Hold the confetti; it appears that this celebration is premature and undeserved.

According to the authoritative Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, published earlier this year by the UNEP and the Convention on Biodiversity, this target has far from been met. Furthermore, the Outlook states that of the five main pressures causing a decline in biodiversity— habitat change, over-exploitation, pollution, invasive alien species, and climate change— are at best constant and generally getting worse.

As Ban Ki-Moon, UN Secretary General, warns, “The consequences of this collective failure, if it is not quickly corrected, will be severe for us all.”

Virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through human actions. For example, forests, which once covered over 40% of the Earth, have been reduced by more than 1/3 in the past 50 years, more in the tropics, representing the fastest change in human history.  Thirty-five percent of mangrove forests have been lost, largely to feed our voracious appetite for shrimp.  More than 20% of coral reef areas have been seriously degraded by fishing, agricultural runoff and climate change.

With a loss of such rich and valuable habitat, comes a loss of many species of life.
By one estimate, published in the American Scientist, another extinction occurs somewhere on earth roughly every 20 minutes. At that pace half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years. [1]

Already, an estimated two of every three bird species are in decline worldwide, one in every eight plant species is endangered or threatened, and one-quarter of mammals, one-quarter of amphibians and one-fifth of reptiles are endangered or vulnerable.  

Biodiversity, the diversity of life which supports us and all life on Earth, is rapidly declining, and yet most people could not care less.  Are we that detached from nature, so wound up in lives that we foul our nest and take our survival for granted?

Is money your game? Biodiversity is about much more than saving Pandas. The loss of biodiversity will eclipse the economic impacts of climate change.

Food, medicine and fresh water, the pollination of crops and fertilization of soil, the removal of pollutants from land and air and water are many of the “services” provided through healthy ecosystems.

And yet, our over-use and wasteful habits are bringing us closer to a number of tipping points that would catastrophically reduce the capacity of ecosystems to provide these essential services.

At stake are the principal objectives outlined in the Millennium Development Goals: food security, poverty eradication and healthier populations.

Hell, let’s not beat around the bush. The threats facing life on Earth are greater than at any time in recorded history. Climate change, water shortages, declining forests, the collapse of marine and land habitats from over-harvesting and pollution- symptoms of excessive human demands on the planet’s finite resources which threaten life as we know it.

Our economy, our health, our survival depend on determined action to conserve biodiversity and sustainably manage the world’s resources for ourselves, other species and future generations.

The rewards: better health, greater food security, and less poverty and the conflict promised by more of the same wanton disregard for the environment, social justice and our responsibilities to the future.

More resilient ecosystems will help to slow climate change by enabling ecosystems to absorb and store more carbon; and help ensure greater public health and food security. Actions to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems also can provide economic gains worth trillions of dollars a year.

According to the 3rd Global Diversity Outlook, produced by The Convention on Biological Diversity, an investment of $45bn a year to establish a comprehensive network of protected areas would prevent losses of up to $ 5 trillion a year, resulting from deforestation and forest degradation alone.

As Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary Convention on Biological Diversity poignantly says in the Outlook: “Let us individually and collectively, seize this opportunity; for the sake of current and future generations as indeed biodiversity is life, biodiversity is our life.”

We can no longer plead ignorance; the threat is clear and present. We know what is at stake and we know the causes. For the sake of prosperity, stability and all life on Earth, national rivalries and selfish motivations need to be replaced by enthusiastic international cooperation.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/index.htm

We better care; these tiny organisms gobble up carbon dioxide and produce half the world’s oxygen—equaling that of trees and plants on land. They are the basis for life in the world’s oceans.

According to recent studies led by Dalhousie University, phytoplankton populations are in significant decline, and the implications for both marine life and life on Earth
could be immense.

According to the study, published on July 29^th in Nature, the world is losing an average of one per cent of its phytoplankton each year, and the northern hemisphere has lost roughly 40 per cent since 1950.[1]

The study, which took three years to complete, is the first comprehensive survey of for the global populations of these microscopic organisms and the results are disturbing, that is if you care about life.

In order to understand the significance of this decline, we must first understand the significance of phytoplankton.

Phytoplankton is the staple upon which the entire marine food chain is built.  Phytoplankton is the main source of food for zooplankton, which in turn is the staple for many small fish and other sea creatures, which are then eaten by the bigger fish and large mammals such as seals and whales. A decline of phytoplankton harms the entire food chain, and is contributing mightily to the decline of all life in the ocean.

But the consequences of losing these microscopic beings are far greater!

The role of phytoplankton goes well beyond the marine environment.  Like terrestrial vegetation, phytoplankton photosynthesizes and in doing so consumes carbon dioxide and produces about half of the world’s oxygen supply.

