The World Wildlife Fund has published its “The Living Planet – 2012′ report.  Available here lpr_2012_final_120507[1]  or here

The situation remains bad, and the trend for overconsumption and exploitation and rampant degradation continues.

• The Living Planet Report uses the global Living Planet Index to measure changes in the health of the planet’s ecosystems by tracking 9,000 populations of more than 2,600 species. The global Index shows almost a 30 per cent decrease since 1970, with the tropics the hardest hit – where there has been a 60 per cent decline in less than 40 years. Just as biodiversity is on a downward trend, the Earth’s Ecological Footprint, one of the other key indicators used in the report, illustrates how our demand on natural resources has become unsustainable
• The top ten countries with the highest ecological footprint per capita are: Qatar, Kuwait, the  UAE,  Denmark, United States of America, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Netherlands and Ireland
• Declines in biodiversity since 1970 have been most rapid in the lower income countries – demonstrating how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidizing the lifestyles of wealthier countries. Decreasing biocapacity (a region’s capacity to regenerate resources) will require a country to import essential resources from foreign ecosystems – potentially to the long-term detriment of the latter.

The report discusses the status of our water, our forests, and also of the dolphins, the Atlantic cod fish, the tigers, and more… 

The report presents climate change projections (from the IPCC)

It is a good summary of the devastating state of our planet.

The general recommendations are fine (see page 107 of the document) – but it is the details – and omissions –  that matter.  There remains a failure to acknowledge the real problem: our economic system, and thus a failure to present a real solution: a new economic model. Rather, the solutions are ones that are presented to be accepted rather than to create change.

Specifically, there is a focus on economic accounting of the environment.  Yes, fine. Let’s measure – through quite problematic economic tools (I know, I taught them) – the ‘value’ of biodiversity goods and services, and then include those measurements within our system.  So? Is the lack of proper ‘accounting’ the reason for such exploitation and consumption and greed?

 there remains an acceptance of the current economic model as the route to sustainability while it is the current economic model that has led to this crisis – both environmentally and economically.  The current global economic system is at direct odds with sustainability, with livelihoods, and with a local, collaborative management of shared resources.  

 we need to understand that the reason that biodiversity is being lost is not for a lack of economic accounting, per se, but because of the economic market that encourages the commodification, privatization, and conversion of biological resources into objects to be sold for profit.  It is critical that we not venture into allowing environmental resources to become mere commodities.  For example, the Payment for Ecological Services (PES) puts a price tag on ecological goods – clean air, water, soil etc, – and the services such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration that sustain them. A market model of PES is an agreement between the “holder” and the “consumer” of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. By so doing, there becomes a serious risk that these environmental commons can be accumulated by those able to ‘buy’ it and thus additional vulnerabilities and unsustainabilties are created.  This applies both on a local national scale, and on a global scale.

there are healthy models out there – and here we can learn from ecology itself.  see here for an excellent discussion on how to build an ‘ecological civilization’ – one built on diversity and self-regulation.  http://monthlyreview.org/2011/01/01/ecological-civilization

We also can build one based on previous human models — such as the ones that Elinor Ostrom brilliantly highlighted in her research on the commons in her book ‘governing the commons’.  see here:

The heart of this study is an in-depth analysis of several long-standing and viable common property regimes, including Swiss grazing pastures, Japanese forests, and irrigation systems in Spain and the Philippines. Although Ostrom insists that each of these situations must be evaluated on its own terms, she delineates a set of eight “design principles” common to each of the cases. These include clearly defined boundaries, monitors who are either resource users or accountable to them, graduated sanctions, and mechanisms dominated by the users themselves to resolve conflicts and to alter the rules. The challenge, she observes, is to foster contingent self-commitment among the members: “I will commit myself to follow the set of rules we have devised in all instances except dire emergencies if the rest of those affected make a similar commitment and act accordingly.”

Ostrom concludes that “if this study does nothing more than shatter the convictions of many policy analysts that the only way to solve common pool resource problems is for external authorities to impose full private property rights or centralized regulation, it will have accomplished one major purpose.”

 

I am constantly puzzled when environmental organizations – and others claiming to work for environmental sustainability – present meek ‘solutions’ – basically bandages on a failing, destructive economic model — rather than strive towards building something positive, something that could actually solve the problem and create an egalitarian world.

