December 2003

My Adventures with Spanish Fishermen
Part II. Going Downstream through the Generations

O.G. Harper

In the summers of my experience, I learned to love the countryside of Leon province in Northwestern Spain with its flat, hot and sunny agricultural fields and the cool shades of the manicured trees in the town squares along the Rio Orbigo. The mountains surrounding the Central Meseta region bring winter snows and Spring rains transforming the land through an immense network of mountain streams, rivers and underground wells. Two such rivers - the Luna and the OmaZa - unite to form the Rio Orbigo. Farms divert this water through new and ancient irrigation canals to their fields. Time and history have changed these small towns very slowly, until recently. Because of this, I was able to study three living generations of fishermen reflecting the legal and social history between the middle ages through the twentieth century. Spain’s economy prior to 1936 had not substantially changed from its pre-Modern agricultural past since the expulsion of the Muslims in the ninth through twelfth centuries. Strongly religious, traditional and agricultural, the province of Leon was far from the modernizing social movements of other Spanish regions and it quickly became a Franco stronghold during the Civil War between 1936 - 1939.

The Elders

The Pre-Civil War generation of fishermen who were born and began fishing prior to 1930, grew up doing the heavy work of men in the fields by age 13. Fishing became one of many means of subsistence learned as children on the Orbigo river. One fisherman informant of the Pre-Civil War generation began as a child helping his father stack rock piles, allowing several days for fish to accumulate in them. Then, using a net in which to capture them, he would dismantle the rock piles and rebuild them for the following week’s catch. At first, my informant took the fish to his mother who would sell them in the bars where they would make a delicious regional fish soup. Continuing to fish, by the time he was ten, he was employed to carry huge jars of water larger than himself for workers who were building a new bridge. His job included straightening out the tips of digging picks with a hammer when they came out of the ground twisted and bent. By the time he was twelve, he began working twelve hours a day at the sugar factory in the next town with his father for one peseta per day. Advanced in fishing by 16, he began selling his own fish catch to support himself within the family. Still later, he began farming alternately by selling fruits and other merchandise and trading with others. Fishing became a life-long skill which he parlayed into advantageous friendships which got him better jobs in the military during the War and afterwards. In his old age, he continued fishing for pleasure on his beloved Rio Orbigo.

The Middle

The Post-Civil War generation of fishermen were born in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's and began fishing after the Civil War some prior to Franco’s economic and social reforms, and some after, but while the Orbigo river was still an intact fishery. Given the dangerous times in which they lived, the Post-Civil War generation of fishermen’s earliest memories of the river were of times after the war in their teens fishing by hand and harpoon. Franco’s later reforms in fishing laws prohibited the use of nets, harpoons, and all other traditional methods of fishing. Eventually, only the rod and reel or caZa (bamboo stalks or canes) was allowed for fishing and fishing licenses were required. Even with these changes, fishing continued, for some, to be a form of subsistence until a 1992 law was passed prohibiting the sale of wild freshwater trout. In the case of one fisherman informant whose father bought him a fishing license and a caZa (bamboo stalk) at the age of 21, he did so on the advice of the Civil Guard. My informant noted that when he began fishing with caZa, the river was "boiling like chickpeas" there were so many trout. He would catch three or four kilos after work daily and began making his own flies. Although his father had a farm, with eight sons, there was not enough land to go around; therefore he had to work as a laborer. Later, he learned that he could earn more money catching one kilo of trout than he could as a laborer working eight to ten hours a day with pick and shovel. Soon, everything he had - his house, his car, his property - all had been gained by fishing. Later fishermen started coming to him to buy his flies as well. This fisherman’s understanding of what it takes to work hard as a laborer and the patience and persistence it takes to catch trout with a caZa made his temper boil when he saw poachers using stun rods and nets illegally to catch fish and guards who looked the other way as poachers took their booty made him furious. In hushed tones, he tells of two men who fished with nets and sold their catch to a customer from Leon who was overheard by a bartender about the fish he had bought. Unknown to the man, the bartender was a guard from one of the fishing clubs. Acquainted with my informant, this guard asked him if he could identify the two poachers. He did and after several days the guards caught the two poachers and denounced them. Worried that information might leak out about who had identified the poachers, my informant became paranoid because the threats he had received on another such occasion caused him constant worry about retaliation.

The Young

During the Post-60's period Spain opened up to the rest of the world through trade, tourism and emigration. Modernization brought plumbing into the villages without attention to providing sewage treatment plants. Mechanizing agriculture necessitated harsh chemical fertilizers increasing residual wastes in the river lowering the defenses of all aquatic life i.e. disease to the native brown trout, virtual extinction of native crayfish, and diminishing numbers of amphibians, birds and other aquatic species. The Post-60's generation of fishermen started their fishing experiences from eight to ten years of age, and differ from the other two generations in that they never knew the Rio Orbigo as an intact fishery. They are the first generation to fish primarily for sport and they are more focused on the methods and techniques of fishing than those who were privileged to fish in period of abundance of trout and other fish species. This generation was also motivated very differently than previous generations who were mainly interested in using fishing as a means of subsistence. For example, one fisherman who was extremely poor in youth and thought fishing would provide him with food, began fishing with an interest of becoming more and more expert, using various techniques and making his own flies. This study and reading to expand his knowledge in fishing had the effect of transferring this desire to excel in other areas of this life as well as in his chosen field of work i.e. construction. Ultimately he became very successful in designing and building houses without ever losing his love and abilities in fishing for trout. This generation of fishermen saw the same decline of the river as the other two generations. The question that lay before fishermen of all three generations was this: Could the river and the trout be saved? If so, how? If not, what would be the result and how would they, as fishermen, react?

November 2003

Our Disappearing Birds

Jack Harper

In Virginia 71% of neotropical migratory songbirds have declined over a ten-year period. Our backyard birds, such as the Red-eyed Vireo, American Redstart, Scarlet Tanager, Black-throated Green Warbler, Wood Thrush, and Ovenbird, winter in Central and South America where habitats are being taken by a mushrooming human population for living space and livelihoods. When the songbirds return to North America in springtime, they find a landscape made more inhospitable by habitat destruction and fragmentation caused by urban sprawl, infrastructure, and intensive agriculture and silviculture. Fairfax County lost 69% of its forest cover between 1980 and 1995.

Aside from the sheer enjoyment that birds bring us, they provide vital ecosystem services including seed dispersal, insect and rodent suppression, and pollination. Birds by their choice or rejection of habitats serve as sensitive environmental indicators giving us early warnings of ecosystems in trouble.

