Certified Palm Oil – a Slippery Solution?

Once you jump on the ‘sustainability bandwagon’, you begin reconsidering every choice you make, every product you buy and every campaign you support. This becomes increasingly difficult when you begin to consider that a product’s impact does not begin or end with your consumption, but spans its entire ‘life cycle’. At the moment you enter a supermarket, you are unlikely to take out your laptop and research what effects your desired product had on the environment when its materials were extracted, which ecosystems may have been harmed or what will happen once you are done consuming it. This is where environmental certification comes into play.

Certificates highlight the compliance of products with set environmental and social standards, but sometimes certify goods or services we would never consider ecologically viable. Though not as surprising as the Initiative for Responsible Mining or the Responsible Jewellery Council (blood diamonds, anyone?), the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) strikes me as a bizarre name for an organisation addressing socio-environmental concerns.

Though many companies have begun readdressing their production methods in order to guarantee a sustained yield of their raw materials, this does not make their activities any more sustainable. For this we not only have to consider a company’s ability to continue harvesting a resource (by extracting less than is reproduced each year), but also the overall effects on the surrounding ecosystem. Here is where my issue with ‘sustainable palm oil’ lies.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, “not only does palm oil promote heart disease, but the vast plantations that grow oil palm trees have contributed to the destruction of the rainforest and wildlife of Southeast Asia.”[1] Though elephants, tigers and rhinoceroses (as well as humans) are at risk from palm oil extraction, international critique has centred on the threat to orangutans from the deforestation of their native habitat.

As a result a number of organisations have spoken out against palm oil production, but what is more interesting is that one of the lead campaigners, The Borneo Orangutan Survival Australia (BOS), actually cites the RSPO as a force for good in this field. However, they do not see this as the best solution and lament that the organisation has only certified 14% of palm oil production. For this reason when RSPO claims that there is an “increasing amount of palm oil in our products that has been produced and sourced in a sustainable manner”[2] we have to consider how much that really represents.

Considering the extensive market penetration of palm oil, and the low volume of ‘sustainable’ batches circulating our stores, it is presumable that some manufacturers include both sustainable and unsustainable palm oil in their products. For this reason, as a consumer I would prefer to opt out of the market altogether. Thankfully, BOS publishes an extensive list of products without palm oil on their website, but while such a boycott washes my hands of guilt over Southeast Asian ecosystems, there is little guarantee that these substitutes will not have their own hidden secrets. As a general rule, certificates may not make our purchasing decisions easier, but certainly make us aware that the methods of production have been monitored and evaluated, and that though the product may not save the planet, it may be doing it less harm than others.

 

Comments Off on Certified Palm Oil – a Slippery Solution? / 04 Feb 2014 por anabeatriceacuna
IMSD /

Monoculture: one thing that could change everything

 

“Something is going seriously wrong. We are trying to protect the world’s ecosystems from climate change. And now, on our first humble steps towards this goal we are about to create a subsidy system for mono-culture plantations–thereby turning wide stretches of land into biological deserts.”

Greenpeace International, SBSTA-18, June 2003, Bonn, Germany

 

The monoculture is the practice of growing one heavily concentrated crop, rather than the rotation of various crops through a farmer’s fields over time. For some companies that see the activity from a commercial perspective is an efficient and profitable way to cultivate, but seen from and ecologic point of view, is a total disaster.

Diversity is the essence of all ecosystems and monoculture is breaking that principle. If there is less vegetal diversity consequently animal diversity also decreases, the insects and animals that used to feed from other vegetable species disappear and thus also their predators.

Furthermore, monoculture damages considerably the soil, it losses fertility because the land as is always absorbing the same nutrients of the same specie and therefore the need of using fertilizers and chemicals to enrich it while water pollution increases. At the same time, plagues are more common in monoculture, fact that forces the use of pesticides that contaminates the air, the land and also the water.