The phytoplankton of the seas provide an enormous carbon sink, one essential for absorbing the huge volumes of carbon we have and increasingly release through fossil fuel consumption. As such Phytoplankton plays an enormous role in the world’s carbon cycle and therefore the stability of the global climate.

What has caused this dramatic decline?

While the exact causes are unclear, researchers of the recent study suspect that there is likely a strong correlation between the decline and rising sea temperatures. As surface water warms, it tends to form a distinct layer that does not mix well with cooler, nutrient-rich water below, depriving phytoplankton of some of the materials they need to turn CO2 and sunlight into energy.

The loss of phytoplankton therefore, seems to be part of a very troublesome feedback loop. Rising ocean temperatures are driving a decline the Earth’s natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide, which is in turn leading to a greater abundance of greenhouse gasses, which leads to warmer oceans.

More than a wake- up call this study should set off alarm bells.  Urgently we need it more research and analysis.  We can’t even begin to address this problem, this broken natural cycle, without a fuller understanding of all the factors that are driving this population decline.

As the CBC reports there have already been calls for drastic intervention and bioengineering schemes to add more nutrients to ocean water to boost phytoplankton growth.[2]

Clearly action is needed, but we should also be wary of the laws of unintended consequences— a law that when combined with hubris and human arrogance is perhaps largely responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place.

In the meantime, on our regularly scheduled program, “The small fish eat the little ones, the big fish eat the small ones, not my problem, give me some! * Well, it is our problem and I encourage you to think about it.

* (With apologies to Radiohead).

[2] http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/07/28/phytoplankton-vanishing.html

It can be a challenge being an ethical consumer. There are many labels out there and how do you know which ones signify a real care for human lives, animal lives and the environment, and which ones are merely trying to sell their products more effectively? Furthermore, there are many different ethical issues you can be concerned about when purchasing goods, for instance, fair trade, locally made, organic, green, vegan, kosher or halal, recycled etc. You may even consider boycotting certain products, due to the manner in which they have been produced or the human, animal or environmental harm they cause. What is most important is that you inform yourself and buy, or refuse to, consciously. It does matter, to others, to other species and to future generations what choices you make.

There are resources you can use to guide you in your purchases. Ethical Consumer is one among a number of organizations, which collects and categorizes information about companies according to their performance in five main areas, composing the “ethiscore.” Ethical consumer looks at the impacts on the environment (environmental reporting, nuclear power, climate change, pollution and toxics, habitats and resource), the impacts on people (human rights, workers’ rights, supply chain policy, irresponsible marketing), the impacts on animal welfare (animal testing, factory farming) and the politics behind the products and production chains (political activity, boycotts, genetic engineering, anti-social finance, companies’ codes of conduct), and finally product sustainability (organic, fair trade).

Ethical consumerism is not just an individual choice or problem. Obviously the need for ethical behaviour in the global market place is also a national and international responsibility. The fact is that ethical consumption only matters if large amounts of people gather around it, and that sometimes requires our national and international leaders to take action. Elsewhere I have written about Canada’s trading relationship with China. At the moment, Canada’s trade relationship with China is one of great imbalance. China sells us cheap consumer goods and electronics and we sell them raw resources: agricultural produce, pulp, lumber, oil and gas, coal, minerals, and metallic ore. While China has been shamed for their environmentally unsound practices and human rights violations, they are now on board for pursuing a more sustainable path to economic development. They have acknowledged that their current approach simply cannot be maintained. China is showing leadership and taking the initiative to chart sustainable economic growth and development and it is Canada’s responsibility to support this development through international relationships of exchange. China’s economy is going to drive the 21^st century, and how Canada relates to that economy is going to determine our future in this new century.

The best thing would perhaps be not to buy anything all together, but that is virtually impossible. Do we really need that much money? Do we really need the latest high tech gadget? Maybe first it would help if we evaluate our lifestyles and determine what it is we really need versus what it is we just want (and whether we really need it). Stuff is never going to make us happy in the end. Reducing our overall consumption is one of the best things we can do for the environment.

Consumption is not just about what you buy, the informed choices that you make in the store, but about how you live your life. When we move around, transport ourselves, when we plan our meals, when we go travel we are consuming too. That means that we have to make informed choices about our daily routines and living standards. Take the bus or use your bike, rather than your car. Plant your own vegetable garden, or get involved in a community garden project (see http://vancouver.ca/parks/parks/comgardn.htm). Buy more second-hand items or organize a community garage sale. Not only can you trade with your neighbours, you will also make stronger ties and start building community. You can borrow your neighbours’ power tools next time rather than buying some for that one-off project you want to do. And if you love your job you may not want to retire early and may need to save less for retirement! These are all examples of ethical living, ways of supporting sustainability through choices you make on a daily basis and in the larger scheme of life. Starting a revolution is a great idea but sometimes that revolution needs to start at home and within our own hearts first.

