaughlin,Africa Region, World Bank, Washington, DC, e-mail to author, 25 September 2002.

97. David Schellenberg et al., “IntermittentTreatment for Malaria and Anaemia Control atTime of Routine Vaccinations in Tanzanian Infants:A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial,” TheLancet, 12 May 2001, pp. 1471–77; Catherine A.Goodman, Paul C. Coleman, and Anne J. Mills,“The Cost-Effectiveness of Antenatal Malaria Pre-vention in Sub-Saharan Africa,” American Jour-nal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene,January/February 2001 (supp.), pp. 45–56; HelenL. Guyatt et al., “Free Bednets to Pregnant Womenthrough Antenatal Clinics in Kenya: A Cheap,Simple and Equitable Approach to Delivery,”Tropical Medicine & International Health, May2002, pp. 409–20.

98. Joanne McManus, “Finding a Cure,” Far


203


Eastern Economic Review, 23 November 2000,p. 43.

99. Ibid.; frontier areas and emergencies fromWHO, op. cit. note 4, pp. 18–26, 60; E. K. Ansahet al., “Improving Adherence to Malaria Treatmentfor Children: The Use of Pre-Packed ChloroquineTablets vs. Chloroquine Syrup,” Tropical Medicine& International Health, vol. 6, no. 7 (2001), pp.496–504.

100. Comparison of malaria and AIDS from Dr.Stephen Hoffman, Celera Genomics, Rockville,MD, discussion with author, 19 July 2002; Novar-tis from Novartis International AG, NovartisAnnual Report 2001 (Basel: 2002), from “PoorCountries Get Deal on Malaria Drug,” USA Today,24 May 2001, and from Gautam Naik, “NewMalaria Strain Hits Africa,” Asian Wall StreetJournal, 30 July 2001.

101. Gro Harlem Brundtland from Moisés Naím,“The Global War for Public Health,” Foreign Pol-icy, January/February 2002, pp. 24–36; EliotMarshall, “A Renewed Assault on an Old andDeadly Foe,” Science, 20 October 2000, pp.428–30. Table 4–3 from the following: WHO, op.cit. note 3, pp. 59–62; Global Fund from “GlobalFund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria:Overview,” at <www.globalfundatm.org/overview.html>, viewed 27 September 2002, withconfirmed funds from “Q&A on the Progress ofthe Global Fund, July 2002,” at <www.globalfundatm.org/faq_finaltopublic.html#3>, viewed4 October 2002, and approved projects from“Proposals/Components Approved for Fundingwith No or Minor Adjustments,” at <www.globalfundatm.org/files/Proposalslist_40.doc> viewed4 October 2002; Roll Back Malaria (RBM) fromBarbara Crossette, “U.N. and World Bank UniteTo Wage War on Malaria,” New York Times, 31October 1998, with $24 million from GuntherBaugh, Resource Mobilization and Administration,RBM Secretariat, e-mail to Suprotik Basu, MalariaTeam, World Bank, 11 October 2002; Medicinesfor Malaria Venture (MMV) from Jocelyn Kaiser,“Raising the Stakes in the Race for New MalariaDrugs,” Science, 25 September 1998, p. 1930,with current MMV budget, quote, and projectsfrom Declan Butler, “What Difference Does a

Genome Make?” Nature, 3 October 2002, pp.426–28, and from Geoffrey Cowley, “Bill’s BiggestBet Yet,” Newsweek, 4 February 2002, pp. 44–52;Multilateral Initiative on Malaria in Africa fundingfrom “Anteing Up for a World War on Malaria,”Science, 29 August 1997, p. 1207, from MédicinsSans Frontières, Access to Essential MedicinesCampaign and the Drugs for Neglected DiseasesWorking Group, Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis inResearch and Development for Drugs for NeglectedDiseases (Geneva: September 2001), and currentbudget from Andréa Egan, Multilateral Initiativeon Malaria, National Institutes of Health,Bethesda, MD, e-mail to author, 1 October 2002.

102. Webster, op. cit. note 7; Gro HarlemBrundtland, “Health: A Pathway to SustainableDevelopment,” Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 10 July 2002, p. 156.

Chapter 5.Charting a New Energy Future

1. Thailand from Grainne Ryder, “Coal-firedPower Is Obsolete,” The Nation, 12 May 1999,and from Greenpeace, “Blessings Rain Down fora Solar Future,” press release (Prachuap Khiri KanProvince, Thailand: 2 May 2002); U.S. Depart-ment of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Effi-ciency and Renewable Energy (EREN), “CaliforniaMandates 20 Percent Renewable Power by 2017,”at <www.eren.doe.gov/news/news_detail.cfm?news_id=325>, viewed 25 September 2002.

2. International Energy Agency (IEA), WorldEnergy Outlook, 2001 Insights: Assessing Today’sSupplies to Fuel Tomorrow’s Growth (Paris: IEA,2001), pp. 26–27; DOE, Energy InformationAdministration (EIA), International Energy Out-look 2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), pp. 1, 4; 2 bil-lion from José Goldemberg, “Rural Energy inDeveloping Countries,” in U.N. DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), U.N. Department of Socialand Economic Affairs (UN-DESA), and WorldEnergy Council (WEC), World Energy Assessment:Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability (NewYork: UNDP, 2000), p. 348.

3. Eric Martinot, “The GEF Portfolio of Grid-Connected Renewable Energy: Emerging Expe-


204

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

rience and Lessons,” cited in Group of Eight (G8)Renewable Energy Task Force, G8 RenewableEnergy Task Force Final Report (July 2001), pp.27–28; 300 million from Eric Martinot, ClimateChange Program, Global Environment Facility, dis-cussion with author, 4 October 2002.

4. IEA, The Evolving Renewable Energy Market(Paris: 1999), p. v.

5. Christopher Flavin, discussion with author,11 October 2002.

6. Annual investments in energy infrastructurefrom UNDP, UN-DESA, and WEC, op. cit. note2, and from Eric Martinot, Climate Change Pro-gram, Global Environment Facility, e-mail toauthor, 9 October 2002.

7. Figures 5–1 and 5–2 are calculated by World-watch with data from IEA, World Energy Outlook2002 (Paris: 2002), pp. 410–11.

8. Shimp quoted in “Feature—Solar Power toChallenge Dominance of Fossil Fuels,” Reuters, 9August 2002.

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis(Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press,2001), pp. 223–24; Box 5–1 based on ibid., pp.10, 12–13, 17, with countries that have signed orratified the Kyoto Protocol, ratification dates, andshare of emissions available at <unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf>.

10. Wu Zongxin et al., “Future Implications ofChina’s Energy-Technology Choices,” prepared forthe Working Group on Energy Strategies andTechnologies, China Council for InternationalCooperation on Environment and Development,24 July 2001, p. 5; World Bank, Clear Water,Blue Skies: China’s Environment in the New Cen-tury, China 2020 Series (Washington, DC: 1997);European Union (EU) from European Commis-sion, “New Research Reveals the Real Costs ofElectricity in Europe,” press release (Brussels: 20July 2001); losses due to natural disasters fromU.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), “Finan-cial Sector, Governments and Business Must Act

on Climate Change or Face the Consequences,”press release (Nairobi: 8 October 2002). Table 5–1based on the following: low coal figure is for theUnited States, and the high figure is Europeanaverage; generating costs for coal and wind from“On Track as the Cheapest in Town,” WindpowerMonthly, January 2002, p. 30; low natural gascost (for Europe) from David Milborrow, e-mailto author, 18 September 2002; high natural gascost (U.S.) from DOE, EREN, “Economics ofBioPower,” at <www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/ba_econ.htm>, viewed 15 July 2002;nuclear is 1993 levelized costs in California, fromCalifornia Energy Commission, 1996 Energy Tech-nology Status Report: Report Summary (Sacra-mento, CA: 1997), p. 73; direct-fired biomasslow figure as of 1999 in the United States fromDallas Burtraw, Resources for the Future, “Testi-mony Before the Senate Energy and Water Devel-opment Appropriations Subcommittee, 14September 1999; high figure for direct-fired bio-mass from U.S. DOE, EREN, “Biomass at aGlance,” at <www.eren.doe.gov/biopower/basics/index.htm>, viewed 15 July 2002;hydropower low figure calculated by DOE basedon 21 projects completed in 1993; highhydropower figure calculated using 30-year lifetimeand real cost of capital from DOE, EIA, EnergyConsumption and Renewable Energy DevelopmentPotential on Indian Lands (Washington, DC: April2000); photovoltaics (PVs) (unsubsidized in favor-able climates) from Paul Maycock, e-mail toauthor, 18 October 2002; external costs from EUEXTERNE Project and from European Commis-sion, op. cit. this note.

11. Africa from Hermann Scheer, Member ofGerman Parliament, cited in Alenka Burja, “EnergyIs a Driving Force for Our Civilisation: SolarAdvocate,” 2002, at <www.foldecenter.dk/articles/Hscheer_aburja.htm>, viewed 8 October2002; Brazil from J.R. Moreira and J. Goldemberg,“The Alcohol Program,” Energy Policy, vol. 27, no.4 (1999), pp. 229–45.

12. Quote and details on Kintyre from “WindEnergy Turns Kintyre Economy Around,” Envi-ronment News Service, 8 July 2002.

13. Renewable energy jobs from Virinder Singh


205

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

with BBC Research and Consulting and JeffreyFehrs, The Work that Goes into Renewable Energy,Research Report no. 13 (Washington, DC: Renew-able Energy Policy Project, November 2001);John Whitman, “Unemployment in Spain Plum-mets to 21 Year Lows,” The Spain-U.S. Chamberof Commerce, at <www.spainuscc.org/eng/publications/LinkFall2000/paro21.html>, viewed6 August 2002; Wilson Rickerson, Germany andthe European Wind Energy Market (Berlin: Bun-desverband WindEnergie (BWE, German WindEnergy Association), 2002); Jochen Twele,Windenergie—Technik & Repowering (Berlin:BWE, 2002).

14. California Public Interest Research Group,“Developing Renewable Energy Could MeanMore Jobs,” KTVU News, 25 June 2002, at<www.bayinsider.com/partners/ktvu/news/2002/06/25_solar.html>, viewed 16 July 2002; SteveRizer, “Davis Supports Plan to Double State’sLevel of Renewable-Based Electricity,” Solar &Renewable Energy Outlook, 1 April 2002, p. 73.

15. M. Kannappan, speech at 2002 Global Wind-power Conference in Paris, cited in EuropeanWind Energy Association (EWEA), “Think Paris,Act Global,” Wind Directions, May 2002, p. 11.

16. Inner Mongolia from Eric Martinot et al.,“Renewable Energy Markets in Developing Coun-tries,” in Annual Review of Energy and the Envi-ronment 2002 (Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, inpress), p. 14 (draft); per capita annual net incomein Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region fromDebra Lew, National Renewable Energy Labora-tory, e-mail to author, 4 October 2002.

17. India from Indian Ministry of Non-Con-ventional Energy Sources (MNES), Annual Report1999-2000, at <mnes.nic.in/frame.htm?publications.htm>, viewed 29 July 2002; China fromDebra Lew, “Alternatives to Coal and Candles:Wind Power in China,” Energy Policy, vol. 28(2000), pp. 271–86; ethanol in Brazil and carbondioxide (CO2) emissions from Monica SaraivaPanik, “Greenhouse Gases are Global,” Sustain-able Development International, Edition 4, p. 112,at <www.sustdev.org/journals/edition.04/download/ed4.pdfs/sdi4_111.pdf>, viewed 27

July 2002, and from CO2e.com, “Environment:Brazil to Take Renewable Energy Plan to Johan-nesburg,” Inter Press Service, 17 May 2002; Brazilexports from Suani T. Coelho, Executive Assistantfor the Secretary of State for the Environment, SãoPaulo, Brazil, discussion with author, 25 July2002; PV suppliers and service providers in Kenyafrom James & James World Renewable EnergySuppliers and Services, at <www.jxj.com/suppands/renerg/select_company/567_61.html>,viewed 7 September 2002; local Kenyan firmsfrom John Perlin, “Electrifying the Unelectrified,”Solar Today, November-December 1999.

18. G8 Renewable Energy Task Force, op. cit.note 3, pp. 5, 9.

19. Clean energy markets in 2001 from EricMartinot, Climate Change Program, Global Envi-ronment Facility, e-mail to author, 19 September2002; projection from Al Massey, “Staying Cleanand Green in a Developing World,” Ethical Cor-poration Magazine, 7 February 2002; speed ofprogress from IPCC, Working Group 3, ClimateChange 2001: Mitigation, Summary for PolicyMakers, p. 5, at <www.ipcc.ch/pub/wg3spm.pdf>,viewed 10 August 2002.

20. Wind as cheapest option from Daniel M.Kammen, “Testimony for the Hearing on theRole of Tax Incentives in Energy Policy,” Com-mittee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC,11 July 2001; technology trends from D. I. Pageand M. Legerton, “Wind Energy Implementa-tion During 1996,” Renewable Energy Newsletter,CADDET, September 1997, at <www.caddet-re.org/html/397art6.htm>, viewed 22 Sep-tember 1998, and from IEA, “Long-term Researchand Development Needs for Wind Energy for theTime Frame 2000 to 2020,” October 2001, at<www.afm.dtu.dk/wind/iea>, viewed 7 October2002; average size installed worldwide in 2001from BTM Consult, International Wind EnergyDevelopment: World Market Update 2001, citedin Paul Gipe, “Soaring to New Heights: TheWorld Wind Energy Market,” Renewable EnergyWorld, July-August 2002, p. 34; turbines for off-shore from Peter Fairley, “Wind Power for Pen-nies,” Technology Review, July/August 2002, p. 43;small-scale turbines from “Building Integrated


206

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

Wind Turbines,” RENEW: Technology for a Sus-tainable Future, July/August 2002, p. 27. Box 5–2based on the following: DOE lightweight turbineand Vestas offshore equipment from Fairley, op. cit.this note, pp. 42, 43; German turbine from Eizede Vries, “Where to Next? Developments andTrends in Wind Turbines,” Renewable EnergyWorld, July-August 2002, p. 70; climatic modelsfrom Birger Madsen, BTM Consult, e-mail toauthor, 14 September 2002.