Due to the influence of so called developed countries, the monoculture is nowadays present in more under development countries that regrettably are the ones that control the agricultural production because of negotiations as Free Trade Agreements. These types of policies pledge good results for agricultural sector and the economy of an entire country, but in the future stand for immense losses.

Monoculture is generating an environmental imbalance where diversity and a self-sufficient and sustainable ecosystem have been replaced by a homogenous, artificial and untenable environment. More over, in countries that agriculture represents almost 15% of their GDP will mean not only economical impacts for the future and for families in rural areas, but also the loss of a tradition and a deep respect for land and biodiversity.

Comments Off on Monoculture: one thing that could change everything / 04 Feb 2014 por anamariarocha
IMSD /

Natural water infrastructure

“Biodiversity drives soil functions supporting hydrological processes, global agriculture and forestry production; and, therefore, food security”.

Within this, we can realise about the importance of maintaining the balance between all the different fields of the ecosystem in relation with human activities, because they are constantly affecting one to another. This gives us a big picture, and i am going to focus in this post in water matters, because we have to be aware that threats are coming in this subject.

is something important to keep in mind that, from the 85% of available water, the 12% of the population live without safe drink water, and the 40% (2.5 billion people) do not have adequate sanitation.  If we do not manage this situation, by 2025,“1.8 billion people would be living with absolute water scarcity and two of third of the world population could be under water stress conditions”.

One of the main issues which is affecting water resources is the climate change, but also human activities, for instance, agriculture among others. The amount of water demanded from agriculture, and the impacts that it is producing in water quality (irrigation, salinization, etc.) are main problems for water resources, and they act as a key management in water security.  We can point it out, that agriculture remains a 67% on water and it works as one of the biggest pollutants of watercourses. In Asia, for example, we have the case that 7.5 billion tons of sediments are generated for not proper managed agriculture land.

 

So we can go through the conclusion that, ADAPTATION is mainly about better water management, because of supply and quality are becoming insecure for all uses.

So through idea of adaptation, we can refer to something reachable for everyone: the ecosystem.  Ecosystem functioning as a natural water infrastructure and its devastation is, in most of the times, the root of all disasters occurred.  “Forests pro­tect water supplies, wetlands regu­late floods, healthy soils increase wa­ter and nutrient availability for crops, help reduce off-farm impacts, and natural and man-made wetlands and buffer strips can be effective in managing nutrient run-off and pollu­tion”.

Governments and organizations willingness is increasing, as the same time that the use of natural infrastructure is growing. They are taking more and more approaches. For instance, the UNEP started arising the awareness in local and global areas of well-managing ecosystems.

This could bring economic advantages, as reduction in cost of damage for carbon emissions, or the maintenance of hard infrastructures. So as we can see managing natural infrastructure is a “requisite for sustained economic growth”.   We have plenty of interventions for improving the well-manage of the water delivered by ecosystems to the cities. But the real thing is that we are all water managers, and this issue needs the cooperation of everyone, from local to international levels. Water resources and biodiversity has always been managed in separate sectors, but the aim is reach a cross-sectoral working, where good governance structures and stakeholders work together in decision-making for water management strategies.

 

Sources:

http://www.zaragoza.es/contenidos/medioambiente/onu/1006-eng.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/development/news-dev-2015-2013-05-en.pdf

http://www.iisd.org/freshwater/

Comments Off on Natural water infrastructure / 04 Feb 2014 por sofiagarcia-carretero
IMSD /

Examples of voluntary and mandatory tools to preserve the environment

Certification schemes and Extended Producer Responsibility

A responsible management of natural resources is a key driver in the path towards sustainable development. When applying this concept to the business world, it is interesting to note how there are both voluntary schemes and mandatory regulations pushing companies into this direction. In this blog post I would like to outline the main characteristics of voluntary sustainability assessments – certification schemes – and then show a mandatory regulation at European level – the WEEE Directive, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.

