Event 2: Conservation Social Work (presented by Josphat Ngonyo of ANAW)

Mr. Ngonyo spoke about the activities of his organization, Africa Network for Animal Welfare. Some of the issues he cited include: how human population increases enhance resource competition which in turn exacerbates human-wildlife conflicts over land use issues; poaching, snaring, and illegal bush meat trading; use of animals in educational experiments and research; spread of rabies through stray dogs; and long-distance transport of animals for zoos. Some of the matters dealt with in his organization are similar to those in the United States, such as the conflict of settlement and food production versus wildlife habitat, and the complex issue of genetic manipulation of species through hormone injections and crossbreeding.

Desnaring a Zebra

ANAW is very concerned with lobbying and legislation changes, such as increased penalties for illegal ivory trading. The hope is that by sensitizing judges to the issues, tougher laws will be put on the books, which will lead to stronger enforcement measures. Mr. Ngonyo hopes that through media sensitization workshops, school education, and other means of advocacy animal welfare issues will become a priority in Parliament. Partly due to the efforts on behalf of his organization, a series of anti-bullfighting laws were passed. Another mission of ANAW is to empower local communities through education, interaction and involvement in animal welfare solutions. The ultimate goal is to have community representatives present in decision making bodies regarding matters like revenue allocations from wildlife hunts and tourism, determination of quarters for sport hunts, and other important resolutions that impact humans, wildlife, and land use practices. He spoke of creating bridges between local and distant cultures, local livelihoods and market economies, man and nature, and present and future generations.

I would have been very interested to know about his views on American CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feed Operations) and the extensive use of GMOs in our crop production. Also, a presentation on one of the communities he’s worked with that includes specific strategies to connect with the people and teach them about wildlife conservation and alternative sources of income to poaching. Some of the methods he mentioned were true but somewhat vague, like strengthening communities, better disease management, increased access to water and food, improving understanding of modern conservation, and better financial management. A question (asked by me!) regarding sport hunting versus photo tourism raised some questions regarding financial streams and how national policies impact conservation efforts. Mr. Ngonyo explained that while sport hunting makes money from selling licenses to individuals, photo tourism is more lucrative to the local economy due to the greater mass of people involved and the greater utilization of services such as airlines and hotels.

Environmental Injustice and Sewer Overflows (both are yucky)

The Love Canal case first brought up the issue of environmental justice in the 1970s, and directly contributed to the “Community Right-to-Know” provision in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts (SARA Title III). In 1982, racial concerns were added to environmental justice when a proposed PCB landfill was approved in a minority community in North Carolina (Roseland 162). Then the National EnvironmentalJustice Advisory Council was established in 1993, bringing together representatives from the community, academia, industry, tribes, local governments, and (of course) environmental groups.  In 1994, President Clinton issued an executive order addressing environmental justice in federal agencies, and finally, in 2003 EPA regional offices were required to submit environmental justice action plans to report progress (Roseland 162). Why am I recounting this history? Because it sheds light on the slow, labored movement of this very important issue, defined as: the (1) unequal distribution of environmental risk, (2) unequal access to information, and/or (3) lack of opportunity to contribute in the public comment process, based on race, economic status, or both (Wheeler 184).

Examples abound. People of color (versus whites) are more likely to live in urban areas with reduced air quality, with the highest rates of asthma in the U.S. among blacks aged 15-24 (Wheeler, p. 185). Numerous studies and mappings of coal plant locations and hazardous waste sites prove that environmental discrimination exists, yet it has been one of the more overlooked aspects of sustainable development. This might be partly due to the fact that it comes in various forms: procedural equity, social (intra-generational) equity, distributional (geographical) equity, inter-generational equity, and inter-species equity (Roseland 162).

One of my earlier blogs on Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) in Fort Wayne mentioned when and where CSO upgrades were being planned in the city, and whether nicer neighborhoods were being serviced first. Below is a map of minority and low income areas of Fort Wayne. Solid yellow = low income. All other colors/patterns indicate minority areas. Solid green, crosshatched pink-and-green, and crosshatched pink-and-blue indicate low income AND a minority. 

The next map is of current CSO sites (yellow dots) and proposed upgrades (dark purple spots) in Fort Wayne. I added a few street names to make it easier to compare, since the graphs are on different scales.

See if you can tell me whether there is an environmental justice issue here. How did you decide? What other information am I (purposefully) leaving out that might help make the decision? (Oh okay, here’s a few things: population density, CBA of people served vs. project costs, engineering feasibility, overflow rates at each CSO site, etc)

It seems Fort Wayne isn’t the only city in Indiana under scrutiny regarding environmental justice and CSO upgrades. Indianapolis is also under the gun. Below is a map of Marion County, with active CSOs (blue dots), recently eliminated CSOs (purple dots), and proposed upgrades for 2009-2013 (green dots). The darker areas of the map represent regions with a greater proportion of people at or under the poverty level, lighter areas are better off. This study determined that the proposed CSO elimination plan did not “effectively address” the environmental justice issue, and found a strong correlation between active CSOs and poorer neighborhoods. 