21. Cost in early 1980s calculated by World-watch Institute based on Paul Gipe, “Overview ofWorldwide Wind Generation,” 4 May 1999, at<rotor.fb12.tu-berlin.de/overview.html>, viewed3 March 2000; current wind costs from “On Trackas the Cheapest in Town,” Windpower Monthly,January 2002, p. 30; 20 percent decline over fiveyears from EWEA and Greenpeace, Wind Force 12,May 2002, p. 12, at <www.ewea.org/doc/WindForce12.pdf>, viewed 17 July 2002; Vestas from“Renewables: Expansion Plan Progress,” EnergyEconomist, April 2002, p. 36.

22. Capacity and generation from BTM Con-sult, “International Wind Energy Development:World Market Update 2001—Record Growth!”press release (Ringkøbing, Denmark: 8 April2002); Figure 5–3 from BTM Consult, EWEA,American Wind Energy Association (AWEA),Windpower Monthly, and New Energy; estimatednumber of households from EWEA and Green-peace, op. cit. note 21, p. 5; 70 percent and 45countries from “Operating Wind Power Capacity,”Windpower Monthly, July 2002, p. 66; 2001 windsales totaled $6–6.5 billion, with $6 billion fromSøren Krohn, “Danish Wind Turbines: An Indus-trial Success Story,” at <www.wind power.dk/articles/success.htm>, viewed 14 October 2002, and$6.5 billion from Peter Asmus, “Another EnronCasualty: Wind Power?” Environmental NewsNetwork, 29 January 2002; sales in 1999 fromChristopher Flavin, “Wind Power Booms,” inLester R. Brown et al., Vital Signs 2000 (NewYork: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000), p. 56;number employed worldwide is Worldwatch esti-mate, based on Andreas Wagner, GE Wind Energyand EWEA, e-mail to author, 18 September 2002,and on EWEA, Forum for Energy and Develop-ment, and Greenpeace, Wind Force 10 (London:

1999).

23. British Wind Energy Association, “Europe’sSeas: An Abundant Source of Clean Power,” 6December 2001, at <www.bwea.com/view/news/arc/eweaowec.html>, viewed 19 July 2002; EWEAand Greenpeace, op. cit. note 21, p. 5.

24. Onshore resources, estimated at 53,000 bil-lion kilowatt-hours (kWh) (53,000 terawatt-hours)of electricity annually, from Michael Grubb andNiels Meyer, “Wind Energy: Resources, Systemsand Regional Strategies,” in Laurie Burnham, ed.,Renewable Energy Sources for Fuels and Electricity(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), pp.186–87, 198; global net electricity consumptionin 1999 at 12,833 billion kWh, according to EIA,“International Energy Outlook 2002,” at<www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/tbl_20.html>, viewed12 July 2002.

25. Bird deaths from Paul Gipe, Wind PowerComes of Age (New York: John Wiley & Sons,May 1995), from National Wind CoordinatingCommittee, “Avian Collisions with Wind Tur-bines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Com-parisons to Other Sources of Avian CollisionMortality in the United States,” August 2001, at<www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf>,viewed 3 September 2002, and from DanishEnergy Agency, Wind Power in Denmark: Tech-nology, Policies and Results 1999 (Copenhagen:Ministry of Environment and Energy, September1999), p. 21; mitigation from AWEA, “ProposedRepowering May Cut Avian Deaths in Altamont,”Wind Energy Weekly, 28 September 1998.

26. Figure of 20 percent from R. Watson, M. C.Zinyowera, and R. H. Moss, eds., Climate Change1995—Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation ofClimate Change: Scientific Technical Analyses, Con-tribution of Working Group II to the SecondAssessment Report of the IPCC (New York: Cam-bridge University Press, 1996), and from MichaelGrubb, “Valuing Wind Energy on a Utility Grid,”Parts 1–3, Wind Energy Weekly, vol. 27, no.350–53; need for only minor changes from DavidMilborrow, Survey of Energy Resources: WindEnergy (London: WEC, 2001), at <www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/


207

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

wind/wind.asp>, viewed 3 September 2002.

27. For information regarding wind predictionand forecasting tools and modeling, see<www.iset.uni-kassel.de>.

28. DOE, National Renewable Energy Labor-atory (NREL), “The Photovoltaics Promise,”NREL Report No. FS-210-24588, at<www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24588.pdf>, viewed19 July 2002.

29. Sun’s energy from Richard Corkish, “APower That’s Clean and Bright,” Nature, 18 April2002, p. 680; increase of PV cell and moduleshipments since 1996 from European Photo-voltaics Industry Association (EPVA) and Green-peace, Solar Generation, October 2001, p. 3, at<archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/solargeneration/solargen_full_report.pdf>,viewed 26 July 2002; doubling from Jon R.Luoma, “Beyond the Fringe,” Mother Jones,July/August 2002, p. 42; $2 billion PV industryfrom U.S. National Center for Photovoltaics, citedin Ricardo Bayon, “Unenlightened? The U.S.Solar Industry May Be Eclipsed,” The AmericanProspect, 15 January 2002, and from PV industrydata from EPVA, 2001; job estimate based onSingh, BBC, and Fehrs, op. cit. note 13, pp.11–12, on “Job Opportunities in Photovol-taic and Renewable Energy Engineering,” at <www.pv.unsw.edu.au/bepv/jobopps.htm>,viewed 9 October 2002, and on 3,800 jobs forevery $100 million in solar cell sales, according tothe Solar Energy Industries Association; numberof households from Martinot et al, op. cit. note 16,p. 3 (draft); Figure 5–4 from Paul Maycock, PVNews, various issues.

30. Growth rates projected by Sharp, cited in“Solar Cell Production Continues to Grow inJapan,” Renewable Energy World, July-August2002, p. 18.

31. Drop in costs per doubling from EPVA andGreenpeace, op. cit. note 29, p. 14; 5 percentannual cost decline from Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts, “Sales of Solar Cells Take Off,” Eco-Economy Update (Washington, DC: Earth PolicyInstitute, 11 June 2002); building facades from

Steven Strong, “Solar Electric Buildings: PV as aDistributed Resource,” Renewable Energy World,July-August 2002, p. 171; generating costs fromEPVA and Greenpeace, op. cit. note 29, p. 14. Box5–3 based on the following: Australian company(Sustainable Technologies International) from“Feature—Solar Power to Challenge Dominanceof Fossil Fuels,” Reuters, 9 August 2002; NRELcell from “High Yield Solar Cell,” RENEW: Tech-nology for a Sustainable Future, May/June 2002,p. 27; maximum recorded efficiency (single crys-talline cells) and costs from IEA, PhotovoltaicPower Systems Programme (PVPS), 2000, citedin EPVA and Greenpeace, op. cit. note 29, pp. 8,15; spheral solar technology, being developed byAutomation Tooling Systems of Ontario, Canada,from Rajiv Sekhri, “Canadian Firm Says Set toSlash Solar Power Costs,” Reuters, at <www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16934/story.htm>, viewed 18 July 2002.

32. DOE, NREL, “Energy Payback: CleanEnergy from PV,” at <www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/245 96.pdf>, viewed 19 July 2002; expectedlifetime from BP Solar, at <www.bpsolar.com/ContentDetails.cfm?page=125>, viewed 18 Sep-tember 2002; PV manufacture risks from LarryKazmerski, “Photovoltaics—Exploding theMyths,” Renewable Energy World, July-August2002, p. 176, and from U.K. Department ofTrade and Industry, at <www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/photo voltaics.html>, viewed 3 September2002.

33. Share provided by nuclear power in 1988estimated from graph by the Uranium InformationCentre, Ltd., “Nuclear Power in the World Today,”July 2002, at <www.uic.com.au/nip07.htm>,viewed 24 September 2002; additional nuclearcapacity in 2001 according to International AtomicEnergy Agency, Power Reactor Information Sys-tem, cited in “Another Record Year for EuropeanWind Power,” Renewable Energy World On-Line,March-April 2002, at <www.jxj.com/magsandj/rew/news/2002_02_03.html>, viewed 14 August2002; wind and solar growth and share of currentcapacity calculated using average annual globalgrowth rates of wind and solar PV between 1992and 2001, year-end 2001 cumulative installedcapacity, and total global installed electric capac-


208

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

ity figure of 3,400 gigawatts; feasible growth inwind capacity from EWEA and Greenpeace, op. cit.note 21, p. 6; PV projection from EPVA andGreenpeace, op. cit. note 29, p. 5.

34. Quote and North Rhine–Westphalia fromJochen Twele, BWE, e-mail to author, 29 August2002.

35. Andreas Wagner, GE and EWEA, discussionwith author, 10 September 2002.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Opposition to EFL from Jochen Twele,BWE, discussion with author, 14 April 1999, andfrom Kevin Rackstraw, “Wind Around the World,”Sustainable Business.com and Global Environ-ment and Technology Foundation, December1998, at <www.sustainablebusiness.com/insider/dec98/3-wind.cfm>, viewed 28 January 2000;pro-wind rally from BWE, “5,000 Supporters ofWind and Renewable Energies Out on the Street,”press release (Berlin: September 1997).

39. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutzund Reaktorsicherheit (BMU, Federal Ministryfor the Environment, Nature Conservation andNuclear Safety), Act on Granting Priority toRenewable Energy Sources (Bonn: April 2000).

40. Gerhard Gerdes, Deutches WindenergieInstitut (DEWI, Germany Wind Energy Insti-tute), discussion with author, 7 December 2000.

41. Wagner, op. cit. note 35.

42. Jochen Twele, BWE, discussion with author,5 December 2000; Gerdes, op. cit. note 40; invest-ment amount from Wagner, op. cit. note 22.

43. Wagner, op. cit. note 35; Gerdes, op. cit.note 40.

44. State programs from DEWI, Wind EnergyInformation Brochure (Wilhelmshaven, Germany:1998), pp. 30, 35; federal resource studies fromRoland Mayer, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft

(Federal Ministry of Economics), e-mail to author,30 March 2001; training programs and publica-tions from BMU, Environmental Policy: The Fed-eral Government’s Decision of 29 September 1994on Reducing Emissions of CO2, and Emissions ofOther Greenhouse Gases, in the Federal Republic ofGermany (Bonn: November 1994), p. 32.

45. Andreas Wagner, GE and EWEA, e-mails toauthor, 10 September and 18 September 2002.

46. German capacity at beginning of 1991 and2001 from BWE, “Installationszahlen in Deutsch-land, 1988–Ende 2000,” at <www.wind-energie.de/statistik/deutschland.html>, viewed 14March 2001; 11,750 megawatts (MW) and 3.75percent from “German Wind Generation to Rise25 pct in 2002—Firms,” Reuters, 5 September2002; 12,000 MW and number employed fromWagner, op. cit. note 35; 26 percent of Schleswig-Holstein’s electricity is generated with the wind,according to DEWI, “Wind Energy Use in Ger-many—Status 30.06.02,” DEWI Magazin, August2002; as of early 2002, 90 percent of turbines areowned by individuals or cooperatives and morethan 200,000 Germans are involved in coopera-tives, according to BTM Consult, World MarketUpdate 2001—Forecast 2002–2006 (Ringkøbing,Denmark: 2002).

47. Growth rate calculated with data from IEA,PVPS, Statistics by Country, 2000, at <www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/stats/home.htm>, viewed 18September 2002, and with 2001 data from PeterSprau and Ingrid Weiss, National Survey Report ofPV Power Applications in Germany 2001, preparedfor the German Federal Ministry of Economics andthe Research Centre Jülich (as part of the IEACooperative Programme on Photovolatic PowerSystems), WIP-Renewable Energies Division,Munich, Germany, June 2002, at <www.wip-munich.de/homepage/projects/pdf/Executive_German_Summary_2001.pdf>, viewed 24 Septem-ber 2002; projected year-end 2003 capacity fromEPVA and Greenpeace, op. cit. note 29, p. 18.

48. Figure of 37 percent from Patrick Mazza,“Europe, Japan Seize Clean Energy Lead,” pressrelease (San Francisco: Earth Island Institute, Cli-mate Solutions, 15 April 2000); 1,400 full-time


209

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

jobs in 1995 and 39 percent price reductions fromIngrid Weiss and Peter Sprau, “100,000 Roofsand 99 Pfennig—Germany’s PV FinancingSchemes and the Market,” Renewable EnergyWorld, January-February 2002; 2002 employ-ment figure from Sprau and Weiss, op. cit. note 47,p. 5; expected expansion from Reiner Gärtner,“Fatherland and Sun,” Red Herring, 22 July 2002.

49. CO2 reductions from “German Wind Gen-eration to Rise 25 pct in 2002—Firms,” Reuters,5 September 2002; revenue and generationincreases from “German Renewable RevenuesRose 35 Pct in 2001,” Reuters, 16 July 2002;wind targets announced by German EnvironmentMinister Jürgen Trittin and cited in EWEA,Another Record Year for European Wind Power(Brussels: 20 February 2002).

