A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Introduction vii

I n t ro d u c t i o n

P
opulation and environmental issues are, in and of themselves, extremely complex;
linked, they create a whole new set of dynamics which add to that complexity. In
conceiving this AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment, the AAAS International
Programs Directorate wanted to bring together population-environment linkages in
ways that make them easily accessible to policy and decision makers, students and
the general public. Our hope is that in presenting the issues clearly, the debate surrounding
population-environment dynamics and our understanding of the issues will broaden in the
coming years.
In origin, atlases contained both maps and expository text. It is on this tradition that we have
tried to build, providing maps and graphics that quantify and illustrate many of the issues, and text
that lays out the broader links between population dynamics and the environment and places them
within their historical perspective. This is followed by a series of analyses of individual topics – both
ecosystems and human activities such as migration or trade – that bring together what is known
about the ways in which people impact the Earth’s environment. Lastly the atlas contains six case
studies that look at population-environment relationships in selected areas.
None of this would have been possible without the help and support of a large number of insti-
tutions and individuals. We are grateful to the Summit Foundation, the Turner Foundation and the
Hewlett Foundation for their generous support, without which this project would not have been
possible. We would also like to thank the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US) and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) for their contribution of the case studies. Thanks are also due to the many indi-
viduals in those organizations listed at the end of the book, whose skills, willingness to share data,
advice, encouragement, and above all unfailing good humor, made this publication possible.
Covering all aspects of the population/environment relationship is nearly impossible in any
circumstances, let alone in a single introductory volume. However, by drawing on very current
research and data as well as the most up-to-date mapping techniques, we have attempted to provide
a cogent entry-way to some of the most important concepts and questions facing us at the begin-
ning of the 21st century. In producing the AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment we have tried to
make that critical link between the scientific data, research and analysis of issues to polices and
public understanding. We hope you will find it useful.

Richard W. Getzinger, PhD

Director, AAAS International Programs Directorate

Victoria Dompka Markham

Director, Center for Environment and Population (CEP)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Foreword ix

Fo rew o rd

O
PINIONS vary widely on the numbers of people that individual areas, or the world
as a whole, can support, and objective analyses of the relationships that exist between
population and the environment are few and far between. In view of this lack of readily
available, clearly presented information, this volume fills an important void. Its
graphics, analyses and discussions of individual ecosystems provide the kind of basis
that any educated person would like to have in approaching this subject or in acting intelligently
in many areas of modern life. It is thus a most welcome contribution to the growing body of
literature about the environment, focusing exclusively on what is clearly the key area of concern.
As our numbers continue to grow, with increasing pressure on the environment everywhere,
it becomes more and more important to understand in as much depth as possible the many
and diverse aspects of this set of relationships. In this volume, you will find them laid out in a way
that is graphically appealing, clear, consistent with contemporary thought on the issues and
readily accessible to the intelligent lay person. In doing so, the book makes a contribution that is
exceedingly timely, one that will lead to further analyses and reflection on the part of individuals,
governments and corporations, as the authors have clearly intended.
Although it has long seemed obvious that there is an important linkage between such factors as
human population density, rate of growth, consumption and the choice of particular technologies on
the one hand, and the state of the environment on the other, the quantitative analysis of such rela-
tionships has by no means been adequately pursued, and they are often poorly understood and
represented. For these reasons, it is of great importance to make what we do know accessible to
both specialist and broader audiences, as a basis for developing theory further and for making the
best decisions we can now. Although it is difficult to view the pertinent facts clearly and without
bias, it is evident that no relationships are more important for us to understand as we strive to cre-
ate a sustainable world for the 21st century and beyond. General statements, speculation and
intuitive deductions about the impacts of various aspects of human population on the environment
are no longer sufficient as a basis for effective action, and additional empirical evidence and analy-
ses are badly needed. This book does not attempt such analyses, but rather endeavors to estab-
lish a common base of understanding about what is known in this area. In doing so, it makes an
important contribution.
In its opening chapters, this book illustrates the various ways in which population factors,
such as rates of growth, absolute growth, consumption, migration and the application of various
technologies, affect both in the short term and more enduringly the health of the world’s
ecosystems. Here, Paul Harrison presents an overview of exceptional clarity concerning the rela-
tionship between population dynamics and the environment. This treatment does not represent
original research, but rather is a presentation of contemporary thinking and data. The extensive
use of graphics makes every page a rich source of easily understood facts and figures about the
central relationships that this book explores.
The balance of the book presents an extensive series of analyses of individual habitats through-
out the world, considering in depth what is known about the ways in which they are impacted by
x A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Foreword

pressures associated with population. This is a feature that will provide useful insights in many
areas and for many different people.
One of the most difficult aspects of providing sound analyses of these relationships in the past
has been the difficulty of linking the social and natural sciences. Here, however, we find the issues
presented in a multidimensional fashion, demonstrating the cross connections between human
and natural environmental factors in determining a particular outcome. In such an area, the AAAS,
which brings together the wide array of all the sciences, has a comparative advantage, and is
particularly suited to undertake interdisciplinary studies.
Where do we stand in our efforts to achieve a sustainable world? Clearly, the past half century
has been a traumatic one, as the collective impact of human numbers, affluence (consumption per
individual) and our choices of technology continue to exploit rapidly an increasing proportion of the
world’s resources at an unsustainable rate. Ehrlich and Holdren’s IPAT relationship, discussed in
the second chapter of this book, lies at the heart of understanding the population/environment
relationship and needs to be understood both in terms of the amount of resources necessary to
produce each unit of consumption, and also the amount of waste or pollution generated in the
process. At any event, during a remarkably short period of time, we have lost a quarter of the
world’s topsoil and a fifth of its agricultural land, altered the composition of the atmosphere
profoundly, and destroyed a major proportion of our forests and other natural habitats without
replacing them. Worst of all, we have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss
of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the
loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century.
As George Schaller, the noted conservationist, has put it, "We cannot afford another century
like this one" (i.e., the 20th century). As the new millennium begins, human beings are estimated
to be consuming directly, wasting or diverting more than 40 percent of the total net terrestrial
photosynthetic productivity, and to be using about 55 percent of the world’s renewable supplies of
freshwater. Median World Bank estimates, however, have the human population increasing by
another 50 percent over the next half century, before leveling off at perhaps 10 billion people by
the year 2100. Trends over the past decades, which indicate a slowing in overall population growth,
support these projections, but it is clear that our population will not, in fact, reach stability unless we
find effective ways to continue to address growth and to achieve goals that we have selected.
At the same time, levels of consumption are rising throughout the world, even though it has
been estimated that if everyone in the world were to live in the way we do in the United States, it
would require three more planets comparable to Earth to support them. The notion that develop-
ment will eventually lead all of the world’s people to achieve standards of consumption comparable
to those enjoyed in our country, using the technologies we have available now, is clearly inaccurate;
and yet it implicitly underlies many of our actions, thoughts and aspirations. We live in a world in
which the World Health Organization considers that half of us are malnourished at some level, taking
into account vitamins, minerals and calories, and one in which one in four people survives on less
than a dollar per day. It is not a world in which conditions will be improved by wishful thinking, but
only by concrete action, based on the kind of understanding that this book will help to make possible.
The realization that the peoples of the world, rich and poor, are interdependent, and that the
rich have a responsibility to help the poor and that they will need to do so in order to be able to
achieve overall stability, is a relatively recent one, coming into focus with the formation of the
United Nations following the Second World War, and especially with the 1972 Stockholm confer-
ence on the global environment. Much has been written about these matters over the past few
decades, and when the nations of the world came together at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in
1992, it was hoped that effective action could be taken to address the complex needs involved
in building a sustainable world, and particularly the ways in which social justice was necessary
both morally and as a condition of forming such a world. Day by day, this is becoming more impor-
tant as more and more people make larger and larger demands on relatively static numbers and
amounts of resources.
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Foreword xi

In view of the complex relationships presented in the pages of this book, it evidently is not fea-
sible to estimate the Earth’s carrying capacity for people as an absolute. Rather, it is the complex
relationship between population density, consumption and choice of technology, together with the
choices that we make about the quality of life, that will determine the number of people that an
individual area, or the Earth as a whole, can support sustainably. The diversity of our planet is
decreasing rapidly, and has done so dramatically for the past 400 generations, since crop agricul-
ture and the domestication of animals provided the means for building villages, towns and cities,
and gave rise to the complex human societies in which the manifold activities that we call civiliza-
tion take place. The question that the relationships presented in this book bring into focus is one
of choice: what kind of world do we wish to have and to leave for our children and grandchildren, all
those who come after us. Human populations will attain sustainability, but will it be sustainability
marked by dull, monotonous, unhealthy landscapes, or one in which the biological and cultural
riches that we enjoy in the early years of the 21st century will be maintained and enhanced,
sources of material and spiritual enrichment for everyone?
In making the many choices involved in constructing the world of the future, we must go far
beyond the mechanical calculations of an Adam Smith to the vision of a Gandhi, who said, "The
world contains enough to satisfy every man’s need, but never enough for our greed”. It is abso-
lutely necessary to adopt a spiritual approach if we want the world of the future to be a nurturing
one, filled with variety of all kinds; but it is not sufficient to have such an attitude to understand
what we must do to achieve this goal. In order to do so, we must understand the relationships that
are so well presented in the present volume, in a unique and original way that will inform the
debate for years to come.
One puts down this book feeling a debt of gratitude to the authors, editors and those who pre-
pared the illustrations for the enlightenment and feeling of rational hope that they have conveyed by
laying out the realities of the all-important population/environment relationship so clearly,
comprehensively and well. In order to build a better, more prosperous and healthier life for our
children and all those who will come after us, we all badly need the kind of clarity of understanding
that this very welcome book represents. Given that understanding and our commitment to deal
effectively and well with our own future, we shall certainly be able to succeed beyond our most
optimistic assumptions.

Peter H. Raven
Director, Missouri Botanical Garden
President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
 OVERVIEW The scale of our presence 3

T h e s ca le o f
o u r p re s e n ce

H
UMANS are perhaps the most successful species in the history of life on Earth. From
a few thousand individuals some 200 000 years ago, we passed 1 billion around 1800
and 6 billion in 1999. Our levels of consumption and the scope of our technologies
have grown in parallel with, and in some ways outpaced, our numbers.
But our success is showing signs of overreaching itself, of threatening the key
resources on which we depend. Today our impact on the planet has reached a truly massive
scale. In many fields our ecological “footprint” outweighs the impact of all other living species
combined.
We have transformed approximately half the land on Earth for our own uses – around 11 per-
cent each for farming and forestry, and 26 percent for pasture, with at least another 2 to 3 percent for
housing, industry, services and transport1. The area used for growing crops has increased by almost
six times since 1700, mainly at the expense of forest and woodland2.
Of the easily accessible freshwater we already use more than half. We have regulated the flow
of around two thirds of all rivers on Earth, creating artificial lakes and altering the ecology of existing
lakes and estuaries3.
The oceans make up seven tenths of the planet’s surface, and we use only an estimated 8 percent
of their total primary productivity. Yet we have fished up to the limits or beyond of two thirds of
marine fisheries and altered the ecology of a vast range of marine species. During this century we
have destroyed perhaps half of all coastal mangrove forests and irrevocably degraded 10 percent of
coral reefs.
Through fossil-fuel burning and fertilizer application we have altered the natural cycles of carbon
and nitrogen. The amount of nitrogen entering the cycle has more than doubled over the last century,
and we now contribute 50 percent more to the nitrogen cycle than all natural sources combined.
The excess is leading to the impoverishment of forest soils and forest death, and at sea to the
development of toxic algal blooms and expanding “dead” zones devoid of oxygen4.
By burning fossil fuels in which carbon was locked up hundreds of millions of years ago, we have
increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by 30 percent over pre-industrial levels. We
have boosted methane content by 145 percent over natural levels5.
Through mining and processing we are releasing toxic metals into the biosphere that would
otherwise have remained safely locked in stone. We are producing new synthetic chemicals, many of
which may have as yet undetermined effects on other organisms.
We have thinned the ozone layer that protects life on Earth from harmful ultra-violet radiation.
Most scientists agree that human activities are contributing to global warming, raising global
temperatures and sea levels.
These processes affect the habitats and environmental pressures under which all species exist.
As a result, we have had an incalculable effect on the Earth’s biodiversity. The 484 animal and
654 plant species recorded as extinct since 1600 are only the tip of a massive iceberg6.
We have become a major force of evolution, not just for the “new” species we breed and geneti-
cally engineer, but for the thousands of species whose habitats we modify, consigning many to
4 OVERVIEW The scale of our presence

T h e s c a le o f P O P U L AT I O N D E N S I T Y , 1 9 9 8
human activities Per square kilometer
The scale of human
activities can be 0

represented partly by
Less than 1
observing population
density, both over the 1-45
globe and over time.
45-100

100-300

300-500

More than 500

Note: At the end of the 20th century the

world average population density was
45 people per square kilometer.

Population density per E X P A N S I O N O F T H E H U M A N P O P U L AT I O N

square kilometer 1700 1800
Less than 1

1-45

45-100

100-300

300-500

More than 500

Source: RIVM.
 OVERVIEW The scale of our presence 5

Source: ORNL.

1900
6 OVERVIEW The scale of our presence

extinction; compelling others to evolve and adapt to our pressures. We have become a force of
nature comparable to volcanoes or to cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit.
The scale of our activities depends on our population numbers, our consumption and the
resource or pollution impact of our technologies – and all three of these factors are still on the
increase. The maps on the previous pages illustrate the increasing spread and density of the human
population over the last three centuries.
As we enter the third millennium, the destiny of the planet is in our hands as never before, yet
they are inexperienced hands. We are modifying ecosystems and global systems faster than we can
understand the changes and prepare responses to them. All the factors in this vast equation affect
each other constantly. In a globalized world the elements of human activity interact with each other
and with local and planetary environments.
In this unprecedented situation, the need to be fully aware of what we are doing has never been
greater. We need to understand the way in which population, consumption and technology create
their impact, to review that impact across the most critical fields, and to find ways of using our
understanding of the links to inform policy.
 OVERVIEW The theory of population-environment links 7

The theory of
population-
e n v i ro n m e n t l i n k s
T h e I PAT f o r m u l a

D
OCUMENTATION of population-environment linkages has all too often consisted of a
simple listing of population trends side-by-side with environmental trends, on the The IPAT or IPCT formula is
assumption that one is the direct cause of the other.
necessarily a simplification.
Effective measures for dealing with how human populations affect the environ-
The technology element can
ment require a good understanding of the way things interact. We need an over-
arching theory of population-environment linkages, but so far there is no consensus on what usually be broken down into
such a theory would look like. two separate elements: the
Research into the links between population factors and the environment is relatively young and amount of resources used
undeveloped, and still riddled with controversy. The subject is complex and demands a broad to produce each unit of
and deep knowledge of demography, economics, and social and environmental sciences, which few
consumption, and the amount
possess. Family planning and environmental politics are contentious areas, and personal views on
of waste or pollution generated
these often color scientific research and theories.
Most theorists agree that overall human pressure on the environment is a product of three for each unit of resources.
factors: population, consumption per person and technology. Population is the total number The impact measured in the
of people, consumption relates to the amount each person consumes, and technology deter- IPAT formula is not true
mines how many resources are used and how much waste or pollution is produced for each unit environmental impact, but
of consumption.
takes the amount of resources
The best known standpoints often emphasize a single one of these factors as the dominant
used or pollution produced as
cause of our rising environmental impact. For some, this is inexorable population growth. For others,
it is polluting technology. Still others stress excessive consumption, policy and market failures, or a proxy for environmental
common ownership of key environmental resources. damage. In many situations an
extra factor has to be added to
A SYSTEMS APPROACH arrive at the true damage: the
All of these viewpoints are correct some of the time. None of them is correct all of the time. A com-
sensitivity of the environment.
prehensive theory must include all factors, and recognize that their relative importance may vary
So a fuller formula would read:
at different times and in different places.
In every human interaction with the environment – even in the simplest societies – the three I = P x C x Tr x Tw x S
major elements are in play. They can be linked in the famous formula introduced by Ehrlich and Tr refers to the technology
Holdren: of resource use, Tw to the
technology of waste
I = P x A x T, or management, and S to the
amount by which the
I m p a c t = P o p u l a t i o n x A f f l u e n c e x Te c h n o l o g y 1
environment changes in
More explicitly, environmental impact is the product of population, multiplied by consumption per response to a given amount
person, multiplied by the amount of resources needed, or wastes created, while producing each of resource extraction or
unit of consumption. pollution. In practice, S is hard
Ehrlich used the formula to show that population growth was the dominant factor in environ-
to quantify.
mental damage. In reality, at various historical times, different elements have been uppermost. The
8 OVERVIEW The theory of population-environment links

ABUNDANCE... C ATA S T R O P H E . . .
@?@?he?W&?h@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?@?eW-X?@6X?W&@?h@?
@?@?e7R1??S1?7Y@?h@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?@?e3@@?W&@?3X@?h@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?@@@?V4@?&@@?V4@?h@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@ ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@hf@?g@? ?@h ?@ @@6X ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@hf@?f?J@?
?@hf@?@6X?W&@W2@?/T. ?@h
?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?S)T-X?W2@?W-X?@?@?@@@@@?W-X?W2@? ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@hf@?@V1?*U@@@@?S@U ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@R@R1?*Ue7R1?@?@?@?@?e7R1?*U ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@hf@?@?@?V40?4@?.R/ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@V'T@@@?S@(?3T5?3X@?@?3=e3@@?S@(?
?@ @?V+R4@?&0Y?V+Y?V4@?@?V4@?V4@?&0Y? ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@ ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@hfW.
?@hf7HW&eW-T2@@?W-XfO@eW-KO26XN1?g?@h ?/X?g?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@hf@?&@e*?@@X??7R1?@@@@@e7R@@<B1?@?g?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@hf@?N@eN@R4)X?@?@f?@e@?@@e@?@?g?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@hf@??@e?@eS,?3T5?@@@?@e3T@@=C5?@?g?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@?
@? @? ?@hf3L?@e?@?@0Y?V+Yf?@eV+MI40YJ5?g?@h
?@hfV/ ?.Y?g?@h ?@ @@@?h?O@? ?@ @? @? ?@he
@? @? ?@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?eW-X?W-KO2@@? ?@ @? @? ?@he
@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@?7R1?7R@@<?@?
?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?e3T5?3T@@=?@? ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@?@@@?@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@ @?eV+Y?V+MI4@@? ?@ @? @? ?@he
@??W5?e@6X?W2@?he@?
@??7H?@?@V1?7<hf@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fW&?W-X?@@6T26X
?@he?@@@@@@@@@f*@?*?,?@X;@<B1 ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?J@L?@?@?@?3=hf@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fN@?N@H?@)X@??@ ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@?@@@?@?@?@?V4@?he@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@?eS@@=C5 ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@??@0MI40Y ?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@ @@6Xhf@?f)T.? ?@ @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?S)T-X?@6X?@?@?@?@6X?@@U?W-X?@6X?
?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@0R@R1?@V1?@?@?@??S1?@V1?7R1?@V1? ?@
?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?e3T5?@W5?3X@?3=O&@?3X@?3T5?@?@? ?@ @? ?O2@@6K?hf?O2@@@@@@@@6K? @? ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h
?@h ?@ @?eV+Y?@(Y?V4@?V4@@@?V4@?V+Y?@?@? ?@ @? ?O2@@@@@@@6XhO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fW&?W-X?@@6T26X ?@h ?@ @H ?@ @? W2@@@@@@@@@@@)X?e?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f*@?*?,?@Y@@<B1 ?@h ?@
?@ @? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?W&@@@@@@0?4@@@@)XeO&@@@@@@0MgI4@@@@@@@6K?
W&@@@@0Mg@@@)?2@@@@@0M?he?I4@@@@@@6X? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fN@?N@HeJ@@??@ ?@h ?@ ?@ @? ?W&@@@(Mh3@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@)K @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@? @?
@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@?e7R'=C5
?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@?e@?V40Y ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? W&@@@(Y?hN@@@@@@(M? ?I4@@@@@6X @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@ ?@ @? ?W&@@@(Yhe?@@@@@(Y ?I4@@@@)K? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@
?@ @?f?W&?gO)X?eO-K?e@?he@Kh)Xg?@ ?@ @?
@? W&@@@(Y?hW2@@@@@@
7@@@(Yh?W&@@@@@@@1? ?I'@@@@6X?hf@?
V4@@@@)Khf@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?@6X?W&@?@?@?W2@@)?@@@?@6X?@?eW-X?@?@?@@@6X?@?@?@)g?@ @? ?J@@@(Y?hW&@@@@0Y@@@? I'@@@@6Xhe@? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@
?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h
?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?@V1?7Y@?@?@?*U?@H?@?B@8S1?@?e7R1?@?@?@?@V1?@?@?@Hg?@ @? ?7@@@Hh?W&@@@(Me@@@L ?V4@@@@)K?h@? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?@?@?3X@?3X@?S@@@L?@??@W&@?3Le3T5?3X@?3X@W5?3X@?3Lg?@ @? J@@@5?hW&@@@(Y?e3@@1 ?I'@@@@6X?g@? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fW&?W-X?W-KO26X ?@h ?@
?@ @?@?@?V4@?V4@?&0MI/?@??@@@@?V/eV+Y?V4@?V'@(Y?V4@?V/g?@
?N@H ?@ @?
@? 7@@(Y?g?W&@@@(YfN@@@
?J@@@HhO&@@@(Y?f?@@@L? V4@@@@)Kg@?
I'@@@@6Xf@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f*@?*?,?*?@@<B1 ?@h ?@ @? ?@ @? W&@@5?gW2@@@@0Yg?3@@1? ?V4@@@@)X?e@? ?@he
@?
@? @?
@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@fN@?N@H?N@Y@??@
?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@?e@?3=C5 ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @? 7@@@H?f?W&@@@(Mh?N@@@? ?I'@@@)Xe@? ?@he
@? @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@f?@e@?e@?V40Y ?@h ?@ ?@ @?hf?J@@@5gW&@@@(Y?he@@@L V'@@@)X?@? ?@he
@?W26X @? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?hf?7@@@Hf?W&@@@(Yhf3@@1
@?hfJ@@@5?fW&@@@(Y?hfN@@@ ?V'@@@)X@?
V'@@@@@? ?@he
?@he
@?7<I/?W-X?@6T2@6KO-X?@@@?@? ?@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@ @@6Xf@?@?e?W-X?@ ?@ @?he?W&@@(Y?e?W&@@@(Y ?@@@L? ?V'@@@@? ?@he
@?@?e?.R/?(R40MI40R/?@Me@?
@?/KO.?/T.?)T26KO2@@@?@?e@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@MI/?@e@?@?@??&@)f@?@@@? ?@ @?he?&@@0Yf?&@@@0Y? ?@@@@? V4@@@@@? ?@he
@?V40Y?V+Y?@(Y@@0MI4@?@?e@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@?@?@?@?@?@??@@??@?@?@@??@ ?@ @?heW2@@@?e?W2@@@(? @@@? ?@@@@6X? ?@he
@?h?@H?@?he@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@?e3T5?3T@T@=?@@L?@?3T@@??@
?@ @?eV+Y?V+R+R4@0R/?@?V+R'??@ ?@
?@ @?he7@@@H?eO&@@@(Y?
@?h?J@@@5eW2@@@@0Y @@@L
3@@1 ?N@@@@)X
@@@@@)X? ?@he
?@he
@?h?@e@?he@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?h?7@@(Y?W&@@@(M N@@@ @V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @?hJ@@@H?W&@@@(Y? ?@@@L? @?V'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?g?W&@@5?W&@@@(Y ?@@@1? @??V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?g?7@@@HW&@@@(Y? ?3@@@? @?eV'@@@)K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?gJ@@@@T&@@@(Y
@?g7@@@V@@@@(Y? ?N@@@?
@@@L @?e?V4@@@@6X?
@?f?I'@@@)X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@? @? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @?f?J@@@@@@@@(Yg?O2@@@@@@6K?hf3@@1 @?gV'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?fW&@@@@@@@0Y??O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KhN@@@ @?g?V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?f7@@@@@@@X?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6Xg?@@@ @?hV'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ @?e?J@@@@@@@V@@@@@@@@@@@@0MfI4@@@@@@@)X?f?@@@L?
@?e?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@)Kf?3@@1? @?h?V'@@@)X
@?heV'@@@)X? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ @?eJ@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? I'@@@@6Xe?N@@@? @?he?V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ @?e7@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?V4@@@@1f@@@? @?hfV'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@ @??J@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I'@@@L?e@@@L @?hf?V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@
?@ @?W&@@@@@@@(M?
@W&@@@@@@@0Y N@@@)Xe3@@1
?3@@@1eN@@@ @?
@? V'@@@)X?
?V'@@@)X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?e?@ @@@@@@@@(M ?V'@@@L??@@@ @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?J@@@@@@@0Y? V'@@)X?@@@L? @? ?V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K W&@@@@@(M? ?N@@@1?3@@1? @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?@fI4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?W&@@@@@(Y
W&@@@@@(Y? 3@@@LN@@@?
V'@@)X@@@L @?
@? ?V'@@@)X
V'@@@)X? ?@he
?@he
@?
@? @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@heI4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?W&@@@@@(Y ?N@@@@@@@1 @? ?V'@@@)X ?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? W&@@@@@@H? 3@@@@@@@ @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@?@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?W&@@@@@@5 V'@@@@@@ @? ?V'@@@)X ?@he
@?@?@@6T26T26Xe?W-X?@@@6X ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? W&@@@@@@@H
?W&@@@@@@@@? ?N@@@@@@L?
3@@@@@1? @?
@? V'@@@)X?
?V'@@@)X ?@he
?@he
@?@?@?B@<B@@V1e?7R1?@?@V1
@?@?@??3=C@@?@e?3T5?@?3@@ ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@6K W&@@@@@@@@@? V'@@@@@? @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@?@?@??V40R'?@e?V+Y?@?V4@ ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?W&@@@@X@@@@@? ?V'@@@@L @? ?V'@@@)X ?@he
@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@6K O&@@@(R@@@(Y@? N@@@@1 @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@6K? W2@@@@(YJ@@@H?@?
I4@@@@@@@@6Khf?W&@@@@(Y?7@@5e@? ?3@@@@L?
?N@@@@1? @?
@? ?V4@@@)K
?I'@@@6X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@6KheW&@@@@(Y?J@@@He@? 3@@@@? @? V'@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@6K?f?W&@@@@(Y?W&@@5?e@? V'@@@L @? ?V'@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ I4@@@@@@@6K?eW&@@@@(Ye7@@@H?e@? ?N@@@1 @? V'@@@)K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?I4@@@@@@6KO&@@@@(Y??J@@@5f@?
?I4@@@@@@@@@@@(Ye?7@@@Hf@? 3@@@L?
N@@@)X @?
@? ?V'@@@@6X?
V4@@@@)X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@H?eJ@@@5?f@? ?3@@@1 @? I'@@@)K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?W@@@@@@@@f7@@(Y?f@? ?N@@@@L? @? ?V'@@@@6X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@@@@@6K?@@@Hg@? @@@@1? @? V4@@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?g@?
W&@@@@@(M?I4@@@@@@h@? 3@@@@L
N@@@@)X? @?
@? I'@@@)K?
?V'@@@@6X? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@(Yf?@@@@@)Kg@? ?3@@@@1? @? V4@@@@)X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@(Y?fJ@@@@@@@6Xf@? ?N@@@@@L @? I'@@@)K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?O&@@@@@(Yg7@@@@@@@@)K?e@? @@@@@)X? @? ?V'@@@@6X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?W2@@@@@@(Y?f?J@@@(?4@@@@@6X?@?
W&@@@@@@(YgW&@@(YeI4@@@@)X@? 3@@@@@1?
N@@@@@@L @?
@? V4@@@@)K
I'@@@@6X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@@(Y?g7@@@H?fI'@@@@@? ?@@@@@@)X? @? ?V4@@@@)K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@@(Yg?J@@@5g?V4@@@@@6X ?3@@@@@@)X @? ?I'@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@@(Y?gW&@@(Yh?I'@@@@)X? ?N@@@@@@@1 @? V4@@@@@6X? ?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ O&@@@@@@(Yh7@@@H?heV'@@@@)K
W2@@@@@@@(Y?g?J@@@5hf?N@@@@@@6X 3@@@@@@@L?
N@@@V'@@)X @?
@? I'@@@@)K
?V4@@@@@6K ?@he
?@he
@?
@? @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@@@(YhW&@@(Y @V4@@@@)X? ?@@@LN@@@)X? @? ?I4@@@@@6X ?@he
@?W26X?@?@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@@@(Y?h7@@@H? @??I'@@@)X ?3@@1?3@@@)X @? ?I'@@@@)K? ?@he
@?7<B1e?@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@@@(Yh?J@@@5 @?eV'@@@)K? ?N@@@LV'@@@1 @? V4@@@@@6X? ?@he
@?@??@?@?@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ W&@@@@@@@(Y?hW&@@(Y
?O&@@@@@@@(Yhe7@@@H? @?e?V'@@@@6X?
@?fV4@@@@)X @@@1?V'@@@L?
3@@@L?V'@@)X @?
@? I4@@@@)K
I'@@@@6K ?@he
?@he
@?3=C5?@?3L?
@?V40Y?@?V/? @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?W2@@@@@@@@(Y?h?J@@@5 @?gI'@@@)K? N@@@1??N@@@)X? @? ?V4@@@@@6Khf?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@@@@(YheW&@@(Y @?g?V'@@@@6X? ?3@@@Le3@@@)X @? ?I4@@@@@6Khe?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?W&@@@@@@@@(Y?h?W&@@(Y? @?hV4@@@@)X ?N@@@1eV'@@@)X?hf@? ?I4@@@@@6Kh?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ O&@@@@@@@@(YheW&@@@H
?@@@@@@@@@@0Y?he&@@@@? @?heI'@@@)X?
@?he?V4@@@)? 3@@@L??V'@@@)Xhf@?
V4@@@?eV4@@@)hf@? ?I4@@@@@6Kg?@he
?I4@@@@@@?f?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@(hf?W2@@( @?hf?'@@@6X? ?@@@6Xf'@@@6Xhe@? @@@@@@6Ke?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?W2@@@@@@@@@(YhfW&@@(Y @?hf?V'@@@)X ?N@@@1fV'@@@)X?h@? ?I4@@@@@6K?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W&@@@@@@@@@(Y?he?W&@@@H? @? V'@@@)X? 3@@@L?e?V'@@@)Xh@? ?I4@@@@@@@L?h
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?O&@@@@X@@@@(YhfW&@@@5
?W2@@@@@>@@@@(Y?hf7@@@(Y @?
@? ?V'@@@)X
V'@@@)X? V'@@1?fV'@@@)X?g@?
?N@@@Lf?V'@@@)Xg@? ?I4@@@@@@?h
?I4@@@H?h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ O&@@@@@>@@@@(Yhf?J@@@(Y? @? ?V'@@@)X 3@@1gV'@@@)X?f@? ?I'@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ W2@@@@(MS@@@@(Y?hfW&@@(Y @? V'@@@)X? N@@@L?f?V'@@@)Xf@? N@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?O&@@@@0YW&@@@(Yhf?W&@@@H? @? ?V'@@@)X C@@@1?gV'@@@)K?e@? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?W2@@@@(M?W&@@@(Y?hfW&@@@5
O&@@@@0Y?W&@@@(Y 7@@@(Y @?
@? V'@@@)X?
?V'@@@)X ?O2@@Y@@@?g?V'@@@@6X?@?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KgV4@@@@)X@? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ W2@@@@(MeO&@@@0Y?hf?J@@@(Y? @? V'@@@)X? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KgI'@@@@@L ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?O&@@@@0Y?W2@@@(M? W&@@(Y @? ?V'@@@)X O&@@@@@@@@0?4@@@@@@@@@6Kf?V'@@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@
?@ ?W2@@@@(M??W&@@@(Y
W&@@@@(YeW&@@@(Y? ?W&@@@H?
W&@@@5 @?
@? V'@@@)X?
?V'@@@)X O2@@@@@0M?h@@@@@@@@@6X?eV4@@@@)K
W2@@@@@0M?he3@@@@@@@@@)XfI'@@@@6X ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h ?@ ?@ ?O&@@@@0Y??W&@@@(Y ?W&@@@(Y @? V'@@@)X? ?W&@@@@0M?hfV'@@@W@@@@@)K?e?N@@@@@)X? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@ ?W2@@@@(M?eW&@@@(Y? W&@@@(Y? @? ?V4@@@)X W&@@@(M? ?N@@@@<I'@@@@6X?e@V'@@@)K ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h ?@ ?@ O&@@@@0Ye?W&@@@(Y ?W&@@@(Y @? ?I'@@)K?hf?W&@@@(Y 3@@@L?V4@@@@)Xe@?V'@@@@6X ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h@? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@ O2@@@@(MfO&@@@(Y?
?@hfO2@@@@@0Y?eW2@@@@(Y W&@@@(Y?
?W&@@@(Y @?
@? V'@@@6X?heW&@@@(Y?
?V'@@@)Xh?W&@@@(Y V'@@)XeI'@@@)X?@??V4@@@@)K?
?N@@@1e?V'@@@)X@?e?I'@@@@6X? ?@he
?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@h?O2@@@@@@0M?e?W&@@@@0Y? W&@@@(Y? @? V'@@@)X?gW&@@@(Y? 3@@@L?eV'@@@@@LfV'@@@@)X ?@he
@?
@? @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?@g?O2@@@@@@0M?fW&@@@(M? ?W&@@@(Y @? ?V'@@@)Xf?W&@@@(Y V'@@)Xe?V4@@@@)X?e?V4@@@@)K? ?@he
@?@@6X?)X?hf)Xf?)X? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@f?O2@@@@@@0M?f?O&@@@(Y ?7@@@(Y? @? V'@@@)X?eW&@@@(Y? ?N@@@1f?I'@@@)Kf?I'@@@@6X? ?@he
@?@?S,?@)X?W-KO2@?@6X?@)X?@6X@)?W-X? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?@e?O2@@@@@@0M?f?W2@@@@(Y?
?@?O2@@@@@@0M?gW&@@@@0Y J@@@(Y
?W&@@(Y? @?
@? ?V'@@@)X?W&@@@(Y
V'@@@)?&@@@0Y? 3@@@L?fV'@@@@6XfV4@@@@)K
V'@@)Xf?N@@@@@)X?fI'@@@@6K ?@he
?@he
@?@@0Y?@V1?7R@@Ue@V1?@V1??S@@H?7R1? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ J@@@@@@@@0M?g?O&@@@(M W&@@(Y @? ?V'@@@@@@(M? ?N@@@1g@V'@@@)Xf?V'@@@@@6K ?@he
@?@?e?@?@?3T@>@(?@W5?@?@?W&@@L?3@@?
@?@?e?@?@?V+R40Y?@(Y?@?@?&@0R/?V4@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ ?O&@@@@@@0M?g?W2@@@@(Y? ?W&@@(Y? @? N@@@@@@H 3@@@L?f@?V'@@@)X?fV4@@@@@@6K ?@he
@? @H ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@0M?hO&@@@@0Y O&@@(Y @? J@@@@@@L V'@@)Xf@??V'@@@1?gI4@@@@@@6K ?@he
@@@@@@hf@?g@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?O2@@@@@@0M?hW2@@@@(M
?O2@@@@@@@he?O&@@@@(Y? W2@@@(Y?
?W&@@@(Y @?
@? ?W&@@@@@@)X?
W&@@@@@@@@)X ?N@@@)X?e@?eV'@@@LhI4@@@@@@6K
3@@@)Xe@?e?V'@@)X?h?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@0Y@h?W2@@@@@0Y W&@@@(Y? @? ?W&@@@(MI'@@@)X? V'@@@1e@?fV'@@)Xhe?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@0Me?@hO&@@@@0M ?W&@@@(Y @? W&@@@(Y??V'@@@)X ?V'@@@L?@?f?V'@@)X?he?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@0Mf?@gO2@@@@(M O&@@@(Y? @? ?W&@@@(YfV'@@@)X? V'@@)X@?gV'@@)Xhf?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@0Mg?@fW2@@@@@0Y?
O2@@@@@@@@@@0Mh?@e?O&@@@@0M? W2@@@@(Y
?W&@@@@0Y? @?
@? W&@@@(Y?f?V'@@@)K
?W&@@@(YhV'@@@@6X ?V'@@@@?g?V'@@)X?hf?I4@@@@@@6K?
N@@@@LhV'@@)X ?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@0Mhf?@?O2@@@@(M? W&@@@(M? @? W&@@@(Y?h?V4@@@@)X? ?3@@@)X?g?V'@@)X? I4@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M? J@@@@@@@0Y ?W&@@@(Y @? ?W&@@@(Yhf?I'@@@)K ?V'@@@)XhN@@@)X I4@@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O&@@@@@(M O&@@@(Y? @? W&@@@(Y? V'@@@@6X V'@@@1h?3@@@)X? I4@@@@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h ?@
?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@0Y?
?O2@@@@@@0M? W2@@@@0Y
?O&@@@(M @?
@? ?W&@@@(Y
W&@@@(Y? ?V4@@@@)X?
?I'@@@)K ?N@@@@L?g?V'@@@)X
@@@@)XhV'@@@)X? I4@@@@@@@@@@6K
I4@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@ ?W2@@@@(Y? @? ?W&@@@(Y V'@@@@6K @V'@@)K?g?V'@@@)X ?I4@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@0Y@ O&@@@@0Y @? W&@@@(Y? ?V4@@@@@6K @?N@@@@6X?gV'@@@)X? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@0Me?@ W2@@@@(M @? ?O&@@@(Y ?I'@@@@@6K @??@@@@@)Xg?V'@@@)X I4@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h ?@
?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@0Mf?@
O2@@@@@@0Mg?@ ?O&@@@@0Y?
?W2@@@@(M? @?
@? ?W2@@@@(Y?
O&@@@@0Y V4@@@@@@6K
I4@@@@@@6K @?eI'@@@)X?gV'@@@)X?
@?e?V'@@@)Xg?V'@@@)X I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?g?@he ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h ?@hf?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@0Mh?@ O&@@@@0Y @? W2@@@@(M I4@@@@@@6K @?fV'@@@)X?gV'@@@)X? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h
?@h ?@gO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@0Mhe?@ W2@@@@(M @? ?W&@@@@0Y? I4@@@@@@@6K? @?f?V'@@@)Xg?V'@@@)X I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@0Mhf?@hf?O&@@@@0Y? @? O&@@@(M? I4@@@@@@@@@6K?he@?gV'@@@)K?gV'@@@)X? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?@@@@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@0M ?@he?O2@@@@(M?
?@h?O2@@@@@0Y @?
@?hf?O&@@@@0Y? W2@@@@(Y I4@@@@@@@@@@@6K?g@?g?V4@@@@6X?f?V'@@@)K
I4@@@@@@@@@@6Kf@?h?I'@@@)XgV'@@@@6X ?I4@@@he
?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@(M O2@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@g?O2@@@@@0M @?he?W2@@@@(M? I4@@@@@@@@@@6X@?heV'@@@)X?f?V4@@@@)K? ?@he
@?
@?@@6Xhe?W.?)Xf@? @? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@H? ?O2@@@@@@@@0M? ?@f?O2@@@@@0M @?heW&@@@@(Y ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@6Kh?V'@@@)Kg?I'@@@@6X? ?@he
@?@?S,?@6X?@?@@6T&U?@)T-X?@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@e?O2@@@@@0M @?h?O&@@@@0Y? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@6K?gV'@@@@6XgV4@@@@)X ?@he
@?@@@UeS1?@?@?@@R1?@V@R1?@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@?O2@@@@@0M
J@@@@@@@0M @?g?W2@@@@(M?
@?gW&@@@@0Y ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KV@@@@@)K?gI'@@@)K?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?f?V'@@@@6X? ?@he
?@he
@?@?S,?W&@?3X@?@@X@?3T@@@?@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?O&@@@@@0M @?f?O&@@@(M @?eI4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KV@@@@@)K ?@he
@?@@0Y?&@@?V4@@0R4@?V+R4@?@?
@? @? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@0M @?e?O2@@@@(Y? @?heI4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@(M @??O2@@@@@0Y @? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?@hO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@H?
?O2@@@@@@@0M?@ @W2@@@@@(M
@@@@@@@0Y? @?
@? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?I'@@@@@gI4@@@@@@@?f?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@0Me?@ O2@@@@@@0M @? V4@@@@@6K?f?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@
@@@@@@ @?
@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@0M?f?@ O2@@@@@@0M @? I4@@@@@6K?f?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@0Mh?@ O2@@@@@@@? @? I4@@@@@@6Kf?I4@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@ @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@0M?
?@M? O2@@@@@@@0M?he?@
?@@@@@@@@@@0M?hf?@ ?O2@@@@@@@0Y@?
?@@@@@@@@@0Me@? @?
@? I4@@@@@@6Kf?I4@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@f?I4@@@@@@@@@ ?@he
?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@g@? @? ?@@@@@@@@6K?f?@@@@@@@@@6K ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@
?@ @?
@? ?@h
?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?g@? @? ?I4@@@@@@@6KfI4@@@@@@@@@6K? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?he@? @? ?I4@@@@@@@6Kf?I4@@@@@@@@@6K ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@
?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@
?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M @?
@? @?
@? I4@@@@@@@@@6K?e?I4@@@@@@@@@6K
I4@@@@@@@@@@@6K?eI4@@@@@@@@@@6Khf?@he ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @? ?@h ?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? @? @? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@h?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?@ @?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@h
?@h ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @? @? @@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6KeO@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?@he?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@
?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M @?
@? @?
@? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@h
?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? @? @? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@hfO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M @?
@? @?
@? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
I4@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?@h ?@(M O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? @? @? ?@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h
?@h ?@Y? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? @? @? ?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@ @?
@? @?
@? ?@he
?@he
@? @? ?@ @? ?@h ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@ @? @? ?@he
?W-X
?7R1 ?@@6T-X?W-X?he?W&?eW-X?W-KO26X?heW&e?@@@?W-KO26Xhe?@6XeW-X?W-X?W-X?f
?@X;@R1?7R1?he?*@?e7R1?7R@@<B1?he*@e?@X??7R@@<B1hfS,e7R1?7R1?7R1?f ?W&?W26KO-X?W-X? @?@? ?W&?W26T2@@?W-X? @6X?W-X?W-KO-X @6KO26T2@@?W-X @6X?W&?W-X?W-Xh
?@?@ ?@)X@?@?@?@?he?N@?e@?@?@?@@e@?heN@e?@)X?@?@@??@he?W.Ye@?@?@?@?@?@?f ?*@?*US@@R1?7R1?
?N@?V'@Y@?@?@?@? 3T5?
N@HW2@?W-X?@@@ ?*@?*US@@Xe7R1?
?N@?V'@R4)X?@?@? ?S,?7R1?7R@@R1
W.Y?@?@?@?@@?@ ?S@@<B@@X??7R1
W.Y@e@@)X?@?@ ?S,?*@?7R1?7R1h
W.Y?N@?@?@?@?@h
?3T5
?V+Y S@@T5?3T5?hf@?e3T5?3T@@=C5?he?@fS,?3T@@=C5he?7Y?e3T5?3T5?3T5?f
?@0MI+Y?V+Y?hf@?eV+Y?V+MI40Y?he?@e?@0Y?V+MI40Yhe?@@@eV+Y?V+Y?V+Y?f @??S5?3T5?3T5? ?@?&@@?&@1?@ @??S5??S,?3T5? 7Ye3T5?3T@@T5 7Y:@=C@XS,?3T5 7Ye?@?3T5?3T5h
@??.Y?V+Y?V+Y? ?@?V4@?V4@?@ @??.Y?@0Y?V+Y? @@@?V+Y?V+MI+Y @@0R40R40Y?V+Y @@@??@?V+Y?V+Yh

Source: Simon. Source: Meadows et al.

Abundance: Julian Simon’s increase in arable area in many parts of Africa up to around 1980, and the deforestation that went
chart from The Ultimate with it, was mainly driven by population growth. There was little rise in consumption of agricultural
Resource 2, shows how products per person, and little improvement in yields. By contrast, the dramatic rise in human out-
known mineral reserves put of chlorofluorocarbons from the 1940s onwards was due overwhelmingly to the introduction of a
have increased with time, new technology.
despite higher use and Of course, the impact also depends on the sensitivity of the environment, and this is not always
growing populations. predictable. It has certain thresholds which, if crossed, lead to rapid depletion and degradation.
Resources such as fisheries, forests and groundwater have a maximum sustainable yield, beyond
Catastrophe: The business- which they will be unable to replenish themselves. Sinks for our wastes, such as soils, rivers, lakes,
as-usual scenario from oceans and atmosphere, have critical loads for various pollutants, beyond which important aspects
Beyond the Limits. As of their productivity will degrade.
resources are assumed to Sometimes the environment may successfully evolve as human pressures increase. At other
run out, industrial output times it may change suddenly when human pressure exceeds certain thresholds. When erosion
and food production drop, strips soil close to bedrock, yields fall abruptly. If global warming melts the polar icecaps, major
leading to a collapse of ocean currents may cease or shift direction, producing faster climate change.
human populations. Although the IPAT model as it is written assumes independence of each of the PAT elements,
the authors recognize that these are not independent in the real world, rather they interact
with each other. In the 1980s, for example, slower population growth appeared to facilitate
faster growth of consumption in developing countries. Higher income levels tend to improve
environmental technology – wealthier nations have a greater willingness and ability to pay for
environmental quality.
Reality is still more complex. There are many other factors which affect each element of the
“pressure” side of the equation. Population change, for example, is determined by fertility, mortal-
ity and migration. Each of these, in turn, is affected by a host of other factors, from patterns of
breastfeeding and the status and education of women, to child health, availability of contraception,
the distribution of land and income, and the opportunities for migration.
This complexity is best viewed using a systems approach, which helps to overcome the polariza-
tion found in the most prominent views of population-environment linkages.
The systems approach has two key differences from conventional approaches. It does not focus
on a single factor, but instead builds in as many potential factors as possible; and it does not see
 OVERVIEW The theory of population-environment links 9

human impact on the environment simply as a one-way street. There is feedback. Changes in the Malthusian crises
environment have an impact on human welfare. This is primarily as a result of: in history
■ resource depletion or degradation and the resulting shortages and scarcities; History has seen Malthusian-
■ loss of a valued amenity such as natural wilderness areas or beautiful landscapes; type crises when whole
■ impacts on human health and fertility.
civilizations failed to adapt
These environmental problems in turn produce a human response – often driving us to alter our
to the consequences of
behavior so as to reduce the problems.
There have been several attempts at producing diagrams showing these complex linkages their own pressure on the
and feedbacks, but the number of factors and cross-links involved in the real world makes environment and suffered
them extremely complex2. One of the most successful attempts to produce a dynamic model of the total or partial collapse.
population-environment relationship is the study of Mauritius by the International Institute for Salinization drove farming out
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)3.
of southern Mesopotamia.
When attempts are made to quantify linkages in order to attempt projections, radical simplifi-
Deforestation may have
cation is usually necessary. The Beyond the Limits studies by Meadows and colleagues, for example,
modelled all resources through the behavior of a single fictitious non-renewable Resource, and all brought the Maya and Easter
pollution through a single fictitious Pollutant which affected human health and agricultural yields4. Island civilizations to an end.
The interactions and uncertainties when studying whole ecosystems or the whole Earth are In medieval Europe the
so great that quantitative forecasts are virtually impossible. All that can be offered are “what if” extension of farmland into
scenarios that show the possible consequences of a range of trends.
marginal areas brought soil
erosion and declining yields.
M A LT H U S V E R S U S A D A M S M I T H
The systems approach helps resolve another conflict in the theory of population-environment Poor harvests led to
linkages, over the way in which humans respond to environmental problems of their own making. malnutrition, lowering
On one side is the “Malthusian crisis” approach, exemplified by Ehrlich and the Beyond the resistance to disease and
Limits studies. In this approach, the pressure of resource demands and pollution loads can build culminating in the Black
up and are predicted to reach crisis level if business continues as usual. Unless drastic action is
Death.
taken, catastrophe follows: economy and society collapse, death rates rise and populations fall. We
Societies can collapse if,
do not achieve adaptation by choice or plan – it is forced on us by nature. However, Malthusian
scenarios usually suggest that catastrophe can be avoided – as long as humanity heeds the warning for one reason or another,
signs and takes the necessary steps in time5. they are unable to adopt the
On the opposing side is what might be called the “economic adaptation approach”, fervently technology that might save
championed by economist Julian Simon. In this scenario, humans adapt to the problems that our them. When the climate
development produces, for the most part smoothly and without grave setbacks. In the process we
cooled in 15th century
gain increased productivity and efficiency, and improved human welfare. Simon saw population
Greenland, the Viking settlers
growth as an asset, producing more brainpower to deal with any specific problem6.
A more sophisticated adaptation approach was put forward by Ester Boserup in her classic book could have survived by
The Conditions of Agricultural Growth. Boserup suggested that population growth was the principal abandoning their livestock-
force driving societies to find new agricultural technologies7. based economy and adopting
Unlike Simon, Boserup did not claim that the process ran smoothly. She acknowledged that Inuit lifestyles, but the leap
population pressure could cause serious resource shortages and environmental problems, and it
was too great and their
was these problems that drove people to find solutions. Nor did she claim that things were always
communities died out.
better after the adaptation.
They could often be worse. For example, when hunter-gatherers with growing populations In one way or another
depleted the stocks of game and wild foods across the Near East, they were forced to introduce these are all failures of
agriculture. But agriculture brought much longer hours of work and a less rich diet than hunter- adaptation: failures to change
gatherers enjoyed. Further population growth among shifting slash-and-burn farmers led to technologies or ways of
shorter fallow periods, falling yields and soil erosion. Plowing and fertilizers were introduced to deal
managing resources in time
with these problems – but once again involved longer hours of work8.
to prevent the collapse of a
The major flaw with both the adaptationist and the Malthusian approaches lies in their claim to
universality. In reality, both may be true of different civilizations at different historical periods, and key resource.
a comprehensive theory must be able to account for both approaches.
10 OVERVIEW The theory of population-environment links

The pressure- H U M A N A D A P T A B I L I T Y A N D I T S L I M I TA T I O N S
state-response Humans, by nature, are adaptable. That is why we have been so successful as a species. Through
model the course of our history, we have radically changed our cultures, our technologies, our consumption
patterns, and the number of children we have. In modern times we have changed all of these at
PRESSURE unprecedented rates.
Population Adaptation is possible even in apparently extreme situations. In the 1930s the Machakos area
Consumption of Kenya had almost no tree cover and rapid soil erosion. Enforced colonial soil conservation pro-
Technology grams achieved little. But from the late 1970s onwards indigenous methods of soil conservation
were introduced, and there was a massive wave of tree planting. Soil erosion diminished, crop yields
Resource use rose and fuelwood availability increased – all this at the same time as population continued to grow
Waste output rapidly. This success story depended on farmers being able to respond freely to market demand,
and having de facto ownership of their land so that they could benefit from their own tree planting
and terracing efforts9.
STATE OF ENVIRONMENT Nonetheless, much of sub-Saharan Africa, at least during the period from 1970 to 1990, was
Pollution trapped in a Malthusian-type scenario. Rapid population growth was increasing pressure on the
Degradation land, yet agricultural technology was not adapting fast enough, leading to deforestation, soil ero-
Depletion sion and, in many places, stagnant or falling yields. For dryland Africa the technologies and crop
varieties still do not exist to allow crop yields to keep pace with population growth, leaving migra-
tion as the only way to relieve the pressure for many marginal groups. Of course in many countries
FEEDBACK inadequate governance, market imperfections and endemic conflict made the task of adaptation all
Scarcity the more difficult.
Hazard A systems approach sees our interactions with the environment in terms of pressure, state,
Loss of amenity feedback and response. The pressure is the particular human activity, such as carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions or fish catches, causing an impact. The level of pressure is determined by population,
consumption and technology, and by the level of resource use and waste output these generate. The
FILTERS state is the resulting condition of the environment – in these cases the atmospheric concentration of
Science CO2 and global mean temperature, and the size of fish stocks.
Monitoring Changes in the environment act as feedback when we notice a problem – a resource shortage, an
Political system effect on human health, a new hazard or the loss of an amenity, such as the disappearance of a
Legal system species or wilderness area.
Market system How we respond to the feedback depends on various filters through which we process environ-
Property system mental information: our level of monitoring and scientific understanding, the form of ownership or
management of the resource, the freedom of the market to respond to scarcities, and the biases in
the political or legal system that determine an adequate response.
SOCIETAL RESPONSE The response is the policy or action taken to deal with the environmental problem, such as reg-
Price shift ulations regarding fuel efficiency, carbon taxes or fishing quotas. Our responses, in turn, change
Changes in: the pressures we load onto the environment, completing the cycle10.
behavior Failures of adaptation can occur at many points in the cycle. In general, feedback works very
culture well in free markets with privately controlled resources like mines or land. In these cases the people
technology affected are able to take direct action to remedy their problem. Where farmers and entrepreneurs
resource management have the freedom and incentive to respond to shortages, they can shift to other resources or change
Policy measures: their technology very swiftly. This is why the world, by and large, has not faced any constraining
regulation scarcity of key inputs – the raw materials required for producing energy or food, for example.
taxation Even in these situations, technology does not automatically keep pace with growing population
subsidy and consumption pressures so as to reduce environmental impact or keep it constant. Fuel
efficiency is constantly improving in cars, for example, but not fast enough to counteract the growth
in car ownership and the mileage driven.
Feedback does not work at all well in the case of commonly owned or non-owned resources –
such as groundwater, fishing stocks, and the oceans and atmosphere which we use as sinks for our
liquid and gaseous wastes. As Garrett Hardin pointed out, lack of ownership or management
arrangements encourages individuals to overuse commons for their own private advantage, even
 OVERVIEW The theory of population-environment links 11

if this means degrading the resource. Each user gains the full advantage of their overuse, but suffers
only a very small share of the losses it causes. This is the well-known “tragedy of the commons”11.
In traditional societies, if shared resources seemed to be under threat, users often agreed on
rules for their management. But in modern societies the people affected are often unable to take
direct action, and must channel their demands through the political and legal systems.
Effective feedback depends on information about the environmental change and its effects
passing a long sequence of filters, any of which can act as a blockage or a bottleneck. An emerging
problem must first be recognized as a problem, yet many environmental changes are slow, hard to
identify and require monitoring. The people affected must be able to make their voices heard in the
political and legal system. Yet large sections of society may be unable to do so in countries without
effective democracy, a free and investigative press, high levels of literacy and access to an afford-
able legal system.
Finally, there must be a good scientific understanding of how to remedy the problem. All
environmental impacts are extremely complex. They involve the interaction of many different agents
and elements, and often the outcome can be unpredictable. Oversimplistic solutions can often lead
to further problems. The systems approach allows us to see the Malthusian and adaptationist out-
comes as special cases occurring under different conditions.
The human response to environmental change can be effective and timely when:
■ the impacts are perceived and properly understood;
■ those affected can act directly or compel the political and legal system to act;
■ the science is good and the measures are well-chosen.
Under these circumstances, the economic adaptation model applies. However, our responses may
be delayed, inadequate or misguided when:
■ we do not perceive the problem or properly understand its causes;
■ blockages and bottlenecks prevent the smooth flow of information;
■ market or democratic imperfections prevent appropriate action;
■ the appropriate technology or management techniques or institutions have not yet been
properly developed.
When the delays and mistakes are serious enough, severe environmental damage can occur.
Sometimes, if a critical resource is involved, this can lead to the collapse of societies and steep pop-
ulation drops. In these situations the Malthusian model applies. However, such cases happen rarely
and only under extreme circumstances.
In today’s world we have a mixture of these two patterns. In our use of privately controlled
resources, we generally adapt well and the supply of key inputs like food, minerals or energy is
maintained. In our use of commonly owned or non-owned resources or waste sinks, we do not as a
rule adapt well.
In one area after another, problems have not been effectively dealt with until they have become
highly visible and had a strong impact on very large numbers of people. In one area after another
we have exceeded the maximum sustainable yield or the critical load of pollutants: marine fish,
coral reefs, acid deposition, greenhouse gases, the ozone layer.
The oceans and atmosphere are crucial to the stability of all ecosystems on Earth, and deter-
mine the productivity of all the natural resources on which humans depend. Yet these are non-
owned resources, and we have been in the habit of allowing problems to mount to critical levels
before acting. They are also resources where gradual change can suddenly become catastrophic.
It is possible that in this case a Malthusian situation – a situation of failed adaptation – could arise
for the whole human race.
12 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends

Population and
consumption trends

W
HEN people think of the human impact on the environment, they often think
in terms of total population numbers and population growth. These elements
are important, but they are only two of the demographic factors that have
an environmental impact. Population density and distribution, determined by
migration and urbanization, are also important, as is population composition
in terms of age and household size. All of these impact on consumption levels and trends.