During this century more than 1600 out of 9800 bird species will be threatened with extinction. Habitat loss is the greatest threat to birds. Half the world's forests have been taken for farming, logging, and settlements. The loss of all but 4% of native grasslands in the United States has caused a steady decline of 15 out of 28 grassland bird species. Half of the wetlands in the U.S. providing nesting and stopover sites for migrating birds have been lost.

The second major threat to birds is hunting and capture including the billion dollar bushmeat trade in Africa. Unregulated hunting of migratory birds in the flyways between Africa and Europe and the illegal hunting of Chinese songbirds take millions of birds each year. The multi-billion dollar wild bird trade in Latin America may ultimately cause the demise of many parrot species.

Exotic plants and animals are the third major cause of bird declines. Out of 128 recorded bird extinctions 119 have been on islands with introduced biota. As many as a billion birds are killed each year in the United States by the 40 million house cats allowed to roam freely and the 60-100 million feral cats.

To accelerate bird conservation Bird Life International has identified 7000 important bird areas and 218 endemic bird areas. Our USDA has set aside 39 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program which will aid in the protection of many bird species. Birder driving routes have been established in Florida, Texas, and many Canadian provinces. The rapidly growing ecotourism industry is becoming an important stimulus for international bird conservation.

How you can help.
Create a backyard refuge: Plant native plants and trees to supply food and cover for birds. Provide a water supply, preferably dripping or running water. Avoid lawn monocultures supported by pesticides and herbicides detrimental to birds. Sign up for the National Wildlife Federation Backyard Wildlife Habitat program.

Reign in those cats: Cats must not be permitted to roam freely. Feral cats should be reported to animal control officials.

Prevent bird-window collisions: Tape life-size hawk cutouts to large windows that are subject to bird collisions.

Get Involved: Go birding with the local Audubon Society. Participate in the Christmas Bird Count, the Breeding Bird Survey, or the North American Migration Count. Get to know your backyard birds through bird guides and courses.

October 2003

My Adventures with Spanish Fishermen
Part I. Getting Down and Dirty

O.G. Harper

In 1993, I traveled to Spain to begin an investigation on how people in Spain view their natural environment. Later, the emphasis would be on three generations of Leonese fishermen and their views of a changing riverine ecosystem. For four summers – between 1993 through 1996, I interviewed fishermen living in villages along the Rio Orbigo in Leon, a province in northwestern Spain. Spain is a semi-arid country and I was surprised to find a lively sports fishing culture and even what looked like a thriving agricultural community in such arid conditions. When I wasn’t in Spain doing interviews and getting to know the lay of the land, I was back in my little office in Clifton, Virginia transcribing interviews and reading about the physical, cultural, economic and political history of Spain in general, and of Leon in particular. And even more importantly, every summer when I returned to Spain, even after my interviews were completed, incredible insights into the history and culture of the people living on the Orbigo river opened up to me. I never expected that all this drudge-work of transcribing interviews and making notes on my reading in other areas would result in a fascinating integration of ideas that would consume me for the next four years between 1998 – 2001 while writing the results of my investigation – results that were truly astonishing.

“three generations of Leonese fishermen and their views of a changing riverine ecosystem”

My first work in Spain began with a thirty-day quick immersion experience in July 1993. I traveled alone and arrived in Madrid at 8:45 a.m. where I spent the night to shake off the time change leaving the next day on a bus to Leon province to arrive in the small town of Hospital de Orbigo shortly after 9 p.m. My mission for this month was to track down documents and books from various libraries to help to me to understand issues surrounding water and its many uses as well as the complex relations between the government, farmers, townspeople and fishermen; moreover, I had to find a related topic that I could work on for a dissertation.

Settling into an apartment overlooking a field of poplar trees and a small irrigation canal, I began getting to know my neighbors and each of the many towns every two kilometers (1.4 miles) apart along the Rio Orbigo. These villages, with the exception of two larger towns, had populations ranging from 250 to 1000 people. When I wasn’t walking through each town and exploring the riverside every other day, I was going to Leon and tracking down materials in various libraries like the Archives of Leon, the University and local libraries as well as in provincial and governmental offices in Leon. Finding my way around Leon, particularly in the old quarter where the Roman wall surrounded the Archives, was delightful and mundane tasks such as getting an I.D. to look for ancient legal documents on water gave me a sense of the importance of tasks which lay ahead. On some days in Hospital de Orbigo, my hometown for the month, I became acquainted with the local farmers and learned about their way of life. Given that my landlady and her husband were farmers, I went out in the fields with them riding in back of the tractor and began adding to my vocabulary words such as presa, acequia, compuerta and other terms relating to farming and irrigation. I met old Rubio, the last plow-horse left in that small town and learned the lore about the endangered frogs inhabiting the irrigation canals. The local Guardia Civil (civil guard) roamed the dusty tractor roads near the presas and acequias (irrigation ditches and canals) keeping a watchful an eye in case anyone should be looking for a dinner of ancas de rana (frog-legs).

“the river acted as a natural sewer to carry away effluents from kitchens, bathrooms, stables, and fields”

From local people, I learned that in the not too distant past, each village had one to three main fishermen in each town supporting themselves and their families entirely by fishing in the Orbigo river or one of its tributaries. I also discovered that water came into the towns through underground aquifers. But in the past, when farmers diverted water from the Orbigo into irrigation ditches to water their crops, a practice used for centuries, there had been such an abundance of fish in the river that farmers would let them flow into the ditch bringing trout and other fish into the fields for dinner. One day we met an old miller and his wife and they invited us in for wine and chorizo (sausage) and I learned that the mills also captured water from the Orbigo to grind wheat from the fields. I eventually learned that millers and their families had an additional advantage when capturing water for milling: the millpond also served as a reservoir to capture fish.

Observing the canals from my apartment window, I could see children playing and fishermen fishing in both the river and in the irrigation canal in back of my apartment. These were the primary recreational pastimes of the townspeople and tourists from Asturias during the summer. I also discovered that both townspeople and many summer visitors used the river for swimming as well as for washing their cars, sweeping out trash from kitchen floors. Eventually, I saw that the river acted as a natural sewer to carry away effluents from kitchens, bathrooms, stables, and fields as well.

September 2003

Population and the Environment

Jack Harper

The growing numbers of people, regardless of their consumption levels, will add 14% to threatened species by mid century according to a new model by anthropologist Jeffrey McKee of Ohio State University. Using data from 114 countries the model suggests that population levels alone greatly impact biodiversity on our planet. The United Nations has forecast that world population will rise from 6.3 billion at present to 8.9 billion by the year 2050. Largest increases will be in the developing countries including the tropics with the greatest numbers of plant and animal species. Fortunately, the UN Population Division has projected for the first time that population growth rates in most developing counties will fall below replacement some time in the 21st century. However, that welcome development will not come soon enough to prevent massive threats to the world's biodiversity hotspots.