50. Year-end 1993 capacity (52 MW) from Insti-tuto para la Diversificación y Ahorro Energético,Spain; Legislation Development of the SpanishElectric Power Act, Vol. 2, Royal Decree2818/1998; “Renewable Energy: World Renew-able Energy Outlook—Western Europe,” at <environment.about.com/library/weekly/blrenew21.htm>, viewed 20 June 2002; wind’s share ofpower generation from Michael McGovern, “WindWeakening System Security,” Windpower Monthly,July 2002, p. 27; manufacturer ranking fromEWEA, “Company Profile: Gamesa Eolica andEnergia,” Wind Directions, January 2002, p. 12.

51. AWEA, “Texas Wind Energy Development,”19 June 2002, at <www.awea.org/projects/texas.html>, viewed 24 July 2002; number of states with Renewables Portfolio Standard laws from DOE, EREN, “California Mandates20 Percent Renewable Power by 2017,” at<www.eren.doe.gov/news/news_detail.cfm?news_id=325>, viewed 25 September 2002. Box 5–4from the following: Carter’s goal from U.S. Gov-ernment, Interagency Domestic Policy ReviewCommittee, Domestic Policy Review of SolarEnergy—Final Report: Research, Design and Devel-opment Panel (Washington, DC: October 1978);U.S. wind-generated electricity in 2000 from PaulGipe, discussion with author, 23 March 2001;wind’s share of early 2003 Danish electricity gen-eration from Madsen, op. cit. note 20.

52. Problems with U.K. law from British WindEnergy Association, “Promoting Wind Energy inand Around the UK—The Government’s Policyfor Renewables, NFFO and the Fossil Fuel Levy,”at <www.bwea.com/ref/nffo.html>, viewed 3September 2002; problems for small firms andcooperatives from Rickerson, op. cit. note 13, p.4; 1999 statistics from WEC, Survey of EnergyResources: Wind Energy (London: 2001).

53. PV4You National Consumer Project, “36States with Net Metering,” Interstate RenewableEnergy Council, at <www.spratley.com/ncp/board2/?i=882>, viewed 18 September 2002.

54. Share of wind capacity additions calculated byWorldwatch and including only the years when thefeed-in laws were in force, based on BTM Consult,World Market Update, various years, on Danishpower company statistics cited in Danish WindTurbine Manufacturers Association, “InstalledWind Power Capacity in Denmark in MW,” at<www.windpower.dk/stat/tab12.htm>, viewed28 January 2000, on Lester R. Brown, “WorldWind Generating Capacity Jumps 31 Percent in2001,” Eco-Economy Update (Washington, DC:Earth Policy Institute, 8 January 2002), on BWE,op. cit. note 46, and on Instituto para la Diversi-ficación y Ahorro Energético (IDAE), Spain; 80percent from “Danish Wind Stalled,” RENEW:Technology for a Sustainable Future, May/June2002, p. 12; Figure 5–5 from Paul Gipe, discus-sions with author and faxes, 1 October 1998 and23 March 2001, from AWEA, “U.S. Wind Indus-try Ends Most Productive Year, More Than Dou-bling Previous Record for New Installations,”press release (Washington: 15 January 2002),from BWE, op. cit. note 46, from Wagner, op. cit.note 35, from IDAE, Spain, and from IDAE,EHN, and APPA data supplied by José Santa-marta, e-mail to author, 19 October 2002.

55. Box 5–5 from Hermann Scheer, Member ofGerman Parliament and General Chairman of theWorld Council for Renewable Energy, Address tothe American Council for Renewable Energy,Washington, DC, 11 July 2002.

56. Janet L. Sawin, “The Role of Government inthe Development and Diffusion of Renewable


210

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

Energy Technologies: Wind Power in the UnitedStates, California, Denmark and Germany,1970–2000” (dissertation, The Fletcher School,Tufts University), September 2001 (Ann Arbor,MI: UMI, 2001), pp. 204–05; inexperiencedinvestors in wind power from Randall Tinkerman,former wind entrepreneur, discussion with author,12 May 1999; rate of investment recovery and lackof generation from Alan J. Cox et al., “WindPower in California: A Case Study of Targeted TaxSubsidies,” in Richard J. Gilbert, ed., RegulatoryChoices: A Perspective on Developments in EnergyPolicy (Berkeley: University of California Press,1991), p. 349, and from Vincent Schwent, Cali-fornia Energy Commission, discussion with author,6 May 1999; use of untested designs from AlfredJ. Cavallo, Susan M. Hock, and Don. R. Smith,“Wind Energy: Technology and Economics,” inBurnham, op. cit. note 24, p. 150.

57. MNES, op. cit. note 17; mid-2002 capacityfrom “Operating Wind Power Capacity,” Wind-power Monthly, July 2002, p. 66; lower capacity fac-tors and some nonfunctioning turbines fromMartinot et al, op. cit. note 16, pp. 11, 20 (draft).

58. Mazza, op. cit. note 48; growth rate calcu-lated by Worldwatch with data from IEA, PVPS,op. cit. note 47, with 2001 capacity additionsfrom Fischlowitz-Roberts, op. cit. note 31; systemcost reductions from EPVA and Greenpeace, op.cit. note 29, p. 23; Figure 5–6 from IEA, PVPS,cited at <www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/pagedownloads/solar.pdf>, viewed 24 September 2002,and from Fischlowitz-Roberts, op. cit. note 31;production increases by Kyocera and Sharp fromCurtis Moore and Jack Ihle, Renewable Energy Pol-icy Outside the United States, Issue Brief 14 (Wash-ington, DC: Renewable Energy Policy Project,October 1999), and from Fischlowitz-Roberts,op. cit. note 31.

59. Benefits to those with higher income fromSawin, op. cit. note 56, p. 151; impact of Californiaincentive from Rizer, op. cit. note 14.

60. Sawin, op. cit. note 56, pp. 151, 340–41.

61. Goldemberg, op. cit. note 2, p. 381.

62. China and number of turbines in Inner Mon-golia from Martinot et al, op. cit. note 16, pp. 8,22 (draft); number of people from L. Wu, “InnerMongolia: One of the Pioneers of Chinese WindPower Development,” in Proceedings of the Bei-jing International Conference on Wind Energy(Beijing: Organizing Committee of the BeijingInternational Conference on Wind Energy, 1995),cited in Goldemberg, op. cit. note 2, p. 377;Indian loans from MNES, op. cit. note 17, p. 53;funding in India from “Why Renewables CannotPenetrate the Market,” Down to Earth, 30 April2002, p. 35.

63. Tax credit in Arkansas from Robert Righter,Wind Energy in America: A History (Norman:University of Oklahoma Press, 1996), p. 205;wind’s potential share of Arkansas’ electricity cal-culated by Worldwatch with consumption datafrom EIA, at <www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/arkansas/ar.html>, viewed 7 Septem-ber 2002, and with wind potential from Bat-telle/Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Assessment ofAvailable Windy Land Area and Wind EnergyPotential in the Contiguous United States (Bat-telle/PNL, August 1991), cited in Jan Hamrin andNancy Rader, Investing in the Future: A Regula-tor’s Guide to Renewables (Washington, DC:National Association of Regulatory Utility Com-missioners, February 1993), p. A-11.

64. Indian programs from MNES, op. cit. note17.

65. Middelgrunden from EWEA and Green-peace, op. cit. note 21, p. 20; benefits of cooper-atives from Sawin, op. cit. note 56, p. 377; surveysfrom Andersen et al., Rapport om hvordan endansk kommune blev selvforsynende med ren vin-denergi og skabte ny indkomst til kommunens borg-ere, Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for VedvarendeEnergi, 1997, cited in Steffen Damborg and SorenKrohn, “Public Attitudes Towards Wind Power,”Danish Wind Turbine Manufacturers Associa-tion, 1998, at <www.windpower.dk/articles/surveys.htm>, viewed 13 April 1999.

66. Impact of standards in Denmark from Sawin,op. cit. note 56, pp. 261–62, 375; dominance of Danish turbine manufacturers from Søren


211

NOTES, CHAPTER 5

Krohn, “Danish Wind Turbines: An IndustrialSuccess Story,” 21 January 2000, at <www.windpower.dk/articles/success.htm>, viewed 28 Jan-uary 2000, and from Birger Madsen, BTM Con-sult, discussion with author, 8 December 2000.

67. Denmark and Germany from Sawin, op. cit.note 56, p. 375; United Kingdom from Madsen,op. cit. note 20.

68. Low figure for conventional energy subsidiesfrom Thomas Johansson, UNDP, quoted in Mar-got Roosevelt, “The Winds of Change,” Time, 26August 2002, p. A-44; high figure from UNDP,“UNDP Initiative for Sustainable Energy—Sum-mary,” at <www.undp.org/seed/energy/unise/summary.html>, viewed 4 October 2002, andfrom Scheer, op. cit. note 55; 80–90 percent fromInternational Energy Agency and from Martinot,op. cit. note 6.

69. Global Environment Facility funding fromMartinot, op. cit. note 6; World Bank Groupinvestments from Institute for Policy Studies (IPS),“The World Bank and the G-7: Changing theEarth’s Climate for Business,” June 1997, cited inKate Hampton, Banking on Climate Change: HowPublic Finance for Fossil Fuel Projects is ShortChanging Clean Development (Washington, DC:IPS, 17 November 2000), p. 6.

70. Manufacturers’ fears from California EnergyCommission, Wind Energy Program ProgressReport (Sacramento, CA: 1982), p. 23.

71. Decline in U.S. capacity from Gipe, op. cit.note 54; India from “Renewables Deserted?”Down to Earth, 30 April 2002, from MNES, op.cit. note 17, p. 69, and from “Why RenewablesCannot Penetrate the Market,” op. cit. note 62,p. 33; Torgny Møller, “Government Closes Doorin Denmark,” Windpower Monthly, July 2002, p.22.

72. Lower cost of consistent policies from Sawin,op. cit. note 56, pp. 360–63, 379.

73. Watson et al, op. cit. note 26.

74. BP from Amanda Griscom, “Got Sun? Mar-

keting the Revolution in Clean Energy,” GristMagazine, 29 August 2002; Shell from PlattsGlobal Energy, 2001, at <www.platts.com/renewables/investment.shtml>, viewed 10 October2002; $10–15 billion from World Bank, GlobalDevelopment Finance 2000 (Washington, DC:2000); eightfold increase from Martinot, op. cit.note 19, and from Massey, op. cit. note 19.

75. Model T from William J. Abernathy andKenneth Wayne, “Limits of the Learning Curve,”Harvard Business Review, September-October1974, cited in Christopher Flavin and NicholasLenssen, Power Surge (New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 1994), p. 304; wind generation by2020 calculated to be about 6,833 billion kWh byWorldwatch, assuming capacity factor of 30 per-cent; global nuclear power generation in 2001from International Atomic Energy Agency, citedin Nuclear Energy Institute, “World Nuclear PowerGeneration and Capacity,” at <www.nei.org/documents/World_Nuclear_Generation_and_Capacity.pdf>, viewed 11 October 2002.

76. Prime Minister Tony Blair, speech entitled“Environment: The Next Steps,” Reuters, 6 March2001, cited in G8 Renewable Energy Task ForceReport, op. cit. note 3, p. 16; European Uniongoal from European Wind Energy Association,“European Renewable Electricity Directive: TheFinal Version,” Wind Directions, January 2002, pp.10–11; China and India from Christoper Flavin,discussions with author, September 2002; Brazilfrom Coelho, op. cit. note 17; members of Con-gress from Susanna Drayne, Coordinator, Sus-tainable Energy Coalition, e-mail to author, 11October 2002; U.S. states from Interstate Renew-able Energy Council, Database of State Incen-tives for Renewable Energy, at <www.dsireusa.org>,viewed 14 October 2002.

77. Paul Appleby, Director of Strategy and Plan-ning, BP Solarex, United Kingdom, cited in Green-peace, Breaking the Solar Impasse (Amsterdam:September 1999), p. 2.

78. G8 Renewable Energy Task Force, op. cit.note 3, p. 9; BP from Griscom, op. cit. note 74;Shell from Simon Tuck, “Royal Dutch/Shell Tak-ing Minority Stake in Iogen,” Globe & Mail,


212


at <www.gogreenindustries.com/Clippings/ RoyalDutchShell8May02.pdf>, viewed 10 October 2002; Jones from Platts Global Energy,op. cit. note 74.

79. Meeting U.S. needs with wind calculatedwith data from Battelle/Pacific Northwest Labo-ratory, op. cit. note 63; solar in Nevada from U.S.Department of Energy, “Concentrating SolarPower Technologies Overview,” at <www.energlan.sandia.gov/sunlab/overview.htm>, viewed25 January 2002.

80. Fuel cell cars from “Factbox—What are Car-makers Doing to Cut Emissions?” Reuters, 24September 2002.

81. IPCC, op. cit. note 9, p. 12.

Chapter 6.Scrapping Mining Dependence

1. Peter L. Bernstein, The Power of Gold: TheHistory of an Obsession (New York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc., 2001), pp. 227–30; KennethChang, “How Africa Landed Motherlode ofGold,” New York Times, 17 September 2002; H. E. Frimmel and W. E. L. Minter, “RecentDevelopments Concerning the Geological His-tory and Genesis of the Witwatersrand GoldDeposits, South Africa,” Society of Economic Geol-ogists, Special Publication 9 (2002), pp. 17–45;Lehman Brothers, Inc., Reverse Alchemy: The Com-moditization of Gold Accelerates (New York: Jan-uary 2000).