P O P U L AT I O N N U M B E R S A N D G R O W T H R AT E S
Along with consumption and technology, our sheer numbers affect the total burden we place on the
environment. Rough estimates suggest that the population of the entire world 2 000 years ago may
have been around 300 million. Over the whole of the next millennium, the period of the Dark Ages in
the West, this rose by as little as 10 million.
The acceleration of human expansion can be seen dramatically in the time it took for each mile-
stone of a billion to be reached. Our first billion, passed around 1804, took perhaps 200 000 years to
reach. The second billion took only 123 years and the third, reached in 1960, a mere 33 years. Since
then we have been in overdrive, adding a billion every 13 or 14 years. We passed the 6 billion mark
late in 19991.
Rates of population growth are also significant. Together with the growth in consumption levels,
these affect our ability to adapt our technology and institutions to environmental challenges. The
faster the growth rates of population and consumption, the faster we must be able to adapt if we
are to prevent an increase in environmental damage – and the more likely it is that we will not adapt
quickly enough.
Human population has grown in a flattened S-shaped curve, rising very slowly at first, then grad-
ually building up speed and entering a sharp upward hike. Although we are still on the riser of that
steep slope, the growth rate has slowed considerably and the curve will begin to level out in the next
few decades.
The growth rate was very slow up to 1500, averaging less than 0.1 percent per year. The agricul-
tural and industrial revolutions of the 18th century spurred growth to 0.4 or 0.5 percent per year up
to the beginning of the 20th century. After the Second World War, further advances in agriculture
and medicine spread to developing countries. World population growth rates of around 1 percent a
year between 1920 and 1950 rose to an all-time peak of 2.04 percent in the later 1960s.
Since 1965-70 the growth rate has slowed considerably. In the early years of the 2000s, it is run-
ning at a projected 1.2 percent, but there are sharp differences between regions. Developed countries
are growing at only 0.2 percent a year, while Africa’s rate is 2.36 percent a year, with other regions
ranged in between.
The absolute increase in numbers per year continued to rise for three decades after the peak
growth rate had passed because the rate was being applied to a much larger overall total. Annual
additions grew from 67 million people a year in the 1960s to a peak of 86 million a year in 1985-90.
But these too have now begun to slow, to a projected 75 million a year in 2000-05. However, this
 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends 13

is still equivalent to adding almost a new Germany every year, or a new United States in less Rapid fertility
than four years. decline
It used to be said that cultural
Fertility and mortality factors kept fertility unusually
Put simply, the human population spurt came about because death rates fell faster than birth rates.
high in some areas, especially
Antibiotics, immunization, clean water and improved food availability produced instant improve-
sub-Saharan Africa and
ments in infant and child mortality. Reproductive habits and entrenched cultural values about
family size take much longer to adjust. Islamic countries. But there
The total fertility rate (TFR) for a given year expresses the number of children the typical woman are now examples from every
will have over a lifetime, if patterns in that year persist. In almost all countries, total fertility rates continent and culture area to
have been moving downwards. show that fertility rates can
Fertility is the most important factor in determining future population growth over the long run.
fall dramatically as soon as
A TFR of about 2.1 is needed to keep population stable over time. By 1995-2000 no less than
good quality family planning
61 countries had fallen below this replacement level. Between them they housed 44 percent of the
world’s population. Many developing countries had lower fertility than the United States – for becomes widely available.
example, China (with a TFR of 1.8), Thailand (1.74), Republic of Korea (1.65) and Cuba (1.55)2. Fertility rates in China, for
Some 23 countries had very low fertility rates, below 1.5 in 1995-2000. The average fertility rate example, fell from 6.1 to 2.47
for Western Europe was only 1.7, while in Eastern Europe it was 1.36. The lowest rates of all were in just 20 years between 1965-
found in Southern Europe, where Spain, Italy and Greece had rates below 1.3. Spain was lowest of all
70 and 1985-90. Kenya’s total
with 1.15.
fertility rate dropped from 8.1
In all these countries population will eventually start to decline unless fertility rates rise sharply.
In Southern Europe this is already occurring; in Western and Northern Europe it is expected to begin in 1975-80 to 4.4 in 1995-2000.
in the next 15 to 20 years. Iran, under a traditional
Mortality does have some effect on future projections. In most regions a continued decline in Islamic regime, saw fertility
infant and child mortality is expected, along with a rise in average life expectancy. fall from 6.8 in 1980-85 to 2.8
But in sub-Saharan Africa, rising mortality is a factor. Here AIDS has cut life expectancy at a time
in 1995-2000. These drops are
when it would otherwise have been increasing. In the 29 African countries hardest hit by AIDS, life
among the fastest ever seen in
expectancy at birth is currently estimated at only 47 years – without AIDS it was expected to reach 54.
In Botswana, where one out of every four adults is infected, life expectancy was only 41 years in any country on Earth.
1995-2000, right back to the level of 50 years earlier. Because of this, by 2015 Botswana’s popula- Again, it used to be thought
tion will be 20 percent smaller than it would have been without AIDS3. that poverty kept fertility rates
high. Yet Bangladesh managed
Population projections
to reduce fertility from 6.44 in
The United Nations Population Division has had a remarkable record of accuracy in its predictions
1980-85 to 3.1 just 15 years
since 1950. But at the turn of the millennium we are entering uncharted waters.
The Population Division has had to revise its projections significantly downwards in the 1990s. later, even while infant and
The latest medium projection, produced in 1998, expects world population to reach 8.9 billion in child mortality and female
2050. This is a massive 1.1 billion less than was expected in the projection made in 19904. illiteracy all remained high.
On the current medium projection 97 percent of the future increase will occur in today’s devel- These success stories all
oping countries. Today’s developed countries will drop from 20 percent of the total in 2000, to only
rely on the widespread
13 percent in 2050. Africa will undergo the most rapid growth, increasing from 784 million in 2000
availability of a choice of
to nearly 1.8 billion in 2050. India will overtake China as the most populous country, rising from just
over 1 billion to more than 1.5 billion between 2000 and 20505. family planning methods
The most recent long-range medium projection, based on the previous 1996 projection, had and usually on improved
world population rising to 10.4 billion in 2100 and levelling out at just under 11 billion around 2200. reproductive rights, female
However, these projections depend heavily on what might happen to human fertility in the future, education and health. They
and that is more uncertain today than ever before. In many countries, fertility rates have fallen faster
contrast markedly with
than anyone expected – in some cases to levels not previously seen outside economic depression
countries from the same
or war.
Demographer John Bongaarts believes that very low fertility may be at least in part due to birth regions such as Malawi, Iraq
deferment, and fertility may rise again6. However, so many countries now have below-replacement and Pakistan (see page 15).
14 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends
THREE VIEWS OF
P O P U L AT I O N
GROWTH
How current population
growth is perceived depends
very much on the data you
look at. Popular approaches
concentrate on total numbers
(chart 1), which are
important for our overall
impact. These show a curve
getting steeper from 1950
onwards, beginning to level
out in 2050. We are currently
on the steep section.
Annual additions (chart 2)
are important as they show
the total numbers of new
human beings the planet
must provide with resources
each year. These passed their
peak more than a decade
ago, at 86 million a year in
the latter half of the 1980s.
Currently they are running at
some 75 million a year.
Population growth rates
(chart 3) – which determine
the rate at which we must
adapt our technology and
institutions to avoid
increasing environmental
damage – hit their highest 35
years ago, between 1965 and
1970, at 2.1 percent a year. In
the current decennium they
are projected to average only
1.2 percent a year.
Source:UNPD.
P O P U L AT I O N G R O W T H R AT E S , 1 9 9 0 - 9 5
More than 3.5% population doubles in
less than 20 years
2.5-3.5% population doubles
in 20-30 years
1.44-2.5% population doubles
in 30-50 years
0-1.44% population doubles
in 50 years or more
–2-0% population could halve
in around 35 years
Less than -2%
The map shows annual population growth rates between 1990 and 1995, by
census district. These districts vary considerably in size both within and
between countries, with sparsely populated districts often being very much
larger. Large thinly populated areas with high growth rates can therefore
appear more prominent than smaller heavily populated areas with low growth
rates, although the increase in actual numbers in the latter will be greater. The
world average population growth rate at the end of the 20th century was 1.44%.
1 . To t a l n u m b e r s 2. Annual additions
?W-T-X
?*@@R1
?N@@?@
@@T5
(R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
W2@6T-X?
*U?V@R1?
S@@@@?@?
*U?W@T5?
@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?
V4@0R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?
??
???
??
@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ??
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ???
@@6T.?@?@?@?
@?S@U?@?@?
@@@>1?@?@?@?W26T2@6KO)X?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
@?S@@?3T@X@?*US@@?B@@@,? ?@e?@@?@?@?@? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@0R'?V+R4@?V40R'??@@0Y? ?@L?J@e@?@? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@? ?
?@)T&@1?@?@?@?W26T2@6KO)X? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?O@?hg
O2@@@?hg ?@V+Y@@?3T@X@?*US@@?B@@@,? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ???
W2@6X?
*U?S,?
O2@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@e?@@?V+R4@?V40R'??@@0Y? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
S@@@U? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
*U?S,? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
V4@0Y? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ???
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@?W-X?
@?7R1?
?J@X@?@?
?*?@@T5?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@e?O2@@@@@6K
?V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?
???
???
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@? ?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@? ???
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@? W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@? ?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
@?
?J@L ?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@? ???
?*?,
?V+Y ?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Mhg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?W26T-X? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ???
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?7YV@R1?
?@@@@?@?
?@@T5?
?(R+Y?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?
??
?
???
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@ ???
?W2@
?7Y?
?@@@@?
?@H?
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
W@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?
??
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?@6KO-X? ?@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg S@@R1? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg ?W.Y@?@? ?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@6X
S,
?W.Y
?7Y?
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?7Y:@T5?
?@@0R+Y? @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
?W-Xh@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
W-X?f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?7R1h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg 7R1?f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@?@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg @?@?f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?3T5h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg 3T5?f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?V+Yh@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hg V+Y?f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@?he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@6X?hf@?
?@?B1?he?J@? ?@?@he@?
J@
?@e@W2@?W26T-X?W&@?W2@??W2@?@@6KO&@?@?@@6T2@?e@?@@6X?@
?@?C@@@@?*US@@1?*U@?&@@??*@@?@?B@@U@?@?@?B@Y@?e@?@?B1
?@@0MI4@?V40R4@?V4@?V4@??V4@?@e(R4@?@?@e@@@?e@?@??@?@
?W5?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g??
@@6Xhf?@
@?B1hfJ@ @?@?h?@
?J@?
@??@W2@?W26T-X?W&@?W2@eW2@?@@6KO&@?@?@@6T2@e?@?@@6X?@?
@?C@@@@?*US@@1?*U@?&@@e*@@?@?B@@U@?@?@?B@Y@e?@?@?B1?
@@0MI4@?V40R4@?V4@?V4@eV4@?@??(R4@?@?@??@@@e?@?@e@?@?
W5
???
?
???
@0Y? ?@0Y ?
?W&?W-X?W&?W-Xh?W&?W-T26X?W-Xh?W&?W-T2@@?W-Xh?W&?W-T2@@?W-Xh?W-T-X?W-X?W-Xh@6KO-XeW&?W-Xh@6KO-X?@6X?W-Xh@6KO-X?@@@?W-Xh W&?W-X?W&?W-X?hW&?W-T26X?W-X?hW&?W-T2@@?W-X?hW&?W-T2@@?W-X?hW&?W-KO-X?W-X?g?@6X?W-X?W&?W-X?g?@6X?W-T26X?W-X?g?@6KO-X?@@@?W-X?g?
?*@?*?,?*@?7R1h?*@?*?(MS,?7R1h?*@?*?@@X??7R1h?*@?*?(M?@?7R1h?*@@?,?*?,?7R1h?S@@R1e*@?7R1h?S@@R1eS,?7R1h?S@@R1?@X??7R1h *@?*?,?*@?7R1?h*@?*?(MS,?7R1?h*@?*?@@Xe7R1?h*@?*?(M?@?7R1?h*@?*?@@?,?7R1?hS,?7R1?*@?7R1?hS,?7R@8S,?7R1?hS@@R1?@Xe7R1?g?
?N@?N@H?N@?@?@h?N@?N@H?*U?@?@h?N@?N@R4)X?@?@h?N@?N@H?J5?@?@h?N@V@H?N@H?@?@hW.Y@?@eN@?@?@hW.Y@?@e*U?@?@hW.Y@?@?@)X?@?@h N@?N@H?N@?@?@?hN@?N@H?*U?@?@?hN@?N@R4)X?@?@?hN@?N@H?J5?@?@?hN@?N@<B@H?@?@?g?W.Y?@?@?N@?@?@?g?W.Y?@?@?*U?@?@?g?W.Y@?@?@)X?@?@?g?
@??@e?@?3T5he@??@eS,?3T5he@??@eS,?3T5he@??@e7H?3T5he@?@?e@??3T5h7Y:@T5e?@?3T5h7Y:@T5eS,?3T5h7Y:@T5eS,?3T5h ?@e@?e@?3T5?h?@e@??S,?3T5?h?@e@??S,?3T5?h?@e@??7H?3T5?h?@e@??@e3T5?g?7Y??3T5e@?3T5?g?7Y??3T@9S,?3T5?g?7Y:@T5??S,?3T5?g?
@??@e?@?V+Yhe@??@?@0Y?V+Yhe@??@?@0Y?V+Yhe@??@e@??V+Yhe@?@?e@??V+Yh@@0R+Ye?@?V+Yh@@0R+Y?@0Y?V+Yh@@0R+Y?@0Y?V+Yh ?@e@?e@?V+Y?h?@e@?@0Y?V+Y?h?@e@?@0Y?V+Y?h?@e@??@eV+Y?h?@e@??@eV+Y?g?@@@?V+Ye@?V+Y?g?@@@?V+R40Y?V+Y?g?@@0R+Y?@0Y?V+Y?g??
?
 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends 15

CONTRASTING
FERTILITY
Many countries have seen
steep declines in total
fertility rates due to serious
efforts to ensure access to
family planning and other
reproductive rights, usually,
but not always, along with
improvements in mother and
child health and female
education. Meanwhile other
countries in the same region
which did not make similar
efforts have seen their fertility
remain high.

?W2@6X
?*U?S,
?S@@@U
?*U?S,
?V4@0Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h

?@6X
?3@,
?V'U W&K?
?W&KS, *@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?&@@0Y V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
I4@@@@@@@?eI4@@@@@@@@6K
?W2@ ?I4@@@@@6Kg?I4@@@6K
?*@5 ?I4@@@@6K?f?I4@@@6Khf?O2@
?S(Y ?I4@@@@6K?f?I4@@@6Kg?O2@@@@@L?he@K
?7H? I4@@@@6Kf?I4@@@6KeO2@@@@@@@@)Xhe@@@@?@6KO2@?
?@ I4@@@@@@@@6Ke@@@@@@@@@@@(M?I'@)X?h@@fS@@Y@?
?@@@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Ye?S@@)Xh@@e?W&@@X@?
?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Y@@)X?g@@e?&@0R'@?
?@ ?I4@@@@@@@@@)K ?N@?
?@6KfJ@L? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@6K?he@?
S@6Xe*?,? ?I'@@@@@@@6K
W2@UI/eV+Y? V@@@?@@@@@6K
?W&YS,h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?&@@0Y ?I'@@@X??I4@@@@?
V'@@1?e?I4@@@@6K?
?@?@@@ ?V'@@Lf?I4@@@@6K?
W5 V'@)X?f?I4@@@@6K?
?@@@@U ?V'@1?hI4@@@@6K
?@?4@) N@@LheI4@@@@6K
?3@)X?heI4@@@@6Xhg
?W&KO. ?N@@1?hf?I4@@,hg
?&@@(Y 3@@L ?I(Yhg
?@H? V'@)X?
?@ ?N@@1?
?@@@ 3@@L
?@@? V'@1
?3@, ?N@@L?
?V'Y 3@)X
V'@1
?/T&K? ?N@@L?
?V4@@@fW2@? 3@)X
7Y N@@1
O.f@@@@ ?3@@L?
?@@@0Yg@H ?V@@)K
@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?W2@ @@@?
?*@5 3@@L
?V'U V'@)X?
?W&KS, @Kh?V'@)X
?&@@@H @@@@?@6T2@6XN@@)X?
?W@L @@fS@@?B1?3@@1?
?7R1 @@e?W&@@??@?V'@@L
?3T5 @@e?&@@@??@eV'@)X?
?V+Y ?V'@)X
N@@1
?@K? ?3@@L?hg
?@@@@@ ?V4@@?hg
?@ ?'@@hg
?V4@hg

@6X?
?S,?
W.Y?g?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
7Yh?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?W&?W-X??@?W-XheW&?W-T2@@?W-X?h?W-T-KO2@6KO-X ?W&?W-KO-X?@@@h
?*@?*?,??@?7R1he*@?*?(M?@?7R1?h?*@@?@@U?S@@R1 ?*@?*?@@?,?@X?h
?N@?N@H?J@X@?@heN@?N@H?J5?@?@?h?N@V@8S@@@U@?@ ?N@?N@<B@H?@)Xh
@??@e*?@@T5?@@?g?@e@??7H?3T5?@@h@?@?*U?S@@T@@@ @??@e@?eS,?@@?f
@??@eV+MI+Yhe?@e@??@eV+Y?he@?@?V4@0MI+M @??@e@??@0Yh
?@e@@@? @@@?@@@? W2@6T2@@ @6X?W-KO-X?W-Xh
?@e@X @?@X *U?S@@X? ?S,?7R@@R1?7R1h
J@L?@)X? ?J5?@)X? S@@@>@)X W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@h
*?,??S,? ?7H??S,? *U?S@US, 7Ye3T@@T5?3T5h
V+Y?@0Y? ?@e@0Y? V4@0R40Y @@@?V+MI+Y?V+Yh

?W2@6X
?*U?S,
?S@@@U
?*U?S,
?V4@0Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h

?@6X
?3@,
?V'U
?W&KS,
?&@@0Y ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?W2@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?*@5 @@@@@@@@@@@@0MfI4@@@@@@eI4@@@@6K
?S(Y ?O2@@@@@@@@0M?hf?I4@@@@6K??@@@@@6K
?7H? '@@@@@0M ?I4@@@@@@@?@@@@@6Khf@6K?e?@e?@e?O@K
?@ V40M I4@@@@@@@@@@@@6Khe@S@@6X?@W.e?W2@@@@6X?@@6Xhf
?@@@ I4@@@@@@@@@@6Kh@(M?S1?@@U?@?*U?@??S1?@?B1hf
?@ ?I4@@@@@@@6Kg@H?W&@?@V1?@?S@@@=O&@?@??@hf
?@ ?I'@@@@@6Kf@??&@@?@?@?@?&0MI4@@@?@??@hf
?@6KfJ@L? V'@@@@@@6K
S@6Xe*?,? ?N@@@V4@@@6K
W2@UI/eV+Y? @@@?e@@@@6K
?W&YS,h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?&@@0Y ?I'@@Xe?I4@@@@?
V'@)X?e?I4@@@6K
?@?@@@ ?N@@)Xf?I4@@@6K
W5 3@@1g?I4@@@6K
?@@@@U V'@@L?g?I4@@@@6K?
?@?4@) ?V'@)Xh?I4@@@@6K?
V'@)X?h?I4@@@@6K?
?W&KO. ?N@@1?he?I4@@@@6K?
?&@@(Y 3@@L I4@@@6K?hg
?@H? V'@)X? I4@@@@hg
?@ ?N@@1? I4@@hg
?@@@ 3@@L
?@@? V'@1
?3@, ?N@@L?
?V'Y 3@1?
N@@L
?/T&K? ?3@)X?
?V4@@@fW2@? ?N@@1?
7Y 3@@L
O.f@@@@ V'@1
?@@@0Yg@H ?V@@
@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?W2@ ?@@X
?*@5 ?3@)X?
?V'U ?N@@1?
?W&KS, 3@@L
?&@@@H V'@)X?
?W@L ?N@@)K
?7R1 @6X?heO@gW&g?O@Ke3@@@@6K?
?3T5 @S,?@6X?@@6KO2@@e@6KO&@?W-X?W2@@@6XV4@@@@@@@6K?
?V+Y @@U??S1?@?B@@Y@@e?S@@Y@?7R1?*U?@?B1fI4@@@@@@6Xhg
@S,?W&@?@??@@X@@L?W&@@X@?3@@?S@@@??@g?I4@@@@,hg
?@K? @0Y?&@@?@??(R'@V/?&@0R4@?V4@?&0?@??@he?I(Yhg
?@@@@@ ?V'?
?@ @@

Source: CIESIN. @6X?

?S,?
W.Y?g?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
7Yh?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?W&?W-X??@?W-XheW&?W-T2@@?W-X?h?W-T-KO2@6KO-X ?W&?W-KO-X?@@@h
?*@?*?,??@?7R1he*@?*?(M?@?7R1?h?*@@?@@U?S@@R1 ?*@?*?@@?,?@X?h
?N@?N@H?J@X@?@heN@?N@H?J5?@?@?h?N@V@8S@@@U@?@ ?N@?N@<B@H?@)Xh
@??@e*?@@T5?@@?g?@e@??7H?3T5?@@h@?@?*U?S@@T@@@ @??@e@?eS,?@@?f
@??@eV+MI+Yhe?@e@??@eV+Y?he@?@?V4@0MI+M @??@e@??@0Yh
?@e@@@? @@@?@@@? W2@6T2@@ @6X?W-KO-X?W-Xh
?@e@X @?@X *U?S@@X? ?S,?7R@@R1?7R1h
J@L?@)X? ?J5?@)X? S@@@>@)X W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@h
*?,??S,? ?7H??S,? *U?S@US, 7Ye3T@@T5?3T5h
V+Y?@0Y? ?@e@0Y? V4@0R40Y @@@?V+MI+Y?V+Yh

?W2@6X
?*U?S,
?S@@@U
?*U?S,g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?V4@0Yg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?I'@@@
V@@@@6K?
O2@@@@@@@@@@6K
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?@6X ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?f?I4@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?3@, O2@@@@@@@@@@0Mhf?I'@@@?@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?V'U ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M? V4@@@@X??I4@@@@@@@@@6K
?W&KS, O2@@@@@@@@@0M? I'@@)XgI4@@@@@@@@6K
?&@@0Y ?O2@@@@@@@@@0M ?V4@@)K?h?I4@@@@@6K
@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I'@@6X?he?I4@@@@6K?
?W2@ @@@@0M V4@@)Khf?I4@@@@6K?
?*@5 ?@e@?f@?hW. I'@@6X I4@@@6K?hg
?S(Y ?@e@?@6X?@?@6X?@?@?7U ?V'@@1 I4@@@(hg
?7H? ?@@@@??S1?@??S1?3T@T@1 V'@@L? I40Yhg
?@ ?@e@?W&@?3=O&@?N@R@Y@ ?V'@)X
?@@@ ?@e@?&@@?V4@@@??@?@?@ V'@)X?
?@ ?N@@1?

3. Growth rates W O R L D P O P U L AT I O N G R O W T H
?@ 3@@L
?@6KfJ@L? V'@)X?
S@6Xe*?,? ?V'@1?
W2@UI/eV+Y? V@@?
?W&YS,h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?&@@0Y ?I'@@X
N@@1
?@?@@@ ?3@@L?
W5 ?V'@)X
?@@@@U V'@)X?
?@?4@) ?N@@)X
3@@)X?
?W&KO. V'@@)X
?? ?&@@(Y ?V'@@)X?
?@H? V4@@)X
?@ @?W. I'@)X?
?@6XeW26X ??? ?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@
?@@? @W.YW-X?@@6T&?@@6X?V'@)X
@@U?7R1?@?B@@X@?S1eV'@)X?
S,e7<B1 ?@@6X? ?@@@@@@@@@ ?3@, @V/T@@@?@??@V@@T&@e?V'@)X
?W.Ye@??@ J@@@)X
?7Y??J@=C@=? ?O&@@@@)K? ?? ?@@@@@@@@@f@6X?he?@h?@ ?)X?eO.
?@@@@@@@@@f@V1?W-T-KO-T-X?@?W-X?@6Xe?@6KO2@@eW26T26T&?@?@6X?@)?@@@UO-X?W2@?
?V'Y @?V+R4@?@??@?@V4@@fV'@)X?hg
J5h?V'@)Xhg
?@@@?.R40R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g? ?@@@@@@@@@f@?@?7R@R'@R@R1?@?7R1?@V1?@?@V@@<?@e7<B@<B@@?@?@V1?@H?@?B@@R1?*U ?/T&K? .YheV'@,hg
@@@@@@@@@@
?J@@@@@@@@@@L? ?? ?@@6X?@@e@?@? ?@@@@@@@@@f@W5?3@@?N@?3@@?3T@T5?@W5?@?@?@@=?@e3=C@=C@@X@?@?@?3L?@??@@@@?S@(?
?@@@@@@@@@f@0Y?V4@??@?V4@?V+R+Y?@(Y?@?@?(R4@@eV40R40MI4@?@?@?V/?@??@?4@?&0Y?
?V4@@@fW2@? 7Y ?V+Yhg
W&@@@@@@@@@@)X
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? ?@?S,??@e@?
?@@@U?7@e@?)T26T26X?W-X ?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@ ?@H?hW5
?@h@@0Y
O.f@@@@
?@@@0Yg@H
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ?@?S,?@@L?3X@@US@@V1?7@, ?@@@@@@@@@ @?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ? ?@@0Y?(R/?V40R40R'?@?@0Y ?O2@he ?W2@
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? ?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@ ?O2@@@he
O2@@@@@@he
?*@5
?V'U
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ?@@@@@@@@@ O2@@@@@@@@he ?W&KS,
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ? ?@@@@@@@@@f@6X?he?@hf?W&? ?)X?eO. ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@he ?&@@@H
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
W-X?@? 7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? ?@@@@@@@@@f@V1?W-T-KO-T-X?@?W-X?@6KO-X?W&@?eW26T26T&?@?@6X?@)?@@@UO-X?W2@?
?@@@@@@@@@f@?@?7R@R'@R@R1?@?7R1?@V@@R1?7Y@?e7<B@<B@@?@?@V1?@H?@?B@@R1?*U ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W@L
?7R1
*?)T@L @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K ?@@@@@@@@@f@W5?3@@?N@?3@@?3T@T5?@W@@@@?3X@?e3=C@=C@@X@?@?@?3L?@??@@@@?S@(? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?3T5
V'?@?)X? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X ? ?@@@@@@@@@f@0Y?V4@??@?V4@?V+R+Y?@(MI4@?V4@?eV40R40MI4@?@?@?V/?@??@?4@?&0Y? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?V+Y
?N@R'?,? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@?V+Y? ?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ??? ?W2@6X ?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@ ?@H?
?@ ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@K?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?*U?S, O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ? ?S@@@U O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?*U?S)K? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?V4@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@6X?
?S,?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he W.Y?g?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he 7Yh?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W&?W-X??@?W-XheW&?W-T2@@?W-X?h?W-T-KO2@6KO-X ?W&?W-KO-X?@@@h
?W&?e?@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?*@?*?,??@?7R1he*@?*?(M?@?7R1?h?*@@?@@U?S@@R1 ?*@?*?@@?,?@X?h
?*@?e?@X? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?N@?e?@)X ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?N@?N@H?J@X@?@heN@?N@H?J5?@?@?h?N@V@8S@@@U@?@
@??@e*?@@T5?@@?g?@e@??7H?3T5?@@h@?@?*U?S@@T@@@ ?N@?N@<B@H?@)Xh
@??@e@?eS,?@@?f
@?fS)K? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @??@eV+MI+Yhe?@e@??@eV+Y?he@?@?V4@0MI+M @??@e@??@0Yh
@??@?@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@e@@@? @@@?@@@? W2@6T2@@ @6X?W-KO-X?W-Xh
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@e@X @?@X *U?S@@X? ?S,?7R@@R1?7R1h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he J@L?@)X? ?J5?@)X? S@@@>@)X W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@h
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
*?,??S,?
V+Y?@0Y? ?7H??S,?
?@e@0Y? *U?S@US,
V4@0R40Y 7Ye3T@@T5?3T5h
@@@?V+MI+Y?V+Yh
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?@ O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ? ?@ W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? J@L?
.R/? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ?@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L ? W@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L? ??? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ??? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W2@6X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ??? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?*U?S,
?S@@@U
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@f ?*U?S,
W26K ?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?@X?f ?V4@0Y
?W&@@@@@@@@@@6K?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?W&?eW26X ?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ??? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W5?@)Xf
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@HeS,f
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?*@?e7<B1 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)Kg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5??@0Yf
?N@?e@??@ J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?h
@??J@=C5 7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?eJ@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@??.R40Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K? ?? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@6X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?3@,
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X? ? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?V'U @@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L ??? W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?W&KS,
?&@@0Y @@@@6X
?I'@@)K?
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he V4@@@6X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ? W2@? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W2@ I4@@)K
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? 7Y
@@@@ W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?*@5
?S(Y I'@@6K
?V4@@@6X ?@?@f?@?)T.
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L @H ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?7H? ?I'@@)X? ?@?@?@6Xe?@@U
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ? @?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e ?@ V4@@)X ?@@@eS1?@?@V1
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ??? W@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@ ?@ I'@)K?
?V'@@6X? ?@?@?W&@?@?3X@
?@?@?&@@?@?V4@
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@hW26KheV'@@)X
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@6KfJ@L?g&@@@@@6Kg?V'@@)X? ?O2@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ??? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
S@6Xe*?,?g?I4@@@@@@6K?fV4@@)X
W2@UI/eV+Y?hf@@@@@@@6K?e?@@)K?he?O2@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@6K ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@6K
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W&YS,h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?&@@0Y ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@0M ?I4@@@X?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L ??? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@?@@@ I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
I4@@@@@X ?I'@)X
V'@)X?
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he W5 ?I'@@1 ?N@@)X
7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@@@U V'@@L? 3@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@?4@) ?V'@)X
V'@)X? V'@@1?
?V'@@L
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W&KO. ?V'@)X V'@)X?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? ?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?&@@(Y V'@)X? ?V'@)X
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ??? O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@H?
?@ ?V'@)X
V'@)X? V'@)X?
?V'@)X
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@@ ?N@@)X V'@)K?
?W-Xe?@@@g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L? ? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@? 3@@)X? ?N@@@6K?
?7R1e?@X?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@?@e?@)Xg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X? ??? 3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?3@,
?V'Y V'@@)X
?V'@@)X? @@@@@6K?
I4@@@@6K
?3T5fS,g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he V4@@)X I4@@@@6K
?V+Y?@?@0Yg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K? ? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?/T&K? I'@)K? ?I4@@@@@hg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g? @6X?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?V4@@@fW2@? ?V'@@6X? ?I4@@@hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X? ?? ?S,?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he 7Y V'@@)X
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X W.Y?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he O.f@@@@ ?V4@@)X?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1 ? 7Yh?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@@0Yg@H @@)K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?hg? @@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e @?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)Xhg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W2@ ?I'@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?hf? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?*@5 V4@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?hf? W&e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?V'U I4@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?hf? *@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W&KS, ?I4@@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?hf? V'e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?&@@@H I4@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W@L I4@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@?@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?7R1 ?I4@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?3T5 I4@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?V+Y @6X?h?@f?@ ?@6Xhe?W&Ke@?@?eW@@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @V)T26T2@6T-K??@@6K??W2@@6X?@@6Xe?@S)T-X?@@6T&??7@@6X@?eW20M?I4@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@K? @?@@<B@@?B@R@@?@?B@@?7<??S1?@?B1e?@@R@R1?@?B@@??@@?B@@?@?7<f?I4@@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@@@@@ @?@@e@@e@?@@?@e@@?@e?&@?@??@e?@@?@@@?@??@@??@@??@@?@?@?hI4@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?@ @@e@@?@e@?@@?@e@@e@@@@@?@??@e?@?@?@@?@@@??@@@@@@??@@??@@?he?@@@@@@(hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @? ?I4@0Yhg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? 7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? 3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @6X?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@W@e@?f ?S,?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@?f W.Y?g?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?W-XeJ@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?J@Lf 7Yh?@he@?h?@he?@he@?he@?h?@he@?hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?7R1e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?*?,f @@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? ?@?@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@?V+Yf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? W-X??3T5?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?W&?W-X??@?W-XheW&?W-T2@@?W-X?h?W-T-KO2@6KO-X ?W&?W-KO-X?@@@h
W26Xg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? 7R1??V+Y?.Y@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?*@?*?,??@?7R1he*@?*?(M?@?7R1?h?*@@?@@U?S@@R1 ?*@?*?@@?,?@X?h
7<B1g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? @?@?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he ?N@?N@H?J@X@?@heN@?N@H?J5?@?@?h?N@V@8S@@@U@?@ ?N@?N@<B@H?@)Xh
@??@g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? 3T5?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @??@e*?@@T5?@@?g?@e@??7H?3T5?@@h@?@?*U?S@@T@@@ @??@e@?eS,?@@?f
3=C5g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? V+Y?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he @??@eV+MI+Yhe?@e@??@eV+Y?he@?@?V4@0MI+M @??@e@??@0Yh
V40Yg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g??
?@@6X?hf@? ?@?@he@? ?W&?W-X?@@6T-X ?W&?W-X?W-KO2@6X ?@6KO-X?@6T2@@ ?@6X?W-T2@@?W-X?e ?@e@@@? @@@?@@@? W2@6T2@@ @6X?W-KO-X?W-Xh
?@?B1?he?J@? J@ ??? ?*@?*?,?@X;@R1
?N@?N@H?@)X@?@ ?*@?*?,?*?@@U?S,
?N@?N@H?N@8S@@@U S@@R1??S@@X?
?W.Y@?@?W.R4)X S,?7R@@Xe7R1?e
?W.Y?@?@@)X?@?@?e
?@e@X
J@L?@)X? @?@X
?J5?@)X? *U?S@@X?
S@@@>@)X ?S,?7R@@R1?7R1h
W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@h
?@e@W2@?W26T26KO&@?W2@??W2@?@@6KO&@?@?@6X?W2@e@?@6X?@? @??@e?S@@T5 @??@e?@?*U?S, ?7Y:@T5?7YeS, ?7Y??3T@XS,?3T5?e *?,??S,? ?7H??S,? *U?S@US, 7Ye3T@@T5?3T5h
?@?C@@@@?*US@@@@@U@?&@@??*@@?@?B@@U@?@?@V1?*U@e@?@V1? ? @??@e@0MI+Y @??@e?@?V4@0Y ?@@0R+Y?@@@@0Y ?@@@?V+R40Y?V+Y?e V+Y?@0Y? ?@e@0Y? V4@0R40Y @@@?V+MI+Y?V+Yh
?@@0MI4@?V40R4@0R4@?V4@??V4@?@e(R4@?@?@?@?V'@e@?@?@?@?
S5 ???
?@0Y ?
?W&??W-X?W&?W-X?g?W&?W26T26X?W-X?g?W&?W-X?@@6T26X?gW&eW-X?@@6T-XhW&?W26KO-X?W-Xh@6KO-X?W&??W-Xh@6KO-X?@6KO26Xg?@6X?W-T2@@6T-X?g?
?*@??*?,?*@?7R1?g?*@?*US(MS,?7R1?g?*@?*?,?@X;@<B1?g*@e*?,?e@@R1h*@?*US@@?,?7R1h?S@@R1?*@??7R1h?S@@R1eS@@<B1hS,?7R@@??;@R1?g?
?N@??N@H?N@?@?@?g?N@?V'@H?*U?@?@?g?N@?N@H?@)X@e@?gN@eN@H??J@@?@hN@?V'@<B@H?@?@hW.Y@?@?N@??@?@hW.Y@?@e*U@??@g?W.Y?@?@@@6X@?@?g?
@?e@?e@?3T5?h@??S5??S,?3T5?h@??@e?S@@=C5?g?@e?@e?7R'T5h?@eS5e@??3T5h7Y:@T5e@??3T5h7Y:@T5eS@@=C5g?7Y??3T@X?S@@T5?g?
@?e@?e@?V+Y?h@??.Y?@0Y?V+Y?h@??@e@0MI40Y?g?@e?@e?@?V+Yh?@e.Ye@??V+Yh@@0R+Ye@??V+Yh@@0R+Y?@0MI40Yg?@@@?V+R4@0MI+Y?g??
? Source: UNPD. Source: UNPD.
16 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends

The 1998 projections from the P O P U L AT I O N P R OJ E C T I O N S ??

?W&??W&? W&eW&e?
?*@??*@? *@e*@e?

United Nations Population ?N@??N@?

@?e@?
@?e@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
N@eN@e?
?@e?@e?
?@e?@e?
??
?
???
?
???
Division trace three paths, ?@@6T.?@?@?@
?@?S@U?@?@
?@@@>1?@?@?@?W26T2@6KO)X
?@?S@@?3T@X@?*US@@?B@@@,
?@@0R'?V+R4@?V40R'e@@0Y
?O2@@?
?O2@@@@?
?O2@@@@@@?
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@(M
?O2@@@@@@0Y?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?
???
?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?W2@@@@@@0M? ???
O&@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@0M? ???
largely depending on how ?W&?W-X?
?*@?7R1?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M? W&?W-Xe??
*@?7R1e?
??

?N@?@?@? O2@@@@@(M? N@?@?@e?

@?3T5? O2@@@@@@0Y ?@?3T5e?
@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
O2@@@@@@@? ?@?V+Ye?
W@@@@@@@0M ???
fertility changes. The medium @?@?@?f@Khe?O2@@@@@0M
@?@?eW2@?@@6Xg?O2@@@@@0M
@@@?@?7Y@?@?B1f?O2@@@@@0M
?O&@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M ?
???
?
@?@?@?3X@?@??@e?O2@@@@@0M
@?@?@?V'@?@??3=O2@@@@@0M ???
?S5?e?V@@@@@@(M
@0Y??O2@@@@@@0Y? ?
?W2@@@@@@0M? ???
projection assumes that O&@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
?
???
?
O2@@@@@(M?
O2@@@@@@0Y ???
W2@@@@@@0M
?O&@@@@@0M
@@@@@@0M ??

countries with fertility above W-X?

*?,?
N@H?
?@
?@
?O2@@@@@@?
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@(M
?W-Xg?
?*?,g?
?N@Hg?
@?g?
@?g?
?
?O2@@@@@@0Y? O2@@@@@?
?W2@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@? ???
O&@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
O2@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ???
2.1 will not fall below that O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
W2@@@@@(M?
?O&@@@@@0Y
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
@??@f?W&?@?
@??@W-X?W&@?e@??@@@6T-X
@@@@@R1?7Y@?@?@??@@?B@R1hf?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
@??@@@@?3X@?@?3=?@@??@?@hO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
@??@?4@?V4@?@?V4@@@??@?@fO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?
???
?
?O2@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M? ???
?W2@@@@@(M ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O&@@@@@0Y? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?
O2@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@@0M ???
level, and countries with O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@(M?
W2@@@@@@0Y
?O&@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?
???
?W2@6X ?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@@0M W2@6X?f??
?*U?S, ?O2@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@@@0M *U?S,?f?
?S@@@U ?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@0M? S@@@U?f?
?*U?S, ?W2@@@@@(M ?O2@@@@@@@@0M? *U?S,?f?
?V4@0Y O&@@@@@@Y? O2@@@@@@@@@? V4@0Y?f?

current fertility below 1.6 will @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

?@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
W2@@@@@(M?
?O&@@@@@0Y
?@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@0M
??
???
?
?O2@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@0M ???
?O2@@@@@0M ?O2@@@@@@@@0M? @?
?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@0M @??W26T&?@?@ ?
?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@0M @??7<B@@T@T5 ???
rise again to between 1.6 and ?O2@@@@@(M
?W2@@@@@@0Y?
O&@@@@@0M?hf?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?hfO2@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@0M?hfO2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?hfO2@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@0M?he?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@0M @?C@=C(R@R@H
@@0R40Y?@?@?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?
???
?
O2@@@@@0M?he?O2@@@@@@0M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
W2@@@@@(M?heO2@@@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
?O&@@@@@0YheO2@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@@@@?
?O2@@@@@0Mh?O2@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?
?O2@@@@@0Mh?O2@@@@@@0M? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ???
1.9. The low projection allows @@@?
@?
?J5?
?7H?
?O2@@@@@0MhO2@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@0MhO2@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@0Mg?O2@@@@@@@0M
@@@@@@0Mh@@@@@@@@0M
?W2@@@@@@@gO2@@@@@@@@
O&@@@@@0M?fO2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@f?O2@@@@@@@@?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@@@g?
?@g?
J5g?
7Hg?
?

?@e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@?g?
?@@@@@@0M?e?@@@@@@@@0M? @@@@@@@@@@@@0M ??
O2@@@@@0M?eO2@@@@@@@0M?hfO2@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@0M??O2@@@@@@@0MhfO2@@@@@@@@@@0M ?
O2@@@@@0M??O2@@@@@@@0MheO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ???
fertility to fall more rapidly, O2@@@@@0M??O2@@@@@@0M?h?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?O2@@@@@@@0M?g?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@X?O2@@@@@@0Mg?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@XV@@@@@@@@0Mf?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@XV@@@@@@@@0MfO2@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@?V@@@@@@@0M?eO2@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@0M??O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?
???
?
O2@@@@@@?@@@@@@@0MeO2@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X?O2@@@@@@@@0M? ???
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?V@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@0M ???
to a floor of 1.6 in most O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?
???
?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ??
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M @?g??
?@ O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? @?g?

countries, and to remain J@L?

*?,? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@
V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?V+Yg?
?@@@@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@@0M
?J@Lg?
?*?,g?
???
?
?O2@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@0M ???
?O2@@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@@0M? ?
?O2@@@@@@@@0M? ???
below that level where it is O2@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
?
???
?
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@0M ???
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@0M ?
?O2@@@@@@0M? ???
already below. The high @@@?
@X
@@@@@@@0M?
N@@@@0M?
?@0M
?@@@g??
?@X?g?
??

@@hf?@ ?@ @? @? ?@ ?@ @?he?@@?g?
?O.?heO@K? O@K? ?O@K ?O@K O@K? O@K? ?O@KhfO.g?
@0Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@0Yg??
?W&?W-X?W-KO-X ?@6X?W-KO-X?W-X? ?@6X?W-XeW-T-X? @6X?W-T26X?W-X @6X?W-X?@6KO-X ?@6X?W-KO2@?W-X? ?@6X?W-X?@@6T-X?hg?

projection assumes eventual ?*@?*?,?*?@@R1

?N@?N@H?N@Y@?@
@??@e?@?3T5
@??@e?@?V+Y
S,?7R@@R1?7R1?
?W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@?
?7Y??3T@@T5?3T5?
?@@@?V+MI+Y?V+Y?
S,?7R1e*@@R1?
?W.Y?@?@eN@@?@?
?7Y??3T5e?@@T5?
?@@@?V+Ye?(R+Y?
?S,?7R@8S,?7R1
W.Y?@?@W.Y?@?@
7Ye3T@@Y??3T5
@@@?V+R4@@?V+Y
?S,?7R1??S@@R1
W.Y?@?@??*U@?@
7Ye3T5??S@@T5
@@@?V+Y?@0MI+Y
S,?7R@@Y?O&R1?
?W.Y?@?@@@@@@?@?
?7Y??3T(M?@V'T5?
?@@@?V+Ye@?V+Y?
S,?7R1?@X;@R1?hg?
?W.Y?@?@?@)X@?@?hg?
?7Y??3T5eS@@T5?hg?
?@@@?V+Y?@0MI+Y?hg? ??
?

stable fertility levels of 2.1 to Source: UNPD.

2.6 in all countries.
fertility, in so many culture areas, in so many different stages of the economic cycle, that demogra-
phers are beginning to believe it may be more than a temporary blip7. Surveys in these countries
still show that people typically want to have two children, but many pressures prevent them from
achieving their goals. They include rising women’s employment, rising age at marriage and at first
birth, rising rates of divorce and single parenthood, and infertility. Cultural shifts in most developed
countries have removed the pressure on people to have marriages for show, and couples in most
Western countries can now choose to remain childless without suffering social stigma.
The Population Division’s medium projection assumes that countries with low present fertility
will see it rise again to between 1.6 and 1.9 and remain there. In countries with fertility currently
above 2.1, the assumption is that it will decline towards replacement level (2.1) and remain there.
But as we get further into the next century, this looks more like guesswork than any previous
projection. From 2010 onwards, more and more rows in the tables of projected fertility rates fill up
with unchanging entries of “stable” fertility levels, in some cases stretching for 40 years up to 2050.
Of course some assumption about fertility has to be made, or projection is impossible. It is certain
that the reality will be different, but not certain in what direction it may be different.
Most discussions of future populations refer to a time of stabilization or levelling off. But human
population has never remained stable in the past, and there is no strong reason to assume it will do
so in the future. It is possible that in many more countries fertility rates will in fact fall below 2.1.
The Population Division’s low projection assumes that fertility will remain low where it is currently
low, and in other regions will drop to 1.6. In this case, world population would peak around 2040 at 7.5
billion and would then begin to drop. The long-range low projection, based on 1996 figures, had
world population falling further to 5.6 billion in 2100 and 3.55 billion another 50 years later8.
This scenario is not very probable in the shorter term, because it assumes rapid drops in fertility
everywhere in the next couple of decades. But if present success in ensuring reproductive rights
continues, and if women everywhere follow the pattern of today’s developed countries, it is quite
possible that world population may peak at 8 or 9 billion around the middle of the next century and
then begin to fall.
It is unlikely but not impossible – for example in a world of constant warfare, insecurity, and
deteriorating health and women’s rights – that fertility might stick higher, at 2.1 to 2.6. In that case
population would continue to rise. The high projection reaches 10.7 billion in 2050 and over 18 billion
a century later.
 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends 17

P O P U L AT I O N D I S T R I B U T I O N Wa t e r fo r u r b a n
Population distribution in space has a significant impact on the environment by way of population dwellers
density. The impact of a given number of people may be very different, depending on whether they The International Decade for
are focused in a smaller or larger area. Drinking Water Supply and
Population distribution is affected partly by different fertility rates in different areas (cities tend to
Sanitation (1980-90) saw
have lower fertility rates than rural areas) and partly by migration.
massive efforts to extend
Most migration occurs within national boundaries. Some of it is forced, by warfare or by severe
environmental degradation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that services, and registered
the number of people internally displaced just by conflict is around 20 to 25 million, with up to 16 impressive achievements. In
million of these in Africa and 6 or 7 million in Asia. Much larger numbers may be environmental urban areas, the numbers
refugees, forced to migrate because their home area cannot provide land or work9. with access to clean water
In conflict situations internal migration may be from one rural area to another. When large num-
rose from 701 million in 1980
bers move, this can have disastrous environmental consequences. In the exodus from Rwanda into
to 1.128 billion in 1990. The
Zaire in the mid-1990s, massive numbers of people were concentrated in small areas, forcing them
to plunder forests and local wildlife for food, fuel and shelter. numbers with safe sanitation
Slower environmental change or population pressure can also produce rural-to-rural flows. In also grew by 425 million14.
the Sahel people from the more densely populated semi-arid areas have shifted towards the more But the pace of population
humid south, where they have increased rates of land clearance and deforestation. They have also growth meant that the
extended northwards into even more arid zones not suitable for rainfed agriculture, leading to accel-
numbers of people without
erated soil degradation.
coverage also grew, especially
More commonly, migration occurs from rural areas to urban, as people move in search of better
incomes and opportunities, or are driven by the lack of opportunities in their home area. Over the in Africa and Asia. In urban
past half century there has been a dramatic shift in the distribution of the world’s population Africa the numbers without
towards towns and cities. In 1950 only 29 percent of the world’s people lived in urban areas. At the clean water grew from
end of the 20th century the proportion was 47 percent, expected to rise to 61 percent by the year 28 million to 31 million, and
2030. At the turn of the century, urban areas are growing at an average 2.2 percent a year, while
those without safe sanitation
rural areas are growing at only 0.4 percent. Approximately half of urban growth is fuelled by migra-
from 38 million to 47 million15.
tion from rural areas10.
Some experts believe that urbanization is not all bad for the environment. The shift of popula-
tions from rural to urban helps to reduce the pressure of land clearance on forests and other natural
AN URBAN WORLD
habitats. Urban women also tend to have fewer children than rural women. On the other hand, ??
W-T-X? ??
*@@R1?

urbanization in developing countries has tended to increase energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) N@@?@?
?@@T5?
?(R+Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@????
??

??
???
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@? ?
?@@6X?@?@?@?@? @@@@@@@@@?e?@6Khe?@ ???

output. People shift from fuelwood to fossil fuels, and food and other needs must be transported ?@?S,?e@?@? @@@@@@@@@?e?@S@@??@@@@@6X?@
?@@@U?@?@?@?)T26T2@6KO)Xhf@@@@@@@@@?e?@@Y@??@@?eS1?@
?@?S,?@?3T@X@@US@@?B@@@,hf@@@@@@@@@?e?@@T@=?@@??W&@?3L?
?@@0Y?@?V+R40R40R'e@@0Yhf@@@@@@@@@?e?(R+R4@@@??&@@?V/?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?e@??@e?O@K @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he??

over bigger and bigger distances. Urbanization covers large areas with impervious surfaces such ?W2@6X
?*U?S,
?S@@@U
?*U?S)K?
@@@@@@@@@?e@??@?@@@@@6T26T2@6X?he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@?e@??@?@e@?B@8S@@?B1?he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@?e3=C5?@e@?C@T&@@e@?he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@?eV40Y?@e@@0R4@@@e@?he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?V4@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

as tarmac and concrete, which increases runoff. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

Rapid urban growth can also bring environmental problems for cities themselves. With many ?@
?@
J@L?
*?,?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?g@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

cities growing at 4 to 5 percent a year, provision of clean water, sewage, electricity and roads can @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

rarely keep up with population growth. W2@?

7Y
@@@@
@H
@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

Lack of sewage treatment leads to water pollution, eutrophication and loss of biodiversity in
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

rivers and around outlets. Water demand may lower river and groundwater levels. As industry and ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@6X?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?S,?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
W.Y?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
7Yhe?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

traffic grow, there is an initial rise in urban air pollution, which affects human health and natural
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?

habitats around the cities. As incomes grow and with them concern about environmental standards, ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
W-X?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
7R1?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@?@?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
3T5?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
V+Y?h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@???

however, local air and water quality tend to improve as a result of political pressure11. ?W-T-X?@@@?W-X
?*@@?,e?@?7R1
?N@V@HeJ5?@?@
@?@?e7H?3T5
@?@?e@??V+Y
@6X?W-KO-X?W-X
?S,?7R@@R1?7R1
W.Y?@?@@?@?@?@
7Ye3T@@T5?3T5
@@@?V+MI+Y?V+Y
@6X?W-X?@6KO-Xhg?
?S,?7R1??S@@R1hg?
W.Y?@?@??*U@?@hg?
7Ye3T5??S@@T5hg?
@@@?V+Y?@0MI+Yhg? ??

International migration also has environmental impacts. After a seemingly inexorable rise in Source: UNPD.

refugees worldwide up to the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War has seen a considerable drop in The world is becoming
cross-border refugees, with millions being repatriated to Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia and other increasingly urbanized, rising
“hotspots”. Total refugee numbers dropped from 18.2 million in 1993 to 13.2 million in 199712. from 37 percent urban in 1970
But overall international migration has increased steeply in recent decades. In 1965 an esti- to a projected 61 percent in
mated 75 million people were not living in their home countries. By 1990 this had risen to 120 million. 2030. Urban areas will see 95
The majority of these were in developing countries, but migration from developing to developed percent of population growth
countries was growing faster than other flows, especially into North America and Oceania13. between 1996 and 2030.
18 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends

Migration from poorer developing to richer developed countries can increase the consumption
levels of individual families. However, families adjust to the fertility level of their new host country,
and have fewer children than they would have had in their home country.
Tourism can be seen as a temporary form of migration that has environmental impacts through
coastal development, increased air flights, pressure on coral reefs, national parks and so on. In the
decade from 1988, international tourist arrivals grew at an average 3.7 percent a year, reaching 625
million in 1998. The World Tourism Organization expects this figure to rise to 1.6 billion by 202016.

THE AGEING P O P U L AT I O N C O M P O S I T I O N
P O P U L AT I O N Population composition – its makeup in terms of age, sex, marital status and so on – is another
Developing important demographic factor that affects human impact on the environment, mainly through its
countries, 2000 effects on consumption.
??

?W2@6T26X?
?*U?V@<B1?
?@e@?f@? ?@@@
?@e@?@6X?@?W-X?W2@?he?@e?W-X?@6T-T2@6X@?W-X?W2@?
?@@@@??S1?@?7R1?*Uhf?@@@?7R1?@V@R@8?V@@?7R1?*U
?@e@?W&@?3T@@@?S@(?he?@e?3@@?@?@?@W2@@@T@@@?S@(?
?@e@?&@@?V+R4@?&0Y?he?@e?V4@?@?@?@@@@0R+R4@?&0Y?
@@@@@@
@@@@@@
@? ??
???
?
???
The most dramatic change in composition is the ageing of the world population. Age distribu-
?S@@@@e@W)X?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
?*U?W@=C@@@, @@@@@@
?V4@0R40MI(Y @@@@@@ ???

?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@
?@?7R1g@@Y?
?J@@@@@@
?7@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@
J5?@?@f?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
tion can be represented as a building, with each storey representing a five or ten year age group,
7H?3T5?@@??7<??@ @@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
@??V+Yf?@e?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???

@??W-XfW.?W2@
@??7R1f7U?7Y?
?*?,?3T5?@@@US(M?@
?V+Y?V+Ye?I40Y??@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?J@L?@?@e?C@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
and the width of each storey determined by the numbers of people in that age group.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???

?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@
?@X??7R1f@X;@Y?
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@)X?@?@f@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
In developing countries with high fertility the building looks like a pyramid, with wide floors at
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
?W2@?W-Xe?W2@?W2@
?7Y?O&R1e?7Y?O&Y?
?@@@@@?@eC@@@@@@@6K
?@?V+Yf?@e?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@V'T5?@0M?@e?@V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
the lower, younger levels. As you move upwards into older age groups, each storey gets narrower. In
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???
?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@
I/?.R/f?I40M?
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
/X?@?@f?/T2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
developed countries the shape is more like a bulging urn, with more people in middle age groups
J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L? ?
?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@hf7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
S,?7R1f?S@@Y?hf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
?W.Y?@?@fW.R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7Y??3T5?@@?7Ye?@hf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@?V+Yf@@@??@hf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg??
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
??
than young or old. In the future, in countries where fertility is already low, the shape will be more
W&?W-XfW&?W2@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
*@?7R1f*@?7Y?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
N@?@?@fN@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@?3T5?@@??@e?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@?V+Yf?@e?@f3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?h?
W26Xe?W2@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?h?
7<B1e?7Y?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?
like that of a skyscraper with a wide upper storey representing the over-80s. As countries develop,
@??@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?
3=C@@@e?@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?
V40Mf?@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?

?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
?@ @?hf?@
@?hf?@
?W.?he?W2@hf@6X?he?W-Xhf@6X?he?W2@hf?@f??
?7U?he?7Y?hf?S,?he?7R1hf?S,?he?7Y?hf?@f?
J@)Xhe?@@@@?heW.Y?he?@?@hfW.Y?he?@@@@?heJ@L?e?
*US,hf?@H?he7Yhf?3T5hf7Y
@?hf@?hf?@
@?hf@?hf?@

?@H?he*?,?e?
@?f?
@?f? their age distribution will come to resemble that of the West.
V40Yhf?@hf@@@?he?V+Yhf@@@?hf?@hfV+Y?e? ??
W-X?@?gW.
*?)T@Lg7U ?@f?)X?@?
J@f?@)?
V'?@?)X?W26X@)e@6X?W-X?@6T&e7@?W26X@H?)T26T26X
?N@R'?,?*US@@He@S,?*?,?@S@@=?@@T&@@@@L?@@US@@V1
@?V+Y?V40R'?e@(Y?V+Y?@(MI4@0R+R4@0R/?(R40R'?@
@Hg@H
@?g@?
??
???
??
The UN’s medium population projection assumes that life expectancy will continue to advance,
reaching an average 81.2 years in developed countries and 75.5 in developing ones by the year 2050.
In developed countries today, there is roughly the same number of under-15s as over-60s. By the
Developed middle of the century the over-60s will make up 33 percent of the population and will outnumber
countries, 2000 the under-15s by more than two to one17. There will be a dramatic “population explosion” of elderly
??
?@e@?f@? ?@@@ @? ?
?@e@?@6X?@?W-X?W2@?he?@e?W-X?@6T-T2@6X@?W-X?W2@? ???

?W2@6T26X?
?*U?V@<B1?
?@@@@??S1?@?7R1?*Uhf?@@@?7R1?@V@R@8?V@@?7R1?*U
?@e@?W&@?3T@@@?S@(?he?@e?3@@?@?@?@W2@@@T@@@?S@(?
?@e@?&@@?V+R4@?&0Y?he?@e?V4@?@?@?@@@@0R+R4@?&0Y?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?S@@@@e@W)X?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?*U?W@=C@@@, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
??
??
?
???
folk: while the total population is projected to increase by only 40 percent between 2000 and 2050,
?V4@0R40MI(Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???

?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@
?@?7R1g@@Y?
7H?3T5?@@??7<??@
@??V+Yf?@e?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
J5?@?@f?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
the numbers of over-60s will rocket by 232 percent18.
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???
@??W-XfW.?W2@
@??7R1f7U?7Y?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?J@L?@?@e?C@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?*?,?3T5?@@@US(M?@
?V+Y?V+Ye?I40Y??@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
Ageing has consequences for the environment. On average, over-60s consume more per per-
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@
?@X??7R1f@X;@Y?
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@)X?@?@f@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?
???
?
???
son than under-15s, so the shift is likely to increase average consumption per person. On the other
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L? ?
?W2@?W-Xe?W2@?W2@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1? ???
?7Y?O&R1e?7Y?O&Y?
?@@@@@?@eC@@@@@@@6K
?@?V+Yf?@e?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@V'T5?@0M?@e?@V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
hand, the increasing burden of supporting older dependents and the shortage of young entrants to
?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@ ?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
I/?.R/f?I40M? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
/X?@?@f?/T2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@

?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?
?
???
?
???
the labor force may depress economic growth and reduce consumption.
S,?7R1f?S@@Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?W.Y?@?@fW.R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
?7Y??3T5?@@?7Ye?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@?V+Yf@@@??@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ???
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5 ?
W&?W-XfW&?W2@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
*@?7R1f*@?7Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???
N@?@?@fN@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@?3T5?@@??@e?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
?@?V+Yf?@e?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ???

W26Xe?W2@
7<B1e?7Y?
3=C@@@e?@
V40Mf?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@??@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?
???
?
???
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PA C T S O N H U M A N D E M O G R A P H I C S
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@? ?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h?
?@
?@
@?hf?@
@?hf?@
?W.?he?W2@hf@6X?he?W-Xhf@6X?he?W2@hf?@h??
?7U?he?7Y?hf?S,?he?7R1hf?S,?he?7Y?hf?@h?
J@)Xhe?@@@@?heW.Y?he?@?@hfW.Y?he?@@@@?heJ@L?g?
*US,hf?@H?he7Yhf?3T5hf7Y
V40Yhf?@hf@@@?he?V+Yhf@@@?hf?@hfV+Y?g?
@?hf@?hf?@
@?hf@?hf?@

?@H?he*?,?g?
@?h?
@?h?

??
In the past the changes we wrought on the environment typically worked to reduce mortality
W-X?@?gW. ?@f?)X?@? ?
*?)T@Lg7U J@f?@)? ???
V'?@?)X?W26X@)e@6X?W-X?@6T&e7@?W26X@H?)T26T26X
?N@R'?,?*US@@He@S,?*?,?@S@@=?@@T&@@@@L?@@US@@V1
@?V+Y?V40R'?e@(Y?V+Y?@(MI4@0R+R4@0R/?(R40R'?@
@Hg@H
@?g@?
?
?? and increase population growth. But many current changes may raise morbidity and mortality.
Antibiotics, for example, lowered mortality rates, but there is concern that the spread of antibiotic-
Developed resistent bacteria may reverse this trend. Fertilizer use made great headway in providing sufficiently
countries, 2050 nutritious diets to lower mortality levels, but the environmental degradation resulting from overuse
?@e@?f@? ?@@@
?@e@?@6X?@?W-X?W2@?he?@e?W-X?@6T-T2@6X@?W-X?W2@?
?@@@@??S1?@?7R1?*Uhf?@@@?7R1?@V@R@8?V@@?7R1?*U
@?
is deteriorating water quality and so raising mortality levels.
?@e@?W&@?3T@@@?S@(?he?@e?3@@?@?@?@W2@@@T@@@?S@(?
?@e@?&@@?V+R4@?&0Y?he?@e?V4@?@?@?@@@@0R+R4@?&0Y?
?W2@6T26X?
?*U?V@<B1?
?*U?W@=C@@@,
?V4@0R40MI(Y
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?S@@@@e@W)X?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
Burning fossil fuels originally enabled a rapid growth in incomes, which improved nutrition,
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@
?@?7R1g@@Y?
@??V+Yf?@e?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
J5?@?@f?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
7H?3T5?@@??7<??@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
reduced mortality and accelerated population growth. But excess use of fossil fuels is driving global
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@??W-XfW.?W2@ ?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@??7R1f7U?7Y? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?J@L?@?@e?C@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?*?,?3T5?@@@US(M?@
?V+Y?V+Ye?I40Y??@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
warming, which may increase mortality by enlarging the zones susceptible to warm-climate
?@@@?W-Xf@@6T2@ ?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?
?@X??7R1f@X;@Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@)X?@?@f@)T@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@

?W2@?W-Xe?W2@?W2@
?7Y?O&R1e?7Y?O&Y?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
diseases, and increasing the frequency of heatwaves, storms and flooding. Rising sea levels could
?@@@@@?@eC@@@@@@@6K ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@V'T5?@0M?@e?@V4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@?V+Yf?@e?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?