Fortunately, there are courageous, wise environmentalists – who recognize the link between environmental health and human rights, between sustainability and livelihoods. Examples include the Global Water Justice Movement and the Our Commons movement and the Via Campensino movement and many others…

I want to share this story with you.  It reminds us that we are connected – not just with each other, but with all beings on this magical earth.

 A man was able to reach out to traumatized, wild elephants in South Africa. 

And when he died, the wild elephants somehow knew they had lost an amazing friend, and they marched to his home to pay homage to him.

 

Here is the story:

http://delightmakers.com/news-bleat/wild-elephants-gather-inexplicably-mourn-death-of-elephant-whisperer/

Read it all and read it slowly. 

And read it with the recognition that these stories themselves are not anamolies.

 There are numerous stories of communication between humans and (non-human) animals, and even a few between humans and plants.  There are numerous stories of friendship across species.  The word ‘family’ gains a larger meaning here. As does, in its very essence, our view of the environment and of each other.  Animals are no longer ‘things’ to be used and discarded for our desires. Rather, they are friends.

What if, just what if, each of us on this earth were to be this gentle and loving towards the other animals as this man was? What kind of a world would we create? How small would our anger become? How deep would be the love and the solidarity? How beautiful would be this world?

a few weeks ago i wrote about the corruption in the bread pricing in lebanon.

this morning, the excellent al-akhbar wrote that the bakeries in Lebanon are planning to increase the price of bread from LL1500 ($1) to LL2000

So they continue to get the unchecked subsidy from the public moneys, and they decrease the weight of the bread, and now they increase the price of the bread as well.

I gave a talk on water security yesterday to the Crisis Department at the League of Arab States

title of the talk: Water Security in the Arab World: how to get from ‘crisis’ to ‘sustainable’?

FYI: here’s the talk water security presentation for distribution

This is a transcript of another conversation I had – with two females (one veiled, one wearing a niqab) campaigning for the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Alexandria (Iskandaria)

MB supporter:  Here is a list of the achievements of the MB so far

Me: Well, just tell me, what is their electoral position. Say, for example, what is their position on women’s rights.

MB supporter: They are in support of women’s rights. They have  a document listing eleven issues in support of women’s rights.

Me: Great, so what is their position on ‘Khale3′ (woman divorcing her husband)?

MB supporter: Oh, I don’t know. I don’t know the details of their position on women’s rights.

Me: Okay, what is their position on the economy?

MB supporter (speaking with enthusiasm): Oh, they are getting experts from around the world to work together to build a plan.

—

The issue here is not the MB’s positions, per se, but the lack of awareness of their positions by these two women campaigning for them.

Note: I am not saying that the MB’s supporters are all ignorant of their stance on issues. I’m sure there are others who know their stances. But for how many is the support over substance, and not style? This applies not only to MB supporters but to all supporters of any political party or position: we need to separate the style (I like him because he prays, or because he seems nice, etc etc) from the substance (I support him because I agree with his positions, past and present, on vital issues.)

The following is a transcript between a female stranger and me in Egypt

Female Egyptian Stranger: (after I spoke to her in Arabic, in my Lebanese accent): You’re not Egyptian, right?

Me: Correct, I’m not.

Her: Are you Moroccan?

Me: No, I’m Lebanese.

Her: But you don’t look Lebanese.

Me: Well, I am Lebanese, and I do look like other women in my family.

Her: Well, you’re not from Beirut.

Me: Actually, I live there.  But, let me ask you: why do you say I don’t look Lebanese. I have been told that I don’t look Lebanese for months now in Egypt.

Her: Well, you don’t look like you’ve had plastic surgery.

[!!]

Me: Yes, I haven’t made my nose smaller or my lips bigger.

Her: I have. I had a nose operation

===

[next: i have to figure out why I'm commonly thought of as being from Morocco]

===

For accuracy: I have gotten the same comment on a weekly basis in Lebanon for years. Conversations there are like this one, which happened in Hamra (Beirut), and note that these conversations are in Arabic – both of us speaking in a Lebanese accent, with my accent arguably stronger:

female stranger: You’re not Lebanese. [said in a statement, not a question]

me: Yes, I am Lebanese

female stranger: Really? Both your mom and dad are Lebanese?

me: Yes, both my parents are Lebanese, and I can trace my family back 700 years to this region. Yes, I am Lebanese. Would you like to see my family tree? my ID?

female stranger: well, you don’t look Lebanese.

