VIEWS & PHILOSOPHIES

(Note: The following was prepared for delivery on behalf of IFCNR at the “Stockholm Declaration and Law of the Marine Environment” Conference, May 22-25 in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Conference was hosted by the Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia; the Department of Law, Stockholm University; The Swedish Research Council; The Bank of Sweden; Tercentenary Foundation and the Soderberg Foundation.)

Replacing Bias with Reality to Achieve the Stockholm Declaration’s Dream of a Poverty and Pollution Free World:

The manner by which we will achieve the goals of sustainable development and conservation of our human and marine environments through the elimination of poverty, disease, wanton pollution, and hunger as enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration is not based in theory or projection.  Nor will those important objectives be obtained by strict reliance on punitive laws and regulations.

Certainly no one would disagree with the concept that laws and regulations governing the use of and care for our marine environment are indeed important and necessary.  A great deal of the environmental harm done to marine resources and habitat is directly attributed to illegal and unregulated exploitation.

However, the efficacy of laws and regulations in spurring individuals, industries, organizations, cultures and governments to exercise wise and caring stewardship of our marine environment is based on fear that the punitive toll to be paid by violators far outweighs the benefits gained from an illegal, unethical, or prohibited transgression.  As a psychological stimulus for proactive advocacy for the environment, this approach leaves much to be desired.

To the contrary, the model offered here is one that provides real incentives for individual, local, national, even global participation in building a better human environment.  More to the point, it relates directly to virtually every point enunciated by the Stockholm Declaration that so succinctly described the majority of environmental problems in developing nations as inherently related to the mix of hunger, poverty, pollution, ill-health, as well as the lack of adequate shelter, clothing, sanitation and education. 

Where a culture is struggling for its daily existence, laws are too often recognized as impediments to survival.  For many, they are to be circumvented, not observed.  Recognition of the role of laws and regulations as conservators for the common good is the farthest concept from a mind preoccupied with where to find a meal or shelter from the elements.  For others, when combined with the debilitating effects of poverty, they are barriers to hope or initiative.

If the tone of this presentation sounds harsh or pessimistic, that is not the intent.  The observations expressed here are based on observations during extensive travels throughout the world’s most economically and environmentally devastated regions.  There one can see the mental and physical retardation caused by malnutrition and the lack of health care that robs children and, in turn, communities of their future.  Those same travels also show the reversal of such ill fortune for communities and the environment that comes with economic development. 

In many sectors of the world, the application of science and technology to the need for economic development, if properly applied, can and does result in local communities rising from poverty, disease, and illiteracy.  Examples can be seen in the many aquaculture ventures around the world that combine sound environmental techniques with the principles of economic incentives and social justice to provide hard currency, economic sustainability, and hope nurtured by good health and sound nutrition. 

The influx of hard currency exchanged for quality products whether from the land or the sea causes people and the environment to flourish together.  As the Stockholm Declaration so eloquently put it, humankind can indeed “use knowledge to build, in collaboration with nature, a better environment” for ourselves and for all creatures, large and small, with whom we share this planet.

This model for immediate and sustainable action is the premise upon which corporations with international purchasing power such as the United States-based Darden Restaurants Inc. conduct business every day of every year.  For those unfamiliar with Darden Restaurants, it is the parent company of 1200 family-oriented restaurants operating under the names of Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, and Smokey Bones.  Darden is but one of the environmentally responsible and socially just multi-national corporations that works for all parties, cultures, and nations concerned.

Darden Restaurants Inc. is a $4 billion a year business and is the single largest worldwide purchaser of shrimp in the United States.  Its demand for other foods from the sea is nearly as great.

The primary objective of the Darden Corporate Model is to bring in corporate profits.  The ability to generate capital makes its global purchasing presence respected and desirable anywhere and virtually everywhere in the world.  But, Darden is not alone. 