Recommended further readings and links

John McMurtry (1998): Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market As An Ethical System. Toronto: Garamond and Westport.

World Watch – Transforming Cultures: http://blogs.worldwatch.org/transformingcultures/

Ethical Consumer Canada: http://www.ethicalconsumer.ca/

Canada holds the third largest reserves of renewable freshwater, as much as 20% of the world’s supply.

And we use a lot of it. We use four times more water than European cities with similar standards of living and more than 200 times more than residents of water-poor nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo. Canadians consume 350 liters of water a day per capita, second only to the Americans. According to the CBC, the average person needs only between 20 and 40 liters of water a day for drinking and sanitation.

While we have and use a lot of water, we are also very protective of it. On the one hand, Canada has steadfastly refused to commodify water.  Commercial bulk- exports of water are banned, and talk of pipelines going south of the border is decidedly off the table. Canada realizes that once we set a precedent of selling water, the Americans will argue that it is a commodity and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of NAFTA.  At that point we would stand to lose all control over our water supplies.

While we oppose commercialization and commodification of water we also have opposed the recognition of water as a human right, as a fundamental component of life and, more concretely, a necessary part humanitarian relief.  On July 28^th of this year, after more than 15 years of debate on the issue, the UN decreed access to fresh water to be a human right. 122 countries voted in favor of the motion, while 41 abstained— including Canada, the United States, and Britain.

The non-binding text “declares the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of the right to life. It notes that roughly two million people die every year from diseases caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation, most of them small children. The resolution points to the pledge made by world leaders in 2000 as part of the poverty-reduction Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to reduce by half, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and sanitation.

The resolution urges states and international organizations to provide financial and technological assistance to help developing countries “scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable water and sanitation for all.”

The resolution does not obligate the water-rich signatories to export water abroad.

Nonetheless, it seems that even the slightest potential infringement on Canada’s water sovereignty is enough to send us running for safety, even if that means thirsty others are left behind.

Maude Barlow, a former senior adviser to the UN General Assembly on the water issue, said Canada and the others abstained out of fear “that they are going to be asked to pay the price tag” or that the resolution would give “tools to their own people to use against them.”[1]

It is now an overused adage that fresh water is going to be the oil of the 21^st century, and that as it becomes increasingly scarce, its value will exponentially increase, and that soon a “liquid gold rush” will be upon us. Water may have commercial value, and that may be on the rise, but water is fundamentally different than gold. It is a necessity, not a luxury,  and without it life is not possible.
Profiteering would be reprehensible and incredibly dangerous. Water-starved people will not go down without a fight. If we don’t help them there, more are surely coming here.

By 2030, it is expected that 47 percent of the global population will be living in areas of high water stress.  As water becomes increasingly scarce, it is expected that food supplies around the world will decrease, individuals will be displaced from their homes, forced to become environmental refugees, and competition for freshwater resources will increase to a fevered pitch.  Competition for water is already commonplace. 145 nations contain regions located within international river basins.  These shared water resources may be the foundation for international “water wars” if we aren’t careful.

Rather than accept the inevitability of water-related conflict, trans-boundary cooperation must be encouraged, indeed actively pursued.  This cooperation may entail shared water protection and management plans or the development of cooperation agreements.  International cooperation, coupled with informed domestic management and political decisions, will be critical for maintaining peace and resolving the problems inherent to global water scarcity.

To be good water stewards, it is important that we take a proactive and scientifically informed approach to water protection and management.  It is not enough to simply react to water crises.  Water knows no political boundaries and effortlessly flows across municipal, provincial and international borders.  Therefore, it is important that all levels of government and communities cooperate and develop a multi-jurisdictional, integrated approach to the protection of our water supply and quality.

For the good of both Canada and the world’s security and prosperity, we need to accept the responsibility that comes with our bounty of fresh-water. We need to treat water as the life-giving fundamental that it is, and abandon the illusion that it is the latest ticket to getting rich quick. More than oppose the mass commodification of water— something Canada should be lauded for so far doing— we need to begin actively looking for ways to put this protected wealth to good use,  to provide humanitarian support to those in need.

[1] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gFw3sC1VZUGBBXghGSeA-vRwYQoA

Companies have always ranged from those who follow the rules and act responsibly to those willing to try getting away with murder. Among the first companies to establish more formal standards of conduct were those reeling from the US defence contract scandals of the 1980’s. In response, and perhaps to stave off public and government demands for corrective action, companies developed voluntary compliance mechanisms as a demonstration of efforts to clean up their messes before the courts did it for them.