?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@
I/?.R/f?I40M?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
/X?@?@f?/T2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
lower the productivity of soils in certain areas and lead to increased malnutrition.
S,?3T5?@@??S(M?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@0Y?V+Yf@0Y??@ 3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5
N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@6X?W-Xf@6KO2@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
S,?7R1f?S@@Y? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?W.Y?@?@fW.R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7Y??3T5?@@?7Ye?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@?V+Yf@@@??@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?

W&?W-XfW&?W2@
*@?7R1f*@?7Y?
?@?V+Yf?@e?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
N@?@?@fN@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@?3T5?@@??@e?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?3@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5
?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H
CONSUMPTION
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
W26Xe?W2@
7<B1e?7Y?
V40Mf?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@??@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
3=C@@@e?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@ @?hf?@ @?hf@?hf?@ @?g
The human demand for resources at any given level of technology is always the result of popu-
?@ @?hf?@ @?hf@?hf?@ @?g
?W.?he?W2@hf@6X?he?W-Xhf@6X?he?W2@hf?@g
?7U?he?7Y?hf?S,?he?7R1hf?S,?he?7Y?hf?@g
J@)Xhe?@@@@?heW.Y?he?@?@hfW.Y?he?@@@@?heJ@L?f
*US,hf?@H?he7Yhf?3T5hf7Y
V40Yhf?@hf@@@?he?V+Yhf@@@?hf?@hfV+Y?f
W-X?@?gW.
*?)T@Lg7U ?@f?)X?@?
J@f?@)?
?@H?he*?,?f

V'?@?)X?W26X@)e@6X?W-X?@6T&e7@?W26X@H?)T26T26X
lation multiplied by consumption, and in many fields, consumption has grown more rapidly than
?N@R'?,?*US@@He@S,?*?,?@S@@=?@@T&@@@@L?@@US@@V1
@?V+Y?V40R'?e@(Y?V+Y?@(MI4@0R+R4@0R/?(R40R'?@
@Hg@H
@?g@?
population. Between 1980 and 1996, for example, the number of cars in the world increased from
Source: US Bureau of the Census. 320 million to 496 million19, an annual growth rate of 2.8 percent. Of this, the growth in car ownership
 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends 19

per person accounted for 43 percent and population growth for 57 percent. Over this same period
the number of television sets in the world grew from 561 million to 1.361 billion20 – an average of 5.7
percent per year. Of this, the increase in television ownership levels accounted for 70 percent, and
population growth for only 30 percent.
As population growth is slowing, consumption growth is emerging as the dominant factor
increasing our pressure on the environment. Currently, world population is rising at around 1.2 per-
cent per year. Between 1965 and 1997, average world income per person grew at an average
1.4 percent a year21. If economic growth continues this long-term trend, then consumption growth is
already a larger factor than population growth in our rising demand.
In the future the role of consumption will become more significant, as in all probability population
growth will slow to a halt some time around the middle of this century. This also highlights one of
the limitations of the IPAT model. This, and many other population-environment models, assumes
that population means an aggregate of individuals. MacKellar et al., and Lutz, show how important
alternative views can be22. If we count population as households rather than as individuals, the
impact of population on CO2 emissions in the developed world is much greater. This is quite
reasonable, since numbers of households in the developed world, unlike those in the less devel-
oped world, are growing more rapidly than population, and it is often households rather than indi-
viduals that are the real units of consumption. Moreover, Lutz has shown that disaggregating
population by age, sex, education and labor-force participation provides a far better picture of pop-
ulation than if we view it as a simple aggregate of undifferentiated individuals. In Lutz’s view,
people are not merely consumers; they are also producers, and their differences in skill level indicate
differences in efficiency and productivity.
Most people’s underlying family size desires moderate as countries develop: on average they
aspire to replace themselves, no more, and in many cases constraints prevent them even from
achieving that. But consumption ambitions are not so moderate. There is a constant increase in
expectations as families find that having two or more of everything is more convenient than squab-
bling over one: two bathrooms, two televisions, two cars, two homes. Increasingly, better-off families
with older children may have one car per person.
Yesterday’s luxuries become today’s necessities. In the 1970s a United States survey asked
people what elements were necessary for a good life: 19 percent mentioned a vacation home and
26 percent home air-conditioning. When the same question was put two decades later, the propor-
tions saying they needed these items had almost doubled23.

HOUSEHOLD SIZE
HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND THE ENVIRONMENT ??
??
??
??
@6X??@6X ??
?S,?eS, ??
The average household size in developed countries fell from around 3.6 in 1950 to 2.7 in ?*U?e*U
?S)XeS@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
@0R/?@0Mg?@@@X??3@@)X
?N@@@1
3@@@L?
V'@@)X
?N@@@1
3@@@L?
?
???
?
???
V'@@)X
?N@@@1 ?
3@@@L? ???
1990. This rapid decline can largely be accounted for by ageing, rising divorce rates, rising @6X??@6Xhf?3@@@L
?S,?eS,hf?V'@@)X?
?*U??W.Y
?S)X?7Y?
N@@@1?
N@@@1?
?3@@@L
@0R/?@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?V@@@)K?
I'@@@X
?N@@@1
?
???

???
3@@@L?
V'@@)X ?
?N@@@1 ???
age at marriage and increasing childlessness. @6X??W&?
?S,??*@?
?*U??N@?
3@@@L?
V'@@)X
?N@@@1
3@@@L?
N@@@1?
?3@@@L
?V'@@)X?
N@@@1?
?3@@@L
?
???
?
???
?S)Xe@?g?O26K?hf?V@@@)K?
@0R/e@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
I'@@@X ?@@@@? ???
Household size in developing countries that still had high fertility actually increased over ?N@@@1
3@@@L?hf?N@@@?
V'@@)X
?N@@@1
?3@@@?
@@@L
3@@1e?@e@?W2@??)X?
3@@@L?hfN@@@e?@e@?*Ue?@1?
N@@@1?hf?@@@L??@e@?V/X?J@@L
?@@@@?hf?@@@@??@e@??V/?.MI/
@@@6X?hf@@@?e@@e@@e@??@
N@@@1?hf@@@L
?
???
?
???
@6X??W-Xhf?3@@@Lhf3@@1
?S,??7R1hf?V'@@)X?heN@@@ ?
?@@@@@f?*U??@?@ N@@@1?he?@@@L? ???
this period – but in the majority of countries, where fertility dropped, it declined. Since more I'T5f?S)X?3T5
?V'Uf@0R/?V+Y

?7R1
?3X@
?S@@
?7<?
?3@@@Lhe?3@@1?
?V@@@)K?h?V@@@?
S,hf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?@@@@H
?W@L I'@@@Xhe@@@@
?N@@@1he3@@@
3@@@L?hN@@@L?
V'@@)Xh?@@@1?
?N@@@1h?3@@@?
3@@@L?g?N@@@?
???
?
???
?@ V'@@)Xh@@@L
?@@@@@ ?N@@@1h3@@1 ?
3@@@L?gN@@@ ???
and more countries now come into the latter category, household size can be expected to ?@?@
?3@5
?V+Yf@6X??W-X
?S,??*?,
?W-XfW.Y??N@H
?7@1f7Yf@?
N@@@1?g?@@@L?
?3@@@Lg?3@@1?
?V'@@)X?f?N@@@?
N@@@1?g@@@L
?3@@@Lg3@@1
?V@@@)K?fV@@@
?@?@f@@@@e@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
?@@@
?@ I'@@@XfI'@@@?
?N@@@1f?N@@@?
?
???

???
C5 3@@@L?f@@@L
?@@U V'@@)Xf@@@1 ?
?@V1 ?N@@@1f3@@@ ???
decline in developing countries too24. ?3T5
?N@U
?J@)
?7<?
?@
?@@@@@f@6X?W2@6X?
?S,?*U?S,?
W.Y?S@@@U?
?@g7Y?O&U?S,?
3@@@L?eN@@@
V'@@)Xe?@@@L?
?N@@@1e?3@@1?
3@@@L??N@@@?
V'@@1?e@@@L
?N@@@Le3@@1
3@@)X?N@@@
N@@@1??@@@L?
?3@@@L?3@@1?
?
???
?
???
?@g@@@0R4@0Y? ?V@@@)KV@@@?
?@@@hf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
I'@@@W@@@@ ???
Generally, smaller households have higher consumption per person. This happens because ?@?@
?3@5
?S@U
?7R1
?@?@
?@@@@@
?V'@@@Y@@@
N@@@@@@@L?
?3@@@@@@1?
?N@@@@@@@?
3@@@@@@L
V'@@@@@1
?N@@@@@@
3@@@@@
V'@@@@L?
?
???
?
???
?@?@ ?N@@@@1?
?3@5f@6X??@@@ 3@@@@? ?
?V'Uf?S,?e?@ N@@@@L ???
each household usually has a dwelling unit with its own heating and lighting, and all basic con- S,fW.Y?eJ5
?@@@@Hf7Yf7H

?@@@@@
?@?@
?3T5
?V+Y
?3@@@1
?V@@@@
?W@Lf@@@@e@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
?7R1
?@?@ I'@@@@@X
?V'@@@@)X?
N@@@@@)K
?3@@@@@@6X
?V'@@@@@@)X?
N@@@@@@@)X
???
?
???
?3@@@@@@@)K?
?@?@ ?V4@@@@@@@@@ ?
?'@( '@@6T2@@@@6X ???
sumer items from televisions and refrigerators to cars. ?V+Y @6X?e@?
?W-Xg?S,?e@?
?7R1gW.Y??J@L
?@?@g7Ye?*?,
V'@@@UI'@@@)X?
?N@@@1?V'@@@)K
3@@@L?V4@@@@6X
V'@@)XeI'@@@)X?
?N@@@1e?V'@@@)K
@@@@fV@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6Khe??
?@@@@@f@@@@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
I'@@@Xf?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Mhe?
?V'@@)X?
??

??
N@@@1?
?3@@@L ?
?V'@@)X? ???
A survey in the United States found that one-person households spent an average of @6X??@@@
?S,??@X?
W.Y??@)X
N@@@1?
?3@@@L
?N@@@1
3@@@L?
V'@@)X
?N@@@1
3@@@L?
V'@@)X
?N@@@1
?
???
?
???
7YfS)K? @@@@
@@@@?@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
@@@@X? ???
US$774 on residential energy, while the increase for each additional person above two in the 3@@@)X
V'@@@)X?
?V'@@@)X
V'@@@1
?V'@@@L?
?@e@?@?W.eV'@@)X
?@e@?@W.Ye?V'@@)X?hg?
?@e@?@@U?fN@@@)Xhg?
?3=C5?@V/Xf?3@@@)X?hf?
?
???

@6X??W2@ ?V40Y?@?V/f?V'@@@)Xhf?
?S,??7Y? V'@@@)X?he?
W.Y??@@@@? ?V'@@@)Xhe?

household was only US$120 to US$160. 7Yf?@H? V'@@@1he?

@@@@e?@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?V@@@@he?
?I@Mhe??
??
??
??
??

A study by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis found that between @6X??@6X
?S,?eS,h@?
W.Y?e*Uh@?
7YfS)K?g@?
@?
@?
@?
@?
@?
@?
@?hf@?he??
@?hf@?he?
@?hf@?he?
@@@@?@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f?
W&?W-Xe@??W&?gW&?W26T2@@?W&?gW&eW-T2@6KO@?g?W&?W-X?W-X?W&fW-KO2@6Xg?
?

?
*@?*?,e@??*@?g*@?*US(M?@?&@?g*@e*?@U?S@@@?g?*@?*?,?*?,?*@f*?@@U?S,g?
N@?N@H?J@L?N@?gN@?V'@H?J5?N@?gN@eN@>@@@U?@?g?N@?N@H?N@H?N@fN@8S@@@Ug?
?@e@??*?,e@?g?@eS5e7He@?g?@e?@@U?S,?@?h@??@e?@e?@f?@?*U?S,g?

1970 and 1990, the growth in the number of households in developed regions had more than ?@e@??V+Ye@?g?@e.Ye@?e@?g?@e?(R4@0Y?@?h@??@e?@e?@f?@?V4@0Yg??
??
??
??
??
??

double the impact on growth in CO2 emissions than did the growth in population numbers25. Source: US Bureau of the Census;
??
?

STATBASE.
20 OVERVIEW Population and consumption trends

Moreover, consumption is not just pursued for need or even convenience. It is an arena where
people express social status and power, and for these purposes consumption appears to have no
practical upper limit.

TECHNOLOGY
Population and consumption taken together determine the level of human demand for resources,
but the way in which demand is satisfied – the chosen technology – is also crucial. It is possible to
satisfy demand through sustainable technologies, such as solar power, or through unsustainable
ones like burning fossil fuels.
As a general rule almost all technologies that were sustainable when first introduced became
unsustainable as human population densities and consumption levels increased. We are currently
engaged in a race with time and with our own limitations to find and adopt technologies that can sus-
tain up to 9 or 10 billion humans on a finite planet with sensitive ecosystems.

P O P U L AT I O N C A R R Y I N G C A PA C I T Y
Carrying capacity is a term derived from ecology and range management, where it means the max-
imum number of animals of a species that a habitat can support indefinitely – that is, without
degrading the resource base.
It has been tempting to try to sum up the population-environment nexus by applying this to
humans, and there have been many attempts to calculate the Earth’s carrying capacity for human
populations. The first two estimates, dating from the late 17th century, were surprisingly close
to the central range of modern projections: 6 to 12 billion (Gregory King) and 13.4 billion
(Leeuwenhook). Some science fiction estimates, based on capturing the total energy flow from the
sun, have been as high as a billion billion26.
More serious recent estimates range from David Pimentel’s 1 to 2 billion people in relative pros-
perity, to the Food and Agriculture Organization’s estimate of 33 billion people fed on minimum
rations and using every available hectare of suitable land for high-intensity food production27.
It is not the number of people that makes a difference to the environment: it is our total burden of
resource use and waste output. It is possible, useful and necessary to specify the maximum sus-
tainable burden beyond which a given resource will degrade or become unstable, in specific fields. It
can be done item by item, say, for ocean fish (where we are near to the maximum) or CO2 emissions
(where we have exceeded it). But there is no way to aggregate these different limits into one over-
all global figure.
We could adopt the law formulated by German chemist Justus von Liebig, that the population of
a species is constrained by whatever survival resource is in shortest supply. However, this is very
difficult in the case of humans, because we are such consummate resource-shifters.
Even if this could be done, because the total burden is the product of population, consumption
and technology combined, it is not possible to single out the population element separately. A huge
range of combinations of population, consumption and technology levels would produce the same
range of impact. For every population estimate you would need to specify the consumption level and
the technology involved.
Given the complex reality of population-environment interactions, estimating the Earth’s carry-
ing capacity for human populations is a forlorn task. We have no choice but to look individually at
each area of our resource use and waste output, and at the impact these are having on the planet’s
diverse ecosystems.
 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes 21

N a t u ra l re s o u rce s
a n d w a st e s

P
OPULATION, consumption and technology impact on the environment by way of
two major types of human activity. First, we use resources. We occupy or pre-empt
the use of space, and so modify or remove entirely the habitats of many wild species.
We extract resources – growing food, catching fish, mining minerals, pumping
groundwater or oil. This affects the stock of resources available for humans and
for other species in the future.
Resources fall into two main categories. Renewable resources like water or fish are replenished
naturally. Non-renewable resources like oil or iron ore have a limited stock that is not replenished,
except on geological timescales of millions of years.
Second, we dump wastes – not just those that consumers throw away, but all the waste solids,
liquids and gases that are generated from raw material to final product. These affect the state of
land, groundwater, rivers, oceans, atmosphere and climate.
Resources have traditionally been the main focus of concern about the impact of population and
consumption on the environment. Frequent warnings were issued that we faced massive famines, or
that we would “run out” of essential fuels and minerals. More recently it has become apparent that
more serious, more immediate and more intractable problems lie in the global threats that derive
from our wastes.

NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Ultimately, all non-renewable resources on Earth are limited: if used constantly they must sooner
or later run out. So far, however, the threatened exhaustion of non-renewable resources has not
happened, thanks to market mechanisms which have ensured successful adaptation.
When shortages of any mineral resource begin to be felt, prices rise. This stimulates more
exploration and research, and makes it economical to develop more expensive technology, and
to exploit reserves that are more costly to work. Manufacturers find ways of making do with less,
recycling increases, and cheaper substitutes are found.
Due to these mechanisms, the projected lifespan of many minerals has remained more or less
level or in some cases grown with time, despite dramatic increases in use. In 1989, for example,
recoverable reserves of oil and natural gas liquids were enough to cover 41 years of production at
current rates. Nine years later they were enough to cover 43 years. Recoverable reserves of natural
gas were enough to cover only 23 years of production in 1989; by 1998 this had grown to 57 years.
Recoverable reserves of coal did fall, but were still sufficient for more than two centuries of
production1.
Prices are a good indication of impending shortage, and the prices of minerals have declined
in real terms over the past four decades. In constant prices, between 1980 and 1996 the price of
metals and minerals fell by an average 41 percent, while that of oil fell by 65 percent2.
Of course, this conjuring trick cannot go on forever. But in modern times the human race has
not run into shortages of any key non-renewable resource that has actually constrained the end use
to which that resource was put. The mechanism of adaptation, based on free markets, resourceful
22 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes

CEREAL PRICES companies, continual research and canny consumers, has worked very well in this sphere, and
@6KO-X?W-X
?S@@R1?7R1
?*U@?@?@?@
?S@@T5?3T5
@0MI+Y?V+Y ?@@?
?@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
@@@?
@@@?
@@@L
@@@1
there is no strong reason to believe it will not continue to do so.
@@@@
@@@@ @@
@@@@ ?J@@
?W&K
@??)T2@6T&@@@?
@??@@U?I'U@X
3=C@9?S)KV@S,?@?S@@@@?@?
V40R4@0R4@@(Y?@@0MI4@?@?
?I(Ye@?3L
)XeV/g)X
@@@@
@@@@
@@@@L?hf?@@@
@??@V46XV'@)X?@@6KO2@?@@@?hf@@@@1?hf?@@@L?
@@?@@?hf?@@@1?
@@?@@?hfJ@@@@?
@@?@@?hf7@@@@?
@@?@@?hf@@?@@?
@@?@@?hf@@?@@?
?7@@
?@@@
This is not to say that our use of non-renewable resources is problem-free, but the major
@)K?h@) @@?@@Lhf@@?@@??@@6X?@?
@6T-X?W2@?@V@@@6T2@?e@HW-X?@6X?g@@?3@1hf@@?@@??@?S,?eW26T-X
@V@R1?*@@?3X@??@@Uf3T&?,?@V1?g@@?N@@he?J@@?@@??@@@H?@?7<B@R1
@?@?@?V4@?V4@??(R4@?eV+R+Y?@?@?f?J@@e@@he?7@@?@@??@V'L?@?3=C@@@
?7@5e@@he?@@5?@@L?@?V/?@?V40R4@
?@@He@@he?@@H?3@1
?@@?e@@he?@@??N@@
?@@?e@@he?@@?e@@
?@@?e@@L?h?@@?e@@
?@@?e3@1?hJ@@?e@@
?@@?eN@@?h7@5?e@@
?@@?e?@@?h@@H?e@@
difficulties arise from the wastes created in producing and consuming these resources. Extracting
@6KO-X?W-X ?@@?e?@@?h@@f@@
?S@@R1?7R1 ?@@?e?@@?e?W2@e@@f@@
W.Y@?@?@?@ ?@@?e?@@?e?7@@e@@f@@
7Y:@T5?3T5
@@0R+Y?V+Y ?@@?e?@@?e?@@@e@@f@@L?
?@@?e?@@?e?@@@@@@@f@@)K
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?@@?f@@e?@@@@@@?f?@@X
?@@?f@@e?@@@@@@?f?3@1
?@@?f@@eJ@@@@@@?f?N@@?W26X?
?@@?f@@e7@(Y@@@?g@@?7@@)X
J@@?f@@L?@@H?@@@?g@@?@@@@1
7@5?f3@1?@@e@@@?g3@@@(Y@@L?
and processing fossil fuels and other mineral resources on an increasing scale produces water and
@@H?fN@@?@@hfN@@@H?3@1?
@@g?@@?@@hf?@@5eN@@? ?@@@
@@g?@@?@@hf?@0Ye?@@L ?@@@
@@g?3@@@@
@@g?N@@@5
@@h@@@H
@@h3@@?
@@hN@@?
@@h?@@?
@@eO26X
?3@1
?N@@ ?@@@L?
?W2@e?@@@1?
@@he@@@??7@@L?J@@@@?
@@L?e?@@@?J@@@??@@@1?7@@@@?W2@?hg
3@1?e?@@@W&@@@@@@@@@?@@?@@W&@5?hg
N@@?e?@@@@@(Y@@@@@@@?@@?3@@@(Y?hg
?@@?e?@@@@0Y?3@@@?@@?@@?N@@@H
@@?@@@@1hf?O26X?h?@@LeJ@@?fN@@5?@@?@@e@@@?
?J@@?@@@@@L?h?W2@@@1?h?3@1e7@5?f?@0Y?3@@@@
air pollution as well as solid wastes.
?7@@X@@V'@1?h?7@@@@@Lh?N@@e@@H?h?N@@@5
?@@V@@5?N@@?h?@@(?'@)X?h@@e@@e@@@@@?f@@@Hf@@@?hg
J@@?@@H??@@LhJ@@H?V'@)Xh@@e@@?J@@@@@?f@@@?e?J@@5?hg
@@@?@@e?@@@h@@@?eV4@)h@@e@@?@@0?4@?f@@@?e?@@0Y?hg
@@@?@@f@@h@@g@@@@@6K?e@@e@@?@@??@@?f?@@?eW2@?
@@H?@@f@@L?g@@g3@@@@@@6X?@@e@@?@@??@@?h?W&@5?
?J@@e@@f3@1?f?J@@e@@eV4@@@@@@)X@@L?@@?@@??@@LhO&@(Y?
W&@5e@@fN@@?f?7@5?J@@f?@@@@@@@@@1?@@?@@??3@1fW2@@@@(Y
?O&@@He@@?@@@?@@Lf?@@H?7@@L?e?@@@@?@@@@@?@@?@@??N@@e?W&@@@@0Y?
?W2@@@@?e@@?@@@W@@1f?@@??@@@1?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5?e@@eW&@@
W&?W-X?W-X O&@@(Me?J@@@@@@@Y@@fJ@@?J@@@@?eJ@@@@@V'@@@@@?@@H?e@@e7@@5
*@?7R1?7R1he@@@@@@@@@@@0Y?e?7@@@@@@@?@@f7@5?7@@@@Le7@(Y@@LN@@@@@?@@f@@e@@(Y
N@?@?@?@?@he@@@@@@@@@0M?f?@@@@@?@@?@@L?e@@H?@@V'@1e@@H?3@1?@@@@@?@@f3@@@@(Y?
?@?3T5?3T@=? ?@@@@@?@@@@@)Ke@@e@@?V@@e@@eV@@?@@@@@?@@fV@@@@Y
?@?V+Y?V+R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h

@??@?@?)X?h)Xh@@@?h?I4@
3=?@W5?@)KO-X?@6X?@)h@@@?
?@@@(M?I'@@@@@?@@?@@@??I'@@@0MeI'@@?@@@@@@@@@@??@@@f?@@@e@@(Mhg
?@@@H?eN@@@@@?@@?@@5?eV40Mf?N@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X?J@@@@@@@H?hg
?@@@f?3@@@@@@@@@(Y?hf3@@?@@@@@@@V'@@@@@@@1?7@@@@@@5
?@@@f?N@@?@@@@@(Y
?@@@g3@@@@@@(Y?
J@@5gV'@@@@(Y
7@@Hg?V4@@@H?
N@@@@@@@X@@?V4@@@@@@@?@@V'@@(Y
?3@@@@?B@@5?gI'@@@5?V40Y?
?N@@@@e@@H?g?N@@@H
@@X?e@@he@@@?
3@1??J@@
N@@??7@5
RENEWABLE RESOURCES
N@@@@H?@V@@R1??S1?@Hh@@@? ?@@??@@H
?@e@??@?@@@@?W&@?3Lh@@5? ?@@@@@@?
?@e@??@?@?4@?&@@?V/g?J@@H? ?3@@@@5?
@6X?heJ@@5
3@)Xhe7@@H
?7@@
?@@)X?e?W26K?@@@?
7@@@)KeO&@@@@@@5?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@H?
3@@?@@@@@@@@@@@5
V'@@@@@@0MeI40Y
?V4@@0M?
?@e?@f?.M?
?N@@@(Y?
@@(Y
?J@0Y?
?@L?J@?@6Xe?'@?W-X?
?@)T&@eS1?@?S5?7R1?
?@V+Y@?W&@?@W&U?3@@?
?@e?@?&@@?@@@)?V4@?
Renewable resources like freshwater, soil or wild fish stocks are much more problematic than non-
?W-X
?7R1
?@?@g?@hf?@hf?@hf@?hf@?hf@?he?@
?3T@=?f?@hf?@hf?@hf@?hf@?hf@?he?@
renewable resources, because most of them are vulnerable to human overuse or pollution.
?V+R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?W&??W-X?W.?@@@?hf?W&?W-X?@@@?@@@?hfW&eW-T2@6T2@@ W&?W-X?W-T2@@@h
?*@??*?,?7U?@X
@?e@?*US@US,?
@?e@?V40R40Y?
?*@?*?,?e@?@X
?N@??N@HJ@)T@)X?hf?N@?N@H??J5?@)X?hfN@eN@>@@@>@)X *@e*?@U?S@@X?
@??@e?7H??S,?hf?@e?@@U?S@US,
@??@e?@e@0Y?hf?@e?(R4@0R40Y
*@?*?,?*?@@?he
N@?N@H?N@R4@6Xh
?@e@?e@?eS,h
?@e@?e@?@@0Yh By definition, renewable resources are replenishable by nature – yet replenishment is not
Source: FAO. guaranteed. Renewal occurs only if they are given the chance to renew. If we exploit them faster
Despite shrinking amounts than they can renew themselves, they deplete or degrade. The majority of renewable resources,
of land per person and including the most basic ones needed for human survival – land, food and water – are now affected
continuing soil erosion, food by human overexploitation or pollution.
availability has improved in
most parts of the world and Food and land
cereal prices have not risen. The oldest question about human population and the environment was posed by Malthus. Can agri-
cultural production keep up with potential human population growth? Malthus’ answer was no:
agricultural production can only increase arithmetically (3+3+3=9) whereas population can increase
geometrically (3x3x3=27).
It followed, Malthus argued, that the human population would always be kept in check by the
food supply. In reality, the reverse has usually been the case: market mechanisms have worked to
expand the food supply in line with demand, and this expansion has more than matched the growth
of the human population.

Land availability
Malthus’ basic outlook still dominates the popular view, and some recent trends provide material
for renewed concern.
In most parts of the world, cultivated land has not been expanding in line with population
growth, so the amount of farmland per person has been declining. The area per person has
declined only slowly in developed countries, from 0.65 hectares in 1965 to 0.51 hectares 30 years
later. In developing countries, where population growth is faster, the area per person fell from 0.3
to 0.19 hectares over this same period3.
The steepest fall was in Africa, where the extension of the farmed area has lagged far behind
population growth. In 1965, Africa had half a hectare of cultivated land per person, but this dropped
dramatically to a mere 0.28 hectares in 1995. If expansion continues at the same rate as it did
between 1965 and 1995, and the UN’s medium population projection is realized, then by the year
2040 Africa will have only 0.15 hectares of farmland per person. This is less than Asia had in 1995,
and Asia has fewer problem soils and climates, and far more potential for irrigation. Many parts of
Central, Southern-Central and West Africa still have abundant land, but much of this is subject to
severe soil, climate or disease constraints. It seems likely that many African countries will run into
serious land shortages4.

Food availability
Overall, cereal production has not been keeping pace with population growth for the past decade
and a half. The amount of grain available per person rose fairly steadily from 135 kilos in 1961 to 160
kilos in 1992, but since then has averaged about 157 kilos5.
We must be cautious before concluding that we are seeing the harbingers of a coming global
food crisis. If these developments were really reducing the ability of farmers to meet market
demand then we would expect to see rising food prices and declining food intakes.
 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes 23

Yet neither of these things is happening. On the contrary, allowing for inflation, the prices of most THE CLOSING GAP
cereals have been on a falling, not a rising, trend. In constant 1990 US dollars, the prices of wheat and
maize in 1996 were 40 percent lower than in 1980 and 50 percent lower than in 19606. F i s h a n d s e a fo o d
Nor was there any overall decline in average food intakes per person. Average daily calorie co n s u m p t i o n
???

intake in 1998 was 2 790 calories7, the highest on record, following fairly steady growth from @@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@@6X?he@?hf?W&? )Xe?O.?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@?B)T-X?@?)T-X?@?W26T26X?W-X?W&@??W2@?W-T&??@@@6X@)?@@@UO-X?W2@
@@@@@@@@@?e?@e@@R1?3T@@R1?@?7<B@@V1?7R1?7Y@??7<??7R@@??@@?B@@H?@?B@@R1?*U?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@?C@@@@?N@R'@@?3T@=C@@W5?3@@?3X@??3=??3T@@=?@@??@@L?@e@@@@?S@(
@@@@@@@@@?e?@@0MI4@e@?V4@?V+R40Y@(Y?V4@?V4@??V4@?V+MI4@@@??(R/?@e@?4@?&0Y
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@? @H
@?
?
???
??
??
?
@@@@@@@@@? ???

2 295 in 1963. Average daily protein intake was 74.9 grams, again the highest on record, up from @@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@@6X?he@?h@? )Xe?O.?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@?B)T-X?@?)T-X?@?W26T26X?e@6X?W2@??W2@?W-X?@?@@@6X@)?@@@U?W-KO2@hg?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@e@@R1?3T@@R1?@?7<B@@V1?@?@V1?7Y@??7<??7R1?@?@@?B@@H?@?B1?7R@@U?hg?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@?C@@@@?N@R'@@?3T@=C@@W5?@?@?@?3X@??3=??3T5?3X@@??@@L?@e@?3@@V@(hg?
@@@@@@@@@?e?@@0MI4@e@?V4@?V+R40Y@(Y?@?@?@?V'@??V4@?V+Y?V4@@??(R/?@e@?V4@@0Yhg?
@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@? @Hh?S5?
@?h@0Y? ?
???
@6T2@@ ?@@@@@
?S@@X? ?@@@@@ ?
W.R4)X ?@@@@@ ??

63 grams in 19618. ?W2@

?*@5
?V'U
7YeS,

?W&KS,f@6KO-X
@@@@@?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@
?@@@@@
@@@@0Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@
@@@@@?f?@@@@@
@@@@@?f?@@@@@
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?@@@@?he??
??

?&@@0Yf?S@@R1 @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
W.Y@?@ ?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?@?'@(f7Y:@T5 ?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?

Improvements were notched up in all developing areas, most rapidly in Asia, but also in Africa, ?S@Uf@@0R+Y
?@?@
?@@@@@
?W2@
?*@5
?S@U
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?7R1he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?7R1fW&?@@@f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?3T5f*@?@X?f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?V+YfN@?@)Xf@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
?@eS,f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?

even though average calorie and protein intakes remained low. ?@

?@
?@@@
?@?@
?3@5
?N@H
?J@L
?@?@0Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
?7R1fW&?W-Xf@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@g?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@?@f*@?7R1f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@@@@@eN@?@?@f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@?3T5f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?

How can we explain the simultaneous drop in cereal production per person and the rise in ?W-X
?&@)
?/T.
?S@U
?7R1
?3T5
?@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?V'Ug?@@@f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
S,g?@X?f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@@@0Yg?@)Xf@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
S,f@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@?@@@g?@0Yf@@@@@@@@6K?@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?

dietary intakes? The simple answer is that people do not live by bread alone: calorie intakes from
?39?W5he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?V'@(Y
V@Y?
?@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?W-Xf@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?7R1f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@?@f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?3T5f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?V+Yf@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?

cereals have been more or less static since 19849. The increase has come rather from meat and ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f??
W&eW-X?W.?@6Xf?W-T2@6Xe?@@@?@6Xf@@6T2@6XeW2@6T26Xe?W2@6T2@6Xe?W-X?@6XfW-KO2@6Xg?
*@e*?,?7UeS,f?7>@U?S,f?@eS,g@@U?S,e*U?S(MS,e?*U?S@U?S,e?*?,eS,f*?@@U?S,g?
N@eN@HJ@)X?*UfJ@@?@@@UfJ5e*Uf?J@>@@@UeS@@@U?*Ue?S@@@?@@@Ue?N@He*UfN@8S@@@Ug?
?@e?@?*US)KS,f*US@U?S,f7HeS,f?7R'U?S,e*U?S)KS,e?*U?S@U?S,f@?eS,f?@?*U?S,g?
?@e?@?V40R40YfV40R4@0Yf@??@0Yf?@?V4@0YeV4@0R40Ye?V4@0R4@0Yf@??@0Yf?@?V4@0Yg??
?

fish, oils and other vegetable products. Global meat intake per person grew steadily from 24 kilos
per person in 1963 to 37 kilos in 199810. M e a t co n s u m p t i o n
@@@@@@@@@? @?h@0Y? ??
?W2@6T-X
?*U?V@R1 ???

Within the cereal sector it is likely that cereals are being used more efficiently at every stage, with ?W2@
?*@5
?V'U
?S@@@@?@
?*U?W@T5 O2@@@6K?
?V4@0R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?@@@@@
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he??
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?

?W&KS, ?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?&@@0Y ?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?

lower losses in storage and processing between harvest and table. Cereals used for livestock feed ?@?'@(f?@?W-X
?S@Uf?@?7R1
?7R1fJ@X@?@
?@?@f*?@@T5
?W2@
?*@5
?S@U
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@eV+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?7R1 @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?3T5 @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?

are increasingly being replaced by soybeans, and soybean production has been growing rapidly11.
?V+Y @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@ @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@f?W2@?W-Xf@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@e?7Y?O&R1f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@?@e?@@@@@?@f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?3@5f?@V'T5f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?N@Hf?@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?J@L @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?7R1 @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@?@ @@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?@@@@@hf@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?

The continued improvement is a sign that markets are by and large matching production with
?@@@0Yf@@0R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?
?W-X
?&@)
?/T.
?S@U
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@?he?
?7R1f@6KO-Xf@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?g?
?3T5f?S@@R1f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?g?
?V'UfW.Y@?@f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?g?
S,f7Y:@T5f@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@6K??@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?

effective demand. People are also adapting their diets as a result of health and environmental
?@?@@@
?39?W5
?V'@(Y
V@Y?
?@@@@@
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@g@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@?f?@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?W-Xf@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?7R1f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@?@f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?3T5f@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?

concerns. For example, all the 1963-98 increase in meat consumption per person came from pork
?V+Yf@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@e@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@?g?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f??
W&eW-X?W.?@6Xf?W-T2@6Xe?@@@?@6Xf@@6T2@6XeW2@6T26Xe?W2@6T2@6Xe?W-X?@6XfW-KO2@6Xg?
*@e*?,?7UeS,f?7>@U?S,f?@eS,g@@U?S,e*U?S(MS,e?*U?S@U?S,e?*?,eS,f*?@@U?S,g?
N@eN@HJ@)X?*UfJ@@?@@@UfJ5e*Uf?J@>@@@UeS@@@U?*Ue?S@@@?@@@Ue?N@He*UfN@8S@@@Ug?
?@e?@?*US)KS,f*US@U?S,f7HeS,f?7R'U?S,e*U?S)KS,e?*U?S@U?S,f@?eS,f?@?*U?S,g?
?@e?@?V40R40YfV40R4@0Yf@??@0Yf?@?V4@0YeV4@0R40Ye?V4@0R4@0Yf@??@0Yf?@?V4@0Yg??
?

(up 71 percent) and poultry (up 237 percent). It takes considerably less cereal and land to produce
Source: FAO.
a kilo of chicken or pork than a kilo of beef12.
Moreover, people’s need for dietary energy is, on average, declining. Farming has the highest Fish consumption per person
calorie requirements, followed in turn by heavy industry, light industry, services, and then non- has more than doubled in
employment. The general trend in all societies is to have higher and higher percentages of people developing countries since
represented in sectors with lower food energy needs. 1963, despite a decline in the
Barring severe climatic change, it is very unlikely that we face catastrophic food shortages at per-capita availability of
global level. Research has shown that with relatively modest improvement in regionally specific agri- marine fish. Aquaculture has
cultural practices, the world could feed 10 billion people with current land and technology levels13. largely been responsible for
making up the shortfall, but
Persistent problems has also caused massive
The agricultural sector has been very successful in raising food production since 1945 to meet damage to wetland
growing populations and consumption levels, but this has often been at the cost of exporting prob- ecosystems.
lems to other ecosystems. High levels of fertilizer application have caused water pollution and Meat consumption per
eutrophication. The expansion of farmland has been to the detriment of wildlife habitat and person in developing
biodiversity, which has been further harmed by pesticide use. countries has risen by
Population growth is directly implicated in all of these trends. For example, the area of land concentrating on animals
needed for any given crop is the product of population, multiplied by consumption per person, mul- such as pigs and poultry,
tiplied by the area needed to produce each unit of consumption. This latter element is the result of which require less land and
farming technology. Where this has been able to increase yield faster than the growth in population resources per unit than cattle
multiplied by consumption, the area needed for farming has fallen over time. But where yield and sheep. In developed
has not kept pace, the area of farms and pastures has increased at the expense of forests and other countries per-capita
wild habitats. consumption of both fish and
Unsustainable soil and water management practices have caused land degradation. A major meat has fallen since 1990.
assessment found that by 1990 soils had degraded on 38 percent of the world’s cropland, 21 per-
cent of pasture and 18 percent of forests14. Productivity has declined significantly on 16 percent
of agricultural land in developing countries15. One recent estimate suggested that cropland produc-
tivity is 12.7 percent lower than it would have been without human-induced soil degradation16.
Serious problems of food production will also continue in localized areas and in individual
countries. These include many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and some individual countries out-
side Africa such as Bolivia, Haiti and Afghanistan. Many countries that cannot produce enough food
24 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes

F R E S H W AT E R for their own needs can pay for food imports by exporting manufactured goods or services. But
SCARCITY many marginal areas, and many poor food-deficit or landlocked countries, especially in Africa, are
@6X?he?@ ?W.?W-X?e?O.?
@S,?W-X?W2@@@6X@?W-Xe?W2@@??@?7U?7>)X?@@@U?@@6KO2@?
@(Y?7R1?7<?@?B@@?7R1e?*U?@??@?@)?@@R1?@?B1?@?B@@Y@?@?
@He3@@?3=?@?C@@T@@@e?S@@@=?@?@H?@@@@?@e@?@??@@X@?
@?eV4@?V4@@@0MI+R4@e?&0MI4@@?@e@?4@?@e@?@??(R'@?@?
@@@@@@@@@@
?@
?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@?
?S5?
@0Y?
badly placed to develop competitive industries or services.
@@@@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@e?W2@@6K? ?@@@@@@@@@@??W2@@?hfO.?@K?

?@@@
?@
J5
@@@@@@@@@@e?*U??@@@@6T-X?W2@?W2@?f?@@@@@@@@@@??*U??W2@?@6X?@@6T2@U?@@@?@hg
@@@@@@@@@@e?V46X@?@?B@R1?*Ue*Ug?@@@@@@@@@@??V46T&<?eS1?@?B@<B1?@V'X@hg
@@@@@@@@@@f?S@@X@e3@@?S@(?S@(?f?@@@@@@@@@@?e?S@@=??W&@?@e3=?@?3LN@5hg
@@@@@@@@@@e?@@0MI4@eV4@?&0Y?&0Y?f?@@@@@@@@@@??@@0MI4@?&@@?@eV4@@?V/?@Hhg
@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@? ?J5?hg
?.Y?hg There are millions of people who do not get enough food for a healthy, active and productive life.
7H
@??@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e

?@@@@@
I'T5
?S@H
?7@L
?3@,f@?
?V+Yf@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
The estimated incidence of malnutrition in developing countries has halved from 35 percent of the
?J@L @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?W&KO.e?*?, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?&@@@Ue?V+Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@V1g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?3T5
?V+Y
?@6X
?3@,
?S(Y
?/T&Y?
?S@@@@e?@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
population in 1969-71 to 17 percent in 1995-97, but because of the growth in population the absolute
?*U@f?@X? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?V4@@@e?@)X @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
S, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?W2@e?@0Y
?V+Y
?@6X
?3@,
?V'U
S,
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?*@5g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
drop in numbers, from 917 million to 790 million, has been much more modest17.
?@@@@He?W2@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?W@Le?7Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?7R1e?@@@@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@?@f?@H?
?3@@@@e?@
?@?@
?3T5
?V+Y
?@6X
?3@)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?V+Mg?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
The numbers of malnourished will probably continue to decline slowly, while still remaining
?N@H ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?J@Le?@6X ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?7R1fS, ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@?@f*U
?@@@@@eS,

?W@U
?7R1
?3T5
?V+Y
?@0Y
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?/T&K?g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?V4@@( ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
unacceptably high. However, malnutrition is not a sign that not enough food is available at global or
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?W-Xe?@6X ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?7@1fS,
?3X@e?W.Y
?S@@e?7Y?
?7<?e?@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@h?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?3@(
?S@U
?7R1
?3T5
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
even national level. It is a symptom of poverty and inequality – the poor lack enough money to buy, or
?V+Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@?@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
W5fW&
?@@@@Uf*@
S,fN@
?@@@0Yf?@

?7R@R1
?@?@?@
?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?/T2@(g?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?S@>@U @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
enough good land to grow, sufficient food for the needs of their families.
?@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?W-Xg@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?7R1g@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@?@g@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?3T5g@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?V+Yg@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@g
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e
?W-T-X?W-X?@@@h?@ @?e@?g@@ @??@?@f?@he
Reducing the number of malnourished means taking measures to create jobs, redistribute land
?*@@?,?*?,?@X?h?@ @L?J@?f?J@? @??@g?@he
?N@V@H?N@H?@)Xh?@e?W26T-T-T&f@)T&@?W2@?W&@1?@e@@6T-Xf@@@@?@?W2@?@@6X?g
@?@?e@?eS,h?@e?*US@@@R@5f@V+Y@?&@@?*U@@?3=?@@V@R1f@??@?@?*U@?@?B1?g
@?@?e@??@0Yh?@@@?V40MI@?(Yf@?e@?V4@?V4@@?V4@@@?@?@f@??@?@?V'@?@e@?g

'6X?hf@@6Xhf@?f)T.?
V')Khf@?S,he?J@?f@@U?
S5hf
?@0Yhf
W&g
?O&5g
?V4@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@0Y?@@?@@@?@??@@??@e(R/??@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Yg
@?e/KO26KO26KO26T2@@?/T&?/KO@e@?
@?eV40Y@@0MI4@0R+R4@?V4@?V4@@e@?
more equitably, and increase the productivity of small and marginal farms through targeted agri-
@?
@?@?g?)T.

?@h?J5?
?@h?.Y?
?@@U
?@@6T2@6T26T&?W26T2@?@V1?W26T2@6T-X?
?@?S@@?I'US@@?&@@@U??3X@?*US@@?B@@,?
?@@0R'eV40Y@?V40R4@?V4@?V40R'e@0Y?
W.h?@6KO-X?@@@?W-X?
7UheS@@R1?@Xe7R1?
@)T26T2@@??W.Y@?@?@)X?@?@?
cultural training, crop breeding, and soil and water conservation programs. Once the poor’s own
@V'US@@?e?7Y:@T5??S,?3T5?
@?V40R'?e?@@0R+Y?@0Y?V+Y?

resources have been boosted, they themselves will grow, or the world market will produce, enough
Source: Population Action
International. food to meet their effective demand.
The number of people in
countries facing freshwater Freshwater
shortages, around 436 We live on a planet whose surface is mainly ocean, but freshwater is a much more limited resource.
million in 1995, is set to rise Some 97 percent of all water is salty, currently useless for drinking or agriculture.
steeply over the next half Most freshwater is locked up in ice and snow and in aquifers too deep to tap, and the rest is very
century, but will vary unevenly distributed. Equatorial regions and some northern latitudes have a surfeit. Dry areas in
enormously depending on the between, including much of Africa, have supplies that are too scarce or too uncertain.
rate of population growth. Freshwater is crucial for survival, for health, for agriculture, for industry, and for comfort and
leisure. But the freshwater resources of any country are limited. There is only so much to go round:
the larger the population, the less there is for each person.
In some countries, shortages are already biting. According to Swedish hydrologist Malin
Falkenmark, a minimum of 1 700 cubic meters of renewable freshwater is needed per person per
year to avoid serious problems. Below this level, a country is in a situation of water stress, when
water supply problems may become chronic and widespread. There may be a need for long-
distance water transfers, reuse of treated waste water, or supply interruptions in dry periods.
Where supplies fall below 1 000 cubic meters per person per year, a situation of water scarcity
applies, and a society will face difficult choices between agriculture, industry, personal health and
convenience which will hamper development18.
In 1995 some 436 million people were already suffering water scarcity or stress. Even these
levels of water shortage are causing severe development problems in some areas. There are con-
flicts among farmers and between farming and urban needs, and heightening tensions between
countries dependent on the same resources, such as Israel and Jordan; Turkey, Syria and Iraq;
India and Bangladesh; Sudan and Egypt19. Saudi Arabia, Israel and the whole of North Africa from
Egypt to Mauritania are already withdrawing groundwater faster than it can replenish itself. Yet
these countries face population increases of between 52 and 152 percent over the next 50 years20.
Different population futures make a considerable difference to water futures. An analysis of the
UN’s 1996 population projections has estimated numbers likely to be suffering water shortage in
the future. By 2050, on the medium projection, the number of people in countries suffering water
stress or scarcity will have risen to 4 billion21. If the UN’s low population projection could be achieved,
then the total population in countries facing water scarcity or stress would amount to only
2 billion. By contrast, if the world were to hit the high projection, this total would be 6.8 billion.

POLLUTION AND WASTES

Perhaps the most intractable threats to the globe today relate as much to what we waste as to what
we consume. Pollution places a mounting burden on local and planetary ecosystems. Ultimately it is
 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes 25

exported to the global commons: the oceans and atmosphere, where our understanding of inter- Wa st e
actions is still inadequate. Sustainable management strategies are complex to devise and politically In the mid-1990s the rich
difficult to introduce. countries belonging to the
In the process of making the end products we actually use, our machines dig up, churn over,
Organisation for Economic
swallow up and spew out gigatons of material. One study found that some 93 percent of materials
Co-operation and Development
used in production do not end up in saleable products but in waste, while 80 percent of products are
discarded after a single use22. produced 1.5 billion tons of
The result is a veritable avalanche of materials. In 1995, for example, the world produced industrial waste and 579
1.42 billion tons of cement – about a quarter of a ton for every man, woman and child on Earth. million tons of municipal
Some 2.57 billion tons of sand and gravel were produced in the 52 countries for which data are waste – an annual total of
available23.
almost 2 tons of waste for
Figures on carbon dioxide (CO2) illustrate how the waste deluge has grown. Back in 1750,
every person. The United
the human race produced only 11 million tons of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning and cement
production. A century later this had grown 18-fold to 198 million tons, and in another century a States alone produced 214
further 30-fold to around 6 billion tons. By 1995 our annual CO2 output had multiplied by another million tons of hazardous
four times to reach almost 24 billion tons24. waste – almost half a kilo for
These material flows have left deepening scars on the planet. The solid wastes that are not every dollar of GDP29.
incinerated deface or pollute localized areas and water courses. Liquid and gaseous pollutants are
more insidious and spread invisibly across the whole globe.
Humans raised the level of CO2 in the air from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times
to 363 parts per million in 1996. Over this same period we raised methane concentrations by M U N I C I PA L W A S T E
145 percent. There were no gaseous chlorines in the atmosphere before industrial times. By 1996 PRODUCTION
there were 2 731 parts per trillion, most of these produced in the 20th century25. AND DISPOSAL,
Significant traces of organic and metallic pollutants are now found in the deepest marine MID-1990s
sediments, in the remotest glaciers and icecaps, and in the fat of arctic mammals. Studies of human @@@?W-KO-X
@?7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?J5?@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?7H?3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@eV+MI+Yf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?heW&?W.?@@e@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@f@?e@6T2@6KO&@?7U??@e@??@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?e?S@@?B@@Y@?@)?7@e@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?eW&@@e@@X@?@H?@@L?3L

breast milk have found traces of more than 350 contaminants, including 87 dioxin and dioxin-like ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@@@?&@@@e(R4@?@e(R/?V/
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?gO. ?)X?f?W&?hg
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?@6X?W2@U?@6X?W-X?@@@@6X@)?W-X?W&@?hg
?@eW-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?@V1?7<B1?@V1?7R1?@e?S@@H?7R1?7Y@?hg
?@e7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?@?@?3=?@?@?@?3@@?@eW&@@L?3@@?3X@?hg
J@L?@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?@?@?V4@@?@?@?V4@?@e&@0R/?V4@?V4@?hg

compounds and 190 volatile compounds26. *?,?3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@

V+Y?V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@@6Xhf?O@?f?W&?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?S)T-X?W2@@?@?W2@@?W-X?W&@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@@@R@R1?7<I'X@?7<?@?7R1?7Y@?
@@@@@@h

?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@V'T@@@?3=?N@5?3=C@T@@@?3X@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@f@?V+R4@?V4@?@H?V40R+R4@?V4@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@ ?J5?

The rise of pollution and waste is not inexorable. Water and air pollution usually increase in the ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he?@@@@@@@@@
@@@?W-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@Xe7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@)X?@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?S,?3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?W2@f@0Y?V+MI+Yf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?*@5
?V'U
?W&KS,
?.Y?

?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?&@@0Y ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@?'@( ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

early stages of economic development, but once a certain income threshold has passed, people ?S@U
?7R1
?@?@
?@@@@@
?W2@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?*@5fW2@?W-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?S@Uf7Y?O&R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?7R1f@@@@@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?3T5g@V'T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?V+Yg@?V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?

tend to value environmental quality more highly and have the resources to pay for protection ?@
?@
?@@@
?@?@
?@@@
@?
?J@L
?7R1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@e@6X?W-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?S,?7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?

measures. In most developed countries there have been significant reductions in emissions of lead, ?7@1
?@@@
?@?@
?3T5
?V'U
S,
?*U?@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?S,?3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?W-Xf@0Y?V+MI+Yf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@0Y ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@?@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf

sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulates (smoke), and widespread improvements in water quality in
?/K?O.
?V'@(Y
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
V@Y?f@6X?W-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@f?S,?7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
W.Y?@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
7Ye3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
@@@?V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf

rivers and around beaches. These are cases of immediate hazard, or easily noticeable local prob- ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
W&eW-KO-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
*@e7R@@R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
N@e@?@@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@e3T@@T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@eV+MI+Yf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf

lems, or substances that have been the subject of intense media publicity, where political pressure
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf

for change is strong27. ?W-Xf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf

?7R1f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@?@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?3T5f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?V+Yf?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
@??)T2@@?W&?he@??@?@?W.?g?@
@??@@Ue?&@?he@??@?@W&H?g?@ ?W2@@?
?78?
@??(R4@??V'?he@??@?@@@h?@e@??@@??@e@@f?@?@@?@@@@@??@@??@@?@@h
/KO-K?O-T.?/X?h/KO.?@?/X?gO.?'@@?)T2@@@?@?@?e?/KO.?@?'@@?'@@?/KO2@@h
V40R4@0R+Y?V/?hV40Y?@?V/?f?@0Y?V4@?@(MI4@?@?@?e?V40Y?@?V4@?V4@?V40R4@h

But even in rich countries waste emissions with less immediate, less visible or less dramatic ?@H?
?@

Source: OECD.
effects have not been the subject of effective controls. The same is true where the costs are
exported over a vast area or over the whole globe, or where remedial action would be costly and In developed countries each
might affect powerful business interests or important groups of voters. These include, for example, person produces five to ten
emissions of the greenhouse gases CO2 and methane. times their body weight in
Population is always a factor in waste and pollution, along with consumption and technology. municipal waste per year.
The level of production of wastes or pollutants is the product of the number of people, the amount There are huge variations:
each person consumes, and the amount of waste created for each unit of consumption in the whole the average Japanese
process from production and packaging to the consumer and his or her dustbin or sewage outlet. produces 45 percent less
Several efforts have been made to identify the relative shares of responsibility for rising waste than the average
pollution. Environmentalist Barry Commoner studied examples from the United States between American. Industrial, mining
1946 and 1968. Population growth accounted for only 14 to 18 percent of the increase in synthetic and construction wastes are
organic pesticides, in nitrogen oxides and in tetraethyl lead from vehicles. It was responsible for only many times greater than
7 percent of the increase in non-returnable beer bottles and a mere 3 percent of the increase in phos- municipal. The shares going
phorus from detergents. In almost every case, technology was the dominant factor. A later study by to recycling, incineration or
Commoner of nitrates, cars and electricity in 65 developing countries came to similar conclusions28. landfill also vary widely.
26 OVERVIEW Natural resources and wastes

Clearly, technology is always implicated, and in many cases it may be the prime culprit.
However, Commoner chose only cases where technological change was rapid. There are other
cases where population or consumption are dominant, such as increased methane emissions from
livestock or paddy fields. In more and more cases, technological change is a downward pressure,
working to reduce our output of wastes, while growth in population and consumption continues to
gear it upwards.
Studies of changes in air pollutants (SO2, nitrogen oxides, smoke and CO2) in countries of the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) between 1970 and 1988 showed
technology as a downward pressure in all four cases – mainly through increased energy efficiency in
the case of CO2 and nitrogen oxides, and through cleaner technology in the case of SO2 and smoke.
Population growth was responsible for a quarter of the upward pressure on emissions, while
consumption was responsible for three quarters30.
 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems 27

T h e st a t e o f m a j o r
e co s y st e m s

Natural

A
LL ECOSYSTEMS from the local to the global are under threat from the pressures
of human resource extraction and pollution, driven by population, consumption extinctions
and technology. The Earth’s biodiversity has
Ecosystems are important not just from an aesthetic or ethical point of view;
been devastated by mass
they play roles that are crucial to human survival and prosperity. Wetlands purify
extinctions in the past. Up to
water and assimilate waste. Forests stimulate local rainfall and prevent erosion and floods.
Coral reefs and mangroves protect coasts from erosion. In all their variety, ecosystems both 90 percent of species were
constitute and harbor the biological diversity that makes up the stuff of life. lost in the great extinctions
marking the end of the
BIODIVERSITY Permian and Cretaceous
Biodiversity is an immense resource, built up over 3.5 billion years of evolution. It embraces not
periods. And there has
only the number of species on Earth, but the range of habitats and genetic diversity within
always been an ongoing
species as well. It is of enormous importance to humans. Of the 270 000 known plants, some 3 000
are exploited for food, and between 25 000 and 50 000 more are used in traditional medicine. Wild natural attrition. The average
plants are potential sources of new medicines and of material for genetic engineering. Biodiversity lifetime of a species in the
is a major attraction for tourism, and not least a lasting source of human aesthetic pleasure1. fossil record is 5 to 10 million
Estimates of the total number of species on Earth vary wildly. Around 1.75 million species have years. Between one and
been scientifically described. More than half of these are insects, while vertebrates – including fish,
three species per year
birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians – make up only 2.5 percent2.
became extinct through
But the real number is certainly far higher. Most recent estimates fall in the 7 to 20 million
range, though a widely acceptable working estimate, used by the United Nations Environment natural processes in pre-
Programme’s Global Biodiversity Assessment of 1995, is 13.6 million3. human times.
Most ecologists believe that we are currently undergoing a mass extinction driven by human
activities. Since 1600, 484 animal and 654 plant species are known to have become extinct through
human actions. But these are only the tip of a vast iceberg. Since most species are as yet
undescribed, the majority of current extinctions are going unrecorded – species are dying out before
we even learn of their existence4.
Projections of future losses vary widely, from 2 to 25 percent of all species over the next 25 years.
But even the low end of this range is 1 000 times the background rate of extinction5.
The total extinction of a species is drastic and at present irreversible. But local extinctions are
serious, and far more common. Species are disappearing from more and more locations, where
they can no longer play the distinctive ecological, economic and aesthetic roles they once filled.
Data on species are far from complete, but countries and taxonomic groups with more complete
information have a higher share of species threatened, so it is quite likely that as more data become
available, the percentage judged to be under threat will rise6.
The prospects for the coming decades look gloomy. Forests are the home of between 50 and
90 percent of all land species in the world. If tropical deforestation continues at present rates for
the next 30 years, it is estimated that 5 to 11 percent of forest species will eventually be lost7.
Wildlife habitat is becoming increasingly fragmented by human activities – making way for
28 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems

MORE PEOPLE, cities, farms and roads. Fragmentation lowers the size of individual populations, reducing their
LESS WILDLIFE genetic variability, and making them more vulnerable to extinction. Human barriers also make it
5 0 co u n t r i e s i n difficult for animals and plants to migrate in response to environmental change.
Africa and Asia, At the same time, global warming will be shifting present temperature zones generally pole-
1990 wards and uphill. Species will have a greater need to migrate but will encounter human barriers
?/X?@?@?@?@??W&?@?@?W.g)Xf?)X??@?@K?e?)X?
?N)T@X@?e@?W&@?@?e7YO-X?e@)T26X?@)Xe?@@@6X?@)?
3@R@5?@?@?7Y@?@?@?@@@R1?e@V@8S1?@V1?@?@eS1?@H?@?
N@?@H?@?3T@X@?3X@?@V'@@?e@?@W&@?@W5?@?3=O&@?3L?
?@?@e@?V+R4@?V4@?@?V4@?e@?@@@@?@0Y?@?V4@@@?V/?@?