Corporations like Darden use their quest for profits as perhaps the most powerful single incentive for social and environmental change available today.  That motivation is shared by everyone from individuals to heads of state.  Virtually every NGO knows the power of money.  It keeps the press publishing and religions out saving souls.  Most important it puts food in hungry bellies, shelter over the homeless.  It builds schools for those who thirst for knowledge and hospitals to heal the sick.  Most important it eliminates poverty and fosters care, concern, and the capacity to conserve our planets resources.

The presence and economic clout of corporations such as Darden in their capacity as global traders are used to instill and insure that the twin principles of environmental sustainability and social justice are maintained if those living among, working with and harvesting our marine resources are allowed to share in the economic benefits provided by corporate milieu. 

This is not a theoretical concept.  It is fact. 

If corporations and nations adhere to the basic tenets of environmental sustainability and treat their workers and citizens with fundamental social justice, the planet and our many diverse cultures will thrive.  If they do not demonstrate a true commitment to those principles, the world’s answer should be “we will not buy your product or engage in trade with you regardless of the attractiveness of your product or price.”

Call it enlightened self interest or our corporate recognition of the economic principle that the best choice is one that benefits the greatest number for the greatest period of time.  Call it good business.  Call it the Sustainable Use Code of Ethical Corporate Conduct.  No matter what it is called, it works.

The corporate presence and importance of trade on the global scene are key factors that are too often, grossly ignored or overlooked in the success or failure, the achievement or frustration of the lofty goals and vision of those who crafted the Stockholm Declaration 30 years ago. 

Unfortunately, there exists among those most directly concerned with the achievement of the principles of how to integrate the need for development with environmental sustainability embodied in the Stockholm Declaration a distinct bias against the corporate world. 

The genesis of that bias is understandable when taken within the context of history.  The evolution of global corporations is indeed one where undeniable examples of unbridled and unethical exploitation of resources and cultures abound.  But the same can be said of the world’s great governments, its scholars, its charitable institutions, even of some who betrayed the principles of its leading religions.  Each has a past filled with not so meritorious players and chapters.  But, few endure the unabated prejudice and vitriol aimed at corporate global traders.  The outrageous behavior of corporate and global trade critics at the WTO meetings in Seattle is testament to that intolerance.

The participants in the deliberations over the Stockholm Declaration rejected that intolerance when they refused to accept the ideology of “no use,” that is, no trade in nature’s resources as a viable option for curing the ills associated with poverty, pollution, and environmental abuse. 

Also to their credit, they recognized the importance of balance between the needs and deeds of trade and human-generated pressures put upon the environment.  They and their colleagues in the creation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or CITES as well as the authors of the Convention on Biological Diversity memorialized trade as a component part, for better or worse, of their concerns for an abundance of resources and diversity of plants, animals, cultures, and habitats within the eco-system we call Earth.

The charters of the conventions, treaties, and regulatory agencies in virtually every sector dealing with conservation and preservation of the environment and nature’s resources recognize that global trade and its regulation or lack thereof are vital if not controversial components to any viable solution to the environmental and developmental issues we face today. 

The essence of conserving Nature’s resources is not merely the salvation of a few examples of each species for the viewing pleasure of even fewer who can afford the price to travel to see them.  Conservation does not mean turning our marine or terrestrial resources into aquariums or wall-less zoos.  Rather, our collective conservation efforts are or should be aimed at ensuring that an abundance of resources and species exists for the greatest diversity of “uses” – consumable and non-consumable alike – by an equally vast diversity of interests, individuals, cultures and nations. 

It is equally true to say that every sector of society – governments, religions, NGOs, and certainly its citizens – recognizes the importance and role of hard currency in accomplishing any desired task.  Why else are we inundated by solicitations from charities and churches and even school children to donate a dollar or buy a candy bar for countless worthy and not-so-worthy causes.

“Hard currency” is vital to our ability to realize the aspirations of all who are gathered at this conference and to those who preceded us three decades ago when they drafted the Stockholm Declaration.  For those enduring the pangs of malnutrition, the pain of chronic disease, and the hopelessness of impoverishment, hard currency is not only a solution, it is the solution.  