Certification schemes are voluntary market driven mechanisms used by the companies to reduce their risks and get closer to the sustainability concept. Independent third-party verifiers certify the applying companies that can prove that their products or processes (considering the whole chain of custody) meet the sustainability standards. Without going into details of the certification process, I would like to highlight three aspects that I find noteworthy. These Certification standards often are “forerunners of sustainability” as they rise the threshold above simple compliance to law requirements. It happens that governments and institutions often follow and adapt their regulation, especially if the sustainability standards have a strong credibility because defined through a wide discussion process involving all the stakeholders.

Then, it could be somehow surprising to see that there are sustainability certification schemes basically for each industry sector (also mining, oil and gas…): even if controversial, still it is a positive thing thinking that even these industries can try to improve and have a responsible management because sometimes legislation is not enough to preserve the environment.

Lastly, even if these certifications represent a cost in the short term for the companies (costs to meet the standards, auditors, fees…), when looking at the medium long term time scale they can turn into an investment: both for the company itself (consumers, markets and investors are more and more rewarding these practices) and for the society (at some extent they include externalities therefore future generations can theoretically “save” on conservation or restoration).

Now, for a snapshot of a sustainable mandatory regulation, I would like to mention the WEEE, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. The WEEE Directive 2002/96/EC promotes the collection and recycling of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, those substances whose use is restricted by the EU legislation (RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC). In force since 2003, it has been recently recasted: the member states now have the obligation to reach the collection targets to 85% of WEEE generated (about 20kg per capita up from 4kg per capita of the previous Directive) ensuring the separate collection of about 10 million tons of hazardous so-called e-waste from 2019. The new Directive also sets stricter documentation rules and clearer measures to try to tackle the illegal export of e-waste to dumping sites in poorer countries (such as the Agbobloshie dumping yard in Accra, Ghana)

This Directive falls within the environmental policy approach of the EPR, Extended Producer Responsibility, according to which governments force manufacturers to internalize the cost of recycling/disposal within the product price, shifting it away from the municipalities: “a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle.” Usually incentives are provided to producers to take into account environmental considerations when designing their products (OECD definition). As highlighted by a recent report by the European Commission EPR schemes can support reaching a more resource efficient society, decreasing the impact of the products on the environment.

These two examples show that even if the path towards sustainability is tough and steep there are voluntary and mandatory tools that can support the ongoing process of having a more responsible management of natural resources.

Comments Off on Examples of voluntary and mandatory tools to preserve the environment / 04 Feb 2014 por guidopreti
IMSD /

Shark Attack: CITES to the Rescue!

I recently came across a shocking statistic, thanks to an article and graphic from Joe Chernov

On a peak year, 12 people are killed in a year by sharks.

On average 12 sharks are killed every second by humans.

Amounting to a shocking 100 million sharks per year.

After further investigation, I found that estimates range from 60 million to 270 million. In comparison to just 12 human deaths in 2012, and zero fatal victims in 2011, the statistics speak for themselves. If we factor in that sharks are simply acting out of instinct, whereas we are acting out of vanity and greed, it’s easy to see who is the real victim here (Huffington Post, 2013).

Sharks products are used for cooking, medicinal supplements and beauty products, though substitutes exist. The biggest demand for shark products come from the notorious shark fin soup, a delicacy in China, which has unintentionally encouraged a practice known as finning, where sharks are thrown back into the ocean alive after having their fins cut off (Conrad, 2012).

Though some sharks that end up on the market are by-catch, with prices up to € 300 per kilo of processed fins, the shark industry has become very lucrative, encouraging fisherman to target certain species. If we consider revenues derived from the sale of shark products, the margins are even higher, creating even more perilous circumstances for these sharks (Fowler and Fordham, 2010).

And all this regardless of the of the fact that several shark species are covered under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). These species are listed as Appendix II species, which does not prohibit trade entirely, however they are considered threatened with extinction unless trade of such species is subject to strict regulation.