Comparing the two cases, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Fort Wayne needs to revise their CSO remediation plan. But if no one makes it an issue, how will it get addressed? In the past, people-of-color organizations and their leaders have not pursued environmental justice issues for fear of losing ground on previously hard fought civil rights gains or losing out on economic development programs (Wheeler 186). In this case, I think neither of these should be a concern. But politics can be tricky, and often limited resources within these organizations mean tough decisions must be made...what's it worth?
                                            

Personal Project Update

I'm having some real difficulty getting in contact with my landlord. I've never actually seen/met the man; all correspondence is through the real estate agent, and she doesn't give out his phone number. I just have to leave a message with her and hope he gets back to me. It's been two months...my hope is dwindling. So. I started going door to door this weekend with the surveys, without his consent or feedback. In the interest of political management I thought it would have been better to let him know my intentions prior to giving out the surveys, but I'm running out of time! Besides, the real estate agent was pretty clear that if he didn't make money off of it, he wasn't going to do it. But I still need him to at least give me permission to put my own bins out.

So far, the reception's been good among the tenants on the survey and they actually seem pretty interested, but I'm finding that NO ONE IS HOME (or else they're choosing not to answer when they see a weird girl at the door with a clipboard). Nevertheless, through the barking dogs and creepy tenants ("so, what are you doing later?") and unresponsive landlord, I am NOT giving up my dream of apartment recycling. It just might be that it involves a few bins sitting in front of my unit, and me driving to the County Recycling Center each week with a load. And that's alright with me. :)

Automobile subsidies and how they make Americans a bunch of free-market hypocrites

U.S. total motor vehicle costs (Roseland 115):         

There's nothing wrong with capitalism...

   $20 billion in taxpayer subsidies

   $290 billion in social/enviro. damage

   $415 billion in costs borne by drivers

And yet, Cervaro (in Wheeler) says that the real-dollar costs of driving and parking are declining (p. 116).  How can that be, you might ask, with rising fuel costs, longer commutes, and increasing regulations on emissions?  I asked the same question, so I looked into it.  Turns out, it’s all possible with a little help from subsidies.

Here are a few statistics/concepts from the book Suburban Nation: 

• 8-10% of GNP is from government subsidies towards highways and parking.

• Cost of these subsidies is passed along to ALL citizens (regardless of vehicle ownership/use) in the form of higher (income, property, sales) taxes.

• Transit spending creates twice as many new jobs compared to highway spending.

• Gasoline now costs ¼ of what it did in 1929 (in real dollars).

• Trucks consume 15x the fuel compared to rail for equivalent freight hauled.

• The U.S. government pays $300 billion in various subsidies for trucking.

• It takes 15 lanes of highway to move as many people as one lane of track.

• Estimated economic inefficiencies from subsidized auto use total $700 billion annually.

• Pew Foundation: 60% of those polled favor a 25-cent/gallon gas tax to slow global warming.

Essentially, in the case of automobile dependence, the U.S. government is the pusher and we are the addicted users.  So how can we kick the habit?  A few ideas...

Five key policies to overcome auto dependence per Newman and Kenworthy (Wheeler 123):

      1.  Traffic calming - remove barriers for cyclists and walkers; results in reduced accidents and less pollution 

      2.   Improve transit alternatives

   3.Improve land use – mixed use, higher density

   4. Growth management – prevent sprawl

      5. Economic Incentives

*And my addition: ELIMINATE AUTO SUBSIDIES

Check out this (somewhat dated, but still relevant) article on road pricing in the Economist.  The idea is painfully simple and not new: charge people that drive at peak times, by themselves, and/or that drive more frequently on heavily-traveled roadways.  

Another crazy concept: building more roads only relieves congestion temporarily, and actually leads to even more traffic problems, because it fails to deter driving behavior or offer alternatives.  “Conventional solutions such as increasing roadway capacity or improving vehicle design, often reduce one problem but exacerbate others, particularly if they increase total vehicle travel” (Roseland 120).  Stop building more roads already!

"Many important revolutions result from more effective use of existing technologies and resources, rather than new technology" (Roseland 117).  In the case of autos, "new technologies" like innovative design, cleaner fuels, and better roads will only increase use.  We need to eliminate subsidies and let pricing mechanisms of the free market take their toll (roads, that is).

Indiv Project Update

I've been in contact with Jacqui Bauer, Bloomington Sustainability Coordinator, regarding the content of the survey and help finding grants/incentives for apartment complex recycling.  I have yet to administer the survey because I wanted to let my landlord know first.  However, he seems to be a hard person to get to.  Maybe I'll just do it, and try to talk to him afterwards?

1st Outside Event: Mark Winne "America’s Food System – A Cause for Concern, A Time for Action"

Before it all runs out of my brain, I figure I should blog about the Mark Winne lecture I attended way back on September 15th.  First, a few of the “good-BUT-bad” statistics gleaned from the lecture:

∙ The local food market is a $5-7 billion industry BUT the fast food industry is $170 billion.