The credibility of any code of practice ultimately depends on whether or not it is taken seriously by respected industry, labour, public and government agencies and that, in turn, hinges on the effectiveness of monitoring, transparency and accountability. While self-regulation may look appealing, and was at the time heralded as proof that the invisible hand of the market works, it is in fact incredibly problematic. It may be easy enough for a firm to enforce a certain code within its own brick and mortar, but what about its contractors, suppliers and foreign operations? Without proper oversight there is no way of knowing if corporations are in fact meeting their self-prescribed codes of conduct. Self-regulation, for all practical purposes, is non-regulation, and all too often a prescription for disaster.

Today, the responsibility for ethical conduct is greater than ever. According to Fortune Magazine and the World Bank, 63% of the world’s largest 100 economic entities are corporations. Remarkably, Wal-Mart, BP, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group all rank in the 25 largest economic entities in the world, above countries that include Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Denmark, Poland, South Africa, and Greece.

This is especially problematic because the nation state is the primary arbiter of human rights and environmental regulation when it comes to multinational corporations (MNCs). In international law, MNC’s do not exist as subjects in the same way that nation states and individuals do. They are acknowledged only as “objects” with nowhere near the same amount of responsibilities despite their enormous power. It is the obligation of each state to ensure that within their sovereign territory all international treaties and protocols on issues like the environment and human rights are fulfilled.

The rise of such enormous corporate power has often enabled private pursuit of profit to overcome public interests. Strong governments in the West may be able to reign in large corporations if they choose to do so. However, governments in the global South— desperate for economic development and plagued by corrupt officials— stand little chance against these enormous entities, let alone largely defenseless populations.

It seems we are witnessing a classic “race to the bottom” scenario, where developing nations must “compete” for corporate investment by ceding environmental regulation, compromising the health and safety of workers, and disregarding their human rights. Poisoned air, water, food, and people are far too often accepted as the price of progress.

To be fair, not all corporations should be maligned with the same brush of reckless irresponsibility. Multinational corporations have played an important part in healthier development. Foreign corporations have partnered with governments and civil societies to inject important investments, infrastructure, and expertise into developing economies, as well as to help guide better labour, health and environmental practices. Notable examples of such laudable corporations personally known to me include Royal Bank of Canada, The Co-operators Insurance Company, the Bank of Montreal, and General Electric.  My only regret is that more companies don’t exhibit the same leadership.

Please don’t misjudge me as naïve; every company has room for improvement in their social and environmental practices.  The question is how do we ensure fair labour practices and the protection of human health and the environment a core part of corporate culture?

Fortunately, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has become mainstream, adopted at least in rhetoric and gesture by many of the world’s largest organizations.  In many ways this new trend in CSR is a result of globalization. Today’s communication is such that news, both good and bad, is shared widely and instantly. To counter bad publicity and to build a reputable brand image more and more corporations are turning towards well-publicized CSR initiatives.

Regardless of the motives, it is undoubtedly a good thing that CSR is becoming established in the business world. However, just because corporations have undertaken these seemingly principled initiatives should not mean that they be left unregulated and to their own devices. Corporations recognize the value of good public relations and good public image, but that value always will be measured in dollars and subject to cost-benefit analysis. If cutting corners on environment and public health saves more money than good PR, then that is what will be usually be done. It is an unfortunate truth that many businesses and individuals put economic interests and personal gains ahead of principles and integrity.

History has made clear that while some corporations have done genuinely good work and contributed to sustainable development, not all are so benevolent when left to set their own standards for ethical conduct. Famous incidents of corporate failure include Shell Oil in Nigeria, Union Carbide in Bhopal, India, Hooker Chemical in New York’s Love Canal, Japan’s Chisso Corporation in Minamata Bay, and Chevron Texaco in Ecuador, Angola, and Nigeria, and they may be the tip of iceberg.

The unfettered free market does not work for the people.  The fundamental rights and needs of human beings and the environments and cultures that support us should not be dependent on corporate goodwill. We need to place higher demands on all businesses to adopt ethical practices at home and abroad at the highest possible standards.

As Einstein once said, “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”  Unfortunately, Einstein may be right. However while we may be a “sorry lot,” we are neither hopeless  nor powerless to change our behavior or that of those around us. To this end, we should turn to another piece of Einstein’s  wisdom, “The problems we have today, cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them.”

In practical terms that means we must change the way we approaching the challenges of the day. Self-regulation created many of  the corporate problems we face today, and it is nothing but foolish to expect self-regulation to solve them. We must create and enforce international standards for business ethics, ensure that international impartial observers have the power to change behavior, to punish and reward accordingly.

Multinational corporations have social and environmental responsibilities to the peoples and environments from which their enterprises profit. It is our duty to ensure that these responsibilities are respected.

