Brookings: Experts - William Y. Brown

Wanted: A Noah's Ark for Species' DNA

William Y. Brown — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:22:00 -0400

DNA was the topic of U.S. Supreme Court argument on April 15. Can a gene be patented if it occurs in nature—which is generally grounds for exclusion—but has been identified by an individual scientist or company and removed from the cells in which it occurs? Lower courts are split on the matter, and the justices didn't tip their hands.

But whether a gene can be patented will be irrelevant if it disappears before anyone has identified it. That is what's happening now and will continue to happen—at a rate perhaps 100 to 200 times faster than in prehistoric days—due to modern man's outsize influence on nature and encroachment on habitat. Unless we have sequenced a species' DNA, extinction means gone forever and never really known. Preservation of the DNA is the simpler, cheaper route, with sequencing to follow. If the Library of Congress is where every book is stored, the world needs the equivalent for species DNA.

Preserving the DNA of known species would provide genetic libraries for research and commerce and for recovery of species that are endangered—the Armur Leopard and the Northern Right Whale, for example. Preservation would also offer the potential to restore species that have gone extinct. We currently lack preserved DNA for most of the 1.9 million species that have been named, but that is fewer than the number of people in Houston. No doubt additional species exist, but their DNA can be preserved as they are named. The job is doable.

Just a small fraction of species are maintained as living organisms in cultivation or captivity or are kept frozen as viable seeds or cells. These are the best, because whole, reproducing organisms can be grown from them by planting or cloning. Botanical gardens and zoos keep the living stuff. The Millennium Seed Bank at Kew Gardens in England is on a course to preserve frozen seeds of all vascular plant species, and the Svalbard Seed Vault in Norway is taking seed duplicates from other facilities. The San Diego "Frozen Zoo" has some 20,000 viable cell cultures representing 1,000 vertebrate species, including "Lonesome George," the last Pinta Island Galapagos tortoise, which expired last year. Its DNA would have disintegrated if the Frozen Zoo hadn't made a heroic mission after the tortoise's death to get a sample.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York keeps 70,000 samples in liquid nitrogen, the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia has frozen samples for 4,000 bird species, and the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian has embarked on an ambitious course to freeze species tissues.

For a fraction more species, DNA is kept at low temperature in dead cells or extracted form. The American Museum of Natural History in New York keeps 70,000 samples in liquid nitrogen, the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia has frozen samples for 4,000 bird species, and the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian has embarked on an ambitious course to freeze species tissues.

Yet the DNA of most species is still not preserved. We need a plan. One might think that preserving the DNA of life on earth would cost a moonshot of money. But a viable cell culture in liquid nitrogen for a species at the Frozen Zoo costs only $200 to $300 to establish and just $1 a year to maintain. Multiplying $250 per species by 1.9 million species comes to $475 million, ignoring what has already been done. The U.S. pays more than twice that daily on the national debt. But let's be real, nobody is throwing new money around, even when the priority is obvious.

There is another way that could work, and would be much cheaper. First, we could develop a website to track progress on preservation whose key information is managed directly by contributing facilities. It would be a "wiki" site for DNA repositories, and many keepers would be delighted to share information if they could manage it themselves. They could both update holdings and let people know what species they will take and under what conditions.

Second, we can establish new incentives and mandates for contributing specimens, including grant, publication and permit requirements. Some grant makers and publications already require that DNA information be shared with a genetic information bank kept by the National Institutes of Health. Why not tissue too?

Third, donors who care could help develop and fund "citizen science" projects of museums and nonprofit groups to collect, identify and contribute specimens to repositories. The collections would grow, and so might public connection to nature. At the end of it all, we will preserve what we appreciate. And patent lawyers will be happy too, because they'll have something to fight about.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: Wall Street Journal

Image Source: © Henry Romero / Reuters

The Climate Scientist and the Pipeline

William Y. Brown — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:03:00 -0400

Editor's Note: William Y. Brown responds to John M. Broder's New York Times article, Report May Ease Path for New Pipeline, on the 1,700 mile Keystone XL pipeline.

Opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline say carbon emissions make tar sands oil a “dirty” fuel, and so it should not be sent to the United States from Canada. True, the whole process from extraction to incineration produces more carbon emissions than oil from conventional reserves, as the State Department’s environmental impact statement concludes.

But what about coal? Coal gives off significantly more carbon emissions per unit of energy than tar sands oil. If tar sands are dirty, then coal is dirtier. Yet United States coal exports have soared from 50 million tons in 2006 to more than 125 million tons in 2012 — a record high, with exports to China doubling.

Earth’s climate doesn’t care where the coal is burned. A proposed pipeline may make a good target for protest, but doesn’t what we are doing with everyday coal speak more to what matters?

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: New York Times

Image Source: © Richard Clement / Reuters

DNA Net Earth

William Y. Brown — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:42:00 -0400

Human activity has dramatically accelerated the extinction of species. Man-made habitat alteration has been the leading cause, in combination with direct exploitation. Now climate change threatens to increase extinction rates even more. Adaptation to climate change requires integration of climate impacts in planning and action for biodiversity conservation, and the overall task requires funding and action similar to that discussed—but not yet delivered—under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) or the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Preservation in the wild—in situ—is the top priority, but it is clear that many more species will disappear and we will lose access to the genetic information they contain unless their DNA is also kept ex situ—in captivity, cultivation, or preserved storage.

A global network of facilities should be organized to preserve DNA for every known species and for new species as they are described. This “DNA Net Earth” will be a safety net for biodiversity that can provide genetic libraries for research and commerce, be used to recover species that are endangered, and offer the potential to selectively restore species that have gone extinct. Only a small fraction of the 1.9 million known species are currently maintained as living organisms in cultivation or captivity, or maintained frozen as viable seeds or cells. Just a fraction more species have DNA in dead cells or in an extracted form that are held in long-term frozen storage. Progress towards DNA Net Earth is limited by a lack of shared priorities. Three steps can provide a way forward: developing a website to track progress on preservation whose key information is managed directly by contributing facilities; establishing new incentives and mandates for contributing specimens, including grant, publication and permit requirements; and engaging the public in collection.

Download the full paper »

Downloads

Download the full paper

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: © Reuters Photographer / Reuters

On Proposition 37 and Genetically Modified Foods

William Y. Brown — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 10:30:00 -0400

Editor's Note: In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, William Y. Brown responds to Mark Bittman's September 15, 2012 op-ed on California's Proposition 37, which would require labeling on foods containing genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.'s) and prohibit the marketing of them as "natural."

We need genetically modified organisms. They keep insects and weeds from corn and soybeans. New crops can resist droughts, floods and heat coming with climate change and provide vitamins and nutrients. Nothing erodes life and peace more than poverty, and hunger is its expression. DNA is being sequenced, synthesized and understood with increasing rate and decreasing cost. We need to tap that.

G.M.O. regulation is deficient in the United States. Some products aren’t covered, and the system is incomprehensible. We need a new federal law. But labeling is just toying with what government should do rather than fixing it. It might feel good not to buy a product labeled a G.M.O., but we can do better.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: The New York Times

Image Source: © Bogdan Cristel / Reuters

Rio+20: Coalitions Driving Bottom-Up Change

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:32:00 -0400

Representatives from world governments, civil society and the private sector will gather in Rio de Janeiro on June 20-22 to address the many environmental challenges facing the global community. The Rio+20 Summit will mark the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and although many gains have been achieved over the past two decades, the climate change agenda continues to move at a glacial pace while at the same time climate risks are increasing. As the Rio+20 approaches, the challenge will be to reenergize international will for meaningful progress in addressing climate change, achieving sustainable growth and development, and protecting the environment.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), or Rio+20, has identified seven key priority areas for discussion: decent jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security and sustainable agriculture, water, oceans and disaster readiness. Green growth as a pathway for sustainable development has been proposed as an element to integrate these priorities. Other issues to be discussed include establishing a new development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals (set to expire in 2015) with the Sustainable Development Goals, and finding new sources for climate and sustainable development financing.

Joining the debate on the challenges and expectations for the Rio+20 Summit, experts from the Brookings Institution explore the critical issues and offer policy recommendations for leaders to consider in order to promote sustainable growth in both the developed and developing world.

Download » (PDF)

Image Source: © Stringer China / Reuters

Natural Capital Resources

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:32:00 -0400

William Brown explains the importance of natural capital, like ecosystems, oceans and biodiversity, being incorporated into the economic planning of governments and private enterprise, and calls on Rio+20 participant nations to mandate consideration of natural capital in national wealth accounting.

Publication: Rio+20: Coalitions Driving Bottom-Up Change

Aquaculture Priorities: Expansion in Africa and Standards for Global Sustainability

William Y. Brown — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:50:00 -0500

Aquaculture provides the world with about 53 million tons of fish each year and over 7 percent of the animal protein people consume. [1] It includes carp, Tilapia (a freshwater fish found in Africa), Pangasius (a Mekong Delta catfish), Atlantic Salmon, other true fish, mollusks (e.g. oysters), crustaceans (e.g. shrimp), various other animals (e.g. turtles and frogs), and algae. Sixty percent of aquaculture production is from freshwater bodies and the rest is from estuaries or the sea.

Aquaculture is an important and growing source of protein for many developing nations and a substitute for wild-caught fish whose harvests have often been unsustainable -- to the detriment of consumers relying on production and the species and ecosystems affected. Fish -- both aquaculture and wild-caught -- is particularly important in low-income food deficit countries [2] whose overall consumption of animal protein is comparatively low but whose share of fish in animal protein consumed is high (20.1 percent or more). Two priorities are critical to advancing aquaculture as a global public good: investment in Africa to expand its reach and assuring that aquaculture is environmentally and globally sustainable.

Aquaculture in Africa

Asia supplies 89 percent of global aquaculture production (China provides 62 percent of the total) and employs 94 percent of the world's fish farmers. In contrast, Africa produces just 2 percent of global aquaculture and employs 1 percent of global fish farmers. Geography and biology do not explain this dramatic difference. Wet, tropical sub-Saharan Africa could support many more inland aquaculture facilities, and Tilapia, an African native, is one obvious choice for production. In principle aquaculture could not only feed people but also reduce unsustainable inland wild-fish harvest and the killing of monkeys and other "bush meat" animals that threatens survival of the species hunted and introduces diseases to humans. Northern Africa is drier and inland aquaculture facilities may be limited by the need for sustainable sources of freshwater, but facilities on the coast could readily support saltwater aquaculture. Food-challenged Somalia, for example, has the longest coastline in Africa and could support shrimp farms.

Expanding aquaculture in Africa is not a new idea. The World Bank and national development agencies have studied its potential and generally been positive. Furthermore, although aquaculture is limited, small-scale inland wild-capture fisheries are well developed in Africa and employ over 4 million women and men whose expertise would contribute to aquaculture development. Prospective public and private investors should carefully evaluate specific markets, governance, and other factors relevant to financially sustainable operations, but the apparent market and clear value for Africans calls for progress.

Standards for Sustainable Aquaculture

Its benefits notwithstanding, aquaculture can damage ecosystems. Shrimp, for example, are commonly farmed near saltwater bodies where mangrove forests and other wetlands naturally line the water's edge. These wetlands harbor diverse biota, provide key breeding and feeding grounds, recharge groundwater, limit run-off impacting coral reefs and other marine life, and ameliorate the impact of storms on the land. Yet huge areas of mangroves were destroyed to build shrimp farms in Asia, leading to protests by local and international environmental activists and resulting in operations whose long-term sustainability is in question.

Several steps have been taken in response to these concerns. In 1995, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) endorsed principles for aquaculture and in 2006 FAO adopted principles for shrimp farming, which can also be used as a check list for other species. These guidelines address farm siting, farm design, water use, production stock, feed stock, health, food safety, and social responsibility. Since then, several organization have elaborated on these principles in standards for certifying good aquaculture practices, including GlobalG.A.P., Friends of the Sea (FOS), the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). GlobalG.A.P. and the GAA are industry led, whereas FOS and WWF are independent non-profit organizations. These different approaches may have the virtue of promoting discussion, but they also create confusion for buyers of aquaculture products and the opportunity for commercial retailers to adopt the most convenient requirements. The WWF "Aquaculture Dialogue" standards have been developed through a particularly pain-staking public process and, while not perfect, they are the best by comparison. Consumers will benefit from a single, widely accepted seal of approval and the WWF is the one around which to rally.