2. Bernstein, op. cit. note 1; Danielle Knight,“Communities Organize Legal Action to Clean upCity’s Mine Dumps,” InterPress Service, 10 April2001; author’s visit to Gauteng Province, SouthAfrica, August 2002.

3. Bernstein, op. cit. note 1; Norman Jennings,International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva,discussion with author, 19 July 2002; Glen Mpu-fane, National Union of Mineworkers, SouthAfrica, discussion with author, 19 July 2002; ILO,The Evolution of Employment, Working Time andTraining in the Mining Industry (Geneva: 2002).

4. Frank Press and Raymond Siever, Under-standing Earth (New York: W.H. Freeman andCo., second edition, 1998); Ok Tedi waste fromMining, Minerals and Sustainable Development(MMSD) Project, Breaking New Ground (London:Earthscan, 2002), p. 243; city waste from Organ-isation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD), OECD Environmental DataCompendium 1999 (Paris: 2000), p. 159; deadlyoccupation from ILO, “Sectoral Activities: Min-ing,” information sheet, at <www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/sectors/mining.htm>,viewed 14 January 2002.

5. Toxic emissions refers to data for the UnitedStates per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Toxic Release Inventory 2000, at<www.epa.gov/tri>, viewed 1 July 2002. Table6–1 from the following: gross world product fromU.N. Statistics Division, National Accounts Sta-tistics: Main Aggregates and Detailed Tables, 1998(New York: 2001), data supplied by Gonca Okur,World Bank, e-mail to author, 29 April 2002, andfrom World Bank, World Development Indicators2001 (Washington, DC: 2001); employment fromNorman Jennings, ILO, discussion with author, 18 July 2002, and e-mail to author, 10 October2002, from ILO, LABORSTA database, at<laborsta.ilo.org/>, viewed 26 September 2002,and from World Bank, op. cit. this note; energy isWorldwatch estimate based on various sourcescited later in this chapter; sulfur dioxide fromEmission Database for Global AtmosphericResearch (EDGAR), National Institute of PublicHealth and the Environment, Bilthoven, theNetherlands, at <arch.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/>, updated November 2001; forestsfrom Dirk A. Bryant et al., The Last FrontierForests: Ecosystems and Economies on the Edge (Wash-ington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1997), p.15.

6. Gary Gardner and Payal Sampat, Mind OverMatter: Recasting the Role of Materials in OurLives, Worldwatch Paper 144 (Washington, DC:Worldwatch Institute, December 1998); KennethGeiser, Materials Matter (Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press, 2000).

7. John E. Young, Mining the Earth, World-


213

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

watch Paper 109 (Washington, DC: WorldwatchInstitute, July 1992).

8. Alan Mozes, “Ancient Mines Cause ModernPollution,” Reuters, 26 November 2001; Figure6–1 and minerals production from Grecia Matos,minerals and materials specialist, U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS), Reston, VA, e-mail to author, 20September 2001, from USGS, Minerals Yearbook(Reston, VA: various years), from idem, MineralCommodity Summaries (Reston, VA: various years),and from United Nations, Industrial CommodityStatistics Yearbook (New York: various years). Alldata are for primary production of non-fuel min-erals, except for the data for aluminum, whichinclude some secondary production.

9. Production figures from Matos, op. cit. note8, from USGS, Minerals Yearbook, op. cit. note 8,from idem, Mineral Commodity Summaries , op.cit. note 8, and from United Nations, op. cit.note 8.

10. Value calculated using USGS productiondata and minerals prices compiled from varioussources by Jim Kuipers, Center for Science inPublic Participation, Montana, unpublishedresearch, September 2002.

11. Kuipers, op. cit. note 10.

12. USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2001(Reston, VA: 2001).

13. Ibid.

14. CRU International, cited in MMSD, op. cit.note 4, p. 91.

15. Ibid., p. 90.

16. Emily Matthews et al., The Weight of Nations(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,2000), pp. 109–16.

17. Steel information from Joëlle Haine, Inter-national Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), letter toDave Taylor, Worldwatch Institute, 30 July 2002,and from IISI, Steel Statistical Yearbook 2001(Brussels: 2001); aluminum from Patricia Plunk-

ert, USGS, email to Dave Taylor, WorldwatchInstitute, 14 June 2002; other metals from USGS,Minerals Yearbook, op. cit. note 8.

18. David Malin Roodman, The Natural Wealthof Nations (New York: W.W. Norton & Com-pany, 1999); data for Figure 6–2 from Betty Dow,commodities information analyst, World Bank, e-mail to author, 19 April 2002.

19. Mining’s share of global economic productfrom U.N. Statistics Division, op. cit. note 5, fromOkur, op. cit. note 5, and from World Bank, op.cit. note 5; mining company information fromRaw Materials Group, Who Owns Who in Mining(Stockholm: 2001); small-scale miners fromMMSD, op. cit. note 4, pp. 315–16.

20. Metals Economics Group, “Latin AmericaTops Exploration Spending for the Fourth Year,”press release (Halifax, NS: 16 October 1997);idem, “Exploration Spending Drops to its LowestLevel in Nine Years,” press release (Halifax, NS,Canada: 1 November 2001). Data represent 80–90percent of worldwide exploration expendituresfor precious, base, and other nonferrous hard metals.

21. Dan Murphy, “Green Gold,” Far EasternEconomic Review, 27 May 1999, pp. 45–47.

22. Ibid.

23. Mining and untouched forests from Bryantet al, op. cit. note 5; Matthew Green, “MiningGiant Treads Fine Line in Madagascar Forest,”Reuters, 19 December 2001; “Mining CompaniesInvade Peru’s Andean Cloud Forests,” Environ-ment News Service, 17 August 2001; SimonDenyer, “Mining Drives Congo’s Gorillas Close toExtinction,” Reuters, 10 May 2001; “Environ-ment Treasures to be Lost on Gag Island, Papua,”Tempo (Jakarta), 19–25 March 2002.

24. Sulfur dioxide from EDGAR, op. cit. note 5;U.S. toxics emissions from EPA, op. cit. note 5.Table 6–3 from the following: Congo fromDenyer, op. cit. note 23; Papua New Guinea fromMMSD, op. cit. note 4, p. 243; Russia fromIUCN–World Conservation Union and World


214

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Metals from theForest (Gland, Switzerland: January 1999), p. 17;Nevada from Robert McClure and Andrew Schnei-der, “More Than a Century of Mining Has Leftthe West Deeply Scarred,” Seattle Post-Intelli-gencer, 12 June 2001.

25. Energy use in metals production is a World-watch estimate. The figure includes energy used inextraction, smelting, and refining aluminum, cop-per, and steel, based on 2000–01 production sta-tistics. Energy use per ton in primary and secondaryaluminum production from U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office of Industrial Technologies, Energyand Environmental Profile of the U.S. AluminumIndustry (Washington, DC: 1997); in bauxite oremining from Plunkert, op. cit. note 17; in primarycopper production and extraction from RobertU. Ayres, Leslie W. Ayres, and Benjamin Warr, TheLife Cycle of Copper, Its Co-products and Byprod-ucts (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Acad-emic Publishers, in press, 2003), p. 24; insecondary copper production from WilliamDresher, Copper Development Association, e-mail to Dave Taylor, Worldwatch Institute, 12July 2002; in primary and secondary steel pro-duction from I. Chan and N. Margolis, “Oppor-tunities for Reducing Steelmaking Energy Use,”Iron and Steelmaker Magazine, vol. 29, no. 1(2002), p. 24; in iron ore mining from IISI, LCIMethodology Report (Brussels: 1997). Total worldenergy use from International Energy Agency(IEA), Key World Energy Statistics, “Total FinalConsumption by Fuel,” at <www.iea.org/statist/key2001/key2001/p_0303.htm>, viewed 10 July2002, and from idem, World Energy Outlook 2000(Paris: 2000). Primary and secondary copper pro-duction and primary aluminum production fromUSGS, Minerals Yearbook 2000 (Reston, VA:2000); secondary aluminum production fromPlunkert, op. cit. note 17; bauxite productionfrom USGS, 2001 Mineral Commodity Summary—Bauxite and Alumina, at <minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bauxite/090301.pdf>,viewed 16 July 2002; iron ore production fromUSGS, 2001 Mineral Commodity Summary—IronOre, at <minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_ore/340301.pdf>, viewed 16July 2002; total steel production from idem, 2000Minerals Yearbook, op. cit. this note. Fifty-nine per-

cent of steel is produced using the basic oxygen fur-nace method (primary) and 34 percent is pro-duced using the electric-arc furnace method(secondary), based on information from MichaelFenton, USGS commodity specialist, e-mail toDave Taylor, Worldwatch Institute, 30 April 2002.Latin America from IEA, World Energy Outlook2000, op. cit. this note.

26. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy andEnvironmental Profile of the U.S. Aluminum Indus-try (Washington, DC: 1997), p. 12; cement basedon data from Henrik van Oss, cement commod-ity specialist, USGS, Reston, VA, discussion withauthor, 6 November 1998, from Henrik G. vanOss, “Cement,” in USGS, Mineral Yearbook 1996(Reston, VA: 1996), and from Seth Dunn, “Car-bon Emissions Resume Rise,” in Lester Brown etal., Vital Signs 1998 (New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 1998); perfluorocarbons from JenniferGitlitz, Trashed Cans: The Global EnvironmentalImpacts of Aluminum Can Wasting in America(Arlington, VA: Container Recycling Institute,June 2002), pp. 12–13, and from EPA, Interna-tional Efforts to Reduce PFC Emissions from Pri-mary Aluminum Production (Washington, DC:September 1999).

27. IUCN and WWF, op. cit. note 24, pp. 8, 15.

28. Waste from Canadian mines from OECD, op.cit. note 4; dumptruck dimensions from<www.caterpillar.com>, viewed 22 May 2002.

29. Totals and Table 6–4 from the following:minerals production from USGS, Minerals Year-book 2000 (Reston, VA: 2000); waste is Worldwatchestimate based on ore grades from USGS com-modity specialists, and from Donald Rogich andStaff, Division of Mineral Commodities, U.S.Bureau of Mines, “Material Use, EconomicGrowth and the Environment,” presented at theInternational Recycling Congress and REC ’93Trade Fair, Geneva, Switzerland, January 1993.

30. Copper grade decline data supplied by DanielEdelstein, commodity specialist, USGS, e-mail toDave Taylor, Worldwatch Institute, 17 July 2002.

31. Robert McClure and Andrew Schneider,


215

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

“The Mining of the West: Profit and Pollution onPublic Lands,” multipart series, Seattle Post-Intel-ligencer, 11–14 June 2001; Mineral Policy Center(MPC), Golden Dreams, Poisoned Streams (Wash-ington, DC: 1997).

32. U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP),“Mining and Sustainable Development II,” specialissue, Industry and Environment, vol. 23 (2000);MPC, op. cit. note 31.

33. “Disastrous Cyanide Spill Could Spawn Lia-bility Reforms,” Environmental Science and Tech-nology, 1 May 2000, pp. 202a–03a; MMSD, op. cit. note 4, p. 240; UNEP, op. cit. note 32, pp. 7–8, 64–65.

34. MPC, op. cit. note 31, pp. 5, 64–68.

35. Table 6–5 from the following: Zortman-Landusky from Global Mining Campaign, DiggingDeep (Washington, DC: 2002); Tambo Grandefrom Scott Wilson, “A Life Worth More thanGold,” Washington Post, 9 June 2002; Myanmarfrom International Chemical, Energy, Mine andGeneral Workers’ Unions (ICEM), North Amer-ica, “CLC and ICEM tell Ivanhoe Mines to With-draw from Burma,” press release (Washington,DC: 30 June 2002), and from Matthew McClearn,“Stranger in a Strange Land,” Canadian Business,18 February 2002; Torréon from “GreenpeaceHighlights Mexican Metals Violations,” Reuters,27 August 1999.

36. ILO, op. cit. note 4.

37. MMSD, op. cit. note 4, p. 204; HelenEpstein, “The Hidden Cause of AIDS,” New YorkReview of Books, 9 May 2002, pp. 43–49.

38. MMSD, op. cit. note 4, p. 65; Kenneth Zinn,ICEM North America, e-mail to author, 16 Sep-tember 2002.

39. Roger Moody, “The Lure of Gold—HowGolden Is the Future?” Panos Media Briefing No.19 (London: Panos Institute, May 1996); Indone-sia from Survival for Tribal Peoples, “IndonesianArmy Kills and Rapes Tribal People,” news release(London: October 1998); Australia from IUCN

and WWF, op. cit. note 24, p. 6, and from GlobalMining Campaign, op. cit. note 35; French Guianafrom Ed Susman, “The Price of Gold,” Environ-mental Health Perspectives, 5 May 2001, p. A225.

40. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Natureand Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Chicago: H.Regnery Co., 1909); Michael Ross, ExtractiveSectors and the Poor (Boston: Oxfam America,October 2001).

41. Jeffrey D. Sachs and Andrew M. Warner,Natural Resource Abundance and EconomicGrowth (Cambridge, MA: Center for Interna-tional Development and Harvard Institute forInternational Development, November 1997);Richard M. Auty, Resource Abundance and Eco-nomic Development (Helsinki: World Institute forDevelopment Economics Research, 2000).

42. Thomas Michael Power, Digging to Devel-opment? A Historical Look at Mining and Eco-nomic Development (Washington, DC: OxfamAmerica, 2002), quote from p. 20; idem, LostLandscapes and Failed Economies (Washington,DC: Island Press, 1996); Johannes Stahl, “TheMan-Eating Mines of Potosí,” Cultural SurvivalQuarterly, spring 2001, p. 50; MMSD, op. cit.note 4, p. 232.