In the western world a strong belief seems to have rooted itself that our way of knowing the world and living in it is the best and that other so-called underdeveloped” societies need to be either helped or forced to achieve our standard of living. I recently read Wade Davis’ The Wayfinders. This book presents striking cases of dazzling contributions so-called primitive cultures have made to the sum total of human knowledge before being overrun by the juggernaut of “progress.” The question we must ask ourselves, before it is too late, is: Can we find room in our world for societies that use traditional knowledge to survive and save ourselves from extinction? They have a lot to share with us about how to live in the world and with or without our permission they have the right to adequate space for themselves.

We have already missed some valuable opportunities to learn the knowledge of simple and sustainable solutions to our problems from indigenous societies long gone. Colonization wiped out many indigenous societies, brutally and without regard for the human lives lost.

European colonizers generally saw the indigenous people they encountered in “The New World” as primitive inferiors; children to be taught European standards of living at best; wild and dangerous animals to be disciplined or extinguished once they no longer served a purpose as slave labour. The colonizers ignored or disdained the rich cultural heritage that was lost in their misguided attempts at “bettering” both “The Old” and “The New” world and advancing humanity through the colonization process. In fact most indigenous people encountered during colonization represented complex social structures and comprised flourishing societies highly proficient in their environment. The world would probably have been better off today if colonizing powers had been less keen on killing the natives and destroying their environment, thereby digging their graves (and perhaps our own).

Davis makes the same point about other cultures. The aboriginal peoples of Australia, once a million strong, now reduced by 50%, spoke 270 languages. They are the closest descendants of the first human beings to leave Africa and offer one of the great experiments in human thought. But they were hunted like animals by white settlers. Today, we are losing those languages at the rate of one per year; only 18 are now spoken by more than 500 people.

Another example of lost traditional knowledge comes from Polynesia, where there has been a revival of traditional knowledge with the sailing of the Hokulea, a re-creation of an ancient Polynesian vessel, first from Hawaii to Tahiti and then from Hawaii to the Easter Islands, without the aid of electronic navigational equipment or even a compass. Such an amazing feat proves that Thor Heyerdahl was completely wrong in his assumption that colonizers to Polynesia could only have come from South America. They came from New Guinea as long ago as 1500 BC, traveling fantastic distances using “wayfinders” (hence the book’s title). They were navigators who sensed the presence of islands by reading stars, the sea, wind, clouds and light. “One of the tragedies of history,” Davis writes, “was the failure of early Europeans to make any effort to study and record this extraordinary repository of seafaring knowledge.”

Colonization is of course not just a historical event. The indigenous cultures that have survived until today are under constant threat from the surrounding world of having their environment and traditional knowledge destroyed. The idea that those that do not live in cities or speak majority languages (i.e. English or Spanish or Mandarin) are “backwards” is deeply rooted in western perceptions of superiority and dominion. But reading The Wayfinders, we see what detrimental impact such ignorance can have on our own lives and how we could benefit immensely from revalidating traditional knowledge. This requires, of course, respect and a renewed attention to the protection of indigenous people, their way of life and their environments.

Why does ancient wisdom matter? Because these people have lived on Earth for millennia without destroying it, whereas Europeans have been “improving” The New World (having already trashed The Old World) for barely 500 years, and have brought it to the edge of ecological extinction. “The entire purpose of humanity,” according to aboriginal thought, Davis writes, “is not to improve anything. It is to engage in the ritual and ceremonial activities deemed to be essential for the maintenance of the world precisely as it was at the moment of creation.”

It may not be too late. Revival of ancient customs and wisdom, such as has taken place in Polynesia, is also taking place among the Inuit of northern Canada, aboriginal peoples of northwest British Columbia, the dwellers of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in Amazonia, and elsewhere around the world.

Soon the majority of the world’s population will be living in urban settlements. We need to stop and listen to those voices sharing with us great wisdom on how we can live in harmony with each other, other species and future generations before we end up living in armed enclaves of pollution, disease and grinding poverty surrounded by nature so degraded it is unable to any longer provide us with the essentials of life.

Recommended further readings:

Wade Davis (2009): The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in The Modern World. Anasi Press.

Ronald Wright  (2004): A short History of Progress. Anasi Press.

Modern day industrial agriculture is a major sinner in the global food crisis. This has to do on the one hand with the inequitable trading and consumption patterns. On the other hand, it has to do with the global health problems and epidemics that result from large scale industrial farming.

Industrial farming methods generally disrupt eco-systems and produce unhealthy foods. The use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers contaminants soil and water and pollutes the natural environment. Soil degradation, through topsoil erosion, salinization, and soil compaction result in reduced soil fertility. The inefficient use of freshwater resources is another major concern. With most irrigation, only a portion of the fresh water withdrawn is returned to its source and much water is lost to inefficiency. Consequently ground and surface water depletes, which can cause sinking land, salt water intrusion, groundwater salinization and lowered water levels in lakes and streams.