The WWF aquaculture standards apply to farms throughout the world and are most critical in developing nations where existing domestic regulation is less advanced. However the standards are currently limited to species (e.g. shrimp and salmon) that are marketed in developed nations where sustainability certification is considered a factor in sales. It's time to move beyond this limitation and to develop and implement standards for all significant aquaculture species whether or not they are exported. These standards can help companies and regulatory authorities in developing nations make domestic aquaculture more productive and sustainable, particularly if assistance is provided for training and implementation. Furthermore, the opportunity for certification may promote development of export markets for a developing nation’s aquaculture production and help to sustain the farms for both domestic and foreign consumption. Carp stands out in this matter because no standard has been developed and yet it is the aquaculture industry's leading product. Carp made up 38 percent of global aquaculture production in 2008, with over 96 percent farmed in Asia -- 70.7 percent in China, 15.7 percent in India, and 10.2 percent in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Viet Nam, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Carp is mostly consumed in the countries where it is farmed, but a sustainability standard could facilitate export and also advance the growth of carp aquaculture in Africa and other developing nations. Also, a carp standard would inform national and local regulators, local communities concerned about habitat degradation and pollution, and domestic farms and processors that want to excel.

Food security is a pressing global goal in developing nations, including those in Africa, and animal proteins provide essential nutrition. Sustaining sea life is also a global goal, both for the food it provides and for many other economic and aesthetic values. Global aquaculture will serve both goals if expanded in Africa and managed sustainably wherever practiced.

Footnotes

[1] These and other statistics on food and fisheries in this article are based on information in the "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010" of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

[2] See http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp for the definition and 2012 list of LIFDC. 39 of the 66 nations listed are in Africa.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: © Akintunde Akinleye / Reuters

Limits to Climate Change Mitigation and the Adaptation Imperative

William Y. Brown — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:22:00 -0500

Sometimes it's difficult to see what's most likely to happen and not the more pleasant scenario, but the Energy Information Administration (EIA) does just that in its energy outlook "reference case." Based on existing laws and policies (i.e. "business as usual"), EIA predicts that annual world carbon dioxide emissions will increase from 30.2 billion tons in 2008 to 43.2 billion tons in 2035.[1] Roughly 278 billion tons of carbon will be pumped into the atmosphere over those 28 years [2] and, according to findings by the National Research Council, Earth's temperature will raise by about 0.5 degrees Celsius because of it.[3] The laws and policies needed to stop these emissions are unfortunately not in the forecast, and it is past time to adapt for the change in climate that is coming.

It's business as usual in the policy world. The Durban climate summit is over, but little progress was made. The European Union and a few other nations committed to new emission limits, but Japan, Canada and Russia did not renew their pledges. India and China (the world's largest emitter) resisted any limits, and the United States, of course, is not a party. Kyoto "lite" is going forward with most global emissions uncapped. The summit also produced the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action in which, according to a New York Times editorial, China and India agreed to "play by the same rules as everyone else" in any future agreement. However, the practical outcome of the decision is unclear, which called on parties to develop an agreement "applicable to all Parties . . .with a view to ensuring the highest possible mitigation efforts by all Parties . . ." A poorer country could easily argue that its "highest possible mitigation effort" is less than a wealthier one. Perhaps the dynamic will change, but any effective proposed agreement is likely to encounter the same opposition that rose in Copenhagen, Cancun, and Durban, reflecting differences over sovereignty and development driven by the demands of global population increase.

The failure of international negotiations on climate policy is compounded by the complications and limitations of each available step for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency could make a huge dent and save money, but moving forward requires not only a change in policy but an underlying change in culture. Nuclear energy was stalled by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and has been stalled again by Fukushima. Sequestering carbon underground from coal-fired plants could reduce emissions substantially, but initiatives to demonstrate its efficacy and cost have made little progress to date. Adding more forests would remove carbon from the atmosphere, but the world is currently losing forests overall and efforts so far have not reversed that course. Biofuels could play a role, but critics argue they compete with food crops and require subsidies, and some biofuels, such as firewood, are unsustainably collected. Natural gas will play a larger role and produce twice the energy of coal per ton of carbon emitted, but it is still a source of atmospheric carbon.

Consider also the numbers for solar, wind and hydro energy which feature prominently in public discussions of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. Solar energy is appealing about 10,000 times more is absorbed by the Earth then people produce but the EIA puts it at just 0.01 percent of current total world energy production and, despite rapid growth, expects it to reach only 0.08 percent by 2035.[4] The EIA estimates current wind energy production at 0.14 percent of total world energy and forecasts that it will also grow rapidly, but only will reach 0.65 percent of total world energy by 2035.[5] The EIA puts hydro energy at 2.11 percent of current total world energy production, but forecasts less rapid growth for it than solar or wind, and expects it to reach just 2.49 percent of total world energy production in 2035. [6]

It's also instructive to look at how much more global temperature would rise if solar, wind and hydro were not available at the levels estimated by EIA between 2008 and 2035 and coal were used instead.[7] The additional rise would be about 0.0016 C in the case of solar, 0.0126 C for wind, 0.0565 C for hydro, and 0.0706 C for all three of these alternatives combined.[8] These avoided temperature increases are significant and renewable energy installations will keep on giving beyond 2035, but they are a small component of the overall temperature equation, which by the same assumptions is predicted to rise 0.49 C from carbon added to the atmosphere over this period.

These limits to mitigation deliver a clear message: It's past time to begin adapting to climate change with the same effort and specificity that communities invest in preparing for a coming hurricane or flood. Many involved in climate policy see this, but many other policymakers do not. We need to be ready for melting ice, rising sea level, floods, droughts, weather extremes, and changing, stressed ecology. We need zoning and other policies to stop people from moving into low-lying coastal cities and areas that will be more prone to flooding and drought. We need to breed and genetically engineer crops that will handle extremes. We need to anticipate where water shortages will arise and build needed infrastructure or shift how the land is used. We need to protect and manage ecosystems with a view to how they will change and move, preserving corridors for migration and dispersion. We need to establish and maintain a global bank for the DNA and viable tissue of all known species and new species as they are described, as a safety net against extinction. Most of all, we need to fasten our political will to action now. Who knows? If we accept the realities of adaptation, maybe the picture will be so vivid, ugly, and expensive that we'll address mitigation too.

Footnotes

[1] 2011 International Energy Outlook ("EIA Outlook"), page 139. Tons are metric tons.

[2] The EIA reference case has annual estimates for world CO2 production for 2008 through 2035 (accessed through its "Interactive Table Viewer" at http://205.254.135.7/forecasts/ieo/world.cfm). These total 1.019557 trillion tons of CO2, and that number is multiplied by 12/44 to convert it to 278.1 billion tons of carbon emissions.

[3] Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia, National Research Council, 2011. "[O]ur best estimate . . . is that 1,000 gigatonnes [1 trillion tons] of anthropogenic carbon . . . emissions lead to about 1.75 C increase in global average temperature." At 16. The issue is addressed in detail in section 3.4 at page 97 et seq., and the report concludes that "global mean temperature change is almost linearly related to cumulative carbon emission and is independent of the time during which the emissions occur . . ." At 98.

[4] The EIA reports 2008 solar energy production as 13 billion kilowatt-hours and estimates that it will be 191 billion kilowatt-hours in 2035 (EIA Outlook, Table 13, page 91). The EIA Outlook (Table 1, page 9) reports total world energy production as 504.7 quadrillion Btu in 2008 and estimates that it will be 769.8 quadrillion Btu in 2035. The EIA uses 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu (which converts to 1 trillion watt-hours = 0.003412 quadrillion Btu), hence the EIA estimate for world solar energy production expressed in Btu is 0.044356 quadrillion Btu in 2008 and 0.65169 quadrillion Btu in 2035. These numbers are used to calculate the 2008 and 2035 percentages for solar energy as a share of total energy production, and the same is done in this article for wind and hydro energy. Different units are conventionally used to report energy, including Btu, million tons of oil equivalent, joules, calories, and watts. Use of these different terms varies with kind of fuels or energy use but fortunately the different units can be converted to each other.

[5] The EIA reports 2008 wind energy production as 210 billion kilowatt-hours (0.71652 quadrillion Btu) and estimates that it will be 1,462 billion kilowatt-hours (4.9883 quadrillion Btu) in 2035 (EIA Outlook, Table 13, page 91).

[6] The EIA reports 2008 hydro energy production as 3,121 billion kilowatt-hours (10.649 quadrillion Btu) and estimates that it will be 5,620 billion kilowatt-hours (19.175 quadrillion Btu) in 2035 (EIA Outlook, Table 13, page 91).

[7] Using coal will estimate the high end of carbon avoidance, since oil and natural gas would also be in the mix of fossil fuels used if solar, wind, and hydro are not and are less carbon intensive. Approximately 2.095 pounds of CO2 emissions are produced per KW-Hr of energy produced with coal, which converts to 950,276 tons of CO2 emissions per trillion watt-hours or 259,166 tons of carbon emissions (EIA Report: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States, Table 1. July 2000).

[8] EIA reference case estimates of solar, wind, and hydro energy production for the years 2008 through 2035 ("Interactive Table Viewer," endnote 2) are summed in trillion watt-hours and each sum plus the total of all three sources of energy is multiplied by 259,166 tons of carbon emissions per trillion watt-hours of coal burned. Those products are multiplied by 1.75 C /1,000,000,000,000 tons of carbon emissions to estimate the temperature rise expected if coal were burned in lieu of solar, wind, and hydro energy.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: © David Gray / Reuters

Keep the U.S. Flag Raised at UNESCO

William Y. Brown — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:01:00 -0500

The United States spent over $1 billion on military action in NATO's campaign against Muammar el-Gaddafi, and it has been spending even more each week in Iraq and Afghanistan. The oppressive regimes of Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban have been displaced, engendering hope for better lives. Yet, these billions of dollar in military action may have diminished terrorism, or inspired more.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), has an annual budget of about $300 million, with the U.S. covering 22 percent, or $70 million. However, after UNESCO admitted Palestine as a member on October 31, the U.S. stopped payment because legislation prohibits funding any United Nations agency that recognizes the Palestinian state. Nevertheless, on December 13 UNESCO will raise the flag of Palestine at its headquarters.

Who cares except UNESCO? Some critics in the United States see the Paris-based organization as the exemplar of everything bad about the United Nations. Distant from the Security Council's control, some see it as a hot bed of effete socialism. It would be a convenient vision for a cut, but their perception is not accurate.

After a 19 year separation, the U.S. rejoined UNESCO in 2003, not just for its support of education, science, and culture, but also for the agency’ contribution to peace. UNESCO is no substitute for national defense forces or multilateral peace-keeping initiatives, but in its own much smaller way, UNESCO gets to the heart of the matter why do people fight? Sometimes it’s for principled beliefs, sometimes resources, but often it's bad relationships, underpinned by differences in culture, religion and language. How do you stop the fighting? Armed conflict is rarely sufficient and, typically, no one wins. But talk can help these situations, especially when it's about the relationship and not the fight.