"Everything we do, including our personal freedom and personal choice, may have an impact on the environment", says ecologist Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University. His work concludes that more households with fewer people are more damaging to the environment that the numbers of people alone. The research effort collected population growth rates, household sizes, and numbers of households for 76 countries containing biodiversity hotspots and 65 countries without. Biodiversity hotspots have large numbers of plant and animal species many of which are threatened by human activity. The study revealed that the number of households around the world are increasing faster than population growth. A sober warning emerged in that the number of households in countries with biodiversity hotspots is increasing most rapidly.

Population growth in countries with few forest resources may triple to 4.6 billion by 2025 according to the UN. Not only devastating to wildlife, the loss of these forests that provide resources, flood control, and climate stability would be devastating to human communities. Almost three billion people use wood as their primary energy source. Ninety percent of the wood harvested in Africa is for fuelwood and charcoal. Women and children become victims of forest scarcity as they carry heavier loads of fuelwood over longer distances. Girls are often kept at home to help in the long treks for wood, denying them educations.

Gender inequity contributes to population growth and places more demands on the environment. In the rural areas of developing countries gender roles are pronounced. Women, typically voiceless and powerless, often work close to the natural environment. First to experience the effects of environmental deterioration, women must labor longer and harder to make up for deficiencies. Men overwhelmingly make the decisions concerning the use of natural resources, owning 98% of land owned.

Forest loss is often associated with rapid population increase, poverty, corruption, and wasteful practices particularly in South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Central America. Subsistence agriculture using slash-and-burn farming was sustainable when population numbers were low; however, with large and growing human populations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, these traditional farming methods along with modern commercial farming and livestock grazing are the dominant causes of forest loss.

Increasing fresh water scarcity in the Middle East and many parts of Africa and Asia will be greatly exacerbated as populations in these areas rise to between 2.4 and 3.4 billion by the year 2025. The poor in these water-short areas suffer the most as ecosystems change. Water shortages now are directly responsible for 4 million deaths per year.

Population growth in developed countries leads directly to increases in greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. In the United States the projected addition of 114 million people by 2050 will greatly increase carbon dioxide emissions. Of the industrial nations the United States stands out as the only nation with a birth rate above replacement, 87% of which is due to massive immigration.

In countries where cropland is already critically scarce, the population is projected to increase to between 600 and 980 million people by the year 2025, according to Population Action International. About 415 million people live in countries with cropland less than the quarter acre required per person for a vegetarian diet using sustainable agriculture without the use of artificial chemicals. With 80% of ocean fisheries at maximum production or in decline, this resource, long an inexpensive protein source for the poor, will become less available as world population continues to climb.

Most developing countries have initiated family planning programs through education, health care, and subsidization of contraceptives. In Bangladesh, Mexico, Ghana, India, Zimbabwe, and South Korea family sizes have consistently decreased as contraceptive use has become more widespread. Non-governmental organizations such as Profamilia, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood International, are as active as governments in family planning services. As the world's superpower, the United State's commitment to international family planning has been disappointing, reflecting in part the view of some religious leaders who have not yet come to see that the denial of reproductive rights can cause grave social injustice.

The continuing increase in human numbers has direct and indirect effects on world climate and natural resources including biodiversity, water, forests, cropland, and fisheries. Adding 40% more to world population by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reach sustainability and to stem the tide of resource and ecosystem deterioration and destruction.

August 2003

Demise of the Great Apes

Jack Harper

Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans may not survive more than a few decades in the wild due to hunting, habitat loss, and the Ebola virus. Ecologist Peter Walsh of Princeton University reported in a paper published in the science journal Nature in April 2003 that Gorillas and Chimpanzees in Africa have declined by 50% in the past 20 years. In another decade only isolated groups may be left. Researchers from several countries counted the overnight sleeping nests of gorillas and chimpanzees from 1998 to 2002 in Gabon and compared the results of a similar study from 1981-1983. Eighty percent of gorillas and most of the remaining chimpanzees live in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. At the present rate of loss, gorillas and chimpanzees would decline by an additional 80% in the next 33 years. Unless immediate action is taken our children and grandchildren would live in a world without great apes in the wild.

The commercial bushmeat trade supported by the timber industry in Africa is more than a billion dollar business, not only supplying logging camps but provincial cities and African emigrants in European cities as well. Following the logging roads, hunters with modern weapons kill any edible animal - gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants - and sell the meat at prices from two to six times that of beef or pork. Africans who once expressed their theistic traditions by revering wildlife and caring for their environment have been swayed by neocolonial values of seeing animals as meat and the forest as logs. The demand for bushmeat in rapidly growing African cities coupled with inadequate hunting controls have led to an anarchic rush to empty the forests of wildlife akin to the near extermination of the American bison in the 19th century.

Additionally, the Ebola epidemic in central Africa presents a grave threat to gorillas and chimpanzees, having already reduced their numbers by 90% in one remote area since 1991. Although the animal reservoir of the virus is unknown, it has been transmitted to humans in four outbreaks since 1994. There is speculation that the spread of the virus to ape populations is due to human encroachment.

The timber industry is also a major cause of the devastating loss of orangutans in Borneo and Sumatra. Indonesia's forests, home to the arboreal orangutan, are being destroyed at a rate four times faster than any country on Earth.

Chimpanzees and Bonobos
Thought to be the most intelligent of our primate relatives with 98.6% of our genes, chimpanzees are found in widely scattered groups in central Africa. This endangered primate has been reduced to about 150,000 individuals due to habitat loss through logging, the bushmeat trade, and the Ebola virus. Bonobos, pygmy chimpanzees, are also an endangered species numbering about 10,000-15,000. They are found south of the Congo River in a small area of the Republic of Congo where they have been caught in the crossfire of warring armies.

Gorillas
Seriously threatened throughout their range in central Africa, gorilla numbers have fallen to probably fewer than 100,000, composed primarily of the western lowland gorilla. In Uganda and the Republic of Congo efforts by the International Gorilla Conservation Program and heroic local park rangers have kept the number of mountain gorillas at about 670 in spite of the Ugandan civil war which ravaged the natural resources of the area. Gorillas have been reduced by habitat loss, trophy hunting, the bushmeat trade, and the Ebola virus.

Orangutans
Only 3,000 to 5,000 endangered Sumatran orangutans remain in the tropical forests of Sumatra, but they are vanishing at the rate of 1000 a year as timber companies and palm plantations destroy their habitats. The endangered Borneo orangutan numbers 12,000 to 15,000 but are being rapidly depleted because of habitat loss exacerbated by illegal logging in their reserves, the devastating forest fires of 1997, and the pet trade. At the present rate of loss, the orangutan would become extinct in two decades.