CITES, which came into being in 1975, provides a framework for the control of trade of certain species depending on the species’ vulnerability, and whose rules are non-voluntary for parties who have ratified the agreement, however each member nation in responsible for incorporating CITES decisions into their national level legal systems.

Under the CITES rules, any Appendix II species intended for export must be accompanied by a permit verifying that sustainable practices were used in obtaining the specimen. While importing these products does not require any paperwork, it is the responsibility of countries receiving these goods to ensure that the correct steps have been taken, and all the necessary permissions have been obtained. Non-compliance of the part of any Party, or insufficient effort can be met with sanctions (Greenpeace, 2013).

After the 2013 CITES Conference of Parties, which meets every three years, five more species of shark were added to Appendix II. With the two other species of shark added to the list in 2003, the total is now seven, and effective as of September of this year all Parties must have in place all the necessary mechanisms to tighten their control over the the trade of these species of sharks (McGrath, 2013).

The question is, have we waited too long to admit that these ‘monsters’ need protection from us? Demand for shark products began to rise in the late 1970s, and overfishing, in combination with slow reproductive rates have caused a steep decline in shark populations (EXAMPLE). Due to the nature’s intricacies, the integrity of the ocean’s ecosystem would be affected by the elimination of a high ranking predator, which in turn would cause a ripple effect, causing changes in other marine, plant, and eventually terrestrial populations.

Regardless of their reputation, or the fact that they must compete with adorable creatures like these for public attention, the bottom line is that they need us, and we need them, and in September 2014 we will see the results of the latest CITES decision put into action (or not), in order to protect them.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.php#II

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/international-shark-trade-to-be-regulated

http://www.dw.de/migratory-sharks-inch-closer-to-extinction/a-16266288

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/showing-its-teeth-cites-finally-protects-shar/blog/44350/

http://ripetungi.com/wp-content/uploads/Shark-Attack-Stop-Finning-Infographic.png

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/maritimeaffairs_fisheries/consultations/shark_finning_ban/contributions/unregistered/eea_shark_report_summary-final_en.pdf

Comments Off on Shark Attack: CITES to the Rescue! / 04 Feb 2014 por asyamarhubi
IMSD /

The Afghan Pamir: how people´s participation can help to alleviate the problem of natural resource management.

Participatory groups within rural communities are considered to be central to equitable and sustainable solutions to local development problems. Coordinating activities can be more effective in regards to managing resources as opposed to individuals trying to tackle the problem on their own. The example of the natural resource management in the region of the Afghan Pamir can be seen as a clear illustration of how people´s participation can help to alleviate the problem of natural resource management.

It seems that people should be at the centre of any type of initiative and local solutions should be implemented for local people. It is also important to take into consideration the fact that no conservation activity should be implemented if the social costs are not initially evaluated, especially in this region where poverty plays a significant role.

The Afghan Pamir is one of the most beautiful and biodiverse places in central Asia, where the legendary Marco Polo sheep can be encountered along with other animals such as the Snow Leopard.

During centuries, natives in the region of the Pamir have been confronted for the acquisition of natural resources and their development status was considered to be very backward due to their poor health, educational as well as economic conditions.  In the late 1980s, the environmentalist association, Save (Society for Afghanistan Volunteer Environmentalists) decided to contribute to the development of this area by implementing a program related to the conservation of natural resources. Before SAVE´s existence, the shooting to any animal was the normal practice and the use of natural resources was done very inefficiently. For instance, the pelts from the snow leopard were sold at a very low prince. No law directed to protecting the biodiversity was at that time implemented in that region of Asia.

This organization introduced the idea of sustainable resource management. They started to work with people in the area hence centering their attention in human beings and education. Local people, elders, influential as well as governmental actors became interested in the issue after much effort and communication. SAVE worked on explaining what the consequences of a loss in biodiversity could mean for them.  Due to the fact that SAVE promoted cooperation at different levels; between local people, and authorities, the government became mobilized and laws started to be drafted to protect the environment.