UNESCO encourages discussion on unifying issues of science, education and culture. The discussion can be cumbersome after all it is the U.N., with requisite resolutions and preambulatory niceties. But everyone is included, and that matters when emotions run high and views are divided. Science crosses ideological lines. In the heat of cold war, scientists in the U.S. and the Soviet Union collaborated through forums provided by UNESCO. Culture is another avenue for peace. In the wake of Muammar el-Gaddafi's fall, Libya's major cities are still flooded with arms, and tribal groups may yet find ways to fight. While others were focused on the armed rebellion, UNESCO focused on cultural sites and museums, assessing the damage, loss, and needs, and moving forward with initiatives for immediate security, retrieval of stolen artifacts, and review of laws for long-term protection, study, and public appreciation. UNESCO can help refocus the transitional committee on different laws and agencies, rather than focusing on divisive issues who did the most to overthrow Ghaddafi, as some from Misuarta have advanced. The United States should find a way to pay its dues, give extra support to UNESCO's work in the interim, and keep our flag raised whether it’s next to Palestine’s or not.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: © Thaier Al-Sudani / Reuters

Looking at Obama’s Record on the Environment

William Y. Brown — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Editor's note: William Y. Brown responds to John M. Broder and Dan Frosch's piece, “U.S. Review Expected to Delay Oil Pipeline Past the Election,” in a letter to the editor on the New York Times's website regarding President Obama's environmental record.

Environmental groups are dismayed that President Obama has withdrawn the Environmental Protection Agency’s smog-reducing proposal and moved forward on offshore drilling in Alaska. Some threatened not to support his re-election effort if the Keystone pipeline were approved, and the decision has been delayed until after the election. Mr. Obama’s green base will most likely soften anyway.

But Mr. Obama faces opponents for the presidency who call climate change a hoax, evolution iffy and E.P.A. a cuss word.

It might be emotionally satisfying for environmental groups to take their marbles from the electoral table. But if their cause seeks outcomes rather than appearances, the right course for them is to fully support the best candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, and to take the current administration to task directly for actions they believe are wrongheaded.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: The New York Times

Heritage, Democracy and Development in Libya

William Y. Brown — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:35:00 -0500

In the wake of Muammar el-Gaddafi's fall, Libya's major cities are flooded with arms and the detritus of war, tribal divisions are in display, and the new Interim Transitional National Council is uncertain in authority, direction, and voice. Big ideas for democracy have been conceived with support from the West, but they will not flourish unless Libyans can find and embrace unity and not discord. Cultural and natural heritage offer a path for a shared history. Heritage is a mosaic of lives and ecologies that Libya's people can prosper from if given the chance.

Libya's heritage is deep and wide. Five cultural World Heritage Sites have been inscribed, ranging from 12,000 year old rock art of Tadrart Acacus, the ancient Punic, Greek and Roman settlements of Sabratha, Cyrene, and Leptis Magna, and the oasis settlement of Ghadames. The coastline is chock with sunken ships from antiquity and submerged stone settlements. On land, the Berbers, or "free men" of Northern Africa with their tribes, music, food, architecture, and other marks of culture, including languages are still there, co-existing with the desert and Arab society.

Libya's natural heritage is also arresting. The Al Jabal Al Akhdar (Green Mountain) plateau in the northeast, including the Wadi Al-Kouf natural area, has a distinct moist ecology, and holds the majority of Libya's plant species. Inland, desert oases and natural lakes concentrate animal and plant life, where migrating birds stop to drink, feed, and rest. Animals including oryx and gazelle inhabit the interior Zellaf dunes deep in the Sahara. On the Mediterranean, corals reefs, sea bird colonies, and nesting sea turtles thrive between war-torn cities. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has identified 24 sites on the Libyan coast that warrant special protection due to their ecological significance.

Libya's museums give voice to its culture and nature. The National Jamahiriya Museum in Tripoli holds thousands of cultural artifacts and natural history specimens collected across the country. Cyrene, Leptis Magna, Sabratha, and Ghadames keep collections of their own patrimony, while Benghazi and other cities have museums of both culture and nature. The museums that channel cultural sites and key natural areas can catalyze a renaissance of Libyan heritage. They protect objects of deep patrimony and rarity in nature and support scholarship that divines the past and illuminates the present. They embrace and feed public hunger for education, beauty, and adventure, and they inculcate public appreciation and pride in heritage promoting demand for its protection and integration into current life. Museums are also powerful engines for tourism and economic development. Tourism jumped after international sanctions were lifted from Libya in 2003 — Libya's tourism board reported that visits increased from 125,000 in 2006 and 760,000 in 2008, with average tourist spending doubling from 60 to 120 Euros.

Despite these promising figures, Libya has to date seen only a small percent of the visits made to neighboring Egypt, where the monuments at Giza typically see some 3 million people a year and the Egyptian Museum sees 1.5 million. No cultural sites or museums in Libya are remotely close, and Libya's important natural areas receive little international notice and few visits. Furthermore, Libya's heritage is neglected. Even its World Heritage Sites are decaying, not from the recent conflict but from the harsh environment and continuing new human settlement. Structures in Cyrene and Leptis Magna are falling apart as wind, sand and salt erode friable limestone, while Roman stones are regularly turned into the walls of modern buildings. Natural resources are threatened by overexploitation, habitat degradation from settlement, land-use, and pollution. Libya's museums are challenged too. The Benghazi museum was looted of its "Treasure” including 7,000 antique coins, and four amphoras were taken from the Apollonia Museum, 200 kilometers east of Benghazi. Immediate action is needed to provide physical security for movable objects and to recover items recently stolen. Mostly, however, the problem is a lack of planning, funding and management that preceded and is unrelated to the Arab Spring.

For the long-term, Libya needs to remake its heritage laws and agencies, and that begins with a discussion of mission. Diverse stakeholders within Libya should be involved as well as international donors and experts.[1] Libya's heritage mission should embrace the full spectrum of values and services that field sites and museums can provide. Heritage includes culture and nature, and not just what comes from Libya's land but also the sea’s sunken ships, submerged settlements, and marine ecosystems. Heritage also includes the cultures of Libya's different peoples, including prehistoric societies, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans of the past, and the Berbers and others whose cultures reach back in time and continue today. The five currently inscribed World Heritage Sites are just a taste of Libya's cultural history, and more should be added.

A fundamental, critical step forward is to include in the permanent constitution of Libya a provision committing the government to conservation, study, and beneficial public use of Libya's cultural and natural heritage. A draft of the permanent constitution is currently due for consideration by late 2012. The process for developing that document and some interim principles were mandated by Libya's Interim Transitional National Council (TNC) in its Constitutional Declaration (Declaration) approved on August 3, 2011. The Declaration is to be the "basis of rule" until a permanent constitution is ratified in a plebiscite and includes a commitment to heritage that is heading in the right direction, although understandably does not go all the way. The Declaration establishes Islam as the state religion and Islamic jurisprudence, or Shariah, as the "principle source of legislation", but it commits to freedom in practice of "religious rituals." Arabic is the official language, but the Declaration provides that "[t]he State shall guarantee the cultural rights for all components of the Libyan society and its languages shall be deemed national ones." The Declaration also specifies freedoms to be "guaranteed by the State in accordance with law" including freedom of "opinion for individuals and groups, freedom of scientific research, freedom of communication, liberty of the press, printing, publication and mass media . . ."

These provisions of the Declaration, if carried into the permanent constitution, bode well in protecting freedom of expression for Libya's different cultures, religions and languages. What remains is a commitment to keeping heritage - protecting, studying, and finding beneficial public uses for both culture and natural history.

In conjunction with a constitutional mandate, Libya should review and strengthen its subordinate legal authorities and governance structures for cultural and natural heritage. A Ministry of Heritage should be created, responsible for overall leadership for cultural sites, natural areas, and museums. Before the fall of the Gaddafi regime, cultural heritage was overseen by the Department of Antiquities, which coordinated with local municipal and agricultural authorities who largely determined what happened at heritage sites. Natural heritage was overseen by the Environment General Authority, which similarly played a limited hand in decisions in the field. Whether these institutions will continue remains to be seen, although many of the individuals employed by the agencies can be expected to remain at the task.

Libya's inchoate government is an opportunity as well as a challenge to reform, with intransient bureaucracies missing in action. Libya could avoid some mistakes made by other nations. The United States, for example, has a strong system of national parks, including natural and cultural sites maintained by its National Park Service, yet U.S. national wildlife refuges and national forests are managed by other agencies, also competent but creating inefficiency and increased cost in the separation. Museums in the United States are largely and unfortunately an after-thought in landscape management of natural and cultural heritage. Other developed nations have similar suboptimal arrangements cobbled together through histories of opportunities, personalities, and shifting public attitudes. With discipline, Libya could avoid a duplicative and fragmented governance structure for heritage. However, one step taken in developed nations that has proved important is to earmark funding for museums and land preservation efforts with fees on income or activities. For example, the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the United States was established for acquisition of important public lands and is funded by companies engaged in offshore oil and gas activity. Libya might consider such a heritage fee levied on its own oil and gas production.

Several specific steps in the near-term would help to implement a heritage mandate. A national heritage website should be established. The site could identify cultural sites, natural areas, and museums, including information on natural resources, collections, research and public programs. The posted items on the site should be kept simple and not require more than staff can realistically provide, while providing flexibility for more information. Non-governmental Wikipedia and Facebook pages should be established too. Wikipedia allows anyone to add and edit information. There is risk of inaccuracy in public editing, as for Wikipedia in general, but that is more than balanced by having an avenue for information that will not depend entirely on efficient functioning of what is now a government in the making. A Facebook page would be a place for individual public comment and social networking.

Additionally, a public awareness campaign should be launched for heritage. Those long-engaged in Libya lament the lack of public appreciation for heritage. A poll should be undertaken to measure current awareness and support, and a campaign should follow. The objectives would be for Libyans to value heritage and its long-term protection, to seek education about it for themselves and their children, to support government policies and funding for heritage, and to do no harm themselves to heritage sites. An independent firm should be engaged competitively to lead the campaign, after demonstrating sophistication and experience with successful efforts in related circumstances and ability to connect with the Libyan people.

Heritage tourism should be advanced. Libya's sites and museums have the potential to draw visitors and money just as do the attractions of neighboring Egypt. But the repressive Gaddafi regime, sanctions applied by other nations, and recent turmoil have enjoined development of that market. International governmental support is a critical complement to domestic tourism funding, and already underway through Italy, Japan, Norway, and other countries, as well as United Nations agencies and other international organizations. The private sector should be involved from the beginning, since its investment may determine whether tourism succeeds or not. Firms should be invited to make proposals that government donors can consider leveraging with public funds or regulating as needed to assure sustainability. Government and non-profit enterprises are often overly optimistic about income and expense. The private sector brings "skin" and experience to the deal. Government can always decline or condition what's proposed.

Individual strategic plans should be developed and implemented for Libya's more significant museums, cultural sites, and natural areas. These should be approached as sophisticated enterprises on their own with physical facilities to build and maintain, collections to curate and conserve, ecologies to protect, researchers to support, and diverse public programs and services to provide for foreign tourists and local communities. They require adequate governance, finance, administration, and fundraising, whose effectiveness often determines whether they succeed or fail. Each enterprise needs its own plan, with a mission and objectives customized to its place in heritage, and with actions, timelines, costs, and steps to secure needed funding. Best practices should be described and adopted for conservation, research, and public services such as education, exhibits, tourism, and sustainable use. Priorities include training and equipping staff, registering movable collection items, developing maps using GPS and GIS, and conserving crumbling monuments. Plan implementation should be reviewed annually, and management performance should be reviewed and rewarded or redirected based on success. A year or more will be required to develop most plans, but discussions have value from the day they begin.

Libya should also invest in formal education on heritage. Its people have been isolated by decades of repressive and eccentric rule. Now they have the opportunity to learn about themselves. International student exchange and language training should be included for perspective. Other cultures give perspective on one's own, and nothing defines a culture more than language.

Libya is at a crossroad. It might dissemble into warring factions and economic collapse or it might become a nation with freedom and a good life for its people. Libya's roots and economic future are in its culture and the natural world, and it should embrace that heritage now to prosper.

[1] The international organizations involved should include, at a minimum, UNESCO, World Bank, International Council of Museums (ICOM), International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: Â© Ismail Zetouni / Reuters

Playing to Win on Climate Change

William Y. Brown — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:18:00 -0400

In the October 16, New York Times "Week in Review," former President Bill Clinton says Republican stances questioning climate change make us "look like a joke, right?" Three pages later, Frank Bruni states that Jon Huntsman's recognition of climate change doesn't make him a moderate; it makes him "sentient." Good lines, but sharp words like these hurt, rather than help, with public support for addressing climate change in America.