@@@@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@
blocking their way. Some species which prefer cold temperatures will see their natural habitats
@@@@@@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@e@@6X @?f@? ?@@@@@@@@@e?@he)Xh
@@@@@@@@@@e@?S)T-X?@6T26T26X?e@6X?e@6X?W2@?he?@@@@@@@@@e?@eW26KO2@?@)h

?W&??W-KO-X?
@@@@@@@@@@e@@@R@R1?@V@<B@8S1?@?@V1?@?@V1?7Y@?he?@@@@@@@@@e?@e7<B@@Ue@Hh
@@@@@@@@@@e@V'T@@@?@?@??@W&@?@?@?@?@?@?@?3X@?he?@@@@@@@@@e?@?C@=C@>@(?3Lh
@@@@@@@@@@e@?V+R4@?@?@??@@@@?@?@?@?@?@?@?V'@?he?@@@@@@@@@e?@@0R40R40Y?V/h
@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@ ?S5?he?@@@@@@@@@
@0Y?he?@@@@@@@@@ disappear completely.
?*@??7R@@R1?
?N@??@?@@?@?
@??3T@@T5?
@??V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
Meanwhile genetic engineering – unless it is rigorously controlled – may introduce new genes
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?W-KO-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?*?@@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?N@Y@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?3T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?V+Y?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
which could spread to wildlife with unforeseeable consequences. There is no doubt that genes from
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
W2@6T-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
*U?V@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
S@@@@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
*U?W@T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
V4@0R+Y?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
existing commercial crops can pass to wild relatives, and even with rigorous control measures, it
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@6T-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
W&KO.?fJ@@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
is unlikely that accidental transfers could be prevented indefinitely8. The extent to which this is likely
&@@0Y?f7R'T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
W2@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
*@5?
V'U?
W&KS,?
&@@0Y?
@?'@(?
S@U?
7R1?
@?@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
to have negative impacts on the environment and biological diversity is still not known.
@@@@@?f@?W-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
W@@?f@?7R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@5?e?J@X@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
N@f?*?@@T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
J@@?e?V+MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
7<
@?
@@@@@?

@?@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
When one species dies out, another may evolve to fill the niche it left vacant. The problem now
3@5? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
S(Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
/T&Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
V4@@@?e?@@6T-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g

@@@@@?
?I'T5?
V'U?
?@X;@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?@@@?e?@)X@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?W5?fS@@T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@0Y?e?@0MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
is that most human-induced extinctions happen because we are progressively occupying or pollut-
?S,? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@0Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?@@@?
3X
S@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
*UfW2@?W-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
S@(?e7Y?O&R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
&0Y?e@@@@@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@V'T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?V+Y?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
/T&Khf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
ing more and more niches and habitats, leaving less and less ecological space for other species.
V'@@@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?N@?@? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
3T5? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
V+Y?
W-X?
?O&>,?
@@@0Y?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
W-T2@?e?@6KO-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
*?(MgS@@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
V+Y?g*U@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
The Global Biodiversity Assessment found that the major threat to biodiversity was habitat loss,
S@@T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@0MI+Y?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
fragmentation and degradation, due to the need for land for farms, dwellings, industry, services,
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@6KO-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
S@@R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?W.Y@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?7Y:@T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?@@0R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
transport and leisure. Of those species that are threatened, habitat loss affects 44 percent of the
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?W&?W-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?*@?7R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
?N@?@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?3T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
bird species, 55 percent of the fishes, 68 percent of the reptiles, and 75 percent of the mammals9.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
W-X?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
7R1?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
@?@?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
3T5?f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g
V+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?e
Other direct pressures are overexploitation of species for commercial gain, for subsistence or
?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@0M??I4@@@@@@@@@@@0MeI4@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@0Mg
?@6KO-X?he@6T2@6X?h?W2@@@@@hW&eW&?W26X?gW-T2@6KO-Xh
S@@?,?he?S@U?S,?h?7Y?@?he*@e*@?*US,?g*@@U?S@@?,h
?W.MB@H?he?*?@@@U?h?@@@@@6XhN@eN@?V'@H?gN@S@@@U;@Hh
?7Y??@hf?S@U?S,?he?@eS,h?@e?@eS5h?@@U?S,?@?h
?@@@?@hf@0R4@0Y?he?@@@0Yh?@e?@e.Yh?(R4@0Y?@?h
@@6Xhf@?e?)X?@?he?@hf@?)X
@?S,hf@?e?@)?hfJ@ @)X?
@@0YW-X?@6X?@?@?@W26X@H?)T26T26Xe?W&@?W2@@@6KO)X?@?@V1?@??@6KO2@?@@@?hf
for sport. The introduction of alien species, pollution and climate change are all major threats.
@Me.R/?(R/?@?@?@@@@@@e@0MI40R/e?.R'?&@@0MI4@@)?@?@?@?@??(R4@@@?@Mhg
@?e?@e@@e?@@??@@@@?@?@?@@?@?@f@@e@@@??@@@e@??@@@e?@@??@@?@?hg
@H ?N@He?@H?
@? ?@e?@?@
?@f?@ )X@?e?@
@)
W&KO2@?@?@?W-X?@@@@@e?@@@?@?@?W-T26T-X?W2@?@HW2@?@@@?
7@@@U@?3X@?&@1?@V'@@e?@?@?@?3T&?@@V@R1?*@@?3T&@@?@?
@0MI'@?V4@?V4@?@?V4@e?@?@?@?V+R+R'?@?@?V4@?V+R4@?@?
N@
?@
Population is a major indirect cause underlying most of these threats10. Population density is
closely linked with most forms of habitat loss. A sample of 50 non-desert countries in Asia and
Source: IUCN; WRI.
Africa where wildlife habitat loss has been estimated showed that the percentage loss tends to be
highest where population density is highest. The top 20 percent of countries, ranked in terms of
habitat loss, had lost an average of 85 percent of their original wildlife habitat. Their average popu-
lation density was 189 people per square kilometer. The 20 percent with lowest population density
had lost an average of only 41 percent of their wildlife habitat – and their average population den-
sity was only 29 people per square kilometer11.
As always there are many other indirect causes of loss of biodiversity: inappropriate technology,
short-term thinking, and failure of markets to factor in environmental costs and benefits.
Governments are gradually moving to give wider areas protected status, but progress is slow.
Globally, in 1997, only 6.4 percent of the land area was protected. To protect the full range of species,
large areas are needed, but 88 percent of protected areas in 1997 were smaller than 100 000
hectares – a square with sides of about 32 kilometers12.

FORESTS
In the mid-1990s forests covered about one third of the world’s land area – probably around half the
original extent before human intervention13. We are continuing to lose forests at the rate of some
112 million hectares each decade, an area twice the size of Kenya or France14.
As with many kinds of environmental indicator, a country’s forest cover usually follows a
U-shaped curve. It declines during the earlier stages of development, then as population slows in
growth and becomes more urban, it stabilizes and may eventually begin to rise again.
So each year, while developing countries are deforesting some 13.7 million hectares – an annual
loss of 0.61 percent – developed countries are actually increasing their forested area at the rate of
almost 1 million hectares per year15.
Among developing countries, India and China have almost come to the end of their period of
deforestation and have begun to reverse forest loss. Some of the fastest rates of deforestation are
found in middle-income developing countries with strong commercial logging interests (Indonesia 2.4
percent, the Philippines 3.5 percent, Thailand 2.6 percent).
Overall, deforestation in developing countries may now be slowing down. According to estimates
 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems 29

by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the annual loss in 1990-95 CHANGES IN
was 1.7 million hectares a year lower than in the 1980s. Against this, there was massive damage FOREST AREA,
from forest fires in the late 1990s. In 1998 alone more than 6 million hectares were burned in 1980-95
Indonesia, Brazil and Russia16. @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@??@@@
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@??@f@?@?@@6T-T2@6KO-X??@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@??@@@e@?@?@?B@R@@?B@@R1??@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@??@f3X@?@??3T@@?C@@@@??@hf@?he
?@hf@?he
?@hf@?he

@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@??@@@eV4@?@??V+Y@@0MI4@??@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@? @?g?@hf@Lhe
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1he

Deforestation data reveal only the net loss of forest converted to other uses. They say nothing
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@5he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@Hhe
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he

about the quality of the remaining forest – its health and biodiversity. Logged-over forests still count @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f)X?@f@?O)X?)XfJ@
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f@)X@?W-X@@@@)?@)X?e7@e@6T-X?W-X?@@@UO2@?@6X?e@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f@V@@?7R@@??@H?@V1??J@@L?@V@R1?7R1?@?B@@<e?S1?e@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f@?3@?3T@@??3L?@?@??7<B1?@?@?@?3@@?@??@@=eW&@?e@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f@?V'?V+R'??V/?@?@??@e@?@?@?@?V4@?@??(R4@?&@@?e@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@K?heO@K?he@?he
O.he@?he

@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he

as forest, since they can in theory regrow, but destructive logging methods mean that secondary @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@ @?he?@ @?he

forest is often impoverished. Plantations also count as forest, though they are usually made up of a @?hf@?he?@hf?@he?W26X? ?/K?hf?W&?e?@hf@Lhe
@?hf@?he?@hf?@he?7<B1?W26T-X?@6X?@6X?S@6X?e@6X?@6X?W&@?e?@?@6T2@6T26X?@)X?h
@?hf@?he?@hf?@he?@e@?7<B@R1eS1?@V1?78S1?e?S1?@V1?7Y@?e?@eS@@?B@8S1?@V1?h
@?hf@?he?@hf?@he?3=C5?3=C@@@?W&@?@?@?@W&@?eW&@?@?@?3X@?eC5?W&@@?C@T&@?@?@?h
@?hf@?he?@hf?@he?V40Y?V40R4@?&@@?@?@?@@@@?e&@@?@?@?V4@??@0Y?&@@@@0R4@@?@?@?h
@?hf@?he?@hf?@
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@f@?g@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?

@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he

single species with all competing weeds and shrubs cleared from the ground. @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@@@@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@M?he?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?g?)X?f/Kh?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?g?@1?W2@?S@@6X?f?@hf@?he

Increasingly, natural forests are fragmented into smaller areas which can no longer support
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?gJ@@T&Ue78?V1?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?g7<B@R@@?@W2@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?g@??@@@H?@@@@@?f?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he

the full range of species. Only three areas of very extensive natural “frontier forest” remain on Earth
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@he@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?heJ5
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f?@g@L?@g?W&Hhf?O.?he@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f?@e@@6X@@e?@6Xe?7@??@6T-X?W-X?@@@UO2@?@6Xf@?he
@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f?@fV@@H?@?@V1eJ@@L?@V@R1?7R1?@?B@@<?eS1f@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f?@eO2@@@L?@?@?@e7<B1?@?@?@?3@@?@e@@=??W&@f@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?f?@@@@@@@>,?@?@?@e@??@?@?@?@?V4@?@e(R4@?&@@f@?he

– in Canada/Alaska, in Russia and in the Amazon basin. Some 39 percent of this remaining
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he?B@H
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?heO@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?he

@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he

extent is threatened, mostly by logging, mining and roads. Some 76 countries have lost all their @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?fW&eW-K?O.he?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?f7@e7R@@@U?W2@@6X?e?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?e?J@@L?@@@?B1?7<??S1?e?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?e?7<B1?@?@??@?3=?O&@?e?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?e?@e@?@?@??@?V4@@@@?e?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@? ?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he

frontier forest17. @?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he

@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?h@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he

Perhaps not surprisingly, the more people there are in any given area, the less forest. A num- @?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?hf@?he?@hf?@hf@?he
W&e@6X?gW&?W26X?gW2@6X?h?@hfW2@?h?@6Xhe?W-Xhe@6X?heW2@?h
*@e?S,?g*@?7<B1?g*U?S,?h?@hf7YhfS,he?7R1he?S,?he7Yhe
N@eW.Y?gN@?@e@?gS@@@U?hJ@L?he@@@@h?W.Yhe?@?@gW-X?W.Y?gW-X?@@@@h
?@@??@e7Yf?@@??@?3=C5?f@@@U?S,?f?@@?*?,?g?@@?e@Hg@@?7Y?he?3T5g*@(?7Yh*@,?e@Hh
?@e@@@?g?@?V40Y?gI4@0Y?hV+Y?hf@?h?@@@he?V+YgV+Y?@@@?gV+Y?e@?h
?W-X?@g?@
?*?)T@L?f?@L?
?V'?@?)X?W2@?@)KO26X?@6KO2@?W2@?

ber of studies have found a strong correlation between population density and deforestation rates N@R'?,?*U??@V@@@@1?@V@@U@?&@@?
?@?V+Y?V4@?@?@?4@@?@?(R'@?V4@?
?S5?
@0Y?

Source: FAO.
at national level18.
A recent report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) divided developing countries Between 1980 and 1995
for which data exist into two groups of 37, according to the speed of deforestation. In the group Africa lost 10.5 percent of its
suffering faster deforestation – with an average loss of 1.8 percent of forests per year in 1980-90 forest cover, Latin America
– population density was 89 people per square kilometer. In the group with slower deforestation 9.7 percent, and Asia 6.4
population density was just 34 per square kilometer, and the average deforestation rate was only percent. But developed areas
0.5 percent19. managed to increase their
The reason for the link with population density is straightforward. The land needed for farming forest cover; Europe by
depends on the total population, the consumption of agricultural products per person, and the around 4 percent.
amount of land needed to produce each unit of consumption. If population or consumption increase,
and yield improvements do not compensate fully, then the farm area must expand.
Land is also needed for dwellings, industry, roads, leisure and so on. These are partly a function
of population, but also depend on many other things such as standards of residential space, the
share of people living in high-rise buildings, the size of gardens, or the level of car ownership.
Generally, non-farm land requirements per person rise in line with income.
Of course, many other factors drive deforestation today, from government policies on timber
royalties and protected areas, to the numbers of landless people.

C O A S TA L E N V I R O N M E N T S
A very high proportion of human population and activity is located on or near coasts. Coastal
areas have always been important for trade, sea transport and defence, and contain some of the
densest concentrations of human population and activities on Earth today. Nearly two fifths of
the world’s population live within 150 kilometers of a coastline. In rapidly developing regions
such as China, tens of millions of people have moved to coastal cities in search of work in the
last two decades20.
A recent assessment found that over half the world’s coastlines are at risk from coastal
development and just over one third are at high risk. Nearly three quarters of the world’s marine
protected areas are similarly threatened21. In addition, human activities over a vast inland area have
an impact on the coast and coastal water. Much of the water pollution and sediment eroded from
whole watersheds are transported to the sea.

Coral reefs
The world has an estimated 255 000 square kilometers of near-surface coral reefs, which consti-
tute one of the richest resources of biodiversity on the planet. The Great Barrier Reef alone has
more than 700 species of coral, 1 500 species of fish and more than 4 000 species of mollusc. The
30 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems
Mangroves
Mangroves are estimated
to cover 18 million hectares
of the Earth’s tropical
coastlines, around one
quarter of the total.
Mangroves host unique
species, and are important
nurseries for commercial
marine species.
No comprehensive survey
has yet been made, but it is
estimated that around half of
all tropical mangroves have
been destroyed. The
Philippines, Puerto Rico,
Kenya and Liberia have lost
over 70 percent. The major
direct pressures are cutting
for fuelwood and timber;
habitat conversion for coastal
development or aquaculture
(often shrimp farming); and
damming of rivers which
alters water salinity.
Population growth and
concentration, as well as
tourism and resource
consumption in and around
coastal areas, are important
direct and indirect causes of
these pressures.
net primary productivity of reefs is higher even than that of tropical forests, and 20 times higher than
that of the open ocean22.
Reefs are a major source of livelihood, providing 20 to 25 percent of the fish catch of developing
countries, and serving as a major tourist attraction in many countries dependent on tourist income.
Overall, reefs have been calculated to provide resources and services worth about US$375 billion
per year.
Yet reefs are among the most seriously threatened habitats on Earth. The status of world reefs
has never been comprehensively evaluated, but it is believed that around 10 percent have already
been degraded beyond recovery, and another 30 percent are expected to degrade seriously within
the next two decades23. A recent study estimated that 58 percent of the world’s reefs are potentially
threatened by human activity, almost half of these seriously so. In Southeast Asia, which has a very
high level of coral and fish diversity, more than 80 percent are potentially at risk24.
The threats to coral reefs are many. Overfishing pushes fish stocks below their maximum
sustainable yield. Destructive fishing practices like cyanide poisoning or dynamite blasting kill or
damage many species. In many areas reefs are directly plundered for specimens of fish, shell and
coral, and even construction materials. Tourist divers and their boats damage corals.
Water pollution from industry, sewage and fertilizer, and sediment eroded from deforested or
badly farmed areas, all wash into the sea, reducing light levels and physically smothering corals.
Finally there is evidence that episodes of coral bleaching – when corals lose their symbiotic algae
– have been rising in severity and frequency as sea temperatures increase with global warming.
As with all environmental damage, these pressures have many indirect causes ranging from
technologies for fishing, construction, agriculture and sewage, to changes in incomes and shifts in
tastes and leisure habits.
Population factors are important indirect causes. Rising population contributes to increased
demand for fish and construction materials. The speed with which urban population growth out-
paces improvements in sewage treatment affects levels of water pollution. The rising demand for
food of growing populations increases the pressure to use more fertilizer on farmland, much of
which gets leached out by rain and washed into rivers, lakes and seas.
MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
Human response to any environmental problem depends on how visible it is, how good our data and
our understanding of its causes are, and how directly the problem impacts on people in a position
to do something about it.
Of all ecological zones, marine environments are the least visible, the least studied and the least
understood. Because of this they are probably the most at risk. The sea’s surface is reflective and
few venture below it to check what is happening. Baseline data of pristine conditions have not been
compiled, and most marine species have yet to be described. Changes due to human activity are
therefore hard to document.
But we do have reasonably good data about fish catches, and these reveal disturbing trends in
the ecology of the oceans. Assessments made in 1999 found that 44 percent of major fish stocks
are already exploited to their maximum sustainable yield. Another 16 percent are overfished, which
means that future catches will fall unless remedial action is taken. And 6 percent are depleted, with
falling production. Only 34 percent still have room for growth in production25.
Fisheries pass through a sequence of phases over time. From an undeveloped phase, they enter
a developing phase where catches increase rapidly, and then a mature phase where the maximum
sustainable yield is reached. If the maximum sustainable yield is overshot, a senescent phase
follows when yields are stagnant or declining. According to a 1997 assessment, as recently as 1960
only a very small percentage of fisheries were mature, none were senescent, and half were still
undeveloped. By 1994, 35 percent were senescent, showing declining yields, 25 percent were
mature, and only 40 percent were still in the developing phase26.
These phases correspond to states of the underlying ecology and the human response to
 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems 31

growing shortages. At the maximum sustainable yield the population of the target species is plenti- Shifting ground
ful and can be sustained indefinitely. But good resource management is in short supply, so the in fishing
maximum sustainable yield is usually overshot and the target fish population begins to decline. Fishermen respond to the
Collapses have hit major fisheries. The Peruvian anchovy fishery collapsed in the 1970s. Catches of decline in a target species by
cod, hake and haddock in the Northwest Atlantic were at their peak in 1965, at 2.27 million tons.
moving to other fishing areas
After this they declined and levelled off at around 1 million throughout the 1980s, but in the 1990s
or other species of fish, and
they fell precipitously, reaching 126 000 tons in 199727.
Fishers are now shifting rapidly across the spectrum of species and areas, altering the under- the sequence starts again.
lying ecology in ways that we can only catch glimpses of. Many of our preferred fish are top-level Area shifting has been
predators. As these are overfished, their prey may have population explosions, which in turn reduce seen in Atlantic fisheries for
populations of the fish they feed on and so on down the food chain. Recent research by Daniel Pauly favored species like cod,
and colleagues shows that the fishing effort since 1950 has been moving down the food chain at the
haddock and hake. When
rate of about one whole level per century. But this shift does not bring respite for the top predators,
Northwest Atlantic fisheries
as they are left with little to eat28.
Fish increasingly fail to grow to full size, and may not reach reproductive age. There has been a began to decline after 1965,
very considerable drop in the average size of fish caught, from about 100 centimeters in the early fishing effort shifted to the
1980s to just over 40 centimeters in 199729. Northeast and Southeast.
In the absence of effective fishery management at national, regional and global levels, it is likely As the Southeast in turn
that the ecology of the oceans will be even more drastically altered by human intervention.
showed signs of decline,
Fishing is not the only source of ocean problems. Alien species from ships’ ballast tanks are
attention was turned to the
being spread to areas where they compete with indigenous species. “Red tides” – planktonic
blooms of toxic marine algae which can kill fish and cause amnesia, paralysis and death in humans Southwest33.
– are on the increase. Species shifting has been
There are now around 50 known “dead zones” with no or low oxygen. Most of these have seen in the case of whaling.
appeared over the last half century, and are blamed on excess influx of nitrogen and phosphorus As humpback whale
from farming and sewage. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is 4 144 square kilometers and has
populations declined in the
doubled in size since 199330.
first decades of this century,
The direct causes of these marine trends are complex. Species are being overexploited through
overfishing, collecting and resource extraction. Ecosystems are being physically altered by coastal whalers began to take more
development, blast fishing and so on. blue whales. As these, in
Ocean pollution is rising inexorably. Although dumping at sea is now better policed and oil turn, declined, sperm and fin
spillages are less common, more than three quarters of marine pollution originates on land, where whales bore the brunt of the
marine-related controls are absent. Pollution from runoff and rivers includes sewage, industrial
catch. When these too were
effluents, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Air pollution is the source of one third of marine
overhunted, blue and minke
pollutants. Some of the most harmful organic molecules accumulate at the boundary layer between
sea and air where the early stages of many species develop as plankton, causing mortality, deformity whales were targeted.
and chromosomal abnormalities31. Eventually every whale
Finally, atmospheric and climatic changes threaten the sea. Rising temperatures have been species was so severely hit
implicated in coral bleaching, while the thinning ozone layer allows in higher levels of ultraviolet that commercial whaling had
radiation which depresses the productivity of phytoplankton, the basis of almost all life at sea32.
to be halted34.
Behind these direct causes lie indirect ones. Fishing is driven by the level of demand for marine
products. The demand, in turn, is determined by the absolute size of the human population, the level
of income, and the proportion available to spend on fish.
It is not just the total level of demand, however, but the way in which it is being met that does the
harm. The technologies of modern fishing – radar, sonar, global positioning systems – allow a
terrifying efficiency in tracking down and catching every last stock. Modern net designs practically
vacuum the sea and sea bottom clean of living organisms. There is a very high level of by-catch of
unwanted species, or juveniles that would be illegal to land. These amount to about one quarter of
the catch, and are simply discarded at sea.
Misguided fishery policy based on short-term political advantage has been a major factor pre-
venting timely adaptation. In most countries the fishing industry has been subsidized for electoral
32 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems

RAPID RESPONSE reasons, creating excess capacity. This artificially lowers the price of marine fish and thereby
increases the demand. Even after scientists start warning that maximum sustainable yields are
CFC production being exceeded, politicians rarely act decisively or adequately for fear of alienating voters in fishing
?W&?e@6KO26KO-X
?*@?e?S@@<B@@R1
?N@?eW.Y@e@@?@
@?e7Y:@=C@@T5
@?e@@0R40MI+Y
?@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@?e@@6Xhf@?h/Khg
?@@@@@@@@@@?e@?B1?W-T-T&?W-X?@?W-X?@6X?S@6X?W2@h
?@@@@@@@@@@?e@??@?7R@R@5?7R1?@?7R1?@V1?7@V1?7Y@h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@?e@?C5?3@@?@H?3@@?3T@T5?@W5?@@?@?3X@h
?@@@@@@@@@@?e@@0Y?V4@?@eV4@?V+R+Y?@(Y?@@?@?V'@h
constituencies. As a result, collapse of fisheries with massive job losses becomes more likely.
?@@@@@@@@@@? @HhS5h
?@@@@@@@@@@? ?J5?g?@0Yh
?)X?eO.Y?
W26T26T&?@?@6X?@)?@@@UO-X?W2@?hf
7<B@<B@@?@?@V1?@H?@?B@@R1?*Uhg
3=C@=C@@X@?@?@?3L?@??@@@@?S@(?hf
V40R40MI4@?@?@?V/?@??@?4@?&0Y?hf

@6K? ?@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@6K ?@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?@@@@@@@@@@?e@@6Xhf@?hfW&he

?J@U
?7R1
?@?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf?@@@@@@@@@@?e@?B1?W-T-T&?W-X?@?W-X?@6KO-X?W&@he
?W&?eW-KO26KO-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf?@@@@@@@@@@?e@??@?7R@R@5?7R1?@?7R1?@V@@R1?7Y@he
?*@?e7R@@<B@@R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Lhf?@@@@@@@@@@?e@?C5?3@@?@H?3@@?3T@T5?@W@@@@?3X@he
?N@?e@?@@e@@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1hf?@@@@@@@@@@?e@@0Y?V4@?@eV4@?V+R+Y?@(MI4@?V4@he
?W2@e@?e3T@@=C@@T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hf?@@@@@@@@@@?
?*@@e@?eV+MI40MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@?
?N@5 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@H
?J5?
?)X?eO.Y?
W26T26T&?@?@6X?@)?@@@UO-X?W2@?hf
7<B@<B@@?@?@V1?@H?@?B@@R1?*Uhg
3=C@=C@@X@?@?@?3L?@??@@@@?S@(?hf
A T M O S P H E R E A N D C L I M AT E
?@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L V40R40MI4@?@?@?V/?@??@?4@?&0Y?hf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?W2@6X @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?7<?B1
?@e?@
?3@@@5
?S@@@U
?7<?B1
?3=?C5
?V4@0Y
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Perhaps the most dramatic and threatening of all the signs of our deepening environmental impact
?W2@6T26KO-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?W-Xe?*U?V@<B@@R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7@1e?S@@@@e@@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?3X@e?*U?W@=C@@T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?S@@e?V4@0R40MI+Yf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7<?
?@
?@@@
?@?@
?3T5
?V+Y
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
are the changes we are working in the Earth’s atmosphere, altering its composition and chemistry,
?W&KO. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?&@@0Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@?@
?3T5
?V+Y
?@?@@@
?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@g?@?W26KO-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
J@@@f?@?7<B@@R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
and affecting the Earth’s climate.
?W&YW5fJ@X@e@@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?&@@0Yf*?@@=C@@T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
V+MI40MI+Yf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K
?@?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?3@5 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?V+Y @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?W2@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?*U? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?S@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?7Y? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@
I'T5
?N@U
?J@)
?7<?
?@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@fW26T26KO-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
7YV@<B@@R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?W2@f@@@@e@@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?*@5g@@=C@@T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ozone
?N@Hg(R40MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
?J@L @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7@1 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@?@
?@@@
?@
C5
?'@H
?S@L
?7R1
?3T5
?N@U
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
The most immediate threat is the thinning of the ozone layer. Ozone losses pose serious threats to
?J@) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?7<? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@@@@@
?@K?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@@@@@f@6KO26KO-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@M?g?S@@<B@@R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
W.Y@e@@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
7Y:@=C@@T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K?
@@0R40MI+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X
human health, by increasing rates of skin cancer, and by affecting biological productivity in plankton
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
and some plants.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?W-Xf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?7R1f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?@?@f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?3T5f@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?V+Yf@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?he
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h
W&eW-T2@6X?@?h?W2@6T-XhW-X?W&h?W-X?@6Xg?W-X?@@@g?W26T2@@h
*@e*?@U?S,?@?h?*U?S@?,h*?,?*@h?*?,eS,g?*?,?@X?g?*US(M?@h
Although ozone losses have not progressed as far as was predicted in the mid-1990s, they are
N@eN@>@@@U:@Lh?S@@@>@HhN@H?N@h?N@He*Ug?N@H?@)Xg?V'@H?J5h
?@e?@@U?S@@?,h?*U?S@@?h?@e?@he@?eS,h@?eS,hS5e7Hh
?@e?(R4@0MI+Yh?V4@0R'?h?@e?@he@??@0Yh@??@0Yh.Ye@?h

still serious. Total column ozone losses between 1979 and 1994-97 averaged 5 percent all year
round in southern mid-latitudes. In northern mid-latitudes losses varied from 2.8 percent in summer
Halon production
@6X?W-X?W-X?
?S,?7R1?7R1?
W.Y?@?@?@?@?
to 5.4 percent in winter/spring35.
7Ye3T5?3T5?
@@@?V+Y?V+Y?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?@
?@@@6K
?@@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6X
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
The immediate cause was human emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals. The role of popula-
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X

?W2@
?*@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)X?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
tion and consumption in their growth was extremely small. The major cause was technological
?N@5 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?J@U ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?7R1 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@?@
?@@@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?W2@6Xf?W&?@@@?W-X?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?7<?B1f?*@?@Xe7R1?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@e?@f?N@?@)X?@?@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?3@@@5g@??S,?3T@=e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K?
?S@@@Ug@?@0Y?V+R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?7<?B1 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@X?
change – the introduction and rapid spread of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from the 1930s on.
?3=?C5 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?V4@0Y ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?W-X
?7@1
?3X@
?S@@
?7<?
?@
?@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
Between 1940 and 1970 production grew at 20 percent a year, far outstripping the growth of popu-
?@?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?3T5 ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?V+Y ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?W&KO.
?&@@0Y
?@?@
?3T5
?V+Y
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
lation and consumption combined.
?@?@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@g?W&?W-X?W-X?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
J@@@f?*@?7R1?7R1?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?W&YW5f?N@?@?@?@?@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?&@@0Yg@?3T5?3T5?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@?@
?3@5
?V+Y
?W2@
@?V+Y?V+Y?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The ozone problem gave us one of the most encouraging examples of rapid response to a per-
?*U? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?S@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?7Y? ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@
?@@@@@
I'T5
?N@U
?J@)
?7<?
?@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
ceived environmental problem. The seminal paper documenting the ozone thinning was published
?@@@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?W2@ ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?*@5
?N@H
?J@L
?7@1
?@?@
?@@@
?@
C5
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
?'@Hh@@@?W-X?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
in 1985. Within just two years the world had an international treaty to limit and reduce production
?S@Lh@Xe7R1?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?
?7R1h@)X?@?@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L
?3T5h?S,?3T@=e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@)K?
?N@Uh@0Y?V+R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?J@)
?7<?
?@
?@@@@@
?@K?
?@@@@@
?@M?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1?
@@@?hf
O2@@@@@?hf
O2@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?heO2@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?g?W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Lg?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1gJ@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@f?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
of ozone-depleting chemicals.
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@fW&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@L?e7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@1??J@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?W&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?7@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
By and large the treaty has been working well. Global production of CFCs fell by almost 90 per-
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
W-X?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
7R1?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
@?@?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
3T5?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
V+Y?e?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?hf
cent between 1986 and 1995. As a result, atmospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting chemi-
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?h
?W&?W-KO2@6KO.h?W2@6KO-X?gW26X?W&?g?W-X?@6Xg?W26T2@@hW-X?@@@?h
?*@?*?@@U?S@@Uh?*U?S@@?,?g*US,?*@?g?*?,eS,g?*US@@X?h*?,?e@?h
?N@?N@8S@@@>@)X?g?S@@@U;@H?gV'@H?N@?g?N@He*Ug?V'@R4)XhN@H??J5?h
@??@?*U?S@US,?g?*U?S,?@h?S5?e@?h@?eS,hS5eS,h?@e?7H?h
@??@?V4@0R40Y?g?V4@0Y?@h?.Y?e@?h@??@0Yh.Y?@0Yh?@e?@he cals peaked in 1994 and are now slowly declining, though illegal production and trade in CFCs are
* ODP = ozone-depleting potential growing problems36.
Source: UNEP.
Global warming
The Montreal Protocol on In the case of ozone-destroying chemicals rapid response was possible because producers were
Substances that Deplete the few, CFCs were not central to our industrial way of life, and economical substitutes were already
Ozone Layer was in place in available. Prospects for similar rapid response on the major greenhouse gases are much less rosy.
1987 and, as a result, by Over the past century, the global mean surface air temperature has increased by between 0.3
1997 production of CFCs had and 0.6 degrees centigrade. Linked to this warming, the sea level has risen by between 10 and
been slashed by 85 percent 25 centimeters. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased by more than
and halons by 75 percent – 20 percent, and methane by 145 percent over pre-industrial levels37.
although halon production The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that
in China has increased over the coming century average world temperature will rise by 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade and sea
considerably since 1993. level by 15 to 95 centimeters over 1990 levels. The central estimates suggest a warming of
2 degrees and a sea-level rise of 45 to 50 centimeters by 2100. The rate of warming will be faster
than any seen over the whole of human history.
The potential impacts are grave. The range of certain diseases and their insect carriers will
increase. The range of malaria transmission will spread. If the upper range temperatures are
reached, the number of malaria cases could increase by between 10 and 16 percent by the latter
half of the 21st century38.
Extreme weather events such as droughts and floods may increase in frequency. Between
200 and 250 million people currently live below the annual storm surge level on the coasts, liable to
 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems 33

P O P U L AT I O N T R E N D S A N D C O 2 E M I S S I O N S * Future CO2 emissions can

be considerably reduced,
???
?@6Xh?/K? ?@
?@S,?@?@?W2@?S@@6KO-X?W26T2@@??@6KO2@?e@?)T2@@@?@?@6X?@ @6KO-Xg??
?@6KO-X?
S@@R1?
?W.Y@?@?
?7Y:@T5? O2@@@@@@
?@@U?@?@?*U??7@?B@@R1?*US@U?fS@@Uf@?@@U??@?@eS1?@
O2@@e?@S,?3X@?S@(?@@??@@@@?S@@>@@(??W&@V@(?e3X@V@@@@X@?W&@?3L?
O2@@@@e?@0Y?V4@?&0Y?@@??@?4@?&0R4@0Y??&@@@0Y?eV4@@@0MI4@?&@@?V/?
?@@0R+Y?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@@0R+Yg?
@@@@@(M?
?O2@@@@@0Y
?S@@R1g?
W.Y@?@g?
7Y:@T5g?
???
compared to the business-as-
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M ?
?W2@@@@@0M
O&@@@@(M ???
O2@@@@@0Y?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
W2@@@@@0M?
?O&@@@@(M?
?O2@@@@@0Y
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?
???
?
???
usual scenario, by more rapid
?W2@@@@@(M
O&@@@@@0Y? ?
@@6X?@?@?@?@ )Xe?@ O2@@@@@0M?
@?S,e?@?@ @)K? O2@@@@@0M? ???
@@@U?@?@?@?)T26T2@6Xe@6T-X?W2@?@V@@@@?W2@ O2@@@@@0M?
@?S,?@?3T@X@@US@@?B1e@V@R1?*@@?3X@??@?*U?
@@0Y?@?V+R40R40R'??@e@?@?@?V4@?V4@??@?V4@
)X
@) ?W.?he?@
?7U?he?@L?
@HW26T2@6KO)X??W26X@)??W26T-X?@@@@)X?W-X?@6X
W2@@@@@(M?
?O&@@@@@0Y
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?W2@@@@@(M
O&@@@@@0Y?
?
???
?
???
shifts to low-carbon and
3T&US@@?B@@@,??*US@@H??*US@@1?@??@S,?*?,?@V1 O2@@@@@0M?
V+R40R'??@@0Y??V40R'e?V40R4@?@??@0Y?V+Y?@?@ O2@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M? ???
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?
???
?
???
renewable energy sources,
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M? ?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M? ???
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?W&?@@@?
?*@?@X
?N@?@)X?
@??S,?
@?@0Y?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@?
W&?@@@g?
*@?@X?g?
N@?@)Xg?
?@eS,g?
?@?@0Yg?
??
and by slower population
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
?@@@@@@@0M ?
O2@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@0M ???
?@@@@@@@0M
O2@@@@@@@?
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?
???
?
???
growth.
?O2@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@@0M ???
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@0M? ?
O2@@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@0M ???
?O2@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@0M ?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
O2@@@@@@@0M? ???
O2@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@0M ?
?O2@@@@@@0M?
?O2@@@@@@0M? ???
?W2@@@@@@0M?
W&@@@@(M ?
?O&@@@@0Y?
?W2@@@@(M? ???
O&@@@@0Y
W2@@@@(M ?
?O&@@@@0Y? W2@@?@ ?@f?)T. ?W-X?)X?
?W2@@@@(M? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e*Ue?@?W-T&?@?@??@@6KO-X?@6X?@?@?@?@6X?@@U?W-X?@6XeW2@?@@6T-X?@?)T&@)?@)X ???
O&@@@@0Y ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@eV46X?@?7R@@T@T5??@?B@@R1?@V1?@?@?@eS1?@V1?7R1?@V1e7Y@?@?B@R1?3T@@Y@H?@V1
W2@@@@(M ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@fS,?3T@T(R@R@H??@?C@@T5?@W5?3X@?3=O&@?3X@?3T5?@?@e3X@?@??3T5?N@Y@?3L?@?@ ?
?O&@@@@0Y?g?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M @@0Y?V+R+Y?@?@e?@@0MI+Y?@(Y?V4@?V4@@@?V4@?V+Y?@?@eV'@?@??V+Ye@?@?V/?@?@
?W2@@@@(M?g?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@g?@H? ?S5? ???
O&@@@@0Yg?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?@g?@ @0Y?
W2@@@@(Mg?O2@@@@@0M ?
?O&@@@@0Y?f?O2@@@@@0M
?W2@@@@(M?f?O2@@@@@0M ??
W&@@@@(Yf?O2@@@@@0M
?W&?W-X? ?O&@@@@0Y?e?O2@@@@@0M W&?W-Xg??
?*@?7R1? ?W2@@@@(M?e?O2@@@@@0M *@?7R1g?
?N@?@?@? O&@@@@0Ye?O2@@@@@0M N@?@?@g?
@?3T5? W2@@@@(Me?O2@@@@@0M ?@?3T5g?
@?V+Y? ?O&@@@@@Y??O2@@@@@@? O2@@@6K? ?@?V+Yg?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
?@@@@@0Me@@@@@@0M ?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ??
W2@@@@(M?O2@@@@@0M O2@@@@6K O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?f?@@6K?g)Xe)XgO@K?h?@h?@h@?f?)X?
?O&@@@@@UO2@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?hf?@?S@6X?W2@?@)e@)T-X?W2@@@6T26X?W-X?@?W-X?W2@eO2@?@6X?@??W2@?@)X?@6X?@6X?W26T-X? ?
?W2@@@@@XV@@@@@@0M O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@@0MS1?*Ue@He@V@R1?7<?@?B@@V1?7R1?@?7R1?7Y@?@@<e?S1?@??7<??@V1eS1?@V1?7Y@@R1?
O&@@@@@V@@@@@@0MhfO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@eW&@?S@(?3Le3T@@@?3=?@e@@?@?3T5?3T@T5?3X@?@@=eW&@?3L?3=??@?@?W&@?@?@?3X@@@@? ???
W2@@@@@?@@@@@@0MheO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M?h?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@e&@@?&0Y?V/eV+R4@?V4@@e@@?@?V+Y?V+R+Y?V'@?(R4@?&@@?V/?V4@?@?@?&@@?@?@?V'@V4@?
?W&@@@@@@@@@@@0MhO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? S5 S5 ?
O&@@@@@@@@@@0MgO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?@0Y ?@0Y
W2@@@@@@@@@@(MfO2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ???
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@Y?O2@@@@@@@@@@@0M? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M?
?W2@@@@@@@@@@@?@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M O2@@@@6K ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? ?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ?
O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0Mhf?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6Kf?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
W2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@XhO2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@6K ?I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M ???
?O&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@?eV@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M??I4@@@@@@@@6K? I4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@6K ?I4@@@@@@@0M ?
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@6K
?O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ???
?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@@?
O2@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@6K? ?
O2@@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@6K?
O2@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@6K ???
O2@@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
?O2@@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@6K ?
?O2@@@@@@@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
@@@@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@6K? ???
N@@@@@0M I4@@@@@@@@6K
?@@0M? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ?
I4@@@@@@@@6K
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ???
I4@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ?
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ???
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ?
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ???
I4@@@@@@@@@6K?
?I4@@@@@@@@@6K ?
I4@@@@@@@@6K
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ???
I4@@@@@@@@6K
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ??
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
?@@@ I4@@@@@@@@6K @@@?he??
?@X? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K? @Xhf?
?@)X I4@@@@@@@@6K @)X?he?
S)K? @@@@@@@@@6K? ?S,?he?
?@0R4@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@e@0Y?he?
?I4@@@@@@@@@ ?
?I4@@@@@@@@@6K
I4@@@@@@@@6K ???
?I4@@@@@@@@6K?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ?
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ?@@6K?g)Xe)XgO@K?h?@h?@h@?f?)X?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ?@?S@6X?W2@?@)e@)T-X?W2@@@6T26X?W-X?@?W-X?W2@eO2@?@6X?@??W2@?@)X?@6X?@6X?W26T-X? ???
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ?@@0MS1?*Ue@He@V@R1?7<?@?B@@V1?7R1?@?7R1?7Y@?@@<e?S1?@??7<??@V1eS1?@V1?7Y@@R1?
I4@@@@@@@@6K ?@eW&@?S@(?3Le3T@@@?3=?@e@@?@?3T5?3T@T5?3X@?@@=eW&@?3L?3=??@?@?W&@?@?@?3X@@@@? ?
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ?@e&@@?&0Y?V/eV+R4@?V4@@e@@?@?V+Y?V+R+Y?V'@?(R4@?&@@?V/?V4@?@?@?&@@?@?@?V'@V4@?
I4@@@@@@@@6K S5 S5 ???
?I4@@@@@@@@6K? ?@@U ?@0Y
W2@?hf?)X?g@?hf?@f@?hf?@ @? I4@@@@@@@@6K ?W&?fO@ S1f?)X?@? ?@?)X? ?
*U ?@)? ?@L?e@?hf?@ @? ?I4@@@@@@@@6K? @6X?@6X?W&@??W2@@@?W26T&?@?@e@6X?W-X?@6X?@?7@?@@6X@)??O26T2@6X??W2@?@@6T-T-T&?@?@@@)X
V/X?e@?@??W-Xe?@H?W26Xe@?e@6X??W-Xe?@)Xe@?eW2@?g?@eW2@?e)T.??W2@e@? I4@@@@@@@@6Khf?S1?@V1?7Y@??*U??@?7<B@@T@T5e@V1?7R1?@V1?@?@@e?V@@H?@@<B@@?B1??7Y@?@?B@R@R@@T5?@?@V1 ???
?S,?e3X@??7@,e?3L?*@@1e@?e@V1??*@1e?@S,e3Le*@@?g?3L?*@@?e3@H??*@@e3L I4@@@@@@@@@6K?hW&@?@?@?3X@??S@@@@T@=C(R@R@He@W5?3T5?@W5?3X@@=O2@@@L?@@=C@@e@??3X@?@e3T5?@V@H?3X@?@
@0Y?eV4@??@0Ye?V/?V4@@e@?e@?@??V4@e?@0YeV/eV4@?g?V/?V4@?eV'e?V4@eV/ ?I4@@@@@@@@6K?g&@@?@?@?V4@??&@0MI+R40Y?@?@?e@(Y?V+Y?@(Y?V40R4@@@0R/?(R40R'e@??V'@?@eV+Y?@?@??V4@?@ ?
?@@@@@@@@@6K @Hg@H S5
?@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @?g@? ?@0Y ???
?@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@
?@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@@??@@@@@@@ ??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
W-X? ?W26X?h??
7R1? ?7<B1?h?
@?@?he?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@e@?h?
3T5?he?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?3=C5?h?
V+Y?he?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?@ ?V40Y?h?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@hg?
?W&?W26KO-X?W-X?g?@6X?W-KO26KO-X? ?@6X?W-X?@6T2@@? ?@6X?W-T2@@?W-X? ?@6KO26T2@@?@@@? ?@6X?W&?W-X?W-X? ??
?*@?*US@@?,?7R1?hS,?7R@@<B@@R1? S,?7R1eS@@X S,?7R@@Xe7R1? S@@<B@<?@?@X S,?*@?7R1?7R1?
?N@?V'@<B@H?@?@?g?W.Y?@?@@??@@?@? ?W.Y?@?@?W.R4)X? ?W.Y?@?@@)X?@?@? ?W.Y@??@?J5?@)X? ?W.Y?N@?@?@?@?@? ???
@??S5??@e3T5?g?7Y??3T@@=C@@T5? ?7Y??3T5?7Y??S,? ?7Y??3T@XS,?3T5? ?7Y:@=C5?7H??S,? ?7Y?e@?3T5?3T5?
@??.Y??@eV+Y?g?@@@?V+MI40MI+Y? ?@@@?V+Y?@@@@0Y? ?@@@?V+R40Y?V+Y? ?@@0R40Y?@e@0Y? ?@@@e@?V+Y?V+Y? ??
??

Source: Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life.

* This figure expresses CO2 emissions as elemental carbon. 1 ton elemental carbon = 3.664 tons CO2.

annual flooding. Sea-level rise combined with population growth could double this total by 202039.
The impacts of climate change could have far-reaching consequences for social stability.
The historical record shows that major shifts in climate can occur over very short periods when
major ocean currents are affected. The Gulf Stream which warms Western Europe, for example, is
driven partly by the sinking of cold saline waters in the Arctic. Increased melting of the Arctic ice
cap is now reducing Arctic salinity, which could result in a reduction or shutdown of the Gulf Stream.
For each of the gases that cause global warming – such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide –
emissions are the product of population, multiplied by consumption per person, multiplied by
emissions per unit of consumption. In the case of methane emissions, the population element is
very significant. Rice paddies and livestock are among the most important human-induced sources.
Between 1961 and 1985 population growth accounted for 69 percent of the increase in livestock
numbers in developing countries, whereas changes in meat and milk consumption per person
accounted for only 31 percent. As so often happens, technology – the productivity of livestock –
worked to reduce the livestock numbers needed for any given level of production40.
In the case of CO2 emissions, population was a lesser but still significant element, accounting
for just over one third of the increase in emissions between 1965 and 198941. Again, however, at
issue is the unit of analysis. If population is counted as households rather than as individuals, its
unit contribution to CO2 will be much greater.
All projections of future global warming made by the IPCC depend on assumptions about
population, consumption and technology. The technology element is the result of two factors: energy
efficiency (the amount of energy used per dollar of GDP) and carbon intensity (the amount of car-
bon emitted per unit of energy used). Carbon intensity depends on the share of energy production
due to fossil fuels, and on the relative shares of gas, oil and coal in fossil-fuel use (gas produces the
least carbon and coal the most).
The IPCC has produced several alternative scenarios, but each scenario varies several factors
at once, making it impossible to get an idea of the potential impact of different policies affecting
population, or consumption, or technology.
34 OVERVIEW The state of major ecosystems

However, a study for the Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life used the
IPCC’s raw data to develop policy-oriented scenarios which showed the potential impacts of
changes in economic growth, technology and population growth taken separately. Although these
factors do interact, the exercise provides at least a rough idea of the possible gains42.
The IPCC used three population projections – medium-low (7.8 billion people by 2050), medium
(10 billion) and medium-high (12.5 billion). The central IPCC scenario (IS92a) projected direct green-
house gas emissions equivalent to 14.5 billion tons of carbon by the year 2050. Applying the low pop-
ulation projection while leaving everything else unchanged would result in emissions of only 11.4
billion tons of carbon. The “savings” of 3.1 billion tons are equivalent to half the total emissions from
fossil fuels in 1990, and more than twice the level of 1990 carbon emissions from deforestation.
Thus population measures could have a very large potential impact on global warming.
Achieving the low population projection rather than the medium could, over the next 50 years, have
more than twice the impact on greenhouse gas emissions as halting all deforestation at today’s
rates. It would be equivalent to more than doubling today’s energy efficiency, or replacing more than
half of today’s fossil-fuel use with renewable energy.
However, this reduction would not be enough. To achieve the level of emissions that the IPCC
suggests is sustainable, we would also need to achieve rapid shifts in energy efficiency and in the
transition to renewable energy. The Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life
study suggested that a combination of slow population growth and fast but achievable technological
change could bring total greenhouse gas emissions down to the more or less sustainable level of
3.2 billion tons of carbon equivalent by 2100. A further study, done by the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis in 1997, found a similar level of benefit from slower population growth43.
These studies omit possible feedback effects – for example, slower population growth might
result in faster economic growth. Nevertheless they show clearly that measures to slow population
growth could make a major contribution to reducing future growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are many other policy opportunities available which would not only reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, but also bring other benefits. They include energy efficiency measures which would
save money, or shifting tax and subsidy regimes so that “bads” like fossil-fuel use are discouraged,
and “goods” like renewable energy are encouraged.
The sinks and reservoirs for greenhouse gases can also be boosted, for example by increased
tree planting or improved forest management. These would bring other benefits in regulating local
climates, slowing soil erosion and reducing flooding.
 OVERVIEW Policy responses 35

Policy responses

N ONE ecosystem and one planetary cycle after another, our impact already exceeds what is

I sustainable in the long run. We risk not only damaging the diversity and beauty of our natural
environment, but endangering the resources and environmental services on which our
welfare and survival depend.

them.
The challenge ahead is decisive. It depends critically on what happens to population,
consumption and technology, and all the political, social and economic factors that influence

Over the next half century, world population is projected to grow by one half. Consumption per
person, if it continues at the rate of recent decades, will roughly double. So the overall scale of the
world economy, the sum of our demand for products and services, is likely to multiply by around
three times. If our current level of efficiency in resource use and waste output were to remain
unchanged, then our environmental impact by 2050 would be three times greater than today, even
if we did not cross any dangerous thresholds relating to oceans and atmosphere.
Determined action will be needed to bring our impact down to sustainable levels. It will be
needed on all three elements – population, consumption and technology – and on all the policies,
institutions and values that affect them.

P O P U L AT I O N
The days when the fertility of hundreds of millions of women could be regarded as a useful instru-
ment of environmental policy are over. Women and their partners make their own decisions about
how many children to have.
Nevertheless, governments can help to create the conditions where having fewer children will
make sense, and where people have the means to reach their desired fertility. And if fertility can
be reduced, there will usually be environmental benefits.
Considerable progress has been made in the past decade in reducing fertility and slowing
future population growth rates. The greatest scope for further progress lies in those countries and
areas where fertility is still high – in the northern parts of South Asia, much of the Middle East, and
sub-Saharan Africa. While more than 60 percent of Asian and Latin American women were using
some form of contraception in the late 1990s, the figure for Africa was only 20 percent1.
By and large the countries where there is scope for faster progress are also countries that are
likely to face severe human and environmental problems from rapid population growth – land
degradation in sub-Saharan Africa, water shortages in the Arab world, and land shortages in
South Asia.
Provision of good quality family planning with a choice of methods can have a considerable
impact on women’s fertility, but the greatest effect is achieved when this is combined with a broad
range of measures to improve mother and child health, women’s literacy and education, and
women’s rights more generally. These measures are win-win solutions. All of them are valuable
in their own right. Improving human welfare will always be the primary rationale for pursuing them
– but the environmental spin-offs come as an added bonus.
36 OVERVIEW Policy responses

CONSUMPTION
The consumption factor is perhaps the toughest one to tackle. The poor of the Earth desperately
need to increase their incomes. In 1997 the poorest 2 billion people in the world had average real
incomes of only US$1 400 – less than a quarter of the world average and a mere 6 percent of the
high-income country average2.
But even in countries with middle and high incomes people have come to expect steadily
increasing prosperity. No politician can hope to get elected on a platform of reducing consumption:
leaders who preside over periods of slower economic growth often fail to get re-elected.
A more realistic approach is to divert consumption into channels with lower environmental
costs, while ensuring that people still enjoy the end products or services they need for dignity and
comfort. The balance of taxes and subsidies can be shifted so as to make environmental “bads” like
excessive car or fossil-fuel use less attractive to consumers, and environmental “goods” such as
energy-saving technology more attractive.
The Internet, by enabling more people to work from home or shift information and services elec-
tronically rather than physically, is reducing the resource requirements of industry and especially
services. Changes in culture and values, such as the movement for a simpler, more environmen-
tally friendly lifestyle, are also having an impact on consumer behavior 3.

TECHNOLOGY
Inevitably, the heaviest burden will fall on the technology element of the equation. If, as is quite
likely, the scale of the world economy trebles by 2050, then technological changes will have to
reduce the environmental impact of our activities by two thirds – just to prevent the present rate of
damage from increasing.
Since our impact is already unsustainable, the Club of Rome has proposed a Factor Four
improvement in resource efficiency (that is, a 75 percent reduction in resource use per unit of
production) 4.
However, in the long run that would produce an impact only 25 percent below the present
unsustainable level, and may be too modest a target. More probably we need something approach-
ing a Factor Ten reduction – that is, we would reduce by 90 percent the amount of resources and
wastes produced for each unit of consumption, while eliminating poverty and maintaining reasonable
standards for all. To reach this target by 2050 would require a 4.5 percent reduction per year. To
reach it by 2100 would require a 2.3 percent reduction per year.
Though these rates are higher than those achieved in fuel efficiency over recent decades,
we know that at times of technological breakthrough or crisis much faster rates of change are
possible. For example, the achievable density of transistors on integrated circuits doubles every two
years, an annual increase of 41 percent. Refrigeration technology shifted very rapidly away from the
use of chlorofluorocarbons, with an average reduction in CFC production of at least 23 percent a
year between 1986 and 1995 5.
A wide range of policies is needed to encourage environmentally friendly technology. Many
policies are specific to each different field or area and most are beyond the scope of this atlas.
More general approaches include:
■ shifting taxes from social or environmental “goods” (such as employment) to environmental
“bads” (such as carbon use);
■ tightening regulations on pollution;
■ setting minimum targets for improvements in resource use or waste emissions;
■ raising the share of wastes required to be recycled;
■ government sponsorship or subsidy of research and development of leading-edge technologies
that are not yet economic.
All of these measures would go some way to ensuring that the pricing of goods and services reflects
the true environmental costs, thereby encouraging more environmentally sound approaches to con-
sumption and technological development.
 OVERVIEW Policy responses 37

P O P U L AT I O N - E N V I R O N M E N T L I N K A G E S
Because the population, consumption and technology equation is a multiplication sum, actions that
reduce any one component in isolation are necessary. However, there is also a range of measures for
tackling population and environment jointly.
There was a time when international conferences avoided all explicit linking of population and
environment. Conferences in the 1990s, from the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development in 1992 onwards, were much more willing to do so. Yet the areas of population and
environment are still seriously underfunded in development assistance, and the United Nations
Environment Programme is one of the most impoverished UN agencies.
At the national level there is still ground to be made up. Although most national development
plans, national sustainable development strategies and national environmental action plans make
some mention of population, it is usually simply a token gesture: the potential contribution of popu-
lation measures to easing environmental stresses is not usually acknowledged.
At local level there have been many successful integrated programs which encouraged com-
munities to pursue sustainable approaches across the board from environment to population.
Efforts to incorporate environmental elements into population and reproductive health programs,
and vice versa, have been less successful. The best results for the environment are achieved when
these programs focus on doing their core activities as well as possible. Burdening them with extra
responsibilities may jeopardize this.
Finally, research into population-environment linkages at every level from village to planet
can help to inform policy. International studies of global environmental problems, such as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, should include scenarios showing the poten-
tial impact of slower population growth.

INSTITUTIONS
A number of blockages and bottlenecks can slow our adaptive response to environmental chal-
lenges and make disastrous Malthusian outcomes more likely. Various steps can be taken to
remove these blocks.
Environmental science and monitoring must be adequately funded. At a minimum we have
to know what is going on, and understand the processes and interactions involved. Market imper-
fections that worsen environmental problems must be removed – starting with the wide range of
subsidies in many countries that encourage activities like fossil-fuel burning or overfishing.
Democratic imperfections need attention too: in less developed countries the people most
affected by environmental change, who are usually the poorest, need better access to the political
and legal system and to the media. In developed countries state funding of political parties and strict
limits on election spending will reduce the influence of business and labor lobbies on government.
Freedom of information must be strengthened to allow concerned citizens full access to important
environmental data, whether held by governments or private companies.
Finally we need a shift in values towards nature conservation and lower resource use. This is
happening spontaneously as environmental problems mount, not just in rich countries but in many
developing countries.
If we can mobilize the full range of policy responses, then we can move towards a sustainable
relationship with the environment within the next 50 years. The timing is critical: even a decade’s
delay could trigger threshold effects with incalculable consequences.
38 OVERVIEW Endnotes
Endnotes
The scale of our
presence
1. Crop and pasture area:
FAOSTAT.
2. Turner (ed.), The Earth as
Transformed by Human Action,
Cambridge University Press,
UK, 1990.
3. Vitousek et al., Science, 277:
494, 1997.
4. Moffat, Science, 279: 988,
1998.
5. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1998.
6. UNEP (Heywood, ed.) Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
The theory of
population-
environment links
1. Ehrlich and Holdren, Science,
171: 1212, 1974.
2. See, for example, Harrison,
The Third Revolution, Penguin
Books, 1993, and Ness,
Population and Strategies for
National Sustainable
Development, Earthscan, 1997.
3. Lutz, Population-
Development-Environment.
Understanding their Interactions
in Mauritius, IIASA, 1994.
4. Meadows, Dennis et al.,
The Limits to Growth, Potomac
Associates, Washington DC,
1972; Meadows, Donella et al.,
Beyond the Limits, Earthscan
Publications, 1992.
5. Ibid.
6. Simon, The Ultimate
Resource 2, Princeton
University Press, 1996.
7. Boserup, The Conditions of
Agricultural Growth, Allen and
Unwin, 1965, expanded and
updated in Population and
Technology, Blackwell, 1980.
8. Ibid.
9. Tiffen, More People,
Less Erosion, John Wiley, 1994.
10. OECD, Environmental
Indicators, 1994; Schulze and
Michael, A Conceptual
Framework to Support
Development and Use of
Environmental Information in
Decision Making, EPA,
Environmental Statistics and
Information Division, undated,
http://www.epa.gov/indicator/
frame/contents.html.
11. Commoner, Chemistry in
Britain, 8(2): 52; Hardin,
Science, 162: 1243, 1968.
Population
and consumption
trends
1. Durand, Historical Estimates
of World Population, University
of Pennsylvania Population
Studies Center, mimeo, 1974;
UNPD, World Population
Prospects: The 1998 Revision,
1999.
2. UNPD, World Population
Prospects: The 1998 Revision,
1999.
3. UNPD, Briefing Packet: 1998
Revision World Population
Estimates and Projections, 1999.
4. UNPD, World Population
Prospects: The 1998 Revision,
1999.
5. UNPD, World Population
Projections to 2150, 1998.
6. Bongaarts, Science,
282(5388), 1998.
7. UNPD, Proceedings of
Expert Group Meeting on
Below Replacement Fertility,
1997.
8. UNPD, World Population
Projections to 2150, 1998.
9. UNHCR, The State of the
World’s Refugees: A
Humanitarian Agenda, 1998.
10. UNPD, Urban and Rural
Areas 1950-2030 (The 1996
Revision), 1997.
11. WRI, World Resources
1996-97, 1996.
12. UNHCR, State of the
World’s Refugees, 1999.
13. Zlotnik, Population and
Development Review, 24(3):
429,1998.
14. WHO, The International
Drinking Water Supply and
Sanitation Decade: End of
Decade Review, 1992.
15. Ibid.
16. World Tourism Organization,
Tourism 2020, 1998.
17. UNPD, World Population
Prospects: The 1998 Revision,
1999.
18. UNPD, Population Ageing
1999, ST/ESA/SER.A/179, 1999.
19. World Bank, World
Development Indicators 2000,
2000.
20. UNESCO, UNESCO
Statistical Yearbook, 1998.
21. World Bank, World
Development Report 1998/99,
1999.
22. MacKellar et al., Population,
number of households and
global warming, POPNET
(Population Network Newsletter),
27: 1, 1994; Lutz, Population-
Development-Environment.
Understanding their Interactions
in Mauritius, IIASA, 1994.
23. UNPD, Human Development
Report 1998, 1998.
24. Bruce et al., Families in
Focus, Population Council, New
York, 1995.
25. MacKellar et al., Population
and Global Warming, IIASA,
1997; MacKellar et al.,
Population and Development
Review, 21(4), 1995.
26. Cohen, How Many People
can the Earth Support?, W.W.
Norton, 1996.
27. Ibid.
Natural resources
and wastes
1. World Energy Council,
Survey of Energy Resources
1989 and 1998, 1989 and
1998.