Declining biodiversity is another important consideration. Growing a wide variety of crops is essential to agricultural production and overall food security. It has been shown that crop diversity contributes to resilience in farming systems and nutrient enhancement. In addition, it can benefit pollination, soil fertility, insect and disease management and water retention. Despite this array of advantages, industrial farming has tended toward a dependency on an increasingly smaller number of high-yielding crop varieties. For example, by the year 2000 in the United States, more than 6000 of the 7000 varieties of apples that were grown one hundred years earlier had gone extinct. In that same year, 73 percent of all lettuce grown was one variety: iceberg. Mono crop systems are not sustainable. They are far more vulnerable to pest outbreaks, reduce soil nutrients and, to be maintained, require heavy reliance on pesticides, herbicides fertilizers and irrigation.

Industrial agriculture’s ways of keeping livestock is not only torturous to the animals being kept under horrid conditions, but poses health risks to humans. Since the mid-2000s the world has seen various outbreaks of H5N1, also known as bird flu. The pandemic has claimed hundreds of human lives, and has caused massive economic losses for farmers in South East Asia especially who have been forced to cull their birds by the millions.

Another pandemic that is rarely talked about as a result of modern day industrial agriculture is obesity. Industrial farming’s preference for crop varieties that produce large amounts of cheap food has resulted in an emphasis on appearance, storability and transportability. The benefit is ease of shipment over long distances where foods are out-of-season or not grown. However, we often overlook the lower nutritional content of these foods. Studies have shown that the vitamin and mineral content of fruits and vegetables has been declining over the past six decades. For example, the modern tomato contains approximately 31 percent less vitamin A, and 17 percent less vitamin C than its 1963 counterpart. Comparing nutrient tables from the 1930s and 1980s, a British study showed several marked declines in minerals essential to the human diet in fruits and vegetables. These minerals (can we name them?) are necessary for energy efficiency, fertility, mental stability and immunity. The connections between unhealthy, low nutrient food and obesity are obvious.

We need to make the connection to the political and economic decisions behind industrial agriculture’s  rise as well. Industrial agriculture is favoured over small scale family farming through subsidies and preferential policies. Industrial agriculture produces cheap food. When healthy, organic alternatives are  so expensive and small scale farming is economically unviable for individual farmers, it is no wonder that many opt for the cheaper albeit less healthy industrial alternatives. Some are forced to by poverty and some choose to out of convenience or ignorance. However, what society is left with is an enormous bill in trying to deal with the many health and social issues arising from obesity or malnourishment.

Food security is realized when “all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for an active and healthy life.” This has yet to be achieved on a global scale.

The current global food situation is not acceptable. Access to adequate food should be considered a basic human right. While I recognize that solving the inequality of the existing system will take time it must be a priority. The issue is complex and there is no single solution. However, ownership-based agriculture – which allows individuals access to food grown in their own local regions – is one way to achieve positive change.

This is not a matter of local food being “good” and global food being “bad.” It should, however, be clear that more sustainable and ecologically responsible food practices are critical to the health and survival of us and the natural environment. Sustainability means producing food that is healthy for consumers, does not deplete natural resources or damage the environment, respects animals, provides fair wages and supports local communities.

The issue of healthy and sustainable food requires us to be conscientious, ecologically and socially responsible consumers. We have choices. We can choose to purchase local, organic and ethically produced food. We can choose to grow some of our own food. And we can choose to create communities, whose key values are caring for the planet, caring for each other and being responsible stewards of land and resources for future generations.

If you were the leader of the world, would you allow poverty, war, hunger, pollution and environmental deterioration? The answer is obvious to any decent person: No! Then why in the world does a newborn today inherit a place where humanitarian, political and environmental disasters occur daily and worsen with time?

Great leaders offer a vision for society and the world that will advance and enhance the quality of life today and in the future. They also possess the insight, persuasiveness and determination to bring people together to solve problems and make good opportunities become reality. Unfortunately, the leadership that we see today, in Canada and elsewhere, looks little like the ideal. The consequences are painfully evident. In a world of plenty, we have millions of poor children and families facing starvation and health epidemics, or displaced by conflict and environmental disasters.

Some of these problems are new and some are old, but all of them persist because today’s leaders seem to no longer aspire to solving complex problems, they simply manage them or pass them on. Others hide behind unconquerable mountains of bureaucracy. Sitting comfortably behind their desks, far removed from the daily problems the average citizen faces as a result of bad public policy, they prefer managing problems to solving the underlying issues.

The corruption of leadership

Our society and its elite have become so heavily focused on economic growth and business development that other issues and those addressing them struggle to get on the agenda. We have a disproportionately high percentage of leaders from business and law compounding the problem of single-mindedness and raising the risk of individual attraction to opportunities for personal gain, which results in corruption. Of course we need to provide reasonable compensation for public service but is it appropriate that elected officials by and large decide their own salaries and benefits without public oversight? Is that why salaries for Members of Parliament have risen substantially over the past 10 years? Was it our choice that our political leaders and their senior bureaucrats have become the new aristocracy, with salaries and gold-plated pensions that dramatically exceed not only what the average taxpayer receives, but rates in the private sector?