The article quoting President Clinton, by Elizabeth Rosenthal, states that Americans "are suspicious of scientists." But Americans actually hold scientists in high regard, second only to firefighters and way ahead of doctors, nurses, teachers, clergy, and lawyers, according to statistics of the National Science Foundation from last year.

What Americans don't like is to be lectured. Whether or not the Earth is warming (it is) or whether people are causing the change (they almost certainly are contributing), Americans don't like to be nagged, talked down to, or called names. Public relations professionals and cultural cognition researchers explain that persuasion in the U.S. is best served with empathy for what those listening believe, and by messengers who live in the same cultural space.

Perhaps the only way to significantly change American views on climate change is to invest in the education and cultural life of the next generation. If that's not done, we may find ourselves still running in place 25 years from now. But in addition to looking to the future, we should avoid demeaning criticisms in the present, and not be shy about acknowledging uncertainties in science. Isn't questioning authority part of critical thinking? We should also find better ways to translate science into language that communicates the harm that will come to families on drying farms in the Southwest, hunters and fishermen whose favorite wetlands will disappear, or people in communities on the coasts whose fresh drinking water will turn salty as sea level rises. America produces a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases, and without American support, the global war on climate change will not be won. Why not play to win and do more than just look smart?

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: Â© Rogan Ward / Reuters

Principles for Water and Development

William Y. Brown — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:28:00 -0400

Water is a stable, versatile molecule. Many organisms live in it, all require it, and most, including humans, are largely made of it. We use water for agriculture, industry, power, retail, residential needs, and direct consumption. About 75 percent of the water we extract from ground and surface is used for irrigation. Water is renewable. It remains in the river after moving the turbines of a hydropower dam, and remains in the soil, air or crops after use in irrigation. It passes through people and animals when they drink it, and through the leaves of plants that pull it up through their roots. Water naturally recycles into the atmosphere and back to the surface through precipitation, and it is cleaned by evaporation and sublimation from surfaces, by plant transpiration, and by respiration. Water also cycles to sugar and back to water again through photosynthesis and respiration.

The Earth has lots of water on its surface and in the ground just below - 1.4 billion cubic kilometers in total, amounting to 52 billion gallons per person. About 97 percent is seawater, and about 2 percent is locked in ice. Less than one percent is liquid freshwater. Nearly 99 percent of that is groundwater, with a small remainder in lakes and much smaller amounts parceled out to soil moisture, the atmosphere, swamps, rivers, streams, and the bodies of living things. About 400 million gallons of liquid freshwater is present on Earth for each person living - a million times the amount that people use daily. In overall quantity, we have more than enough water.

The devil is in the details. Seawater is, of course, salty and, unless treated, can't be consumed by humans or most of the animals and plants that people eat. Seawater can't sustain the bacteria conventionally employed in wastewater treatment, and many industrial processes can't use it. On the other hand, seawater can substitute for some uses that depend typically on freshwater, like cooling power plants and Google's new data factory in Finland.

Freshwater isn't pure either, and securing adequate freshwater quality is the focus of laws and programs such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act in the United States. The Clean Water Act includes a national goal "that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985." That goal proved to be ambitious, but federal and state laws have made freshwater cleaner, if not always clean enough to drink, and the Safe Drinking Water Act and other laws have produced eminently potable water in the U.S. The same is true for much of the developed world, however that is often not the case elsewhere where pollution degrades watershed ecology and diseases from contaminated drinking water are common. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that about 1 billion people (over 14 percent of the world population) lack access to "improved" water supplies, defined as the availability of at least 20 liters per person, per day, from a source within 1 kilometer of the user's dwelling that is likely to provide safe water. The WHO also reports that 2.6 billion people (over 37 percent of the world population) lack access to "improved" sanitation, meaning a connection to a public sewer or a septic system or access to a well-placed and well-designed private latrine. Lack of sanitation translates to contaminated watersheds and groundwater. The majority of people without improved water supplies or sanitation live in Asia and Africa. Not every apparent solution to these problems works. For example, in Bangladesh, more than 4 million tube wells were installed in an effort to provide safe drinking water to 95 percent of the population, but high concentrations of arsenic found in the wells caused the largest mass arsenic poisoning in history. Clean water is a global priority, but not easily within grasp.

The challenge with water, of course, is not just quality, but having adequate quality and quantity at the places and times needed. The current average freshwater availability is about 6,000 gallons per person per day, varying with location. The United Nations (U.N.) describes "water stressed" nations as those whose freshwater availability is less than 1,230 gallons per person per day and "water scarce" nations are those whose availability is less than 724 gallons. Availability in the Middle East and North Africa, where water storage is limited, is about 1,000 gallons, and most water scarce nations are located there. Current global freshwater usage is about 400 gallons per person per day, falling to a low in Sub-Saharan Africa of 110 gallons. In other words, although stress and scarcity exist, both the global and national populations typically have amounts of available water on an order of magnitude greater than the amounts actually used.

But availability varies widely with year, season and weather. Somalia is now enduring a famine because of drought, and droughts occur episodically in many places including Northern Africa, the Middle East, Australia, China, India, and the Southwest U.S. Furthermore, growing populations and economies are narrowing the band between use and availability. Some questionable responses involve domestic reallocation. The Yellow River watershed in northern China is oversubscribed by multiple uses, and the Yangtze watershed to the south is being tapped through massive new channels and infrastructure to shift water to the north - with potentially acute adverse effects in the Yangtze basin. Some 260 rivers cross the international boundaries of 90 percent of the world's nations. Many of these, including the Nile, Indus, and Mekong, are being tapped by upstream nations for their needs, which takes water away from nations downstream. These demands and impacts are compounded by "mining" groundwater taking more water out than is being recharged back in which compromises future delivery. Such groundwater overdrafts are widespread, including in the High Plains Aquifer of the Central United States, India, North Africa , Yemen, and elsewhere in the Middle East. It is the poor who depend on wells that will suffer the most when they go empty.

At first blush, climate change could look like an ally. The atmosphere of a warming Earth will hold more water and give more water back to the ground. Average global precipitation will increase several percent for each degree Celsius increase in temperature. One might think that will raise surface flow, recharge groundwater, and help respond to growing demand. Unfortunately, the opposite is more likely. Growing extremes of rain and shine are forecasted and concomitant floods and droughts will occur in many of the places most stressed today, like the African Sahel, Southwest U.S., and the Indus watershed. Rising sea levels and increased coastal storm surge is predicted to turn some coastal freshwater sources saline. Overlaying this are predictions that regions of the world will differ in average precipitation change, with some increasing and other decreasing. Average precipitation is expected to increase over most of northern Europe, the Arctic, Canada, the northeastern United States, tropical and eastern Africa, the northern Pacific, Antarctica, northern Asia, and the Tibetan Plateau in winter. On the other hand, average precipitation is forecasted to decrease in most of the Mediterranean, northern Africa, Central America, the American Southwest, the southern Andes, and southwestern Australia during winter. All in all, climate change is an adversary, not an ally, in the quest for water security, and adaptation to climate change will require measures to lessen negative impacts on water resources.

So what should be done? Many ideas have been proposed and many tried, but the obvious good steps are often ignored through competing politics, economics or lack of thought. The nine principles below offer steps forward for water initiatives of government, industry and civil society. The principles are also recommended for deliberation by participants in international conferences considering water, including those discussing adaptation to climate change at the upcoming 17th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, in Durban, South Africa, and participants discussing overall global environmental priorities at the Rio+20 World Summit on Sustainable Development scheduled for Rio de Janeiro in June 2012. The principles recommended here are in addition to more general principles suggested in Global Environmental Quality: Recommendations for Rio+20 and Beyond (Brown, 2011). Those principles - assessment, measurement, reporting, organization, education in general and for women, research, and infrastructure - apply to water just as they apply to other natural resource use and conservation.

Principles

1. Engage communities and the private sector openly and early in planning, construction, and operation of water facilities. Large-scale water projects have too often been set on course without significant, early public participation or sophisticated, competitive involvement of the private sector. The current Three Gorges Dam in China and the proposed, but recently suspended, Irrawaddy Dam in Myanmar illustrate that rule, with public involvement coming as an after-thought in the form of protests and with the selection and specific plans of the private sector not transparent. The World Bank and regional and national development agencies concerned with water now take a different stance, promoting early community involvement and private sector competition, but the reality on the ground still often reflects less open attitudes of national and local governments and the seductive power of project funding. Those with influence in water project development should redouble efforts to end this shortcoming. Early community involvement broadens knowledge of needs and perspectives and strengthens political support. In the U.S., valuable public engagement is provided through the policies of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and state analogues. These laws prescribe steps to scope project purpose and alternatives and to assess the environmental impact of alternatives as well as impacts of the action tentatively proposed. A process of this kind should be employed universally.

The private sector should be brought in to participate actively from the beginning along with civil society and community representatives. The first questions for water projects are need and purpose, followed by performance objectives. Companies that want project business should be invited to compete with proposals that seek to meet the need, without project managers determining the solution beforehand. For example, if the need is irrigation, the private sector should be asked to propose and cost-out concepts for providing irrigation, rather than be asked for a proposal to build a dam. If the need is to provide drinking water for a population, companies should be asked to submit innovative proposals considering any means to achieve that end, rather than being asked for proposals to build a drinking water facility or to drill certain kinds of wells. Too often private sector creativity is short-circuited and better alternatives missed. There are options at more specific levels too. These include innovations like smaller, "decentralized" water and wastewater treatment facilities, improved membranes for filtering, new treatment technologies, and vastly improved information technology for managing and monitoring operations to improve efficiency. Obviously, it is crucial to have an open and fair bidding process. If no one bids, or no bid is acceptable, that comments on whether the project needs to be re-thought fundamentally or is feasible at all.

2. Preserve watersheds ecosystems. History is replete with lessons where trees were leveled and land was plowed or turned to settlements on the banks of rivers and lakes, resulting in destroyed ecology, floods, reduced groundwater recharge, and lack of water. This occurred in Haiti and is a central obstacle to improving living standards in that country. The first lesson of water is to preserve the river, lake and wetland ecosystems that are sources of clean water, slow runoff to allow groundwater recharge, support native biota, and sustain the lives of local peoples. This preservation is no less important to the water supply than installing pipes and treatment facilities, and its cost should be included in clean water funding. Many municipalities - including New York City - have successfully applied a portion of water bill payments to watershed protection, but many have not despite universal recognition of value. Effective watershed protection should be a priority for all agencies supplying water to populations.

3. Invest in more efficient water use. An enormous amount of water is wasted through inefficient irrigation and other uses. It's an old but continuing story, and not limited to developing nations. Earlier this year, for example, an agency report to the State of California took issue with the practices of delivering water to fields on a pre-set schedule, rather than delivering water based on need. A comprehensive new report supports this conclusion on a global scale. The report, released on 26 September 2011 by the Challenge Program on Water and Food of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, reflects five years of study of 10 major river basins in 30 countries. It finds that despite many water-related conflicts, there is "clearly sufficient water" to sustain needs through the 21st century. The 'sleeping giant' of water challenges is said to be not scarcity, but the inefficient use and inequitable distribution of the massive amounts of water that flow through the breadbaskets of key river basins such as the Nile, Ganges, Andes, Yellow, Niger and Volta. With modest improvements in water efficiency and distribution, food production can be increased two to three times. Africa offers the greatest potential for increase, but Asia and Latin America offer significant potential too. A key point noted for improvement in the report is investment in rain-fed agriculture - to collect and use for crops and livestock the huge amounts of untapped rainwater runoff.

Another priority for municipalities is maintenance and upgrades to existing water and wastewater treatment facilities and the infrastructure of pipes and drains that feed to and from them. Although the cost of this is daunting, even in developed nations such as the U.S., addressing deferred maintenance is typically a fraction of the cost of installing new capital.