People were holding responsible and committed to the well management of their resources. They started to implement learned techniques of hunting and of using natural resources in a sustainable manner. Therefore, they were directly involved in the process of managing their resources.

This initiative had a positive impact in the resource management of the communities since hunting was reduced, people became aware of the resources, and ecotourism in the area was enhanced through the regulation of hunting. This affected the lives of people living in the communities since the revenue generated from tourism activities helped to improve their livelihood. Educational, health and other services started to be offered.  Therefore, from this case, it can be said that the conservation of biodiversity from a human centred approach has actually helped to the both the conservation of biodiversity and to the socio economic development.

Sources:

http://www.akdn.org/publications/2010_akf_wakhan.pdf

http://srdis.ciesin.columbia.edu

www.worlbank.org

 

 

Comments Off on The Afghan Pamir: how people´s participation can help to alleviate the problem of natural resource management. / 03 Feb 2014 por inescamarero
IMSD /

The precautionary principle & the problem of social equity

The precautionary principle is often used to secure the management of natural resources. When scientific knowledge and uncertainty prevails it is recommended to implement this approach in order to avoid hazardous effects on the environment as well as to reduce risk. It appears to be a guide for decision makers to take effective decisions on natural resource conservation and management and to consider intergenerational as well as intergenerational outcomes of resource exploitation. Nevertheless, due to the fact that uncertainty prevails, decisions can be taken favouring one party and causing detrimental effects. Hence, the misuse of this principle, either because of ignorance or due to hidden motivations, has often contributed to the deterioration of its legitimacy.

Even though this concept was created “in parallel” with the concept of sustainable development it is far from clear whether it fosters its promotion at all times.  It is essential to bear in mind the fact that the consequences of implementing the precautionary principle may not be equally distributed. This means that the poor may be the most affected by the application of this principle as opposed to the more powerful. A wide range of enterprises aimed at making profit have been interrupted as a result of the implementation of the precautionary principle. Hence, the use of the precautionary principle has helped to cut down their activities, reducing their possible future environmental impact. Nonetheless, it needs to be taken into account that such type of organizations are well equipped to deal with the problems that may spurn in relation with this principle.

The problem comes when the application of this concept results in social costs exacerbating the already existing social inequalities. In the developing world, and especially the rural poor are extremely dependent on natural resources. These people often are the ones bearing the costs of the implementation of conservation strategies under the umbrella of the precautionary principle. Economic losses, economic opportunities, land resources, and a restriction in their livelihoods options are examples of some of the burdens that they have to be facing.

Therefore, a study should be made before implementing this principle in relation to who bears costs and who gains benefits. In order for the precautionary principle to contribute to the sustainable management of natural resources and not to be considered as an obstacle for achieving sustainable development, special attention should be drawn to the fact of who can afford it. This hence implies value judgments, which may be seen as problematic and not equitable for some.

This is challenging merely because policy makers often misunderstand the value of natural resources and the conservation of biodiversity. When trying to promote the development of a country, community or area, to foster growth they tend to follow policies that end up causing severe social and environmental costs that in principle were trying to avoid.  For this reason, it is essential to settle some clearer guidelines on how and when this principle should be implemented.

Sources:

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PGC-002.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w1238E/W1238E01.htm#ch1.1.4

http://www.environmentalcommons.org/staging/precaution-debating.pdf

 

Comments Off on The precautionary principle & the problem of social equity / 03 Feb 2014 por inescamarero
IMSD /

Green buildings, a way to reduce environmental degradation

Buildings are everywhere: we live in them, we work in them, we buy in them… They are both in towns and in cities. However, they are more common in the latter. Currently, 51% of the total population lives in cities and this percentage is estimated to increase in the upcoming years. By 2030, this proportion will reach 60%, and 70% by 2050 [1]. This increase will be due to several factors, such as the constant spread of cities in emerging countries and the growth of the global population, which is expected to reach between 8.3 and 10.9 billion by 2050 [2].