Canada prides itself of its democracy, which rests on a number of honourable principles: accessibility, accountability and transparency. A democracy is only truly democratic if all citizens have the opportunity to participate. The principle of accountability holds that the leaders, whether elected or appointed, are responsible to the citizenry for their decisions and actions. Transparency requires that the decisions and actions of those in government are open to public scrutiny. Increasingly our leaders fail to honour these principles in a desperate attempt of self-perseverance.

Our local, provincial and federal politicians have for too long embraced an absurd and somewhat desperate belief in infallibility. The irony is that democracy rests on such an ability to acknowledge and respect different perspectives, argue for ones standpoint, but face criticism and engage in constructive debate about the possible flaws in one’s reasoning. Today however, our leaders and the governing bodies they represent are so afraid of liability that they would rather never admit to a mistake than apologize for their human fallibility and constructively engage civil society in correcting such mistakes.

Our responsibilities

Surely we get the leaders we deserve. They are raised and grow in our communities; they go to our schools and belong to our families where leadership development begins. Our leaders have failed us, sometimes miserably, in solving our problems and providing the promised better lives for more and more people. But perhaps, we have failed ourselves too in choosing our leaders and passively submitting to their short-sighted, self-centered decision-making.

I know there is much fatigue after so many disappointments from so many insincere leaders seemingly more interested in power and wealth than the public good. Poor leadership and bad public policy bears some responsibility for this apathy. And perhaps we are living too comfortably in our privileged part of the world to care. Duped by the media and public spending on self-affirming celebratory events rather than social and environmental problems, many have abdicated their responsibilities to govern our leaders. But let’s not get complacent. While public participation depends somewhat on great leadership and a real commitment on behalf of our leaders to be accessible and accountable and open to criticism, public participation also requires a genuine and strong will on behalf of the public to get involved. It’s our job to help them do a better job and let them know when they do not.

Recommended further readings and links

• Information about Six Nations, including many links: http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/

How are we doing? It is a commonly held view that rather than serving society, our universities are self-validating circles of elitism and privilege drawing heavily on public resources to perpetuate themselves and to support their corporate and political benefactors. Every student you meet today, rich or poor or in-between, seems to graduate with a mountain of debt and worries.  Government support has declined appreciably; universities favour researchers who attract grants over teachers who turn out well-informed young adults ready and able to contribute, not only professionally, but as members of society.

Surely society needs well-trained experts, but perhaps more importantly society needs knowledgeable and competent citizens to fulfill a variety of roles including participation in maintaining a vibrant democracy, economy and society.  Success depends on teachers who push the boundaries of thinking so that their students can respond to the challenges and opportunities of our time. Why then are universities increasingly turning out highly specialized workers to fulfill very specific roles in society, with the primary objective of enhancing economic growth? Despite all of the rhetoric about multi-disciplinary education and breaking down the silos, our universities continue to promote specialization and under-value the comprehensive learning and thinking needed to address the complex challenges of our world. Worse still, a society increasingly pre-occupied, indeed obsessed with, economic growth is ill-prepared to address the myriad social, environmental and ethical problems facing us as a global civilization.

Universities and their researchers have always needed support from government or benevolent sponsors to realize their various projects. In more recent times it has become quite common for large corporations to fund research projects that relate directly to their corporate interests. This is very problematic and has been criticized widely by the academic community as well as public interest groups. The risks of interference and manipulation have been well documented. These concerns, however, have not stalled the process. Rather, corporate funding for research seems to be more prevalent in the universities today than ever before. Add in corporate brand promotion directly to students and the line clearly has been crossed from philanthropy to influence peddling.

Arguably there are pros and cons to corporate involvement with public universities. Some collaborations may be more fruitful than others. If the money is well spent and the work is meaningful and objectively reviewed, then okay. But when corporations tie their money to certain research goals and projects and even dominate the outcome and findings, intellectual freedom and critical analysis is compromised, and questions are raised about whether or not our universities remain objective sources of new knowledge and ideas.

Society needs academics to critically reflect on and provide solutions for social, economic, political and environmental problems in the world. Just as the problems of the world are interconnected, the analysis and solutions that universities provide should bridge a wide array of disciplines and discourage narrow disciplinary approaches. The traditional division of various research streams into departments and faculties may reflect the organizational needs of university directors and administrators. These artificial divisions are, however, counterproductive in producing citizens and solutions that can most effectively address the complexities of global issues.

