From June 20-22, world
leaders from different fields have congregated in the city of Rio de Janeiro
for the Rio+20 Earth Summit to discuss and decide on the future of the planet. The
word sustainability has been a part of common man’s lexicon for nearly the last
2 decades but the fact that nobody can still define how and what exactly does
sustainable development means in the macro sense shows the micro and
utilitarian approach followed by a vast majority of the masses. Coming to the
issue of utility, I’ll cite an anecdote which is directly related to the point
at stake here.
The other day, I was
embroiled in an animated conversation with an old friend regarding the power
woes in the country and the significance of individuals’ efforts to promote and
expand the use of renewable energy. However, the discussion veered in the
direction of a rather indirectly related issue of endangered species. And I was
stunned to hear that according to him, the premise on which the objectives to
initiate the efforts to preserve an endangered species should be based on the
future utility or use of that species to humans. In layman terms, he explained
his reasoning with the following example – In case of tigers, the question of
whether to preserve the tiger in India or not should be based on whether if the
tiger will not be there in the future, is it going to affect our quotidian
existence in any way? (Of course the Indian tiger or cheetah, in the absolute biological sense of the word, already went
extinct in the 1960s in India and the current species are only some closely genetically
linked brothers/sisters of the original Indian cheetah).
However, before I
tackle the question of whether the decision to save a species should be based
on its future utility or not, there is a concrete body of literature available
that clearly highlights the fact that if measures on war footing are not taken
in the near future to save hundreds of thousands of endangered species, the
entire ecological balance of the planet could be disturbed forever which will
be detrimental to the survival of Homo Sapiens themselves. Marine ecosystems
have been severely damaged due to excessive fishing and to a lesser extent by
oil spills and dredging. Despite a target of a maximum of 4.02 billion kW days
set in 2002 for the global fishing industry (kW days is defined as the engine
power of fishing vessel in kilowatts multiplied by the no of days the vessel
was engaged in fishing activities), fishing capacity clocked 4.4 billion kW days
in 2011, nearly 10% more than the maximum limit. Illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing is a US $23 billion industry annually which is larger than
the total value of the entire Indian fishing industry (that doesn’t mean we can
happily devour the fish curry in the restaurants we visit next time). Only 7.2% of world’s territorial waters and
barely 1.6% of the planet’s oceans come under maritime protection laws while as
per the Global Marine Species Assessment
(GMSA) Report, 20,000 marine species are currently under the scanner for
fear of extinction. The permanent destruction of the Great Barrier Reef near
Australia and the near extinction of the whale (courtesy a continued permission
on whaling by governments like Japan which has sounded the death knell for this
largest creature on Earth) are some stand out examples of the precariousness of
the situation. In essence, entire fishing and marine biodiversity faces an
alarming risk of permanent damage thereby destroying the entire fishing and
marine industries upon which, millions living in coastal areas of the world are
dependent.
Coming to land, there
is absolutely no doubt that the little has been done on the ground except
hollow promises since the first Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. Total primary
forest cover globally has gone down by 740 million acres (300 million hectares)
in the last 20 years which is larger than the size of Argentina. Average Carbon
emissions in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million (ppm) has increased
from 358 ppm to 394 ppm by April 2012. The total area coming under the deserts
or near desertification has increased drastically in the last century and as
per latest UN estimates, the rate of desertification is only speeding up. The
world’s largest desert, the Sahara in Africa, is currently expanding at a
harrowing rate of 48 km/year in the southward direction gobbling up the rain
forests of Central and Eastern Africa which provide employment and livelihood
to nearly half the continent. More than 1.2 billion people currently are at
future risk of expanding deserts which already cover close to 1/3rd
of the world’s land area. The causes behind this are the usual suspects of
excessive cropping, over grazing, improper irrigation and worst of all,
deforestation. It is a common estimate that the entire land area of Rajasthan,
Delhi and Haryana will be a desert by the end of second half of the 21st
century due to the eastward and North eastward expansion of the Thar desert and
the ensuing water crisis could result in nearly 2/3rds of the population
without access to clean water (thankfully
the entire species of the tigers will not survive to see the day to enjoy the
desert safari).
Regrettably, for the
past 2 decades, the efforts to tackle the trio of global warming,
desertification and biodiversity loss have only been made on paper while the
ground reality blatantly describes the story of gross neglect under the garb of
the oft repeated term “equity under common but differentiated
responsibilities”. This essentially means that the developed world will carry
major responsibility for the current malaise since their actions over the last
2 centuries have been the major contributor to global warming and bio diversity
loss and thus while all developing countries will be treated at par in terms of
benefits and solutions applied in the future, the responsibilities to carry out
these actions will mainly lie on the shoulders of the developed countries. This
is nothing new but the same old rhetoric that has dragged on since the entire
climate change and global warming issue came to the fore front. If Rio really
wants to achieve something different and concrete, it will have to make the
nations of the world sign a legally binding commitment to bring
the free oceans of the world under a global authority to protect their over
exploitation while at the same time, enhance technology transfer from the
developed to the developing world for eco-friendly implementation of daily
practices and to create prohibited areas both in water as well as across land
geographies where endangered species can be preserved and protected.
Coming back to my
friends’ question of the long term utility of saving endangered species to the
human race, more than half of the world’s population is dependent on
non-vegetarian diets for their survival while nearly 90% of the coastal
populations are dependent on fishing for subsistence. The entire leather goods
industry (which I must admit should cease to exist) globally is dependent on
the replenishment of land species they exploit which are fast depleting. As per the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species which is the most comprehensive and cited list by various global
organisations, more than 40% of all species on the planet are at the risk of
extinction. The pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the existence of many
animals, plants and marine species for maintaining their value chains in the
long run. By the way, before I end, I must mention that the oft hated oil lobby
was not present in person anywhere in the ongoing summit except that its
presence was palpable in the entire 238 paragraph official text of the Rio+20
Summit for under the section of energy, there is
a major emphasis on more renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, but
then it eloquently brings what it calls "cleaner fossil fuels
technologies" into the mix. Can we hear oil, Petrol, gas and coal getting
patronised again?
Regrettably and
alarmingly, the global community has gone nowhere when it comes to action on the
ground. 190 countries, about to sign the text as the final document (which
again only talks about voluntary commitments), in the last 20- years have been
able to ‘acknowledge’, ‘recognise’ and express ‘deep concern’ about world’s environment
crises. Thus, if no hard steps are initiated in Rio and the current farce
continues, there is no doubt that we will remain the dominant species on the
planet for millennia to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment