���� i

ISSUE 3

�� ������ ���� ����

WHY DOES BRAZIL DEFOREST THE AMAZON?

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

THE GROWTH: WITH OR WITHOUT YOU

CIVIL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE WORLD OF GLOBAL POVERTY

EYCE Campaign to Promote Ecological Justi ce 2011-2013

�� ������� �������

�� ����� ���������

�� ����� �������

���� 1���� 1���� 1

Editorial ContentsDear Reader, In the wake of the Rio+20 Conference, we can say the environment is now more under the spotlight than ever. The meeti ng takes place 20 years aft er the 1992 Earth Summit, which launched some of the most important internati onal environmental agreements we have today (such as the climate conventi on). This ti me, more than 90 Heads of State and delegati ons from over 190 countries have met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, together with non-state actors to discuss how the world could concert a movement towards a “green economy in the context of sustainable devel-opment poverty eradicati on”.

In the heart of the discussions around “green economy” and “sustainable development” is precisely the link between ecological and social imperati ves, such as reducing environ-mental impacts but also reducing poverty. How to go about the two things at once?

This volume of The Leaf tries to shed some more light on that link. Brunno Kuhn Neto explores the causes of deforestati on of the Amazon forest as well as links to politi cal pro-cesses by describing the situati on in the Bra-zilian state of Acre. Natalia Sirotko discusses the philosophical background of industrial culture and growth as a departi ng point for the concept of sustainable development. Pawel Pustelnik in his contributi on highlights the need to link economic development and poverty eradicati on with ecological respon-sibility. Last but not least Tomáš Tožička calls for civil parti cipati on and responsibility for challenges of the current world.

We hope you enjoy these readings!

Mairon G. Bastos Lima and Benjamin Mlýnek - editors of the third issue of the Leaf.

Editorial 1

EYCE’s Campaign to Promote Ecological Justice 2

Why does Brazil deforest the Amazon? 3

The Philosophical Background of Sustainable Development 6

Growth: with or without you 9

Civil Responsibility in the World of Global Poverty 10

Asking Childish Questions About the World 13

The Green Hand Day 15

Green Politics Events 16

EYCE Upcoming Events 16

Mairon G. Bastos Lima (left ) is a PhD candidate in environmental studies at the VU University Amsterdam and part of the coordina-ti on team for EYCE's Campaign to Promote Ecological Justi ce.

Benjamin Mlýnek (right) is a member of the campaing coordina-ti on team as well as a member of the executi ve committ ee of the EYCE. He currently studies politi cal science at the Masaryk Univer-sity in Brno, the Czech Republic.

by Brunno Kuhn Neto

by Natalia Sirotko

by Pawel Pustelnik

by Tomáš Tožička

by EYCE Campaign Coordinati on Team (CCT)

by Kristī ne Jansone

by Catharina Covolo

���� 2

EYCE’s Campaign to Promote Ecological Justiceby EYCE’ Campaign Coordinati on Team (CCT)

����������The environment is one of the most, if not THE most, chal-lenging concern for contemporary society. It includes not only the obvious “green thinking”, but also issues concern-ing land use, water, food, polluti on and waste, migrati on and a lot more. Very few young people are aware of the links between environment and issues like social justi ce, lack of educati on, poverty and armed confl icts.

Therefore, the Campaign to Promote Ecological Justi ce is based on a broad approach and seeks to explore those links. During the three years, the campaign will focus on the diff erent politi cal and theological perspecti ves, the promoti on of an ecologically responsible way of thinking and living, the links between ecological justi ce and wealth and poverty, as well as the questi on of how the lack of nat-ural resources trigger armed confl icts and violence.

�����EYCE Campaign to Promote Ecological Justi ce was launched in March 2011 and aims at raising awareness on ecological issues from global and diverse perspecti ves among young Europeans, as well as at implementi ng practi cal changes and ecologically responsible soluti ons within the work of youth organisati ons and lives of young people. With the outcomes of the campaign we plan to contribute to the work of other actors in Europe and beyond, who work in the fi eld of ecological justi ce.

In order to achieve the aim, the following objecti ves have been identi fi ed:

1. to raise awareness of ecological issues in Europe and beyond;

2. to study and analyse the developments from the con-ferences in Kyoto and Copenhagen;

3. to explore the relati on between ecology, economy and politi cs, including reviewing ecology issues as basis for numerous confl icts;

4. to empower the organisati ons and/or individuals to tackle issues connected to ecological justi ce;

5. to enable the organisati ons and individuals to lobby for a greener Europe;

6. to provide practi cal advice and ti ps for ecologically re-sponsible lifestyles;

7. to develop a policy paper on ecological justi ce to be presented at EYCE’s General Meeti ng in 2013, which would entail implementi ng results of the Campaign as an integral part of the running of the Council.

Throughout the three years of the campaign it is planned to focus on three diff erent aspects linked to ecological justi ce:

2011: approaching the issue from theological and po-liti cal perspecti ves;

2012: tackling the theme of ecology and justi ce and exploring the relati on between ecology, economy and politi cs;

2013: sustainable paths forward;

��������The Campaign Coordinati on Team – a group of young vol-unteers coming from diff erent social, cultural, denomina-ti onal and geographical backgrounds – are responsible for planning and implementi ng the acti viti es of the campaign. The team is supported by a full ti me volunteer based in EYCE’s offi ce in Brussels and two members of EYCE’s Execu-ti ve Committ ee. In order to provide a variety of themati c input and human resources, a Pool of Interested People has been created for the campaign, where people from EYCE’s network, its member and partner organisati ons belong to. You want to join that Pool? Write us an e-mail at cam-paign@eyce.org!

During the three years of the campaign, an on-line mag-azine on ecological justi ce, informati on leafl ets, EYCE’s homepage and the Campaign’s Facebook page will provide both basic, as well as specifi c informati on on the themes addressed.

Are you interested in the campaign? See EYCE’s homep-age: www.eyce.org or visit and like us on Facebook: EYCE’s Campaign to Promote Ecological Justi ce.

You’re interested in joining the Pool of Interested People? You would liketo write arti cles for the magazine? You have any other idea or project you think we should know about? Or you simply have a questi on? Write to campaign@eyce.org or general.secretary@eyce.org.

���� 3

Why does Brazil deforest the Amazon? by Brunno Kuhn Neto

The Amazon rainforest is probably the most biodiverse region in the world. The “probably” is because this biodi-versity is sti ll unknown, and based on esti mati on. However, it’s not only the Amazon’s biodiversity that is impor-tant. The process of evapotranspira-ti on (i.e. gas evaporati on from plant surfaces) and the forest cover both have infl uence on the climate and raining patt ern in almost the enti re South American conti nent.

According to the esti mates of Thomas Lovejoy, Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at George Mason University (USA), if the Amazon rain-forest loses more than 20% of its to-tal forest covering, the climate would change in a proporti on that the for-est would begin to degenerate, being reduced to only some spots rounded by the Cerrado ecosystem, which is a form of wooded savannah.

Currently, about 18% of the Amazon’s total area has been deforested, ac-cording to the Brazilian Insti tute for Spati al Research (INPE). As a result of further deforestati on, other regions around the forest would also have their rainy seasons concentrated in shorter periods, turning those lands from semi-arid to arid.

But, why does Brazil deforest the Am-azon, if the forest has an economic importance so great for a country

where agribusiness is fundamental for the economy, and depends on regular rainy seasons for growing the crops? If Brazil is a rich country and owns tech-nology that could improve land-use, increasing the producti vity without causing deforestati on then why does Brazil conti nue with deforestati on? The answer to that questi on is com-plex, because the reasons are diverse, as heterogeneous as Brazil itself, the country that shelters most of the Am-azon forest.

Although I do not have a direct answer to give, I can make some consider-ati ons about Acre, a state of Brazil that represents only 3.8% of the whole ter-ritory covered by the Amazon biome, but which bears lots of similariti es with the other 96.2%.

The Brazilian State of Acre is located on the western porti on of the country, a borderland that was once the rea-son for a dispute between Brazil, Peru and Bolivia, and whose occupati on was encouraged by industrial extrac-ti vism, most notably latex for rubber manufacturing. Brazil eventually won the dispute aft er a civil war and diplo-mati c resoluti ons in 1903.

This kind of industrial extracti vism succeeded in colonizing the region, making some people rich and keep-ing the forest intact, but did not bring much social development. As

a consequence, by the 1970s, Acre’s lands sti ll had their forests reserves almost intact, but as the rubber mar-ket prices decreased, the military dic-tatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1984 promoted a new model of oc-cupati on and economic development in the region.

In this new model, the dictatorship gave land to families coming from south Brazil under the conditi on that they would obtain some producti on from the land, and that meant defor-estati on. But the Amazon lands de-pend largely on the forest to sustain ferti lity. Once it is deforested, it may provide soil ferti lity for corn, cassava, rice and other crops for one or two years, but then the soil turns compact and becomes exhausted, leaving only the grass for catt le grazing as an eco-nomic opti on. Even nowadays small

EYCE’s Campaign to Promote Ecological Justiceby EYCE’ Campaign Coordinati on Team (CCT) A study of causes based on the history of the occupati on of Acre state.

Photo by Kristine Jansone

Brunno Kuhn Neto works for the Government of the state of Acre, in the Amazon region of Brazil.

���� 4

farmers sti ll have to deforest part of the forest in their land every year to grow what they need to eat, clearing the land using fi re and converti ng the forest gradually into grass.

There are laws to regulate defores-tati on though. Any process of land-use change should obey the “Código Florestal Brasileiro” (Brazilian Forest Code). Implemented in 1965, it obli-gates farmers in the Amazon region of Brazil to preserve at least 50% of their properti es as forest reserves and also to keep up a belt of natural vegetati on around rivers — varying between 30 to 200 meters depending on the size of the river.

However, in reality, these rules were not enforced on the sett lers that came to colonize the Amazon area, since these sett lers already face many diffi culti es to migrate and occupy Acre’s territory. The arrival of south-ern sett lers, as well as the change in the economy, also brought about a number of confl icts with the nati ve populati on, indigenous and old “rub-ber soldiers” (traditi onal extracti v-ists) who were considered lazy by the

dictatorship. While these confl icts will not be detailed in this text, it is essen-ti al to note that they have occurred and have marked deeply the occupa-ti on of the state of Acre. One of the most notorious of these confl icts was that which Chico Mendes undertook. He became world-famous for his fi ght for environmental causes in the 1980s, turning into a symbol of the fi ght for environmental conservati on in Brazil and worldwide, before being mur-dered in 1988.

With the end of military dictatorship in 1985, and a new consti tuti on in 1988, some concepts of the environmental law changed, along with government policy for the Amazon, from a view of nature as a mere source of natural resources to something linked to qual-ity of life. In 2001 a new law increased from 50% to 80% the proporti on of the land property that must be pre-served. The conservati on logic to stop deforestati on entered on government plans, and sett lers were required to ensure the conservati on of such for-est reserves on their lands. The gov-ernment’s environmental insti tutes started to work on the regularizati on

of rural properti es according to the law, making some excepti ons only for those who had deforested before 2001. Slowly the deforestati on rates have dropped, although deforestati on has not vanished.

