Sustainability of nature's resources depends upon many factors. Key among them is the willingness and ability of humans living in the closest proximity of those resources to preserve and conserve them. Chief among those factors is simple, day-to-day economics.

"Poverty is the worst form of pollution," is how one Ecuadorian shrimp farmer characterized the relationship between impoverishment and resource sustainability. "If I had to make the choice between letting the last rhino on earth live or feeding my family who were starving, you can bet that rhino will be eaten," brought that same lesson home by a noted wildlife biologist whose life is dedicated to preserving endangered species to school children visiting conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) when it convened in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida a few years back.

Evidence of the truth of those statements abounds. Madagascar is one of the world's poorest countries with individual annual income averaging $900 per person. Fully half its 18 million inhabitants live below the poverty line. This nation of poverty is also one of the globe's most environmentally devastated. The chief reason is poor people doing what they can to survive. That means burning forests for farmland, charcoal, and firewood. Deforestation results in soil erosion and silt flowing into waterways. Wildlife no matter its rarity is decimated for protein. Much of that poverty can be traced to periods of colonial domination that left indigenous people segregated from economic opportunities, education and basic health care.

Many similarities exist among post Colonial African and many island nations across the globe. Both are populated by people whose lives and traditions are steeped in ancient history and a close interdependence on nature. Both are marked by colonial rule under a variety of world powers. With independence, both became immersed in balancing the responsibilities of self determination with the terrible realities of scant infrastructure, bleak economies, and episodes of social turmoil.

The story with minor variants can be told about many Third World nations. The Federated States of Micronesia, then the Caroline Islands, for example found their island nation under Spanish rule during the 16th Century, Germany in the 19th, Japan at the turn of the 20th, and the United States after World War II. Whether in Africa, the Pacific or the Caribbean the list of colonial powers - Spain, France, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Portugal, etc. - shifted for generations like a game of musical chairs. But the results remained the same. Colonial powers siphoned off resources like Wall Street traders skimming profits. Each landmass and its people gained little or nothing.

Post-colonial history saw little change. Since the early days of Independence - Zambia (1964), Kenya (1963), Namibia (1990), Congo (1960), Zimbabwe (1980), Federated States of Micronesia (1986), Marshall Islands (1990), Solomon Islands (1978) - post Colonial, self-ruled, sub-Saharan Africa and tropical island nations alike are hard pressed to find a single success story showcasing a nation with an efficient and effective government run by indigenous people coupled with a sound economy providing benefits for the majority of its citizens.

The unfortunate truth of what has stifled economic growth and self sufficiency for post Colonial sub-Saharan Africa and many island nations after Independence is the business development model that emerged in the fading decades of the 20th century spanning the immediate 50 years from the day of independence. Loosely put, that model can be described as: a cacophony of European, Oriental, and North American interests that descended upon the respective countries promoting the creation and development of (in no particular order), power plants, casinos, golf courses, resorts, automotive manufacturing, mineral smelters, affordable housing, and cellular communication capabilities.

A mix of funds flowing from sources outside each region (foreign aid, World Bank funding etc.) allowed respective national governments to finance all of the above ventures and initiatives. Regardless of the nation where these activities were based the result was the same. Benefits derived reached barely one to three percent of the indigenous people. Invariably they flowed to political figures (the "Presidents"), their families, friends and political allies operating from de facto single party systems where elections are "popular" only in name due to the lack of viable opposition candidates. Indeed, the immediate post colonial African "leaders" including Mugabe, Kuanda, Moi, Mandela, Mbeki, Amin, and so on, all quickly became millionaires.

The bulk of the real economic benefit generated by such ventures (some 80-90 percent) went into the pockets of the "developers" who today are Canadian, Norwegian, Chinese, Japanese, American or a former European colonizer.

The consequence of the above (admittedly superficially examined) development model, led to a vast disparity between the newly elected leaders (and their friends) and the overwhelming majority of indigenous citizens. Easily 95-99 percent of the indigenous populations of these countries remain today in abject unimaginable poverty. Many interesting and sad situations arose as a direct consequence of this model of exploitative development.

Cell phones are available but the masses have no money to purchase minutes or calling cards necessary for their use. In Africa roads were built but blacks and coloreds could not afford cars to drive upon them. Houses were built but people had no money to furnish them or provide upkeep. Computers are commonplace, but most could not afford glasses to see to read, or have access to an education to learn how to read. Electricity was abundant but the majority of people could not afford light bulbs.

Similarly, vaccines and medicines became available but there was no money to purchase nutritional foods necessary to reap the benefits of such advanced biomedical care.

The list is limitless.

The business development model described above survived and indeed flourished for roughly 40-50 years because the citizens of these newly emerging independent nations were so poor, so uneducated and so unaware of the events occurring in the more developed nations of the world that they were unaware an alternative quality of life existed.

In the late '80s maybe the early '90 s two distinctly different events began to have a significant life altering effect on the southern half of the African continent and around the world. The first was global communications. Slowly and without fanfare the Internet found its way to the impoverished peoples of the region. Along with television, a growing abundance of free satellite capability, and other globally shared information streams, an activist core of formerly unaware impoverished locals began to awaken to the fact that, "there is a better quality of life available and many people not unlike me are finding it".

In a parallel development at a different point on the spectrum of human development HIV and AIDS emerged on the African continent and like a wildfire began to burn with an unlimited appetite for destruction.