4. Build few, and only the very best, dams. There will never be a consensus on dams. They provide storage capacity that can mitigate flooding and provide water for irrigation and other uses during dry periods. Nations that could afford to have built thousands of dams since the 1950s. China leads with about 22,000, and the United States is a distant second at over 6,500. The U.S. and Europe have the greatest surface water reservoir storage capacity per capita, and the world's poorest nations trail far behind. By many calculations, dams have saved lives and supported a level of agricultural production not possible without them.

Dams also provide hydropower without generating significant carbon emissions. Average global hydropower generation is roughly 342,200 MW. Assuming that coal-fired power plants would be generating this power alternatively, the avoided carbon emissions are about 834 million tons per year. A recent National Research Council report estimates that the global average temperature rises about 1.75oC for every trillion tons of carbon added to the atmosphere. If this is accurate, each year of current hydropower in lieu of coal is preventing global temperature from rising about one-thousandth of one degree Celsius. Significant, but not a huge number.

Dams harm as well as benefit. Sometimes they rupture. Over 200,000 people were killed by dam failures in China in 1975. Dams can fill up with sediment and consequently hold less water in reservoirs and generate less power. They trap silt and organics, which will then not reach the downstream deltas where they sustain key habitats and provide food for fish and other biota on which people depend. Dams stop fish from reaching breeding grounds upstream and they convert flooded ecosystems into different, less diverse places, displacing natural species. Flood control through dams, dikes and reservoirs can reduce groundwater recharge. Dams displace people, sometimes in large numbers, like the Three Gorges Dam and the proposed Belo Monte Dam in Brazil. Millions have moved for dams in China, and thousands have moved elsewhere. Furthermore, some benefits provided by dams can be achieved without them. Groundwater may provide all the storage capacity needed in some areas, and maintaining watershed ecology and vegetation may sometimes be a better means of flood control, especially if combined with policies to kept people and structures away from places prone to floods. Smaller dams with little reservoirs are much less damaging and can provide some storage and hydropower. There will be more dams, and the objective should be to test their costs and benefits in analysis and public debate to make those few that advance be the best that they can be - in safety, environmental and cultural impact, performance, and sustainability.

5. Invest in sustainable use of groundwater. Tapping groundwater is a priority - it accounts for nearly all liquid freshwater and can provide storage reservoirs that surface waters can't match in quantity. It can be accessible in locations far from surface waters or municipal sources, sometimes in places with little precipitation, including the Sahara, Gobi, and Sonoran Deserts. It often does not require treatment before use - even human consumption. Furthermore, shallow wells can be inexpensive - wells 30 meters deep can sometimes be drilled manually for less than $1,000. But, with the exception of fossil groundwater sealed in geologic structures, groundwater take should not exceed recharge. Water tables in many locations have dropped from overdraft, over 10 meters since 1979 in the Punjab region of India. The number of groundwater wells in India increased from less than 100,000 in 1960 to about 12 million in 2006. Whether by regulation or voluntary effort, groundwater budgets should be balanced or the populations relying on groundwater will face an unpleasant reckoning when wells run dry. Recharge isn't necessarily passive - faced with its problems, India is capturing rainwater and feeding it into aquifers through wells designed for recharge, with assistance from the International Water Management Institute. Such efforts should be encouraged.

6. Treat and use more wastewater. Conventional municipal wastewater treatment facilities typically use bacteria to digest organic material, including feces, and then discharge treated water into rivers or the sea. However, with additional treatment, the wastewater can be made ready for other uses, even direct human consumption. This reclaimed water is currently applied in agriculture, and can be used for other purposes with adequate planning and investment in distribution. Wastewater has a stigma, magnified by outbreaks of diseases associated with bacteria from waste, but with proper treatment the risks are low and value high. Used in irrigation, the organic material is a nutrient for crops. In places where freshwater is very scarce, an investment to treat wastewater to meet drinking standard would have high value.

7. Use more seawater, desalted and raw. About 40 percent of Earth's people live within 100 kilometers from the sea and over half of the U.S. population is within 50 miles of the coast. Hence, desalination and direct use of seawater are a priority. Desalination facilities have become widespread and effective. As of 2009, over 14,000 plants were operating and collectively produced 15.8 billion gallons of desalinated water daily. Most plants use one of two technologies: vacuum distillation - lowering pressure so that seawater boils at a low temperature - or reverse osmosis - pressurizing seawater so that pure water flows through a membrane, leaving brine behind. The two largest plants are in the United Arab Emirates and Israel and have maximum capacities of about 220 million gallons per day. The Israeli plant provides 5 to 6 percent of the country's water needs at about $1 cost per 500 gallons produced. Cost can be reduced in vacuum distillation through cogeneration with power. Currently this is mostly done by using seawater to cool nuclear and fossil fuel power plants in the Middle East and Africa and desalinating the water at the same time.

Seawater is also directly used for needs such as cooling power plants and providing ballast for ships. Although no major crops can be irrigated with undiluted seawater at this time, a number of institutions are investigating the potential for "seawater agriculture," involving new crops adapted to salty environments and combining a mix of sea and freshwater for irrigation. Another interesting technology is the "seawater" greenhouse that relies on solar energy to produce freshwater for irrigation of greenhouse plants. Clearly, many interesting and promising options exist for greater use of seawater. Higher relative cost currently limits their utility, but that should change for the better over time as technology advances, and support for research and development of those technologies is a priority.

8. Engineer crops for drought and flooding. Drought and flooding challenge agriculture, and these extremes are expected to increase with climate change. Genetic engineering offers ways to improve the ability of crops to cope. For example, flood-tolerant transgenic rice varieties have been developed that can survive underwater where others die. Dry spells can inhibit plant growth, and a range of transgenic crops, including peas and corn, are being engineered for continued, fast growth with less water. Tomatoes have been engineered to resist frost and to grow in salty, inhospitable soils. Research and development on crop resistance to drought and flooding is bearing fruit and will bear more. Investment in this field is critical.

9. Change agricultural products if needed. Some crops and livestock require far more water to grow than others for the same amount of energy and biochemicals produced for consumption. Cattle, for example, are a well-studied case of food requiring high water consumption. Beans require less water than cotton and alfalfa. Edible cacti, marketed in Israel, have particularly high "water efficiencies." More water-efficient species of crops and livestock, combined with breeding and genetic engineering to enhance efficiency, offer great potential for sustaining human populations.

The good news is that our planet has more than enough water overall to sustain the human population for the foreseeable future. The challenge is to deliver water in the quality and quantities people need and to protect the environment at the same time. These nine principles are offered to help meet that challenge. The solution is within our reach if we try.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: Â© Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

Cultural Heritage and Development

William Y. Brown — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 13:43:00 -0400

I stood with a half-dozen fellow travelers and scouted for tropical birds on the treetops below "El Dante," the devilishly named principal temple of Mirador, a Mayan complex deep in the Petén rainforest of northern Guatemala. Dante is among the world's largest pyramids, although it's mostly covered with growth and stones. We had arrived at the site by helicopter - the only way in other than by foot or hoof. The climb up Dante was over rock, not steps, and the way down included a near vertical rope descent for the adventurous. Mirador is a long way from the more popular Chichen Itza or Tikal.

Cultural tourism in developing nations is big part of the economy and still growing. Worldwide international tourist arrivals increased from 25 million in 1950 to 940 million in 2010 and are expected to exceed 1.5 billion in 2020, according to UN statistics. The emerging and developing nation arrival share increased from 31 percent in 1990 to 47 percent in 2010. Cultural monuments are part of the draw, and an iconic few are fountains of revenue. Most tourists visiting Peru, Cambodia, and Egypt go to Machu Picchu, Angkor Wat, and Giza, generating billions of dollars annually. Guatemala attracts visitors to the Mayan city of Tikal, generating profits. Part of the revenue from these sites is entrance fees, but much more is spent on hotels, meals, transportation, guides, side trips, and memorabilia for home. The ‘gold’ that colonial explorers sought is still there, just a different kind.

Yet for each developed site, a dozen and more decay in forests and open spaces or in the midst of cities, even though some are no less significant in history, beauty, or economic potential. Mirador in the Petén of Guatemala is a far older and larger Mayan complex than Tikal. Banteay Chhmar in Cambodia, abandoned near the border with Thailand, displays Khmer architecture rivaling Angkor Wat, 160 kilometers away. Ani, in current day Turkey, on the border with Armenia, was occupied for over a millennium, but is now a ghost town of stunning but crumbling medieval Christian and Islamic architecture. Cyrene in Libya hosts the leading example of Classical Greek architecture on the African continent, but few have seen it.

These sites and others should be studied, stabilized and improved for tourism and cultural legacy. The investment will improve living standards for local communities, augment GDP, and engender national self-respect for place in history. Yet these sites receive limited attention from development donors. Most developed nations dabble in cultural preservation and tourism, including the United States, but give just a trickle of assistance. The competition is stiff - food, medicine, agriculture, schools, hospitals, drinking water, disaster response, anti-drug, anti-terrorism, and the military. But other priorities are served by investing in cultural resources like Mirador, Cyrene, and Banteay Chhmar that will always be in demand for adventure and education and will not disappear if they are cared for.

Archeological research combined with site conservation, display, and interpretation is essential. People will visit cultural landmarks because there is something special to find. Handling tourists numbers is critical. Sites can be overwhelmed, and the property damaged by crowds. A fair share of the income generated should be used for maintaining the site, with local communities deeply engaged. Some of the most visited places fall short. Cambodia's Angkor Wat, swarms with an overload of visitors while a bee-hive of new hotels clogs the adjacent city of Siem Reap.

Donors should increase aid for cultural monument preservation and visitation in developing nations. Plans should lead with action for the sites that are most significant, most endangered, and best for tourism. The plans must work as a business, but for some attendance should be limited by quotas or more naturally by managing the adventures required to get there. Investors, national agencies and experts, and local communities must collaborate, and international advice and support should be sought from UNESCO, non-profit groups such as the World Monuments Fund and Global Heritage Fund, cultural academics, and the cultural museums of the world. Museums should have a greater role than they sometimes do, combining long-standing expertise in science and conservation with growing experience in tourism and retail marketing. Some developed world museums also hold artifacts from sites. Debate over repatriation complicates cooperation, but if emotions can turn demands for ownership to loans, many museums would lend items to new or existing sister museums nearer to where the artifacts were found originally. In a world filled with war, investment and cooperation on cultural heritage can be a rare triple rainbow.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Image Source: Â© Daniel Leclair / Reuters

Conservation: Invest in a DNA Bank for all Species

William Y. Brown — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:15:00 -0400

To complement its efforts to conserve nature in the wild, the Convention on Biological Diversity should develop a comprehensive and adequately funded global effort to preserve intact genomes and viable cells for every known species and for new species as they are discovered. Super-cold freezing is the current method of choice, from a whole rhino skin to a bacterium.

Freezing tissue costs $200–300 per species, with negligible maintenance costs. Preserving material from all the roughly 1.8 million known species would cost about $540 million. The United States spends more than $1 billion every four days on the war in Afghanistan. So less than $1 billion to preserve the DNA of all known species on Earth, with whom we share billions of years of evolutionary history, seems like good value.

Read the full article on Nature »

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: Nature.com

Questions About Gene-Modified Foods

William Y. Brown — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Editor's note: William Y. Brown responds to Nina V. Fedoroff's op-ed "Engineering Food for All" in a letter to the editor on the New York Time's website regarding genetically modified foods.

Nina V. Fedoroff is right that genetic engineering offers incalculable potential for humankind. Crops are being altered to resist drought and floods, grow in poor soils, make vitamins for people without pharmacies, and last longer on the shelf. Bacteria have been modified to make insulin and to digest hazardous waste. The list goes on.

Ms. Fedoroff is also right that current federal regulation hurts progress on genetic modification. In fact, it’s a trip down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. But there are risks if modified life forms escape from controls, reproduce and spread, and the federal government recently announced that some modified organisms are beyond its control.