Why has it not vanished? The answer demands an assessment that takes so-cio-economic considerati ons into ac-count. How can a family that lives on 3000m² of land given by the govern-ment, survive culti vati ng only 600m² of grass? The law and the government have changed, but the technology for poor farmers has not. It is diffi cult to convince a farmer to keep the forest when he has no other opti on to feed his family. Someti mes families are so isolated because of the strong rains and poor transport infrastructure that their only food source is what they can grow deforesti ng.

For farmers in Acre, the forest and the law are enemies of development. For-ests can not give them the money that grass and agriculture can. Moreover, the environmental law does not take much eff ect on small farmers, since the government cannot take from

photo by Brunno Kuhn Neto

���� 5

them what they do not have. The law could have a strong eff ect on large farmers, since they have money to pay fi nes and to recompose their forest debts, but corrupti on and economic prioriti es prevent this from happening. As such, less than 1% of the penalti es for environmental crimes in Brazil are actually paid for.

Since 2010, the Brazilian Congress has been trying to change the environ-mental law, making it weaker, arguing it helps poor farmers solve their envi-ronmental debt. The soluti on means forgiving all the debt and keeping the cleared area to small farmers who de-forested unti l 2008. This soluti on dis-courages those who kept their forest fragments and it also opens a danger-ous precedent for future deforesta-ti on and pardonning of environmental crimes. Largely as a result of politi cal interest in votes, the Brazilian Con-gress has been almost unanimous on approving this change in the law.

Another important cause of deforesta-ti on in Acre is the market demand for high-quality wood. The high value of hardwood trees such as “jatobá”, “cu-maruferro”, “itauba” and many oth-ers encourages investments for wood extracti on. Since 2001, most of those investments have had some sort of government permission. The problem, however, is that even legalized extrac-ti on projects weakens the forest frag-ments, opening clearings and roads

inside of it. Also, it is not uncommon that a farmer will clear a forest frag-ment aft er it loses its potenti al for log-ging. Some kinds of trees are forbid-den to be cut, such as “mogno” and

“castanheira”, but its control is hard to maintain for such a large region, with so many rivers to transport logs and the possibiliti es to take illegal wood across the border to other countries.

Brazil has not developed proper tech-nologies and exploitati on models to colonize sustainably the Amazon. In-stead, from the 1970s unti l now a highly destructi ve system brought from eastern Brazil is being imple-mented. This is the same destructi ve system that cleared the old Atlanti c rainforest to only 7% of its original covering. Adding to the problem is the lack of knowledge by a large part of the Brazilian populati on about the importance of the Amazon, from poor and uneducated people to rich politi -cians and members of the private sec-tor defending agribusiness interests at the nati onal level. Thirdly, the con-sumpti on of products such as beef is destroying the Amazon, despite any

“green” meat certi fi cati on program, since people would never care about the forest recovering if they can earn from the destructed land.

Despite all this, it is very important to conclude that Brazilian deforestati on rates, especially in Acre state, are de-creasing every year. This is because of

the improvement of technologies for fi re and deforestati on control, such as satellite monitoring, and in environ-mental management of the enti re ter-ritory of Brazil. It is important to know that Acre lands sti ll have 88% of their original forest covering, and people are starti ng to see the importance of maintaining this level. Also, even if at a slow pace, technology is fi nally be-ing developed to improve livelihoods in Amazonian lands, and it is gradu-ally being accessed by small farmers. In Acre, farmers who need credit fi rst have to take a license that assesses the environmental conditi ons of his or her lands, obligati ng the owner to sign a pact of preservati on and recovering his or her environmental debts.

Projects of sustainable extracti on combined with industrializati on and price control of products like Amazo-nian nuts, latex, açaí berry and others, coordinated by NGOs and the Acre government have also brought prof-its for many families, avoiding forest destructi on. These initi ati ves come to strengthen the “Florestania” — adapt-ed from “cidadania” or citi zenship, not in a city but in a forest — a movement that intends to regain an old traditi on of Acre state: the forest as a way of living.

photo by Brunno Kuhn Neto

���� 6

The Philosophical Background of Sustainable Developmentby Natalia Sirotko

The world provides enough to sati sfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.

Mahatma Gandhi

Historically, civilizati on can be divided in technological and traditi onal. The fi rst is characterized by its desire to maximize the effi cient use of resourc-es and its search for new technical soluti ons and organizati onal innova-ti on. The second is characterized by its desire to reproduce itself. The fi rst is characterized by individualism and the desire of the individual for inde-pendence. In the second case, priority is given to the group or the community.

The Euro-American, Western civiliza-ti on is an example of the technological type, while Asia and Africa off er many examples of traditi onal civilizati ons. Such a classifi cati on is, of course, con-diti onal: each civilizati on has its own specifi c features and vary from one another. Sti ll, this dichotomy can be useful.

This disti ncti on between traditi onal and technological civilizati on means two diff erent approaches to under-standing the world. In the fi rst case, the philosophical approach to the world can be described as holisti c. In this sense there is no separati on be-tween nature, society and individuals. These parts of the universe together are involved in the historical process, in the wheel of ti me.

Technological (industrial) cultures have a diff erent atti tude towards na-ture. Since the era of modern ti mes, the philosophical idea of development came to be understood in economic terms and linked to technological progress. The progress of the human mind in the Enlightenment meant mastery and exploitati on of nature.

Technical capabiliti es, to the largest extent based on natural resources, testi fi ed about the level of civilizati on-al development.. This understanding of development is characteristi c of a technological civilizati on. Its roots go

back to the philosophy of Francis Ba-con, who predicted the improvement of human society by technological upgrading.