2. World Bank, World
Development Indicators 1999,
1999.
3. FAOSTAT, June 1999.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. FAOSTAT, September 2000.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Brown et al., Vital Signs
1998, Worldwatch Institute,
1998.
12. FAOSTAT, July 1999.
13. Smill, How many people can
the Earth feed?, Population and
Development Review, 20(2):
255, June 1994.
14. Oldeman et al., World Map of
the Status of Human-induced
Soil Degradation: An
Explanatory Note, GLASOD,
Wageningen, Netherlands, 1991.
15. Scherr, Soil Degradation,
International Food Policy
Research Institute, Washington
DC, 1999.
16. Oldeman, Soil Degradation:
A Threat to Food Security?
Report 98/01, International Soil
Reference and Information
Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen,
Netherlands, 1998.
17. FAO, Food, Agriculture and
Food Security, 1996;
The State of Food Insecurity
in the World 1999, 1999.
18. Ambio,18(2), 1989.
19. Groundwater data from WRI,
World Resources 1998-99, 1998.
20. Postel, Dividing the Waters,
Worldwatch Paper 132,
Worldwatch Institute, 1996.
21. Gardner-Outlaw and
Engelman, Sustaining Water,
Easing Scarcity: 2nd Update,
Population Action International,
1997.
22. Quoted in Weizsäcker et al.,
Factor Four, Earthscan, 1997.
23. WRI, World Resources
1998-99 Database Diskette,
1998.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Lyons, Chemical Trespass,
WWF-UK, 1999.
27. World Bank, World
Development Report 1992,
1992.
28. Commoner, Chemistry in
Britain, 8(2): 52; Commoner, in
Consequences of Rapid
Population Growth in
Developing Countries,
proceedings of United Nations
expert group meeting, August
1988, ESA/P/WP.110, United
Nations, 1989.
29. OECD, Environmental
Indicators, 1998.
30. Harrison, The Third
Revolution, Penguin Books,
1993.
The state of major
ecosystems
1. UNEP (Heywood, ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. IUCN, 1996 Red List of
Threatened Animals, 1997 Red
List of Threatened Plants, 1996
and 1997; Oldfield et al., World
List of Threatened Trees,
World Conservation Press, UK,
1998.
7. UNEP (Heywood, ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
8. Conway, Our Planet, 10(5),
UNEP, 2000.
9. UNEP (Heywood, ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
10. AAAS (Dompka Markham,
ed.), Human Population,
Biodiversity and Protected
Areas: Science and Policy
Issues, AAAS, 1996; Cincotta
and Engelman, Nature’s Place,
Population Action International,
2000.
11. Harrison, The Third
Revolution, Penguin Books,
1993. Data from McNeely et al.,
Conserving the World’s
Biological Diversity, IUCN, 1990
(habitat loss), and WRI, World
Resources 1990-91, 1990
(population density). Countries
with large areas of desert were
excluded as population density
is misleading in these cases.
The correlation between loss of
original habitat and log
population density was r=0.74
(p<=.0001).
12. WRI, World Resources
1998-99, 1998.
13. Bryant et al., The Last
Frontier Forests, WRI, 1997.
14. FAO, State of the World’s
Forests 1999, 1999.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Bryant et al., The Last
Frontier Forests, WRI, 1997.
18. Mather, Geography, 72(1): 1,
1987; Palo and Mery, 18th
IUFRO (International Union of
Forestry Research
Organizations) Congress
Report, Ljubljana, 1986.
19. Data source: World
Resources 1994-95 Data
Diskettes. The link between
population density for 1980 and
deforestation rates in 1980-90
was statistically very significant
(r=0.52, p < .0001). The
probability of this link arising by
chance was less than one in
10 000.
20. Cohen and Vitousek,
Science, 278: 1209c.
21. Bryant et al., Coastlines at
Risk, WRI, 1995.
22. Estimate of reef extent from
Spalding and Grenfell, Coral
Reefs, 16: 225-230, 1997;
OVERVIEW Endnotes 39
Bryant et al., Reefs at Risk,
WRI, 1998.
23. James et al., State of the
Reefs, International Coral
Reef Initiative Executive
Secretariat, Background Paper,
May 1995.
24. Ibid.
25. FAO, State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture
1999, 1999.
26. FAO, Review of the State of
World Fishery Resources, FAO
Fisheries Circular No. 920, 1997.
27. FAOSTAT, July 1999.
28. Daniel Pauly et al., Science,
279: 860, 1998.
29. Ibid.
30. Lubchenko, The State of the
World’s Oceans, 10 Years after
Exxon Valdez Symposium,
Anchorage, Alaska, March
1999.
31. UNEP, GESAMP: The State
of the Marine Environment,
1990.
32. Hader et al., in
Environmental Effects of Ozone
Depletion: 1994 Assessment,
UNEP, 1994.
33. FAOSTAT, July 1999.
34. UNEP, Environmental Data
Report 1989-90, 1989.
35. WMO, Scientific Assessment
of Ozone Depletion 1998, 1998.
36. WRI, World Resources
1998-99, 1998.
37. IPCC, Summary for
Policymakers: The Science of
Climate Change, IPCC Working
Group I, 1995.
38. Watson et al. (eds.), The
Regional Impacts of Climate
Change, IPCC, 1997.
39. Misdorp and Hoozemans,
Global Vulnerability
Assessment Atlas, Netherlands
Ministry of Transport and
Water, July 1999,
http://www.mimnenv.nl/
projects/netcoast/gva/intro.htm.
40 OVERVIEW Endnotes

40. Harrison, The Third

Revolution, Penguin Books,
1993.
41. Ibid.
42. Harrison, Carrying Capacity
in Relation to Production and
Consumption Patterns,
Independent Commission on
Population and Quality of Life,
Paris, 1994. Data were
derived from William Pepper et
al., Emissions Scenarios for
the IPCC: An Update, mimeo
and data diskette available
from William Pepper,
fax: +1 703 934 9740.
43. MacKellar et al., Population
and Global Warming, IIASA,
1997.

Policy responses
1. United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA), The State of
World Population 1999, 1999.
2. World Bank, World
Development Indicators Data
Diskettes, 1999.
3. Durning, How Much is
Enough?, W.W. Norton,1992.
4. Weizsäcker et al., Factor
Four, Earthscan, 1997.
5. Kurzweil, Your Bionic Future,
Scientific American Presents,
1999.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Introduction 43

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
n a t u ra l re s o u rce s

HILE many of the environmental impacts of humankind

W closely map demographic indicators, this leaves out

one vital component: consumption. The per-capita
consumption of key natural resources varies hugely
around the world. Typically, but not universally, the
citizens of rich industrialized nations use more of the world’s
resources and produce more waste. Sometimes they thereby deplete
their own environments; sometimes other people’s.

For many resources, the United States of America is the world’s largest consumer in absolute
terms. For a list of 20 major traded commodities, it takes the greatest share of 11 of them: corn,
coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil and natural gas. For many more
it is the largest per-capita consumer.
A typical example is meat. China, with the world’s largest population, is the highest overall pro-
ducer and consumer of meat, but the highest per-capita consumption in the world is that of the
United States. The average United States citizen consumes more than three times the global aver-
age of 37 kilos per person per year. Africans consume less than half the global average, and
South Asians consume the least, at under 6 kilos per person per year1.
Other resources are used much more variably, depending on local circumstances. Fish, for
instance, has been a cheap source of protein for hundreds of millions of poor people wherever it has
been available. The highest consumption levels are in some of the world’s poorest states, such as
the Maldives or Kiribati, where fish is plentiful. Per-capita consumption is also very high in rich
nations with well-established fishing traditions – 91 and 66 kilos per capita in Iceland and Japan
respectively; way above the global average of 16 kilos per capita per year2.
Some consumption patterns reflect the rate of industrial, urban and infrastructure development
rather than simply current wealth. Cement, for instance, has in recent years been used in greatest
quantities in the rapidly growing Asian economies. The top three places for per-capita use in 1996
were occupied by the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia. Each used more than twice as much
cement per capita as the United States and four times as much as a typical established industrial
nation with well-developed infrastructure, such as the United Kingdom3.
Water is also heavily used in a number of developing countries. It is a key strategic resource
whose location is largely fixed, like land, but for which many countries rely on their neighbors. Egypt,
for instance, relies for 97 percent of its water on flows that originate outside the country, mostly
upstream on the Nile. Sudan, also on the Nile, is in a similarly vulnerable position, as are the
Netherlands at the mouth of the Rhine, Cambodia on the Mekong, and Syria and Iraq on the
Euphrates. All rely on foreign sources for the bulk of their water4.
Water use is often as high or higher in poor, arid countries as in rich nations. When precipitation
is lowest, demand for crop irrigation is typically highest, and where water-hungry cash crops
are grown as well as food, the demands are higher still. When the country is in a poor state of
44 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Introduction

TOP CONSUMERS, P R I VAT E P E R - C A P I TA C O N S U M P T I O N , 1 9 9 8

1998 Expressed as US$
Primary energy*
Metric tons GNP per More than 15 000
oil equivalent capita
per capita US$ 1998
7 500-15 000
UA Emirates 18.95 17 870
Kuwait 9.17 id
Singapore 8.80 30 170 2 000-7 500
USA 7.83 29 240
Canada 7.18 19 170
1 000-2 000
Belgium and 6.21 26 340
Luxembourg
Australia 5.56 20 640 400-1 000
Norway 5.48 34 310
Netherlands 5.36 24 780
Iceland 5.07 27 830 200-400
Saudi Arabia 4.98 6 910
Sweden 4.89 25 580
Finland 4.71 24 280 Less than 200
France 4.24 24 210
Germany 4.09 26 570
* Commercially traded fuels only
Insufficient data

Roundwood* Private consumption, measured by the World

Cubic GNP per Bank, is the value of all goods and services,
meters capita
per capita US$ 1998 including durable products, purchased or received
by households as income in kind.
Finland 12.08 24 280
Guatemala 12.03 1 640
Sweden 7.43 25 580
Canada 6.41 19 170
Gabon 3.20 4 170
New Zealand 2.90 14 600
Norway 2.50 34 310
Latvia 2.42 2 420
Austria 2.27 26 830
Chile 2.11 4 990
Eq. Guinea 1.88 1 110
USA 1.76 29 240
Estonia 1.74 3 360
Belarus 1.66 2 180
Uruguay 1.62 6 070 C O N S U M P T I O N G R O W T H R AT E S A N D G D P , 1 9 9 0 - 9 8
* Raw timber only The highest consumption growth rates
Passenger cars +15 +15
Cars per GNP per % Consumption growth rate %
thousand capita GDP growth rate
people US$ 1998 +10 +10

Italy 539 20 090

Germany 506 26 570 +5 +5
Australia 488 20 640
USA 483 29 240
Austria 481 26 830 0 0
Vietnam

Uzbekistan

China

Moldova

Chile

Indonesia

Malawi

Lebanon

Uganda

Singapore

Israel

Georgia

Albania

El Salvador

Uruguay

India

Azerbaijan

Korea, Rep.

Sri Lanka

Macedonia

Switzerland 477 39 980

New Zealand 470 14 600
Canada 455 19 170
–5 –5
France 442 24 210
Belgium 435 25 380
Sweden 428 25 580
Slovenia 403 9 780 –10 –10
Norway 402 34 310
Japan 394 32 350
Finland 392 24 280 –15 –15
Source: BP; FAO; World Bank. Source: World Bank.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Introduction 45

TOP CONSUMERS,
1998
C e re a l
Kilos GNP per
cereal capita
per capita US$ 1998

Morocco 251.6 1 240

Egypt 245.2 1 290
Algeria 237.1 1 550
Syria 229.2 1 020
Turkey 224.9 3 160
Myanmar 223.6 id
Tunisia 218.6 2 060
Bosnia and 217.0 id
Herzegovina
Romania 210.1 1 360
Indonesia 202.7 640
Niger 202.0 200
Albania 198.7 810
Lesotho 198.5 570
Turkmenistan 198.4 id
Lithuania 197.1 2 540

Meat
Kilos GNP per
meat capita
per capita US$ 1998

USA 122.0 29 240

Cyprus 113.6 11 920
New Zealand 110.1 14 600
Australia 108.2 20 640
Spain 107.3 14 100
Austria 104.8 26 830
Denmark 103.2 33 040
Netherlands 101.4 24 780
Bahamas 100.9 id
France 99.6 24 210
Yugoslavia 97.9 id
Mongolia 94.4 380
Canada 94.1 19 170
Source: World Bank; UNPD. Slovenia 92.7 9 780
Uruguay 92.7 6 070
C O N S U M P T I O N G R O W T H R AT E S A N D G D P , 1 9 9 0 - 9 8
The lowest consumption growth rates Fish
+15 +15 Kilos GNP per
fish capita
Central African Republic

% %
per capita US$ 1998
Trinidad and Tobago

+10 +10
Congo, Dem. Rep.

Maldives 160.2 1 130

Iceland 91.7 27 830
Sierra Leone

Kiribati 77.2 1 170

Kyrgyzstan

+5 +5
French 67.3 id
Bulgaria

Armenia
Hungary
Slovakia
Namibia

Jamaica

Burundi
Lesotho

Ukraine
Belarus
Sweden

Estonia

Algeria

Angola
Gabon

Polynesia
Japan 66.5 32 350
0 0 Seychelles 64.8 6 420
Guyana 64.4 780
Portugal 58.9 10 670
–5 –5 Malaysia 52.6 3 670
Norway 50.5 34 310
Korea, Rep. 49.5 8 600
Gabon 45.5 4 170
–10 –10 Bermuda 44.2 id
Consumption growth rate Spain 41.1 14 100
GDP growth rate Malta 40.7 10 100
–15 –15
–19.2
Source: World Bank. Source FAO; World Bank.
46 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Introduction

development, with dilapidated infrastructure, then water use can be immensely inefficient,
producing the highest water use of all, as illustrated by the rates in the arid, cotton-growing cen-
tral Asian states of the former Soviet Union. During the 1990s Turkmenistan withdrew more than
5 000 cubic meters per person per year, with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan
and Azerbaijan all withdrawing 2 000 cubic meters or more per person per year. By comparison,
per-capita withdrawals in the United States were around 1 800 cubic meters, in France 650 and in
the United Kingdom 2005.
But for some resources, consumption depends upon the end use to which that resource is put, as
typified by wood. While rich nations use more of it in the form of paper and packaging, poor pre-
dominantly rural nations rely on wood to a greater extent for construction and particularly for fuel.
Finland, which produces large quantities of paper, is the greatest per-capita user of raw timber, but
African and Asian countries are the largest users of fuelwood. Japan, though widely criticized for
its harvesting of tropical timbers from Southeast Asian rainforests, lies well down the global list of
timber consumers.
Two trends are causing nations, corporations and individuals to reassess their use of natural
resources. Since the 1970s, there has been an increasing realization that many resources, notably
metals and fossil fuels, will one day run out. And since the 1980s in particular, there has been grow-
ing concern about the environmental downside of their profligate exploitation, largely with respect to
pollution and the degradation and conversion of land.
Some stories of inefficiency and extravagance have become notorious. It takes the mining of
6 tons of rock to produce a pair of typical gold rings. Only 2 to 3 percent of the energy produced
by burning coal in a power station is eventually used to light a bulb or boil a kettle, because of
inefficiencies at every stage of its conversion to electricity, its transmission and ultimate use. The
average European uses 130 kilos of paper a year – the equivalent of two trees. The average
American uses more than twice as much – a staggering 330 kilos a year. The paper and board
industry is the United States’ third largest source of pollution, while its products make up 38 percent
of municipal waste6.
Both governments and companies are now increasingly adopting strategies to reduce their envi-
ronmental “footprint” on the world. They are doing this by reducing the amount of materials and
energy used in providing their services (whether a car or a kilowatt of energy, a meal or a megabyte
of information), and by reusing and recycling materials where possible. Much has been done. The
gasoline consumption of the average automobile in the United States has halved since the 1970s.
During the same period most European homes have been insulated to reduce heat loss by 50 percent
or more. Some commercial farmers, particularly in the United States, have doubled the crops they
grow with a given amount of irrigation water by using sub-surface drip irrigation.
Much more could be done at no extra cost. Modern technologies – plastic and carbon fibre,
optical fibres, e-mail, drip irrigation, electronic systems controls – can all aid the process by
making manufacture and communications more efficient and by substituting abundant materials
for scarce ones.
Organized recycling, while not invariably energy-efficient, can also be beneficial. Growing con-
cern at the damage to natural forests from paper production has led to a surge in paper recycling.
Globally, 43 percent of paper fibre is recycled, a figure that rises to 46 percent in the United States
and to 72 percent in Germany7. In Britain the film processing industry reuses 5 million film
cassettes a year, retailers reuse 40 million clothes hangers, and the aluminum industry recycles
some 2 billion cans a year. The latter saves sufficient electricity, which would otherwise go to
smelting new aluminum, to power all the nation’s television sets for a one-hour show every night
of the year.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Energy 47

E n e rg y

HE TAMING of fire was one of humankind’s earliest

T technological achievements. It provided energy for heat and

light on demand. But today the environmental impacts of
the world’s power plants, internal combustion engines and
boilers have serious implications for the future health and
well-being of the planet.

Energy is one of the most basic of human needs, not as an end in itself but as a means to numer-
ous ends. We need energy to heat and air-condition our living spaces, to cook food and forge steel, to
power engines and for transportation, and most of all to generate electricity for myriad purposes
from boiling a kettle to running computer systems.
During the past 50 years, global consumption of commercial energy has risen more than fourfold,
far outpacing the rise in population. One way or another, all this energy comes from natural
resources – whether fossil fuels such as coal and oil, living resources such as timber and biomass,
nuclear fuel such as uranium, or “renewable” resources such as flowing water and wind and the
power of the sun.
A generation ago, there was concern that fossil fuels would run out, plunging the world into an
energy crisis. Today the fear is that their continued use might be wrecking the global climate by
emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) as we burn carbon-containing fuels. This anxiety is substantially
increased in view of the considerable unmet demand for energy in the developing world.
Energy use is closely tied to health and well-being – low energy users have high infant mortality
rates, low literacy rates and low life expectancies. Worldwide, 2 billion people do not have access to
electricity and use fuelwood or dung for cooking and heating – often destroying their local environ-
ments in the process. The challenge for the 21st century is to develop methods of generating and
using energy that meet the needs of the poor while protecting the planet.
There are three global energy trends in relation to demographics. First and most obviously, as
populations grow, energy use increases. Secondly, as wealth grows, energy use per capita also
increases. In the early stages of industrialization, this is typically accompanied by a decline in the
efficiency with which energy supplies are used, resulting in more pollution per dollar of output.
India’s emissions of CO2 per dollar of GDP rose by 29 percent between 1980 and 1995; Malaysia’s
rose by 58 percent1.
But the third stage is more optimistic2. Beyond a certain threshold of wealth, which may vary
widely between countries, energy efficiency begins to improve. Thereafter, countries with expanding
economies and growing personal wealth can, with sensible energy policies, dramatically reduce
growth in energy use. They may begin to show sharp reductions in emissions of polluting gases,
including greenhouse gases, particularly by shifting to cleaner sources of energy, such as natural
gas and renewables.
The world is already slowly starting to wean itself from the most polluting energy source – coal.
During the past 50 years, global coal use has only doubled, while oil use has risen sevenfold and
48 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Energy

FO S S I L F U E L PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION, 1998

RESERVES, 1 9 9 8
E st i m a t e d ye a rs o f
u s e a t c u r re n t (included Canada
in USA) Production: 310m mtoe
e x p lo i t a t i o n leve l s Consumption: 219m mtoe
250
Years
200

150

100 United States of America United Kingdom

Production: 1 447m mtoe Production: 239m mtoe
50 Consumption: 2 147m mtoe Consumption: 228m mtoe

0
Oil Natural Coal
gas Solid shape: primary France
Production: 3.5m mtoe
energy production Consumption: 249m mtoe

(rest of
R e s e r ve s b y Outline: primary energy Europe)
lo c a t i o n consumption

Coal The map shows a diagrammatic

Rest of Africa
Rest of representation of countries and regions Production: 456m mtoe
world Consumption: 149m mtoe
USA 25.0% 30.0% proportionate to their production and
Top five
countries consumption of commercially traded fuels.
70.0%
Russia All figures are in million metric tons of
16.0% Latin America and Caribbean
oil equivalent. Production: 662m mtoe
China 12.0% Consumption: 486m mtoe
Australia 9.0%
India 8.0%

Oil
TO P E N E R GY C O N S U M E R S , 1 9 9 8
Rest of
Saudi world
Arabia Top five 37.5% Consumption Population
24.8% countries as % of world as % of world
Iraq 10.7% 62.5%
USA 25.32 4.64
United Arab
Emirates China 9.96 21.28
9.3% Russia 7.00 2.50
Kuwait 9.2% Japan 5.89 2.14
Iran 8.5% Germany 3.97 1.39
India 3.19 16.64
France 2.94 0.99 E N E R GY C O N S U M P T I O N , 1 9 9 8
UK 2.68 1.00 B y s o u rce
N a t u ra l Canada 2.59 0.52
Korea, Rep. 1.97 0.78 Oil 40%
gas Italy 1.91 0.97
Rest of Ukraine 1.58 0.86
world
Top five 37.5% Brazil 1.49 2.81
Hydro 3%
Russia countries Mexico 1.48 1.62
32.9% 62.5% Spain 1.35 0.67 Nuclear
South Africa 1.33 0.67 7%
Iran 15.7%
Qatar 5.8% Iran 1.25 1.11 Natural gas
Australia 1.21 0.31 24% Coal 26%
United Arab
Emirates 4.1% Saudi Arabia 1.19 0.34
Saudi Arabia 4.0% Poland 1.05 0.66

Source: BP. Source: BP; UNPD. Source: BP.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Energy 49

F U E LW O O D
CONSUMPTION,
1988-98
Million Change Popu-
cubic in volume lation
Rest of Europe
Production: 513m mtoe meters 1988-98 change
Consumption: 975m mtoe 1998 % %

North 75.5 -24 10

Germany America
Production: 77m mtoe Latin America 226.1 -3 19
Consumption: 336m mtoe and Caribbean
Europe 92.8 -31 2
Africa 463.9 27 29
Russia Asia 883.5 16 17
Production: 905m mtoe Oceania 8.5 -1 16
Consumption: 594m mtoe Japan
Production: 2.4m mtoe World 1 750.3 9 16
Consumption: 499m mtoe
Source: FAO.

Republic of Korea
(rest of Asia)
Production:
2.3m mtoe
China Consumption:
Rest of Former Soviet Union Production: 805m mtoe 167m mtoe
Production: 217m mtoe Consumption: 860m mtoe
Consumption: 303m mtoe (rest of
Asia) F U E LWO O D
CONSUMPTION,
1988 AND 1998
Middle East By region
Production: 1 261m mtoe
Consumption: 367m mtoe
North America Europe
India 6.2% 8.4%
Production: 205m mtoe Rest of Asia and Pacific Latin America
Consumption: 271m mtoe Production: 571m mtoe and
Consumption: 516m mtoe Caribbean
14.5%

South Africa
Production: 118m mtoe
Consumption: 113m mtoe Africa
22.7% Asia
47.7%
Source: BP.
Oceania 0.5%
Total consumption, 1988:
1 604 million cubic meters

North America Europe

O E C D A N D N O N - O E C D E N E R GY C O N S U M P T I O N 4.3% 5.3%
Latin America
and
OECD Non-OECD Caribbean
Consumption % change Consumption % change 12.9%
1998 in consumption 1998 in consumption
Million mtoe* 1988-98 Million mtoe 1988-98

Oil 2 131.3 14 1 257.7 8 Africa

Gas 1 101.0 31 915.4 11 26.5%
Coal 1 056.2 -6 1 163.2 4 Asia
Nuclear 543.2 33 83.4 4 50.5%
Hydro 116.4 13 110.0 36 Oceania 0.5%
Total 4 948.1 14 3 529.7 8
Total consumption, 1998:
* Metric tons of oil equivalent 1 750 million cubic meters
Note: During the period 1988-98, the population increased by 9% in OECD countries and by 18% in non-OECD countries.
Source: BP. Source: FAO.
50 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Energy

natural gas use more than tenfold3. China, the world’s largest user of coal, has recently begun to
cut its consumption despite continued fast economic growth. With similar declines in many indus-
trialized countries, global coal use may be close to or past its peak – with positive effects on urban air
pollution, acid deposition and the greenhouse effect 4.
Gains in the use of non-fossil fuels have been inconsistent. Alternative technologies that require
large initial capital outlays did well until around 1990, but have since stalled. World civil nuclear
reactor construction is now just a tenth of 1970s levels both because Western civil society has
turned against nuclear power and because former Soviet bloc nations cannot afford the investment.
Large-scale hydroelectric power has suffered from a shortage of sites and a growing awareness of
its environmental downside. But smaller-scale renewable energy sources, notably wind and solar
power, have seen double-digit annual growth – albeit from a lower starting point5.
The fast-growing demand for energy in developing countries offers the opportunity for them to
avoid the high-energy and pollution-intensive development paths of already industrialized countries
and “leapfrog” to sustainable energy sources. There are many examples of moves around the world
to more sustainable energy policies. Solar power is making inroads in many parts of rural Africa
where urban electricity grids are unlikely to reach. Wind turbines are whirring on the plains of India,
the steppes of Mongolia, the shores of the North Sea and among the sheep of Patagonia. Brazil
fuels half its vehicles on ethanol made from fermented sugarcane juice, reducing the country’s CO2
emissions by 18 percent 6.
Many leading figures in the oil business believe that by the middle of the century the world’s
vehicle fleet will run on hydrogen fuel cells, probably extracted from water using electricity generated
from renewable sources7. Iceland has plans to complete the task of creating the first “hydrogen
economy” within its own shores by 2020, using its domestic geothermal and hydroelectric energy
sources to convert its small self-contained vehicle fleet8.
Most analysts still anticipate fast global rises in the use of oil and natural gas, and expect CO2
emissions to continue to rise for many decades yet, as developing countries’ economies grow. But the
increases may be much less than once feared. In 1997 and 1998, the global economy grew by
6.8 percent, but CO2 emissions held steady. The explanation appeared to lie in a combination of
reduced coal use and the rise of economic growth based on new information technologies, which
have lower energy requirements than traditional industries9.

CHINA
China, the world’s most populous country, mines a third of all the coal cut from the Earth,
providing three quarters of the country’s energy requirements. It has made Chinese cities
the most polluted on Earth10 and the country the world’s second largest source of CO2. But
China is also engaged in a massive effort to clean up both its own backyard and the planet.
China is switching to natural gas, cutting coal subsidies and investing heavily in improved
energy efficiency. A National Improved Stove Programme has upgraded 160 million domes-
tic stoves. Since 1996, China has shut down 60 000 smoky and inefficient industrial boilers,
while hundreds of small inefficient power stations over 25 years old are also to be closed.
Overall since the early 1980s, China has improved its energy efficiency by 47 percent,
doubling economic output while raising CO2 emissions by only 50 percent. In 1998, while
increasing its economic output by more than 7.2 percent, it actually reduced its emissions
of CO2 by 3.7 percent – thanks mainly to continuing declines in coal burning11.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Freshwater 51

Fre s h w a t e r

RESHWATER is the most fundamental of finite resources.

F It has no substitutes for most uses and is expensive to

transport. But freshwater sources are dwindling or becoming
contaminated throughout the world. Chronic or acute water
shortage is increasingly common in many countries with
fast-growing populations, becoming a potential source of conflict.
However, existing technologies offer great potential for improving
on the efficiency of its use.

The distribution of water resources around the globe is highly unequal, even at the continental level.
Asia has more than 60 percent of the world population but only 36 percent of river runoff (much of it
confined to the short monsoon season). South America, meanwhile, has just 6 percent of the global
population but 26 percent of runoff. Canada has more than 30 times as much water available to
each of its citizens as China.
Many of the world’s largest river catchments run through thinly populated regions. These
include the Amazon (15 percent of global runoff but 0.4 percent of global population) and the Zaire-
Congo that flow into the Atlantic Ocean, and the great rivers of northern Canada and Siberia that
flow into the Arctic Ocean. Meanwhile, many countries with high population density or growth rates,
such as Pakistan and Egypt, are in hot, water-stressed regions where crops require irrigation1.
Water withdrawals from rivers and underground reserves have grown by 2.5 to 3 percent annu-
ally since 1940, significantly ahead of population growth. Already, little of the water in some of
the world’s major rivers reaches the sea, including the Colorado in the United States, the Nile in
Egypt and, for much of the year, the Yellow River in China2.
Water tables are falling on every continent. Shortages are having an increasing effect on global
grain markets, as arid countries that rely on irrigation for crop production are switching to food
imports. As a result, North Africa and the Middle East were the fastest growing import markets for
grain in the 1990s. The World Bank warns that freshwater is likely to become one of the major factors
limiting economic development3.
Today, it is estimated that 31 countries with 8 percent of the world’s population – mostly in Africa
and the Middle East – have water shortages4. By 2025 the figure is likely to have risen to 48 coun-
tries and 35 percent of world population. Major nations in the list include India, Ethiopia, Nigeria,
Kenya and Peru. Northern China also faces major shortages.
The crisis is likely to be worsened by the deteriorating quality of water, polluted by industrial
wastes and sewage discharges, and spreading water-related diseases such as cholera and
schistosomiasis. In addition, many regions watered by international rivers have yet to draw up
agreements to share supplies. On the River Euphrates, Turkey has built several large dams with-
out prior agreement with downstream neighbors Syria and Iraq. On the River Nile, Egypt uses
85 percent of the river’s flow but has no agreement with potentially major upstream users such as
Ethiopia. Unresolved disputes over riparian rights also fester within many countries.
52 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Freshwater

WHERE THE F R E S H W AT E R R E S O U R C E S , 1 9 9 8
W AT E R I S Cubic meters available per capita per year
ALL WATER
of which: Less than 1 000
Oceans 97.5%
1 000-2 000
Freshwater
2.5%
2 000-5 000

of which:
5 000-10 000

Ice caps and glaciers

79% 10 000-20 000
Easily accessible
Groundwater surface
freshwater 20 000-100 000
20% 1%

More than 100 000

of which:

Lakes Insufficient data

52%

Countries with less than 1 000 cubic meters available per person per
Soil moisture year are considered to be water-scarce, while those with less than
38%
2 000 cubic meters are recognized as chronically short of water. Those
Rivers 1% with 2 000-5 000 cubic meters may also experience acute water
Water within living organisms 1% shortages for a part of the year. More countries are reaching these
Atmospheric water vapor 8%
levels of shortage, with population growth a contributing factor
Source: FAO. alongside decreasing resources.

ANNUAL
F R E S H W AT E R
WITHDRAWALS
To p 1 5 c o u n t r i e s
T O P P E R - C A P I TA W AT E R U S E R S *
Billion % of
cubic meters available 5 723
withdrawn resources 3 000 3 000

Cubic meters
China 525.5 18.6
India 500.0 26.2 2 500 2 500
USA 447.7 18.1
Pakistan 155.6 61.0
Japan 91.4 21.3 2 000 2 000
Mexico 77.8 17.0
Russia 77.1 1.7
Indonesia 74.3 0.7
1 500 1 500
Iran 70.0 85.8
Uzbekistan 58.1 63.4
Italy 57.5 34.4
Philippines 55.4 9.1 1 000 1 000
Egypt 55.1 94.5
Turkmenistan

Brazil 54.9 0.5

Madagascar
Afghanistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Uzbekistan

Azerbaijan

Vietnam 54.3 6.1

Swaziland

500 500
Suriname
Tajikistan

Romania
Pakistan
Bulgaria
Canada
Guyana

Note: Data on freshwater

Chile

Syria
USA

Iran
Iraq

withdrawals are incomplete. These

figures range from 1980 to 1998. 0 0
Source: World Bank. * Latest available data, ranging from 1975 to 1995 Source: WRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Freshwater 53

WATER USE BY SECTOR*

Selected countries
Billion cubic meters:
Agriculture Industry
Domestic
China India

26.3 25.0
15.0
94.6

404.6 460.0

USA Japan

35.8
17.4
120.9

15.5
58.5
291.0

France Egypt
3.3
6.1 4.9 4.4

29.6 47.4

Brazil Germany

6.5
11.5

Source: UNEP-WCMC; WRI.

9.9 33.5
39.8

A V E R A G E A N N U A L P R E C I P I TA T I O N
Millimeters Argentina UK
0.3
4.6 1.9
2.6

21.5 7.2

Lithuania Gabon
0-100
0.0009 0.0006
100-200
0.0045
200-400 0.0022
400-600
600-1 000 0.0243 0.0072
1 000-1 500
1 500-2 000
* Latest available data, ranging
2 000-3 000
from 1980 to 1998
More than 3 000 Source: IIASA. Source: World Bank.
54 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Freshwater

GLOBAL LAND More than 60 percent of the water used in the world each year is diverted for irrigating crops.
AREA UNDER Egypt, which must irrigate all its crops, uses more than five times as much water per capita as
I R R I G AT I O N Switzerland. In Asia, which has two thirds of the world’s irrigated land, 85 percent of water goes for
irrigation. A worldwide doubling in the area under irrigation to more than 260 million hectares
1963
underpinned the “green revolution” that kept the world fed in the late 20th century. Almost 40 percent
1968 of the global food harvest now comes from the 17 percent of the world’s croplands that are made
productive in this way5.
1973
In some countries there is an increasing reliance on pumping underground water, often at rates
1978 that rainfall cannot replenish. Libya, for instance, by pumping “fossil” water from deep beneath
the Sahara desert, uses seven times more water annually for irrigation than it receives in rainfall.
1983
India is pumping water at twice the recharge rate, causing some water tables to fall by between
1988 1 and 3 meters a year. The country’s grain production could fall by 25 percent if it gave up ground-
water “mining”6.
1993
Most irrigation schemes around the world are extremely inefficient. Typically, less than half
1998 the water reaches crop roots. Much of it is misdirected or evaporates. Meanwhile, over-irrigation
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 combined with inadequate drainage is causing an accumulation of salt that is reducing yields in
Million hectares
many of the areas under irrigation. Sometimes there are major ecological impacts. Irrigation projects
Source: FAO.
developed by the former Soviet Union in Central Asia to grow cotton have dramatically emptied the
Aral Sea, destroying fisheries, depopulating large areas and causing epidemics of disease.
Faced with growing water shortages in many parts of the world, the main choice is between
L A N D DA M AG E D B Y supply-side and demand-side solutions. Supply-side solutions imply more large dams and large
I R R I GAT I O N , 1 9 8 0 s water transfer projects. Aid agencies are increasingly reluctant to fund such projects because they
To p f i v e i r r i g a t o r s have a history of heavy cost over-runs, poor financial returns, and ecological and social damage
through flooded valleys and disrupted fluvial ecosystems. They have concluded that demand-side
Million % of
hectares irrigated
solutions offer better returns and less collateral damage. Economic analyses have demonstrated
of land land that investment in industrial and domestic water-saving devices (such as low-flush lavatories), in
damaged damaged lining irrigation canals and in drip-feed irrigation saves more water more cheaply than can be won
India 20.0 36 from dams and other supply schemes.
China 7.0 15 Many believe that as water becomes an increasingly scarce and valued resource, it will become
USA 5.2 27
Pakistan 3.2 20
commodified. Where it was once seen as available by right, it might be bought and sold at market
USSR 2.5 12 prices. This offers potential benefits in its more efficient use, as water prices more closely reflect
World 60.2 24 its cost, but this also holds new dangers for the poor. A thousand tons of water can produce a ton of
Source: UNEP. wheat, worth US$200, but it can expand industrial output by US$14 0007. If the price of water were to
reflect its “true” cost, there is a danger that only the wealthy industrialized sector could afford it,
with serious consequences for world food availability.
W AT E R L O S T I N
I R R I G AT I O N

55% water loss

Field application
losses 25%
Transmission Farm distribution
to farm 15% losses 15%

Water effectively
used by crops
45%

Source: FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Foodcrops 55

Fo o d c ro p s

AN THE WORLD go on feeding itself as populations continue to

C increase in the poorest, most hungry nations? Eliminating

local poverty may be as important as boosting global food
yields. But achieving both will ultimately depend on adopting
more sustainable methods of agriculture.

Over the past four decades, worldwide food production has more than kept pace with the doubling of
world population. There is currently an average of 2 790 calories of food available each day for every
human on the planet – 23 percent more than in 1961 and enough to feed everyone. Moreover, there
is potential slack in the system. If only a third of the cereals fed to livestock were put instead directly
onto human plates, the per-capita calories available daily would rise to 3 0001.
Gains in food availability have been greatest in the developing world, where the green revolution
enabled a rise of 38 percent between 1961 and 1998 to 2 660 calories per person daily.
The increase in food production, however, has been unable to overcome inequalities of food
distribution. The developed world, with a quarter of the world’s population, still takes some 49 per-
cent of the world’s agricultural products, partly because it converts more grain to meat. Even so,
differences in food availability within the developing world are now greater than between typical
developed and developing countries.
Outright famines still occur, both because of local failures in food production, often caused by
environmental degradation, and because of failures in the global trade and emergency aid systems.
But there is a wider problem of persistent malnourishment. Some 790 million people do not have
access to enough food to live healthy and productive lives.
Malnourishment contributes to at least a third of child deaths. In 1998, there were 78 low-
income countries that neither grew enough food to feed their populations, nor had the resources to
make up the deficit with imports. Of these, more than half were in Africa2. Here, population growth
rates are highest and poverty is greatest, soils are generally most vulnerable to degradation and
modern advances in agricultural technology have had the least impact3. The World Food Summit
pledged in 1996 to halve malnutrition within 20 years. But the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) predicts that in some regions of the world chronic undernourishment is
likely to persist, rising to 30 percent of the population of sub-Saharan Africa in 2010.
Poverty and hunger frequently cause a cycle of environmental decline that further undermines
food security. Environmental degradation often occurs when poor nations, and poor communities
within nations, cannot feed themselves without disregarding the future fertility of the land. They
overcultivate or overgraze land to meet immediate needs, or annexe inappropriate land with steep
slopes, and shallow, infertile, stony, toxic or poorly drained soils. In the process they are often forced
to invade natural ecosystems.
The world’s reserves of uncultivated land are largely in the two regions still containing substan-
tial tropical forests: sub-Saharan Africa with 750 million hectares, and Latin America with 800 mil-
lion hectares. Addressing the needs of the poorest farmers is vital to the protection of these forests.
56 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Foodcrops

PRODUCTION P E R - C A P I TA C A L O R I E AVA I L A B I L I T Y A N D
OF MAJOR FOOD LOW-INCOME FOOD-DEFICIT COUNTRIES, 1998
CROPS, 1999
Million metric tons Less than 2 000 calories per day
LIFDC
North America
Other
Cereals
389.8 2 000-2 300 calories per day
LIFDC

Roots and Pulses Other

tubers 26.5 5.1
2 300-2 600 calories per day
LIFDC
Latin America and Caribbean
Other
Cereals
133.8
2 600-2 900 calories per day
LIFDC
Pulses
5.8 Other
Roots and tubers
50.5
2 900-3 200 calories per day
Europe LIFDC

Cereals
Other
374.4
3 200 calories per day or more
Pulses LIFDC Low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) are
8.3 defined by FAO as those that do not have
Roots and tubers Other
135.6 enough food to feed their populations, and for
the most part lack the finances to make good
Africa Insufficient data the deficit with imports. Countries may choose
Cereals to be excluded from this category even though
112.9 they meet the defined criteria.

Pulses
7.9
Roots and tubers
156.6
W O R L D A G R I C U LT U R A L P R O D U C T I O N
Asia 240
World
Index (1961=100)
Cereals 220
1 021.2

200
Pulses [World population]
Roots and 29.8 180
tubers 277.3
Asia
160
Oceania
140 North America
Cereals Europe (incl. former USSR)
32.1 Latin America
120
and Caribbean
Oceania
100
Roots and Pulses
tubers 3.6 2.3 Africa
80
1961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Foodcrops 57

THE WORLD’S
BIGGEST CEREAL
PRODUCERS, 1999
Million % of % of
metric world world
tons of pro- popula-
cereal duction tion

China 457.04 22.14 21.19

USA 336.03 16.28 4.62
India 230.04 11.14 16.69
France 64.76 3.14 0.98
Indonesia 58.67 2.84 3.50
Russia 53.78 2.61 2.46
Canada 53.78 2.61 0.52
Brazil 47.64 2.31 2.81
Germany 44.33 2.15 1.37
Argentina 33.43 1.62 0.61
Vietnam 33.15 1.61 1.32
Bangladesh 31.83 1.54 0.31
Australia 31.12 1.51 1.10
Turkey 30.28 1.47 1.10
Mexico 28.65 1.39 1.63

Source: FAO; UNPD.

GROWTH IN WORLD
PRODUCTION
Selected crops
650
Million
metric tons
600

550
Source: FAO. Wheat

500

Rice
450 (paddy)
P R O P O R T I O N O F U N D E R N O U R I S H E D , B Y R E G I O N , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s Maize
400
50 50

% % 350

40 40 300 Potatoes

250
Other East Asia (incl. Papua New Guinea)

30 30
200
Barley

20 20 150

Cassava
Other South Asia

100
Central America

Southern Africa

Southeast Asia
North America

South America

Central Africa
North Africa

10 10 Soybeans
West Africa

East Africa
Caribbean

Near East

50
China
India

0
0 0 1975 80 85 90 95 99
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
58 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Foodcrops

Meeting the immediate needs of the poor is a major environmental as well as humanitarian
challenge4. But the pursuit of sustainable agriculture also requires the world to find ways of
reorganizing food trade and farming subsidies to reduce the environmental impacts of intensive
agriculture in rich nations.
Overintensive agriculture to supply a fast-growing global market in food is a major cause of the
degradation of natural resources. The direct environmental costs of British agriculture, for instance,
have been assessed at US$3.9 billion, or US$350 per hectare per year. The costs include cleaning
pesticides and nitrogen from drinking water, restoring lost habitats and eroded soils, and combating
emissions of greenhouse gases5.
While many developing countries, particularly in Asia, have seen steady increases in agricultural
productivity, others have fared less well. In Africa overall, agricultural productivity has actually gone
down since the 1960s, while the population has continued to rise. There is also concern that there
may be a slackening of yield growth even in those areas where yields rose consistently through the
1970s and 1980s. The gains in rice productivity in Asia appeared to falter in the 1990s, with growth in
rice yields down from 3 percent a year in the 1970s to less than 2 percent in the 1990s6.
Some analysts see this as a turning point beyond which degradation of land and water resources
will result in the world running increasingly short of food. China, for instance, may be forced to
become a major importer of grain, disrupting world markets and reducing the supplies available
for other, poorer grain-short nations, particularly in Africa7. Others argue that this could revive the
declining agricultural sector in much of the developed world without disrupting supplies to poorer
BIODIVERSITY nations. A third viewpoint is that the slackening merely reflects declining population growth rates
FOR FOOD in Asia and the operation of market forces as supply catches up with demand8.
The world currently uses Whatever the truth, the environmental constraints on farming will themselves change in the 21st
only a tiny fraction of the century. Climate change will begin to have a profound effect on food production around the world,
genetic resources available leading to famine and outward migration in some communities, but to additional wealth and inward
for food. Of 270 000 plants migration in others. Recent assessments suggest that global warming will increase crop yields at
known to science only around high and mid-latitudes – largely comprising countries that already feed themselves and have low
120 are cultivated today and rates of future population growth. Increases may be most marked in North America and China,
just nine of them provide where more rainfall is predicted. Meanwhile increased heat stress and evaporation of moisture from
80 percent of our food10. For soils is likely to reduce yields in lower latitudes – where food shortages are already greatest and
thousands of years, farmers predicted population growth rates highest. Studies again single out Africa as likely to suffer the
have bred new crop varieties greatest yield reductions, with up to 70 million more people at risk of hunger9.
and tailored their farming
methods to maintain both
food supply and their land’s
fertility. The result was a
huge diversity of plant
R E D U C T I O N O F D I V E R S I T Y I N F R U I T S A N D V E G E TA B L E S *
varieties and farming
methods. In the drive to Vegetable Taxonomic Number Number %
name held in 1903 held in 1983 loss
standardize on a few high-
yielding crop varieties, much Asparagus Asparagus officinalis 46 1 97.8
of this diversity was lost, not Bean Phaseolus vulgaris 578 32 94.5
Beet Beta vulgaris 288 17 94.1
only to farms but also to gene Carrot Daucus carota 287 21 92.7
banks, though this trend is Leek Allium ampeloprasum 39 5 87.2
Lettuce Lactuca sativa 487 36 92.6
now reversing. A similar Onion Allium cepa 357 21 94.1
story can be told for livestock Parsnip Pastinaca sativa 75 5 93.3
farming. Future advances in Pea Pisum sativum 408 25 93.9
Radish Raphanus sativus 463 27 94.2
farming are likely to require Spinach Spinacia oleracea 109 7 93.6
tailoring crop varieties and Squash Cucurbita spp. 341 40 88.3
Turnip Brassica rapa 237 24 89.9
farming methods more
* Varieties held at the US National Seed Storage Laboratory, Colorado State University
precisely to local conditions. Source: WRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Meat and fish 59

Meat and fish

EAT AND FISH are an increasingly important part of the

M world’s diet. As countries and families grow richer, one of

their first consumer choices is to increase their intake
of these in preference to vegetables. The implications for
landuse are profound, since growing biomass to feed
animals takes far more energy and land than growing biomass for
direct human consumption.

World meat production has more than quadrupled in the past half-century to some 220 million tons
annually. The increase has more than doubled production per head of the world’s population to 37
kilos a year1. The increase has been driven by rising incomes, population growth and urbanization2,
particularly in the emerging meat markets of East Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Meat
demand rises strongly as countries grow wealthier and urbanize3. Citizens in developed countries
eat four times more meat than those in developing countries, a far greater difference than pertains
for grain consumption.
But developing countries are catching up. Current projections suggest that developing countries’
demand for meat will increase by 2.9 percent a year between 1993 and 2020 – twice the rate of pop-
ulation growth, with poultry demand growing fastest of all4.
The growing demand for meat has pushed countries, particularly in densely populated regions of
Europe and Asia, to switch from production of beef cattle, which traditionally feed on pasture,
towards animals that eat from feedlots all year round, such as pigs (now the world’s largest meat
source) and poultry, which also now exceeds beef production.
It is often argued that raising animals and growing fodder crops is an inefficient use of land and
resources5. Around 4 kilos of grain are required to produce 1 kilo of pork, and 8 kilos are needed
for a kilo of beef. Certainly, the world’s growing desire for meat puts new stresses on agricultural
systems, and hence on two fundamental finite resources, land and water.
But there are counter-arguments. Animals provide many other resources, from hides and milk
to traction power and manure. And there is little evidence that meat production causes actual food
shortages, at any rate in the short term. Increasing use of feed grains does not generally appear
to have damaged production of cereals for human consumption, as the market often adjusts. In
times of food shortages, grain production for human consumption is maintained while production
for feed is reduced6.
In many countries wild animals, or bushmeat, remain a significant source of protein – from
rabbits through kangaroos to elephants. This informal, and often illegal, trade is rarely enumerated.
But the spread of guns, coupled with the opening up of forest regions along logging roads, is
thought to have dramatically increased the market in bushmeat in many countries. In equatorial
Africa, where elephant meat can turn up on supermarket shelves and apes are another delicacy,
recent estimates put this at more than 1 million tons a year7.
Not all animal protein comes from the land, however. The oceans have always been a major
60 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Meat and fish

A N I M A L P R O D U CT S P R O P O R T I O N O F D A I LY C A L O R I E I N T A K E M A D E
IN THE HUMAN UP OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS, 1998
DIET, 1998
Calories per Less than 5%
capita per day
5-10%
North America
10-15%
Milk 15% Beef 12%

Pigmeat 15-20%
Cheese 14%
13%
20-25%

Eggs 25-30%
5% Poultry
Fish 3% 17%
Other 21%
30-35%

1 018 calories 35-40%

40-45%
Latin America and
Caribbean Insufficient data

While the diet of the world’s wealthier nations generally contains a higher proportion
Milk 33% Beef 20%
of animal products than that of the developing world, there are some notable
exceptions amongst those countries with a long-standing tradition of livestock
Mutton
1% husbandry or fishing.
Pigmeat
11%

Cheese
4%
Eggs 5% Poultry
14%
Fish 3%
Other 9% TOP FISH PRODUCERS T O P M E AT P R O D U C E R S
541 calories Metric % of world % of world Metric % of world % of world
tons of production population tons of production population
fish 1997 1997 meat 1999 1999

Europe China 36 333 545 29.75 21.37 China 59 356 512 26.27 21.19
Peru 7 877 252 6.45 0.42 USA 37 179 800 16.46 4.62
Beef 8% Japan 6 690 716 5.48 2.16 Brazil 13 123 030 5.81 2.81
Mutton 2% Chile 6 083 913 4.98 0.25 France 6 462 480 2.86 0.98
Milk 19%
USA 5 448 385 4.46 4.67 Germany 6 340 270 2.81 1.37
Pigmeat India 5 378 004 4.40 16.59 Spain 4 875 330 2.16 0.66
21%
Russia 4 715 024 3.86 2.54 India 4 677 070 2.07 16.69
Cheese Indonesia 4 403 810 3.61 3.49 Russia 4 344 000 1.92 2.46
10% Thailand 3 488 104 2.86 1.03 Mexico 4 289 282 1.90 1.63
Norway 3 222 970 2.64 0.08 Italy 4 043 075 1.79 0.96
Korea, Rep. 2 596 474 2.13 0.79 Canada 3 779 300 1.67 0.52
Eggs 5% Iceland 2 209 607 1.81 0.005 Argentina 3 702 561 1.64 0.61
Poultry
6% Philippines 2 136 249 1.75 1.23 Australia 3 606 100 1.60 0.31
Fish 4%
Denmark 1 865 760 1.53 0.09 UK 3 591 848 1.59 0.99
Other 25% Vietnam 1 546 000 1.27 1.31 Japan 2 998 288 1.33 2.12
Mexico 1 528 520 1.25 1.62 Poland 2 971 500 1.32 0.65
915 calories Argentina 1 352 400 1.11 0.61 Netherlands 2 935 900 1.30 0.26
Bangladesh 1 342 730 1.10 2.11 Pakistan 2 270 180 1.00 2.55
Spain 1 341 311 1.10 0.68 Denmark 2 006 853 0.89 0.09
Malaysia 1 276 282 1.04 0.36 Philippines 1 996 683 0.88 1.25
Source: FAO. Source: FAO; UNPD.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Meat and fish 61

A N I M A L P R O D U CT S
IN THE HUMAN
DIET, 1998
Calories per
capita per day

Africa

Milk 30% Beef 15%

Mutton
8%

Pigmeat
7%
Cheese
3% Poultry
Eggs 4% 7%
Fish 8% Other 18%

178 calories

Asia
Beef 5%
Milk 14% Mutton 3%

Cheese
1%
Eggs
9%

Fish Pigmeat
9% 36%

Source: FAO.
Other 16%
Poultry 7%
W O R L D F I S H * A N D M E AT P R O D U C T I O N
353 calories
240 240
Million
metric tons
200 200 Oceania
Meat
Beef 11%
160 160 Milk 18%

Mutton
13%
120 120 Cheese
8%
Fish
Eggs
80 80 3% Pigmeat
Fish 4% 10%
Poultry
40 40 Other 22% 11%

0 0 896 calories
1969 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
* Includes all marine and freshwater fish
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
62 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Meat and fish

THE GROWTH source of sustenance – and never more so than today. Though for how much longer this “wild” food
OF WORLD source will fulfill a dominant role in meeting human dietary needs is far from clear.
A Q U A C U LT U R E Worldwide, humanity gets 16 percent of its animal protein from marine sources. Around half a
Fre s h w a t e r a n d billion people gain their livelihoods from harvesting the oceans. Over the past 50 years, the
marine fisheries world’s fishing industry has changed from a largely local and coastal trade – which depleted fish
30 stocks near heavily populated areas but left the rest of the ocean alone – into a global activity with
Million metric tons global impacts.
25
Of some 3 million fishing vessels known to be at sea worldwide, more than a million are large
20
“industrial” vessels that can and do travel the globe. South American ships fish off New Zealand,
15 Japanese trawlers work the South Atlantic and so on.
10 The world’s marine fish catch increased fivefold between 1950 and 1990, reaching around
5 90 million tons a year. But these global fisheries are now themselves facing a crisis of diminishing
0
returns – a classic global “tragedy of the commons” in which a shared resource is depleted by
1984 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 short-term greed because there is no common policy to maintain it for the long term. Despite
Source: FAO. increasing investment in ships, nets and tracking equipment, the catch has stagnated since 1990.
Current estimates are that it costs between US$90 billion and US$130 billion annually to land a
global fish catch worth US$70 billion, the difference being met by government subsidies8.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), nine of the
world’s 17 major international fish stocks are at or beyond the point at which yields will decline.
One extreme case is the North Atlantic, where cod stocks are at half their former levels. The
Grand Banks cod fishery off Newfoundland, tapped for more than 500 years since the Basques
first found it, was shut in 1993 after a collapse in stocks, putting thousands out of work. The North
Sea’s cod fishery could soon go the same way9. Asian fleets fished out the North Atlantic squid
stocks in the 1980s. Atlantic mackerel, redfish and herring catches are all less than half their size
of 30 years ago.
Increasingly, the world is turning to aquaculture to maintain fish supplies. It is the fastest-
growing food production system in the world, with global production increasing by 11 percent
annually through most of the 1990s until around a quarter of the fish brought to table came from
aquaculture. Most of this relates to just a few species: carp in China, easily the world’s largest
fish farmers; catfish in the United States; and salmon in Europe10.
But there has been an ecological price to pay. Fish farms are an increasingly important mar-
ket for feed, including grain and fishmeal. The growing demand for fishmeal means that production
from aquaculture is not simply an addition to wild catches, but consumes a significant fraction of
that catch.
Aquaculture has become a major threat to coastal ecosystems, particularly mangroves. From
Ecuador to the Philippines, mangroves are being converted on a huge scale into brackish shrimp
ponds in what has been characterized as the aquatic equivalent of “slash-and-burn” farming11. In
the past four decades Indonesians have converted 269 000 hectares of mangroves to shrimp ponds
to supply the international market. Most are productive for less than a decade before loss of nutrients
and a build-up of toxins forces them to be abandoned and replaced12.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Forest products 63

Fo re st p ro d u c t s

ORESTS ARE A PRINCIPAL global economic as well as

F ecological resource. This creates major challenges for the

world as it tries to find ways of using them sustainably – to
benefit their inhabitants and the wider community while
maintaining their many ecological functions.

Forests have arguably played a bigger role in the development of human societies than any other
resource, bar water and cultivable land1. The prime direct or marketable product of most forests
today is wood for use as timber, fuelwood, pulp and paper, providing some 3.4 billion cubic meters
of timber-equivalent a year globally. After a 60 percent increase between 1960 and 1990, global
wood consumption fluctuated but rose no further during the 1990s, largely due to the more effi-
cient use of timber and paper recycling.
There is no sharp divide in total wood consumption between poor and rich nations, largely
because poor nations have a large demand for wood as fuel. The world’s leading per-capita con-
sumers of timber (all using more than three times the global average) include nations at all
levels of economic development: Liberia and Zambia; Malaysia and Costa Rica; Sweden and the
United States of America. By continent, Africa is the second largest per-capita consumer of wood,
after North America2.
But the way wood is used varies dramatically with levels of economic development.
Worldwide, half of consumption is for fuel, but in developing countries this figure rises to 80
percent. For almost 3 billion people, wood is the main energy source for heating and cooking.
While the collection of wood for fuel is generally a less important cause of deforestation than for-
est clearance for farming, it is a prime cause of the loss of African tropical forests, particularly in
the hinterland of cities, which still rely on wood for their energy requirements. Many countries,
particularly in Asia, face a growing domestic shortage of wood for this basic purpose, notably
Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan3.
Among industrialized nations, the predominant use of wood is as “industrial roundwood”, a
category that encompasses building material, paper and packaging. Each citizen of the United
States uses 15 times as much wood for this purpose as an average citizen of a developing country.
Over half the timber harvested for industrial use goes to North America, Europe and Japan, a fig-
ure that rises to 70 percent for paper. Global paper use has grown sixfold since 1950, using a fifth
of all the wood harvested4.
With the exception of China and Brazil – two very large wood-producing nations – most
industrial roundwood production takes place in the developed world. Industrialized nations both
produce and consume more than twice as much industrial roundwood as developing countries5.
The focus of industrial roundwood production is moving towards harvesting from plantations.
Between 1980 and 1995, the extent of plantations doubled to 180 million hectares, an area the size of
Mexico6. They offer the potential for high yields of fast-growing species on small areas of land, off-
setting the cost of planting, and offering a viable source of timber where accessible natural forests
64 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Forest products

W O R L D F U E LW O O D WORLD TIMBER PRODUCTION, 1998

R e g i o n a l p ro d u c t i o n Cubic meters

900 More than 400 million

Million cubic meters

Asia

600
100-400 million
Latin America Africa
and Caribbean
300
25-100 million
Other
0
1973 78 83 88 93 98 10-25 million

To p p ro d u ce rs , 1 9 9 8 5-10 million

Cubic meters
1-5 million
India 274 334 000
China 190 947 000
100 000-1 million
Indonesia 157 023 008
Brazil 114 052 000
Nigeria 89 096 000 Less than 100 000
USA 70 160 000
Ethiopia 47 665 000
Congo, Dem. Rep. 45 910 000 Insufficient data
Russia 39 910 000
Philippines 39 046 000
Source: FAO.
While developing and developed countries produce similar amounts of raw
timber, wealthier industrialized countries use a much higher proportion for
manufacturing purposes, for example paper and furniture production.
Developing countries use much of their timber as fuelwood.