43. World Bank, World Development Indicators2002 (Washington, DC: 2002), pp. 268–70.

44. U.N. Conference on Trade and Develop-ment, The Least Developed Countries Report 2002(New York: 2002), chapter 4.

45. Power, Digging to Development, op. cit. note42; “The Natural Resources Myth,” The Economist,23 December 1995–5 January 1996, pp. 87–89.

46. Social services from Nancy Birdsall, ThomasPinckney, and Richard Sabot, Natural Resources,Human Capital, and Growth (Washington, DC:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,February 2000); conflict from Michael Renner, TheAnatomy of Resource Wars, Worldwatch Paper 162(Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, October2002); corruption from Transparency Interna-tional, “Corrupt Political Elites and Unscrupulous


216

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

Investors Kill Sustainable Growth in its Tracks,Highlights New Index,” press release (Berlin: 28August 2002), and from MMSD, op. cit. note 4,p. 185.

47. Power, Digging to Development, op. cit. note42, p. 27; Auty, op. cit. note 41.

48. Eugenio Figueroa, Enrique Calfucura, andJavier Nuñez, “Green National Accounting: TheCase of Chile’s Mining Sector,” Environment andDevelopment Economics, vol. 7, pp. 215–39, quoteon p. 215.

49. Power, Lost Landscapes, op. cit. note 42.

50. World Bank and International Finance Cor-poration (IFC), It’s Not Over When It’s Over:Mine Closure Around the World (Washington, DC:2002); Placer Dome, at <www.placerdome.com/properties/misima/misima_history.html>, viewed22 October 2002; idem, at <www.placerdome.com/properties/porgera/porgera_history.html>,viewed 22 October 2002; Ok Tedi, at <www.oktedi.com/ aboutus/history.php>, viewed 22 Octo-ber 2002.

51. ILO, op. cit. note 3, p. 10.

52. Ibid.; “China’s Consultative Body UrgesMining Cities to Find Alternative Industries,”Xinhua, 27 June 2002.

53. ILO, op. cit. note 3; Power, Lost Landscapes,op. cit. note 42.

54. Babbitt quoted in Robert McClure andAndrew Schneider, “The General Mining Act of1872 has Left a Legacy of Riches and Ruin,” Seat-tle Post-Intelligencer, 11 June 2001.

55. General Accounting Office (GAO), MineralRoyalties: Royalties in the Western States and inMajor Mineral-Producing Countries, report to the U.S. Senate (Washington, DC: March 1993),p. 6; “South Africa Mining Bill Approved,” BBCNews, 25 June 2002.

56. GAO, op. cit. note 55; James P. Dorian,“Mining—Changing Picture in Transitional

Economies,” Mining Engineering, January 1997,pp. 31–36; Travis Q. Lyday, “The Mineral Indus-try of Papua New Guinea,” Pablo Velasco, “TheMineral Industry of Ecuador,” and Ivette E. Tor-res, “The Mineral Industry of Argentina,” all inUSGS, op. cit. note 29; Ivette E. Torres, USGScountry specialist, discussion with Dave Taylor,Worldwatch Institute, 21 October 2002; ThomasYager, USGS commodity specialist, e-mail to DaveTaylor, Worldwatch Institute, 22 October 2002;Amy Rosenfeld Sweeting and Andrea P. Clark,Lightening the Lode: A Guide to Responsible Large-scale Mining (Washington, DC: ConservationInternational, 2000).

57. MPC, Burden of Gilt (Washington, DC:1993); Alan Septoff, MPC, discussion with author,11 August 2002; McClure and Schneider, op. cit.note 31.

58. Geoff Evans, James Goodman, and NinaLansbury, eds., Moving Mountains (Sydney: Min-eral Policy Institute and Otford Press, 2001), pp.37–39; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency(MIGA) and Yanacocha from Extractive IndustriesReview, at <www.eireview.org/eir/eirhome.nsf/(DocLibrary)/5F1200213759BEAA85256C220068CD34/$FILE/MIGA%20List%20Aug%2025.xls>, viewed 12 September 2002; Omai fromHarvey Van Velduizen, MIGA, discussions withDave Taylor, Worldwatch Institute, 8 Octoberand 10 October 2002, and from Friends of theEarth, Risky Business: How the World Bank’s Insur-ance Arm Fails the Poor and Harms the Environ-ment (Washington, DC: 2001), pp. 14–16;Kumtor from CEE Bankwatch, Mountains of Gold:Kumtor Gold Mine in Kyrgyz Republic (Budapest:2002), p. 30.

59. Energy savings is a Worldwatch estimatebased on references cited in note 25; Iddo K.Wernick and Nickolas J. Themelis, “RecyclingMetals for the Environment,” Annual Review ofEnergy and the Environment 1998 (Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews, 1998), pp. 465–97.

60. Figure 6–3 from Lehman Brothers, Inc., op.cit. note 1, based on data from the InternationalMonetary Fund.


217

NOTES, CHAPTER 6

61. Gold Fields Minerals Services Ltd., GoldSurvey 2002 (London: April 2002).

62. Figure 6–4 from C. Zeltner et al., “Sustain-able Metal Management Exemplified by Copper inthe USA,” Regional Environmental Change,November 1999, pp. 31–46; S. Spatari et al.,“The Contemporary European Copper Cycle:One Year Stocks and Flows,” Ecological Econom-ics, in press (2002) pp. 31–46; Ayres, Ayres, andWarr, op. cit. note 25; share from secondary sup-plies from USGS, op. cit. note 8.

63. Patrick Kelly, “From Cans to Autos,”Resource Recycling, January 2002, pp. 30–31;Gitlitz, op. cit. note 26.

64. Robert McClure and Andrew Schneider,“Powerful Friends in Congress,” Seattle Post-Intel-ligencer, 14 June 2001.

65. Frank Ackerman, Why do We Recycle? (Wash-ington, DC: Island Press, 1997).

66. Geiser, op. cit. note 6.

67. “Eighty-Six Percent of Discarded Cars’Weight Can Now be Recycled, Organization Says,”International Environment Reporter, 17 March1999, p. 249.

68. EPA, “Product Stewardship—InternationalInitiatives for Electronics,” at <www.epa.gov/epr/products/eintern.html>, updated 18 June2002; “Electronics Producers Must Pay for Elec-tronic Wastes,” Environmental News Service, 14October 2002.

69. Robert Ayres, Towards Zero Emissions: Is There a Feasible Path? Introduction to ZERI PhaseII (Fontainebleau, France: European Institute ofBusiness Administration, May 1998).

70. Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), “CLCPolicy on Just Transition for Workers DuringEnvironmental Change,” endorsed by CLC Exec-utive Council, April 1999; Michael Renner, Work-ing for the Environment: A Growing Source of Jobs,Worldwatch Paper 152 (Washington, DC: World-watch Institute, September 2000); James Barratt,

Worker Transition and Global Climate Change(Washington, DC: Pew Center for Global Cli-mate Change, 2002).

71. South Africa from Mpufane, op. cit. note 3,and from Jennings, op. cit. note 3; recycling andremanufacturing jobs from R. W. Beck, Inc., U.S.Recycling Economic Information Study, preparedfor the National Recycling Coalition (July 2001),and from EPA, Macroeconomic Importance of Recy-cling and Remanufacturing (Washington, DC:October 1998), pp. 3–5.

72. “Old Silver Mining Town to Cash in onWind,” Environment News Service, 28 Septem-ber 2000; Li Rongrong quoted in “China’s Con-sultative Body Urges Mining Cities to FindAlternative Industries,” Xinhua, 27 June 2002.

73. WWF International and WWF–UK, To Digor Not to Dig? (London: 2002).

74. Pacheco quoted in “Costa Rica Cracks Downon Mining, Logging,” Reuters, 11 June 2002;Carlos Zorilla, DECOIN, Cotacachi, Ecuador, e-mail to author, 10 July 2002.

75. “Romanian Cyanide Spill Prompts Calls forBan on Chemical’s Use in Other Mines,” Inter-national Environmental Reporter, 30 August 2000,p. 676; “New Czech Legislation Bans Use ofCyanide Leaching Technologies in Mining,” Inter-national Environmental Reporter, 25 October2000, p. 834; Federal Parliament of Germany,“Minimization of the Environmental and HealthHazards of Gold Production,” motion of the SPD(Social Democrats) and 90 Alliance (Greens),approved on 24 January 2002; Philippines fromMarcos Orellana, “Unearthing Governance:Obstacles and Opportunities for Public Participa-tion in Minerals Policy,” in Carl Bruch, ed., TheNew “Public”: The Globalization of Public Partic-ipation (Washington, DC: Environmental LawInstitute, 2002), p. 238; Montana from CEEBankwatch et al., “Cyanide Mining HazardsEndanger Communities, Environment,” pressrelease (Prague: 21 February 2002).

76. MPC, op. cit. note 57; World Bank and IFC,op. cit. note 50; Jim Kuipers, Center for Science


218


in Public Participation, testimony before the Sub-committee on Energy and Resources, U.S. Houseof Representatives, Hearing on Availability ofBonds to Meet Federal Requirements for Mining,Oil, and Gas, Washington, DC, 23 July 2002;MPC, “Bush Administration Sets Stage for MineCleanup Scandal,” press release (Washington, DC:August 2002).

77. See, for instance, <www.theminingnews.org>and <minesandcommunities.org>.

78. Grasberg from Extractive Industries Review,op. cit. note 58; Rosia Montana from Neil J. KingJr., “Romanian Gold-Mine Loan is Blocked byWolfensohn,” Wall Street Journal, 11 October2002; Extractive Industries Review at <www.eireview.org>.

79. MMSD, op. cit. note 4; John E. Young, ed.,Not Digging Deep Enough (Washington, DC: MPCet al., October 2002 draft).

Chapter 7. Uniting Divided Cities

1. History of apartheid from Keith S. O.Beavon, “Johannesburg: A City and MetropolitanArea in Transformation,” in Carole Rakodi, ed.,The Urban Challenge in Africa: Growth and Man-agement of Its Largest Cities (Tokyo: UnitedNations University Press, 1997), pp. 150–91; toi-lets in Johannesburg from Jo Beall, Owen Crank-shaw, and Susan Parnell, “Victims, Villains andFixers: The Urban Environment and Johannes-burg’s Poor,” Journal of Southern African Stud-ies, December 2000, pp. 833–55; Alexandra fromJo Beall, Owen Crankshaw, and Susan Parnell,Uniting a Divided City: Governance and SocialExclusion in Johannesburg (London: Earthscan,2002), pp. 154–59; inequality in public healthfrom Lynn Dalrymple, “Building Healthy Citiesand Improving Health Systems for the UrbanPoor in South Africa,” in Samson James Opolot,ed., Building Healthy Cities: Improving the Healthof Urban Migrants and The Urban Poor in Africa(Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson InternationalCenter for Scholars, 2002), pp. 121–29; share ofJohannesburg’s population that is black fromSteven Friedman, “A Quest for Control: HighModernism and its Discontents in Johannesburg,

South Africa,” in Blair A. Ruble et al., eds., UrbanGovernance Around the World (Washington, DC:Woodrow Wilson International Center for Schol-ars, 2002), p. 32.

2. Stephen Berrisford, “Law and Urban Changein the New South Africa,” in Edésio Fernandes andAnn Varley, eds., Illegal Cities: Law and UrbanChange in Developing Countries (London: ZedBooks, 1998), pp. 213–29; Plato, The Republic,cited in James Clapp, The City: A Dictionary ofQuotable Thoughts on Cities and Urban Life (NewBrunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research,Rutgers University, 1984), p. 194; Laila IskandarKamel, The Informal Solid Waste Sector in Egypt:Prospects for Formalization (Cairo: CID with fund-ing from the Institute of International Educationand the Ford Foundation, January 2001); AfricanPopulation and Health Research Center, Popula-tion and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’s InformalSettlements, Report of the Nairobi Cross-SectionalSlums Survey (Nairobi: April 2002); Mumbaifrom Arjun Appadurai, “Deep Democracy: UrbanGovernmentality and the Horizon of Politics,”Environment and Urbanization, October 2001,pp. 23–43.

3. Jane Lubchenco, presentation at the State ofthe Earth conference, Columbia University EarthInstitute, 13 May 2002, updating Peter M.Vitousek et al., “Human Domination of Earth’sEcosystems,” Science, 25 July 1997, pp. 494–99;global world product from David Malin Roodman,“Economic Growth Falters,” in Worldwatch Insti-tute, Vital Signs 2002 (New York: W.W. Norton &Company, 2002), pp. 58–59.

4. Definition of sustainable development fromWorld Commission on Environment and Devel-opment, Our Common Future (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1987). Roughly 78 percent of car-bon emissions from fossil fuel burning and cementmanufacturing, and 76 percent of industrial wooduse worldwide, occur in urban areas. Some 60percent of the planet’s water that is tapped forhuman use goes to cities in one form or another.About half of this water irrigates food crops forurban residents, roughly a third is used by cityindustry, and the remainder is for drinking and san-itation. These calculations, done by the author in


219

NOTES, CHAPTER 7

May 1999, are based on urban population fromUnited Nations, World Urbanization Prospects:The 1996 Revision (New York: 1996), on share ofgross domestic product from industry and ser-vices from World Bank, World Development Indi-cators 1997, CD-ROM (Washington, DC: 1997),and from World Bank, World Development Indi-cators 1998 (Washington, DC: 1998), on carbonemissions from G. Marland et al., “Global,Regional, and National CO2 Emission Estimatesfrom Fossil Fuel Burning, Cement Production, andGas Flaring: 1751–1995 (revised March 1999),”Oak Ridge National Laboratory, <cdiac.esd.ornl.gov>, viewed 22 April 1999, on industrial round-wood consumption from U.N. Food and Agri-culture Organization, FAOSTAT StatisticsDatabase, at <apps.fao.org>, and on water fromI.A. Shiklomanov, “Global Water Resources,”Nature and Resources, vol. 26, no. 3 (1990).