The most favorable conditi ons for the technological transformati on of nature developed in North America, where there was an abundance of raw materials and freedom from politi cal and economic constraints. From this ti me in Western civilizati on there is a change or distorti on of understand-ing the human place in the world. The bloody century of the Conquistadors (15-16 century) was evidence of this. Technological progress has led to a conquest of new lands, which turned into a colossal loss of life among the indigenous populati on. However, in a hurry to turn virgin nature in domes-ti cated environment, and land, min-eral and wildlife in the products, oft en forgott en commandment of Francis Bacon: to command nature is possible only if it complies.

Western civilizati on has misunder-stood the man's place in the world: man emerged from the natural world, but he is not a separate part of it. Nat-ural environment was seen as a thing, an object, which can be used.

Labeling things as `resources' takes off whatever protecti ve identi ty they may have and opens them for interventi on from the outside. Looking at water, soils, animals, and people in terms of resources reconsti tutes them as objects for management by planners

and for pricing by economists. In turn, this has infl uenced the emergence of the problem of unlimited consump-ti on. Now stronger and new global challenges appear: structural unem-ployment, the ‘McDonaldizati on’ of society, etc. Faced with the traditi onal values and behaviors they generate many hotbeds of tension and deep social confl icts, relegati ng to second place concern for the environment and threatening us with disastrous consequences.

The real possibility of ecological disas-ter, leading not only to the exti ncti on

Natalia Sirotko is an assistant at the Department of Philosophy of Gomel State University, Belarus.

Photo by Kristine Jansone

���� 7

of many species of living creatures, but above all human, is now the big questi on. More and more people are beginning to realize that all this is the result of the modern trends of development of civilizati on. This development is leading to a deepen-ing mismatch between the scale, the accelerati on of human infl uence on nature and the evoluti onary mecha-nisms established to maintain ecosys-tems and the biosphere in equilibrium.The result of this discrepancy is the growth of the contradicti ons between the dominant tendency in modern societi es to the conti nuous growth of producti on and consumpti on and the fi niteness and limitati ons of the Earth (the biosphere) and its resources.

At the present stage of development, we have an environmental crisis caused by man-made infl uences. Thus, the developed countries are respon-sible for this development paradigm that exists in modern ti mes to the present day. Traditi onal cultures, in turn, tend to be the victi ms of the ac-ti viti es and lifestyle of western coun-tries. They were also imposed models of behavior and consumpti on consid-ered to be good.

At the present stage of civilizati on

development, mankind has realized that it faces a choice: self-destructi on as a result of following the modern values, principles and trends, or a new paradigm of development.

Awareness of global catastrophe and the general state of social sciences and humaniti es has led the interna-ti onal community to the conclusion that it should reconsider its values and make a signifi cant course correcti on of values of humanity in the new millen-nium. If we want to conti nue to exist, we must conform to the laws of the biosphere. "We've got to get our act together quickly. We don't have gen-erati ons or even decades — we're one poor harvest away from chaos", said Lester Brown, the founder of World-watch and the Earth Policy Insti tute, which both seek to promote a sustain-able society1.

The concept of sustainable develop-ment thus emerges as a new para-digm of global social life, to become the directi on vector of the global transiti on to a format of civilizati on development.

The classic Brundtland defi niti on identi fi ed sustainable development as "meeti ng the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future generati ons to meet their own needs"2. The classic defi niti on of sus-tainable development consists of few words, being at the same ti me very signifi cant and substanti al. It may be criti cised for excessive generality, but that is precisely what makes the defi -niti on hard to challenge.

At the same ti me, sustainable devel-opment is a diffi cult concept to de-fi ne, and it is also conti nually evolving.Sustainable development is generally thought to have three components: environment, society, and economy. The well-being of these three areas is intertwined, not separated. For exam-ple, a healthy, prosperous society re-lies on a healthy environment to pro-vide food and resources, safe drinking water, and clean air for its citi zens.

The sustainability paradigm rejects the contenti on that casualti es in the environmental and social realms are inevitable and acceptable conse-quences of economic development. Thus, we consider sustainability to be a paradigm for thinking about a fu-ture in which environmental, societal, and economic considerati ons are bal-anced in the pursuit of development and improved quality of life3.

by Natalia Sirotko

Photo by Kristine Jansone

���� 8���� 8 ���� 8

Sustainable development involves a reorientati on of the industry from a course on resource depleti on and environ-mental degradati on towards self-sustenance, environmental conservati on, and development coordinated and managed based on ecological principles. Sustainable development therefore ti es together concern for the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social challenges facing humanity.

All defi niti ons of sustainable development require that we see the world as a system—a system that connects space; and a system that connects ti me.

When you think of the world as a system over space, you grow to understand that air polluti on from North America aff ects air quality in Asia, and that pesti cides sprayed in Ar-genti na could harm fi sh stocks off the coast of Australia.

And when you think of the world as a system over ti me, you start to realize that the decisions our grandparents made about how to farm the land conti nue to aff ect agricultural practi ce today; and the economic policies we endorse today will have an impact on urban poverty when our children are adults.

But in many countries — rich and poor — a percepti on exists that sustainability is expensive to implement and ulti mately a brake on development. Poor countries for their part usually lack the physical infrastructure, ideas and human capacity to integrate sustainability into their development planning. Besides, they are oft en quite skepti cal about rich countries’ real commitment to sustainable development and demand a more equitable sharing of environmental costs and respon-sibiliti es. Many people also believe that environmental prob-lems can wait unti l developing countries are richer.