WORLD CHARCOAL
R e g i o n a l p ro d u c t i o n
10
Million metric tons

Latin America Africa

and Caribbean
6 WORLD TIMBER PRODUCTION
4
Asia 0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 Million 3 500
2 cubic
Other meters
1973
0
1973 78 83 88 93 98
1978
To p p ro d u ce rs , 1 9 9 8
Metric tons 1983

Brazil 3 600 000

India 2 259 000 1988
Kenya 2 233 000
Nigeria 1 468 000
Sudan 1 159 000 1993
Zambia 1 041 000
USA 853 000
Ghana 752 000 1998
Thailand 669 000
North Latin America Europe Africa Asia Oceania
Colombia 661 000 America and Caribbean
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Forest products 65

T O P P LY W O O D
P R O D U C E R S , 1998
Cubic meters

USA 15 732 000

Indonesia 7 015 000
China 4 978 000
Malaysia 3 904 000
Japan 3 267 000
Canada 1 750 000
Brazil 1 500 000
Russia 1 094 000
Finland 992 000
Korea, Rep. 641 000
88% of plywood is produced in
these countries
Source: FAO.

TO P PA P E R A N D
PA P E R B O A R D
P R O D U C E R S , 1998
Metric tons

USA 75 812 000

China 32 333 000
Japan 29 886 000
Canada 21 207 000
Germany 16 311 000
Finland 12 703 000
Sweden 9 879 000
France 9 143 000
Italy 8 246 000
Korea, Rep. 7 749 000
76% of paper and paperboard is
produced in these countries
Source: FAO.
Source: FAO.

W O R L D PA P E R A N D PA P E R B O A R D P R O D U CT I O N TO P PA P E R A N D
120 120
PA P E R B O A R D
Million Household and sanitary paper
CONSUMERS*, 1998
metric tons
Newsprint Metric tons
100 100
Printing and writing paper
USA 80 175 300
Packaging and cardboard China 39 358 600
80 80 Japan 30 126 000
Germany 16 856 000
UK 11 785 900
60 60 France 10 613 000
Canada 9 678 300
Italy 9 584 000
40 40 Brazil 6 598 600
Spain 6 189 000
75% of paper and paperboard
20 20 produced worldwide is consumed
in these countries

0 0 * Production plus imports minus

1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 exports
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
66 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S Forest products

TO P P R O D U C E R S are in increasingly short supply7. Previously a feature largely of industrialized countries, plantations
O F S E L E CT E D are now being cultivated in developing countries, with most of them planning to double their
FO R E S T plantations by 20108.
P R O D U CT S , 1 9 9 8 Plantations take some of the stress off natural forests, but only for as long as natural forests are
not logged to make way for them. There is increasing evidence that they do not confer the same
N a t u ra l r u b b e r
Metric tons ecological benefits. For example, they do not provide the same protection against soil erosion and
flooding9 and they are more vulnerable to fires. They are normally monocultures with a seriously
Thailand 2 162 411
Indonesia 1 564 324 impoverished biological diversity, and offer virtually none of the non-timber forest products of the
Malaysia 885 700 kind that sustain many local economies and cultures.
India 550 000
China 440 000 Non-timber forest products include fruits and nuts, rattan, medicinal plants and bushmeat.
Vietnam 225 700 Many people living in or near tropical rainforests rely for half or more of their protein on wild
Côte d’Ivoire 115 668
Sri Lanka 95 710
animals caught in the forest. The subsistence meat harvest in the Brazilian Amazon is put at up to
Nigeria 90 000 160 000 tons a year, or up to 20 million animals. A study in the rainforests of southern Cameroon
Philippines 64 000 found more than 500 plant species and 280 animal species in use and often on sale in local
95% of world production markets10.
Because many non-timber forest products are used within the forests or traded informally, their
C o co n u t s value to national and community economies is frequently underestimated by governments when
Metric tons
considering the economic potential of natural forests relative to other land uses. One exception was
Indonesia 13 000 000
India 11 100 000 the formation of “extractive reserves” in the Brazilian Amazon in the late 1980s, dedicated to Brazil
Philippines 10 905 300 nut harvesting, rubber tapping and other non-destructive uses of the forest.
Sri Lanka 1 850 000
But just as timber can be overharvested, so can these non-timber resources, especially when
Thailand 1 372 000
Mexico 1 302 500 local products gain access to large urban markets. The African bushmeat industry, which has
Vietnam 1 271 380 become an international business, may exceed a million tons a year. Such levels of exploitation
Papua New Guinea 734 000
Malaysia 711 000 are unsustainable and can damage the forest ecology, since the same animals often disperse
Brazil 652 213 seeds11.
91% of world production In an effort to promote more sustainable management of natural forests, environmental groups
and foresters around the world have banded together to certify and label for customers timber and
Coir other products that come from well-managed forests. The largest of these consortiums is the
Metric tons
Forest Stewardship Council, which by 1999 had issued certificates approving over 15 million
India 450 000 hectares of forest worldwide. Many major retail groups in Europe and North America have pledged
Sri Lanka 130 000
Malaysia 32 200 to purchase timber products only from such supplies.
Bangladesh 11 420 Governments are also increasingly attempting to realize value from their forests by charging
Thailand 8 000
access fees to ecotourists, hunters, or scientists seeking plant-based pharmaceuticals.
100% of world production

B ra z i l n u t s
Metric tons
Bolivia 30 000
Brazil 23 000
Côte d’Ivoire 5 200
Peru 431
Ghana 5
100% of world production
Source: FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S International trade 67

International
t ra d e

econciling open trade with environmental protection is a

R central dilemma for the world in the 21st century. Trade

issues go to the heart of whether increased wealth is good
or bad for the environment. Will global markets provide the
means to take ecological concerns into account, or merely
encourage the excessive consumption, pollution and waste that stoke
the engines of environmental destruction?

Trade has been one of the driving forces of civilization since antiquity, when maritime trade through
the Indian and Pacific Oceans sustained Chinese imperial dynasties. The search for spices, gold and
other luxuries first brought Europe into regular contact with both Asia and Africa, while trade sus-
tained the early colonies of the Americas.
Trade, by expanding export markets and boosting timber demand for ships, has always had the
potential to trigger environmental destruction. Plantations of crops bound for Europe displaced
most of the coastal rainforests of West Africa in the 19th century1. More recently, Japanese demand
for timber fuelled the plundering of the rainforests of Southeast Asia. But trade has allowed other
countries to conserve natural resources through substituting local products with imports.
World trade at the start of the 21st century is running at unprecedented levels and for the
first time is being regulated by a single body. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was set up in
1996 and has more than 130 member nations. But its rules, which aim to maximize global
trading, present a dilemma for environmental protection. On the one hand they encourage eco-
nomic efficiency which, by ensuring the careful use of materials, should also promote environ-
mental efficiency. On the other, they may undermine livelihoods and invalidate national and
international laws framed to address specific environmental threats.
Most economic activities create ecological "externalities", such as pollution or loss of finite nat-
ural resources, that are not reflected in the price of the product. Some governments attempt to fill
this gap by taxes on pollution, regulations on the environmental behavior of manufacturers, or sub-
sidies for environmentally preferable methods. But such interventions can be seen as “protectionist”
if they skew trade against foreign competitors.
A parallel debate concerns the role of wealth in environmental protection. Some argue that
poverty is the real enemy of the environment, and that increasing trade opens up markets for the
products of the poor, diminishing poverty and providing the means, incentives and technical know-
how to use resources efficiently and invest in cleaner production, thereby encouraging sustainable
economic growth2.
Others believe that a growth in international trade is already undermining poor economies by
increasing penetration by foreign companies. They say that this process has hastened the pauper-
ization of Africa, whose share of world exports fell from 4.2 percent in 1985 to 2.3 percent in 1996,
of which South Africa made up almost a quarter3.
Proponents of lowering barriers to trade argue that bans on subsidies for farming and the
68 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S International trade

MERCHANDISE, 1998 MAJOR TRADE FLOWS IN OIL, 1999

To p e x p o r t e rs Million metric tons
Value % of world
Billion US$ exports
USA 682.5 12.6 22.7
Germany 539.7 10.0
Japan 387.9 7.2
France 304.8 5.6 146.6
39.1 207
UK 272.9 5.0
Italy 242.3 4.5 30.1
Canada 214.3 4.0 74.4
Netherlands 198.7 3.7 120.7 96 188.8 17.3
China 183.8 3.4 64.6
Benelux 178.5 3.3 128.5
292
21.2
To p i m p o r t e rs 20.3
34.7 38.5
Value % of world
Billion US$ imports 40.1
59.7 20.6
USA 944.4 16.8
Germany 466.6 8.3
UK 315.2 5.6
France 286.3 5.1
Japan 280.5 5.0
Italy 215.6 3.8
Canada 206.2 3.7 Source: BP.
Hong Kong* 186.8 3.3
(China) Canada (to USA) Nigeria (to USA; UK; Malaysia)
Netherlands 184.2 3.3
Benelux 166.5 3.0
Mexico (to USA) Middle East (to USA; South/Central America; Northern
* Imports less re-exports = 36.5; Venezuela (to USA) Europe; East Africa; Japan; China; Singapore/Malaysia)
share = 0.6 North Sea (to USA; Canada) CIS (to South/Southeast Europe)
North Africa (to France) Indonesia (to Japan; Australia; China)
COMMERCIAL
SERVICES, 1998
To p e x p o r t e rs
Value % of world GROWTH OF WORLD TRADE
Billion US$ exports
7 000 Africa
USA 240.0 18.2
UK 100.5 7.6 Middle East
Billion US$ Central and
France 84.6 6.4 Eastern Europe
Germany 78.9 6.0 6 000
Italy 66.6 5.1 Latin America
and Caribbean
Japan 61.8 4.7
Netherlands 51.6 3.9 North America
Spain 48.7 3.7 5 000
Benelux 35.4 2.7
Hong Kong 34.2 2.6
(China) 4 000
Asia (excl. Middle East)
and Oceania
To p i m p o r t e rs
Value % of world 3 000
Billion US$ imports
USA 165.8 12.7
Germany 125.0 9.6 2 000
Japan 110.7 8.5
UK 78.8 6.0 Western Europe
France 65.4 5.0
Italy 62.9 4.8 1 000
Netherlands 46.6 3.6
Canada 35.2 2.7
Benelux 33.9 2.6 0
Austria 30.1 2.3 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: WTO. Source: WTO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S International trade 69

M A J O R T R A D E F L O W S I N W H E AT A N D W H E AT F L O U R , 1 9 9 7 COMMODITY
Million metric tons PRICES
Agricultural raw materials
200
8.7 Index
(1970=100)
150
Logs
(Cameroon)
13.7 100
1.4
3.6
50 Cotton
1.6 2.4
4.2 Rubber
0
1.7 1970 1980 1990 99
7.8
8.4 Grains Index
120 (1970=100)
1.4
4.6 100
2.0 13.7
80
1.8
60
Wheat
40 Rice
Maize
20
4.8 1970 1980 1990 99
Beverages Index
(1970=100)
140
Source: FAO. 120
100
Canada (to Africa; Asia; South/Central America; North America; Europe)
80 Tea
USA (to Africa; Asia; South/Central America; Europe)
60 Coffee
Argentina (to Africa; Asia; South/Central America) 40 (Arabica)

European Union (to Africa; Asia) Cocoa

20
Australia (to Africa; Asia) 1970 1980 1990 99
Other food Index
250 (1970=100)

200
Sugar
150 (world)

100
Soybeans
50
0 Beef
1970 1980 1990 99
Energy Index
1 000 (1970=100)

TRADE FLOWS IN WOOD AND WOOD PRODUCTS, 1997 800

Between selected producers and importers (US$ thousands) Petroleum
600
Natural gas
400 (USA)
To
Canada China France Germany Italy Japan UK USA 200 Coal
From (Australia,
Brazil 15 202 92 259 136 785 102 717 91 478 210 854 208 198 616 707 0 1980=100)

Canada – 632 571 221 999 624 768 436 431 2 633 646 459 665 17 744 929 1970 1980 1990 99
China 1 444 – 249 1 649 1 421 279 775 5 170 20 037 Metals Index

Finland 47 493 213 473 753 657 1 956 913 341 561 346 636 1 467 817 574 507 100 (1970=100)
France 37 488 147 947 – 767 392 524 446 18 710 449 700 142 688
Germany 45 299 263 845 1 158 327 – 810 763 62 978 1 481 371 575 841 80
Indonesia 11 620 1 336 311 36 139 62 357 71 835 1 471 700 110 066 385 175
Iron ore
Malaysia 8 961 878 757 33 176 58 840 25 300 1 816 419 85 293 143 418 60
Russia 3 297 210 620 43 022 110 755 100 462 617 660 113 967 60 704 Nickel
Sweden 12 717 159 006 650 023 2 037 475 556 635 184 999 1 789 568 134 542 40
USA 3 146 159 1 319 397 325 170 722 209 671 410 2 513 838 672 982 –
20 Copper
The flows between these countries represent 41% of world trade in roundwood, wood panels, sawnwood, 1970 1980 1990 99
pulp and paper.
Source: FAO. Source: WTO.
70 P O P U L AT I O N A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S
Tra d e
dependency
The extent to which
countries are dependent on
international trade depends
on many factors, including
population and natural
resources. Small, rich
countries with few natural
resources but high
populations are generally the
most dependent on trade.
Thus the top ten countries
for whom trade represents
the highest proportion of
GDP include Singapore
(top at 93 percent), Panama,
Bahrain and the Netherlands
Antilles. The ten least trade-
dependent nations are
mostly those that are
politically isolated (Iraq,
Myanmar, Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea),
poorest and most politically
dislocated (Democratic
Republic of Congo, Liberia,
Haiti) or the richest with
large internal markets
(United States, Japan). The
last two, though not trade-
dependent, nevertheless
occupy top places in volumes
of trade by virtue of their
economic size.
International trade
energy industries will benefit the environment. One test case concerns Western agriculture, where
subsidies designed to maintain rural populations have encouraged more intensive farming, includ-
ing heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers. The hidden environmental and human health costs of
modern farming methods in Britain have been put at US$350 per hectare each year, approaching
the value of European Union subsidies4. If future trade rules outlawed the subsidies, economists
and environmentalists agree that these environmental costs would also fall as farming became
less intensive.
Another test case is Chinese energy. State subsidies are a major cause of the overuse of fossil
fuels, causing smogs and acid deposition and adding to climate change. During the late 1990s, while
negotiating to join the WTO, China cut subsidies on coal by more than 50 percent. This resulted in
real cuts in the use of coal at a time when its economy was growing by an average of 8 percent
a year5.
One important impact of international trade, particularly on fast-growing countries, is to
increase the impetus for their economies to be based on specialization for export markets. In
developing countries still heavily dependent on agriculture, this typically means a commodity crop
such as coffee, cocoa or bananas. This can both encourage deforestation and the drainage of wet-
lands, and push once biodiverse farming areas into species-poor monocultures of varieties
frequently alien to local ecosystems – with high inputs of toxic chemicals such as pesticides.
The WTO's charter, however, does require it to promote environmentally responsible trade and
allows it to exempt conservation laws from its rules banning protectionism. The Organization for-
mally recognizes some international environmental legislation as a legitimate constraint on trade,
including the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Destroy the Ozone Layer. But a series of rulings
in its first years appeared to back trade against the environment.
In 1998, for example, it ruled against the United States, which had banned imports of shrimps
worth US$2.5 billion a year from four Asian countries – Thailand, Pakistan, Malaysia and the
Philippines – because fishermen in these countries used nets that captured up to 20 000 en-
dangered Olive Ridley turtles. Such nets were illegal under United States law. The WTO invoked the
rule that it is generally illegal to discriminate, either through labelling or outright bans, between
identical products on the basis of how they are produced.
The shadow of the WTO has also hung over negotiations for future environmental laws. These
include proposed controls on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as pesticides, and on
genetically modified (GM) products. Talks on a Biosafety Protocol under the Convention on Biological
Diversity broke down in early 1999 because of fears that it could become a protectionist device,
but agreement was nevertheless reached early in 2000, setting rules for controlling trade in GM
products. The Protocol explicitly allows countries to respond to fears about health or environmental
dangers from GM by preventing trade, but also leaves them open to WTO sanctions.
Despite such concerns, the governments of industrialized countries have generally argued that
the environment should play a bigger role in trade law. But some developing countries say this will
undermine their economic development by imposing “Western” environmental laws more appro-
priate to richer economies.
Behind all this are cultural as well as economic and environmental concerns about the impact of
globalization. The globalization of trade in agricultural goods is likely to intensify standardization of
farming methods and crops, ensuring a further loss of species and genetic diversity on the farm.
Moreover, current concepts of free trade are hard to reconcile with successful communal styles of
ownership of land and resources that often underpin indigenous communities that live in greater
harmony with their environment. A global standardization on Western lifestyles, it is argued, will
promote air pollution through car ownership, meat-rich diets and a hundred other polluting and
resource-depleting activities.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Introduction 71

Po p u l a t i o n
and landuse

ver thousands of years, humans have occupied most of the land

O surface of the planet, affecting its ecosystems in ways that

have ranged from the subtle management of forests to the total
transformation involved in creating the urban environment. Too
often humankind has tamed nature by destroying it. However,
new land management strategies that seek to answer human needs
while respecting natural ecosystems offer some solutions.

For much of human existence, the land available for human use has appeared limitless. Wherever
population densities rose too high for comfort, or the natural resource base declined, people moved
on to occupy new lands, whether a neighboring woodland or a new country.
Extensification – the expansion of arable land – has overwhelmingly been a response to fast-
rising populations, with subsistence in food the main driving force. The 60 years from 1860 to 1920
saw 440 million hectares of land brought under cultivation (an area larger than India)1. More than
half of this took place in the temperate lands of North America and in the region that became the
Soviet Union. A similar scale of transformation took place in the subsequent 60 years, from 1920 to
1980. By then, most of the potentially productive temperate lands of the northern hemisphere,
including Europe and East Asia, were occupied and the rate of population growth was slackening.
The new “frontier lands”, where population growth rates remained high, were in Africa, South Asia
and South America.
New land for arable farming has generally been obtained through the annexation of grazing
pastures, deforestation and the drainage of wetlands. The largest areas of pasture “lost” to crop-
land were in the United States Great Plains, the South African veldt, the Russian steppe and the
campos and pampas of Brazil and Argentina. This type of conversion destroys many herds of wild
animals, whether bison, gazelles or elephants, while the compression of flocks into ever smaller
and more arid regions contributes to soil degradation and desertification.
Drainage has been under way in Europe for many centuries, but only became a worldwide
phenomenon in the late 19th century, as the global market for commodities grew and new drainage
technologies emerged. These used cheap clay-tile pipes and steam-powered machines for digging
ditches and other heavy work. Passage of the Swamp Lands Acts in the United States accelerated
drainage of much of the Midwest, encouraging the conversion of land to agriculture at a time of
rising grain prices.
Arid lands, meanwhile, have been made agriculturally productive through irrigation. Again,
the western states of the United States led the way, but equivalent areas elsewhere, including
modern India, Pakistan and Egypt, also came under irrigation, largely carried out by British
colonial engineers.
As the global economy has grown, ever more land has been cleared, drained or irrigated to
plant cash crops for export, such as sugar and palm oil, coffee and rubber, or to grow food crops
for livestock. With the potential for new colonization reduced in much of the world, farming has
72 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Introduction

WORLD LANDUSE, H U M A N T R A N S F O R M AT I O N O F T H E L A N D ,
1998+ L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
Arable land
1 380 m hectares Almost pristine
Permanent
crops*
132 m hectares Partially transformed
Permanent
pasture
3 427 m hectares Almost fully transformed

Forest and
woodland
3 454 m hectares
Other While the map shows a considerable proportion of the world’s
4 656 m hectares
including 200 m hectares land mass as “almost pristine”, in reality little of it has
of built up land
escaped the hand of humankind. The relatively recently
Total world land area: discovered and still only partially understood phenomena of
13 049 million hectares
global distillation (see page 98) and climate change are
0.1% 12% expected to have profound effects on those parts of the planet
14%
North that have escaped deliberate transformation.
America
1 872 m
24%
hectares 49%

1% 7%
Latin 15%
30%
America and
Caribbean
2 018 m
hectares 47%

8% 1% 13%
Europe**
2 260 m
hectares
40% 38%

1% 6%
Africa 30% R O A D N E T W O R K D E N S I T Y , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
2 964 m Kilometers of route per 100 square kilometers of land area
hectares 46%

17%

2%
16%
Asia
34%
3 085 m
hectares
33%

15%
0.3% 7%
Oceania
849 m
hectares 51% 31%
Less than 1
11% 1-10
+ Figures for forests and woodland 10-20
are 1995 data and are approximate
20-40
* Crops that do not have to be re-
sown each year 40-60
** Including Russia, where most of
60-80
Europe’s forest is found
Source: FAO; WRI.
80 or more Source: ESRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Introduction 73

P O P U L AT I O N
ENGAGED IN
A G R I C U LT U R E
Actual numbers

Developed countries
Developing countries
2 500
Millions
2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: FAO.

PROPORTION OF
P O P U L AT I O N
ENGAGED IN
A G R I C U LT U R E
Source: ESRI.
80
% Africa
70

60 Asia

World
50
HUMAN DISTURBANCE, BY REGION, 1990s
40 Latin America
Undisturbed Partially disturbed Human dominated and Caribbean
% % %

Europe 15.6 19.6 64.9 30

Asia 42.2 29.1 28.7
Africa 48.9 35.8 15.4 Oceania
North America 56.3 18.8 24.9 20
Latin America and Caribbean 62.5 22.5 15.1
Australasia 62.3 25.8 12.0 Europe
Antarctica 100.0 0.0 0.0 10
World 51.9 24.2 23.9 North America
World reduced by area 27.0 36.7 36.3
of rock, ice and barren land 0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Source: UNEP. Source: FAO.

74 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Introduction

increasingly invested in intensification, through purchases of fertilizers, high-yield seeds and

machinery. Most of this investment has not been by subsistence farmers, however, but by com-
mercial farmers, both large and small, responding to market conditions2. Intensification – and
extensification where it is still possible – became dependent on markets, with demand driven by
increased consumption per person as well as population growth.
While less important in terms of area, mining, industrial development and urbanization have
also contributed to the transformation of natural ecosystems into human landscapes. For instance,
Brazilian deforestation began in the 16th century and intensified with the discovery of gold. It has
been estimated that 95 000 square kilometers of Brazilian rainforest were lost to gold mining in
the 18th century3.
The second half of the 20th century saw an unprecedented covering of the landscape with urban
concrete and tarmac, destroying or displacing wildlife and causing major disruption to drainage and
rivers by preventing natural seepage. Drains replaced rivers in great urban areas such as
Metropolitan Tokyo, the largest concreted area on Earth. Concrete has also been used in an effort
(sometimes misguided) to manage other aspects of the environment – to prevent flooding, coastal
erosion and landslides, for instance. It has been estimated that the banks and beds of a fifth of
Japan’s rivers are concreted4.
But urbanization and high population density need not mean the loss of all wildlife habitats.
Though far from “natural”, suburban residential areas and abandoned industrial landscapes
are increasingly recognized as important reservoirs of wildlife – often more so than neighboring
agricultural landscapes5. In England and elsewhere in Europe, a high proportion of the rare and
endangered species of invertebrates and flowering plants such as orchids live in former urban
industrial sites6,7. Green strips of land either side of highways and railroads often act as migration
corridors for wildlife through urban areas.
But even densely populated agricultural landscapes can be managed to maximize their eco-
logical value. “Agroecology” looks to maximize biological output while lowering chemical inputs8.
Some of the best examples have been researched by anthropologists looking at traditional farming
systems, such as the “home gardens” of Java (one of the world’s most densely populated islands).
These gardens may grow up to 90 species of plants, including crops of coffee, mango, guava, toma-
toes and so on, beneath a forest-like canopy.
Conversely, thinly populated landscapes can suffer appalling ecological degradation. Where land
is not in short supply it may be wasted and degraded as if it were an essentially infinite resource.
The oilfields of western Siberia are a spectacular example of a wetland landscape that, while almost
uninhabited, is highly degraded – fragmented and polluted by roads, powerlines, pipelines, survey
tracks, well flares and waste sumps9. Similarly, relatively thinly spread populations of settlers in the
Brazilian Amazon have cleared huge areas of forest for pasture.
Human occupation of the land does not necessarily destroy ecosystems. It may simply trans-
form them, creating new habitats. The growing organic farming movement in developed countries is
combining quality food production with low or no chemical inputs, benefiting biodiversity as well,
it is argued, as human health. Equally, sustainable forest harvesting, encouraged by the Forest
Stewardship Council and others, can command premium prices for production systems geared to
both ecological and human needs. Despite many failures, humankind is increasingly learning to
manage ecosystems for sustainable use rather than to sacrifice them to human development.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Croplands 75

C ro p l a n d s

HE WORLD has doubled food production in the past 35 years,

T more than keeping pace with population growth. This has

largely been made possible by new crop varieties, increased
chemical inputs to fields and the extension of land under
irrigation. But it is questionable whether we can continue to
increase output as populations rise.

Of the world’s agricultural land, only around a third is used to grow crops, with the remaining two
thirds dedicated to livestock pasture. In recent decades, for the first time in history, increased yields
have been achieved largely through intensified farming, rather than by extending the tilled land.
Sustained by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and mechanization, the use of a few high-
yield crop varieties has developed and spread, contributing to an enterprise known generically as
the “green revolution”. This has also, of course, been driven by demographics – the demand of more
mouths to feed and, in the developing world, more people working in the fields.
The green revolution has modified natural ecosystems into a highly simplified and nutrient-rich
state. A handful of plants, bred into entirely new strains, have become the dominant plants on
the planet. The four main grain crops – wheat, rice, maize and barley – occupy a total of some 500
million hectares1, mostly in those countries with the highest populations. The green revolution was
not all good, however. It spread a farming method that relies heavily on chemical fertilizers, mono-
cultural cropping practices and decreased fallow times, coupled with more intensive plowing. Local
water supplies became degraded and crop diversity decreased, leading to land degradation and
erosion. Concern has increased over the implications of pests that thrive on now dominant strains of
grain and maize.
Chemical applications to fields have soared. The doubling of agricultural production during the
past 35 years has required a 600 percent increase in nitrogen fertilizer and a 250 percent increase in
phosphate fertilizer. This has been accompanied, over the same period, by a 70 percent increase
in irrigated cropland, but only a 10 percent increase in the area of cultivated land2. One immediate
effect of such high fertilizer use is that human activity has taken over from nature as the dominant
source of fixed nitrogen in the environment. Natural sources from soil bacteria, algae and lightning
release 140 million tons of fixed nitrogen a year; human sources now total 210 million tons per year,
of which 86 percent comes from agricultural activity, with fertilizer responsible for most of it3.
More than half of all the commercial fertilizer ever produced has been applied to fields since
1984. However, largely because of widespread overuse, a half of that application never reached
plant tissue, but evaporated or washed into rivers. The result has been a nitrogen overload of natural
ecosystems, particularly in Western Europe and East Asia, where average annual applications on
arable land are highest4. Application rates generally reflect wealth or the pressure in densely popu-
lated countries to raise food production.
Changes caused by nitrogen overload range from the seemingly harmless, such as the spread of
nettles in English hedgerows, to toxic algal blooms in lakes, rivers and coastal waters, resulting
76 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Croplands

WO R L D A R A B L E C R O P L A N D S AT R I S K O F D E G R A D AT I O N , 1 9 9 9
AND CROPLAND
B y re g i o n Very high risk
600
Million High risk
hectares
500 Asia
Moderate risk

400
Low risk
Europe
300

North America
200 The map shows cropland areas at risk of degradation on the
Africa
basis of susceptibility owing to climate and soil type, set
against population densities. Areas with susceptible soils and
100 Latin America
and Caribbean high population densities are considered most at risk.
Oceania However the risk is reduced wherever countries are taking
0
1963 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 active measures to preserve their soils.

Source: FAO.

A R A B L E L A N D P E R C A P I TA , B Y R E G I O N
Current and projected
2.0 2.0
GLOBAL SOIL Hectares
1.8 1.8
L I M I TAT I O N S T O
A G R I C U LT U R E 1.6 1998 1.6
2010
1.4 1.4
2025
Land with limitations
89% 1.2 1.2

Soil too wet 1.0 1.0

Soil too shallow 10%
22%
Permafrost 0.8 0.8
6%
Soil too dry Chemical 0.6 0.6
28% limitations
23% 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

No limitations 0 0
11% North Latin America Europe Africa Asia Oceania
America and Caribbean
Source: FAO. Source: FAO; UNPD.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Croplands 77

WORLD CROP
YIELDS

Cereals, by region
5
Metric
tons per
hectare Europe
4
North
America
Asia
3
Latin America
and
Caribbean
2
World
Oceania
1
Africa

0
1963 68 73 78 83 88 93 98

Wo r l d a ve ra g e fo r
selected crops
Metric tons per hectare
60 20
50
15
40
30 Sugar cane 10 Potatoes
20
5
10
0 0
1963 98 1963 98
5 5
Source: WSP-USDA.
4 4
3 3
T R A C T O R S : A N I N D I C A T O R O F M E C H A N I Z AT I O N 2 2
Maize Rice (paddy)
Tractors in use, 1998, Increases in tractor use 1 1
selected countries 0
1963 98
0
1963 98
28
Tractors per thousand World 3 3
Million Oceania
agricultural workers 24 Barley
2 2 Soybeans

USA 777 Asia
France 641 20 Wheat
Japan 436 1 1
Africa
Spain 282
16
Libya 102 0 0
Argentina 69 1963 98 1963 98
Russia 56 12 Europe
1.0 1.0
Korea, Rep. 38
Chile 23 0.8 0.8 Coffee
8
Iran 12 Latin America 0.6 0.6 (green)

Botswana 8 and Caribbean
4 0.4 Lentils 0.4
Pakistan 4
Zimbabwe 3 North America 0.2 0.2
Vietnam 2
0 0 0
Kenya Less than 1 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 1963 98 1963 98
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
78 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Croplands

SHARE OF AREA from a process called eutrophication, and the leaching of key nutrients such as calcium and mag-
PLANTED TO nesium from soils5. In addition, nitrogen evaporation from soils (along with methane emissions from
MODERN CROP rice paddies) is contributing to global emissions of greenhouse gases.
VARIETIES IN Worldwide pesticide use has also soared, reaching 5 million tons annually6. Three quarters of
DEVELOPING pesticides, predominantly herbicides, are applied in Europe, North America and Japan, where farm-
COUNTRIES (%) ers can most easily afford them. In tropical developing countries the greatest need is for the more
toxic broad-spectrum insecticides, largely applied to export crops such as cotton, bananas and
Rice+
1970 1983 1991 coffee. In such export crop plantations, acute pesticide poisoning can affect 10 percent of the
workforce7. But the pesticide poison cycle reaches further. Pesticides evaporate into the atmosphere
Developing 30 59 74
countries at the point of use and circulate the planet, eventually distilling out in the chill air of the Arctic where
Sub-Saharan 4 15 id they poison polar bears, whales and even humans.
Africa
Hectare for hectare, most irrigated land is more productive than rainfed land, and in some
West Asia and 0 11 id
North Africa regions, such as the Nile delta and the Sind in Pakistan, it is essential to crop production. The
Asia* 12 48 67 amount of irrigated land worldwide has tripled since 1950 to cover 270 million hectares, account-
China 77 95 100
Latin America 4 28 58 ing for more than a third of the global harvest8. Most of this is in densely populated regions of Asia,
where it allows two or three crops a year, and in the Middle East, where without it there would be
Wheat+
1970 1983 1990
virtually no agriculture. In many parts of the world, countries are reaching absolute limits of
the availability of water (much as they did with farmable land 40 years ago) and must improve the
Developing 20* 59* 70 efficiency of its use if they are to raise production.
countries
Sub-Saharan 5 32 52 Increases in large stands of monoculture crops have had important ecological consequences.
Africa With this type of cultivation the range of plant pests becomes less diverse, but more abundant,
West Asia and 5 31 42
North Africa
reflecting the plants themselves. Organic matter in the soil is lost, altering the soil biota and gen-
Asia* 42 79 88 erally involving a loss of soil fertility. These changes increase the need for pesticides and fertilizers
China id id 70 and, combined with the physical impacts of erosion, cause soil degradation.
Latin America 11 68 82
Croplands tilled and then left without the protective cover of vegetation are particularly vulner-
Maize able to soil loss through wind and water erosion. Worldwide an estimated 12 million hectares
1990
of croplands fall out of use for this reason each year. Economists have estimated the value of this
Developing 57 lost soil, in terms of nutrients and water-holding capacity, at about US$400 billion a year9. Erosion
countries
Sub-Saharan 43
rates are highest in Asia, Africa and South America, estimated at typically 30 or 40 tons per hectare
Africa annually, while about half that amount is being lost in Europe and North America10. The high rates
West Asia and 53 reflect poor land management, poverty and the cultivation of marginal and sloping land, as well as
North Africa
Asia* 45 population density and the resulting pressure to cut fallow periods and grow several crops a year.
China 90 Land is also degraded by salinization – generally as a result of the waterlogging of irrigated land,
Latin America 46
which can bring salts to the surface, forming a white crust toxic to most plants.
+ Excluding tall varieties released
The rate of soil degradation raises questions about the long-term sustainability of yield
since 1965. If these varieties are
included, the area under modern increases without a rising tide of inputs11, while concern for sustainability has increased interest in
varieties increases, especially for new methods of farming, based on lower inputs and greater attention to ecological principles using
rice in Latin America
* Excluding China local knowledge and natural biological means of pest control12.
Source: FAO. Typical methods include using organic fertilizer from farm animals and planting leguminous
crops to fix nitrogen in the soil, growing plants that repel pests, protecting soils by terracing and
reducing tillage, and harvesting rainwater in arid regions.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Pastures 79

Pa st u re s

P
ASTURES, which cover more than a quarter of the Earth’s land Rainforest
surface, are facing pressures from the rapidly increasing clearance
demand for meat and from cultivators trying to convert them In Latin America in
to croplands. Can these seemingly fragile lands be sustainably
particular, rainforests are
managed, or must they fall prey to human consumption?
being cleared to make way

The world’s expanse of pastures – grazing lands ranging from the Argentinian pampas and the arid for cattle pastures. In Brazil,
scrublands of the Sahel, to the Mongolian grassland steppes and the rainfed grasslands of New for example, an estimated
Zealand – remained almost stationary during the past three centuries. Increases in the less densely 70 percent of deforestation
populated regions of tropical Africa and Latin America, often at the expense of forests, were has been attributed to
matched by declines, each of around 20 percent, in Europe, Southeast Asia and North America,
clearance for livestock. This
where increasing population densities forced a switch from grazing to more intensive cultivation
often destroys soil fertility
and the feeding of animals using grains such as maize1. More recently however, parts of Asia, par-
ticularly China and Saudi Arabia, have seen substantial increases, accounting for much of the within a few years, forcing
9 percent rise in global pasture land over the last 25 years2. the abandonment of some
It is estimated that 73 percent of the world’s grazing land has so deteriorated that it has lost at areas and the clearance of
least 25 percent of its animal carrying capacity3. Traditional livestock herders are often demonized as more forest8.
the cause, but some researchers have defended the traditional techniques of pastoralists, saying
that they have frequently been forced to occupy already degraded land – unsuitable for cultivation
because of its low and unreliable rains, poor drainage, extreme temperatures and rough terrain.
Moreover, the policies of many developing world governments towards pastures can often be
inappropriate, geared towards Western-style cattle grazing based on intensification, standardization
and individual land ownership. This is very different from the indigenous and ecologically more
viable methods of tropical rangeland management, based on diversity and migration across un-
fenced areas4. It has also been argued that rangeland vegetation and soils are far more resilient
than once assumed, able to recover when the animals move on or the rains return5.
Livestock provide meat, dairy products, hides, tallow and other products. They are also the main
source of motive power on more than 300 million hectares of cropland6 and represent a form of cap-
ital for many rural families, realizable in hard times or as a dowry for a bride. Around the world
grazing systems vary greatly. Even in rich developed countries large areas of land unsuitable for
cultivation are grazed with little or no chemical inputs – notably the hills and mountains of much of
Europe, and the sheep pastures of southern South America, Central Asia, Australia and New
Zealand. In such conditions, as well as in the tropics, livestock can improve biodiversity, soil and
vegetation cover – notably by removing and controlling the growth of “bush” that can trigger fires,
and by dispersing seeds on their hooves and in their dung7.
Manure from livestock is vital to land fertility in both natural and agricultural ecosystems,
particularly where national and personal incomes are too low to allow the purchase of chemical
fertilizers. While grazing and eating, ruminants in particular collect and concentrate nutrients
and convert them into manure, which fertilizes the soil and maintains soil structure. In effect their
80 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Pastures

W O R L D PA S T U R E W O R L D PA S T U R E , 1 9 9 8
By region Proportion of land area, by country
1 200
Million Less than 5%
hectares
Asia
1 000
5-10%
Africa
800
10-20%
Latin America
600 and Caribbean
20-30%

400 Oceania 30-40%

North America
200 40-50%
Europe
50-70%
0
1963 68 73 78 83 88 93 98
Source: FAO. More than 70%

Insufficient data

The map shows the percentage of a country’s land area

used permanently (five years or more) for herbaceous
forage crops, either cultivated or growing wild (wild prairie
or grazing land). Owing to varying definitions, shrubland
and savannah may also be included for some countries.

P O P U L AT I O N O F
GRASSLAND
ECOSYSTEMS,
L AT E 1 9 9 O s
300
Millions
250

200

150 S T O C K S O F FA R M A N I M A L S
Numbers in 1999 and % change since 1964
100
Cattle Sheep Goats Pigs Chickens
Millions % Millions % Millions % Millions % Millions %
50 1999 change 1999 change 1999 change 1999 change 1999 change

North America 111.50 -7 7.92 -71 1.43 -64 74.61 11 1 865.1 116
0 Latin America 351.55 88 87.83 -29 37.57 22 72.25 32 2 172.0 412
North America
Latin America
and Caribbean
Europe and Russia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East and
North Africa
Asia (excl. Middle East)
Oceania

and Caribbean
Europe 103.55 -10 138.27 6 14.98 14 172.81 50 1 252.7 32
Africa 223.34 72 240.34 76 205.64 109 27.02 336 1 142.1 274
Former USSR 62.28 -27 49.91 -63 5.81 3 35.37 -13 585.7 37
Asia 449.64 39 378.68 55 443.78 106 525.38 207 7 014.4 462
Oceania 363.40 1 293 165.72 -23 0.72 119 5.26 68 107.4 284
World 1 665.26 69 1 068.67 5 709.93 93 912.70 99 14 139.4 233

Source: WRI. Source: FAO.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Pastures 81

FA R M A N I M A L
PRODUCTS

Developed countries
Developing countries
400

Million metric tons

300

200
Cow milk

100
Beef
and veal
0
1964 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
50

40

Million metric tons

30

Pigmeat
20

10

0
1964 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
30

25

Million metric tons

Hen eggs
20

15

10
Poultry
5 meat
0
Source: FAO. 1964 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
10
A R E A S W H E R E G R A S S L A N D A N D S A V A N N A H P R E D O M I N AT E
8
Million metric tons

4
Goat milk
2
Goat meat
0
1964 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
5

4
Million metric tons

3
Sheep milk
2 Mutton
and lamb
1
Grassland
0
1964 69 74 79 84 89 94 99
Savannah/shrub Source: USGS. Source: FAO.
82 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Pastures

FA R M B R E E D S A N D digestive systems are speeding up the recycling of nutrients. In traditional farming systems,
N U M B E R AT R I S K animals are often tethered on croplands, so helping sustain crop production.
O F E X T I N CT I O N , Studies in Africa have shown livestock-mediated nutrient recycling to be essential to maintaining
1990s croplands without large inputs of chemical fertilizer, and the value of livestock in fertilizing crops
Number Number
rises with increased population density. In the East African highlands, such as the Kiambu district of
of of breeds Kenya, where population density can exceed 500 people per square kilometer, livestock are vital
breeds at risk parts of the cropping system9. In contrast, more intensively managed pastures, where artificial
Cattle 787 135 fertilizer is added to accelerate the growth of grass, may have an overall negative effect on the long-
Sheep 920 119 term health of the environment10. The nitrogen suppresses biodiversity and causes the glut that
Goat 351 44
Pig 353 69
leads to eutrophication of rivers.
Buffalo 72 2 Demand for meat, however, has outstripped available pastures, with the result that more and
Horse 384 120 more livestock are fed on fodder crops. This is a global trend but applies particularly in the most
Ass 77 9
Total 2 944 498 densely populated countries. Between 1990 and 1995, four fifths of China’s increase in grain con-
sumption went to feed livestock. Worldwide, 40 percent of grain is grown to feed livestock. The main
Source: FAO.
fodder is maize, the production of which, for the first time in history, edged ahead of wheat globally
in the late 1990s.
The shortage of pastures has also helped change the kind of livestock being raised. The global
population of cattle, which traditionally feed on pastures, is rising much less quickly than animals
that eat from feedlots, such as pigs (now the world’s largest meat source) and poultry, which also
now exceeds beef production. But intensive livestock systems tend to reduce “barnyard biodiversity”
in the same way that the green revolution in crops has reduced it amongst plants. Many traditional
livestock breeds have disappeared. Of the 3 800 breeds of cattle, water buffalo, goats, pigs, sheep,
horses and donkeys catalogued by the Food and Agriculture Organization, 16 percent have become
extinct and a further 15 percent are rare11.
In Western countries, where population densities are often high and most land and livestock
owners are dependent upon the major corporations that control food distribution networks, the
intensification of livestock production is most marked. In developing countries, livestock owners are
often the poor and politically marginalized12, and grazing stocks of cattle, sheep and goats still
occupy traditional pastures with no chemical inputs. But these pastoralists, too, are dependent on
markets for a part of their income, and attempts to rear ever larger herds in fragile arid regions and
on hillsides can lead to soil degradation and the specter of desertification.
Reviving traditional methods, most of which rely on a series of finely balanced factors including
the ability to migrate across large areas of rangeland, herd sizes and the mix of animals being
reared, will prove hard when demands on pastures from cultivators are growing and two thirds of
the world’s agricultural land is already given over to livestock pastures13.

LIVESTOCK AND POLLUTION

Livestock herds are large-scale producers of gas emissions. All animals emit carbon
dioxide, while ruminants also produce another greenhouse gas, methane. A third gas
responsible for global warming, nitrous oxide, is released from manure. Intensive “factory
farming” has created an increasing waste problem. The Netherlands is being forced to
reduce its pig production because of problems with disposing of slurry safely without pol-
luting rivers or intensifying acid deposition problems through the evaporation of ammonia.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Mineral extraction 83

M i n e ra l ex t ra c t i o n

INING is the world’s fifth largest industry. It has provided Minerals making

M the raw materials for the construction and commodities of

the modern world: tower blocks and airplanes, televisions
and toothpaste. Much of it is dominated by transnational
corporations serving global markets through the intense
exploitation of mineral-rich land.

Humans have always used materials dug from the ground, whether stone and clay to make
history
The industrial revolution was
characterized more than
anything else by changes in
the use made of minerals
such as iron. Between 1870
shelter, precious metals for adornment and ceremonial purposes, or more workaday minerals for and 1913, iron ore production
tools. Their use became a marker for our technological progress through the iron and bronze ages, in Britain, Germany and
and throughout history the search for minerals helped drive the expansion of civilizations into new France rose 83-fold. Today
territory. The Romans first went to Britain to extract tin, while gold and silver drew Europeans to the
iron and its harder, more
New World and the British, French and Belgians to Africa. The desire to extract minerals also drove
railroad construction across the United States, Canada and Siberia. durable alloy, steel, make up
While bulky and more widely available materials tend to be extracted locally, largely reflecting 85 percent of world metals
local population levels, rarer materials have always had an international market. Two thirds of and a tenth of total world
European investment in Africa before the 1930s went into mining, until the sector made up half of materials production.
the continent’s exports. Gold and diamonds underpin the (ill-distributed) wealth of South Africa.
Rising demand for materials has created increasingly global industries, in which local demand
and demographics are largely irrelevant to levels of exploitation. Today, one of the front lines of
exploration for minerals is in the Asian islands of Borneo and New Guinea, which contain the
world’s largest copper and gold mines, but few of the world’s people.
Traded globally but produced in intense local mining areas, mineral extraction often reflects
the negative social and ecological impact of global economic forces. Rising demand has driven
technologists to find ways of extracting the more valuable materials from low-grade ores, with a
resulting dramatic increase in the disturbance of the land. The copper industry increased pro-
duction 22-fold in the 20th century, partly by extracting metal from a 0.5 percent ore, compared
with a 3 percent limit at the century’s start. The industry’s 99.5 percent discard of mined ore is
matched by wastes of upwards of 60 percent in the mining of iron, 70 percent for manganese, and
99.75, 99.95 and 99.99 percent respectively for tungsten, zinc and gold. Canada produces 60 times
more mining waste than urban refuse1. The 20th century also saw the rapid growth of new extrac-
tion industries – bauxite for aluminum, uranium for nuclear weapons and power, and petro-
chemicals for plastics.
In consequence, over the past century mining has removed an estimated 100 million people
from their land and destroyed forests and farmland, either directly for extraction or to accommo-
date the waste. The extraction and refining of ores requires the use of toxic substances such
as cyanide and mercury, which are often allowed to pollute land and river systems. It is estimated
that a ton of mercury is released into the Amazon environment for every ton of gold extracted2,
poisoning local wildlife including fish eaten by humans.
84 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Mineral extraction

WORLD MINERAL WORLD MINERAL EXTRACTION SITES AND

PRODUCTION C O A L A N D L I G N I T E D E P O S I T S , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s

Bauxite Metallic minerals

120 ● Large
● Medium
100
Million metric tons

80
Non-metallic minerals
60 ▲ Large
▲ Medium
40

20
Diamonds
0
1970 1980 1990 1999
◆ Large
◆ Medium

Copper Large: more than 5% of world

12 production
Medium: 1-5% of world
10 production
Million metric tons

6
■ Major coal and lignite deposits

4 Mining has provided the raw materials for the

2 construction and commodities of the modern world, yet
it has removed an estimated 100 million people from
0
1970 1980 1990 1999 their land and destroyed forests and farmland, either
directly for extraction or to accomodate the waste.
Tin
240

200
Thousand metric tons

160

120

80

40

0
1970 1980 1990 1999
TOP BAUXITE TOP COPPER TOP TIN
PRODUCERS, 1999 PRODUCERS, 1999 PRODUCERS, 1999
Iron ore
Million Thousand Thousand
1 000 metric tons metric tons metric tons

800 Australia 46.5 Chile 4 360 China 80

Million metric tons

Guinea 15.0 USA 1 660 Indonesia 42

600 Brazil 11.8 Indonesia 765 Peru 27
Jamaica 11.6 Australia 730 Brazil 17
China 8.5 Canada 630 Bolivia 12
400
India 7.0 Peru 540 Australia 9
Venezuela 4.5 Russia 520 Malaysia 7
200 Suriname 3.7 China 450 Russia 5
Russia 3.5 Poland 450 Portugal 4
0 Guyana 1.8 Mexico 375 Thailand 1
1990 1999
93% of world production 83% of world production 97% of world production
Source: USGS. Source: USGS.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Mineral extraction 85

TOP DIAMOND
PRODUCERS, 1998

Gemstones
Million carats

Australia 18.4
Botswana 13.5
Russia 10.5
South Africa 4.1
Angola 2.4
89% of world production

I n d u st r i a l d i a m o n d s
Million carats

Australia 22.5
Congo, Dem. Rep. 13.0
Russia 10.5
South Africa 6.2
Botswana 5.0
95% of world production
Source: USGS.

GOLD PRODUCTION
To t a l f o r t i m e
period specified
35
30

Thousand metric tons

25
20
15
10
5
Source: Times.
0
1840-1850
1851-1875
1876-1900
1901-1925
1926-1950
1951-1975
1976-1996
Source: The Gold Institute.

TOP IRON ORE TOP CEMENT TOP GOLD It is estimated that only
PRODUCERS, 1999 PRODUCERS, 1999 PRODUCERS, 1999 some 128 000 tons of gold
have ever been mined.
Million Million Metric
metric tons metric tons tons About 15 percent of this has
been lost, is unrecoverable
China 205 China 520.0 South Africa 474
Brazil 190 USA (incl. Puerto Rico) 87.3 USA 360
or unaccounted for. Of the
Australia 150 India 87.0 Australia 312 existing 108 000 tons,
India 75 Japan 80.0 China 178 just over two thirds are
Russia 70 Korea, Rep. 55.0 Canada 166
USA 57 Brazil 43.0 Indonesia 105 privately owned as jewelry,
Ukraine 50 Germany 37.0 Russia 104 coins or bullion, with the
Canada 35 Turkey 37.0 Peru 89
South Africa 33 Italy 35.0 Uzbekistan 80 remaining 31.5 percent
Sweden 21 Thailand 34.0 Ghana 73 held as official stocks by
89% of world production 65% of world production 79% of world production central banks.
Source: USGS. Source: USGS.
86 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Mineral extraction

COAL PRODUCTION Acid emissions from Russia’s metal smelting have destroyed vegetation over hundreds of square
115 kilometers of the Arctic Kola peninsula. The Sudbury nickel smelter in Ontario did similar damage in
Index (1989=100) Canada in the 1970s and 1980s. The South African mining industry, which employs some 800 000
110
people and generates half the country’s foreign exchange, is also responsible for around a million
105 tons of sulfur emissions a year. It is one of Africa’s largest sources of acid pollution3.
100 While lending itself to large-scale industrial enterprise, mining for minerals also employs mil-
lions of artisan miners across the world. In Latin America an estimated 1 million artisan miners are
95
at work, exploiting gold in particular. Mining “rushes”, whether involving artisans or corporations,
90 frequently cause social conflict, often over pollution. Amazon gold miners have clashed with the
1989 91 93 95 97 99
Yanomami in the Amazon. Mines at Bougainville and Grasberg in New Guinea have caused civil
insurrection. Such disputes are often exacerbated when governments appear to side with mining
To p p ro d u c e r s ,
companies against the interests of the local communities.
1998
Some refining and smelting processes require large amounts of energy. Many of the world’s
Hard and brown coal
Million metric tons major hydroelectric dams have been constructed to supply cheap electricity for smelting aluminum.
The Hoover dam on the River Colorado in the United States is one such example. Another is the
China 1 236
USA 1 014
Akosombo dam in Ghana. Built in the 1960s to provide hydropower to smelt bauxite for a United
India 326 States company, Akosombo flooded more than 5 percent of the country and displaced 80 000 people
Australia 285 to create the largest artificial lake on Earth.
Russia 233
South Africa 223 Since the 1960s, growing environmental awareness coupled with real shortage of some strat-
Poland 180 egic metals has encouraged a new trend towards recycling. Glass, aluminum, gold and iron are all
Ukraine 77
Kazakhstan 70 recycled on a large scale. New materials have also reduced the pressure on some mineral
Indonesia 60 resources – glass fibers are replacing copper in cable systems, for instance. Resource managers
81% of world production dream of “closing the loop”, with 100-percent recycling. Even industries making complex products
Source: World Energy Council. are moving towards a recycling strategy – for instance the European automobile manufacturing
industry, which is dedicated to making the majority of car parts recycleable.
But there may be practical limits to this approach. Recycling is not an absolute virtue. Some
analysts argue that the environmental cost is sometimes greater than the cost of starting from
OIL PRODUCTION scratch with new raw materials. In most instances, efforts to reduce the use of raw materials
115 and energy, and to avoid the unnecessary purchase of new items such as automobiles and office
Index (1989=100)
110 equipment, should be the preferred strategy.
The impact of recycling on overall mineral exploitation has so far been small. Production of
105
metals and minerals has more than doubled since the early 1960s, while petrochemicals produc-
100 tion has risen more than fivefold4.
95

90
1989 91 93 95 97 99

To p p ro d u c e r s ,
1999 PETROCHEMICALS
Million The petrochemicals industry is, apart from the growing of food, the largest and most
metric tons lucrative on Earth. Its biggest product, oil, is the greatest single source of commercial
Saudi Arabia 411.8 energy – and hence of greenhouse gas emissions – with its dominance near-total in the
USA 354.7 transport sector. Its price is one of the most significant determinants of global economic
Russia 304.8
growth; its extraction from the Earth the leading economic activity in many countries,
Iran 175.2
Mexico 166.1 particularly in the Middle East; and its processing is a major activity in many others. Oil
Venezuela 160.5 spills – from maritime production platforms, tankers and waste discharges from land –
China 159.3
Norway 149.1 are the leading source of marine pollution. But reserves, particularly of the cleaner-
UK 137.1 lighter fractions, are diminishing and many analysts say production is unlikely to rise
Iraq 125.5
further. This will increase pressure to tap known existing reserves in hostile and
62% of world production
ecologically sensitive environments, such as the Arctic, and within protected rainforests.
Source: BP.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Migration and tourism 87

M i g ra t i o n
and tourism

IGRATION takes many forms: temporary and permanent;

M between and within countries; legal and illegal; forced or

voluntary; to cities or suburbs; for tourism or to escape
persecution; for economic gain or at the point of a gun;
daily commuting or in search of food. One thing in common
is that all are on the increase. The world is on the move, and the
environmental causes and consequences are profound.

The history of humankind’s subjugation of the planet is in many respects a history of migration. In the
past 500 years, the colonization by Europeans of the Americas and Australasia, in particular, has
transformed the ecology of three continents. And the forced movement of some 15 million African
slaves to America and a similar number of Russian political prisoners to Siberian gulags funda-
mentally changed the social ecology of those regions.
International migration at the end of the 20th century was at unprecedented rates, with an esti-
mated 120 million people living or working outside their country of origin in the 1990s, compared to
75 million in 1965. A common perception is that most of these migrants are moving from poor to
rich nations, but in reality half of all cross-border migration takes place within the developing world1.
People move for many reasons: political, ethnic, economic, military or environmental – often a
combination of several such factors. Migration is a natural safety valve for local problems and a
source of labor and capital for fast-growing economies. But high rates of migration may denote a
serious environmental crisis in the source region – and can trigger environmental degradation in
the receiving area.
Up to 10 million people fled drought and famine in the Sahel region of Africa in the 1970s and
1980s, settling in wetter coastal regions, including neighboring countries. At least half of them never
returned home2. In Mauritania, environmental degradation has helped to force the proportion of the
total population living in the coastal zone from 9 to 41 percent since 1968.
In the 1980s, land scarcity caused by a fast-rising population in Bangladesh led to conflicts that
drove 12 to 17 million Bangladeshis into neighboring Indian states of West Bengal and Assam3.
Millions fled Rwanda in the 1990s during ethnic conflicts triggered in part at least by the country’s
poverty, water scarcity and declining soil fertility, all stemming from its very high population den-
sity of 400 people per square kilometer4.
Defining “environmental refugees” is hard. The numbers could be much higher than those
with refugee status under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) definition.
A study for the Washington-based Climate Institute includes among environmental refugees peo-
ple displaced by land shortages, deforestation, soil erosion, desertification, water deficits, extreme
weather events and disease. It put the current annual total of such people at 25 million, which the
author5 called “cautious and conservative”. The same study suggests that factors such as climate
change and rising sea levels could put the figure at 200 million by the year 2050.
The distinction between environmental refugees and economic migrants is also sometimes
88 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Migration and tourism

I N T E R N AT I O N A L I N T E R N AT I O N A L M I G R A N T P O P U L AT I O N S , 1 9 9 0 s
MIGRANTS, 1990s P r o p o r t i o n o f e a c h c o u n t r y ’s t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n ,
E xc l u d i n g re f u g e e s excluding refugees
North America Europe
21% 22% Less than 1%

Latin
America 1-3%
and
Caribbean
5% 3-5%

Africa 14%
Asia 5-10%
Oceania 4% 34%

10-20%
Total international migrants:
112 475 491
Source: UNPD. 20-50%

More than 50%

I N T E R N AT I O N A L
MIGRANTS Insufficient data
I n c l u d i n g re f u g e e s
120 The study of migrant populations is relatively young and the underlying causes
Millions
100 of migration poorly defined, particularly with regard to the linkages between
economic and environmental factors.
80

60
Note: The term refugees on this page refers to those with refugee status under
40 the UNHCR definition: Persons recognized under the 1951 Convention; the
20 OAU Convention; in accordance with the UNHCR statute; persons granted a
humanitarian or comparable status and those granted temporary protection.
0
1960s 1980s 1990s
Source: World Bank.

COUNTRIES WITH REFUGEES AND OTHERS OF CONCERN TO UNHCR, 1999

HIGHEST NUMBERS Region of Refugees Asylum- Returned Internally Returned Various Total
OF REFUGEES, 1999 residence seekers refugees displaced internally population
people displaced of concern
Popula- As % of
tion of host popu- North America 636 300 605 630 id id id id 1 241 930
concern* lation Latin America 61 200 1 510 6 260 id id 21 200 90 170
and Caribbean
Iran 1 835 700 2.7 Europe 2 608 380 473 060 952 060 1 603 300 370 000 1 279 000 7 285 800
Yugoslavia 1 660 030 15.6 Africa 3 523 250 61 110 933 890 640 600 1 054 700 36 990 6 250 540
Russia 1 489 580 1.0 Asia 4 781 750 24 750 617 620 1 724 800 10 590 149 350 7 308 860
Germany 1 239 500 1.5 Oceania 64 500 15 540 id id id id 80 040
Pakistan 1 202 460 0.8 World 11 675 380 1 181 600 2 509 830 3 968 700 1 435 290 1 486 540 22 257 340
Bosnia and 1 109 120 28.9
Herzegovina
USA 1 093 900 0.4 C h a n g e s i n ce 1 9 9 8 ( % )
Azerbaijan 791 550 10.3
Rwanda 711 470 9.8 North America -3.6 -6.2 id id id id -4.9
Sierra Leone 704 730 14.9 Latin America -17.5 319.4 -20.4 id id 6.0 -11.9
Tanzania 634 530 1.9 and Caribbean
Afghanistan 628 410 2.9 Europe -2.2 -18.0 233.5 22.7 38.8 15.3 17.3
Sri Lanka 612 730 3.3 Africa 7.7 -3.5 -28.0 -59.8 95 781.8 -39.0 -0.5
Asia 0.8 -10.4 94.7 -15.3 -94.1 -11.0 -2.2
* Includes refugees, asylum
Oceania -13.2 198.8 id id id id 0.7
seekers, returned refugees and
World 1.6 -10.4 31.6 -19.6 220.3 9.5 3.7
internally displaced people
Source: UNHCR; UNPD. Source: UNHCR.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Migration and tourism 89

I N T E R N AT I O N A L
T O U R I S T A R R I VA L S
600
Millions
500

400

300

200

100

0
1950 60 70 80 90 98
Source: World Tourism Organization.