HOW YOU CAN HELP
1. You can become an orangutan foster parent through the Orangutan Foundation International. Adopt a gorilla through the Diane Fossey Gorilla Fund International  Become a chimpanzee guardian through The Jane Goodall Institute   2. You can help lessen the demands on tropical forests by not buying products made of tropical hardwoods. When in doubt check the product for the Forest Stewardship Council logo.  3. You can help conserve great apes by visiting them in the wild with ecologically sensitive tour groups such as those sponsored by the Orangutan Foundation International. Sound ecotourism encourages local communities to value their forests and wildlife.

July 2003

Selecting Environmentally Sound Seafood

Jack Harper

The oceans are in serious trouble. More than 90% of every large fish species including tuna, marlin, swordfish, halibut, and cod have been lost due to the intense pressure of industrial fishing fleets, according to the May 2003 journal Nature. In spite of the size of the world ocean it takes the fishing industry just 15 years to harvest 80% or more of a target species. This is due in part to 'longline fishing' developed by the Japanese in which boats trail lines as long as 60 miles with thousands of hooks. The oceans could sustain lasting damage and many economies dependent on fishing could suffer severely if present fishing practices continue.

Most commercially fished species have been pushed beyond easily sustainable limits by overfishing, wasteful fishing methods, habitat destruction, and poor fisheries management. Of the 15 ocean fisheries, 11 face severe depletion. Last month the Canadian government closed the 400 year old cod fishery. As fish stocks are depleted in a fishery, the industrial fleet turns to other species such as the southern Pacific Orange Roughy, now severely depleted. One quarter of all fish caught in the world ocean by the factory fleets is bycatch or waste fish which is thrown back to die, an enormous economic and ecological loss. Bottom trawling for shrimp results in a bycatch five times that of the shrimp caught. Other non-selective fishing methods include gillnets and purse seines that kill all the sealife not retained including sea turtles, dolphins, and young fish. Habitat destruction is often caused by bottom trawling, scraping the ocean floor, crushing fish and their surroundings. Destruction of mangroves to construct aquaculture ponds in Southeast Asia causes the loss of habitat valuable as the breeding grounds of wild fish.

Ocean ecosystems could be restored by ending subsidies of fishing fleets, establishing new international conservation agreements, and creating new marine sanctuaries. Major fishing fleets are in overcapacity by three or four times, being subsidized by governments including Russia, Japan, and the European Union. The massive fishing industry is actually operating at a deficit and would shrink substantially if it were not for the subsidies. Garrett Hardin's 'The Tragedy of the Commons' is being acted out on the high seas as thousands of large fishing vessels race to scoop up the remaining fish stocks in the ocean commons. International conservation agreements should be enhanced to set up territorial fishing rights to include the needs of poorer nations, not just the demands of the wealthy. Marine sanctuaries such as the 12 National Marine Sanctuaries of the United States have been shown to aid in the restoration of biodiversity and biological integrity.

Enforceable and accountable international fisheries management is needed to stem the destruction and to reach sustainability. As long as governments subsidize fishing fleets and fail to heed the advice of biologists, sustainable management cannot be achieved. NGO's and the public can play a vital role as they did in the successful boycott of canned tuna in the late 1980's. The public can be made aware of the sustainability of fisheries products through eco-labeling. The consumer should ask where a fish was caught and how it was caught, or how it was produced and raised in the case of aquaculture. Did the fish come from a well managed fishery? Was there ecosystem damage in its capture? How much bycatch resulted?

When you shop for fish consider these lists of environmentally sound seafood from Environmental Defense and the Audubon Society.

June 2003

Genetic Engineering

Jack Harper

We are at the beginning of the century of biology with the recent decoding of a human genome which comprises the instructions for assembling a human. There are great promises and great perils. Genetic engineering, the splicing of genes from any life source into a genome, is at the heart of the vast biotech industry with over a thousand companies and 100,000 employees in the United States. Many multi-national corporations such as Monsanto, Eli Lilly, Dow Chemical, Novartis, and Upjohn are racing to acquire patents and products for agriculture and human health. The majority of our domestic grocery products have biotech ingredients. In the United States 34% of our corn is bioengineered as well as 75% of soybeans. A GMO (genetically modified organism) predatory mite was set to work in Florida strawberry fields in 1996 to kill damaging mites. GMO sheep have been produced in Australia that grow 30% faster. At the University of Wisconsin GMO turkeys were produced to reduce their brooding instinct, thereby increasing productivity. Johns Hopkins' researchers have transplanted an 'anti-freeze' gene from flounders into the genomes of trout and bass to allow those fish to survive colder waters thus extending their habitat for commercial purposes. Three quarters of the Alabama cotton crop is genetically engineered to reduce insect damage. Bioengineered drugs are already being used to treat heart disease, AIDS, cancer, diabetes, and stroke for millions of people.

Potentially, 'pharming', the use of genetically altered plants and animals to produce medical products, could be a huge industry when the technical and economic problems have been overcome. In 1996 Grace, a transgenic goat was born to Bristol-Myers Squibb producing a monoclonal antibody in her milk for cancer treatment. A special gene was inserted into Grace's DNA while at the embryo stage. In Virginia, PPL Therapeutics of Blacksburg has bred transgenic cows that secrete medicinal products in their milk.

Plants are also being 'pharmed' for human medicine. Transgenic corn has been experimentally grown in Iowa. Potentially, food plants could become living factories churning out hundreds of new drugs and industrial chemicals. But ecologists warn of dangers ahead. What if genetically-altered crops turned up in the food supply or pollinated edible food crops? In November 2002 errors by ProdiGene, a small company in College Station, Texas, caused potential food crop adulteration in Iowa and Nebraska. ProdiGene will have to pay the Department of Agriculture as much as $3 million to buy and burn an entire warehouse full of soybeans grown in a field previously planted with 'pharmed' corn. As a result of these lapses, pending federal legislation for 'pharming' is being strengthened. The Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration are not prepared to protect the public health and the environment according to a report from the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology in April 2003. Biologists are concerned not only about human ingestion of 'pharmed' food but its ingestion by birds and other animals as well. Environmental groups would like 'pharmed' food crops to be grown under tight controls in greenhouses.

The European Union mirroring the concern of its citizens about biotechnology, has disallowed the importation of GMO food for the past four years. United States corn farmers have been particularly affected by this ban which has led to a trade lawsuit filed by a coalition against the European Union in May 2003. Prominent scientists have also been concerned about genetic engineering. George Wald, Harvard professor and Nobel prize winner, wrote: "Recombinant DNA [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution."