Since the publicati on of the Brundtland report, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), we have become accustomed to thinking of the world as a place in which everyone could eventually become rich. This may be so, but it cannot happen using the technologies we possess now, and building to industrialized-world levels of consumpti on everywhere. For instance, when it became defi nite that India would att ain independence, a Briti sh jour-nalist interviewing Gandhi asked whether India would now follow the Briti sh patt ern of development. Gandhi replied im-mediately "It took Britain half the resources of the planet to achieve this prosperity. How many planets will a country like India require?"

More recently, Wackernagel and Rees (1995) and others have emphasized again that if everyone lived at the standard of industrialized countries, it would take two additi onal plan-ets comparable to Earth to support them, three more if the populati on should double; and that if worldwide standards

of living should double over the next 40 years, twelve additi onal "Earths." Aspirati ons to such a standard of living everywhere are clearly unatt ainable, and yet adverti sing conti nues to reassure us that it is both ap-propriate and achievable. Even those of us who live in rich countries conti nually strive to seek to increase their standards of living by increasing their levels of consumpti on.

Erich Fromm correctly noted in his book "To Have or Be?": «The transiti on from owning to being - it's ac-tually a questi on about what the scales will outweigh, when in connecti on with ongoing social changes en-couraging all new and not old. In additi on, it's not the fact that the new man was diff erent from the old, as heaven and earth, all business is in change of the di-recti on of development. First is one step in a new di-recti on, then another, and if we have chosen the right directi on, these steps solve everything» 4.

The concept of sustainability is at best a starti ng point for considerati on of the multi ple confl icti ng values at stake: the standard of living of the current generati on, social justi ce, conservati on of resources for future gen-erati ons, and respect for other living beings and for the integrity of ecosystems. Our ethics and our values must change, and they must change because we come to understand that by changing we will be also hap-pier, guaranteeing a decent future for our children on a healthier planet in more vibrant democracy in bett er neighborhoods and communiti es.

Developed countries should set an example for the rest of the world in the transiti on to sustainable devel-opment. They should abandon the policy of unlimited economic growth, consumpti on, and to demand the same from developing countries. Unti l then, develop-ing countries may accept the idea of sustainable devel-opment as just another utopia the West has imposed on them for selfi sh purposes.

B�����������

1. Lester Brown: 'We Must Defi ne Security To Match The Threats Of The 21st Century'.

2. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987).

3. Rio Declarati on on Environment and Development (1992).

4. Erich Fromm, "To Have or Be?"

���� 9

Growth: with or without youby Pawel Pustelnik

There has been a period when we have been enjoying economic growth and there have been periods of crises. However, the fl uctuati ons aff ected poverty alleviati on only to some extent. A new questi on that arises is: how do we integrate ecology in the discussion about reducing poverty through growth?

In 1972 “The Limits to Growth” has been published and from the very beginning caused a lot of discussion. The authors ar-gued that there is a strong need to change trends in fi ve variables: world populati on, industrializati on, polluti on, food produc-ti on and resource depleti on. An imme-diate answer came from academia: the world will end up in hunger if we stop de-veloping or producing more goods. Most certainly, the world will stop increasing its producti on one day, but inducing it arti fi -cially as “The Limits to Growth” argued, was wrong.

When we are looking now at the levels of consumpti on it seems that achieving any kind of sustainability is simply not feasible without limiti ng the expansion. No matt er how much it is being cared in design, everyday practi ces or producti on, the increasing number of goods produced is simply beyond the earth capacity to di-gest them. This consumpti on is visible in the Western societi es that are currently world-wide sett ers.

Those patt erns of buying goods are emu-lated by the developing countries in other conti nents. The need to own is highly con-tagious. For example, the growth of ve-hicle ownership in many Asian countries is presented by a double digit number. Chi-na had to recently introduce limits to the number of registrati on plates issued daily due to drasti cally increased emissions level. Africa will soon become a conti nent of possession. It is just a matt er of ti me. I am not arguing that any kind of greed line should be implemented and an interna-ti onal Robin Hood should take from the rich and give to the poor. This would mean that the problem remains present and is only moved to another theoreti cal level.

A logical thought is: once all the conti nents are saturated with goods, people will sim-ply stop desiring things and we will live happily ever aft er. Unfortunately, serene as it is, the vision is absolutely not feasible under the circumstances of the real world.

For now an important issue is to share the ecological knowledge in a way it is being positi vely perceived. No need for another colonizati on of the developing countries singing the anthem “You are not sustain-able, we will teach you, you will know”.

In order to preserve them, immensely complex relati onships between economy, ecology and growth must be understood by each and everyone who contributes to consumpti on. This means by literally everyone. Of course alleviati ng extreme poverty with educati on about sustain-ability is not the way, but sustainable ap-proaches to development can be imple-mented in places that are now forgott en by the preachers of carbon diet and re-duced consumpti on.

This leads to the problem that is oft en missed in the debate about ecology and economics: female empowerment. It could appear disconnected with the topic, but there is a strong relati onship between sustainability and the positi on of women in local communiti es in the develop-ing countries. Women as crop growers, and food and water providers play a cru-cial role in identi fying sustainability and its friends or enemies in disadvantaged environments.

As long as we are in the mood to devel-op and grow there is a pressing need to integrate ecology in the discourse on de-velopmental aid, microloans or any other insti tuti onal answers to poverty. The eco-logical responsibility is just as important as social justi ce. Even if some might be helped now, the future can only be se-cured through sustainable ways of sharing and learning. Growth can then become only a secondary issue.

Photo by Marie Bohn Olsen

Pawel Pustelnik is a PhD student at the School of City and Region-al Planning at Cardiff University (UK) and works for the World Student Christian Federation and the Jewrnalism Foundation.