The raise of world population, and the consequent increment in the number of buildings, will have a negative impact on the environment and on the use of energy and resources. Nowadays, buildings use around 40% of global energy, 25% of global water, 40% of global resources and they emit approximately 33% of GHG emissions [3].

As a solution to this problem, alternative sustainable buildings are now emerging. Green building refers to a structure and using process that is environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building’s life-cycle: from sitting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition [4]. This way, green buildings aim to reduce the environmental impact of the edifices by efficiently using resources such as energy or water, and reducing waste, pollution and environmental degradation.

Green buildings certification bodies have arisen too. An example is LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) is a program that provides third-party verification of green buildings. In this context, the role of green building certifications is crucial to promote sustainable buildings as these certifications can have very positive outcomes for companies that support and promote sustainability as a way to acquire credibility and reputation.

These reasons explain why green buildings can play an important role to reduce environmental degradation. We cannot continue damaging the environment as we have been doing during the last decades. The proliferation of green buildings is an suitable tool to reduce the human negative impact on the environment and to promote an efficient and effective use of natural resources.

References:

[1]http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/

[2]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.Uu0v-D15Png

[3]http://www.unep.org/sbci/AboutSBCI/Background.asp

[4]Yan Ji and Stellios Plainiotis (2006): Design for Sustainability. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press. ISBN 7-112-08390-7

Comments Off on Green buildings, a way to reduce environmental degradation / 02 Feb 2014 por martagomezmanchon
IMSD /

Responsibility: Far Beyond Finger Pointing

We live in a world where the word “threat” continuously makes the headlines, shaping all aspects of life on earth.

From scarcity of Natural Resources, climate change, illegal logging, toxic waste, deforestation, overexploitation to pollution… the list goes on showcasing a common denominator; Man’s interference with nature.

What has started as an instinctive exploration led by human curiosity, soon transformed into a limitless and destructive behavior. A living proof that what goes around comes around, and humanity is the one paying for it.

Organisations, governments, activists and humanitarians all around the world have taken it upon themselves to conduct this battle against the “disturbers” of the planet.

But can we identify those disturbers? Are they living on another planet planning to destroy ours? By pointing at them are we assuming that we, as individuals, as citizens of the world are not at fault?

We are all responsible for what is happening, by simply being part of a system and a set of mind that is being imposed on us in a modern and innovative package. We choose every day to measure the world and its problems according to our personal lives and whether or not it is affecting us directly. Forgetting that we are part of an ecosystem ruled by a chain principle, that is being disturbed, putting a considerable pressure on its carrying capacity.

The ever-growing development of technology allied with obsolescence, is becoming more of a state of mind than anything else. It is a human made recipe for a vicious cycle. A cycle with a new set of priorities dictated by profit even when human life is at risk.

Consumerism has proven to be the disease of this century. As a guarantee for their market survival, companies are creating and answering to limitless demands.  Everything has limits and nature isn’t exempt from this realistic concept. It is up to the human being to assume its responsibility by bringing sustainability into the equation. The simple acknowledgement of the bio-capacity of the ecosystem is a step forward towards measuring our footprint and managing our actions in a sustainable manner.

 

Responsibility is not a given, it is earned by the human consciousness.

According to Abraham Lincoln: “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”. And this is what sustainable development is all about…

 

Sources:

http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-05-14.pdf

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/global_scarcity_scramble_for_dwindling_natural_resources/2531/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/geographyAndEnvironment/whosWho/profiles/neumayer/pdf/Article%20in%20Journal%20of%20Economic%20Surveys.pdf

 

Comments Off on Responsibility: Far Beyond Finger Pointing / 02 Feb 2014 por rimaelkhoury
IMSD /

What biodiversity is losing because of illicit crops in Colombia

All the cocaine that is consumed around the World is produced in three countries: Colombia, Perú and Bolivia. Even though the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime sates in its 2012 World Drug Report stands that “there has been an overall decline in a global manufacture of cocaine, prompted by a major decline in cocaine manufacture in Colombia in the five-year period 2006-2010”[i] the country at the 31 of December of 2011 still has 48.000 hectares in its territory which means a reduction of 25% compared to the year before. Further, 80.000 farmers’ families in Colombia depend on illicit coca bush cultivation to survive and the figures in this same report show that while the crops reduced in 25%, the production of cocaine reduced only 10%.