We need a new transparent, understandable law. Public support for transgenics will come from knowledge and participation. The Clinton administration was working on such a law when its term expired. Now is a good time to take that off the shelf and move forward.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Publication: The New York Times

Conserving High Seas Biodiversity

William Y. Brown — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:14:00 -0400

The range of cannon balls shot from land was the 17th Century definition of the "high seas". -- if they couldn't reach you, then you were there. Now the term is defined by Article 86 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): the high seas include "all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State." This means that the high seas are more than 200 nautical miles beyond the coastal baselines of any country and beyond national exclusive economic zones (EEZs). They encompass the water and the seabed beneath, unless the continental shelf of a nation extends out more than 200 nautical miles.

The high seas cover approximately half the Earth and include a wealth of geology and biology. Beneath the surface lie trenches, canyons, mountains - including what some consider the tallest mountain in the world, Mauna Kea in Hawaii, rising over 10,000 meters from the sea floor. They include erupting volcanoes, thermal springs and cold seeps, vast plains of silt, and expanses of hard, mineral-laden floor. The high seas also harbor diverse and abundant life. Some animal species move great distances through or over them - whales, elephant seals, tunas, great white sharks, eels, albatross, sooty terns, and many more. Plankton, animal and plant, congest its upper levels in life and, in death, rain on the seabed below. Its waters and seabed harbor fish and invertebrate animals of many stripes - including squid, octopus, clams, worms, crustaceans, jellyfish, cold-water corals, and sponges. Microbes make it a living soup, with bacteria that feed on inorganic chemicals and can live where the temperature is 110 degrees Centigrade. Albatross and shearwaters dive below its surface for food while other birds, preferring not to get wet, snatch what they can at the surface.

The high seas are a place full of life, but that life is threatened. Greenhouse gases top other concerns, mostly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels that are warming and acidifying the seas. The evident solution is to reduce emissions from these mostly land-based sources, but that's not currently happening. Fertilizers and other chemicals run-off into coastal waters and affect seas further out. Marine debris, from activity on land and sea concentrates in vast gyres and entangles sea life.

Fishing, however, is the primary threat to life from activities conducted on the high seas. Its history is ‘anything goes’. "Freedom of the high seas" -- including "freedom of fishing"-- is enshrined in UNCLOS and customary international law. Many individual nations do little to regulate their own fishermen beyond the EEZ. Furthermore, many regional and subregional fisheries organizations have jurisdiction on the high seas, and their number and complexity confuses management. In consequence, high seas fishing is often excessive, illegal, unreported, unregulated, and done with destructive practices such as dragging nets over bottom habitats. It's been detrimental to whales, sharks, tunas, and many other target and non-target species. Commercial whaling knocked blue whales - the planet's largest animal - to a fraction of their original populations, and since whaling stopped for them any recovery has been slow; Blue fin tunas, prized for their sushi, have plummeted in the Atlantic and Mediterranean to the point where survival is questionable; The Great White Shark is now vulnerable to extinction; Long-lived, slow-reproducing Orange Roughy have been depleted by fishing on the sea mounts where they live in the South Pacific, and the bottom-trawling that catches them is destroying habitat for all the species living on those mounts.

Fortunately, UNCLOS and other international agreements authorize the actions needed to conserve highs seas life. Monitoring and enforcement remain a problem, with limited resources hampering efforts by nations that intend to comply, and flags of convenience from non-complying nations facilitating overfishing. Another fundamental problem, addressed below, is lack of clarity in conservation standards. Better guidance is needed, and a clear, authoritative voice is needed to be the steward of that guidance.

The principal global agreements regulating high seas fishing are UNCLOS and the 1995 "Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks", which is sometimes referred to as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and sometimes just UN Fishing Agreement (UNFA).

Article 119.1 of UNCLOS addresses conservation of the living resources of the high seas, and provides: "In determining the allowable catch and establishing other conservation measures for the living resources in the high seas, States shall:

take measures which are designed, on the best scientific evidence available to the States concerned, to maintain or restore populations of harvested species at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global;

take into consideration the effects on species associated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such associated or dependent species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened."

UNCLOS's conservation provisions address all harvested species, but UNFA's reach is more complicated. The harvested species addressed are limited to "straddling" and "highly migratory" fish stocks. Straddling fish stocks are those whose ranges include more than one EEZ or include the high seas and at least one EEZ. Highly migratory fish stocks move long distances and cross more than one EEZ or cross the high seas and at least one EEZ. Said differently, these stocks are not restricted to the EEZ and interests of a single nation. If a fish stock is neither straddling nor highly migratory, then its harvest is not regulated by UNFA. Most high seas fisheries currently are limited to straddling or highly migratory stocks, but there are exceptions, such as stocks of the Orange Roughy in the South Pacific. A further complexity, adding to UNFA's scope, is that the agreement defines "fish" to include not just fish as most know them (typically vertebrates with gills and fins) but also non-sedentary mollusks and crustaceans. Sedentary species are "organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil." Hence UNFA covers harvest of organisms like squid and krill that swim, provided that they straddle or are highly migratory, but does not cover clams, hard-shell snails, barnacles, tubeworms, or seabed microbes that are cemented to surfaces or embedded in them.

UNFA's conservation policies are found in Articles 5, 6 and Annex II of the agreement. Article 5 provides "General Principles," and restates almost verbatim the text of Article 119.1(a) and (b) of UNCLOS. These provisions require measures to keep populations at levels that will provide "maximum sustainable yield" (MSY). The premise of MSY is that populations will, to a point, yield more harvest as fishing reduces numbers below the unexploited levels where environmental factors such as limited food hold numbers in check -- where populations are at the "carrying capacity" of the environment. If food is the limiting factor, for example, populations somewhat reduced by fishing will have more food to eat and the fish may reproduce faster, grow more rapidly, and "yield" more harvest. But MSY has limits. Over-fishing to extinction would obviously end yield, and as populations shrink in size there is a point, even if the populations are healthy and reproducing well, where further reduction in population size will yield less. The population at the point just before yield decreases is the level historically chosen for MSY, with fishing theoretically regulated to maintain that size.

In the past half century, MSY has been qualified by recognition that fish and other organisms have behaviors and ecologies that fishing can disrupt and lessen yield. Biological diversity and ecosystem health are now also accepted goals in addition to yield of harvested species. UNCLOS and the UNFA accommodate this more recent thinking. In both agreements, as cited above, the objective of MSY is qualified by "relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global . . ." and by the need to prevent the "reproduction" of "associated or dependent" non-target species from being "seriously threatened." No limits are placed on the taxonomic status or mobility of these non-target species, nor are relevant environmental factors defined. One might wish for clearer language, but this agreement text provides the basis for high seas fishing regulation that is more protective than MSY alone would provide. The "special requirements of developing States" are presumably economic rather than environmental, but this provision should not be read to allow more exploitative practices than would otherwise be the case. It is better read to mean that developing nations may require financial assistance or preferences of some kind.

Article 5 of UNFA also contains provisions not found in UNCLOS, but that are consistent with it and support a higher standard for conservation than maximum sustainable yield. In particular, Article 5(a) of UNFA calls on parties to adopt measures to ensure "long-term" stability of stocks and to promote "optimum" utilization. The term "optimum" has been used in regulatory policy for harvested populations in the concept of "optimum sustainable population" (OSP), and refers to populations that may be managed for less harvest than MSY. For example, OSP was defined for marine mammals under U.S. law as a range of population sizes between the carrying capacity of the environment for a stock on the high side, and MSY on the low. The same concept was applied to populations of threatened species by the U.S. Scientific Authority under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) when that agreement was first implemented.

Article 5 (g) of UNFA provides that its parties "shall . . . protect biodiversity in the marine environment . . ." This provision is a broad mandate. The term biodiversity is not defined in the UNFA or UNCLOS but is defined - as "biological diversity" - in the 1992 global Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as follows:

"the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. "

The key word in this definition is "variability," which all the other words qualify. The CBD definition includes variability between and within species and variability of ecosystems. Biological diversity is higher when then are more species, more ecosystems, more genetic variation within species, and a more distributed representation of all these things rather than having them clumped in a few places. But variability isn't everything, and the term biological diversity or biodiversity has been used primarily by the CBD parties and others as a reference to the richness of wild living nature in healthy ecosystems.

The CBD parties have issued various statements on what is needed for marine biodiversity conservation. These generally focus on the need to consider how fishing and other uses impact the ecosystems involved, not just the target species. Furthermore, in October 2010, the CBD adopted a target that "By 2020, at least . . . 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved . . ." Discussions leading up to these targets make clear that the parties contemplated parks, refuges and marine protected areas with significant restrictions on extractive uses, as in the national parks, wildlife refuges, and national monuments of the United States. International bodies other than the CBD have also advanced ecosystem conservation and measures beyond the simple population models of MYS. These include the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN General Assembly, recently in A/RES/65/38 adopted on December 7, 2010.

A mix of two models is required to implement the "ecosystem approach" advanced by the UN General Assembly, CBD and FAO for conserving biological diversity. The first model references the "original" features undisturbed by humankind, and the second references features exhibited when the objective is maximum sustainable yield, or MSY, with environmental qualifications. Together, the original condition and the condition of qualified MSY provide a vision and framework to meet the conservation needs of high seas ecosystems and the legal requirements of UNCLOS and UNFA.

These models can be mixed in two ways on the high seas. One is geographic - to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) closed to fishing and to establish other areas where sustainable fishing is authorized and facilitated. The alternative is to promulgate fisheries management regimes whose objectives are somewhere in-between no ecosystem impact and maintenance of stocks at MSY. This approach is also supported by Article 6 of UNFA, which articulates in detail a "precautionary principle" for regulation of fisheries. This principle now appears in various international regimes and largely speaks for itself. When in doubt, take less rather than more.

The geographic and regime-based mix of these two models should be the guiding policy for conservation of biological diversity in the high seas, including fisheries regulated under UNCLOS, UNFA, and the numerous regional and subregional fisheries organizations and arrangements. It is the grand compromise long practiced on public lands (and some waters) in many nations, including the United States. Thousands of areas in the U.S. considered most important for biodiversity have been designated as parks, refuges, and monuments and protected to keep them undisturbed. Many other areas including national forests and Bureau of Land Management units are managed for sustained use that is also protective of ecosystem values. The high seas are a global public area - deemed in UNCLOS to be not subject to the sovereignty of any state - and the same rationales and experiences that have led to the mix of these two models in national conservation recommends the same approach for the high seas. But if that can be agreed, a question still remains: who will refine, articulate and interpret the requirements for conserving biodiversity on the high seas and how will that guidance be incorporated into the fishery operations overseen by the many organizations involved?

A step forward in answering this question would be for the United Nations General Assembly to adopt a resolution that would:

Charge a new or existing UN committee (Committee) with developing and interpreting guidance for conserving biological diversity in high seas fishing.

Support an approach that embraces a mix of marine protected areas and regulated fisheries, and conservation objectives that range from preserving ecosystems undisturbed to providing maximum sustainable yield, qualified by considerations of ecosystem health.

Note the current efforts to identify particularly important or vulnerable areas in the high seas warranting protection, as well as the extensive work done to specify needs and appropriate practices for sustainable, ecosystem-sensitive, fishing.

Request that all UN members take steps to have the regional or subregional fisheries organizations in which they participate and their own flag vessels use the guidance articulated by the Committee.

Ask the Committee to meet in conjunction with meetings of other, existing efforts to further implementation of UNCLOS and UNFA. These include a UN informal consultative process on oceans and law of the sea that feeds into an annual review by the UN General Assembly, as well as an "Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group" to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. The UN also has a standing Subcommittee on Ocean and Coastal Areas and a network referred to as "UN-Ocean."

The way in which the Committee proposed here would meet and the name it would be given, are issues best left to UN staff and representatives. However the Committee would be advised to carryout most of its work over the Internet, to save time, expense, and environmental impact, and to encourage brevity and specificity in work products.