The UN Food & Agriculture Organization’s Committee on Fisheries issued a report on the Impact of International Fish Trade on Food Security at the meeting of its Subcommittee on Fish Trade held in Bremen, Germany, February 12 – 16, 2002.  That report found that a far greater percentage of the population in developing countries depend upon fish for protein than do those living in developed nations.  Some 60 percent of people in developing nations count on fish for 30 percent of their protein intake versus 80 percent in developed nations where fish accounts for less than 20 percent of their protein. 

The report goes on to underscore the point of this paper.  It found that fish trade enhances domestic food security in developing nations in two prominent ways.  Earnings from exports of high dollar products such as shrimp and lobster to markets in developed nations buy larger quantities of less expensive food that is then made available to the most vulnerable sectors of the population.  Its second finding is that increased fish exports create new jobs and raise income levels as well as purchasing power in those same developing nations. 

The purchase power of ethical global traders such as a Darden can and does have real impact on achieving equilibrium among the need for economic development, environmental sustainability, and social justice. 

Ethical, sustainable, global trade can effectively achieve the goals of the Stockholm Declaration.  For example, it can focus upon a remote region anywhere in the developing world where divers harvest lobster by destroying coral reefs with bleach or cyanide, where they take gravid (egg-laden) females as well as undersized specimens for sale to locals.   

The global seafood market is highly regulated regarding standards in quality and size of lobster that can legally be offered for sale.  Health and sanitation standards must be met.  In return for lobsters that meeting these standards, global traders like Darden pay an amount considerably higher than proceeds from local sales.  The potential of larger profits to the fishermen is a powerful and lasting incentive.  But, profits alone are not enough.  The truly ethical trader imposes further requirements before they agree to purchase lobster from the area.  Those requirements are that every step in process from capture or cultivation to the consumer must meet the tri-part creed of real economic benefit, effective environmental sustainability, and true social justice. 

If the lobsters are taken in an environmentally harmful way, they will not be bought.  If those who participate in the process from the divers to those working to ready the lobsters for shipment are not treated justly, they will not be bought.  If the lobsters do not meet internationally acceptable health and safety standards, they will not be bought.   

In such cases, the ethical global trader will work with fishermen, processors, exporters, and the government to develop not only a code of ethical fishery conduct, but also the incentive to make those principles the basis of national fishery policy.  They are standards conduce for local fishermen and local businesses to partner on a long term economic basis with ethical traders.  They are also a realistic blueprint for their full participation in a lucrative global market. 

The formula is simple.  Companies and countries who conduct their affairs according to the principles of environmental sustainability and social justice by purchasing their goods and services receive the rewards of global trade.  Corporate entities like Darden can effect real social and environmental change by insisting that they deal only with those who are equally ethical in their conduct.  The positive rewards associated with ethical trade reap better results for all involved than a more punitive approach.

The fact of the matter is that when global traders such as Darden set high standards for vendors and suppliers, those vendors and suppliers typically work very hard to achieve those goals and meet those standards because they know they will be rewarded with the one commodity guaranteed to eradicate poverty, put food on their tables, provide health care, employ teachers, and push them along the road to economic self-sufficiency, hard currency.

The most central theme of the Stockholm Declaration debate was the need for equilibrium in the world wide quest for development and environmental sustainability. 

Equilibrium is the mantra of ethical global trade.  Equilibrium in business, in protecting and conserving Nature’s resources, and in promoting the elimination of poverty, hunger and disease throughout the human environment is the essence of ethical global trade captured in one word.

The real issue before the world is how to stimulate entities such as CITES, FAO, and others to accept the vital role of ethical global corporate traders in building a better life for humans and better conditions for the environment.  The integration of a real time Ethical Corporate Model into the network of resources working for the goals of the Stockholm Declaration will prove invaluable to the global challenge of promoting environmental sustainability and social justice in the use and conservation of our marine resources and of our terrestrial resources as well.

"A Part of Nature, Not Apart from Nature"  

That is the motto of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR). It embodies the Foundation's advocacy for humanity's place within Nature's expansive and diverse eco-system.