∙ The organics market is a $25 billion industry and continues to grow even in the economic downturn, BUT only 4% of retail food in the U.S. is organic.

∙ There are now 150 local/state food councils in the U.S. with the goal to bring just, sustainable food policies to our communities, BUT there are also 206 food banks and 60,000 emergency food sites (a sign that people are still struggling).

∙ Farm-to-school programs, urban gardening and farmers markets are on the rise BUT 65% of Americans are still overweight/obese (and 1 out of 3 children).

∙ Out of 33 industrialized countries, America is ranked 3^rd for highest level of income disparity and 1^st in food insecurity.  Sorry folks, no good news there.

What I liked about his lecture: he’s a go-getter, optimistic, and feisty.  He started an organic garden with “throw-away” kids in the 70s, and succeeded in growing edible food (which is more than I can say some summers).  If that isn’t enough for you (it was for me), check out his bio and you'll see that Mr. Winne has had his hand in a lot of important projects.  I wish he had spoken more about some of those, but I guess he had a book to promote.  Can't blame him for that.

What I didn’t like so much: he was a bit one-sided/very anti-establishment, read straight from his book, and didn’t really offer any concrete ideas.  For instance, when I asked what financial alternatives exist for food banks instead of taking donations from mega-industries like Snickers and McDonald’s he basically offered the Nancy Reagan “Just Say No” solution.  That’s all well and good until you have to decide between feeding hungry, poor people or paying the energy bill.

Speaking of balancing a budget, can I just say that if I don’t learn anything else in my group project I’ve learned this: there are a lot of people in the public sector making tough decisions about how to run their organizations/departments in a financially-responsible manner among competing interests, political pressures, ethical dilemmas, piles of paperwork, and bureaucratic BS.  Whew!  Sorry, had to be said.

One Man’s Trash Is Another Man’s Treasure

Here’s how waste management works in the North:

First, we start with a standard of living based on high consumption rates.  In fact, it drives our economy. Second, we live in a disposable society that values convenience over all other factors.  Last, we pay to make the waste go away.  Sometimes they offer recycling, and sometimes we actually do it.  The main reason we don’t bother is that resource recovery is usually driven by law and public willingness/concern for the environment.  Only a few industries, such as aluminum, steel and baled plastics, are driven by potential profit.

Here’s how it works in the South:

Waste collection is spotty due to financial and/or institutional constraints.  You’re lucky if you’ve got the service.  If you don’t, sometimes community-based organizations will pick it up for a small fee.  Usually they use low-tech equipment (if any) to collect, and make up for it with manual labor.  Resource recovery is amazingly thorough “because this work is done in a very labour-intensive way and for very low incomes”.  You guessed it: these are usually marginalized, minority populations.

Profit Potential for under-utilized resources + Lack of govt services = Local innovation

The “culture” of formal sector vs informal waste management has always fascinated me.  When I read the encouraging story in Wheeler (p. 161) about Cairo moving towards being a zero-waste system I was thrilled.  I wanted to know more about the Zaballeen community and how they managed to collect, reuse, and recycle most of the waste produced by Cairo’s 15 million citizens.  What’s more, the article talks about the “active support of the city authorities” which really surprised me.  Turns out, the excerpt in Wheeler made it sound a lot better than reality.

The Zaballeen (Arabic for “garbage people”) make a living as a community by collecting and sorting Cairo’s waste, recycling an astonishing 80% of all wastes including plastics, metals, organics, paper, and clothing.  Theirs is one of the most efficient, albeit informal, systems in the world. 

Besides a recycling school and recently installing basic services such as electricity, sewerage, and water, “support” from the city is lacking.  The Zaballeen are an ethnic and religious minority, further stigmatized by their profession/way of life (and admittedly poor hygiene practices).  With little concern for impacting this community’s sole income source, Egypt recently awarded contracts to three multinational companies to handle Cairo’s waste collection.  The presence of these companies means less trash for the Zaballeen to collect, less recyclable material to sell abroad, and less income overall.  There is an excellent documentary about this community entitled Garbage Dreams (get it at the library) that addresses many of these complex issues.  

 Clip from Garbage Dreams

What strikes me most about the Zaballeen is their ability to literally turn trash into gold, and do it with immense efficiency.  Even though the contracted companies are only required by law to recycle a mere 20% of the total waste collected, they are already struggling to do what the Zaballeen have done for years.  One company has already been terminated for failing to keep the streets clean.  

 This is Mokattam, "home" for the Zabelleen

“In the case of solid waste management, cities in the North have much to learn from the ingenuity of waste recycling in the South” (Wheeler, p. 161).  Despite poor living conditions and outright discrimination, it seems like we could take a cue from the Zabelleen in terms of linking “resource conservation and waste reduction with job creation and local empowerment” (Roseland, p. 83).  In Garbage Dreams, a few of the boys from the Zaballeen community have an opportunity to go abroad to study recycling in the developed world.  Their observations?  “Here they have technology but no precision”.  So true.