These two disparate but intensely powerful events began to have a disquieting but profound impact on the "disadvantaged" Africans, Micronesians, and others. They began to grow less complacent, discontent, and angry. They could no longer blame or explain their poverty and their hardship on their former colonial rulers, guilt and culpability had to be placed some where different and it was quickly attached to the current political leaders. These were people of their own ethic, racial, and geographical composition. Current leadership was now expected to be accountable and to "fix" this problem.

Some archaic, self-styled elected dictators tried to divert attention from their own failed leadership. Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe is a prime example with his seizing white-owned lands and holdings and redistributing them to the "real Africans". The consequences have been disastrous and the world has seen through this charade.

To date only South Africa, whose entry into sub-Saharan Africa as a true independent African nation occurred only recently in the early '90s, has avoided the attendant down turn of its economy. Despite the vision and humanitarianism of Nelson Mandela, post-apartheid South African has produced no solutions to the poverty and human suffering of its black and colored majority. And sadly, recent elevations of violent crime and the ongoing onslaught of AIDS combined with massive unemployment do not offer an optimistic future for South Africa as well.

The problem can be isolated and simply defined. Post-Colonial business development in sub-Saharan African and across the globe has followed a welfare or entitlement framework. It did not and could not empower the indigenous people. (To further see the "flaws" in these models one only needs to observe the classic human characteristics of greed and myopic planning).

The "old model" produces projects that do not create sustainable jobs. It does not empower the masses. This model does not spread some money over a large number of people but provides significant money to only a few individuals. This model cannot create a middle class let alone sustain one. Eco-tourism and the production of "native artifacts" are not economically sustainable and, particularly the insistence on the latter, could be criticized as patronizing at best and demeaning of the ability of indigenous people to embrace education and training in modern technological fields at worst.

Today, as we watch there are still foreign interests seeking to build power plants, more casinos, more golf courses, more housing, more metal smelters, more automotive plants, that employ relatively few residents, provide no sustainable, let alone low-level employment or training. At the end of each of these projects, there will still be millions of impoverished people living with AIDS, want, and no hope.

Winston Churchill said, "The problems of East Africa are the problems of the world." Replace the word "East" with "sub-Saharan" and his words become prophetic. The same can be said for island nations experiencing the same dynamic.

Is there an alternative business model that can work, that can offer a solution?

In a word the answer is a resounding "Yes!" That model will develop projects and build businesses that are sustainable both in terms of raw materials and in terms of job creation. Those are the basic first requirements. Those projects will employ a significant number of lower skilled or no skilled individuals and yield a product that can be exported for hard foreign currency. That product will come from a raw resource that is sustainable. Those projects will continue to make investors substantial profits but they will also see significant amounts of money stay in the resident country with income distributed through salaries, profit sharing, and stock options, and shares to a significant number of indigenous residents.

To a family where the breadwinner averages $500 to $900 US dollars per year what is the word for employment that brings $500.00 a month?

To a 600,000 individuals with no education, no skills and no employment what do you call an unskilled job making $100.00 US dollars a week?

These are not opportunities, these are miracles. And they are miracles that lead to real advances in the quality of life: education, health care, true economic and environmental sustainability.

To their credit current enlightened leadership in Africa and elsewhere is beginning to seek such development. They have succeeded in the post-colonial environment but they are beginning to realize that their fellow citizens have not. Some leaders are motivated by a genuine sense of responsibility and empathy. Some simply because they know their positions are dependent on finding new sources of income to run their governments as financial aid from the world's developed nations is being spread across an increasing number of desperate situations.

Regardless of the motivation, if poverty is not alleviated, if hope is not fostered, if opportunity does not emerge, discontent will yield to unrest, which breed's chaos, which in turn is followed by rebellion and anarchy. Then not even the few at the top of the financial food chain can remain unaffected.

These nations must gain real control over their native resources whether they are minerals, energy, timber, agriculture, or the EEZ waters rich in seafood.

One area of potential solutions is the growing aquaculture industry. Massive job creation, export markets, trade in hard foreign currency, sustainability, global markets, and creation of indigenous intellectual property are all characteristics of sound, well designed and implemented aquaculture ventures. It may to a significant degree provide a partial solution to the woes of independent sub-Saharan Africa.

Pacific Island nations can put an end to the plunder of rich marine resources by foreign fishing fleets who pay a few million dollars to license fleets that extract billions of dollars in highly valuable fish.

Violators whether they are Illegal, Unregulated, and Unlicensed (IUU) pirate fishing vessels, shrimp farmers who clear cut mangroves for quick profits, rogue companies that illegally strip tropical hardwoods, or exchange bribes for mining rights must be punished. No business must be conducted with unethical entities whatsoever.

In short, emerging nations and their people whether on the continents of Africa, Asia, or the Americas or on islands considered paradise to tourists but something quite less to residents must take a hard look around them. In truth, the same can be said for once prosperous now floundering fishing communities in areas like the United States, Canada, even Japan. Their wealth and future depends upon the sustainable use of their terrestrial or marine resources: fish, shellfish, minerals, hardwoods, wildlife, energy sources. But they must not allow a new colonization by world powers or unethical corporate entities to control those resources.

On the other hand, the role of ethical corporations in this formula is vital to the "New Model" success.

To Be Continued.