I N T E R N AT I O N A L
TOURISM RECEIPTS
20 000
Index
(1950=100)
15 000

10 000 20 000
Index
(1950=100)

5 000 15 000

Source: UNPD. 0 •
1950 60 70 80 90 98
Source: World Tourism Organization.

TO P S P E N D E R S O N
T O P T O U R I S T D E S T I N AT I O N S , 1 9 9 7 TO U R I S M , 1997
Tourist As % of As % of Tourism Earnings Expenditure % of
arrivals world local earnings per tourist Million world
Thousands arrivals population as % of GNP US$ US$ expenditure

France 66 864 10.95 114 1.84 419 USA 51 220 13.56

USA 47 754 7.82 18 0.95 1 534 Germany 46 200 12.23
Spain 43 403 7.11 110 4.67 614 Japan 33 041 8.75
Italy 34 087 5.58 59 2.57 872 UK 27 710 7.34
UK 25 515 4.18 43 1.64 785 Italy 16 631 4.40
China 23 770 3.89 2 1.14 508 France 16 576 4.39
Poland 19 520 3.20 50 6.25 445 Canada 11 304 2.99
Mexico 19 351 3.17 21 2.18 392 Austria 10 992 2.91
Canada 17 285 2.83 57 1.50 507 Netherlands 10 232 2.71
Hungary 17 248 2.82 170 5.74 150 China 10 166 2.69
Czech Rep. 16 830 2.76 163 6.82 217 Russia 10 113 2.68
Austria 16 647 2.73 206 5.49 744 Belgium 8 275 2.19
Germany 15 837 2.59 19 0.71 1 042 Switzerland 6 904 1.83
Russia 15 350 2.51 10 1.71 450 Poland 6 900 1.83
Switzerland 10 600 1.74 146 2.52 745 Brazil 6 583 1.74

Source: World Tourism Organization; UNPD; World Bank. Source: World Tourism Organization.
90 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Migration and tourism

SELECTED TOURIST far from clear. Though nominally economic migrants, many of the estimated 1 million people who
FLOWS, 1998 flood illegally into the United States annually from Mexico are in part driven by declining ecologi-
Thousands cal conditions in a country where 60 percent of the land is classified as severely degraded6.
Likewise, an estimated 1.3 million Haitians have fled their deforested and degraded island in the
To past two decades.
Mediter- Carib- South-
ranean bean east Asia Mass migration frequently causes environmental damage on a similar scale. The desperate
From hand-to-mouth existence of many migrants, coupled with the likelihood that their settlement
Africa 3 367 8 174
Americas 12 406 9 726 1 973 will be temporary, encourages a short-term attitude to their new surroundings. Rwandan refugees
Europe 151 981 3 549 4 501 destroyed large areas of forest in neighboring Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) in the
East Asia 5 959 70 22 372
mid-1990s. Even state-sponsored migrants often find that the land set aside for them is insufficient
and Pacific
Middle 2 886 2 183 to make a living. Surrounding natural resources, such as forests, are plundered in the immediate
East interests of survival. Examples include migrants from large Brazilian cities to the Amazon and
Total* 187 399 15 286 30 538
Indonesia’s transmigrants, who are a major cause of illegal deforestation in Kalimantan, Irian Jaya
To and other receiving regions.
USA China Europe+ Another major form of migration is business and leisure travel, by some measures the world’s
From
Africa 234 38 608 largest industry, accounting for 11 percent of global GDP7 and a similar proportion of world
Americas 28 143 809 6 984 employment. Tourism and business travel are temporary migrations with a growing global en-
Europe 10 735 2 039 87 790
East Asia 8 201 20 733 3 823
vironmental impact. Civil aircraft alone are responsible for 5 percent of anthropogenic sources of
and Pacific greenhouse gases.
Middle 206 21 511 International tourism displaces the environmental impacts of rich nations to the often poorer
East
Total* 47 754 23 770 119 832 destinations favored by holiday-makers. Those impacts can sometimes be beneficial. In many parts
* Includes numbers not specified here of the world, tourism sustains natural ecosystems and populations of wildlife by providing a strong
+ North, East and Central financial incentive for their preservation. Examples include the elephant and gorilla parks of Africa
Source: World Tourism Organization. and the coral reefs of the Caribbean.
But equally the pressures of mass tourism may destroy what the tourists come to see. In Nepal,
trekkers burn about 6 kilos of wood each per day in a country desperately short of fuel. A big hotel in
Cairo uses as much electricity as 3 600 middle-income households. In the Caribbean, tourist
demand for seafood is a prime cause of the decline of lobster and conch populations, while cruise
ships are calculated to produce 70 000 tons of waste a year8.
The natural ecosystems of the Mediterranean, already under stress from local populations, are
further damaged by the region’s status as the destination of almost a third of all cross-border
tourism. Typical is Malta, which receives a million tourists a year – three times its permanent
population – turning the whole island into a peri-urban area and exhausting local water supplies.
Concern about such damage has fostered a growing interest in “ecotourism”. The fastest grow-
ing sector of the business in the 1990s, it is intended to maximize the local social benefits from
tourism, provide incentives for conservation and minimize environmental damage9. Well designed
programs can encourage tour operators and hoteliers to invest in renewable energy and waste
reduction measures, as well as involve the tourists themselves in local conservation initiatives. But
badly designed ecotourism can have the reverse effect – for example expelling inhabitants from
their land to provide parkland for animals and using scarce “natural” construction materials to pro-
vide authentic tourist experiences.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Urbanization 91

Urbanization

OR THE FIRST time in history humans are predominantly CITIES IN TIME

F urban. Cities occupy less than 2 percent of the Earth’s land

surface, but house almost half of the human population and
1000AD 2015

28.9
0.45
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.18
0.14
(millions)

0.13
0.13
0.11
0.10
use 75 percent of the resources we take from the Earth 1.

CORDOVA, EMIRATE OF CORDOVA

CONSTANTINOPLE, BYZANTINE EMPIRE

BAGHDAD, SELJUK EMPIRE

NISHAPUR, PERSIA
KAIFENG, CHINA

ANGKOR, KHMER EMPIRE

KYOTO, JAPAN
CAIRO, EGYPT

HASA, ARABIA
ANHILWARA, EMPIRE OF GUJARAT

26.2
The statistics of urban growth in the late 20th century surpass any other demographic indicators.

24.6
The proportion of the world’s population that lives in cities rose from 29 percent in 1950 to 47 percent
in 1998, and 55 percent is anticipated by 2015. Although two thirds of urban residents live in cities
of less than a million people, megacities with a population of more than 10 million are on the
increase. In 1975 there were five, by 1995 there were 15 and by 2015 there are expected to be 26.
Some modern megacities have an ancient history. Cairo, Istanbul (Constantinople) and Baghdad

20.3
19.5
19.4
began the second millennium as they ended it – among the world’s top 20 cities. But as industrial-

19.2
1800
ization has moved around the globe the roll call amongst the top ten has changed. At the start of

18.0
1.10
0.86
0.80

17.6
0.69
the 20th century, these were all in the wealthy and rapidly industrializing North. By 2015 Tokyo and

0.57
0.55

17.3
0.43
0.39
0.38
0.38
New York alone will remain, to be joined by cities from the developing world, which has seen a sixfold

PEKING, CHINA
LONDON, UK
CANTON, CHINA
EDO (TOKYO), JAPAN
CONSTANTINOPLE, OTTOMAN EMPIRE

NAPLES, KINGDOM OF NAPLES

PARIS, FRANCE

HANGCHOW, CHINA
OSAKA, JAPAN
KYOTO, JAPAN
increase in urban populations in just 50 years.
Cities grow around activities best carried out centrally, such as government, manufacturing,
wholesaling and ports. They are encouraged by the development of new services such as banking
and the accumulation of skilled labor, by the opportunities to socialize and enjoy recreation and cul-
tural activities, and by the value of cities as centers for national and international communication.
Large numbers of people are flocking to cities in search of work as the mechanization of farming
is reducing the demand for labor in the countryside. China has a “floating population” of 80 million
rural people who have moved to the cities in recent years2. Between a third and a fifth of the resi-
dents of its two largest cities, Shanghai and Beijing, are migrants3.
The globalization of industry and trade is further stimulating urbanization, and cities are 1900
6.5

undoubted economic powerhouses. The World Bank estimates that urban areas in the developing
world account for between 65 and 80 percent of national GDP (roughly double what might be
expected from their populations). Sao Paulo alone contributes 40 percent of Brazil’s GDP.
4.2

Cities represent, for many, the good life. On average, urban dwellers have higher incomes and
3.3
2.7

live healthier, easier lives than their rural counterparts4. Surveys in 17 countries show that urban
1.7
1.7
1.5

children under two have a 25 percent better chance of survival to adulthood than rural children5.
1.4
1.4
1.4

But the benefits are not universal. While on the whole urban populations have greater access to
clean water and sanitation than their rural counterparts, between a quarter and a half of urban
VIENNA, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

ST PETERSBURG, RUSSIA
MANCHESTER, UK
PHILADELPHIA, USA
LONDON, UK
NEW YORK, USA
PARIS, FRANCE
BERLIN, GERMANY
CHICAGO, USA

TOKYO, JAPAN

DHAKA, BANGLADESH
KARACHI, PAKISTAN
MEXICO CITY, MEXICO
SHANGHAI, CHINA
NEW YORK, USA
CALCUTTA, INDIA
TOKYO, JAPAN
MUMBAI (BOMBAY), INDIA
LAGOS, NIGERIA
SAO PAULO, BRAZIL

inhabitants in developing countries live in slums and squatter settlements with extremely limited
services. Such overcrowding encourages epidemics of tuberculosis, diarrhea and other com-
municable diseases6. In Karachi, a city of 10 million people and growing by half a million a year, 40
percent of the population lives in squatter colonies and one in five babies do not reach their first
birthday. Worldwide, more than a billion people live in urban areas where air pollution exceeds Source: UNPD; World Bank.
92 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Urbanization

THE WORLD’S W O R L D C I T I E S , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
LARGEST CITIES
■ 1-2 million inhabitants
Population Rank
Millions in
2015 1996 1996 ■ 2-3 million inhabitants
Tokyo 28.9 27.2 1
Mumbai* 26.2 15.7 5 ■ 3-5 million inhabitants
Lagos* 24.6 10.9 12
Sao Paulo 20.3 16.8 3
Dhaka* 19.5 9.0 22 ■ 5-10 million inhabitants
Karachi* 19.4 10.1 16
Mexico City 19.2 16.9 2
Shanghai 18.0 13.7 6 ■ More than 10 million
New York 17.6 16.4 4
Calcutta 17.3 12.1 8
Delhi* 16.9 10.3 14
The proportion of the world’s population that lives
Beijing 15.6 11.4 11 in cities rose from 29 percent in 1950 to 47 percent
Metro Manila* 14.7 9.6 18 in 1998, and 55 percent is anticipated by 2015.
Cairo 14.4 9.9 17
Los Angeles 14.2 12.6 7
Buenos Aires 13.9 11.9 9
Jakarta* 13.9 8.8 23
Tianjin 13.5 9.6 19
Seoul 13.0 11.8 10
Istanbul* 12.3 8.2 24
Rio de Janeiro 11.9 10.3 15
Hangzhou* 11.4 4.6 42
Osaka 10.6 10.6 13
Hyderabad* 10.5 5.7 34
Tehran 10.3 6.9 26
Lahore* 10.0 5.2 36
Bangkok 9.8 6.7 29
Paris 9.7 9.6 20
Lima 9.4 6.8 28
Kinshasa* 9.4 4.4 47
Moscow 9.3 9.3 21
Madras* 9.2 6.1 32
Changchun* 8.9 4.4 44
Bogota 8.4 6.2 31
Harbin* 8.1 4.7 40
Bangalore* 8.0 5.0 39
* Cities which will have increased
U R B A N P O P U L AT I O N S B Y R E G I O N , 2 0 0 0
their populations by more than 50%
between 1996 and 2015 Asia
Source: UNPD. Total population: 3 682 million

URBAN GROWTH
R AT E S Africa Europe Latin America
Urban population 784 million
1 383 million 729 million and Caribbean
Even though urban populations are (38%) 519 million North America
rising rapidly, urban growth rates Urban 310 million
are slowing down 295m Urban Urban
(38%) 546m Urban
391m
5 (75%) 239m
(75%)
Latin America (77%)
%
4 and Caribbean
Rural
489m Rural Rural Rural
Africa (62%) 183m 128m 71m
3 (25%)
(25%) (23%)
Rural population
2 Asia 2 299 million
(62%) Oceania 30 million
World
1 Oceania Urban 21m (70%)
North America Rural 9m (30%)
0 Europe
1980- 2000- 2020-
85 05 25
Source: UNPD. Source: UNPD.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Urbanization 93

RURAL AND URBAN

P O P U L AT I O N
TRENDS
4.0
Billions Urban
(developing
3.5 countries)
Rural
(developing
3.0 countries)

2.5

2.0

1.5
Urban
(developed countries)
1.0

0.5 Rural
(developed countries)

0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Source: UNPD.

P O P U L AT I O N S
WITH ACCESS TO
W AT E R A N D
S A N I TAT I O N , 1 9 9 0 s

S a fe d r i n k i n g w a te r
% urban % rural
access access

Source: UNPD. Middle East 97 72

and North Africa
Sub-Saharan 77 39
Africa
South Asia 86 78
E D U C AT I O N A L L E V E L S , F E R T I L I T Y A N D U N D E R - F I V E East Asia 95 58
and Pacific
M O R TA L I T Y R AT E S , 1 9 9 2 - 9 8 Latin America 88 42
Selected countries and Caribbean
World 90 62
% with secondary education* Total fertility rate+ Under-five mortality++
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Sanitation
Bolivia 72.2 20.8 3.3 6.3 71.9 134.3 % urban % rural
Brazil 68.6 31.3 2.3 3.5 49.1 79.4 access access
Dominican Rep. 54.3 22.2 2.8 4.0 54.7 70.0
Nicaragua 58.1 18.0 2.9 4.9 48.8 64.3 Middle East 92 53
Kenya 49.4 23.1 3.1 5.1 88.3 108.6 and North Africa
Madagascar 52.6 16.8 4.2 6.5 127.1 173.8 Sub-Saharan 70 35
Mozambique 13.9 1.4 4.6 5.2 150.4 236.9 Africa
Togo 32.4 7.7 3.2 6.1 101.3 157.4 South Asia 73 20
Bangladesh 42.2 15.0 2.1 3.4 96.2 130.9 East Asia 77 20
Philippines 82.0 59.6 3.0 4.6 45.8 62.5 and Pacific
Uzbekistan 99.7 99.6 2.7 3.7 51.8 56.8 Latin America 82 44
Vietnam 81.3 62.3 1.6 2.5 30.4 48.3 and Caribbean
* Or beyond + Number of children a woman would be expected to have at current trends World 79 25
++ Deaths per thousand live births
Source: World Bank. Source: UNICEF.
94 P O P U L AT I O N A N D L A N D U S E Urbanization

acceptable levels7. The death toll from lung disease associated with urban air pollution could be
half a million a year in China alone. The notorious traffic congestion in Bangkok costs an estimated
2 percent of Thailand’s GDP. Cities can also be violent. The greatest causes of death among young
people in Sao Paulo are traffic accidents and homicide.
Cities also have a large ecological “footprint”. They call on resources over a wide area to pro-
vide food and raw materials. Vancouver’s half a million people consume resources from an esti-
mated 2 million hectares – 200 times the area of the city itself 8. London’s footprint is 120 times the
size of the city, drawing on resources from the wheat prairies of Kansas, the tea gardens of Assam
and the copper mines of Zambia among other places9. Locally, cities put huge strains on natural
ecosystems, polluting rivers and coastal waters, consuming forests and water, degrading soils,
disrupting drainage and stunting crops. Urban smog and acid deposition in China are estimated
to be reducing crop yields by up to a third10.
Cities stop growing if and when the problems of congestion and pollution overwhelm the benefits,
making the cities inefficient as well as unpleasant. Smoggy and congested Mexico City was once
expected to grow to more than 30 million people by the year 2000, but was at around half that in
1996 and is not expected to be above 20 million in 201511. And even while cities are still growing
rapidly in the developing world, the growth rates themselves are on a downward trend.
In the developed world, many cities are losing population as fertility rates fall below replacement
levels and inhabitants leave for more attractive suburbs or rural areas. Good transportation sys-
tems and electronic communications encourage this. One result has been the formation of large
low-density peri-urban zones, sometimes embracing several cities to create polycentric urban
areas, such as the Japanese urban heartland between Tokyo and Osaka, the Rhine-Ruhr region of
Europe and the east coast of the United States from Boston via New York to Washington DC.
The critical question for cities is whether the wealth they generate can justify their large eco-
logical footprint, and whether development policies can reduce that footprint. A well-run urban sec-
tor can ensure national prosperity; a badly run sector can become a drag on the whole country. And
cities do have potential advantages. Well-planned cities can utilize high population densities to min-
imize resource use and energy consumption – by developing mass transit systems to supplement
car use, for instance12. In developed and developing country alike, many cities include large areas
of productive agricultural land amid the highways and high-rise. It is estimated that up to a fifth of the
world’s food is grown in “urban” areas. Other cities, particularly in Western Europe, are investing
large sums in recycling and composting as part of ambitious waste-management programs.
Moreover, while city dwellers do tend to use more resources, they have fewer children and thus
help drive down national rates of population growth. Children that may have been a boon in villages
helping work the land become a burden in cities, where they need to be educated if they are to find
gainful employment13.

THE AUTOMOBILE
With urbanization, and especially with urban sprawl, comes the automobile. Motorized
transport becomes essential for commuting, shopping and many other activities, and as
public transport is often poor, most people aspire to own a vehicle. In 1998 the world
automobile fleet exceeded 500 million for the first time – one for every 12 of the world’s
people and ten times the figure of half a century ago. Two thirds are in Western Europe
and North America. One countervailing trend is that some rich, developed nations can
afford such good urban mass transit systems that people prefer them to driving cars in
congested city streets, while poorer services in more thinly populated rural areas lead
to greater car ownership and heavier use than in cities.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Introduction 95

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
a t m o s p h e re

EOPLE have been altering the atmosphere on a small scale ever

P since they learnt to make fire. But today’s fires and industrial
processes create so much smoke, gas and particulate matter
that they can degrade ecosystems hundreds of kilometers away
and threaten to transform climate worldwide.

Wherever humans have lived in dense settlements, pollution from smoke and gases has been a
problem. The first attempt to ban coal burning to reduce smoke in London was in 12731. But
during the industrial age the amount of fossil-fuel burning – in the form of coal, oil and gas –
has risen steeply. All these fuels generate smoke and gaseous compounds when burnt,
producing a series of chemical reactions with oxygen in the air to create sulfur dioxide (SO2),
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Between 1800 and the mid-1990s, the world
population increased sixfold, while global CO2 emissions rose 800-fold over the same period,
notably from burning fossil fuels2. Growing wealth and new fuel-burning technologies, particu-
larly for generating electricity and powering the internal combustion engine, drove this.
Industrialization has also added to the range of pollutants in the air. A variety of synthetic
compounds, invented mostly in the 20th century, are now widely dispersed in the atmosphere.
These include certain pesticides and compounds containing chlorine and bromine used as
inert gases in refrigerators and sprays and as solvents. The volume of all these emissions to
the air, and the persistence of some of them, has caused their build-up and transformation in
the atmosphere to levels that cause ecological damage on a wide, and sometimes global, scale.
SO2 and NOx both acidify water droplets in the air. The resulting acid deposition (through rain,
fog or snow) may fall locally or travel long distances in clouds. Below a pH of 4, it can acidify soils
and leach metals from them, poisoning trees. And it can make lakes and streams too acidic for
some fish, such as the brown trout. In the 19th century, European acidification of ecosystems
was confined to regions close to industrial centers such as the German Hartz mountains and the
English Pennines, where tree growth became patchy. But in the mid-20th century increased
fossil-fuel burning caused the first internationally recognized case of transboundary air pollution
– with German, British and Polish pollution causing acid deposition and fish deaths, particularly
in Scandinavia3.
In other atmospheric chemical transformations, NOx reacts with hydrocarbons in sunlight to
create a new range of photochemical pollutants, notably low-level ozone, the component of
smog most dangerous to human health and crops4. Atmospheric emissions of nitrogen com-
pounds also add to those from intensive agriculture, sewage discharges and the cultivation of
leguminous crops to disrupt the global nitrogen cycle, causing overfertilization of both marine
and terrestrial ecosystems5.
In the latter half of the 20th century, it became clear that other pollutants were accumulating
globally. Pesticides such as DDT and toxaphene, and industrial synthetic compounds such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), collectively known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
96 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Introduction

THE TEN BIGGEST CO2 EMISSIONS

P E R - C A P I TA C O 2 Kilos of carbon per square kilometer
EMITTERS, 1995
0
Emissions* GDP per
Metric capita
tons US$ 1995 Up to 10
United Arab 30.9 17 696
Emirates 10-100
Kuwait 28.8 15 760
USA 20.5 26 026
Singapore 19.1 25 156 100-500
Norway 16.7 33 692
Australia 16.2 19 522
Canada 14.8 19 350 500-7 000
Saudi Arabia 13.9 6 875
Trinidad 13.3 4 139
The map shows the varying levels of CO2 emissions around
and Tobago
Kazakhstan 13.2 1 273 the world in 1995 as a result of fossil-fuel burning, cement
* From fossil-fuel burning and production and gas flaring.
cement manufacture
Source: WRI.

AT M O S P H E R I C
C O N C E N T R AT I O N S
OF GREENHOUSE
AND OZONE-
DEPLETING GASES
370
Parts per million

360 CO2
350
340 T H E R I S E O F C O 2, 1 8 5 0 - 1 9 9 5
330 Global emissions from fossil-fuel burning and
1975 80 85 90 96 cement manufacture
1 700
Parts per billion

24 24
1 600
Methane Billion
metric tons
1 500
20 20
1 400
1975 80 85 90 96
310 16 16
Parts per billion

305
300 Nitrous
oxide 12 12
295
290
1975 80 85 90 96 8 8
500
Parts per trillion

CFC-12
400
4 4
300 CFC-11
200
100 0 0
1975 80 85 90 96 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 95
Source: WRI. Source: WRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Introduction 97

P E R - C A P I TA C O 2
EMISSIONS, 1995
By region
North America

Oceania

Europe

Central America

South America

Asia

Africa

World

0 5 10 15 20
Metric tons
Source: WRI.

THE OZONE HOLE

South polar
minimum ozone,
September 10, 2 0 0 0

On September 10, 2000, NASA

recorded the biggest ever area
of minimum Dobson units of
ozone, measuring around
Source: CDIAC.
28.4 million square kilometers.
Later that month, an all-time
low of only 98 Dobson units
was recorded, though over a
smaller area.

OZONE DEPLETION AND SKIN CANCER O Z O N E LO S S E S A N D

Levels of risk under the Montreal Protocol UV-B INCREASES, 1998
600 % ozone % UV-B
Extra cases per million per year

No restriction on ozone-
loss increase
depleting substances
500
Montreal Protocol on
Northern hemisphere, mid-latitudes
400 Substances that Deplete
winter/spring 6 7
the Ozone Layer summer/fall 3 4
300 1987 Southern hemisphere, mid-latitudes
London Amendments year-round 5 6
200 1990 Antarctic spring 50 130 Dobson units of ozone
Copenhagen Amendments Arctic spring 15 22
100 1992
Note: Figures are approximate
Montreal Amendments
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

0 and assume that other factors, such as

1980 2020 2060 2100 1997
cloud cover, are constant.
Source: EEA. Source: UNEP. Source: NASA.
98 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Introduction

GLOBAL DISTILLATION: THE MIGRATION PROCESS OF POPs have been recognized as dangerous
since the early 1960s – they are toxic,
More deposition at high soluble in fat, and accumulate in body
latitudes
The higher the volatility
tissue6. But in the 1990s two further
Seasonal cycling of
deposition and evaporation of the chemical, the
concerns emerged: first that they are
Higher
at mid-latitudes “endocrine disrupters”, disrupting hor-
volatility more likely it is to
reach the poles.
mone systems and threatening the
Long-range health of both wildlife and humans7; and,
atmospheric
transport secondly, that many are now accumu-
Long-range
oceanic Lower Chemicals may lating in ecosystems globally – some-
transport volatility travel to the poles times at higher concentrations than are
More evaporation in several steps, present where they are first released. In
at low latitudes
sometimes taking a process known as “global distillation”,
Degradation or
decades before many of these substances evaporate into
permanent retention
degrading or being the air where they are released and then
Global deposition processes permanently preferentially settle out in the colder
become more pronounced than “Grasshopping” retained. air of the polar regions. Though global
evaporation at high latitudes and emissions of most POPs are falling, their
lower temperatures. Source: UNEP. presence in Arctic ecosystems continues
to rise and concentrations in the diets of
some Arctic inhabitants exceed tolerable daily intakes8. POPs are currently the subject of
negotiations intended to bring them under a global agreement, with some being phased out and
others tightly controlled.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons and other chlorine and bromine compounds were
identified as a potential threat to stratospheric ozone in the 1970s. By the late 1980s, they had
thinned the ozone layer at all latitudes by around 5 percent, and, in the freezing air over the
Arctic and Antarctic, created ozone “holes” in which 50 to 80 percent of the ozone was destroyed
for several weeks each spring9.
The current use of ozone-depleting chemicals is strongly regulated by international political
agreement – notably the Montreal Protocol of 1987 – which called for production phase-out in
the developed world by 1996, with a more gradual phase-out in developing countries. Though
production phase-out in developed nations has been partly counterbalanced by growing pro-
duction in developing nations, particularly China, production in these countries has been frozen
at 1999 levels and must be phased out for most uses by 200910. The ozone layer itself will take
another half century to recover.
The most fundamental effect of atmospheric pollution has been on the global carbon cycle.
Carbon is a key element for life. It makes up half the mass of plants and animals11 and, as CO2,
it is a major “greenhouse gas” responsible for maintaining the atmospheric temperature at
levels fit for those organisms.
In the past 150 years, human activity has released more than 350 billion tons of carbon
into the air in the form of CO2. Though up to a half is currently absorbed by oceans or terrestrial
ecosystems, this has been sufficient to raise CO2 concentrations in the air by 30 percent since
pre-industrial times12. Carbon is also present in the second most important anthropogenic
greenhouse gas, methane, produced in agricultural activities such as rice paddies, the domes-
tication of ruminants and the clearance of natural vegetation. The industrial age has seen a 145
percent rise in methane concentrations in the atmosphere13.
The cumulative effect of different air pollution is reducing the atmosphere’s ability to cleanse
itself. Most pollutants are removed from the atmosphere through oxidation by the hydroxyl
radical. Some research suggests that hydroxyl levels in the atmosphere, particularly temperate
northern latitudes, are falling14. As a result, some compounds are lasting longer in the air than
before, causing ever more pollution.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Climate change 99

Climate change

HE WORLD is warming up. Average temperatures are half a

T degree centigrade higher than a century ago. The nine

warmest years this century have all occurred since 1980, and
the 1990s were probably the warmest decade of the second
millennium 1. Pollution from “greenhouse gases” such as carbon
dioxide (CO 2) and methane is at least partly to blame.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 1995 that “the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”; and that the
accumulations of greenhouse gases are behind the marked global warming trend of the past 20
years. Its case was based on two pillars: the known physical heat-capturing properties of the
greenhouse gases that are accumulating in the atmosphere, and the detailed patterns of
average temperature change in the atmosphere, which mirrored that predicted by global climate
models.
Emission rates for the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, CO2, have risen 120-
fold in the past 150 years2. Whereas in the 19th century emissions were overwhelmingly from
deforestation and other landuse changes, they are now predominantly from burning fossil fuels.
A direct product of industrialization, emissions now amount to 6 billion tons of carbon a year, or
around 1 ton of carbon per head of the world’s population. But emissions are very uneven. Per-
capita North American emissions are 18 times those of Africa, nine times those of Asia and 2.3
times those of Europe3. Low gasoline prices and the pervasive automobile culture in the United
States ensure that its CO2 output, already the highest in the world, is continuing to rise, while
levels in much of Europe are stable or falling.
Total emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2 from deforestation and agricultural
emissions of methane, are more evenly distributed. For instance, Germany emits three times
more CO2 than Brazil from burning fossil fuels. But Brazil’s total emissions of greenhouse gases
now probably exceed Germany’s, thanks largely to emissions from deforestation4.
Unless the world curbs growing CO2 output, concentrations in the air are likely to double
from pre-industrial levels by 2080, and may warm the world by 3oC. Climate models predict that
land areas will warm twice as much as the oceans; high latitudes will warm more quickly in
winter; and there will be substantial changes in precipitation, especially in the tropics5.
There is a high risk of extreme weather, including intense El Niño events in the Pacific Ocean,
hurricanes in coastal areas and droughts in continental interiors. Rising sea levels as glaciers
and ice sheets melt, and thermal expansion of the oceans, may inundate heavily populated
coastal regions, such as large parts of Bangladesh and eastern China and some island nations,
such as the Maldives6. Sea levels are already committed to a substantial rise, probably of 1 or 2
meters over the next 500 years, as a result of warming to date, which will slowly penetrate to
the ocean depths, causing thermal expansion as it goes7.
Possible ecological impacts include the destruction of most of the Amazon rainforest (from
100 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Climate change

CONTRIBUTION C H A N G E S I N T E M P E R AT U R E
OF DIFFERENT AND SOIL HUMIDITY
GASES TO GLOBAL E S T I M AT E D F O R 2 0 2 5
WARMING, 1997 Northern hemisphere
winter

Methane CO2 64%
19%
0-1oC

1-2oC

2-3oC
Nitrous
oxide 6%
3-4oC
CFC-12 6% Other
halocarbons 5% 4-5oC
Source: WRI.

5-7oC

CONTRIBUTION
7-9oC
OF HUMAN
A C T I V I T I E S TO C O 2
9-11oC
EMISSIONS, 1995

Liquid fuels Solid fuels 11-15oC

37% 40%

+ Soil humidity expected to

increase by more than 20%
– Soil humidity expected to
decrease by more than 20%

Gaseous
Note: Temperature increases in the
fuels 19% Gas flaring Antarctic region are predicted to fall
Cement 1%
manufacture 3% into the 0-4oC range.
Source: WRI.

P R E C I P I TAT I O N A N O M A L I E S A N D D I S E A S E O U T B R E A K S
Unusually wet 1997-98

Unusually dry

Associated disease
outbreaks
■ Rift valley fever
■ Malaria
■ Hantavirus
■ Encephalitis
■ Dengue
■ Cholera
Respiratory illness
resulting from: These anomalies are tied to
abnormal climate fluctuations
■ Heatwave brought on by El Niño-mediated
■ Fire and smoke global weather phenomena Source: Harvard School of Public Health.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Climate change 101

K YOTO P R OTO C O L
Ta r g e t r e d u c t i o n s
in greenhouse-gas
emissions, by 2012

Target change from

1990 emissions (%)

Australia +8
Bulgaria -8
Canada -6
Croatia -5
Estonia -8
European Union -8
Hungary -6
Iceland +10
Japan -6
Latvia -8
Liechtenstein -8
Lithuania -8
Monaco -8
New Zealand 0
Norway +1
Poland -6
Romania -8
Russia 0
Slovakia -8
Slovenia -8
Switzerland -8
Ukraine 0
USA -7

The Protocol aims to cut the

combined emissions of greenhouse
gases from developed countries by
roughly 5 percent from their 1990
levels by 2008-12, and it specifies
the amount each industrialized
nation must contribute toward
meeting that reduction goal.
Nations with the highest CO2
emissions are expected to reduce
emissions the most.
Source: Hadley Centre. Source: UN.

G L O B A L T E M P E R AT U R E A N O M A L I E S GLOBAL SEA-LEVEL RISE

+0.6 +0.6 E s t i m a t e d a n d p r e d i c t e d
Degrees C
+0.5 +0.5 100 Stabilization of 100
Centimeters CO2 at 750 ppm
+0.4 +0.4

+0.3 +0.3 Assuming atmospheric
80 80
+0.2 +0.2 stabilization of CO2 and
taking into account thermal
+0.1 +0.1 expansion of the oceans,
1961-1990 mean 60 melting of glaciers and 60
0 0
changes to the Greenland

–0.1 –0.1 and Antarctic icesheets
40 Stabilization of 40
–0.2 –0.2 CO2 at 550 ppm
–0.3 –0.3

–0.4 –0.4 20 20

–0.5 –0.5 1990 level

–0.6 –0.6 0 0
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
1900

2000

2100

2200

Source: Jones et al. Source: Met. Office.
102 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E
L o n g - t e r m e f fe c t s
Because CO2 has a lifetime in
the atmosphere of more than
a century, historic emissions
are important to current
concentrations of the gas in
the atmosphere. Over the
past 200 years, North
America, Europe and the
former Soviet Union,
currently with 20 percent of
the world’s population, have
contributed 80 percent of CO2
emissions15.
Climate change
warming and drying) by the end of the 21st century. The loss of forests globally will further
accelerate the emissions of CO2 into the air, exacerbating climate change. Recent modelling
studies suggest that changes in rainfall and evaporation rates are likely to cause a decline in
runoff of 25 percent or more in much of Southern Africa, South and Central America, India,
Australia and the Mediterranean basin. But runoff could increase by similar amounts in the
United States, China and the catchment of the Aral Sea in Central Asia8.
Warming is also likely to spread pests and diseases to new regions. Nearly two thirds of the
world’s population could be living in malaria transmission zones within a century9. Declining
rainfall and a low technical capacity to adapt are likely to cause falling crop yields in much of
Africa and India.
There is also increasing concern about the risk of major climatic “surprises”. Warming
might reduce the strength of the North Atlantic ocean circulation through the 21st century, with
possible collapse of the Gulf Stream and cooling of Western Europe in the 22nd century10.
In general, fossil-fuel emissions of greenhouse gases and consumption by consumers go
hand-in-hand: the richest nations have the highest emissions. But there is growing evidence
that fossil-fuel emissions can be “delinked” from population size and economic activity. One
route is a change in energy-generating technology. France generates most of its electricity from
nuclear power and has per-capita emissions of CO2 less than two thirds those of its neighbor,
the United Kingdom. Another is more efficient use of energy. China has halved its energy
consumption per unit of economic output since 1980 by cutting subsidies to coal, the most
polluting fuel11.
The first serious effort to curb emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases was behind
the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, with most industrialized nations agreeing to cut emissions of six
greenhouse gases by around 5 percent by 2012. Flexibility mechanisms will allow them to meet
the targets by investing in emissions reduction or carbon-sink enhancing projects (such as
planting forests) in other countries. Recent research has suggested that the inclusion of projects
to cut the atmospheric build-up of greenhouse gases other than CO2, notably methane, could
cut the cost of meeting the Kyoto Protocol by 60 percent12.
The European Union has proposed that, in the longer run, the world should aim to prevent
greenhouse gas emissions rising above twice pre-industrial levels. There is no single route
to achieve this. Scenarios suggested by the IPCC involve a rise in global emissions of about
25 percent in the next half-century (compared to a doubling likely if conditions at the time of the
Kyoto Protocol persisted unaltered) before falling back to less than half current emissions.
Signs that this may be possible without dramatic damage to economic development emerged
during the late 1990s, when global CO2 emissions did not rise in line with growing economic
activity. This was due largely to increased fuel efficiency and a declining use of coal13. A new IPCC
assessment on future emission scenarios foresees a long-term “delinking” of CO2 emissions
from wealth and population: “Technology is at least as important a driving force of future
greenhouse gas emissions as population and economic development.” Some scenarios with a
world population of 15 billion had lower emissions than others with a population of 7 billion14.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Air pollution 103

Air pollution

URING the 20th century air pollution, once a localized Atmospheric

D problem, became a global one. Nowhere is immune from toxic

fallout or changes to the planet’s atmospheric chemistry. Even
so, the most intense effects on both ecosystems and human
health are local.

Approximately half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, and half of all the world’s
urban residents are exposed to potentially harmful amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), ozone and
chemistry
Humankind has been
manipulating atmospheric
chemistry on a small scale,
usually accidentally, for
many centuries. Urban
particulate matter in “smogs”1. The chemistry of smogs takes different forms. Winter smogs areas contain enough heat-
largely arise from burning coal to warm buildings during cold weather. When the smoke and absorbing construction
SO2 combine with fog in windless weather they create a pollution cap that the sun is not strong material to keep cities
enough to clear.
warmer than surrounding
Some 4 000 people died from lung and heart conditions during a London “peasouper” smog
in December 1952. Similar smogs now occur regularly in northern Chinese and Indian cities, areas. Sulfate particles in
including Delhi and Beijing. China’s smogs cause more than 50 000 premature deaths and urban smog, on the other
400 000 new cases of chronic bronchitis a year in 11 of its largest cities alone2. hand, reduce solar heating.
Summer smogs, first reported in Los Angeles, involve pollutants – mainly from vehicle Deforestation has upset the
exhausts – that undergo photochemical changes in bright sunlight, creating substances such as hydrological cycle, often
ozone, a gas that can trigger asthma attacks. Conditions are worst in thin air at higher altitudes
reducing rainfall downwind.
and if the air is trapped inside a valley. Both situations apply in Mexico City, the world’s second
largest urban agglomeration, where smog alerts close factories and force cars off city streets For half a century scientists
several times a year. Globally, some 50 percent of cases of chronic respiratory illness are now have attempted, generally
thought to be associated with air pollution3. unsuccessfully, to “seed”
A particularly toxic component in some urban air is lead, the heavy metal which has for many clouds with tiny particles to
years been added to gasoline to raise octane levels and help engines run more smoothly. It is encourage the formation of
emitted as tiny particles in exhausts, contaminating both air and food. Elevated lead levels are
raindrops. In recent decades
widespread among children in cities where leaded petrol is sold. Lead damages the neurological
development of children, lowering IQ and causing attention and behavioral problems. Many evidence has grown that
nations have reduced or banned lead additives. Elsewhere, urban areas can have high lead con- humans are altering climate
tamination even with relatively low vehicle numbers. Lead levels in the air of large African cities on the global scale by adding
such as Cairo, Cape Town and Lagos are up to ten times those typical of European cities4. greenhouse gases to the
Analysts at the World Bank argue that exposure to lead is due less to urban demographics, atmosphere.
vehicle numbers or national wealth and more to direct political choice. The Bank says that
removing lead from gasoline is one of the most cost-effective ways of improving both the urban
environment and human health5.
Smogs are generally very acidic. Some of the pollutants they contain travel long distances on
the winds, causing acid deposition in surrounding countryside and even in neighboring countries.
In the 1980s, “acid rain” was identified as a major international environmental problem, spilling
over from densely populated and heavily industrialized areas of both Europe and North America
104 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Air pollution

TOP VEHICLE- G L O B A L D E N S I T Y O F I N D U S T R I A L FA C I L I T I E S , 1 9 9 0 s
OWNING
COUNTRIES, 1998
Vehicles GNP per
per thousand capita
people US$ 1998

USA 767 29 240

Australia 605 20 640
Italy 591 20 090
New Zealand 579 14 600
Canada 560 19 170
Japan 560 32 350
France 530 24 210
Germany 522 26 570
Austria 521 26 830
Switzerland 516 39 980
World 116 4 890
China 8 750
India 7 440
Source: World Bank.

Source: ESRI.

The maps show the most significant centers of manufacturing, taking into account the size of the
labor force and the value of output.

COUNTRIES WITH
T H E G R E AT E S T
INCREASE IN
OWNERSHIP OF
VEHICLES, 1980-98 C I T I E S W I T H R E P O R T E D L E V E L S O F AT M O S P H E R I C
P O L L U TA N T S A B O V E W H O G U I D E L I N E S , 1 9 9 0 - 9 5
Vehicles per %
thousand people increase Country City TSP NO2 SO2 Country City TSP NO2 SO2
1980 1998 1980-98 Micrograms per cubic meter Micrograms per cubic meter
Korea, Rep. 14 226 1 514 Argentina Cordoba City 97 97 Shenyang 374 73 99
Thailand 13 103 692 Brazil Rio de Janeiro 139 129 Taiyuan 568 55 211
Nigeria 4 26 550 Sao Paulo 83 Tianjin 306 50 82
China 2 8 300 Bulgaria Sofia 195 122 Urumqi 515 70 60
Pakistan 2 8 300 Chile Santiago 81 Wuhan 211
Uganda 1 4 300 China Anshan 305 88 115 Zhengzhou 474 95 63
Turkey 23 81 252 Beijing 377 122 90 Zibo 453 198
India 2 7 250 Changchun 381 64 Colombia Bogota 120
Poland 86 273 217 Chengdu 366 74 77 Denmark Copenhagen 54
Indonesia 8 22 175 Chongquing 320 70 340 Ecuador Guayaquil 127
Bolivia 19 52 174 Dalian 185 100 61 Quito 175
Hungary 108 268 148 Guangzhu 295 136 57 Egypt Cairo 69
Greece 134 328 145 Guiyang 330 53 424 France Paris 57
Portugal 145 347 139 Harbin 359 Germany Munich 53
Israel 123 264 115 Jinan 472 132 Ghana Accra 137
Mauritius 44 92 109 Kunming 253 Greece Athens 178 64
Finland 228 448 96 Lanzhou 732 104 102 Hungary Budapest 51
Spain 239 467 95 Liupanshui 408 102 India Ahmedabad 299
Chile 61 110 80 Nanchang 279 69 Bangalore 123
Italy 334 591 77 Pinxiang 276 75 Calcutta 375
Quingdao 64 190 Chennai 130
Source: World Bank. Shanghai 246 73 53 Delhi 415
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Air pollution 105

I N D U S T R I A L FA C I L I T I E S I N E U R O P E , 1 9 9 0 s SULFUR
DEPOSITION IN
THE EASTERN
USA, 2000

Milligrams sulfur
per square meter
Less than 200
200-300
Source: ESRI.
300-400
400-500
Woodworking; printing; textiles; chemical Electrical and precision equipment; 500-600
and pharmaceutical; building materials machinery; metal working; transport 600-700
700-800
Oil, gas and petrochemical processing; Food industry; art and craft 800-900
metallurgy More than 900

Source: NADP/NTN.

SO2 EMISSIONS
Country City TSP NO2 SO2 Country City TSP NO2 SO2 FROM FOSSIL-
Micrograms per cubic meter Micrograms per cubic meter
FUEL BURNING
Hyderabad 152 Omsk 100
Kanpur 459 South Africa Cape Town 72 80 USA
Lucknow 463 Spain Barcelona 117
Europe
Mumbai 240 Thailand Bangkok 223 70
Nagpur 185 Turkey Ankara 55 Asia
Pune 208 Istanbul 120
60
Indonesia Jakarta 271 UK London 77
Million metric tons

Iran Tehran 248 209 Ukraine Kiev 100 51

Italy Milan 248 USA Chicago 57 50
Turin 151 Los Angeles 74
Japan Osaka 63 New York 79 40
Tokyo 68 Venezuela Caracas 57
Yokohama 100 30
Korea, Rep. Pusan 94 51 60
Annual mean guidelines
Seoul 60
TSP: Total suspended particulates, 90 micrograms per 20
Taegu 62 81
cubic meter
Mexico Mexico City 279 130 74
NO2: Nitrogen dioxide, 50 micrograms per cubic meter
Netherlands Amsterdam 58 10
SO2: Sulfur dioxide, 50 micrograms per cubic meter
Philippines Manila 200
Where no figure is shown for the above, its concentrations
Portugal Lisbon 52 0
are within WHO guidelines or are unavailable
Romania Bucharest 71 1980 1990 1995 2000 2010
Russia Moscow 100 109 Source: World Bank. Source: UNEP.
106 P O P U L AT I O N A N D AT M O S P H E R E Air pollution

B I O M A SS B U R N I N G into prime agricultural areas. Mountain regions suffered worst because their higher rainfall
AND CO2 increased the volume of acid deposition, and their often thin soils could not neutralize the acid.
E M I SS I O N S , 1 9 9 0 s Lakes and streams in “pristine” parts of Scandinavia and Scotland became acidified, losing fish
Biomass Carbon
over large areas. The most intense fallout occurred in the “black triangle” bordering Germany,
burned* released the Czech Republic and Poland.
Million metric Since 1985, international treaties and heavy investment by power station operators in
tons per year
“desulfurization” equipment have cut sulfur pollution in Europe and North America by as much
Savannahs 3 690 1 660 as 80 percent. Meanwhile nitrogen emissions from vehicles have stabilized, with the impact of
Agricultural 2 020 910
waste
cleaner cars counterbalanced by increased car use. Critical loads for acidification are still being
Tropical 1 260 570 exceeded in 10 percent of the land area of Western and Central Europe6. In some places,
forests acidified soils and surface water are recovering. But in others the large amounts of acid
Fuelwood 1 430 640
Temperate 280 130 accumulated in soils mean recovery could take decades7. The 1998 Forest Condition Survey of
and boreal Europe by the UN Economic Commission for Europe found a quarter of the continent’s trees
forests
Charcoal 20 30 were missing more than a quarter of their leaves. Air pollution was the main cause8.
World 8 700 3 940 As more countries industrialize, acidification of the environment is becoming a global
* Dry matter problem. Asian emissions of SO2 were expected to exceed those of Europe and North America
Source: UNEP.
combined in the year 2000. The largest source is China, which emits 18 million tons of SO2 a year.
Researchers have only China’s losses to crops and forests from acid deposition stand at US$5 billion a year9. Japan,
quite recently realized the which invested heavily to clean up its own emissions, is now suffering cross-border pollution
importance of biomass from its neighbors10. Modelling studies suggest that without a clean-up, acid fallout over large
burning in overall emissions areas of China will by 2020 exceed the levels reached in Central Europe in the 1970s11.
of greenhouse gases. Under certain meteorological conditions, smogs can spread very large distances to remote,
More than half of the unpopulated areas. In winter, weather systems take smog from Russian industrial centres north
carbon released into the into the Arctic, where it lingers for many months – a phenomenon known as Arctic haze12.
atmosphere comes from Similarly, Asian smogs sometimes travel on westerly winds across the Pacific to North America
biomass burning, the in spring13.
remainder being produced The smoke from some forest fires can also be categorized as human-induced pollution, and
by fossil-fuel burning, can spread thousands of kilometers. In late 1997, Indonesian forest fires polluted neighboring
cement manufacture and countries, causing plane and shipping crashes as well as thousands of hospital admissions for
gas flaring. lung and eye complaints. Health costs from the fires were later put at US$940 million14.
 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Introduction 107

Po p u l a t i o n , w a st e
a n d c h e m i ca l s

aste is an inevitable by-product of most human activities. Landfill and

W People have been generating and discarding materials

since hunter-gatherers threw bones and vegetable remains
outside their caves. For many hundreds of years those
wastes consisted exclusively of matter which biodegraded
easily (such as vegetable and human wastes), or were inert (such as
bones and wood ash). Given the relatively small population, the
quantities of waste were minor and could be readily absorbed by the
m e t h a n e e m i ss i o n s
The primary disposal route for
all wastes is landfill, with more
than 80 percent being disposed
of that way. The anaerobic
decomposition of waste in
environment; indeed they had value in fertilizing the soil. landfill sites is a major source
of methane emissions: of the
As the global population grew, and urban and industrial development accelerated, the opportuni-
total global emissions of
ties to dispose of materials, including biodegradable ones, diminished while the quantities and
nuisance value of wastes increased. Society now has large volumes of waste to deal with: in the methane, estimated in 1999
United Kingdom, for example, more than 500 million tons of waste are generated each year, of at 535 million tons annually,
which some 30 percent are mineral wastes, 20 percent industrial, 40 percent agricultural and 5 per- 375 million tons are the result
cent municipal. A sometimes inordinate focus on household waste has often disguised the much of human activities, and 18
larger volumes generated by up-stream activities such as extraction, manufacture and distribution: percent of those come from
it is often claimed that for every ton of finished product, ten tons of wastes are created.
waste disposal1.
Laws to raise waste management standards were first introduced at the beginning of the
20th century, and today there is a plethora of such regulation. As well as protecting public health
and reducing local nuisance, these laws are increasingly aimed at protecting the wider global
environment. Waste is no longer a local issue. There are global concerns about the consumption of
finite resources and the impacts of their acquisition, as well as the effects of waste management
and the transboundary nature of pollution.
Certain wastes – such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), now phased out, and those from the
nuclear industry – take many years to reach a state where they pose no further threat. Concern
about long-term harm has influenced disposal methods. We have learned, in theory, how to manage
landfill sites to contain leakage, and how to seal radioactive waste in concrete tanks for safe, long-
term storage. We have developed combustion technologies to minimize emissions, and found ways
to clean those emissions. Yet despite the many advances, disposing of waste is still problematic.
Some potential disposal sites are ruled out by geological factors and some by their distance from
the point of arising, but almost all are opposed by nearby residents. Proposals to site a recycling
collection point attract as much opposition as those to construct a high-tech incinerator. We all want
the goods and services which industrialized society provides – from power supplies to computers,
fast food to vitamin pills – yet we do not want the resulting waste to affect us as individuals. This is
exacerbated by mistrust of waste management systems and the risk of accident.
Industrial waste reflects not only the type of industry, but also how efficiently it is operated, and
whether “clean technologies” are adopted. It is estimated that 26 percent of Europe’s waste comes
from manufacturing. In 1996, the United Kingdom generated 56 million tons of manufacturing
108 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Introduction

M U N I C I PA L WA S T E WORLD WASTE MANAGEMENT, 1990s

IN OECD COUNTRIES, Selected cities
MID-1990s
Municipal Of which Proportion of inhabitants with
waste household connection to sewerage systems
Kilos per capita
Australia 690 400 Proportion of inhabitants with
Austria 480 310
Belgium 470 id regular refuse collection services
Canada 630 310
Czech Rep. 230 150

100%
Denmark 530 500 id Insufficient data
Finland 410 180
France 560 410
Data on waste management and pollution are extremely

100%
Germany 400 380 Toronto
Greece 310 id sparse, particularly at the global level. However, data on rates
Hungary 420 270 of urban refuse collection and drainage, even when few and far id
Iceland 560 240

100%
Ireland 430 290 between, are a reasonable indicator of the overall ability of a New York
Italy 470 400 nation or region to regulate waste and pollution.

100%
Japan 400 id
Korea, Rep. 390 id Havana

100%
Luxembourg 530 250
Mexico 330 260 San Salvador
Netherlands 580 470
New Zealand id 390
Bogota

100%
Norway 620 300

100%
Poland 290 210

100%
Portugal 350 id
Spain 370 id Rio de
Sweden 440 360 Lima Janeiro
Switzerland 610 430
Asuncion

100%
Turkey 590 id
UK 490 460
USA 720 id
Santiago
% re- % incin- % land-
cycled erated filled
Australia id id id
Austria 38 14 48
Belgium 14 31 55
Canada 19 6 75
Czech Rep. id id 99
Denmark 23 54 22
Finland 33 2 65
France 9 32 59
Germany 29 17 51
Greece 7 – 93
Hungary – 7 93 U S A : M AT E R I A L S I N T H E M U N I C I PA L W A S T E S T R E A M , 1 9 6 0 - 9 0
Iceland 14 17 69
Ireland 8 – 92 Paper and paperboard Glass Metal Aluminum Plastics
Italy – 6 94 Million % Million % Million % Million % Million %
Japan 4 69 27 tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled
Korea, Rep. 24 4 72
Luxembourg 28 43 28 1960 29.9 18 6.7 1 10.1 1 0.4 n 0.4 n
Mexico 1 – 99 1970 44.2 17 12.7 2 13.3 3 0.8 n 3.1 n
Netherlands 38 27 35 1980 54.7 22 15.0 5 12.7 7 1.8 17 6.8 n
New Zealand id id id 1990 73.3 29 13.2 20 13.5 20 2.7 37 16.2 2
Norway 15 16 69
Poland 2 – 98 Rubber and leather Textiles Wood Food waste Garden waste
Portugal 12 – 88 Million % Million % Million % Million % Million %
Spain 12 4 83 tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled tons recycled
Sweden 19 42 39
Switzerland 40 46 14 1960 2.0 15 1.7 n 3.0 n 12.2 n 20.0 n
Turkey 2 2 81 1970 3.2 9 2.0 n 4.0 n 12.8 n 23.2 n
UK 7 9 83 1980 4.3 2 2.6 n 6.7 n 13.2 n 27.5 n
USA 27 16 57 1990 4.6 4 5.6 4 12.3 3 13.2 n 35.0 12

Source: OECD. n = negligible: less than 50 000 tons or 0.05 percent Source: EPA.
 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Introduction 109

NUCLEAR WASTE
FROM SPENT FUEL
IN NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS
S e le c te d O E C D
100%

co u n t r i e s *
100%

100%

Canada
Stockholm
France
100%

100%
100%

Warsaw Moscow Sweden

100%

UK (excl. N. Ireland)
100%

id
Leipzig
Ulan Bator Switzerland
100%

Paris
100%

100%
Tbilisi Hungary
100%

Athens
100%

id Korea, Rep.
100%

100%

Tehran id
100%

100%

Lahore Shanghai Finland

100%
Tunis
100%

Japan
100%

Nouakchott Cairo Delhi

100%

Sana’a Spain
100%

Dhaka
Hanoi
100%

Khartoum OECD
100%

Lagos
100%
100%

Mumbai
100%

Belgium
Abidjan
Nairobi Germany (excl. former East)
100%

Colombo id
Dar es Jakarta Czech Rep.
100%

Luanda
Salaam
USA
100%

id
Lusaka
100%

id Mexico
Antananarivo
Netherlands
Gaborone
100%

100%
Maputo 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Metric tons of heavy metal per
id million metric tons oil equivalent
Melbourne Auckland of primary energy supply

* Latest available data

Source: OECD.
Source: World Bank.

R E C Y C L E D PA P E R P R O D U CT I O N GLASS WASTE
Relative to total paper production RECYCLING, 1992-95
A s a p ro p o r t i o n o f
100 100
total consumption,
Million
metric tons s e le c t e d co u n t r i e s
80 80
Recycled Switzerland

Virgin Germany
60 60
Sweden
Japan
40 40 France
Portugal
20 20 Australia
UK

0 0 USA

1968 1998 1968 1998 1968 1998 1968 1998 1968 1998 1968 1998 Canada
North
Latin America
Europe Africa Asia Oceania
America and Caribbean 0 % 20 40 60 80
Source: FAO. Source: UNDP.
110 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S
Tre n d s i n re c yc l i n g
Poor communities recover
every valuable item from waste:
Asian recyclers use rubber from
scrap tyres to make shoes,
make their own recycled paper
and flatten cans to make metal
sheets for roofing. Annually
200 million tons of waste cross
OECD borders en route to
reprocessing facilities, a
business worth over US$20
billion. Waste paper travels
from North America to the Far
East; Europe’s surplus glass is
sent to South America; some of
the West’s waste plastics are
shipped to China. A shortage
of reprocessing capacity
limits recycling, and industries
established to process
consistently clean virgin
materials cannot readily adapt
to the vagaries of secondary
materials. Cost is another issue:
collecting small quantities of
materials from many locations
is logistically and economically
more difficult than obtaining
large quantities from a single
source. Indeed recycling
may not always be resource-
efficient when collection and
reprocessing involve long-haul
transport. Recycling is not
keeping pace with waste
increases in most countries.
Introduction
waste2. These quantities are diminishing, but not fast enough to counteract the rises caused by
increased consumption. Pressure for industry to reduce wastage comes from both internal and
external economic drivers. Producer responsibility initiatives – already in place or proposed for a
range of goods from batteries and packaging to vehicles and electronic equipment – make indus-
try responsible for its products after use, and should result in fewer harmful components, as well
as design decisions which will make disassembly and recycling easier.
Industrialization and level of affluence influence both the composition and quantity of waste
generated by society. Research shows that in lower income regions of the world (such as Jakarta,
Indonesia or Lucknow, India) 73 to 96 percent of the typical family’s waste comprises food and
biodegradable material, while in the higher income area of Brooklyn, New York, that figure is
26 percent3. Waste densities vary too: in high income countries, waste density is lower because it
contains more lighter materials and manufactured goods, more paper and less food waste.
The link between affluence and municipal waste generation is surprisingly close: a 40 percent
increase in the GDP of countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) since 1980 has been accompanied by the same percentage growth in muni-
cipal waste. The OECD predicts that there will be a further 70 to 100 percent increase in GDP in its
region by 2020. Unless the link between waste generation and GDP is severed, there could be a com-
mensurate increase in waste. This is likely to be further exacerbated by certain social trends, such as
the increase in single-person households due to higher divorce rates and the ageing population,
particularly in the developed world. As the developing world industrializes and grows more affluent,
it too can be expected to increase waste generation.
How can the links be broken? Technological developments in materials have already helped to
reduce waste: food cans and glass milk bottles are each half the weight they were 50 years ago.
This, alongside new materials, is reflected in the composition of household waste. In the United
States, for example, the combined percentage of glass and metals in the waste stream diminished
from 22 percent in 1970 to around 16 percent in 1990. Plastics rose from 2 percent to 9 percent,
while paper and card remained fairly constant at around 38 percent4. By contrast, paper makes up
just 5 percent of the waste in Ghana5.
Trial schemes which charge householders for the waste they produce have raised awareness,
although they have also thrown up a few new problems, such as wastes being dumped by roadsides
to avoid the charges. The Swiss Environment Ministry reports that another method of avoiding waste
charges – the burning of domestic refuse in gardens or fireplaces – is now the country’s biggest
cause of dioxin pollution. While the national emissions of dioxin from municipal incineration facili-
ties are just 16 grams per year, uncontrolled burning of waste by householders emits between
27 and 30 grams of dioxin each year, despite the fact that only 1 to 2 percent of Switzerland’s munic-
ipal waste is burned illegally, while 46 percent is burned in properly managed plants.
Sustainable development policies require us to take a more holistic view of waste and resources.
We need to change attitudes, and to husband resources more carefully, particularly those which are
finite. Observing the proximity principle and providing waste treatment and disposal facilities within
a region’s boundaries can do a great deal to reduce the environmental impact of managing waste.
TOXIC WASTE
The international community is working to strengthen legislation on the use, movement
and disposal of toxic and hazardous waste, and to rid the developing world and countries
in transition of dumps of dangerous and obsolete pesticides, which frequently expose
local communities to poisons in their air, food and water. To date just 3 500 tons have
been removed from Africa and the Near East at a cost of US$24 million. But estimates
suggest that a further 20 000 tons remain in Africa, 80 000 tons in Asia and Latin
America, and up to 200 000 tons in Central and Eastern Europe6.
 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Industrial chemicals 111

Industrial
chemicals

umans have found chemicals essential for modifying and PCBs and

H controlling their environment from the earliest times.