5. Levels of urbanization from U.N. PopulationDivision (UNPD), World Urbanization Prospects:The 2001 Revision (New York: 2002); FreedomHouse, Freedom in the World: The Annual Surveyof Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 2000–2001(New York: 2001); U.N. Development Pro-gramme (UNDP), Human Development Report2002 (New York: 2002); Figure 7–1 based onUN-HABITAT, The State of the World’s Cities2001 (Nairobi: United Nations Centre for HumanSettlements, 2001), pp. 116–17.

6. Cities in history from Peter Hall, Cities inCivilization (New York: Pantheon Books, 1998);cities today from Joseph Rykwert, The Seductionof Place: The City in the Twenty-first Century (NewYork: Pantheon Books, 2000); cities in 2015 fromUNPD, op. cit. note 5.

7. Richard Stren, “Introduction: Toward theComparative Study of Urban Governance,” inRichard Stren and Patricia McCarney, Urban Gov-ernance in the Developing World: Innovations andDiscontinuities (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wil-son Center and Johns Hopkins University, inpress); Nick Devas with Philip Amis et al., “UrbanGovernance and Poverty: Lessons From a Study ofTen Cities in the South (Birmingham, U.K.: Uni-versity of Birmingham, June 2001).

8. Jorge E. Hardoy and David Satterthwaite,Squatter Citizen: Life in the Urban Third World(London: Earthscan, 1989).

9. The United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme (UN-HABITAT) uses an indexweighted heavily toward lack of secure tenure toestimate the number of people living in slumsworldwide; UN-HABITAT, “Millennium Devel-opment Goal 7, Target 11, Indicator 31” (Nairobi:2001), from Christine Auclair, Global UrbanObservatory, UN-HABITAT, e-mail to author,30 October 2002.

10. Estimates for 1993 and 2001 from ibid.;higher estimate of more than 1 billion people liv-ing in inadequate housing from UN-HABITAT,op. cit. note 5, p. 30.

11. Figure 7–2 from UNPD, op. cit. note 5, p.1; David Satterthwaite, Coping with Rapid UrbanGrowth, Leading Edge Series (London: RoyalInstitution of Chartered Surveyors, September2002).

12. World Bank, World Development Report2000/2001 (New York: Oxford University Press,2000), p. 23 (the $1 a day estimate is in 1993 pur-chasing power parity terms); 1.2 billion fromShaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, How Did theWorld’s Poorest Fare in the 1990s? World BankGroup Policy Research Work Paper 2409 (Wash-ington, DC: August 2000); Martin Ravallion,“On the Urbanization of Poverty,” Journal ofDevelopment Economics, vol. 857 (2002, in press);Martin Ravallion, e-mail to Elizabeth Bast, World-watch Institute, 15 May 2002.

13. Jeffrey Sachs, “The Economics of Sustain-ability,” Keynote Address for the DistinguishedLecture Series, World Bank, Washington, DC, 16April 2002.

14. Hardoy and Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 8, p.15; Kenyan building codes from Richard Stren,University of Toronto, e-mail to author, 23 Sep-tember 2002.

15. UN-HABITAT, “Global Urban Indicators,”at <www.unchs.org/guo/gui/>, data are com-


220

NOTES, CHAPTER 7

parable as of 1993; World Bank, op. cit. note 12,p. 275; Stren, op. cit. note 7.

16. Transparency International, TransparencyInternational Corruption Perceptions Index 2002(Berlin: 2002).

17. Figure 7–3 from the following: urban growthfrom UNPD, op. cit. note 5; poverty from WorldBank, World Development Indicators 2001 (Wash-ington DC: 2001); corruption from TransparencyInternational, op. cit. note 16, based on surveysfrom 2000–02.

18. Box 7–1 from the following: Mtumbadescription from Lawrence Apiyo, Pamoja Trust,Nairobi, and from George Ng’ang’a, TomWerunga, and Isaac Mburu, Mtumba GoverningCouncil, Nairobi, discussions with author, 19 Feb-ruary 2001; health problems from F. Nii-AmooDodoo, “The Urban Poor and Health Systems inEast Africa: Voices from Nairobi’s Slums,” inOpolot, op. cit. note 1, pp. 9–19; under-five mor-tality rates from African Population and HealthResearch Center, Population and Health Dynam-ics in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements, Report of theNairobi Cross-Sectional Slums Survey (Nairobi:April 2002), pp. 86–92.

19. UN-HABITAT, Nairobi Housing Survey(Nairobi: 2001); Hardoy and Satterthwaite, op. cit.note 8.

20. Richard Stren and Mario Polèse, “Under-standing the New Sociocultural Dynamics of Cities:Comparative Urban Policy in a Global Context,”in Mario Polèse and Richard Stren, The SocialSustainability of Cities: Diversity and the Man-agement of Change (Toronto, Canada: Universityof Toronto Press, 2000), pp. 26–28.

21. Water prices from Jorge E. Hardoy, DianaMitlin, and David Satterthwaite, EnvironmentalProblems in an Urbanizing World (London: Earth-scan, 2001), p. 48; sanitation from ibid., p. 57.

22. Two conferences from David Satterthwaite,International Institute for Environment and Devel-opment, e-mail to author, 27 September 2002;related health problems from Hardoy, Mitlin, and

Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 21, pp. 39–43; cholerafrom Carolyn Stephens, “Healthy Cities orUnhealthy Islands: The Health and Social Impli-cations of Urban Inequality,” Environment andUrbanization, October 1996, p. 16; malaria fromGilbert M. Khadiagala, “Urban Governance andHealth in East Africa,” in Opolot, op. cit. note 1,pp. 112–14.

23. Sheela Patel, Society for Preservation of AreaResource Centres (SPARC), Mumbai, presentationat UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, 14 February 2001.

24 “Childhood Tuberculosis in an Urban Popu-lation in South Africa: Burden and Risk Factor,”Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 80, no. 5(1999), pp. 433–37; HIV and tuberculosis fromLisa Mastny, “Tuberculosis Resurging World-wide,” in Lester R. Brown et al., Vital Signs 2000(New York: W.W. Norton & Company), pp.148–49.

25. George A. Kaplan et al., “Inequality inIncome and Mortality in the United States,” inIchiro Kawachi, Bruce P. Kennedy, and Richard G.Wilkinson, eds., The Society and Population HealthReader: Income Inequality and Health (New York:New Press, 1999), pp. 50–59; industrial nationsfrom Sandra J. McIsaac and Richard G. Wilkinson,“Income Distribution and Cause-Specific Mor-tality,” in ibid., pp. 124–36.

26. Thomas Friedman, “Ask Not What?” (oped), New York Times, 9 December 2001; TerryMcDermott, “The Plot: How Terrorists Hatcheda Simple Plan to Use Planes As Bombs,” Los Ange-les Times, 1 September 2002; Douglas Frantz et al.,“Threats and Responses: Pieces of a Puzzle; OnPlotters’ Path to U.S., A Stop at bin Laden Camp,”New York Times, 10 September 2002.

27. John F. C. Turner, interview by RobertChavez, World Bank, Washington, DC, 11 Sep-tember 2000, in World Bank Urban Forum, at<www.worldbank.org/urban/forum2002/index.html>, viewed 21 October 2002.

28. John F. C. Turner, Housing by People: TowardsAutonomy in Building Environments (New York:Pantheon Books, 1976), p. xvi; Janice Perlman,


221

NOTES, CHAPTER 7

The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Pol-itics in Rio de Janeiro (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1976).

29. History from Charles Abrams, Man’s Strug-gle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World (Cam-bridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1964); policies fromShlomo Angel, Housing Policy Matters: A GlobalAnalysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

30. Hardoy and Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 8, pp.126–27; Johan Silas, Surabaya Institute of Tech-nology, e-mail to Elizabeth Bast, WorldwatchInstitute, 15 July 2002.

31. UN-HABITAT, An Urbanizing World:Global Report on Human Settlements, 1996(Oxford: Oxford University Press for Habitat,1996), pp. 344–47; 1990 from Jeff Kenworthy,“Urban Ecology in Indonesia: The KampungImprovement Program (KIP),” at <wwasdev.murdoch.edu.au/cases/kip/kip.pdf>, 1997; 2001from Johan Silas, Surabaya Institute of Technol-ogy, e-mail to Elizabeth Bast, Worldwatch Insti-tute, 15 July 2002.

32. Mounir Neamatalla, “Zabaleen Environmentand Development Program: Cairo, Egypt,”MegaCities Project, 1998, at <www.megacitiesproject.org/publications/pdf/mcp018d.pdf>,viewed 15 July 2002; Ahktar Badshah, Our UrbanFuture: New Paradigms for Equity and Sustain-ability (London: Zed Books, 1996), pp. 65–69.

33. Laila Iskandar Kamel, “Urban Governance,The Informal Sector, and Municipal Solid Wastein Cairo,” Community and Institutional Devel-opment paper, March 2000.

34. Infant mortality from Neamatalla, op. cit.note 32, pp. 15–16; number of Zabbaleen work-ers and tons of trash from Laila Iskandar Kamel,“Cairo: A City That Learns from the MokattamRecyclers,” Community and Institutional Devel-opment (CID), The Social Research Center, TheAmerican University in Cairo, Egypt, March 1999;other statistics and Cairo’s future plans fromKamel, op. cit. note 2.

35. “Slum” is a formally defined settlement cat-

egory in Mumbai; percentages from Appadurai, op.cit. note 2, p. 27.

36. Sheela Patel, Sundar Burra, and CelineD’Cruz, “Shack/Slum Dwellers International(SDI): Foundations to Treetops,” Environmentand Urbanization, October 2001, pp. 45–60;nonpartisan political strategy from Appadurai, op.cit. note 2, p. 27.

37. Homeless International, “Defending theHousing Rights of Railway Dwellers of Mum-bai,” in Jim Antoniou, ed., Implementing theHabitat Agenda: In Search of Urban Sustainabil-ity (London: The Development Planning Unit,University College London, with the U.K. Depart-ment for International Development and UN-HABITAT), pp. 18–19.

38. Patel, Burra, and D’Cruz, op. cit. note 36;SDI Newsletter, March 2002; Jack Makau, PamojaTrust, Nairobi, discussion with author, May 2002.

39. Hardoy and Satterthwaite, op. cit. note 8, p.306; Environment and Urbanization cited inInternational Institute for Environment and Devel-opment, Rethinking Aid to Urban Poverty Reduc-tion: Lessons for Donors, Environment &Urbanization Brief #3 (London: April 2001).

40. Akbar Zaidi, From the Lane to the City: TheImpact of the Orangi Pilot Project’s SanitationModel (London: Water Aid, June 2001), p. 13;David Sims, “What is Secure Tenure in UrbanEgypt,” in Geoffrey Payne, ed., Land, Rights,and Innovation (London: Intermediate Technol-ogy Development Group (ITDG), 2002), pp.79–99.

41. Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital:Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and FailsEverywhere Else (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

42. Ayako Kagawa and Jan Turkstra, “TheProcess of Urban Land Tenure Formalization inPeru,” in Payne, op. cit. note 40, pp. 57–75.

43. Angel, op. cit. note 29.

44. Payne, op. cit. note 40, p. 22.


222

NOTES, CHAPTER 7

45. UN-HABITAT, at <www.unhabitat.org>,viewed 1 October 2002; United Nations, Mil-lennium Summit Declaration, at <www.un.org/millennium/summit.htm>, viewed 10 October 2002;Cities Alliance, 2001 Annual Report (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2001).

46. Billy Cobbett, Cities Alliance, Washington,DC, discussion with author, 24 April 2002.

47. Survey of mayors from UNDP, “Urban Prob-lems Remain Similar Worldwide,” press release(New York: 28 July 1997); Box 7–2 from CarlosZorilla, DECOIN, e-mail to Elizabeth Bast, World-watch Institute, 8 June 2002, from Municipalityof Santa Ana De Cotacachi, “Ordinance Declar-ing Cotacachi An ‘Ecological County’,” 11 Sep-tember 2000, and from UNESCO Cities for PeacePrize, at <www.unesco.org/culture/citiesforpeace/index.shtml>, viewed 8 June 2002.

48. “Reciprocity Waste Recycling Programmein Santo Andre,” in Antoniou, op. cit. note 37, pp.172–73.

49. Eduardo Spiaggi, “Urban Agriculture andLocal Sustainable Development: The Integrationof Economic, Social, Technical and Environmen-tal Variables in Rosario Argentina,” presented atthe International Development Research CentreAgropolis Awaredee Conference, Ottawa, Canada,26 March 2002; Eduardo Spiaggi, Centro deEstudios Ambiantales, Argentina, e-mail to author,4 October 2002.

50. Curitiba from Jonas Rabinovitch and JosefLeitmann, Environmental Innovation and Man-agement in Curitiba, Brazil, UMP Working PaperNo. 1 (Washington, DC: UNDP/Habitat/WorldBank, 1993); Juiz de Fora from Yves Cabannes,Urban Management Programme, Quito, Ecuador,e-mail to author, 5 September 2002.

