Guyana and the wider world
by Dr Clive Thomas
Stabroek News
June 17, 2001

Last week we introduced the topic of globalisation and the environment. We saw that each one of us is a part of the web of life made possible by earth's ecosystems. Without these ecosystems there would be no life. Indeed for some of us the beauty and harshness, complexity and simplicity, separateness and togetherness of these ecosystems give meaning and purpose to our transient existence on earth. Ultimately, it is from this perspective that we should lament the fraying of web of life.

As globalisation, and with it the relentless search for commercial gain in global markets for goods, services, and capital proceed apace, enormous pressures have been put on the earth's ecosystems. This has threatened the continued viability of these systems to the point where this has become a major global priority even for staid international organisations. The question that all this raises, is whether a market?based global economy, unaided by conscious and deliberate human intervention, will be in a position to halt these abuses and avert the cataclysmic disaster, which present trends portend.

In the rush to produce man-made goods and services, as well as provide jobs and livelihoods for ourselves, we forget that the ecosystems are the earth's primary production reservoir from which we feed, clothe, and house ourselves. It is therefore the quality of care and degree of thoughtfulness that we bring to bear in drawing on this production potential, which ultimately measures the quality, and therefore, the sustainability of our culture and civilization.



Mending the web

If the fraying web of life is to be mended we shall have to find ways and mechanisms to do several things. One is to immediately bring to a halt the present relentless exploitation and destructive pursuit of commercial gain in our approach to the environment. This is an enormous task that goes against the very grain of capitalism. We need also, and of equal priority, to have an accurate picture of the present state of earth's ecosystems. After having achieved these two goals, the next would be to find ways to minimize human impacts on these ecosystems and as an extension of this to find the best ways to conserve and rehabilitate them.

The point was made last week that, the logical starting point for exploring these issues intelligently is to have a clear understanding of what the notion of an ecosystem represents in our discussion. In pursuit of this I offered a definition (or description if the reader prefers), which is devoid of technical jargon, yet accurate enough for our present purpose. Simply put, an ecosystem was described as a community of interaction between living organisms and the physical environment in which these organisms live. In its plural form ecosystems are separate and distinct, while at the same time bound together with countless strands of life.

As we saw the Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems undertaken in 1999 examined five of these global systems, the agro-ecosystem, coastal areas, forests, freshwater systems, and grasslands. Fortuitously, all five of these systems are well represented in Guyana. While this pilot study was aimed at being comprehensive, it was still only the pilot for a larger Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Project underway.



Highlights

Certain issues brought out in this study are worth highlighting for they are of major significance. One is that the study sought to measure the quantity and quality of the outputs of the five different systems. This covered the inputs and outputs of both goods and services passing through the market as well as those that did not. In the former case it would cover such items as the food we buy, the timber we purchase to build our houses, and the fibers in the clothing that we wear. In the latter case it would cover much of the consumption of produce on the farm by farmers themselves that do not enter the market. Or, for that matter, the items indigenous peoples like the Amerindians produce and consume within their own communities, and which do not pass through the market.

Second the study evaluated the biological basis of production. This included in it the condition of soils and water and the biodiversity of the systems. It also examined the historical evolution of land use practices in these systems and changes over time.

The study found disturbing gaps in the available data. Some were easier to overcome through the use of modern technology; as for example, satellite imagery and remote sensing. Others that required on?the?ground, hands?on approaches were far more difficult to overcome. Good examples of the latter were measuring freshwater quality and river discharges. Indeed the available information indicated a decline over time in the quality of some of these data. In Guyana and the Caribbean we are familiar with this. Thus for example in the old days every estate tried to keep its own records on rainfall and other climatic data. This was a vast storehouse of information on microclimates, which has been abandoned almost without notice with the coming of national meteorological centres. The study also found that the ones available were often were not in a standardised form. Methodologies for their collection differed, as did the measures used and the format in which the information was kept in various places.

The Pilot Study has made it very obvious for those who might have harboured any doubt concerning it that, there is a burning need for far?reaching global co-ordination and co-operation if a workable and effective set of international systems and mechanisms are to be put in place. It goes without saying that such global arrangements are required as earth's ecosystems are based on natural phenomena. They are not drawn along the jurisdictional lines of nation states.