Many scientists and environmentalists are concerned that genetically altered plants not under strict control will cause ecosystem deterioration or collapse either through spreading and replacing other species or by pollinating closely related plants. Long term ecosystem effects are difficult or impossible to predict, particularly if inserted genes originate from outside the plant kingdom. The danger is that GMO plants once free in the biosphere cannot be recalled but continue reproducing their modified genomes.

Plants bioengineered to resist herbicides could become invasive pests themselves or could transfer their genes to wild weeds to produce 'superweeds'. Biodiversity could suffer as less competitive species vanish. Biotech plants designed to produce their own pesticides could impact birds and butterflies as well as their insect targets. Soils could also be diminished or made infertile by the transfer of genetic material from roots into soil bacteria and fungi. Corporations, under current government regulations, do not have to disclose to the public information about the added genes, declaring proprietary trade secrets.

Many countries are secretly developing bioengineered bacteria and viruses as biowarfare agents. Regulation of these materials is almost impossible since the technology and equipment is interchangeable with commercial uses. The former Soviet Union had probably developed smallpox viruses engineered with Ebola virus or Equine Encephalitis. The disposition of much of these materials is unknown. Recently, a South African scientist attempted to market biowarfare agents in the United States.

Pigs are being genetically modified in experiments to produce replacement parts for humans. Xenotransplantation (transplantation across species lines) is being tested to implant fetal pig cells to treat epilepsy, stroke, and Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases. These transgenic pigs have been altered with human DNA to thwart rejection by the organ recipient. 'Organ Farms' which would supply whole replacement organs are being contemplated. The possibility of pig viruses, such as Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus, entering the human recipient and spreading to the general population is of concern to researchers. Animal rights groups have voiced criticisms of the xenotransplation experiments which have killed thousands of chimpanzees, monkeys, and baboons.

"It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face.", wrote biologist George Wald. Do we have the moral right to restructure nature, potentially destroying ecosystems and breeding new diseases? Does this generation have the moral right to leave to future generations mere remnants of evolution (Creation)?. Do corporations and scientists have the moral right to perform whatever biotech experiment they choose in secret? How much of evolutions's genetic material should be patented for control and profit by corporations and individuals?

This 'second genesis' driven by biotechnology will force the redefinition of life and especially of human life. With the addition of human genetic material to plants and animals, at what point do the organisms acquire the attributes and considerations we reserve for human life? The development of ethical guidelines for genetic engineering cannot be left to the experts, often allied with powerful interests. The public has a right to be informed and a right to participate in establishing the directions and controls for this revolutionary technology.

May 2003

Globalization: Its Effects in Jamaica

Jack Harper

Jamaica! The name brings images of tropical beaches, palm trees, beautiful ebony people, Rastafarians, and the music of Bob Marley. But all is not well on this 146 mile long mountainous island of two and a half million, mostly descendants of African slaves, south of Cuba in the Caribbean.

Farming and industry have been in crisis. The jobless have been leaving the countryside for Kingston and other urban areas. Crime and the drug trade have led to frequent police killings. Political violence and rioting has been seen in recent years. Responsible in part for this unrest and turmoil is globalization, ensnaring the country in enormous debt arranged by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and other international lending agencies at high interest rates. The debt now at $4.5 B requires that 52 cents of every dollar earned goes for interest payments. Jamaica has already paid back 17 times the amount of money originally borrowed. Structural adjustments imposed by the IMF have driven up interest rates to industry and farmers such that they can no longer compete with the flood of subsidized or "dumped" foreign imports. These policies have driven down wages and forced the government to cut back funding for education, health care, and agricultural programs which benefit the impoverished.

On our Global Exchange study tour in March, designed and led by Hanna Appel, we interviewed farmers, businesspeople, police, human rights advocates, community development leaders, and ordinary Jamaicans to take the pulse of a country in trouble. We visited potato farmer Jerry Harrison who spoke of the difficulty of getting a farm loan even at 22% interest for Spring planting. Jamaica was self sufficient in potatoes in 1982, but has since been undercut by foreign imports.

We drove to Winston Wright's now derelict banana plantation which cannot compete with cheaper bananas from Central America. Protection of the Jamaican banana crop by the European Union will cease by 2005 leaving the industry open to foreign competition. Small banana farmers have declined from 45,000 to 5000 in recent years.

We were guests of Alex and Dorothy Twyman at their 130 acre coffee plantation in the mountains of central Jamaica. The Twyman's Old Tavern Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee sells for $36 per pound to gourmands, fetching a reasonable profit. Unfortunately, theirs is the only coffee plantation in Jamaica allowed to process and market coffee. Other small growers are forced to sell the raw beans at low profit to a central processing facility, being restricted by the Jamaican government in order to maintain quality. One coffee worker we talked with made $6 per day, but a good picker during harvest time can make as much as $25 a day.

The dairy industry is in steep decline due to imports of highly subsidized foreign powdered milk. Beef and onions have met a similar fate. The poultry industry has been severely hurt by the importation of low-grade chicken parts. Sugar and bauxite (aluminum ore) have also been hit.

Tourism although nervously watching world events is the mainstay industry of Jamaica employing one of ten Jamaicans. Global tourism, however, exacts a price on Jamaica, environmentally and socially. Large all-inclusive tourist facilities at Montego Bay provide the tourist with hotel, food and entertainment. These tourists seldom come in contact with Jamaican life, being cloistered in compounds, eating food imported from abroad. Jamaicans typically work as maids and kitchen help, even as prostitutes in the tourist industry. Sewage from these facilities often empties into the ocean which along with siltation, pesticides, over-fishing, and physical destruction including anchors from cruise ships destroy coral reefs and marine life. Only a small percentage of Jamaica's original coral reefs remain.

Other environmental costs of globalization include the erosion of steep slopes caused by coffee growers and agricultural chemical runoff into surrounding waters which kills marine life and threatens the few remaining manatees by killing sea grasses. Fisherman must go far offshore to outlying Morant and Pedro banks to find fish for local markets. The rapid deforestation at 5% per year of Jamaica's remaining 5% of its original forest threatens its two endemic Amazona parrot species, the Black-billed Parrot and the Yellow-billed Parrot .

These glimpses into the Jamaican experience represent some of the effects of economic globalization. Aside from money and trade, globalization affects Jamaicans in terms of the increasing international flow of ideas, disease, plants and animals, people, technology, and culture. Americanization, drug traffic, and the imposition of multinational corporations and nations further complicate and destabilize Jamaican life. Emigration has been a safety valve for the island. Now, more Jamaicans live outside the country than within, sending yearly remittances of $1.3 B back to families. The poor economic prospects signaled by low investment levels and stagnant growth, causing severe unemployment and low wages, leading to social unrest, has spurred grassroots community development organizations to be formed.