To this end the university also needs to strengthen connections with communities and their residents based on mutual respect and common purpose. The practice of the university as an “ivory tower,” which still taints our universities, needs to be reformed. We must not allow elitism to govern their purpose or practices. Universities need to better reflect the democratic principles upon which our society is founded and ensure accessibility for people from all walks of life and the communities they serve. The universities would be enriched if they recognized that many “others” possess valuable knowledge and expertise that could contribute to the work and teaching done at universities.

Our generation and those to follow face some monumental challenges. Climate change, poverty and homelessness, the decline of marine and terrestrial environments, lack of clean water, deforestation and decreasing bio-diversity, discrimination, hatred and weapons of mass destruction are but a few. If we can find billions for the Olympic Games and to subsidize the hugely profitable oil and gas industry and the weapons race, surely we can find the money to provide accessible, quality education for all citizens, without regard to social or economic status. The benefits to society will be enormous. That is, if we want well-informed, well-rounded students able to think critically, participate actively in our democracy and contribute to finding solutions for the many problems our world faces.

Recommended further readings

Arthur, James and Bohlin, Karen (eds.): Citizenship and Higher Education The Role of Universities in Communities and Society. UK: Routledge

Brightman, H. J. and Gutmore. D. (2002): The Educational-Industrial Complex. In: Educational Forum 66(4):302-308

Kaplan, G. R. (1996): Profits R Us: Notes on the Commercialization of America’s Schools. In: Phi Delta Kappan 78(3):K1-K12

Molnar, A. (2003-2004): Cashing In On the Classroom. In: Educational Leadership 61(4):79-84

We tend to think of government as the ultimate civil authority, prescribing rules and regulations that everyone must follow. In fact, government should serve society. However, in Canada today we see a tendency for government and its institutions to become increasingly self-serving. Our elected representatives seem to have forgotten from where they derive their power and that their primary responsibilities are to the people, not to their party, or special interests who fund their campaigns and careers. They were meant to exercise power for the greater good and to provide opportunity and protection for all citizens, not for personal gain for themselves or their cronies.

The question is: What are we going to do about it? We can shout to the TV from our couches that elected officials are a bunch of crooks. We can neglect to vote and do little or nothing else to exercise our democratic rights and responsibilities. Or, if we care about maintaining our democracy, we must participate in it. Unless we contribute to its upkeep and maintenance we put it and our freedoms at risk.

Public participation

In today’s representative democracy, it is imperative that we ensure public participation in decision making processes, or the democracy may wither and die. I have come to believe that at the heart of sustainable community development is a personal commitment every person must make to live within the limits of the environment that surrounds him or her, and to recognize and take responsibility for the ways our lifestyle choices affect others and the planet. If this commitment is made, our daily practices begin to reflect this, and day-to-day decisions increasingly will result in sustainable outcomes.

There are numerous benefits of public participation. Economically, citizen participation is estimated in value at between 8 and 14 percent of GDP in countries that have been studied. Also, were it not for public participation, many services would not be offered, or they would be far more costly to the community. Socially, public participation yields considerable benefits. Each citizen exercises his or her choice to participate. This alone produces a positive benefit because, as citizens, we have the need to have the information and skills to make good choices. Further, by participating, citizens contribute to the greater good of the community in ways that are both enjoyable and personally fulfilling. Another benefit of public participation is that citizens have a chance to learn and grow, to achieve something and be recognized for their good work and to work together to build a sense of community based on mutual respect. As citizens work together to make decisions or complete a project, a community naturally becomes a more harmonious place to live.

The vicious cycle

This kind of individual commitment cannot happen en masse, of course, unless leaders engage citizens in dialogue-based policy and decision-making. The discrepancy between official commitment to public participation and leaders’ actual fear of it creates a vicious cycle. While scared politicians become increasingly detached from the society they are supposed to serve, the public becomes increasingly alienated from politics and democracy. We see the evidence of this in low voter turnouts at every single Canadian election or referendum. What we are experiencing more generally is an apathetic, apolitical attitude among Canadians. The attitude is not surprising: when our leaders are neither accessible nor accountable, what is the point in trying to reach them? When public participation is reduced to “tokenism,” why should we care? While our leaders may have lead us down in their pursuit of power and wealth, we have also let ourselves down when we gave up trying to engage our leaders in conversation or protest their bad decision making and incapability to take actions needed to make the world a better, safer and more prosperous place for everybody.

Realizing the benefits of public participation in community decision-making does not happen overnight. Successful leaders are those who realize that sustainable community development is a long-term commitment. It depends not only on their leadership, but the active support of local residents. We need fresh new ideas and innovative leadership to help transform urban growth into a positive movement toward long-term prosperity, social justice, and ecological stability.

Recommended further readings and links

Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In JAIP 35(4):216-224.

Links:

• Policy Note, progressive blog about BC issues: http://www.policynote.ca/