51. UNDP, Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs andSustainable Cities (New York: 1996); Calcuttafrom Madhursee Mukerjee, “The Fishy Businessof Waste,” Scientific American, April 1995, p. 40;Camillus Sawio, “Urban Agriculture in Dar esSalaam,” IDRC Research Network, at <network.idrc.ca>, viewed 5 September 2002; Stefan

Dongas, “Vegetable Production on Open Spacesin Dar es Salaam—Spatial Changes from 1992 to1999,” Urban Agriculture Notes, <www.cityfarmer.org/daressalaam.html>, viewed 5 Septem-ber 2002; Tanzania’s policy from Jac Smit, TheUrban Agriculture Network, Washington, DC,presentation at “Reducing Poverty and Strength-ening Growth: The Urban Perspective,” WoodrowWilson International Center, Washington, DC,25–26 July 2002; potential of policies to increaseurban agriculture from UNDP, op. cit. this note,and from Joe Howe, “Planning for Urban Food:The Experience of Two UK Cities,” PlanningPractice & Research, vol. 17, no. 2 (2002), pp.125–44.

52. Alison Brown with Tony Lloyd-Jones, “Spa-tial Planning, Access, and Infrastructure,” in Car-ole Rakodi with Tony Lloyd-Jones, eds., UrbanLivelihoods: A People-Centred Approach to Reduc-ing Poverty (London: Earthscan, 2002), pp.188–204.

53. Jeffrey Maganya, Program Manager for theTransport Program in East Africa, ITDG, Nairobi,Kenya, discussion with author, 8 May 2001; Kenyabicycle tax from VNG uitgeverij, The Economic Sig-nificance of Cycling: A Study to Illustrate the Costsand Benefits of Cycling Policy (The Hague: 2000),p. 42.

54. Curitiba’s bus system from Jonas Rabinovitchand Josef Leitman, “Urban Planning in Curitiba,”Scientific American, March 1996, pp. 26–33; zon-ing laws from Jonas Rabinovitch and John Hoehn,“A Sustainable Urban Transportation System: The‘Surface Metro’ in Curitiba Brazil,” report of theEnvironmental and Natural Resources Policy andTraining Project (Madison, WI: University of Wis-consin, 19 May 1995), pp. 35–37, and from JonasRabinovitch, “Innovative Land Use and PublicTransport Policy,” Land Use Policy, vol. 13, no. 1(1996), pp. 51–67; Bogotá from Oscar EdmundoDiaz, “Awake at the Wheel: Bogotá’s Response tothe Transportation Challenge,” Encompass, Feb-ruary/March 2001, pp. 5–7, from EnriquePeñalosa, visiting scholar at New York University,New York, discussion with author, 3 May 2001,and from Steven Ambrus, “Bogotá Takes aBreather,” EcoAmericas, March 2000, p. 10; Lima


223

NOTES, CHAPTER 7

from Thomas Kohler, “Public Transportation:New Municipality Venture,” press release (Wash-ington, DC: American Public Transportation Asso-ciation, 9 April 2002); Lake Sagaris, Ciudad Viva,Santiago, Chile, discussion with author, 18 Sep-tember 2001; Patricio Lanfranco, Ciudad Viva,Santiago, Chile, discussion with author, 18 April2001.

55. Paul S. Grogan and Tony Proscio, Come-back Cities: A Blueprint For Urban NeighborhoodRevival (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), p.108.

56. UN-HABITAT, Cities in a GlobalizingWorld: Global Report on Human Settlements 2001(Nairobi: 2001), p. 81. Table 7–2 from the fol-lowing: India, Philippines, and South Africa fromCenter for Urban Development Studies (CUDS)at the Harvard University Graduate School ofDesign, Development Alternative Inc., and U.S.Agency for International Development, MicroEn-terprise Practices, Housing Microfinance Initia-tives (Cambridge, MA: May 2000); Brazil fromCUDS, “Microcredit Summit,” at <www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/research_centers/cuds/microcredit.html>, viewed 8 August 2001, and fromUN-HABITAT, Best Practices Database 2000,<www.bestpractices.org>, viewed 8 August 2002.

57. South Africa from UN-HABITAT, Cities ina Globalizing World, op. cit. note 56, p. 80; Cam-bodia from Asian Coalition for Housing Rights,“Building an Urban Poor People’s Movement inPhnom Penh, Cambodia,” Environment andUrbanization, October 2001, pp. 61–72; Philip-pines from Missionaries Social Development Foun-dation Incorporated, Manila, “Meet the PhilippinesHomeless People’s Federation,” Environment andUrbanization, October 2001, pp. 73–84; Zim-babwe from Beth Chitekwe and Diana Mitlin,“The Urban Poor Under Threat and In Struggle:Options for Urban Development in Zimbabwe,1995–2000,” Environment and Urbanization,October 2001, pp. 85–102; other examples andquote from “Deep Democracy; TransformingOpportunities for the Urban Poor,” Environmentand Urbanization Brief, October 2001, p. 2.

58. Lack of political influence by urban poor

from Joan M. Nelson, Access to Power: Politicsand the Urban Poor in Developing Nations (Prince-ton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), pp.168–207, 318–24.

59. McAuslan quoted in Lincoln Institute ofLand Policy, Access to Land by the Urban Poor:Annual Roundtable 2002 (Cambridge, MA:2002), pp. 6., 31.

60. Issac Mburu, Nairobi, discussion with author,February 2001; Transparency International–Kenya,Corruption in Kenya: Findings of an Urban BriberySurvey (Nairobi: 2001); Michael Lippe, presenta-tion at World Urban Forum, UN-HABITAT,Nairobi, May 2002.

61. Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, op. cit.note 57; “The Power of International Exchanges,”in Antoniou, op. cit. note 37, pp. 192–93.

62. Celina Souza, “Participatory Budgeting inBrazilian Cities: Limits and Possibilities in Build-ing Democratic Institutions,” Environment andUrbanization, April 2001, pp. 159–84.

63. William R. Long, “Brazil LawmakersImpeach Scandal-Plagued President,” Los AngelesTimes, 30 September 1992; William R. Long,“Brazil, Still Reeling From Corruption Scandal, IsHit Again,” Los Angeles Times, 23 October 1993;Mac Margolis, “Brazilian Authorities Link Lotteryto Political Corruption,” Los Angeles Times, 9April 1994; income inequality from World Bank,World Development Indicators 2000 (Washington,DC: 2000).

64. Souza, op. cit. note 62; Mona Serageldin,CUDS, Harvard University, discussion with Eliz-abeth Bast, Worldwatch Institute, 24 July 2002.

65. Souza, op. cit. note 62.

66. Priorities from ibid., pp. 167–68; sewers andstreet paving from Rualdo Menegat, “ParticipatoryDemocracy and Sustainable Development: Inte-grated Urban Environmental Management inPorto Alegre, Brazil,” Environment and Urban-ization, October 2002, pp. 1–26.


224


67. Souza, op. cit. note 62; $8 million fromCabannes, op. cit. note 50.

68. Number of cities from Cabannes, op. cit.note 50; Edésio Fernandes, “New Statute Aims toMake Brazilian Cities More Inclusive,” HabitatDebate, December 2001, p. 19.

69. United Nations, Agenda 21: The UnitedNations Programme of Action from Rio (NewYork: U.N. Department of Public Information,undated), Chapter 28.

70. International Council for Local Environ-mental Initiatives (ICLEI), Second Local Agenda21 Survey, Background Paper No. 15, submittedto the Commission on Sustainable Developmentacting as the preparatory committee for the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development, 28 Janu-ary–8 February 2002 (Toronto: 2002); JudyWalker, director of Local Agenda 21 Campaign,ICLEI, Toronto, discussion with author, 29August 2001; Porto Alegre from Menegat, op. cit.note 66; Luz Stella Velasquez B., “Agenda 21: AForm of Joint Environmental Management inManizales, Colombia,” Environment and Urban-ization, October 1998, pp. 9–36; Samson WokabiMwangi, Local Agenda 21 Experiences in Nakuru:Processes, Issues, and Lessons (London: Interna-tional Institute for Environment and Develop-ment, 2001).

71. Survey from ICLEI, op. cit. note 70, andfrom Walker, op. cit. note 70; direct elections ofmayors and greater powers given to cities in Mer-ilee S. Grindle, Audacious Reforms: InstitutionalInvention and Democracy in Latin America (Bal-timore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press,2000); Stren, op. cit. note 7.

72. Beall, Crankshaw, and Parnell, Uniting aDivided City, op. cit. note 1, pp. 99–106, 202–05.

73. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of GreatAmerican Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1961,1992), p. 271.

74. Jane Jacobs, interview by Roberto Chavez,World Bank, Washington, DC, 4 February 2002,in World Bank Urban Forum, op. cit. note 21.

75. UN-HABITAT, Cities in a GlobalizingWorld, op. cit. note 56.

76. In 2001, Norway announced a 10-foldincrease in its donation to UN-HABITAT; theUnited Kingdom and Sweden increased their fund-ing by up to 50 percent, while India, Madagascar,and other developing nations pledged more thanever before; UN-HABITAT, press conference,Nairobi, February 2001.

77. Struggle to include cities’ role from Jay Moor,Senior Advisor for Strategic Planning, UN-HABI-TAT, presentation on the World Summit on Sus-tainable Development at Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, 22nd Annual Geographic Infor-mation Systems Users Conference, San Diego,CA, July 2002; World Summit on SustainableDevelopment Plan of Implementation, at<www.johannesburgsummit.org/html/documents/summit_docs/2309_planfinal.htm>, viewed 21October 2002.

Chapter 8. Engaging Religion in theQuest for a Sustainable World

1. National Council of Churches, at <www.webofcreation.org/ncc/anwr.html>, viewed 17 Octo-ber 2002.

2. Is and ought stories from Richard Norgaard,“Can Science and Religion Better Save NatureTogether?” BioScience, September 2002, p. 842;most violent from Michael Renner, “Ending Vio-lent Conflict,” in Lester R. Brown et al., State ofthe World 1999 (New York: W.W. Norton & Com-pany, 1999); greatest environmental degradationis evident in global statistics on species extinc-tions, deforestation, erosion, air and water pollu-tion, and a host of other maladies, all of whichaccelerated dramatically in the twentieth century.Box 8–1 based on Mary Evelyn Tucker and JohnGrim, “Introduction: The Emerging Alliance ofWorld Religions and Ecology,” Daedalus, fall2001, p. 14. Articles from the special issue ofDaedalus on religion and ecology available at<environment.harvard.edu/religion/publications/journals/index.html>.

3. Religion as central to culture from Clifford


225

NOTES, CHAPTER 8

Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural System,” in Clif-ford Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures (New York:Basic Books, 1973), pp. 87–125.

4. Societal drivers from Thomas Berry, TheGreat Work: Our Way to the Future (New York: BellTower, 1999); individual drivers from Gerald T.Gardner and Paul C. Stern, Environmental Prob-lems and Human Behavior (Boston: Allyn andBacon, 1996), pp. 21–32; Nestlé from RobinBroad and John Cavanagh, “The CorporateAccountability Movement: Lessons and Oppor-tunities,” a Study for the World Wildlife Fund’sProject on International Financial Flows and theEnvironment (Washington, DC: 1998), pp. 12,30.

5. Mary Clark, Ariadne’s Thread (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1989), pp. 184–85; see also RobinW. Lovin and Frank E. Reynolds, eds., Cosmogonyand Ethical Order (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1985). Box 8–2 from Mary Evelyn Tuckerand John Grim, “Series Foreword,” in ChristopherKey Chapple and Mary Evelyn Tucker, Hinduismand Ecology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 2000), pp. xxv–xxvii, and from Mary Eve-lyn Tucker, discussion with author, 24 October2002.

6. Tucker and Grim, op. cit. note 5.

7. Mathieu Deflam, “Ritual, Anti-Structure,and Religion: A Discussion of Victor Turner’sProcessual Symbolic Analysis,” Journal for the Sci-entific Study of Religion, vol. 30, no. 1 (1991), pp.1–21; Robert Bellah, “Civil Religion in Amer-ica,” in William G. McLoughlin and Robert N.Bellah, eds., Religion in America (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1968).

8. Ritual and resource management, and ritualand emotional connections, from E. N. Anderson,Ecologies of the Heart: Emotion, Belief and theEnvironment (New York: Oxford University Press,1996), p. 166; Tsembaga from Roy A. Rappa-port, “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Rela-tions Among a New Guinea People,” in JohnnettaB. Cole, Anthropology for the Nineties (New York:The Free Press, 1988), pp. 389–403.

9. Stalin quoted in Winston Churchill, The Sec-ond World War: The Gathering Storm (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1948), p. 601; Pope andPoland from Carl Bernstein and Marco Politi, HisHoliness: John Paul II and the History of Our Time(New York: Penguin Books, 1996), pp. 11–12;Tibet from “UN Rights Chief Pressures Chinaon Detained Boy Panchen Lama,” Agence FrancePresse, posted on Web site of the Tibetan Government in Exile, at <www.tibet.com/NewsRoom/panchen1.htm>, viewed 24 Octo-ber 2002.

10. David Barrett and Todd Johnson, WorldChristian Trends, AD 30–AD 2200 (Pasadena,CA: William Carey Library, 2001); Table 8–1from ibid., and from Mary Evelyn Tucker andJohn Grim, Professors of Religion, Bucknell Uni-versity, discussion with author, 19 October 2002(“indigenous” is the category that Barrett andJohnson call “animists and shamanists”).

11. Religious adherence statistics from<www.adherents.com>, viewed 24 October 2002;Pakistan from IUCN–The World ConservationUnion, The Pakistan National Conservation Strat-egy (Karachi, Pakistan: 1991), and from IUCN,Final Report, Mid-Term Review of National Con-servation Strategy: Mass Awareness Initiatives(Islamabad, Pakistan: 2000).