���� 10

Civil Responsibility in the World of Global Povertyby Tomáš Tožička

In 2008, Players in the Global Casino realized that they cannot get anything for their chips. The richest were lucky. Their friends from rich countries’ gov-ernments rescued them from losing money. Those millions of people who were saving in annuity insurance funds did not have the same luck. They have lost all of their money within few days. In additi on, the crisis has fallen hard on industry as well as services and produced an army of unemployed.

As same as happened during the Great Economic Crisis in 1920s, the recession was originated in the rich-est countries though the inhabitants of the least developed countries have to suff er the consequences the most. In additi on to eff ects of the food and commodity crises, the living condi-ti ons of the poorest were to worsen even more.

The constant increase in the number of people living in poverty, as well as constant increase of the income of the few rich, will cause a slowdown of the economy and can lead to unrest. Pau-perized masses are kept reassured by politi cal elites that the problem lays in social, medical and educati onal invest-ments. However, those investments make just a small fragment of the money feasted away in rescue pack-ages for banks, industry or pointless state obligati on connected with cor-rupti on and funding of electi on cam-paigns of the biggest politi cal parti es.

�������Tax Justi ce Network esti mates that worldwide tax losses exceed 250 bil-lion USD per year due to internati onal tax evasion. This money disappears in tax havens where rich individuals and corporati ons hide more than 11 thousand billion USD behind tax and

anti -corrupti on bodies. Nevertheless, politi cians exert just a minimal or even rhetorical eff ort to solve this problem. It is not diffi cult to guess why. This money is untraceable which fosters corrupti on as well as supports orga-nized crime.

More and more citi zens in developed countries are aware that they are los-ing control over politi cal power, over decision-making regarding their lives as well as possibiliti es to infl uence events around them. Acti viti es leading to higher parti cipati on on democrati c processes are sti ll very weak. Never-theless more people are starti ng to realize that by one’s own daily acti ng and habits one can infl uence not only himself and his neighbours but over-all development on the global level as well.

��������� ����

One such acti vity is simple shopping. In a shop we might decide whether to buy a cheap product manufactured by children or employees in miser-able conditi ons or we choose a prod-uct which does not violates dignity of workers nor harms the environment. Of course, lots of consumers are lim-ited by their income but that is exactly the reason why we should think about it. Cheap goods could be produced only at the expense of undignifi ed working conditi ons. If we conti nue supporti ng such mechanisms we can soon fi nd ourselves in the same miser-able conditi ons.

Therefore civil acti viti es on local as well as global level call to solidarity with workers in developing countries, to buying goods produced in dignifi ed conditi ons and without harming the environment.

������ ��� ���

Some people do not realize that pov-erty in Europe – one of the richest regions of the world – can be diff er-ent from poverty in the poorest ones, such as in the least developed coun-tries. The example of this could be just simple access to electricity which is denied to one third of the whole populati on of the Earth. This is sti ll the reality even though we know modern technologies and usages of energy re-sources exist even in the most remote areas. Unfortunately, the rich coun-tries prefer to support supranati onal corporati ons which build central elec-tric grids only in areas where they can start quickly profi ti ng.

However, it is obvious, that we need to seek soluti ons mainly for poor areas in order to support their local economies and decrease dependence on global markets. Building of local energy ca-paciti es and local networks is one of such opportuniti es. Notwithstanding, this is neither applied in poor coun-tries nor in rich ones in comparison. Even there we can see “wealthy in a sea of poverty”. A consequence is the migrati on from countryside or poor citi es to rich agglomerati ons accom-panied with all the related problems.

Tomáš Tožička is one of co-ordinators of the campaign “The Czech Republic against Poverty”.

���� 11

����������� ��� ��� �������

A remaining problem is famine and malnutriti on. In 2010, 925 million people were starving – which means approximately every sixth inhabitant of the planet. An absolute majority of them were in developing countries, mainly women and children. The problem is not caused by inability to produce suffi cient food for growing populati on – as one of the main myth of development studies claims. On the contrary: according to the Food and Agriculture Organizati on (FAO), in 2002 there were more than 17% calo-ries per person produced comparing to fi gures thirty years before. Despite that we sti ll cannot stop starvati on. It

is no wonder that 1,3 billion tons of food are wasted. A report from the FAO in May 2011 claims that the aver-age inhabitant of Europe or Northern America throws away 95–115 kg of food per year. In total consumers in rich countries waste 222 million tons of potable food, which equals to pro-ducti on of all countries of Sub-Saha-ran Africa.

Moreover, according to the latest re-search, transformati on to ecological agriculture would increase produc-ti on even more. In additi on, agro-ecology would relieve dependence of agriculture on oil products, increase the health of the populati on and en-able revitalizati on of countryside.

Nevertheless, the interests of supra-nati onal industry and habits of con-sumers in developed countries are the lasti ng impediments.

A further problem is climate change which can dramati cally change food security of the most vulnerable. As ones of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases per capita we must face our undisputable share of responsibiliti es. Therefore it is im-portant to change our habits in this respect, to change our habits on a per-sonal or a family level – as a questi on of consumpti on – as well as voters and policy-makers in politi cal-economic paradigms.

World Food Programme Hunger Map

Civil Responsibility in the World of Global Poverty

���� 12

T�� ����� �������� ������� ������� ��� ����� �������-������ �����������

As an example of nati onal-level ap-proaches, the awareness rising cam-paign the Czech Republic against Pov-erty in the framework of the Global Call for Acti ons against Poverty aims to fulfi ll rich countries’ commitments by which they promised support to the poorest countries. The focus is main-ly on so called Global Development Goals (MDGs) which is an internati on-ally approved programme aiming to wipe out extreme poverty. It is clear even today that MDGs’ intenti ons will not be fulfi lled. This leads to the ques-ti on of what to do next?