– Those comments I only get in Beirut – whether in Hamra or Achrafieh – and never elsewhere in Lebanon where the image of what a Lebanese looks like is not so narrow: i.e. not defined by plastic surgery, straightened hair, heavy make-up, or who knows what

All too often we hear this lament from decision-makers: if only we had the money!

I heard it in the US when liberals and conservatives and congressmen and women would knock down a project because of ‘lack of funds.’

I have heard it from colleagues who long for a certain project — such as, hey, universal health care — but don’t advocate for it because, oh well, the governmet of x country does not have the funds.

and of course, I have heard it in Lebanon — where, the oft-heard cry is: our government is in debt! (like the US, like so many in Europe, etc).  We are poor and our government is in debt.

To all I replied the same: total crap! There is money: it is just mis-spent or not gathered. Either a failure to have a wise, progressive tax policy (such as the one that brilliant marxist Charbel Nahhas had suggested), or a failure to stem financial inefficiencies.. or the amazing success at taking from the poor and giving to the rich and then telling the poor, sorry, no more money (example: bread subsidies)

Nasawiya, a beauitful “collective of feminists working on gender justice in Lebanon,” just published this powerful figure.  (Kudos to Nadine Moawad for her work in compiling this info from the 2012 National Budget) – Here is a link to Nasawiya’s website: http://www.nasawiya.org/web/

Translation of the Arab text: The Lebanese taxpayer pays more than 28 Billion Lebanese Lira  — i.e. more than $18 million– as salaries to *former* members of parliament!

The pricing of Lebanese bread, the subsidies given, and the process for making these decisions reveals – yet again – the extent of corruption amidst the Lebanese government, the illegal marriage between the private sector and the decision-makers, and the glaring disrespect from the Lebanese MPs to their own citizens – disrespect because they regard us as children and fools.

In this article, Al-Akhbar reveals the story of bread pricing in Lebanon

Note how decisions are made:

- The Economy and Trade Minister Nicolas Nahhas meets with the head of the Bakery Owners Union to determine the pricing and subsidies.  All in the name of ‘satisfying the consumer’. Together (MP and Private Sector) decide on what would be best for the  poor.

- Their decision? To reduce the weight of the bread to 900 grams, as reported today by Al-Akhbar

What is missing from their decision?

The state currently subsidizes each ton of flour at LL70,000 (US$47). – [i.e.: The government will pay US$1,540,000 to flour mill owners at the end of April based on the LL70,000 (US$47) per ton subsidy.]

During the last furore concerning subsidies, several contradictory reports were released concerning the amount of wheat used in manufacturing Arabic bread.

The mills claimed that 90 percent of the wheat they import is used to make the subsidized bread. The bakery owners insist it is 30 percent. On the other hand, documented reports from social security put it at only 20 percent.

This wide discrepancy is an indicator of a huge waste of public funds used to subsidize flour. But that “detail” did not warrant even one official study of the quantity of wheat used in producing a loaf of bread, or the amount of profit for the bakeries and mills.

Yes, why conduct a study to determine if subsidies actually are assisting the poor… when the objective isn’t the efficient use of public funds or the assistance to the poor (38% of the country), but rather, further public subsidies to the rich!

And why be honest with the public at all – rather, simply pretend that the pricing of bread has remained stable and decrease the specifications of the bread!

On 21 February 2005, the government reduced the weight of a bread bag from 1,500 to 1,400g, keeping the price at LL1,500 (US$1). On May 17 of the following year, it reduced the weight to 1,300g, always keeping the same price.

At the end of 2006, it reduced the weight then again to 1,170g. On 6 June 2007, it became 1,120g and then 1,000g, where it remains today.

Between 2005 and 2007, the government reduced the weight of a bag of bread by 500g, amounting to a 33 percent decrease in only two years.

And today, the government reduced the weight of a bag of bread to 900 grams, down from 1,000 grams.

And what about the unions that claim to represent the workers? They are busy awaiting for the orders from their political leaders, who are either in bed with – or themselves are – the economic elite.

As Khaled Saghieh wrote (on his facebook status):

في حدا سرق رغيف من كل ربطة خبز بلبنان

There remain a small group of independent unions and workers. Protest this coming May 1 Tuesday in Lebanon!