Although all these facts are important to understand the situation of illicit crops in Colombia, what really concerns me is the environmental impact that the process itself of creating, maintaining and harvesting a crop of cocaine or marihuana implies in itself, as well as further action of fumigating the illicit crops, a strategy define in 2000 with the implementation of Plan Colombia. This plan was a bilateral agreement between the governments of Colombia and the United States with the objectives of generating social and economic revitalization, ending the armed conflict in Colombia and creating an anti-drug strategy in which the eradication of illicit crops was done through the fumigation of the area with glyphosate.

The glyphosate is a herbicide used in agriculture because it’s action blocks an essential metabolic pathway for plant growth. Because of the objective of this post, I’m not going expand on the components of the glyphosate, I just want to highlight that the herbicide is a patent of Monsanto and that the scientific magazine Chemical Research in Toxicology published a study in which it’s noted that the Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, is lethal for human cells and  “stimulate cell death of human embryos, which could cause defects, abortions, hormonal problems, genital or reproductive, as well as various types of cancer”[ii].

The negative environmental effect of drug production in Colombia begins when farmers need to destroy approximately four hectares of forest to plant one hectare of cocaine. In fact, “30% of annual deforestation in Colombia corresponds to the action because the implementation of cocaine crops”[iii]. Moreover, they use insecticides and fungicides to control plagues and sicknesses in the crop and also chemical fertilizers to improve results. All these substances that illicit crop farmers introduce daily into the ecosystem cause much harm to it. For example, the loss of the resource as a source of water and food, human and animal poisoning, soil contamination, persistence of the substances in the food chain, influence on insects and flora and to add one more, packaging waste and residual products, to name just a few.

Furthermore, the fumigation of the same crops is being done in many more territories than the ones with cocaine or marihuana crops, thus affecting the way other food plantations and the work of hundreds of rural workers in the country. Besides, due to the presence of revolutionary armed groups in the zone, who are the owners of the drug trafficking business, the pilots of the airplanes that did the fumigation couldn’t fly at low altitudes because these guerrillas could attack them. Additionally, they were positively evaluated if their tanks return without glyphosate, the reason why on many occasions they release all the product in just one area, making the environmental effect of the herbicide into biodiversity and habitat worse.

One can say that the strategy of fumigation has important political concerns that prevail in front of the ecological heritage of the country and the large effects that the act has in environment, conservation of flora and fauna, and public health. What is more disturbing is that by evaluating the strategy of the fumigation of illicit crops, we can see that it is directly affecting the farm workers that have been forced by the armed groups to leave their traditional food yields to work with drug production in order to survive. The problematic then begins with the existence of the armed groups outside the law that from 60 years have been affecting the social, economic and political life of the country and the creation of the drug traffic as their business for subsistence.

Despite the political problematic, the way in which it has been tackled hasn’t been so effective. The fumigation with glyphosate began 25 years ago and now we can see that the production of drugs in Colombia is still a reality. In fact, the United States government based in CIA studios said, “despite the large financial investment and the enormous cost of spraying operations in 2003, it represented only in practice eradicating 30,000 hectares.”[iv]

Among 195 nations, Colombia is the country with the second highest biodiversity on Earth, and the first worldwide in flora and fauna per square kilometer even with the huge challenges described. The presence of the drug crops in the country and the conflict with armed forces has more than political, social and economic consequences; the environment has been directly affected and is now a key factor to evaluate and stop the loss of the biodiversity and all it’s environmental potential.

Comments Off on What biodiversity is losing because of illicit crops in Colombia / 27 Jan 2014 por anamariarocha
IMSD /