It is obvious that fi nancial fl ow of the so called Offi cial Development Assis-tance is not suffi cient. In the current fi nancial and commercial setti ngs on the global level, there is sti ll the trend that poor countries pay more to the rich ones than they receive from them. There is a conti nuous vi-cious circle of unsolvable indebted-ness. If we want to change this trend, general goals would not be enough. We need real development strategies which would contribute to ensuring the dignifi ed and undepreciated life of all people – in poor as well as rich countries. However, in order to fulfi ll this vision we lack politi cal will. The

main impediments are competi ng ide-ologies – fi rst of all, the liberal one. Though it is clear that one size does not fi t all, we are trying to fi lter reality through our limited imaginati on which we later proclaim as universal in spite of trying to fi nd concrete soluti on for specifi c localiti es.

����� �������������Some civil initi ati ves focus more and more on both awareness rising of global consequences of our daily lives and a concrete work which lead to higher civil parti cipati on in public life on local as well as global level. This is the very basic presumpti on necessary for removing the biggest problems which we are dealing with.

Neither an enlightened ruler nor an ideal democrati c government on ei-ther nati onal or internati onal level could ever solve these problems. Responsibility as well as capabiliti es must come from citi zens.

Our world could be a place where ev-erybody has ensured dignifi ed life as well as possibiliti es for personal de-velopment. We have enough fi nances, technologies and food to achieve such a state. The only questi on is how to manage these resources and to which extent we allow their abuse.

Such a state when a few of the rich ones exploits poor majority is not sus-tainable and from our historical experi-ence always ends tragically. This could be applicable on a nati onal as well as a global level. However, even the liv-ing standard of that poorer majority in Europe is largely born by tremendous conditi ons in distant countries where the most of the products of our daily consumpti on is manufactured.

We would not preserve our rights if we tolerated their violati on in other parts of world. We cannot create a lonely island of freedom, happiness and justi ce. If we want to achieve a bett er and more dignifi ed life for us as well for the future generati ons, we must anchor to solidarity. Solidarity as integrati on of similarly or more threat-ened individuals and groups.

In order to achieve our rights and justi ce, we must support and be con-cerned about rights of our neigh-bours – regardless if they are from our street, from a marginalized group, from an urban ghett o or from another conti nent.

Photo by Benjamin Mlýnek

���� 13

Photo by Benjamin Mlýnek

Asking Childish Questions About the World by Kristī ne Jansone

It is amazing, how children have the ability to ask the most impossible questi ons. I think all of us have heard the notorious "WHY?" and many other questi ons: Who invented parliament? What is a vaccinati on? Where does the sky end? Do the angels swim? Beauti -ful innocence lies in these questi ons.

While watching Udo Maurer's "About Water: People and Yellow Cans" I asked myself a multi tude of those childish questi ons: Who is the owner of water? Who invents jobs? Where do people live when their house is washed away? Is murder legal? Who is planning the future?

Sti ll the beauti ful innocence? Per-haps this is the answer to our "Why?" about the childish questi ons - if chil-dren would know the answers, they would probably not ask the questi ons. Because the reality is oft en too sad, dramati c, shocking and thought pro-voking to ask more about it.

Austrian director Udo Maurer in his documentary, which is focusing main-ly on water has managed to raise all those questi ons. He does not give the answers, but encourages the viewer to seek for them. The fi lm is fi lled with stunning, even surreal images, thought-provoking stati sti cs, and very scarce textual material, as if to let the viewer see and understand all the real tragedies in diff erent parts of the world. Yet, it is made in a beauti -ful and gentle way, showing great re-spect and love for its characters, thus

telling a story, which is hard to forget. Or rather three stories.

The fi lm is focusing on three very dif-ferent places in the world - Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and Kenya - where people are aff ected by water in one way or another. However, water is not the only moti ve binding these three reali-ti es together. It reveals much deeper issues of social justi ce, gender equal-ity, even crime. It is a story of climate change, engineering folly, and corrupt government practi ces. How does it change the lives of people, who are aff ected by those realiti es? How does it change the people?

Being European woman, living well above the poverty line, thus watching the fi lm from quite narrow perspec-ti ve, someti mes the surreality of the scene stroke me: several men carry-ing a ti n roof, a mother almost pour-ing her baby out with the bath water, camels walking next to the stranded ships. But, I guess, as a European mid-dle class woman I have not seen much in my everyday route.

Yet, the everyday routes of the people showed in the stories bound together by water are rather diff erent. We are taken to a small village in Bangladesh, which is heavily aff ected by fl oods of monsoon season and the water makes everything more diffi cult. We are taken to an extremely surreal landscape of former harbour city of Aralsk in Kazakhstan, where people sti ll remember the smell of fi sh and

cries of seagulls. Finally, we are tak-en to Kibera, Nairobi, Africa’s largest slum, where people someti mes have a diff erent view of justi ce and proper-ty. And somehow, when following the daily routes of those people, our daily routes are transformed in a way and the only questi ons that remain, are: How? Why? Can I?

Sti ll, these people are just people, just like us. Someti mes we see, how great solidarity and sense of community reigns among people, someti mes they are selfi sh and evil, someti mes they just linger in memories or dreams of lost future. Yet, they all have their fac-es, their dignity, their past and more importantly future. Just like us.

