Brazil’s Samuel Dam: Lessons for Hydroelectric Development Policy and the Environment in Amazonia

Brazil’s Samuel Dam, which formed a 540-km² reservoir in the state of Rondônia in 1988, provides lessons for development decisions throughout Amazonia and in other tropical areas. The decision to build the dam was heavily influenced by its role in the political strategies of key decision makers. Samuel illustrates both impacts and benefits of electricity supply and the dilemmas facing decision makers regarding the various options for planned electricity generation. Environmental costs included flooding forest and stimulating illegal logging activity throughout western Amazonia because of an exception opened for Samuel in Brazil’s prohibition of export of raw logs. Samuel emitted substantially more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil. Contamination of fish in the reservoir resulted from methylation of mercury present in the soil. Social costs of the dam included resettlement of 238 families of farmers; impacts on indigenous people were indirect. Mitigating measures included faunal rescue and creation of a forest reserve. The lessons of Samuel include the need to consider a full range of alternatives prior to making decisions in practice and the importance of adhering to the logical sequence of decision making, where information is gathered and compared prior to the decision. It also shows the need to maintain flexibility when the costs and benefits of different alternatives change significantly over the course of the project’s planning and execution, as occurred at Samuel.     

Do Non-Native Species Threaten The Natural Environment?

Conservation biologists and other environmentalists confront five obstacles in building support for regulatory policies that seek to exclude or remove introduced plants and other non-native species that threaten to harm natural areas or the natural environment. First, the concept of “harm to the natural environment” is nebulous and undefined. Second, ecologists cannot predict how introduced species will behave in natural ecosystems. If biologists cannot define “harm” or predict the behavior of introduced species, they must target all non-native species as potentially “harmful”. an impossibly large regulatory task. Third, loss of species richness may constitute harm to an environment, but introduced organisms typically, generally, and significantly add to species richness in ecosystems. If species richness correlates with desirable ecosystem properties, moreover, such as stability and productivity, as some ecologists believe, then introduced organisms, by increasing species richness, would support those desirable properties. Fourth, one may plausibly argue that extinction constitutes environmental harm, but there is no evidence that non-native species, especially plants, are significant causes of extinction, except for predators in certain lakes and other small island-like environments. Fifth, while aesthetic, ethical, and spiritual values may provide a legitimate basis for invasive species policy, biologists often cite concepts such as “biodiversity” and ecosystem “health” or “integrity” to provide a scientific justification. To assert that non-native species threaten biodiversity or undermine ecosystem health, however, may be to draw conceptual entailments or consequences from definitions of “biodiversity” and “integrity” that arbitrarily exclude non-native species or make the presence of exotic species a per se indicator of decline.     

The Right Tree for the Job? Perceptions of Species Suitability for the Provision of Ecosystem Services

Stakeholders in plantation forestry are increasingly aware of the importance of the ecosystem services and non-market values associated with forests. In New Zealand, there is significant interest in establishing species other than Pinus radiata D. Don (the dominant plantation species) in the belief that alternative species are better suited to deliver these services. Significant risk is associated with this position as there is little objective data to support these views. To identify which species were likely to be planted to deliver ecosystem services, a survey was distributed to examine stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholders were asked which of 15 tree attributes contributed to the provision of five ecosystem services (amenity value, bioenergy production, carbon capture, the diversity of native habitat, and erosion control/water quality) and to identify which of 22 candidate tree species possessed those attributes. These data were combined to identify the species perceived most suitable for the delivery of each ecosystem service. Sequoia sempervirens (D.Don) Endl. closely matched the stakeholder derived ideotypes associated with all five ecosystem services. Comparisons to data from growth, physiological and ecological studies demonstrated that many of the opinions held by stakeholders were inaccurate, leading to erroneous assumptions regarding the suitability of most candidate species. Stakeholder perceptions substantially influence tree species selection, and plantations established on the basis of inaccurate opinions are unlikely to deliver the desired outcomes. Attitudinal surveys associated with engagement campaigns are essential to improve stakeholder knowledge, advancing the development of fit-for-purpose forest management that provides the required ecosystem services.     

A Mediation Case for Resolving the Energy and Environment Dispute at Aliağa-İzmir, Turkey

A mediation exercise to resolve the ongoing dispute against these power plant projects at Aliağa was recommended and participated in by the author in 1997. In this article the basis of the continuing environmental concern about the feared impacts of the new power plants, procedure, and results of this mediation are mentioned. The basis of the “energy versus environment” dispute in Aliağa are introduced. Mediation exercise and its end results have been criticized.     