This is a modest proposal to solve a vexing problem. An alternative approach could be a high seas fisheries regulatory authority complementing the International Seabed Authority. But such an alternative approach would almost certainly invoke passionate opposition or non-participation from the nations that have made commitments and investments in regional and subregional organizations and arrangements. Another alternative would be to seek ways forward in forums other than the United Nations, such as the G-20, as now being done in climate change discussions. But fishing on the high sea, with flags of convenience available to any nation, does not lend itself to management by a subset of nations. This proposal for the UN General Assembly could be implemented without amending agreements or altering the operational roles of existing fisheries organizations. What it could do, however, is for the first time provide a clear and authoritative voice on what these organizations and nations should do to conserve high seas biological diversity.

Authors

William Y. Brown

Conserving Biological Diversity

William Y. Brown — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 12:23:00 -0400

INTRODUCTION

Life first appeared on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago and over time covered the land and sea with microbes, plants and animals. The count of known species now stands at about 1.8 million, and no one would be surprised if over 10 times more exist, still undiscovered. Most humans come from a small group that slipped out of Africa less than 100,000 years ago and spread around the globe, less than one-tenth of a second on a time-scale measured at 1 hour since life first appeared. Despite mankind’s very recent presence, we have eliminated species and pushed many more out of the places they lived. This began with mammoths and other prehistoric animals, but the pace of extinction and displacement has accelerated since permanent settlements were established and machines were invented to improve our lives. E.O. Wilson has estimated that 3 species are lost per hour. Exact numbers are elusive—starting with not knowing how many species there really are to begin with—but the big picture of loss is unmistakable.

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Many national governments have recognized the value of nature and taken steps to conserve it through protected areas and laws that regulate exploitation. A range of international agreements have also been adopted. The most comprehensive in scope of these is the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”), which entered into force on 29 December 1993, and now has 193 parties. The CBD’s preamble notes “the intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values of biological diversity and its components.” It notes “the importance of biological diversity for evolution and for maintaining life sustaining systems of the biosphere.” And it affirms “that that the conservation of biological diversity is a common concern of humankind.”

The CBD’s effectiveness has been questioned, but representatives stepped forward at the most recent meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) in Nagoya, Japan, held in October 2010. The parties acknowledged failure to significantly reduce loss of global biodiversity between 2002 and 2010, as the first strategic plan of the
CBD prescribed, and they adopted a new strategic plan for 2011–2020 (“Plan”).

The Plan’s vision is “a world of ‘Living in harmony with nature’ where ‘by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.’ ” The Plan’s mission is to “take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services ...” The Plan has 20 “Aichi Targets,” named after the Prefecture whose capital is Nagoya, many with references to accomplishments by 2020. Target 11, for example, states: “By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved ...” However, the Plan offers no specific measures to determine whether an area has been “conserved” or not, nor does it commit parties to achieving the targets. The sentiment for action in the Plan is good, but could any informed observer believe the timelines: that global loss of biodiversity will be halted in 9 years, or that mankind collectively will be “living in harmony with nature” 39 years from now?

One important, concrete, and realistic step forward would be to give the people who manage areas of land and water better guidance on how to conserve biological diversity on their properties. More than guidance is needed, of course. Developing nations, where degradation of the natural world is most rapid, are faced with stark, short-term economic choices on resource use, high population growth, and limited educational and governance capability. These realities are fundamental obstacles to conservation that only economic and social advancement can remove, combined with finding nearer-term opportunities for people to conserve biodiversity and make a living at the same time. Yet these obstacles call out for guidance too, because the difficulty of taking actions needed for conservation will depend on what kinds of actions conservation requires.

Land and water managers need an owner’s manual for conservation. Many, whether government, business, or personal owners, have limited background in science, law, or policy and also have responsibilities other than conservation—like making a profit. Unless they know just what to do for conservation, it won’t be done, and yet it is primarily their actions that will determine the future of Earth’s biological diversity. But what does “biological diversity” actually mean?

The term “biological diversity” first appeared in 1968 in a book by Raymond F. Dasmann, A Different Kind of Country, in reference to the richness of living nature that conservationists should protect. It resurfaced in the 1980’s in books, articles and conferences on conservation, and was presented as an alternative to “wildlife management,” whose concepts and practices were seen as over-emphasizing species of fish and other animals that are caught or shot, and as giving too little attention to plants and invertebrate animals and to multi-species ecology. The term biological diversity is defined in the CBD to mean:

“the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”

The key word in this definition is “variability,” which all the other words qualify. The basic concept of this definition was first articulated for “species diversity” and defined through information theory. Its variables are the number of species and the relative abundance of the different species. Species diversity is higher in an area if more species are present. It is also higher if the species present have similar relative abundances, rather than one or a few species dominating in numbers while the others are rare. The CBD definition also includes variability within species and variability of ecosystems. Intraspecific variability is a recognized plus in conservation—for example, the in-breeding and very limited genetic variation in cheetahs is harmful to their conservation. It is also beneficial to have more kinds of ecosystems, such as bogs, mountain meadows, coastal dunes, coral reefs. Overall, we benefit from having more species, more ecosystems types, more genetic variation within species, and a more distributed representation of all these things rather than having them clumped in a few places.

But variability isn’t everything. In misguided efforts to increase species diversity, the CBD definition of biological diversity could be read to promote the introduction of non-native species into an area (although the CBD has separate language inveighing against invasives). The definition could be read to give lower priority to high-latitude ecosystems that have fewer species than the tropics, even though high-latitudes might have species of great ecological and economic significance, such as krill in the Southern Ocean. Not much debate has emerged, however, along these lines because biological diversity has been treated more as a general reference to wild living nature than as something that can be reduced to a formula. Nonetheless, the first objective of the CBD is conservation of biological diversity, and objectives require measures of success. So what might those conservation measures be?

Academic disciplines, like such as conservation biology and landscape ecology, have emerged to address this issue in combination with long-standing research for industries such as fisheries and forestry. The former look mostly at determining what features are best for the ecology of places and the latter typically address what extraction is sustainable. A wealth of information is available on both fronts. Much less has been done to effectively translate work on ecological priorities and sustainability of extraction into practical, relatively simple, guidelines that land and water managers need to conserve their property’s biological diversity. "Best practices" have been developed for many industries, such as principles and criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council and an array of best practices for different fisheries put out by the Food and Agriculture Organization. These are tailored to the uses and places for which they were developed and can be an important component of conservation planning. However, best practices describe a process with do’s and don’ts rather than a measurable vision of what features of biological diversity in a managed area should look like if they are to be considered conserved. A vision is needed. Two different models warrant consideration. One references the "original" features of an area before any disturbance by man, and the other references the features exhibited when the area is used for sustainable provision of goods and services for people. Together, the original condition and sustainable uses can provide the vision and framework needed.

Biological diversity has been diminished at the hand of humankind through habitat fragmentation and reduction, direct over-exploitation, pollution and introduced invasive species. A location’s original condition before this happened is a reference point. Unless an area is undisturbed now, that originial condition must be estimated by using historical information or by reference to related but less disturbed areas believed to have similar, original features. Once the original features are characterized for an area, it can be resurveyed periodically and progress in conserving biological diversity measured as change in the similarity between the original features and the current features.

The original condition isn’t biased by interest in extraction, and it is the condition that usually reflects a long course of evolution and complex ecological relationship tested through time with only the very recent involvement of the human species. The original condition also often has the high variability in species and ecosystems that the CBD defines as biological diversity. An exceptional adjustment to this management of the original condition may be warranted for climate change, because it is on-going and cannot be locally reversed. For example, if a wetland will be permanently submerged through sea level rise and a now dry higher elevation area will become wetland, then this should be accounted for in managing a property overall to approximate its “original” condition.

But conserving biological diversity also must embrace sustainable provision of goods and services for people. Use of biological diversity is an objective of the CBD and many other legal regimes, just as is conservation, and if use were prohibited it would still continue to happen and conservation would suffer from the policy. Biological diversity has provided valuable goods and service for people throughout human existence. These “ecosystem services” are now prominent in many policies and programs for development, and failure to embrace sustainable use of these resources for current human livelihoods would not only diminish standards of living but would undermine political support for long-term resource conservation.

Not every place should be modified by human use. We should strive to keep wild a significant share of those diminishing, genuinely pristine areas of biological diversity on Earth, and the growing number of wilderness parks and sanctuaries on land and sea are contributing to that. But most areas are significantly modified, and can be managed in a way that moves them towards their original condition and also allows resource use. Core objectives in this case include sustainable harvest of target species, such as trees and fish, protection of endangered or threatened species, maintaining balanced amounts of old-growth forest or big fish, preserving unfragmented habitat and corridors for movement, and preventing or managing pollution. The kinds of uses make a difference. Very strict scrutiny and constraints are needed for commercial harvest of trees or fish and any conversion of natural lands for agriculture or settlements, whereas traditional indigenous uses may be intrinsically beneficial to conservation by bringing watchful eyes into an ecosystem.

Policy Recommendations

With the discussion above in mind, the following principles are offered for managers with responsibility for conserving the biological diversity of geographic areas of land or water:

Develop a comprehensive plan for conserving the biological diversity of the area. The plan should include goals, objectives, implementing actions, and measures. It should include a system for assuring compliance with plan requirements, and should provide for regular internal and external reviews of compliance and, less frequently, of the plan itself.
Make implementing the conservation plan a significant element in performance reviews of employees whose work affects conservation. This will vary with position. A government director of a national forest might be appraised with respect to the forest as a whole, including monitoring and enforcement of applicable laws. The work of a company manager logging in that forest might be reviewed by his corporate supervisors for implementation and compliance with conservation requirements developed and endorsed by the government director. A logger working in that forest might be reviewed by the company manager for compliance with specific instructions, incorporating conservation, on what and how to cut. People care about keeping jobs and earning as much as they can.
Make sure available information demonstrates that actions will be consistent with conservation objectives before the actions are taken. The burden of proof in natural resource use has often determined whether conservation or over-exploitation occurs. Fishery regulation has been based historically on quotas that regulators are required to develop and substantiate. Number are proposed by them, fishing interests express opposition, and, after the dust of debate settles, over-exploitation happens. Yet the fishing in some geographically designated areas, such as national wildlife refuges in the United States, is presumed closed unless users or managers can demonstrate that the catch will be compatible with conservation, and the fishing allowed in these refuges typically does not deplete the populations that are fished. Existing laws for a given area may not shift burden of proof to users, but private land-owners can voluntarily accept that shift, and laws can be changed.
Don’t mix guidance for conservation with guidance promoting use or benefit-sharing. The objectives of the CBD are, “. . . the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources . . .” The CBD parties will continue to pursue all three objectives, but they should not be intertwined with guidance for conservation, which is by itself difficult to define and achieve. If all three objectives are mixed into a single measure, the likely consequence will be confusion on what is
needed for conservation.
In respect to any funding for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), make conservation of biological diversity a condition for funding, but do not use it to determine the amount of funding. The Cancun Agreements adopted at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) endorsed and expanded the policy of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). This included recognizing the role of conservation and sustainable forest management and the “co-benefit” of biodiversity. The Cancun Agreements also set out details for the Green Climate Fund and, in principle, will be the financial mechanism through which developed nations will contribute to developing nations for climate actions on mitigation and adaptation, including those concerning forests. The FCCC parties have agreed to a goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year for this purpose by 2020, and hope that significant additional funding will be available to conserve forests and their biodiversity. However, the primary purpose of REDD is to reduce carbon emissions, and the mainstream discussion on funding levels and offset credits that may be earned through forest investment is tied to the level of reduction in carbon emissions. Furthermore, carbon is an atomic element that can be measured without the problem of subjectivity in definition that is inherent in measuring biological diversity. In the interest of clarity and effective process, conservation of biological diversity should be a condition for REDD funding, but the funding amount is better determined by the amount of greenhouse gas mitigation.
Map features defining the area’s current and original biological diversity. The current features can be determined with a survey. The original features—those present before human disturbance—cannot be exactly determined if the area has been disturbed, but may be estimated using historical information for the area or through reference to other pristine or less disturbed areas believed to have similar, original features. The features mapped should at a minimum include: (a) kind, abundance, and distribution of indicator species and ecosystem types; (b) age structure of harvested species such as trees or fish, (c) endangered or threatened species if present, (d) invasive species; (e) habitat coverage showing any fragmentation; (f) corridors that impede or facilitate movement or spread; (g) sources and levels of any harmful pollutants. The original features might require adjustment in setting management objectives to address future climate change. The data assembled for mapping should be geospatially referenced and entered into a GIS application that can both prepare visual maps of variables and support diverse analyses of the data. Contractors should be engaged if in-house expertise is not adequate. The intensity of detail and choice of methods for surveys will vary with scale, from satellite or aerial imaging combined with ground-truthing for large areas, to ground-based work alone for small areas. The specifics will also vary with the area’s use. For example: An area managed as wilderness would look closely for effects of invasive species, climate change and illegal activities; A logged forest or fishing ground would include detailed information related to harvest. Initial surveys will typically be more detailed than subsequent surveys to monitor change.
Periodically re-map the area and estimate the similarity between current and original features to assess progress in conserving biological diversity. Progress in conservation by this measure will show an increase in similarity over time. A policy of “no-net-loss” would require that the similarity not decrease. Various statistical tools can be used for this now, but finding agreed models and, especially, user-friendly applications for this task should be a priority for funding agencies, institutions and experts concerned with conserving biological diversity. This is a situation where concepts abound and where focus and simplification is needed. The programs offered might be subtle and internally complex, but they should be easy for managers to use and read, and they should have as much endorsement as possible by authorities, including the CBD.
Manage the area to approximate the original features mapped, implement best practices that make sense, and don’t allow unsustainable uses. The map of original features is essentially a blueprint for the area’s modification and management. The specific actions will vary widely between areas, but are techniques and practices for these are well-developed and familiar to a range of experts. Existing and proposed uses with the potential to significantly impede achievement of original features should be closely reviewed, such as logging and fishing, and allowed only if they are determined to be consistent with conservation of biological diversity. These uses should be sustainable for the species and ecosystems impacted, not detrimental to the survival of any associated endangered or threatened species, and consistent with other values such as maintaining some fully protected areas, keeping a share of old-growth forest or big fish, avoiding habitat fragmentation and loss of corridors, and preventing harmful pollution. This review will necessarily require some subjectivity and subtlety and independent technical expertise should be engaged and respected.