I think, we need to keep asking the childish questi ons about the world, so that the dignity and future of every person on Earth can sti ll survive./

D������Title: Über Wasser: Menschen und gelbe Kanister (About Water: People and Yellow Cans)

Director: Udo MaurerDate: 2007, AustriaLanguage: diverse, English subti tlesPublicity photo

Film Review

Kristī ne Jansone is the Gener-al Secretary of the Ecumenical Youth Council Europe.

���� 14���� 14

���� 15���� 15

Green Hand Day is a project of EYCE's German member or-ganisati on, AEJ. Green Hand Day's aim was to raise aware-ness about the recent Rio+20 conference on June 16th. The acti vity looked to the place where the decisions about the global future were being made: Rio.

In June 2012, governments deliberated on how the climate can be protected, the economy be more eco-friendly and how justi ce can be achieved among the diff erent people of the world. And so, Green Hand Day was the opportunity for YOU to take part in the decision making for the future.

The Green Hand Dayby Catharina Covolo

Catharina Covolo is the chair of EYCE’s Executi ve Committ ee

Through parti cipati ng in the Green Hand Day people dem-onstrated, together with young people from Germany, as well as with many other young people from Europe that you were watching what the politi cians decided for the future.

Green Hand Day meant to raise awareness about the Rio+20 conference and parti cipants decided how they wanted to raise awareness in their city or village. By plan-ning an acti vity during Green Hand Day on June 16th (or another day leading up to Rio+20) with your youth group, you showed your involvement to our common future!

The symbol of the Green Hand Day is a Green Hand itself, it was used through acti viti es and posted in public places (schools, city halls, bus stops etc.) so people could see it and parti cipants could inform them about Green Hand Day and Rio+20! You can sti ll download the Green Hand from the website www.greenhand-day.de and use it yourself – it is never too late!

For more informati on about the acti ons led, visit the web-site of the Green Hand Day at www.greenhand-day.de, its Facebook page or contact the offi ce by emailing aej:veit.laser@evangelischejugend.de

We look forward to hearing about your acti viti es! Share them on Facebook or the Green Hand Day website!

���� 15

Are YOU sustainable?What do you do when you have a cold? What kind of ti ssues do you use? Did you know that the use of facial ti ssue causes whole forests to be cut down?

Consume responsibly! Look for recycled or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certi fi cati on (PEFC) certi fi ed products!

���� 16���� 16���� 16

EYCE Upcoming Events

Young people should be at the forefront of global change and in-novati on. Empowered, they can be key agents for development and peace. If, however, they are left on society's margins, all of us will be impoverished. Let us ensure that all young people have every opportunity to parti cipate fully in the lives of their societi es.

Kofi Annan

Young people embody our hope for change. EYCE aims to accom-pany them to further develop their skills and empower these real stakeholders of our tomorrow. Addressing the diverse and major issues facing our current society, EYCE wants to provide young people with a panel of acti viti es, where they can increase their skills and knowledge in an entertaining and non-formal environ-ment. Please fi nd out below about our upcoming events and get involved in shaping the future you wish to see tomorrow and for the future generati ons.

3rd - 9th of September 2012, "Acti ng Together to Overcome Poverty! Young people address social injusti ce through inter-religious cooperati on", Paris, France

26th - 29th October 2012, "Nati onal Correspondents’ meeti ng with focus on sustainability of EYCE", Warsaw, Poland

11th - 18th of November 2012, "Gender: Revised?!", study ses-sion in cooperati on with WSCF-E, European Youth Centre Bu-dapest, Hungary

10th - 17th of March, 2013, "Shape Democracy! Youth Leaders Promoti ng Parti cipati on and Equality", Romania

2nd - 9th of June, 2013, "Learn. Engage. Lead. Ecumenical Train-ing to Foster the Parti cipati on of Young People in Internati onal Setti ngs", The Netherlands

18th - 25th of August, 2013, "Be the generati on of Peace! A seminar to enhance the parti cipati on and contributi on of young people to peace processes", Serbia

Follow us on Facebook and www.eyce.org!

Catharina Covolo is the chair of EYCE’s

Executi ve Committ ee

ImprintEditi ng: Mairon Givani Bastos Lima, Benjamin MlynekProofreading: Tina Barnett Layout: Daniel Sipos

Copyright:

© Photos: EYCE & respecti ve contributors © Design: EYCE 2012© Cartoon: Erdem Çolak

ISSN

2012 has been a very fruitf ul year in terms of events about the environment. Much has al-ready happened, and more is on the way. March saw the largest-ever gathering of scienti sts dis-cussing themes of sustainable development, the 3000-people strong “Planet under Pressure” con-ference in London.

The gathering showed a united stand of the global scienti fi c community for further politi cal eff orts in the directi on of addressing environmental issues and promoti ng sustainable development. This was a direct message to the leaders and nati onal dele-gati ons meeti ng at the United Nati ons Conference on Sustainable Development in June, the Rio+20. This major conference takes place 20 years aft er the 1992 Earth Summit where the internati onal conventi ons on climate and biodiversity conser-vati on were created, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This ti me, the debates have focused on two points.

First, the concept of “Green Economy” and how governments, businesses and civil society actors could take up acti on towards it. Second, how the internati onal insti tuti onal framework (that is, the internati onal rules and norms) for sustainable development could be improved, including how to improve the United Nati ons Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP).

This year sti ll reserves the 18th Conference of the Parti es (COP) of the climate conventi on, in Doha, Qatar, att empti ng to achieve a consensus on the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol, whose fi rst com-mitment period ends now in 2012 and leaves it in urgent need of a successor. Other than that, do not forget the World Car-free Day (22nd Septem-ber) and the World Vegetarian Day (1st October). Who knows, you might discover a new habit.

Green Politics Events