We visited with 'Jamaicans for Justice' representative, Susan Goffe, who is promoting police accountability through legislative lobbying. Crime rates have risen since colonization to two police killings per week which breeds new violence. The riots and killings of recent years associated with political party rivalry has abated.

Kenneth Wilson told us about his August Town sports and community development group in an impoverished suburb of Kingston which promotes competitive sports for young people in rival communities, calming violence and improving youth outlook. Sergeant West at the August Town sub-precinct police station confirmed that community policing had noticeably improved police relations.

At Treasure Beach we met with BREDA, a non-profit community group established by Jason Henzell and Peace Corps volunteer Aaron Laufer, to provide education, sports, cultural heritage, and environmental awareness in the community of 3000. By their efforts they have setup a safe house for battered women at which they learn to read and make crafts to be sold for their projects. BREDA has sponsored visiting American physicians to donate their time to teach first response medical techniques.

Despite urban pockets of impoverishment, high levels of unemployment, and low wages, Jaimaicans are a resilient and proud people, taking the future in their own hands with local community groups. Reggae music is heard throughout this luxuriant tropical island and we sometimes heard workers break out in song.

April 2003

Organic Food

Jack Harper

My backyard vegetable garden never saw the likes of pesticides in part because I enjoyed sampling the ripe tomatoes and peppers right off the vine before they reached the kitchen. Now that the garden has succumbed due to our summer travels, we shared a subscription to Bull Run Mountain Vegetable Farm in Fauquier County last season with Amy Hamilton to recover those garden tastes of past years. We weren't disappointed. Not only were there fresh tastes but new tastes such as tatsoi, mizuna, argula, and Tokyo bekana. Although visiting Bull Run Farm was a treat, this year we decided to subscribe to Piedmont Organics at Delaplane, Virginia, in order to get weekly Sunday deliveries of fresh organic fruits and vegetables at our church. Organic farms are always an adventure in trying new varieties and if you have the time, an escape from urban life.

The organic food market is surging ahead at 20% per year, promising to double in just four years. Prices are falling. Since October 2002 organic food labeling has been controlled by the US Department of Agriculture. A USDA label with '100 organic' means that the product has 95% organic ingredients. If the label indicates 'made with organic ingredients' the product must contain 70% organic ingredients. If the label reads 'made with some organic ingredients' then the producer must state the percentage of those ingredients. What foods carry the USDA organic label? Look for fruits, vegetables, orange juice, coffee, wine, cereal, bread, cocoa, yogurt, milk, eggs, cheese, frozen foods, soups, potato chips, granola bars, processed food, chestnuts, beef, chicken, pork, rice, wheat, soybean oil, and soybean meal.

Why bother to buy and eat organic food? The short answer is that it's healthier for you and the environment and tastes better, according to many. It the organic food you buy is locally grown, the added bonus is that it would be fresher, picked for optimum ripeness, and would have lower transportation and packaging costs both to you and the environment. Consumer Reports in a thorough analysis found in 2002 that 23% of organic vegetables it tested had pesticide residues, whereas 65% of conventional vegetables had residues. Of all organic fruit 23 % had pesticide residue, whereas 82% of conventional had residues. The organic vegetables had pesticide residues from outside wind-blown sources, from persistent DDT, and possibly from mislabeling. The EPA lists as potentially cancer-causing 30% of pesticides, 60% of herbicides, and 90% of fungicides.

What distinguishes organic food under the USDA Organic Rule? Organic food is grown on farms using inputs and practices which sustain and enhance their agricultural ecosystems. Organic food production does not use genetically modified organisms (GMO's), synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics, irradiation, or sewage sludge. Levels of polyphenolics (antioxidants) and ascorbic acid (vitamin C) were found to be higher in organically grown fruit than in conventional fruit according to a recent study from the University of California. Organically grown strawberries, blackberries, and corn had 58% more polyphenolics than those conventionally grown. Apparently, plants that receive artificial pesticides do not have to produce as much of their own defensive chemicals, thus lowering the biochemical output beneficial to human consumers.

How are agricultural ecosystems affected by organic farming? Crop rotation, retention of fence rows and wetlands help increase biodiversity. The water quality and ecosystems of streams, lakes, and estuaries is improved when polluting agricultural chemicals are not used. Soil ecosystems are able to reestablish communities of soil-building organisms producing soil strata which resist erosion. Organic farming helps our agricultural ecosystems to responsibly approach sustainability to meet our future needs.

Certified organic farms in our area according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture include: Potomac Vegetable Farms in Vienna (vegetables, flowers, herbs, berries); Wholearth Farms in Reston (vegetables, pestos, flowers); Ayrshire Farm in Upperville (vegetables, tree fruits, chickens, turkeys); Circle of Earth in The Plains (vegetables, grain); Inglewood Farm in Bealton (wheat, corn); Oak Grove Farm in Marshall (vegetables, small berries, tree fruits); Kord Farm in Purcellville (vegetables, herbs, flowers); Patomack Farm in Lovettsville (vegetables, berries, poultry); Sage Hill Farm in Leesburg (vegetables, herbs); and Acorn Community (vegetables, herbs, berries, tree fruits). You may also be able to find organic produce at local farmer's markets in the area. Organic producers with volumes under $5000 are exempt from USDA certification.

Many local grocery stores offer organically grown food including the following: Whole Foods Market (Fresh Fields) has a substantial commitment to organic food. Fresh Fields stores are located in Reston, Springfield, and Vienna. Trader Joe's specialty food stores located in Fairfax and Reston have a wide variety of organic products. Giant with grocery stores throughout the area also promotes organic food. Shoppers Food Warehouse has some organic foodstuffs in its many area stores. The Natural Marketplace in Warrenton carries organic produce and groceries. Healthway Natural Foods in Sterling, Fairfax, Manassas, and Springfield has organic food items.

The burgeoning organic food industry is forcing rethinking by government and conventional producers. An Organic Restoration Act has been sponsored by Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Snow (R-ME) to restore USDA regulations requiring all organic livestock to be fed 100% organic feed as demanded by producers and consumers. The Organic Consumers Association believes that USDA organic standards have been watered down to the least common denominator. More rigorous standards now practiced by many producers promote environmental stewardship, small family farms, local distribution, decent working conditions and compensation. Although some national chains such as Whole Foods Market and Trader Joes have already committed to removing genetically engineered ingredients from their store brand "private label" products, grocery stores such as Food Lion and Safeway have not yet, according to the Organic Consumers Association.