Conserving biological diversity is a stated priority not just in the CBD but in the domestic laws of most nations and in the priorities of international, regional, and national development agencies. Furthermore, many conservation projects have been undertaken in connection with economic development initiatives such as roads, dams, and agricultural expansion, sometimes required by development agencies as conditions for loans or grants. But the actual contributions of these projects to conserving biological diversity, and to mitigating environmental impacts associated with construction and land-use change, will be uncertain unless measures such as the principles above are woven into projects by the agencies that oversee and fund them. Having measures doesn’t guarantee success, but lack of measures begs for failure. The principles offered above for conserving biological diversity can certainly be refined, augmented and improved. But if followed, they offer a prescription for the task ahead. We need that.

Downloads

Download Full Paper

Authors

William Y. Brown

Global Environmental Quality: Recommendations for Rio+20 and Beyond

William Y. Brown — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 11:46:00 -0400

In June 1972, the United Nations convened the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm. The conference led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and produced a declaration whose first principle states:

"Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations."

Each decade since Stockholm and its lofty principles, the UN has held a conference to review the past 10 years and make plans for the future: 1982 in Nairobi, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro (the "Earth Summit"), and 2002 in Johannesburg. If there has been a trend over the past 40 years, it is greater emphasis on development and social issues and less on simply protecting the environment where humans live. But this trend is not black and white. The Stockholm declaration, for example, states that in developing countries "most of the environmental problems are caused by under-development." The principal commonality of these four UN conferences is that they have expressed big ideas and big plans, with not so much to show for them in the aftermath.

The next conference is scheduled for June 2012, once again in Rio de Janeiro. This conference is formally titled the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and known informally as Rio+20. One hopes for the best next summer, but expectations are low. Not only are the past 40 years an unpromising history, including the de-railing of emission limitations addressing climate change, but the current financial and political climate is a bear-trap for action, whose most pointed jaws extend from the world's largest economy - the United States of America.

The agenda for Rio+20 is guided by a UN Secretary-General (SG) report on objectives and themes. The report instructs that the two principal themes will be -

"green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and the institutional framework for sustainable development — in relation to the objective of renewed political commitment to sustainable development, reviewing progress and implementation gaps and addressing new and emerging challenges."

The SG's report has 123 paragraphs but does not specify any particular conference objectives. The report ends with seven "messages" under the heading "The Way Forward." Some of these have recommendations. For example, the last of these messages states: "Member States should have an active role in providing political guidance to the United Nations system for overcoming the institutional fragmentation and lack of integration of the three pillars of sustainable development [environmental, economic, and social]." This and the other recommendations acknowledge problems, but they offer little guidance for action in Rio.

The history of multilateral environmental initiatives is one of growing complexity in the number of agencies and organizations involved and in the purposes served. It is also is a history of jargon. What does it mean to say that a theme of Rio+20 is the "green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication"? Does this mean an economy where resources are managed to provide high environmental and other living standards for everyone? What is meant by the term "green economy?" Is it simply a reference to doing business in ways that are best for environmental quality? That's an old story and a work in progress. Does it mean something else?

The governments participating in Rio+20 need a short list of actions that will advance environmental quality. Nine recommendations are offered below for consideration. It is stipulated, but not repeated in these, that environmental quality should be equitable and sustainable, pursued in conjunction with economic and social objectives, and undertaken with priority for poverty alleviation:

1. Commission a new, independent, credible assessment of environmental status and trends. This is needed and would inform the measures recommended in paragraph 2. The assessment should include a critical evaluation of limits on progress-to-date on both environmental measures, such as those reported by the World Bank, and related, broader Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It's time to take a fresh, fair look at where we are and why we haven't gone further, and to make sure we use good measures of success in the future. Failure to achieve the MDGs throws a wrench into any form of global cooperation, so we need to figure out how to move those goals forward.

2. Agree to develop common measures for monitoring status and trends in environmental quality. It is evident the GDP does not fully address the well-being of people or, particularly, environmental quality. Several general approaches have been developed by international organizations, NGOs, and by individual governments that give a more accurate assessment than GDP. Representatives at Rio+20 should agree to develop common measures for national and global environmental quality drawing from work-to-date and how that work could be potentially incorporated into broader measures of well-being. These measures should be updated regularly and transparently on a Web site maintained by the United Nations and open to everyone.

3. Establish a new organizational framework for international environmental leadership. Few would disagree that we lack the strong, adequately funded, organization for the environmental leadership required to meet Earth's challenges. Some have proposed to establish a World Environmental Organization or Global Environmental Organization (proponents distinguish between these two), and these proposals warrant discussion. A more modest but feasible step that could be taken at Rio+20 would be to establish a coordinating framework around UNEP, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and perhaps other international organizations with bearing on the global environment. A permanent committee of these agencies (Committee) could be tasked with providing a single voice on fundamental information and measures, such as those referenced above in paragraphs 1 and 2, and with providing unified recommendations for actions. Establishing this Committee need not require new policy obligations for the national governments participating in Rio+20. It could save money if the Committee consolidates overlapping structures and functions, and if most work is done through online collaboration. A further step might be for the Committee to support and advance the work of the various secretariats established under multilateral environmental agreements.

4. Agree that national governments will take steps to redress any degradation in environmental quality demonstrated in measures developed pursuant to paragraph 2 and to upload a description of those measures to the UN Website. This commitment should be kept general at this time to facilitate its adoption, with potential for future refinement left open.

5. Agree to launch a global initiative to freeze and preserve the DNA and viable tissue of all known species and new species as they are discovered. Species are disappearing every day, and DNA has been preserved for just a fraction of the 1.8 million known. Establishing a frozen tissue culture costs no more than $300 per species, with negligible maintenance costs, hence preserving DNA and tissue of all known species would cost no more than $540 million, or less than the United States pays in a single day on its debt. This particular, concrete step would assure that the genetic footprints of life will not disappear as humans plow and heat the Earth. Its agreement at Rio+20 and execution after would much more than make the meeting a success.

6. Agree to promote and invest in science and cultural education for environmental quality by funding educational programs of environmental agencies. Knowledge is the preamble to useful action, and issues concerning environmental quality are complex. Nothing is more important to progress on governmental policy and investment than the education of the people who are represented by governments. Two educational priorities stand out in the quest for global environmental quality and Rio+20. One is science. The "greenhouse" effect, for example, is not a surprise to those who understand a little Physics. The other priority is better understanding of the different cultures and languages of the world. It is well demonstrated that people interpret information through the lenses of the cultures they embody. Effective communication requires appreciation not just of information shared but of how that information is received. Hence investment in education on the different world cultures, including time spent living in different cultures and training in languages, is key to actually communicating and potentially agreeing on ways forward for global environmental quality.

A good and cost-effective way to link educational funding to environmental quality is to provide the funding through environmental agencies. In the United States these are agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These agencies currently develop curricula for formal education (e.g. weather courses from NOAA) and provide a range of informal educational offerings (e.g. student fellowships for work on environmental issues at school or at the agencies, agency websites, exhibits at natural history and science museums, and interpretation at parks and marine protected areas. Cultural education and exchange can be made part of the program - for example, fellowships can include international exchange, websites are international and can be multilingual, and exhibits can travel internationally. Nations with development assistance agencies can support such programs abroad through the environmental agencies of the developing nations they are working with. In the United States, this is often and usefully done with the guidance, and in some cases, management of funds by the donor nation environmental agencies. For example, the international program of the FWS has long received and disseminated funds provided to it by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Capacity building is, and should, be a priority in development funding.

7. Agree to promote and invest in education for women. In many places girls and women are excluded from formal educational opportunities offered to boys and men. Yet women have a central role in environmental, economic, and social life. Many are proven public leaders in environmental concerns, and many more affect the environment through their roles in families and groups. Furthermore, some research suggests that women on the whole cooperate better than men, and none would dispute that they are less engaged in armed conflict, except as bystanders or victims. The participants in Rio+20 should make involvement of girls and women a top priority as they promote and invest in education and cultural exchange as recommended in paragraph 6.

8. Agree to invest in the conduct and dissemination of research and the recruitment of talent applied to environmental quality. Advances in science and technology complement and may well exceed government regulation in contributing to future environmental quality. Avenues with great potential for progress include biotechnology, nuclear and solar energy, carbon sequestration, and water desalinization. Research depends heavily on government investment, which is in danger of restriction rather than growth in the next decade. The nations participating in Rio+20 should take a stand in support of increased research funding for the topics above and other environmental priorities and should articulate the economic leverage that government research investment has found in the past, such as in development of the Internet. In addition, the Rio+20 participants should agree to reduce barriers to travel and immigration for the talent that drives research. Such individuals should go wherever their abilities will be best expressed, and their work should be made available globally.

9. Agree to develop and invest in physical and regulatory infrastructure promoting environmental quality. Aging, outdated infrastructure is the bane of global environmental quality. Electrical power requires a grid for delivery, but current grids are tailored to fossil fuels. Many existing power plants are dated, less efficient, and more polluting than new technologies for the same fuels. Transportation remains dependent on energy-intensive cars and trucks, and work-forces remain dependent on using them. On average, existing residential and commercial structures use far more energy than necessary. Many cities, with multiple dimensions of infrastructure, continue to grow without planning, and bordering natural and agricultural areas are converted to suburban and urban satellites when city cores fail to provide space and services. Regulatory infrastructure -the laws and procedures for approval of investment in the physical - is also antiquated and flawed, delaying good actions and allowing bad.

These nine recommendations cover much ground, and Rio+20 is admittedly one of many venues where policy and investment for education, research and infrastructure are being considered. But these enterprises are probably the most fundamental to making Earth's future environment a place worth living in. Policies may come and go with an election or a coup, but education, research and infrastructure set longer-term directions. The participants in Rio+20 are well advised to side-step the textual sophistry that international diplomacy chronically entails and be concrete. But that doesn't mean think small.

Authors

William Y. Brown