The Great Decoupling: Why Minimizing Humanity’s Dependence on the Environment May Not Be Cause for Celebration

Characterizations of the Anthropocene often indicate both the challenges that our new epoch poses for human well-being and a sense of loss that comes from a compromised environment. In this paper I explore a deeper problem underpinning both issues, namely, that decoupling humanity from the world with which we are familiar compromises human flourishing. The environmental conditions characteristic of the Anthropocene do so, I claim, by compromising flourishing on two fronts. First, the comparatively novel conditions of the Anthropocene risk rupturing our narratives, putting at risk our sense of self and connections to familiar environments. Second, by undermining the connections between our environmental background and the sense of well-being conditioned by that background our ability to exercise options that constitute a recognizable good life are compromised. This paper argues that to the extent humanity is decoupled from their environments humans are not only less able to access opportunities our understanding of who we are, our identities, and our capacity to make sense of the world around us through those identities is compromised. I conclude that the Anthropocene does more than challenge our ability to utilize resources, it challenges our understanding of who we are in the world.     

Amsterdam: planning and policy for the ideal city?

Is Amsterdam the “ideal city?” Many of the social, economic, and environmental problems facing Amsterdam are considerably less than those in cities in the USA, and in most cases, Western Europe. Amsterdam, at this moment in history, might be the world's greatest city because of its ability to ensure basic necessities, freedom, and creativity. Tolerance of drugs, sexual freedom, along with the integration of different races helps reduce many of the “social problems” faced by most cities. We have compared, on a per capita basis, differences between Amsterdam/Holland and the USA. The Netherlands is a tiny country, and comparisons are made on a city and per capita numbers at the national level. Our data show that Amsterdam has lower crime, murder, rape, drug usage (cocaine, marijuana), teenage pregnancy, diabetes, obesity, suicide, abortion rates, infant mortality, dependence on fossil fuels, and homelessness, and racial segregation is considerably less. People live longer because of Amsterdam's walkability and bike usage and access to parks. Indeed, the Netherlands leads both Western European and the USA in the proportion of trips made walking and bicycling, with significantly reduced car dependency. Ghettos are nearly non-existent compared with the segregation in the 1940s/1950s. Quality housing is supplied to everyone that gives pride of place compared with the stark, cold, and institutional “projects” provided by the US federal government. Amsterdam leads Western Europe by 35% in social housing, compared with runner-up UK, which has significantly less. The modernism of the 1960s where the poor were warehoused is nearly all gone. People living in Amsterdam seem more tolerant, secure, happier, and healthier compared with citizens in the USA. Great cities provide opportunities for all citizens to enhance their lives and ensure an unrivalled level of freedom. We demonstrate that social and environmental justice are tied together. Amsterdam is by no means perfect, but in comparison with many other democratic industrial cities, it is a far better place for citizens of all races, religions, and incomes.     

Education for sustainability: Are we flunking the future?

When New Jersey's Office of Sustainability was originally established in 1997, it was at first quizzically referred to as the “Office of What?” Now, good people, high purpose, and new name (Sustainable Business Division of the Commerce Commission) have steadily gained respect as skeptics reflected on what the term sustainability can mean to life on earth as we know it in New Jersey and elsewhere. Current rates of growth in population, industrial production, consumerism, and environmental degradation cannot be supported indefinitely by Earth's finite carrying capacity. New ways of thinking, working, and living will be required to change our course of unsustainable human activity both locally and globally. Such a transformation is achievable only through major changes in education. This article contends that the rate, content, and scope of learning required to take a sustainable path in America are not happening. Some ideas for what needs to be done are suggested.© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

What are the drivers and barriers for green business practice adoption for SMEs?

Environment Systems and Decisions - The depletion of natural resources as a byproduct of widespread, global economic growth has urged entrepreneurs to think about the environment when starting or...     

Is trade liberalisation bad for the environment? A review of the economic evidence

The continued growth in world trade and investment flows has led to a renewed interest among researchers and policy makers in the potential impact that trade liberalisation policy may have on the environment. The aim of this paper is to provide a balanced and accessible summary of the findings of recent economic research on the impact of growth in international trade and investment on environmental quality.     

Are 'other gainful activities' on farms good for the environment?

There has been a lot of academic interest in the pursuit of diversification activities and off-farm employment by farm household members. This is regarded as an important strategy for mitigating the effects of low agricultural income. One aspect of the debate about these so-called 'Other Gainful Activities' (OGAs) is whether they are associated with any environmental improvement on farms. In this paper, we use three approaches to analyse this issue. We examine whether measures of agricultural intensity are associated with the pursuit of OGAs by farmers and their spouses. We examine whether OGAs are more likely on farms where there is an ESA Management Agreement. Finally, we examine whether OGAs are associated with the farmer's stated environmental intentions. Although we tentatively conclude that there is a relationship between OGA involvement and these measures of environmental performance or concern by farmers, the magnitude of the association is small relative to other variables such as farm size, the type of land use, the form of business and recent agricultural training.     