Qana 1996. The first massacre in Qana. The second in 2006. Both by Israel, with US funding and protection, and UN impotence.

Qana. April 18, 1996. 

Qana. 800 people had sought refuge in a UN compound, refuge from Israelli Terrorist Forces (otherwise known as IDF), refuge from the bomardment. Israeli forces, knowing the impotence of the UN, knowing the indifference of the so-called international community, resting on the support of the US, attacked the compound.  Israeli forces killed 106 men, women, and children, and injured more than 116.  Four UNIFIL soldiers were also injured.

 Robert Fisk wrote

 “It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world’s protection.

That was the first Qana massacre.

Israel committed a second Qana massacre in 2006.

Robert Fisk again wrote about the second massacre

Qana again. AGAIN! I write in my notebook. Ten years ago, I was in the little hill village in southern Lebanon when the Israeli army fired artillery shells into the UN compound and killed 106 Lebanese, more than half of them children. Most died of amputation wounds – the shells exploded in the air – and now today I am heading south again to look at the latest Qana massacre.

Qana again.

We remember Qana 1996 and Qana 2006. http://qana.blogspot.com/

We remember.

I remember Qana 1996. I was doing my doctorate at NCSU. My mom called me at my office to tell me news of the massacre.  My body felt crippled from the shock.  Weeks later, I started to see color again.  Weeks later, I realized that I had stopped seeing color – the world had become grey, literally.

We remember.

Israel can destroy, can kill, can maim. With the assistance of the so-called international community. With the funding of the US. With the complicity of the GCC. They all can.

But Israel was not able to conquer in 2006, was not able to occupy.

The strength of the people in 2006, even a divided people in Lebanon, was stronger than Israeli machinery and Israeli hate.

The strength of the people in Palestine shall also be stronger.

The Guardian today reports on undisclosed British crimes in their colonies, in the last days of their ‘Empire.’  …

Thousands of documents detailing some of the most shameful acts and crimes committed during the final years of the British empire were systematically destroyed to prevent them falling into the hands of post-independence governments, an official review has concluded.

… The papers at Hanslope Park include monthly intelligence reports on the “elimination” of the colonial authority’s enemies in 1950s Malaya; records showing ministers in London were aware of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya, including a case of aman said to have been “roasted alive”; and papers detailing the lengths to which the UK went to forcibly remove islanders from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

…

Among the documents that appear to have been destroyed were: records of the abuse of Mau Mau insurgents detained by British colonial authorities, who were tortured and sometimes murdered; reports that may have detailed the alleged massacre of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaya by soldiers of the Scots Guards in 1948; most of the sensitive documents kept by colonial authorities in Aden, where the army’s Intelligence Corps operated a secret torture centre for several years in the 1960s; and every sensitive document kept by the authorities in British Guiana, a colony whose policies were heavily influenced by successive US governments and whose post-independence leader was toppled in a coup orchestrated by the CIA.

…

The documents show that colonial officials were instructed to separate those papers to be left in place after independence – usually known as “Legacy files” – from those that were to be selected for destruction or removal to the UK. In many colonies, these were described as watch files, and stamped with a red letter W. …

Clear instructions were issued that no Africans were to be involved: only an individual who was “a servant of the Kenya government who is a British subject of European descent” could participate in the purge.

The governments and the peoples occupied by the British do not need British governmental reports to reveal the ‘shameful acts and crimes’ committed against them. They lived them. They experienced them.  The documents are important for litigation purposes – and for the white British man and woman since all too often the oppressor only recognizes the crimes of their nation when the crimes are documented by themselves and not by others.

There is an excellent book — one that should be mandatory reading for history classes throughout the UK and throughout the UK’s former colonies — that discusses, in vivid details and in powerful images, the multitude of crimes that were committed by the UK against revolutions and freedom fighters in the colonies.  That book is: ‘The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire’ by John Newsinger

 

As this book reviewer writes:

“One of the strengths of Newsinger’s book is his description of the hidden history of anti-imperialist revolts like the revolt in Palestine [...]- whether in Jamaica in 1831, or in India in 1857 – as well as his exposite of the bloody hidden crimes of the British in Ireland, China, Egypt, Kenya, Malaya etc etc. It is too easy to forget that while British troops are currently occupying Afghanistan and Iraq – they are only following in the footsteps of other British troops in recent history.”