March 2003

Religious Environmentalism

Jack Harper

As a biology student in the 70's and 80's I was taken aback at the cold, objectivity that scientists had in discussing the coming era of human-induced mass extinction and the looming crisis of earth warming, as if the scientists were on another planet looking at the Earth with disinterest. Where was the passion, the emotion, the outrage? At the time of the Enlightenment in the 18th century science and religion went their separate ways, science concentrating on the material world and religion on morality, ethics, and spirituality. Now with the pace of environmental degradation quickening, it has become apparent that science alone will be unable to save the planet. Religion with its world views, its billions of adherents, its institutional wealth, and its dedication to community building may supply the necessary emotional commitment.

Religions around the world have increasingly become environmentally active, sometimes in partnership with environmental organizations. The National Council of Churches and the Sierra Club for the first time last year joined forces to produce TV spots asking Americans to "keep our promise to care for creation" by not destroying special landscapes in the search for oil.

Both science and religion were instrumental in the campaign to clean India's Ganges River. Professor Veer Badhra Mishra who is both a hydrologist and a Hindu priest knew that the sacred duty of bathing in the terribly polluted Ganges was unhealthy. For two decades Mishra has been successful in integrating engineering projects with community involvement to lessen the Ganges' pollution.

The ‘ecology monks’, members of the Sangha (Buddhist monkhood) in Thailand, establish community forests, ordain trees, and teach local people to protect their environment. The 'ecology monks' although small in number act to strengthen social cohesion and environmental sustainability in a nation now largely deforested.

The World Council of Churches representing 400 million Christians plays a key role in international deliberations such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2002. Current activism includes climate change and the environmental effects of economic globalization.

In the United States the National Religious Partnership for the Environment is an alliance for Evangelical, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant environmental activism:

1) The Evangelical Environmental Network states 'that Biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems. Their Declaration of the Care of Creation lists the degradations of Creation as land degradation, deforestation, species extinction, water degradation, global toxification, the alteration of atmosphere, and human and cultural degradation. They state that many of these degradations are 'signs that we are pressing against the finite limits God has set for Creation'. They add that continued population growth will make these degradations of Creation more severe. Evangelicals authored the national 'What Would Jesus Drive?' campaign to fight global warming through discouraging the use of 'gas guzzler' automobiles.

2) The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life sponsors the Global Climate Change Action Center that is now supporting the Bi-partisan Global Warming Bill from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. They also call our car purchases a moral choice in that gas guzzlers will release more carbon dioxide increasing global warming.

3) The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sponsors the Environmental Justice Program which seeks a caring stewardship for the Earth. They assert that we must reassess 'what Genesis means when it tells humankind to subdue the earth and have dominion over all living things on it'.

4) The National Council of Churches Eco-Justice Working Group concentrates on environmental justice, climate change, and energy saving. They sponsor the Interfaith Global Climate Change Campaign with offices in 18 states for planning, advocacy, and education.

The Lutheran World Relief Coffee Project works with the fair trade organization, Equal Exchange, to relieve the suffering of impoverished coffee growers in third world countries by assuring them fair prices regardless of market conditions. They are presently sponsoring a letter writing campaign to encourage Proctor and Gamble's coffee brands, Folger and Millstone, to offer fair trade coffee.

Excessive consumption has long been targeted by religions as corrosive to individuals and societies. Environmentalists see over-consumption as a major factor in ecosystem deterioration and the marginalization of peoples in third world countries. However, the anti-consumerist exhortations of Pope John Paul, the first environmental pope, and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have had little or no effect on consumption.

In Sri Lanka the Sarvodayan movement is a powerful force in more than half of the 24,000 villages. Combining both the spiritual and the material, this development program aims at moderate consumption, stressing that the acquisition of material wealth is for the pursuit of spiritual goals. 'Sarvodaya' means 'Universal Awakening' intended by its Leader, Dr. Ahangamage Tudor Ariyaratne, to have 'awakening' take place not in isolation but through social, economic, and political interaction. Poverty is seen as a sense of personal and collective powerlessness which must be dealt with both materially and spiritually.

Do modern day religious institutions have the social cachet and authority to moderate consumerism, globalization, and population growth which are driving the global environmental crisis? Southeast Asian countries have been ravaged environmentally, spurred by international market forces, even though Buddhism strives for the oneness of humans and nature. In the western world the pronouncements of religious figures are often ignored by a well educated public with access to an array of information sources. In the quest to save Creation (and evolution) and to reach sustainability, religions and environmentalists are pitted against a global economic system whose goal is short term profit, not environmental protection, not community building, and not spirituality. In this battle the synergies derived from environmentalists becoming more spiritual and religions becoming more environmentally knowledgeable would be formidable.

February 2003

Ecotourism

Jack Harper

If only I could return to the paradise (at least for tourists) of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, in 1965, to stroll the flower scented Pacific promenade, to ride horseback on the beaches, to skin dive in pristine bays, and to dine on corvina with mariachi musicians at my elbow. Those were the days when you had to fly in because the roads were impassable during the rainy season. I counted only one old car in town. Two years before we arrived, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton had filmed "Night of the Iquana" nearby and had bought houses there as well. Sad to say, when we returned 15 years later we found paradise lost with wall-to-wall massive hotels, traffic jams, franchises of every kind, and Liz's house, a commodity for tour guides to tout.

In the 1950's when I first traveled abroad there were only 25 million travelers to foreign countries per year. Now there are over 600 million arriving on a fleet of giant cruise ships and wide-bodied jets generating a half trillion dollar tourist industry. Since the 1960's mass tourism along with globalization has penetrated into every corner of the globe invading pristine ecosystems and isolated cultures leaving in its wake environmental damage and compromised communities. As a response to the obvious and growing damage, ecotourism came about to assuage growing public concerns. Ecotourism now represents about a quarter of the tourist industry and is its fastest growing segment.

Ecotourism as defined by The International Ecotourism Society is 'responsible travel to natural areas, which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of local people'. To this, Martha Honey, author of Ecotourism and Sustainable Development would add that ecotourism should respect local cultures, provide financial benefits to local people and for conservation, build environmental awareness, and support human rights and democratic movements.

Australia and Costa Rica have perhaps the best organized ecotourism programs in the world, with Canada, Peru, and Brazil in second place. However, much of the travel industry hypes their greenness only to increase profits. Ecotourism 'lite' companies accomplish only a few of the services whereas 'greenwashing' companies use the 'eco' label without providing benefits to local peoples, their cultures, or environments.

Indigenous communities are no match for the monoculture of global tourism, the largest industry in the world, that makes human cultures simply items for sale. Tourists introduce an alien consumer culture, western products and lifestyles causing societal and psychological change. Tourist developments often generate pollution, waste management problems, and loss of biodiversity. Indigenous peoples may be displaced from their lands, suffer unfair wages and working conditions, and human rights abuses; whereas, they
should be given the right to accept or reject tourism and decide how tourism may or may not impact their cultures and lands. Unfortunately, the forces of globalization through the World Trade Organization value consumers and wage earners above cultures striving for economic self-sufficiency and diversity lying outside of global capitalism.