12. John A. Grim, ed., Indigenous Traditionsand Ecology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 2001).

13. Land area from Alliance of Religions andConservation (ARC), at <www.religionsandconservation.org>, viewed 21 October 2002; mosquesfrom IUCN, Final Report, op. cit. note 11; U.S.religious buildings is a Worldwatch estimate basedon data in U.S. Department of Energy, EnergyInformation Administration, 1999 CommercialBuildings Energy Consumption Survey: Consump-tion and Expenditures Tables (Washington, DC:1999); schools from ARC, op. cit. this note, and from John Smith, ARC, discussion with Erik Assadourian, Worldwatch Institute, 21 Octo-ber 2002; Confucian and Vedic health systemsfrom Financial Times, 30 April 2002; Catholichealth systems from Catholic Charities USA,


226

NOTES, CHAPTER 8

at <www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Programs/ Advocacy/letters/Letters2001/sabuse1.htm>,viewed 23 April 2002.

14. Interfaith Center for Corporate Rsponsibil-ity from Meg Voorhes, e-mail to author, 28 May2002; Tracey Rembert, Shareholder Action Net-work, discussion with author, 15 May 2002.

15. Ismail Serageldin and Christian Grootaert,“Defining Social Capital: An Integrating View,” inPartha Dagupta and Ismail Serageldin, eds., SocialCapital: A Multi-faceted Perspective (Washington,DC: World Bank, 2000).

16. Clark, op. cit. note 5, p. 184.

17. Andrew Greeley, “Coleman Revisited: Reli-gious Structures as a Source of Social Capital,”American Behavioral Scientist, March/April 1997,p. 591.

18. Table 8–2 from the following: World WideFund for Nature (WWF) from <www.religionsandconservation.org>; Global Forum from Pre-serving and Cherishing the Earth: An Appeal forJoint Commitment in Science and Religion(Moscow: 1990), at <clawww.lmu.edu/~lvanwensveen/courses/thst398/topic7.htm>; Parlia-ment from <www.changemakers.net/journal/02february/religionecology.cfm>; World Councilof Churches,“Ecumenical Earth,”at <www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ecology.html>, viewed 18October 2002; Windsor Summit from “ReligionsVow a New Alliance for Conservation,” One Coun-try: The Online Newsletter of the InternationalBahai Community, April-June 1995, at <www.onecountry.org>; Harvard from <www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/ecology>, viewed 21 October2002, and from <environment.harvard.edu/religion>, viewed 21 October 2002; symposia from<www.rsesymposia.org>; Millennium Summit from<www.millenniumpeacesummit.com>; Sacred Giftsand Tehran seminar from “Religions Pledge SacredGifts for a Living Planet,” press release (London:WWF-UK, 15 November 2000).

19. Conferences from <www.hds.harvard.edu/cswr/ecology>, viewed 21 October 2002; Forumfrom <environment.harvard.edu/religion>, viewed

21 October 2002. The Harvard book series andthe comprehensive Web site of the Forum onReligion and Ecology are helping to establish a newacademic field in religion and ecology that hasimplications for environmental policy.

20. Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of OurEcological Crisis,” in Roger S. Gottlieb, ThisSacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment(New York: Routledge, 1996), pp. 184–93; cri-tique of White from J. Baird Callicott, “Genesisand John Muir,” ReVision, winter 1990, pp.31–46.

21. Carl Pope, “Remarks of Carl Pope, SierraClub Executive Director, Symposium on Reli-gion, Science, and the Environment Under theAuspices of His All Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecu-menical Patriarch, Santa Barbara, California,November 6–8, 1997,” Ecozoic, at <www.Ecozoic.com/eco/CarlPope.asp>, viewed 9 October2002; St. Francis from White, op. cit. note 20, pp.192–93.

22. Pope, op. cit. note 21.

23. Cassandra Carmichael, Director of Faith-Based Outreach, Center for a New AmericanDream, Takoma Park, MD, discussion with author,9 October 2002, and e-mail to author, 24 Octo-ber 2002.

24. Richard Rohr, “We Need Transformation,Not False Transcendence,” National CatholicReporter, 15 February 2002.

25. Ibid.

26. Women as most involved from John Grim,Professor of Religion, Bucknell University, dis-cussion with author, 19 October 2002.

27. Religion Counts, Religion and Public Policyat the UN (Washington, DC: April 2002).

28. Anne Primavesi, Sacred Gaia (London: Rout-ledge, 2000).

29. Bruce Barcot, “For God So Loved theWorld,” Outside, March 2001.


227

NOTES, CHAPTER 8

30. Ritual from Anderson, op. cit. note 8, p.166. Box 8–3 from Susan M. Darlington, “Prac-tical Spirituality and Community Forests: Monks,Ritual, and Radical Conservatism in Thailand,” inAnna L. Tsing and Paul Greenough, eds., Imag-ination and Distress in Southern EnvironmentalProjects (Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press,forthcoming); values from Mary Evelyn Tuckerand John Grim, “Religions of the World and Ecol-ogy: Discovering the Common Ground,” Forumfor Religion and Ecology, at <environment.harvard.edu/religion/religion/index.html>, viewed23 October 2002.

31. The Dalai Lama, “Five Point Peace Plan forTibet,” at <www.tibet.net/eng/diir/enviro/hhdl/fivepoint/index.html>, viewed 18 October 2002;Pope John Paul II, “The Ecological Crisis: ACommon Responsibility,” Message for World Dayof Peace, January 1, 1990, at <www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP900101.HTM>; “Com-mon Declaration by Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I,” at<www.rsesymposia.org/symposium_iv/Common%20Declaration.pdf>.

32. Religion, Science and the Environment(RSE), at <www.rsesymposia.org>.

33. Symposia from Maria Becket, RSE sympo-sium coordinator, discussion with author, 25 Sep-tember 2002; other details from RSE, op. cit.note 32.

34. Black Sea from Laurance David Mee, “TheBlack Sea Today,” at <www.rsesymposia.org/symposium_ii/overview_blacksea.htm>; Halki fromJohn Chryssavgis, “Conference Report: A Sym-posium on the Danube: Religion and Science inDialogue about the Environment,” Worldviews,vol. 4 (2000), p. 82; World Bank and U.N. Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP) from John Ben-nett, independent consultant, discussion withauthor, 24 October 2002.

35. Philip Weller, former program director,WWF, discussion with author, 20 September 2002;Patriarch’s involvement from Jasmina Bachmann,International Convention for the Protection ofthe Danube River, discussion with author, 23 Sep-

tember 2002.

36. Kelly D. Alley, On the Banks of the Ganga:When Wastewater Meets a Sacred River (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002);Alexander Stille, “The Ganges’ Next Life,” TheNew Yorker, June 1999, pp. 58–67.

37. Kelly D. Alley, “Idioms of Degeneracy:Assessing Ganga’s Purity and Pollution,” in LanceE. Nelson, ed., Purifying the Earthly Body of God:Religion and Ecology in Hindu India (Albany,NY: State University of New York Press, 1998), pp.297–330.

38. Fran Peavey, president, Friends of the Ganges(San Francisco), discussion with author, 4 Sep-tember 2002; Dr. V. B. Mishra, discussion withauthor, 5 September 2002.

39. Stille, op. cit. note 36; Mishra, op. cit. note38.

40. Mishra, op cit note 38; Alley, op. cit. note 37;Stille, op. cit. note 36.

41. Cleanness and purity from Alley, op. cit. note37, p. 305; maintains respect from ibid., p. 320;fusion from ibid., p. 317.

42. Table 8–3 from Center for a New AmericanDream, “Quotes and Teachings of World Reli-gions on Care of the Earth and Responsible Con-sumption,” at <www.newdream.org/faith>, viewed16 October 2002, except for Buddhadasa Bhikkhu,from Donald K. Swearer, “Buddhism and Ecology:Challenge and Promise,” Forum on Religion andEcology, at <environment.harvard.edu/religion/religion/buddhism/index.html>, viewed 16 Octo-ber 2002.

43. “Rowan Williams Confirmed as New Arch-bishop of Canterbury,” The Guardian, 23 July2002; Pope from “Pope John Paul II AddressesOverconsumption,” Green Cross, summer 1996.

44. Sarvodaya from <www.sarvodaya.org>,viewed 28 October 2002; Christopher Candland,“Faith as Social Capital: Religion and CommunityDevelopment in Southern Asia,” Policy Sciences,


228

NOTES, CHAPTER 8

vol. 33 (2000), pp. 355–74.

45. Buddhism roots from A. T. Ariyaratne, Bud-dhist Economics in Practice in the Sarvodaya Shra-madana Movement of Sri Lanka (Salisbury, UK:Sarvodaya Support Group, 1999), p. 7; con-sumption as a tool from Ariyaratne, quoted inCandland, op. cit. note 44, p. 355, and fromJoanna Macy, Dharma and Development: Reli-gion as Resource in the Sarvodaya Self-Help Move-ment (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1991),p. 47.

46. Development vision from Macy, op. cit. note45, p. 46; 10 needs from D. J. Mitchell, “Sarvo-daya: An Introduction to the Sarvodaya Shra-madana Movement in Sri Lanka,” booklet of theSarvodaya Movement (Moratuwa, Sri Lanka:undated), p. 3.

47. Macy, op. cit. note 45, pp. 27, 46.

48. Ariyaratne, op. cit. note 45, pp. 9, 37.

49. Macy, op. cit. note 45, pp. 51–63.

50. Ibid., p. 53.

51. Nestlé from Broad and Cavanagh, op. cit.note 4, pp. 12, 30; lettuce boycotts from SusanFerris and Ricardo Sandoval, The Fight in theFields: Cesar Chavez and the Farmworkers’ Move-ment (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997).

52. Regeneration Project from <www.theregenerationproject.org> and from Sally Bingham, e-mailto Erik Assadourian, Worldwatch Institute, 21October 2002.

53. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),“Energy Star for Congregations,” at <www.epa.gov/smallbiz/congregations.html>, viewed 23July 2002; 5 percent from U.S. Department ofEnergy, op. cit. note 13; EPA calculation based ona survey of commercial buildings carried out by theU.S. Department of Energy.

54. Share of Americans at church from NationalOpinion Research Center, “General Social Survey2000,” at The American Religion Data Archive,

<www.thearda.com>, viewed 22 October 2002.

55. Equal Exchange, at <www.equalexchange.com>, viewed 23 October 2002.

56. Participating congregations from EqualExchange, Building Alternatives Amid Crisis:Annual Report 2001 (Canton, MA: 2001); 1 per-cent of houses of worship is a Worldwatch calcu-lation based on data from Equal Exchange, op. cit.this note, and from U.S. Department of Energy,op. cit. note 13; percentage of sales from EqualExchange, op. cit. this note.

57. Quote from Timothy Bernard, cited in “TheInterfaith Coffee Program,” Equal Exchange, at<www.equalexchange.com/interfaith/pcusaproject.html>, viewed 18 July 2002.

58. Tim Bernard, “Brewing Faith and Coffee,”Lutheran World Relief, at <www.lwr.org/coffee/coffee/newcoffee.html>, viewed 23 October 2002;coffee drinking from U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Economic Research Service, Food Con-sumption (Per Capita) Data System: Beverages, at <www.ers.usda.gov/data/foodconsumption/datasystem.asp>, viewed 28 October 2002.

59. Social investment from Social InvestmentForum, 2001 Report on Socially Responsible Invest-ing Trends in the United States (Washington, DC:November 2001); share of Americans at churchfrom National Opinion Research Center, op. cit.note 54.

60. Interfaith Partnership for the Environmentand UNEP, “Earth and Faith: A Book of Reflec-tion for Action” (New York: UNEP, 2001); WorldFaiths Development Dialogue from “Second Sum-mit Between World Bank and World ReligionsFocuses on Projects,” One Country: The OnlineNewsletter of the International Bahá’í Community,at <www.onecountry.org/e113/e11310as.htm>,viewed 25 October 2002; World Council ofChurches, “Ecumenical Earth,” at <www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ecology.html>, viewed 18October 2002.

61. Tucker and Grim, op. cit. note 2, pp. 16–17.


229

NOTES, CHAPTER 8

62. Martin Wroe, “An Irresistable Force,”Sojourners, May-June 2000.

63. Infection rate from Joint United NationsProgramme on HIV/AIDS, AIDS EpidemicUpdate—December 2001 (Geneva: 2001); Muslimcommunities and Catholic bishop from ThorayaObaid, Executive Director, United Nations Pop-ulation Fund, “Building Bridges for Human Devel-opment: The Role of Culture and Religion inPromoting Universal Principles of The Programmeof Action on Population and Development,”address at Georgetown University, 25 April 2002.

64. Mary Evelyn Tucker, Worldly Wonder: Reli-gions Enter Their Ecological Phase (Chicago: OpenCourt Press, forthcoming).

65. Obaid, op. cit. note 63.

66. Gould quoted in David Orr, “For the Loveof Life,” Conservation Biology, December 1992, p.486.

67. Ibid., pp. 486–87.

68. John Muir quoted in Trebbe Johnson, “TheSecond Creation,” Sierra Magazine, December1998.

69. Thomas Berry, “Ethics and Ecology,” a paperdelivered to the Harvard Center on Environ-mental Values, 9 April 1996; see also BrianSwimme and Thomas Berry, The Universe Story(New York: Harper Collins, 1992), and Berry,op. cit. note 4.


230

Documents

STATE OF THE WORLD - United Diversitylibrary.uniteddiversity.coop/More_Books_and_Reports/... · 2009-10-16 · stunning new cover. As the ﬁnal step, the page proofs were sent to