What are the implications of human rights for minerals taxation?

This article examines the relationship between a state's taxation of mineral revenues and the human rights obligation to use ‘maximum available resources’ to further citizens' welfare. These both have implications for understanding the other but there has been little attention to their interaction.Contemporary (economic and policy) approaches to mineral taxation revolve around economic rent and providing a ‘neutral’ economic environment that does not influence investment decisions. There is no reference to human rights obligations—these are just part of the state's general responsibilities for which it can legitimately raise taxes. Taxation analysis largely ignores whether the state wants money to ensure there is adequate food for the population, or instead to stage the Miss Universe pageant.Human rights has relevance for the state's management of resources. The requirement for states to apply ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights suggests that mineral extraction (and taxation) should occur as fast as possible to be applied for the human rights of the current population A more considered analysis weighs against such a literal interpretation. Nevertheless, the requirement of using ‘maximum available resources’ to fulfil human rights has important implications for mineral taxation.     

Inspiring Respect for Animals Through the Law? Current Development in the Norwegian Animal Welfare Legislation

Over the last years, Norway has revised its animal welfare legislation. As of January 1, 2010, the Animal Protection Act of 1974 was replaced by a new Animal Welfare Act. This paper describes the developments in the normative structures from the old to the new act, as well as the main traits of the corresponding implementation and governance system. In the Animal Protection Act, the basic animal ethics principles were to avoid suffering, treat animals well, and consider their natural needs and instincts. In addition, a principle for balancing our duties towards animals with the needs and interests of humans was expressed by the formulation “unnecessary suffering.” These principles (only with slightly different formulations) are retained in the new act. The novelty of the new act is shown by its explicit intention to promote respect for animals and its recognition of animals’ intrinsic value. Whereas intrinsic value is only given a symbolic function, the notion of respect is intended to have practical consequences. One interpretation of respect for animals is taking the animal’s integrity—and not only welfare—into account. Another is to see the introduction of respect as a call to animal keepers to provide animals with welfare exceeding the minimum requirements. In several respects, the legal system now seems to leave more responsibility to the individual animal keeper—and to citizens in general. I argue that if the authorities really do want to promote respect for animals, they must at the same time initiate activities to achieve this. In my perspective the challenge is to provide adequate measures to achieve in practice the intended respect for animals expressed in the new act.     

Missing the trees for the forest? Bottom-up policy implementation and adaptive management in the US natural resource bureaucracy

For decades, natural resource agencies in the United States have attempted to restore ecosystems using adaptive management, a process that emphasizes experimental learning to reduce uncertainty. Most studies show that it rarely occurs in practice and explain implementation failures as organizational issues. This study draws on policy implementation theory to suggest that behaviors and attitudes of individuals may better explain implementation gaps. This comparative case study finds differences between experts implementing adaptive management in the Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Geological Survey. These include differences in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors aimed at promoting individual autonomy, performance standards, and defending individual interests on the job. Policy implications are twofold: first, that individual behaviors impact adaptive management implementation and intrinsic motivation to perform such functions. Second, regardless of agency, experts view their work as a social good. This suggests that a devolved planning process may remedy implementation obstacles.     

Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.     

Analysis of the “European Charter on General Principles for Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development” The Council of Europe Document CO-DBP (2003)2

For almost 50 years, the Council of Europe through a series of documents has been helping to build up a set of rules, principles, and strategies related to culture, environment, ethics, and sustainable development. At the moment, one of the most important aims of the Council of Europe’s agenda deals with the elaboration of the General Principles for the Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development, as raised in document CO-DBP (2003)2 related to the environmental subject. The intention of the Council of Europe is to encourage national authorities to implement these General Principles into their national environmental policies. These principles should have an important effect, especially in those countries which are new members of the European Union. The primary target of this paper is the study of these principles and the setting of their entailed implications in order to establish a relation between values and policy making. Quite often, the conclusions adopted by the agreements generated within the framework of the European Union are controversial. Therefore, a study aiming to lay the foundations of these principles will make the exchange of ideas easier, providing a wider and more detailed scope in the European environmental policy.     

Computer and Electronics Product Stewardship: Are We Ready for the Challenge?

The PC revolution continues to produce faster and smarter machines at a stunning pace. Almost forgotten in the rush are the millions of nearly new, but suddenly outdated, computers that are abandoned every year. Can product stewardship offer life‐after‐end‐of‐life for this growing mountain of “attic‐ware,” while averting a costly—and potentially toxic—waste disposal crisis? © 2001 by Cate Gable, Axioun Books. Used with permission.