Third World countries and cultures are more easily ravaged by ecotourism. In East Africa lands were taken away by the British from the pastoralist Masai Tribes to set up privileged white hunting areas and lodges in the 1950's , a precursor to mass tourism. Deprived of part of their economic livelihood and displaced from their lands, their culture has been degraded and commercialized, while some Masai youth have fallen victim to prostitution and AIDS. The indigenous Kankanaeys and Ifugaos of the Philippines have suffered cultural disruption and their lands environmental degradation by mass tourism. Vandalism of sacred sites, the breaking of taboos, and the introduction of drugs has weakened long-held practices vital to their economies and social cohesiveness.

How can a country protect its people and culture from ecotourism? The Kingdom of Bhutan, between Nepal and China, permits only about 5000 tourists a year in order to preserve its culture and environment. The small Baltic nation of Estonia "conserves the environment and sustains the well being of the people" by considering its ecological and social carrying capacities, and designing pricing strategies that benefit both its people and environment. The Koori peoples of Australia now own and operate two of Australia's most important conservation reserves, Uluru and Kakadu in the Northern Territory.

How does the ecotourist plan a trip when there is no global central authority? First, check to see if the tour operator is certified in its country of operation. In Costa Rica look for Sustainable Tourism (CST); in the Galapagos, Smart Voyager; in Australia, The Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP); and in Europe, Blue Flag and Protected Area Network (PAN). Also check with conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, and the Sierra Club for their ecotourism offerings.  Find out if your dollars stay primarily in the host country or are siphoned off to multinational corporations.

Will ecotourism meet the challenge to protect the world's last great places and its indigenous peoples while providing unique experiences for travelers? It will take the combined efforts of tourists, local communities, host countries, conservationists, and multinational travel companies.

January 2003

Computer Recycling

Jack Harper

For years I thought that only a computer nut like me would keep an ancient Apple II, a 70’s vintage Hewlett Packard, and a long outmoded AT&T computer cluttering up the house. Now I discover that three-quarters of the antiquated machines have been squirreled away by people. Is it because of emotional attachments, or the fact that the machines still work, or that we paid over $2000 for each of them? Eventually, hundreds of millions of these obsolete personal computers which are too old to be donated to schools will be junked, if not by us, by our survivors. Already, computer e-waste is becoming a major environmental challenge.

Computer components contain toxic materials including lead, mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants, and PCB’s which can leak from landfills polluting ground water. California and Massachusetts have prohibited CRT monitors in landfills. Recycling of the old machines produces little revenue forcing the consumer to subsidize recycling at $10 to $30 per machine. Some unscrupulous “recyclers” take the consumers money and ship the e-waste to third world countries – China, Pakistan, and India - where materials recovery is carried out under primitive conditions causing human suffering and environmental damage. It is believed that more than half of the e-waste generated in the United States ends up in China, where perhaps 100,000 men, women, and children use strong acid baths and crude fires to separate bits of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium at great cost to themselves.

An investigation of e-waste processing in China conducted by the Basel Action Network in December of 2001 in villages near Guiyu in Guangdong Province found workers using the simplest of tools and their bare hands to separate e-waste into basic metals, circuit boards, and plastics, burning the rest. The smoke and ashes would contain high levels of two deadly persistent organic pollutants - dioxins and furans. Daily inhalation of the fumes have left the villagers with respiratory and skin problems and the possibility of long term carcinogenic effects. Lead-laden monitor glass was dumped on the open land or pushed into rivers leading to such severe pollution of the local water sources that water has to be trucked in.

The problems start here in the United States where computer manufacturers are not obliged to design toxic-free computers or machines that can be safely disassembled and recycled. To further aggravate the e-waste disposal problem the United States is the only developed country that has not signed the Basel Convention prohibiting the export of e-waste to underdeveloped countries. China was one of the first nations to ban the import of e-waste from developed countries in 1996, but this ban is difficult to enforce against the massive outpouring of e-waste from wealthier nations.

Who would have believed that the nation which originated the concept of environmental justice and encoded it into law would also create environmental injustices in third world countries? The United States can correct these injustices by signing the Basel Convention and adopting the European model which requires in directives issued in 2001 that manufacturers be responsible for the recovery of all e-waste and that toxic materials in consumer electronics be eliminated by 2008.

Many American companies have double standards in regard to e-waste. IBM has offered free product take-back programs in certain European countries, but a program that charges $29.99 in the US. Apple has a free take-back program in Germany, but none in the US. Ratings by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition for environmental responsibility of manufacturers in 2001 gave highest marks to Japanese companies, well above American companies, with lowest ratings going to Korean and Taiwanese companies. Here are ten of the environmentally best manufacturers ranked in 2001: Canon, Toshiba, IBM, Fujitsu, Sony, NEC, Hewlett Packard, Brother, Apple, and Hitachi.

Sadly, the United States has not acted as a good world citizen by exempting e-waste from export controls, by actively working against European e-waste directives through the World Trade Organization, and by refusing to honor the Chinese ban against the importation of e-waste. However, you can help by buying products that are lead-free and halogen-free, products that the manufacturer will take back at the end of their service lives, and products that are easily upgradeable. Let your congressional representative and your state officials know of your displeasure of having limited options in disposing of toxic electronic devices that typically end up either in landfills or in third world countries to poison people, soil, air, and water. By all means, before you ‘recycle’ or donate your computer, make sure where your computer is to end up. If you do not get a clear, unequivocal answer, find another means of disposal.

Major computer hardware manufacturers such as Hewlett Packard and Dell have recently begun to recycle all computer brands. Since October 2002, Dell will recycle your machine, recovering 98% of its materials, for the price of shipping it to a specified recycling center. Dell accepts computers, keyboards, mice, monitors, and printers. Shipping and packing instructions are e-mailed to you within 24 hours of your application.

In addition you can donate your machine through a partnership of Dell and the National Cristina Foundation to help disabled and economically disadvantaged children. 486’s and higher CPU’s (all Pentiums) are accepted. Your computer system must have hard drive, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. If your hardware needs repair, it will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Dell will also accept your old machine as a trade up to a new computer. Get a free on-line quote from Dell, order your new computer, and then ship the machine to a specified location. The Dell Auction is another way to dispose of your old computer. To find all these options go to www.dell.com and search for ‘Dell Exchange’.

BRUU   >   GREEN SANCTUARY   >   GREEN CORNER