Response

It is also obvious for those who have been following this series that such a global endeavour cannot be left to the transnational firms whose activities have contributed the most , by far, to the present global environmental predicament. Such a global enterprise has to be led by those forces that are seeking, in whatever ways they can, to place human values other than the blind pursuit of maximum individual gain, at the centre of global development. At the moment, this is constituted by a broad coalition of the international scientific community, non?governmental organizations, some inter?governmental organizations, some governments, consumers and other stakeholders.

The big fly in the ointment at this stage is the Bush administration in Washington. It has portrayed a most belligerent posture against environmentalist groups. It has in its short life emerged as a relentless and unapologetic champion of 'US big business' at home and abroad. It has dismissed most environmental lobbies as the products of weak?kneed liberalism. It is impatient, if not downright hostile, with international agreements or protocols that would limit the ability of United States' firms to exploit natural resources for profit wherever these might be located. The administration's controversial last minute withdrawal from the Kyoto Agreement is some indication of how far it is prepared to go on these matters and how much the gains in global co-operation reached at the Global Environmental Summit at Rio are in jeopardy.

While the United States' extremism on this matter stands out, there is an insidious double standard practised by the other rich countries. It is clear that rich and poor countries alike contribute to the degradation of earth's ecosystems. For example, a good deal of global pollution can be traced to poverty. While this is true, nonetheless, the available data suggest that the rich countries contribute disproportionately. This has been so in the past and continues to be the case today.

However when international agreements are to be reached the contribution of the poor to pollution is often taken to mean that these countries should carry the main burden of ecosystem regeneration. In other words the burdens are to be placed on the 'losers' (victims!) of globalisation, who are in effect compensating the 'gainers' for their ecosystem exploitation. In the cut and thrust of global negotiations it might be said that this is to be expected. What, however, is clearly unacceptable, is when after agreement is reached these countries invest their considerable resources and ingenuity in the pursuit of loopholes in these agreements and the use of technicalities to circumvent their spirit.



Output

It may be useful at this stage to consider briefly some of what we gain from earth's ecosystem's potential. On a global basis over one half of all jobs are provided in agriculture, forestry and fishing. One?quarter of all the world's countries depend on this sector more than on industrial goods. In Guyana, after basic and rudimentary services, this sector provides the most employment. Globally, the earth's agroecosystem yields about $1.5 trillion annually. This staggering sum shows the extensive dependence of the earth's population on the carrying capacity of its agro-ecosystem.

It has been estimated that 70 per cent of the major fisheries are fully fished or overfished. Existing fishing fleet capacity exceed the maximum sustainable yield. Resort is being made to aquaculture, which has more than doubled in annual output since the 1990s. The study also revealed that there were declines in biodiversity. Pollutants from land were spoiling coastal fisheries. There are many indicators of habitat loss, disease, and the adverse impact of invasive species. Man?made constructs had badly damaged shoreline protection and the productive potential of coastal agriculture, as we in Guyana are painfully aware. Tourism is the world's fastest growing economic sector. It accounts for over $3.5trillion annually, more than twice that of agriculture. It is both the fastest and largest sector in CARICOM. The industry, however, has contributed much to the destruction of the environment, particularly through the degradation of coral reefs, which are important for fish supplies.

The capacity to provide agriculture with clean freshwater has declined. Irrigation is the largest net user of freshwater. The share of agricultural land that is irrigated is at the moment less than 20 percent, but its use has been growing rapidly. In the 30?year period 1966?1996, it increased by one?quarter. The study found that 70 percent of the water withdrawn from freshwater systems for human use was for irrigation. However, only 30?60 per cent of this was returned downstream.

It can be expected that technology and improved organization will improve yields and reduce dependence on expanded acreages devoted to this production. But such technical and organizational improvements cannot dispense with our ultimate reliance on what nature makes possible. If we leave the principal exploitation of our ecosystems to profit-driven transnationals, the past record suggests that we are heading towards a global disaster. The most effective counter to this is growing public awareness and understanding of what is at stake. There can be no higher call than the protection of planet earth from the ravages of an unrestrained and dehumanized globalisation. This, after all, is the main motivation of this series.