Ancient civilizations smelted metals for tools, weapons and
ornaments and these operations produced chemical wastes.
The Romans conducted metal mining and smelting operations
in many parts of their empire and the resulting environmental impacts
are still measurable today; lead levels in some soils in several parts of
England still reflect metal processing carried out 2 000 years ago 1.
bioaccumulation
PCBs accumulate in the fat
of plants and animals, and
low levels in plants are
concentrated at each
subsequent step in the food
chain. This process of
The industrial revolution saw a massive rise in population accompanied by an increase in industries biomagnification exposes top
of all kinds. Textiles, steel, glass and soap manufacture were all dependent on the ready availability
predators such as birds of
of basic chemicals like sulfuric acid and the alkali sodium carbonate. The chemical industry was
born as the technology to mass produce these commodities developed. prey, marine mammals and
Our current standard of living would be impossible without industries such as steel, non-ferrous humans to the highest levels
metals, power generation and chemicals manufacture. However, they have also had a profound and puts them at the greatest
effect on our environment. Our bodies and our surroundings are contaminated by their wastes. Soil, risk of toxic effects. The
atmosphere and water contain reservoirs of waste metals and organic chemicals which reach us bodies of humans and animals
through our food, drinking water and the air we breathe.
in even the most remote
One chemical that has had a particularly strong environmental impact is chlorine. Chlorine
was originally a waste product of alkali manufacture, but as the 20th century progressed it found locations carry a burden of
many new uses. The chlorine industry grew rapidly following the Second World War, producing these wastes which will
products such as pesticides, solvents, dry cleaning fluids and PVC plastic. These goods brought remain for generations to
many advantages, and it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that it was recognized that many chlorine come. The process of global
compounds were toxic and environmentally persistent. distillation (see page 98)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are an example of the early products of the chlorine industry
means that people and animals
which were to prove highly damaging to the environment. PCBs are non-flammable oily liquids or
waxes which found uses as hydraulic fluids, as additives to oils, in sealants, in electrical applica- in the Arctic contain
tions and in paints. First manufactured in 1929 in the United States, evidence that they were particularly high levels3,4.
persistent, accumulated in plants and animals, and toxic became overwhelming in the 1960s.
Because of the large number of different PCBs it has proved difficult to untangle all of their toxic
impacts, but many are suspected of promoting cancers, damaging the immune and reproductive
systems and interfering with hormone systems through endocrine disruption. Particularly disturb-
ing is evidence that children born to mothers contaminated with high levels of PCBs suffer impaired
nervous system development2. The products were phased-out or banned in Western countries in
the 1970s, though their manufacture continued in Eastern countries for many years more.
Not all chemical pollutants are deliberately manufactured. The by-products and compounds
of chemical processes can be transformed in the environment into different, sometimes more
hazardous, breakdown products. Dioxins, for example, are by-products of combustion and waste
incineration processes. The rapid increase in the use of coal as a fuel during the 19th century
112 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Industrial chemicals

INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT E M I S S I O N S O F O R G A N I C W AT E R P O L L U TA N T S , 1 9 9 7
S e le c t e d co u n t r i e s Kilos per worker per day
Industry value added, 1998
Million as % Less than 0.1
US$ of GDP

USA 2 139 903 26 0.1-0.15

Japan 1 399 697 37
China 469 925 49
0.15-0.17
UK 420 731 31
Brazil 225 681 29
India 107 506 25 0.17-0.20
Mexico 106 247 27
Gabon 3 311 60
Panama 1 646 18 0.20-0.24
Congo, Rep. 981 50
Georgia 821 16
Haiti 774 20 More than 0.25
Madagascar 525 14
Moldova 501 31
Insufficient data
Note: Data on waste production are
very sparse; industrial output serves
as a crude indicator of industrial This measure has been taken as an indicator of relative levels of
waste output.
Source: World Bank. industrial pollution because data on water pollution are more
readily available than data on other emissions. This is because
I N D U S T R I A L WA S T E most industrial pollution control programs begin by regulating
IN OECD COUNTRIES, emissions of organic water pollutants.
L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
Czech Rep. 353
Luxembourg
Finland
Australia
Sweden
Poland
Turkey
France
Hungary
OECD
Austria
Belgium
Korea, Rep.
Ireland
Greece P R O D U C T I O N O F O R G A N I C W AT E R P O L L U TA N T S A N D R E L AT I V E
Mexico SHARE BY TYPE OF INDUSTRY, MID-1990s
Japan Selected countries
UK (excl. N. Ireland)
Metric tons % change % share by type of industry
Germany (excl. former East) per day since Primary Paper Chemicals Food and Textiles Wood Other
New Zealand Mid-1990s 1980 metals and pulp beverages
Netherlands
China 7 396 119 20.6 11.9 14.2 28.9 14.1 1.0 9.3
Norway
USA 2 585 -6 8.8 32.8 10.1 27.3 7.3 2.7 11.0
Spain India 1 664 17 15.5 7.5 8.2 51.5 11.6 0.3 5.4
Denmark Russia 1 615 id 18.2 6.8 9.2 44.7 8.0 2.6 10.5
Italy Japan 1 469 1 8.6 21.9 8.9 38.9 6.8 1.9 13.0
Germany 811 id 12.7 16.8 15.5 30.6 4.8 2.2 17.4
Switzerland Indonesia 728 240 2.4 8.9 8.6 50.2 21.7 5.3 2.9
Portugal Brazil 691 -20 19.0 12.6 9.3 41.6 10.9 1.6 5.0
Israel UK 642 -33 7.4 26.3 10.6 35.7 7.5 2.0 10.5
0 50 100 150 200 France 585 -20 11.6 21.2 10.8 37.7 6.1 1.8 10.8
Kilos per thousand US$ GDP Ukraine 540 id 20.5 3.7 7.5 50.7 6.7 1.6 9.3
Source: OECD. Source: World Bank.
 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Industrial chemicals 113

WORLD CHEMICALS
PRODUCTION, 1997
By region

USA 28% European

Union
31%

Latin
America
4% Rest of
Western
Rest of Europe
world 2%
4%
Central
Japan 15% and Eastern
Rest of Asia 12% Europe 4%

Total value: US$1 231 billion

Source: CEFIC.

C H E M I CA L S
PRODUCTION IN THE
EUROPEAN UNION
1997 production
Million US$

Germany 96 786
France 69 413
UK 47 501
Italy 45 275
Belgium 32 924
Spain 26 560
Netherlands 25 907
Ireland 12 051
Sweden 8 256
Denmark 4 922
Finland 4 514
Source: World Bank. Austria 4 284
Portugal 3 645
Greece 3 283
EU total 385 321
DANGEROUS CHEMICALS INTENSITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Source: CEFIC.
P ro d u c t i o n a n d i m p o r t s o f d a n g e ro u s c h e m i c a l s re l a t i ve t o G D P
120 120
Total EU production
Index (1990=100) of chemicals (volume) E N V I R O N M E N TA L
EXPENDITURE IN
115 115
THE EUROPEAN
EU production and imports of
dangerous chemicals and UNION CHEMICAL
chemicals of concern
110 110 INDUSTRY
As % of sales
EU (15)
GDP Operating Capital
105 105 cost expenditure

1990 3.9 1.0

1991 3.9 1.0
100 100 1992 4.0 1.0
1993 3.8 0.8
1994 3.5 0.6
1995 3.4 0.5
95 95
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1996 3.5 0.6
Source: UNEP. Source: CEFIC.
114 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Industrial chemicals

Disposal increased dioxin pollution. But a second factor which resulted in a steep increase in their genera-
difficulties tion was the chlorine industry. Dioxins are generated by many chemical processes involving chlorine
In 1986 The Khian Sea left and are found in wastes from PVC manufacture, and as contaminants in chlorine-containing
Philadelphia with a cargo of
products including some pesticides and dyes5.
Safe disposal of hazardous waste products like PCBs presents a problem. PCBs in landfills may
14 000 tons of incinerator ash
vaporize and turn up in landfill gas or escape to the air. The safest disposal method is by incineration
containing metals and dioxins. in a purpose-built hazardous waste incinerator. However, even this method has drawbacks. Poorly
The ship sailed the Caribbean designed or badly operated incinerators may spread PCBs or other contaminants rather than
for two years looking for a destroy them. In 1993, an incinerator at Pontypool in Wales was found to have been polluting local
dumping ground. Most of the soils and food with high levels of PCBs and dioxins6.
load was finally tipped into the
Past disposal of hazardous waste has often been the cause of environmental problems. The
dumping of waste at sea was once a widespread practice. It was difficult to regulate and its effects on
sea, while 4 000 tons were off-
the marine environment impossible to monitor. However, international agreements made under
loaded in Haiti – later to be the 1972 London Convention have gradually succeeded in reducing the number of countries dump-
returned to the United States ing at sea. Many European nations have not only agreed to stop the sea disposal of industrial waste,
after an international outcry. but also the dumping of sewage sludge – contaminated with toxic metals and dioxins – and radio-
The 1972 London Convention active wastes.
has done much to prevent
Hazardous wastes have also been exported to developing countries which have no facilities to
dispose of them, and whose people have little knowledge of the hazards they represent. Efforts to
incidents like this.
control the trade in hazardous waste began in 1989 with the Basel Convention. A blanket ban on the
export of hazardous wastes from developed to developing nations has been agreed and is now
applied – although it still awaits formal legal completion.
In developed countries there is increasing control of industrial waste and its disposal. There is
good evidence, for example, that emissions of PCBs and dioxins are declining, and so too is human
exposure7. But there is a clear need for the international community to ensure that developing
countries are able to impose sufficient controls on their industries to minimize the generation of
hazardous wastes and ensure their correct disposal in order to protect the health of their popula-
tions and the global environment.
Many lessons have been learned from the experience of the last 50 years. However, there are
an estimated 100 000 chemicals on the market and their ecotoxicity and biodegradability are often
poorly studied8. Although international rules now require testing of the new chemicals produced in
large volumes, there is an enormous backlog of compounds for which full hazard and toxicity data
have never been produced. Modern chemical analytical techniques show that sewage sludges and
waters receiving industrial and domestic effluents contain cocktails of thousands of chemicals –
waste products, by-products and breakdown products of modern chemical goods from fragrances to
flame retardants.
Attempts to assess the risks – and to introduce new controls on their use – have proved to be a
E S T I M AT E D lengthy and contentious process. Risk assessments are imperfect because they cannot take into
NUMBERS OF account all the possible interactive effects between different compounds9. It is also not yet possible
CHEMICALS, 1990s to assess the safety of endocrine disrupting chemicals because their effects are not sufficiently
Total number 5 000 000 understood and test methods still have to be commonly established.
including: The presence of so many pollutants in the environment begs the question of whether society
Chemicals in commerce 100 000
Industrial chemicals 72 000 should adopt a more precautionary approach to the release of chemical wastes. New ideas for
(millions of products) regulating chemicals include strategies which give the environment the benefit of the doubt when
New chemicals 2 000
(per year) data on toxicity and environmental fate are lacking. For example, an agreement reached by many
Pesticides 600 countries surrounding the North Sea, under the OSPAR treaty in 1998, aims to reduce levels of
(21 000 products)
manufactured chemicals in the environment by “continuously reducing discharges” of hazardous
Food additives 8 700
Cosmetic ingredients 7 500 substances with the aim of achieving environmental concentrations “close to zero” for all syn-
(40 000 products) thetic substances by 201010.
Human pharmaceuticals 3 300

Source: EPA; EC.

 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Agrochemicals 115

A g ro c h e m i ca l s

orld food production has approximately doubled since Natural pesticides

W 1960, largely as a result of the introduction of new crop

varieties and the intensification of agriculture – supported
by increased applications of fertilizers and pesticides. But
some scientists suggest that population and economic
growth worldwide have raised the demand for food beyond levels that
can be supported by extensive and environmentally benign farming 1.
In India, seeds of the neem
tree are used as a natural
insecticide, protecting crops
and stored grain from up to
200 species of pest including
locusts, maize borers and rice
At the end of the 20th century an average of 91 kilos of fertilizer were used on each hectare of the weevils. But the neem does
world’s cropland, an increase of more than a third since the mid-1970s. This masks huge variations, not harm birds, mammals or
from just 1 kilo in Rwanda or Mongolia, to more than 700 in Switzerland. Since the mid-1980s, use
beneficial insects such as bees.
per hectare in the developed world has declined from 121 kilos to around 81 kilos – a time during
which its agricultural production remained almost static.
In the developing world between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, agricultural production and
fertilizer use both increased by almost 42 percent, the latter from an average of 63 kilos per hectare
of cropland. Consumption of fertilizers and its growth were highest in Asia, while in Africa usage
has actually fallen since the 1980s – from 19 kilos per hectare to 18. The Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations predicts further rises in the developing world, probably of around
2.8 percent per year3 from current levels of almost 99 kilos of fertilizer per hectare of cropland.
The benefits are increased supplies of food, but problems arise when significant amounts of
fertilizer escape into the wider environment – for example through the leaching and runoff of fer-
tilizers into ground and surface waters. Elevated nitrate levels in drinking water, recognized as a
threat to human health, have been found in 6 percent of wells surveyed by the Environmental
Protection Agency in the United States; in the United Kingdom, where over a million people’s supply
was found to have levels in excess of European legal limits; and in the drinking waters of Sao Paulo,
Brazil and Buenos Aires, Argentina. As nitrates take many years to penetrate groundwater, these
problems could increase as a result of the heavy applications of fertilizers in the recent past.
High nitrate and phosphorus levels in rivers, lakes and coastal waters disrupt the balance of
aquatic habitats through the process of eutrophication. In freshwaters, high phosphorus levels
encourage excessive algal growth and create murky green waters which shade out bottom-rooting
plants, impacting invertebrates and fish that depend on such plants for food and shelter. Similarly
in coastal and estuarine waters, excessive nitrate inputs boost algae and turbidity, and promote fil-
ter-feeding worms and bivalves – effects that may be particularly damaging for coral reefs.
Massive agglomerations of algae known as blooms cause deaths of aquatic life on a huge scale.
In 1996 a bloom smothered invertebrates over several hundred square kilometers off Scotland’s
west coast4, and in 1998 a bloom off California poisoned more than 400 sea lions 5. Filter-feeding
shellfish such as mussels and oysters can become toxic as they absorb algae from the water. In
most developed countries shellfisheries are now monitored to guard against related outbreaks of
poisoning, which are becoming increasingly frequent.
116 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Agrochemicals

THE WORLD TRADE WORLD FERTILIZER USE, 1998

IN PESTICIDES Kilos per hectare of cultivated land
Developed world imports
Developed world exports Up to 10
Developing world imports
Developing world exports
10-20
10

8 20-50
Billion US$

6
50-90
4

2 90-300
0
1970 1980 1990 1998
300-1 000
Source: FAO.

More than 1 000

EXPORTS OF
BANNED OR Insufficient data
RESTRICTED
PESTICIDES Over the last decade fertilizer use remained static or fell in a
FROM US PORTS number of countries with very high use, such as the United
Kingdom or Iceland, but continued to increase rapidly in others,
Banned, suspended particularly the United Arab Emirates.
or discontinued
Severely restricted
Restricted use
40
Thousand metric tons

30

20

10

0
1992 1993 1994 AREAS OF HIGH PESTICIDE USE
Source: FASE.

R E S I S TA N C E T O
PESTICIDES
250

200
Pesticide-
resistant
150 crop diseases

100
Pesticide-
resistant
50 weeds

0
1970 1980 1990 1998
Source: Worldwatch Institute. Source: ESRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S Agrochemicals 117

FERTILIZER USE
Regional share,
1997
North America Europe
17% 18%
Latin
America
and
Caribbean
8%
Africa 3%
Oceania
2%
Asia
52%

Total fertilizer use:

137.25 million metric tons

Regional growth
80
Million
metric tons
60
1961
40 1997

20

North America
Latin America
and Caribbean
Europe

Africa

Asia

Oceania
Source: FAO.

Source: FAO.
FERTILIZER USE
AND CEREAL YIELDS
THE GROWTH OF FERTILIZER USE Selected countries
Kilos per hectare of arable and cropland Fertilizer use %
120 120 Kilos increase
per hectare in yield
Kilos
Developed countries

1968 1998 1968-98

Developing countries
100 100
Papua 2 22 108
New Guinea
Kenya 8 28 21
80 80 India 11 99 114
China 26 259 153
Italy 76 158 101
60 60 USA 77 110 77
Israel 113 277 23
Egypt 115 337 87
40 40 Denmark 204 170 51
Korea, Rep. 206 458 91
UK 243 330 93
20 20 Ireland 258 520 58
Switzerland 348 749 76
Japan 365 290 11
Netherlands 622 494 78
0 0
1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 World 43 91 77
Source: FAO. Source: FAO.
118 P O P U L AT I O N , W A S T E A N D C H E M I C A L S
Carnivorous
algae
Fish farmers suffered major
economic losses in the
Neuse estuary in North
Carolina, United States,
when a billion fish were
killed by a recently
discovered carnivorous
species of alga. Pfiesteria
chemically senses fish and
produces lethal toxins which
kill in only a few hours,
and then feeds off their
decaying remains. The toxins
can also cause skin ulcers on
people exposed to them.
Agrochemicals
When blooms die back and decay they exhaust supplies of dissolved oxygen, suffocating fish and
other aquatic species. Oxygen deficiency has been reported as damaging wildlife in the coastal
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound in the United States, and the
Baltic Sea, while in the United Kingdom some 150 tons of farmed fish were suffocated in 1998 by
starch-like chemicals released by algae6.
Alongside nitrogen oxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, nitrogen fertilizers lead to an
increase in nitrogen-containing emissions from plants and soils, adding to the nitrogen load in the
atmosphere. Additional deposition of nitrogen compounds over land disturbs upland ecosystems
which are naturally constrained by low nitrogen levels. Atmospheric deposition to the world's
oceans, which is estimated to exceed the total nitrogen input from rivers, may also trigger algal
blooms7. Nitrogen fertilizers also contribute to emissions from soil of nitrous oxide – the third most
significant greenhouse gas. Similarly, nitrogen in rivers results in emissions of the gas from estu-
aries, but human impacts on the scale of this natural process are still little understood8.
Although the use of pesticides increased more than 30 times between 1950 and the end of the
1980s, pests still cost the world billions of dollars annually in lost agricultural production, and more
species of weeds, diseases and insects are becoming resistant, up from under 100 in the 1950s
to more than 700 today. Use of pesticides in the developed world is now decreasing, in part
as a result of the substitution of new more powerful chemicals which are used in much smaller
amounts. However, it is still increasing in developing countries, which currently account for more
than a quarter of the world’s consumption – with a total estimated value of US$25 to US$32 billion
annually9, up from US$16 billion in 1986.
Applications of pesticides inevitably lead to residues in soils which may evaporate to the air or
be washed into watercourses, causing contamination of food and the environment, and endangering
human health. In the early 1990s, the World Health Organization estimated that 3 million people a
year suffered from acute pesticide poisoning with as many as 200 000 of them dying. Most are in the
developing world, where village conditions virtually prohibit the safe use of dangerous pesticides. A
1993 study in Indonesia showed that 21 percent of spraying operations resulted in three or more
symptoms associated with pesticide poisoning. Eighty-four percent of farmers were also found to
be storing chemicals in their homes, in unsafe conditions where children could reach them10.
Groundwater contamination is particularly serious as it is long-lived and expensive or impossible
to remedy. Spray drift into streams and rivers, and contamination from spillages, tank washings or
discarded pesticide containers also present a real threat to watercourses. It has been estimated
that up to 50 million United States citizens may be drinking pesticide-polluted water, while in
England and Wales, reducing pesticides in public drinking water supplies to a precautionary level
of 0.1 micrograms per liter is estimated to have cost water companies in excess of US$1.2 billion11.
Despite the efforts of chemists to design products which bind to soil or crop surfaces, water conta-
mination appears to be unavoidable12. Some pesticides are also persistent organic pollutants
(POPs), including DDT, hexachlorocyclohexane, toxaphene and dieldrin, and are transported through
the atmosphere to be redeposited in cooler regions.
Concern over pesticide residues has prompted the development of integrated pest management
(IPM) – the use of a variety of controls including the conservation of existing natural enemies, crop
rotation, intercropping, and cultivation of pest-resistant varieties. Pesticides may still be used,
but selectively and in greatly reduced quantities. This approach is producing striking results: in
Indonesia rice yields have increased by 13 percent alongside a drop in pesticide use of 60 percent,
while a study of fruit growers using IPM in New York State and California showed falling costs along-
side increased yields.
The revival of organic farming may also prove significant. This already accounts for 10 percent
of the food system in Austria and Switzerland, and is growing at 20 percent a year in France, Japan,
Singapore and the United States. Whether this represents limited idealism or the presaging
of widely accepted agricultural practices that embrace more holistic approaches to the wider
environment remains to be seen.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Introduction 119

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
e co s y st e m s

COSYSTEMS sustain life on Earth. They provide vital “ecological

E services” by cleaning up and absorbing pollution, protecting

coastlines, supplying “wild” food from fish to bushmeat,
conserving genetic resources needed for crops and
pharmaceuticals, maintaining soils and hydrology, pollinating
crops and much more. But the demands of rising human populations in
many regions are now impacting most of the world’s ecosystems.

Humans have been altering their environment for thousands of years. The process probably began
with the setting of fires in savannah grassland to aid hunting. Most forests contain the marks of
human-set fires, clearance and tree planting, and little strictly “virgin” vegetated land surface now
remains.
In the past 10 000 years the dominant technological influences have been the use of timber
for building and the spread of crop cultivation. This has accelerated, particularly in the past 150
years during which time the rising population has doubled the area of arable land in use on the
Earth’s surface.
During this period the burning of fossil fuels has for the first time had a major impact on
ecosystems, through pollution and, most recently, climate change. In the past three decades, the
widespread saturation of ecosystems with nitrogen compounds, such as ammonia and nitrogen
oxides from agricultural fertilizers and air pollution, has emerged as a new global-scale threat.
The extent of ecosystem loss and alteration is closely related to population density, which is very
uneven across the planet. Today, one half of the human population lives on less than 10 percent of the
Earth’s land, and three quarters on only 20 percent1.
For much of human history, the most heavily populated regions of the planet, and the most
ecologically disturbed, have been Europe and South and East Asia – and that remains the case.
The population densities of the Americas and Africa have only now risen to those achieved in
Europe and India by 17502. In India today, population density is more than 300 people per square
kilometer, seven times the global average; little land is unused by humans; and almost 80 percent
of the original forest cover has been lost. In particularly uninhabitable parts of the planet population
density is very low. In Alaska, for example, it is less than a tenth of the global average, and most of
the landscape remains untouched.
Land affected by human activity can be divided into areas transformed – notably by agriculture,
which in some parts of the world such as the North American prairies is characterized by low
population density but high ecosystem loss – and areas degraded and fragmented by pollution,
sporadic human activity including hunting and tourism, or infrastructure development such as high-
ways and pipelines.
The extent of forests, which once covered a large part of the planet, is one good measure of
ecosystem survival. Overall, at least half of the world’s forests have disappeared at the hand of
humankind – three quarters of these in the past 300 years and the majority within the past century.
120 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Introduction

PLANET EARTH MAIN LANDCOVER

TYPES AND OCEAN
PRODUCTIVITY
Oceans
71%
Forest

Land Ice 3%
26% Shrub

Savannah/grass

Forests Permanent Cropland

26% pasture 26%

Crop and arable

Other* 33% land 12% Wetland and inland water
Wetlands and
lakes 3%
Snow/ice

* Includes arid areas, wastelands,

urban areas, roads, rivers and Barren/desert
grasslands not used as
permanent pastures
Insufficient data
Source: WRI; FAO.

Marine chlorophyll
concentration
High

Low

The map shows a simplified image

of landcover types and ocean
productivity. Ongoing in-depth study
of these is crucial to understanding
the roles played by the various
ecosystems in the overall well-being
of the planet.

C L I M AT I C R E G I O N S O F T H E W O R L D
Polar
Ice cap and tundra

Cooler humid
Subarctic and
continental

Warmer humid
Marine west coast,
humid subtropical and
Mediterranean

Dry
Steppe and desert

Tropical humid
Savannah and
rainforest Source: Times.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Introduction 121

Source: NASA; USGS.

THE LIVING PLANET INDEX, 1970-99

100 100 100 The living planet index,
developed by the World
90 90 90 Conservation Monitoring
Centre (UNEP–WCMC) and
WWF, the conservation
80 80 80
Index (1970=100)
Index (1970=100)

Index (1970=100)

organization, provides an
indicator of the health of the
70 70 70
three major ecosystem types
of the planet. Based on the
60 60 60 population trends of marine,
freshwater and forest species,
Marine Freshwater Forest it shows that there has been
50 50 50
ecosystems ecosystems ecosystems
a considerable decline in the
health of all three ecosystem
40 40 40
1970 75 80 85 90 95 99 1970 75 80 85 90 95 99 1970 75 80 85 90 95 99 types since 1970.
122 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Introduction

Their survival is lowest where population density is highest. The Asia/Pacific region has lost 76
percent of its original forest cover, mostly to agricultural development but also to urbanization and
mineral exploitation. Losses in Europe (excluding Russia) average 75 percent, in Russia 24 percent,
in Africa 68 percent, and in the Americas 35 percent, but with much higher rates in more densely
populated areas such as the coastal regions and Central America3.
The largest tracts of wilderness survive only in the less populated areas of the world, which for
various reasons have proved hard for humans to colonize in any numbers. These include the jungles
of the Amazon basin and Central Africa; the frozen taiga regions of Siberia and remote areas of
North America; and some desert, mountain and wetland regions. Examples of the latter types
include the African Sahara, the mountainous Himalayan regions of otherwise densely populated
South Asia, and the Florida Everglades, nature’s largest preserve on the eastern coast of the
United States4.
Often, rising wealth and economic activity among human populations intensify their impact on
local ecosystems by increasing demand for natural resources and generating pollution from indus-
try and energy generation. But not always. Wealth can provide the resources for a clean-up of
pollution, as occurred with a number of European rivers in recent years. Likewise, many European
countries are replacing farmland and old industrial developments with quasi-natural forests. This is
possible because they have the wealth to buy food from elsewhere or to invest in high-input intensive
agriculture to grow more food from less land, and have the desire to restore ancient habitats5.
The United Kingdom, for instance, is planting a “national forest” in the heart of a former Midlands
mining and industrial zone.
Some technological advances are more ambiguous. The development of coal burning in the
18th century was initially heralded in Europe as a solution to a growing shortage of fuelwood, and
slowed deforestation across the continent. Only later did the environmental downside of fossil
fuels emerge.
The link between population density and environmental damage is also disrupted when pros-
perous or powerful communities, either deliberately or accidentally, buy local ecological conser-
vation at the expense of damage to other areas. Such transference has a long history. The ancient
city of Rome turned North Africa into a grain-growing “breadbasket” to supply its million-plus
population, until most African soils were exhausted. The grain, meanwhile, was transported across
the Mediterranean aboard a fleet of a thousand ships made of wood cut from the Levant.
In the modern era, Japan’s demand for timber has deforested much of Southeast Asia, while
East African forests have been cleared to grow tea, coffee and other cash crops for export to Europe,
and South American pampas grasslands have all but disappeared to provide pasture for meat
supplying Europe and North America6.
Additionally, ecological damage may occur despite low population densities where key environ-
mental resources are in locally short supply. One example is the extreme stress on fluvial eco-
systems resulting from water shortages in the arid Middle East where, despite recent increases,
overall population density is low by world standards.
Human activity has also created a series of long-distance threats to ecosystems, some of them
global in extent. These include acid deposition, the thinning ozone layer, the spread of persistent
organic pollutants (POPs), climate change and the spread of nitrogen compounds through soils
and fluvial ecosystems7.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mountains 123

Mountains

OUNTAINS occupy a fifth of the Earth's land surface but The movement of

M contain only a tenth of its human population 1, making them

refuges for many of the planet's rarest animal and plant
species and wildlife habitats. Yet these refuges are
increasingly threatened by advancing landuse changes,
and, potentially, by changing climate patterns.

Mountains are vital economic and ecological resources, high in biodiversity and minerals alike. Their
ecological zones
As the world warms,
climatic zones rise up
mountain sides, dragging
ecological zones with them.
The species associated with
height triggers heavy precipitation which, coupled with the water-storing capacity of glaciers, gives them occupy ever smaller
them a vital hydrological role. Mountain regions are the sources of most of the world's major rivers areas ever further uphill
and half the world's population is reliant on mountain water. A billion Chinese, Indians and
until, eventually, even the
Bangladeshis drink from rivers flowing out of the Himalayas. In arid countries such as Egypt, moun-
mountain top becomes too
tain sources provide more than 90 percent of the available water2.
Their elevation allows mountains to harbor a great diversity of species and habitats within a hot for some and they
small area, often forming islands of biodiversity that take their own evolutionary path and create disappear altogether.
high levels of endemism, such as in the Peruvian Andes. More than half the world's endemic bird
species occur in tropical mountain regions3. Mountains also provide natural refuges for species dur-
ing times of climatic change and stress.
Mountain terrain has deterred dense human occupation, for cities have nowhere to spread and
access is difficult. Mountain communities have traditionally been isolated, developing particular
skills to survive – such as transhumance pastoralism and cutting terraces on hillsides to protect
soils, conserve water and provide flat land for cultivation. But such communities have often
remained poor and at the margins of society. Mountain nations such as Bhutan, Lesotho, Nepal,
Rwanda, Burundi and Ethiopia are among the poorest 20 in the world4. Within nations, mountains
are often home to tribal groups and other minorities, such as the Tibetans, the Quecha in the
central Andes and the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq. While some such groups find themselves
increasingly marginalized, there are also opposite trends towards social and economic integration
with the lowlands.
In countries with land shortages and growing populations, lowlanders may invade hill regions,
causing deforestation and cultivating erosion-prone soils. Areas containing tropical mountain
forests have had the fastest rates of both annual population growth and deforestation in recent
years5. Examples include the Guatemalan Highlands and the Bolivian Altiplano.
Elsewhere, mountain regions are being abandoned by farming communities who tire of the
meagre earnings and hard work. This is as true in developing countries such as Peru as in the
European Alps and Pyrenees. Abandonment does not necessarily reduce environmental degradation
but may increase it. Left untended, terraces on steep hillsides swiftly start to crumble away.
But mountains have other attractions for lowlanders. Some contain valuable minerals. And
many are scenically beautiful, enticing skiers, mountaineers, trekkers and environmentalists, and
offering alternative livelihoods to local communities. The Alps accommodate 100 million visitor-
124 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mountains

Andes L A R G E M O U N TA I N R A N G E S

Peaks up to 2 500 meters

Peaks up to 8 000+ meters

Rivers

Cities of more than

1 million people in or near
mountains, 1999

World Heritage Sites in

mountain regions, 2000
Cultural
Natural
Cultural /Natural
Administered by UNESCO
under the 1972 World
Heritage Convention

Population density in mountain ranges tends to be relatively low owing to the

inhospitable terrain. Nonetheless, they are becoming increasingly subject to
anthropogenic change as tourism and transport networks expand and
communities move into them to relieve pressure on overpopulated lands in
the surrounding area.

P O P U L AT I O N D E N S I T Y A N D R O A D N E T W O R K S
I N T H R E E O F T H E W O R L D ’ S M O U N TA I N R A N G E S , 1 9 9 9
Population density per square kilometer

0 25-250 Major roads

1-25 250-200 000 Cities of more than 250 000 people

in or near mountains

Alps Himalayas

Source: ORNL; ESRI; UN.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mountains 125

Wo r l d H e r i ta g e
A natural World Heritage
Site may exemplify a stage
of the world's geological or
biological evolution, or
contain the natural habitats
of endangered animals. It may
be a scene of exceptional
beauty or a reserve for large
numbers of wild animals.
A cultural monument may be
a masterpiece of creative
genius or have exerted great
architectural influence, or it
may be an outstanding
example of a certain culture.
There are some 630 sites
overall, 150 of which fall
within or near mountain
regions, representative of
both the historical and
natural value of mountainous
areas and the qualities that
attract millions of tourists
every year.

Source: ESRI; UNESCO; UNPD.

WORLD TOPOGRAPHY
Meters above sea level

60

200

400

750

2 500

Source: NOAA.
126 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mountains

days a year. In the Himalayas, more than 250 000 pilgrims and trekkers climb to the Gagotri
glacier, sacred source of the River Ganges, each year.
The impact of tourism on ecosystems can be double-edged. On the one hand, ski slopes and
roads have to be constructed, water and fuelwood found, and rubbish disposed of – all of which can
cause environmental damage. On the other hand, there is an economic incentive to protect the
wildernesses many come to see – and the revenue to accomplish it.
Valleys within mountain ranges have their own vulnerabilities. They become transport arteries
and sites for urban development, where the surrounding mountains can trap urban air pollution.
Valleys are also attractive sites for building reservoirs to supply water, generate hydroelectricity
or provide flood protection. But reservoirs not only flood valleys and disrupt fluvial ecosystems,
they also force displaced inhabitants into the hills, where they may cause further environmental
damage. The Three Gorges dam currently being constructed on the River Yangtze in China is expec-
ted to displace up to 3 million people into surrounding hills.
Mountain ranges often become zones of conflict, particularly as many contested national bor-
ders run through them, for instance in Kashmir. Mountains also play host to disputes between
national governments and ethnic minorities such as the Chechens in Russia, the Kosovans in Serbia
and the East Timorese. Their rugged terrain may serve to house refugees from such conflicts as
well as providing sanctuary for guerrillas and outlaws. Two thirds of the 34 armed conflicts in the
world in 1993 took place primarily in mountain areas6.
Such conflicts may protect the environment by discouraging organized development and inward
migration. But they may equally encourage illegal and environmentally destructive activities, such as
logging. In Liberia, Cambodia and the Thai-Myanmar border region, intensive logging helped fund
warring groups in the 1990s. Virtually all the world’s heroin and cocaine comes from three small
mountain regions: on the borders of Pakistan-Afghanistan, Myanmar-Thailand-Laos and Bolivia-
Colombia, causing massive deforestation and soil erosion7.
Mountain ecosystems face a massive test of their robustness from projected climate change.
Warming is already melting many glaciers, fundamentally altering hydrology both in the mountain
regions and downstream. For instance, glaciers cover 17 percent of the Himalayas and provide two
thirds of the flow of the River Ganges. But at their present rate of decline all the glaciers in the
middle and eastern Himalayas will have disappeared by 2035. Many mountain valleys are threat-
ened by floods as lakes formed by melting ice are breached8.

S O I L E R O S I O N I N M O U N TA I N R E G I O N S
Steep hillsides washed by heavy mountain rains are vulnerable to soil erosion and
landslides, especially when vegetation is removed for logging, agriculture or roads. On
virgin hillsides, landslides create gaps in forests that can encourage biodiversity9. But in
inhabited areas, they are dangerous to local populations and may lead to floods.
When Hurricane Mitch hit Honduras in October 1998, some 8 000 people were killed in
floods and landslides. Much of the damage was attributed to deforestation and land
disturbance caused by road and house construction and mining activity in its mountainous
interior. Since 1960, the population of Honduras has quadrupled while its forested area has
fallen from 63 percent to 37 percent. The national population density – at 51 people per
square kilometer – remains comparatively low, but urbanization in mountainous areas
maximizes the number of people at risk in a disaster10.
While land disturbance incontrovertibly causes localized erosion and landslides, there
is less scientific agreement about whether these activities cause downstream problems in
large catchments. Deforestation in the Himalayas is frequently accused of causing siltation
in northern India and Bangladesh. But there is evidence that most eroded material is
deposited locally rather than transported over long distances11.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Forests 127

Fo re st s

ORESTS are the planet’s largest reservoir of biological

F diversity, containing an estimated half of all the world’s plant

and animal species. They also play a vital role in maintaining
“ecological services” such as the water and carbon cycles, by
storing carbon, conserving soils and generating rainfall.

There are probably very few truly virgin forests left on Earth. Most have been burned, replanted or
otherwise influenced by humans at various times. Ecologists are replacing their model of natural
forests as ancient pristine entities with models that characterize them as dynamic, unstable and
short-lived1. Nonetheless, the scale and pace of anthropogenic “deforestation” in the past 200 years
dwarfs anything seen before. The most endangered ecosystem types include tropical dry forests
and mountain forest ecosystems, such as cloud forests.
Overall, human activity has removed roughly half of the world’s natural forests, with the greatest
losses in densely populated countries. With the exception of Russia, less than 1 percent of Europe’s
“old-growth” forests remain, while some 95 percent of the continental United States’ forests have
been logged since European settlement began 2. Most forest remains in the least densely populated
forested regions – the major equatorial rainforests of Central Africa, the Amazon basin and the
Southeast Asian islands of Sumatra, Borneo and New Guinea, as well as the boreal forests of
Siberia and North America3.
Pressures on forests include high population growth rates, making demands on land for farm-
ing in particular; industrial enterprise based on natural resources, such as for timber and pulp
production; and demand for fuelwood and charcoal, which consumed 80 percent of the timber cut in
developing countries in 19954. Piecemeal forest removal has also fragmented forest regions, which
has a disproportionate effect on species diversity by limiting the ecosystem’s ability to recover from
catastrophes such as fires and by reducing species mobility5.
Most of the 10 percent recorded loss of the world’s natural forests between 1970 and 1995
occurred in the tropics, where population growth rates are fastest6. Between 1990 and 1995, the
greatest amount of forests were lost in Latin America, followed by Africa and Asia. Annual defor-
estation rates were highest in fast-growing and already densely populated countries – exceeding
3 percent in Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Jamaica7.
Poverty and wealth distribution are also important determinants of forest survival. Many poor
countries and communities rely heavily for income and exports on exploiting forest products, along-
side agriculture, while richer countries and communities may have other sources of income. The
fastest destruction often occurs when large numbers of people are forced to migrate into the
forests, usually because of urban unemployment, rural land shortages, fast-growing populations,
the creation of refugees or a combination of these.
Government policies can also be important. Most forests in tropical countries are state-owned,
so migration of people into forests usually requires official sanction as well as government-built
infrastructure, such as roads and organized farming programs. The deforestation of the Brazilian
128 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Forests

NUMBER OF PEOPLE ORIGINAL AND CURRENT FOREST AREA

LIVING IN FOREST
E C O S Y S T E M S , L AT E Temperate broadleaf
1990s Current
250 Original
Millions
Tropical dry
200
Current

Original
150
Tropical moist
Current
100
Original

50 Needleleaf
Current
0 Original
North America
Latin America
and Caribbean
Europe and Russia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East and
North Africa
Asia (excl. Middle East)
Oceania

The map shows current forest cover alongside an estimate of

where there would be forest had there been no human
intervention and assuming current climatic conditions. This is
close to the maximal area of forest some time after the last ice
Source: WRI.
age, around 6 000 years ago.

CHANGES IN
FOREST AREA
1990 1995
North America

Central America

South America

Europe*

Africa
PROTECTED FOREST AREA, 1997
Thousand hectares
Asia
Tropical Protected Non-tropical Protected Disturbed Protected
forest area area forest area area natural and area
Oceania plantations

North America 443 30 683 700 61 074 260 20

0 200 400 600 800 1 000 Central America 71 893 8 834 21 293 664 1 963 144
Million hectares South America 620 514 75 907 39 291 6 182 13 259 863
Europe* 0 0 1 019 178 29 588 0 0
* Figures for Europe exclude
Africa 448 197 40 752 8 240 168 41 565 865
the former Soviet Union, for which
Asia 210 720 34 603 145 101 7 462 39 975 2 408
no comparable data are available.
Oceania* 53 560 4 889 27 088 5 068 0 0
The region is currently estimated to
have some 763 500 000 hectares of * Owing to the difficulty in distinguishing natural forest and plantations in many developed countries, total forest area is
forest area not broken down into sub-categories
Source: WRI. Source: WRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Forests 129

SHRINKING
FORESTS
While the United States of
America and Europe had lost
most of their forest by the
beginning of the 20th century,
Costa Rica, by contrast, has
seen rapid deforestation
during the 20th century.

Costa Rica

1940

1961

Source: UNEP-WCMC.

1983

C O U N T R I E S W I T H T H E H I G H E S T R AT E S O F F O R E S T L O S S
Source: Dobson.
Annual % Population Population density GDP per capita
natural forest growth rate per square kilometer $US
loss 1990-95 1990-95 1995 1995

Lebanon -10.3 3.3 294.1 3 703

Jamaica -8.0 0.7 225.9 1 785
Afghanistan -7.1 5.8 30.9 id
Haiti -5.2 2.0 260.5 287
Syria -5.0 3.4 79.8 1 182
Jordan -4.8 4.9 61.2 1 187*
Philippines -3.6 2.1 226.7 1 093
El Salvador -3.5 2.2 278.4 1 673
Pakistan -3.2 2.8 182.3 445
Bangladesh -3.1 2.2 925.2 246
World + 1.6 43.6 4 896
* 1994
+ No global annual rate of natural forest loss is available; the global rate of loss including all forest types is -0.3%

Source : FAO; UNPD; WRI; World Bank.

130 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S
CARBON IN LIVE
V E G E TAT I O N
Actual carbon
estimate
Ecosystem Kilos carbon per
complex square meter
Conifers
Tropical/subtropical
broad-leaved humid forest
Mid-latitude temperate
broad-leaved forest
Tropical/subtropical humid,
or temperate/boreal forest
Tropical savannah and
interrupted woodland
Wooded tundra
Source: CDIAC.
In the 1990s forests were
estimated to be soaking up a
third of all CO2 emissions
from fossil-fuel burning, due
to the “fertilization effect” of
the extra CO2 in the air. But
this will not last. United
Nations scientists warned in
the third assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) that
warming will soon neutralize
this effect by speeding up the
decay of plant matter in
forests. Warming may also
trigger droughts and forest
fires that will drastically
reduce the forest cover in
the tropics.
Forests
Amazon has spread from east to west as roads and development projects have penetrated the forest.
Much of Indonesia’s forest has been converted into farms as a result of the national transmigration
program, which has moved some 4 million people from densely populated areas to thinly populated
forested provinces such as Kalimantan and Irian Jaya.
Failures of governance also contribute by encouraging resource plundering. In 1999, in the after-
math of the fall of President Suharto, the majority of Indonesian timber on the international
market was illegally logged8. Globalization of trade in forest products, especially timber, encour-
13 ages the removal of control over forests from native people, who have the most incentive to maintain
12
forests for future generations. Poor forest management has left natural forests unable to regrow
9 and often vulnerable to forest fires, such as those that spread through Indonesia in the 1990s.
4
Natural forests – once characterized as “jungle” that required “clearing” – are now increasingly
regarded as important ecological and economic resources for both nations and the planet. They
3 stabilize the landscape by generating rainfall and maintaining soil, groundwater and river flows.
2 They are also a major cultural resource as the homelands and direct sources of natural wealth for
indigenous peoples, such as the reindeer herders of Siberia and the tribes of the Amazon, Borneo
and New Guinea. The economic value of a sustainable harvest of fruits, nuts, rubber, rattan, med-
icinal plants and meat frequently exceeds the one-off value of clear-felling.
Most countries eventually adopt conservation measures to protect surviving natural forests –
often following a natural disaster attributed to deforestation. In 1998, after floods did extensive
damage on the River Yangtze, China banned further logging in some watersheds and launched a
replanting program. Chinese scientists also partly blame deforestation for the falling water flows
in the Yellow River.
In the past two decades, the temperate northern latitudes have seen a modest increase in
forest cover. However, this was mainly of commercial forest stands, which have much lower species
diversity and ecological value than natural “old-growth” forests. And many European forests are in
poor health, primarily because of air pollution.
Moreover, the felling of old-growth forests continues, often with state subsidies – for instance in
the northwest of the United States and the temperate rainforests of the Canadian west coast.
Western and Japanese timber companies have frequently “exported” their destruction of natural
forests to tropical regions: Southeast Asian forests are a major source of hardwood timber for Japan.
The 1990s saw the first worldwide efforts to halt the decline of tropical forests. Studies for
the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) at the start of the decade found that less
than 1 percent of logging was carried out sustainably (with recovery to a similar ecological value)9.
Consumer boycotts of tropical timber grew in protest, and by the end of the decade more than 15
million hectares of forestry projects had received certificates of their sustainability from the Forest
Stewardship Council, a coalition including foresters, conservation and community groups, timber
traders and certification organizations. Certified timber products can command a premium price.
Economists and environmentalists have also sought to give tangible economic worth to the
undoubted ecological value of natural forests as watershed protectors, storehouses of biological
diversity, and recreational and spiritual assets. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity gave
countries new rights to the ownership of the genetic resources in their forests, which could find
value in pharmaceuticals or new crops, although this has yet to prove profitable. Ecotourism, a fast-
growing industry, is being actively encouraged.
The potential commercial value of fast-growing trees planted to soak up carbon dioxide (CO2)
from the atmosphere and act as carbon “sinks” has also been recognized – and backed by the 1997
Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Carbon credits earned by planting these forests will be trade-
able with countries wanting to offset them against emissions, which are limited under the Protocol.
However, management of sink forests to maximize their carbon absorption often reduces their
ecological value.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Deserts and drylands 131

Deserts and
drylands

ESERTS AND DRYLANDS are the largely unfenced,

D
GLOBAL LAND
unforested parts of the planet, where low and erratic rainfall AREA
makes the land unsuitable for cultivation. The land is used
for grazing domesticated animals, set aside for wild animals Hyperarid 7.5% Cold
13.6%
or simply set aside. Human population density is generally low,
Arid 12.1%
except around water sources or the focus of economic activity such as
minerals. But sophisticated nomadic and pastoral cultures often thrive in
the marginal land, some of which is suitable for cultivation if irrigated,
making it a potentially valuable resource where water is available. Semiarid
17.7%

Desert margins, generally called drylands, have great biological value. They are the original homes
of many of the world’s most important food grains – wheat, barley, millet and sorghum – and Dry subhumid Humid
9.9% 39.2%
botanical medicines, resins and oils, as well as many animal and bird species. Dryland
soils are unusually vulnerable to degradation. New soil forms only very slowly in these arid Total land area: 13 049
million hectares
environments, and salts tend to build up owing to infrequent rains. The dry sparsely covered topsoil
is easy victim to erosion by wind or by the rains when they do come. Regions susceptible to Source: UNEP.

such erosion include the desert margins of North and Southern Africa, the Great Plains and
pampas of the Americas, the steppes of Southeast Europe and Asia, the Australian “outback” and
the Mediterranean margins.
Degradation, often known as “desertification”, may arise from human misuse of the land or
climatic change, and may or may not be reversible. Either way it can force people to leave the
land. A fifth of the world’s drylands, or around a billion hectares, are thought to be affected
by human-induced soil erosion, and an estimated 250 million people, including many of the
poorest, most marginalized and politically weak citizens1, are directly affected by land degrada-
tion in arid areas. International action to improve management of the world’s drylands is con-
centrated on the 1996 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, but it has so far failed
to attract substantial funding from donor nations.
There is continuing uncertainty about the processes and definitions of desertification2. The
term came into wide use in the 1970s with images of the Sahel, a band of semiarid land on the
southern borders of the Sahara desert, “marching” south. In places it advanced by up to 100 kilo-
meters between 1950 and 1975, a process seen at the time as an irreversible human-induced
phenomenon. But satellite images have now revealed the Saharan advance to have been largely a
consequence of short-term climatic change. The desert border has advanced and retreated with
the rains several times since 19803.
Some historical incidents of desertification, for instance the abandonment of farming in
the Negev desert, are now also held to have arisen as much from changing climate as poor land
management4. In many cases, however, the two go together, with intensified landuse leaving
vegetation and soils vulnerable to degradation during drought. The “dust bowl” in the American
Midwest in the 1930s had such multiple causes.
132 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Deserts and drylands

GLOBAL SOIL S O I L D E G R A D AT I O N I N T H E W O R L D ’ S
D E G R A D AT I O N , DRYLANDS, 1990s
1990s
Dry subhumid
Drylands Non-drylands Strong/extreme
Africa
Moderate/light

Asia
Semiarid
Strong/extreme

Australasia Moderate/light

Europe Arid
Strong/extreme

North America
Moderate/light

Non-degraded susceptible
South America
drylands

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Hyperarid lands not generally

% degraded susceptible to degradation
Source: UNEP.

Owing to the erratic rainfall in arid regions, drylands themselves are

difficult to define, and areas have to be studied for a number of
decades before it can be said with certainty that desertfication, rather
than natural variability, has taken place. It is this high degree of
variability that makes drylands more susceptible to degradation than
other regions, and more pressing the need for monitoring and
understanding the underlying causes of dryland degradation.

HUMAN-INDUCED
S A L I N I Z AT I O N I N S O I L D E G R A D AT I O N B Y R E G I O N I N S U S C E P T I B L E D R Y L A N D S ,
SUSCEPTIBLE 1990s
DRYLANDS, 1990s Million hectares
Million Water Wind Chemical Physical Total
hectares erosion erosion deterioration deterioration

North America 1.8 North America 38.4 37.8 2.2 1.0 79.4
South America 1.0 South America 34.7 26.9 17.0 0.4 79.0
Europe 3.0 Europe 48.1 38.6 4.1 8.6 99.4
Africa 5.8 Africa 119.1 159.9 26.5 13.9 319.4
Asia 35.4 Asia 157.5 153.2 50.2 9.6 370.5
Australasia 0.9 Australasia 69.6 16.0 0.6 1.2 87.4
Total 47.9 Total 467.4 432.4 100.7 34.7 1 035.2

Source: UNEP. Source: UNEP.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Deserts and drylands 133

COUNTRIES WITH
LARGE AREAS OF
DRYLANDS
Population Population GDP per
growth density capita
rate per km2 $US
1995-2000 1995 1995

Afghanistan 5.3 30.9 id

Albania 0.6 125.6 648
Algeria 2.3 11.7 1 474
Angola 3.3 8.9 344
Argentina 1.3 12.6 8 084
Armenia 0.2 126.7 783
Australia 1.1 2.4 19 522
Azerbaijan 0.8 87.8 461
Botswana 2.2 2.6 2 978
Bulgaria -0.5 79.3 1 453
Burkina Faso 2.8 37.7 222
Chad 2.8 5.1 180
China 0.9 131.0 572
Egypt 1.9 63.2 763
El Salvador 2.2 278.4 1 673
Eritrea 3.7 35.0 id
Ethiopia 3.2 50.0 94
Greece 0.3 81.1 8 662
India 1.6 314.7 349
Iran 2.2 41.1 1 756
Iraq 2.8 46.8 2 755
Israel 1.9 273.0 16 645
Jordan 3.3 61.2 1 187
Kazakhstan 0.1 6.4 1 273
Kenya 2.2 49.7 335
Kuwait 3.0 86.8 15 760
Kyrgyzstan 0.4 24.8 685
Lebanon 1.8 294.1 3 703
Libya 3.3 3.1 4 984
Macedonia 0.7 85.1 937
Madagascar 3.1 25.4 215
Malawi 2.5 118.3 151
Mali 3.0 8.8 225
Mauritania 2.5 2.2 470
Mexico 1.6 49.1 2 743
Moldova 0.1 134.4 793
Source: UNEP. Mongolia 2.1 1.5 349
Morocco 1.8 60.6 1 222
Mozambique 2.5 20.4 85
Namibia 2.4 1.9 1 974
Niger 3.3 7.2 203
Nigeria 2.8 122.7 362
Oman 4.2 10.2 5 483
Pakistan 2.7 182.3 445
Romania -0.2 99.1 1 563
Russia -0.3 8.6 2 333
Saudi Arabia 3.4 8.3 6 875
Somalia 3.9 14.7 106*
South Africa 2.2 34.0 3 281
S O I L D E G R A D AT I O N B Y D E G R E E I N S U S C E P T I B L E D R Y L A N D S , Spain 0.1 79.3 14 097
Sudan 2.2 11.8 239
1990s Syria 2.5 79.8 1 182
Million hectares Turkmenistan 1.9 8.4 961
Turkey 1.6 80.5 2 709
Water Wind Chemical Physical Total Tajikistan 1.9 42.8 343
erosion erosion deterioration deterioration Yemen 3.7 27.5 319
UAE 2.0 22.8 17 696
Light 175.1 197.2 44.3 10.8 427.3 Ukraine -0.4 88.7 1 548
Moderate 208.5 215.4 31.4 15.0 470.3 USA 0.8 27.5 26 026
Strong 79.0 18.0 24.2 8.9 130.1 Uzbekistan 1.9 53.7 947
Extreme 4.8 1.8 0.8 0.0 7.5 Venezuela 2.0 24.8 3 434
Total 467.4 432.4 100.7 34.7 1 035.2 Zimbabwe 2.1 29.1 583
World 1.4 43.6 4 896
Source: UNEP. *1990 Source: WRI.
134 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S
The movement of “lost” soils
can be dramatic, as seen in this
satellite image of a dustcloud
off the west coast of Africa,
taken in February 2000. Up to
100 million tons of dust cross
the Atlantic annually from West
Africa to the Caribbean11. In
1998, a dust storm originating
in China could be tracked as it
crossed the United States12.
By some estimates, the
world loses 24 billion tons of
topsoil each year13, with
South Africa alone estimated
to lose 300-400 million tons
annually. The decline in soil
and vegetation reduces the
ability of the land to hold
water after infrequent rains,
accelerating desertification
and flooding, since surface
runoff increases.
Photo: NOAA/Operational Significant Event
Imagery.
Deserts and drylands
In most cases “desertification” does not involve advancing desert sands, but rather a progress-
ive decline in the productivity of the land. The largest single cause worldwide is the overgrazing of
pastures5. Plants in semiarid regions are adapted to being eaten by large grazing animals at low
densities, with regular nomadic stock movements maintaining this vegetation. But the trend
towards sedentarization, the use of fences to separate domesticated animals from wildlife and the
concentration of animals around water boreholes have often caused loss of vegetation followed by
soil erosion.
Many governments exacerbate these problems by trying to halt nomadism, particularly across
national borders. They also try to concentrate wildlife within national parks, such as Amboseli in
Kenya, which is being overgrazed by elephants and other large herbivores6. Other threats to
natural vegetation and soils include deforestation and the collection of wood for fuel, cultivation of
marginal land and poor irrigation practices, which can lead to an accumulation of salt in soils and
eventual abandonment of the land.
While not generally densely populated, the world’s arid lands have some of the fastest popu-
lation growth rates in the world. This growth tends to extend and intensify cultivated land and
squeeze out nomadic groups. In the Sahel region of Africa, population has risen fourfold since 1930
and is expected to double again in the next 30 years, even allowing for the migration of some
20 million people to coastal areas7.
Desertification makes 12 million hectares of land useless for cultivation every year. Since
1965, one sixth of the populations of Mali and Burkina Faso have lost their livelihoods and fled
to cities. In Mauritania between 1965 and 1988, the proportion of the population who were
nomads fell from 73 percent to 7 percent, while the proportion of the population in the capital
Nouakchott rose from 9 percent to 41 percent.
But desertification is not exclusively a problem of the developing world. Commercial agricul-
ture and livestock farming can cause as much damage to arid ecosystems as pastoralism
and subsistence agriculture. Australia, one of the world’s richest but least densely populated
countries, has one of the most serious land degradation problems.
The simple view of population pressure in a fragile environment causing permanent environ-
mental degradation has been subject to re-evaluation. In the Yatenga province of Burkina Faso,
farmers rescued their fields from imminent desertification by erecting low stone walls along the
contours of hillsides to keep soil and water on the land. The Dogon people of eastern Mali prac-
tice some of the most intensive irrigated agriculture in Africa to feed a rapidly rising population in an
era of declining rainfall – but do so without causing desertification8. Elsewhere in the Sahel com-
munities have adopted rainwater harvesting methods to halt soil loss and improve the productivity
of their lands.
The Machakos district in Kenya was considered to be on the verge of desertification in the
1930s. But in the ensuing decades, even with a fivefold population increase, water and soil
conservation measures, such as cutting hillside terraces and digging water-storage ponds,
are generally held to have improved the environment9. Similarly, adaptive farming methods have
maintained a productive agricultural landscape despite a very high population density in semi-
arid northern Nigeria10. Critics of these studies point out that in both cases large urban areas
nearby (Nairobi and Kano respectively) mean the areas are far from typical of drylands under
population pressure.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Freshwater wetlands 135

Fre s h w a t e r
wetlands

ETLANDS are the fragile interface between land and

W water. Throughout history, humans have separated

these two elements with dykes, dams and drains – and
wetlands have been the prime victims. Growing
recognition of their value to ecology and human systems
alike, however, has led to widespread restoration of wetland habitats
in recent years.

Freshwater wetlands take many forms: marshes like the prairie potholes of North America; peatland
bogs, fens and mires; swamps such as the swamp forests of the Amazon and Borneo; as well as
river deltas, ponds, Australian billabongs, lagoons, mudholes and river floodplains. They are dis-
tinguished by being land that is, at least seasonally, waterlogged, whether fed by precipitation,
groundwater or rivers. They have vital hydrological roles as sources, reservoirs and regulators of
water within river basins, and they are among the richest and most distinctive ecosystems, often
compared with rainforests and coral reefs.
Wetlands typically have a high concentration of nutrients, making them rich habitats for the
many small organisms on which fish and other water life feed, in turn attracting mammals and
birds. Many, such as acidic peatland bogs, provide unique ecological niches for wildlife.
Wetlands now cover just over 6 percent of the world’s land area, perhaps half their original
extent. Some specialized communities still live in and exploit these ecosystems – for example the
Marsh Arabs of Iraq and the 300 000 inhabitants of the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. But for most
humans, wetlands have been regarded as disease-ridden wastelands fit only to be drained.
Population density is a key determinant of the scale of wetland loss: when land or water are in short
supply, wetlands are an obvious source1.
Humans have damaged wetlands by damming, dyking and canalizing rivers, converting flood-
plains to aquaculture, planting trees on bogs, draining marshes for agriculture, forestry and urban
development and “mining” them for peat, often with heavy state subsidy. But throughout history,
agricultural activity has been the most important single cause of damage, with wetlands, including
traditional wet pastures, drained to provide croplands.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, wetlands suffered because of the large-scale damming of rivers
and pumping of groundwater to meet increasing demand for water. Thus the arid and heavily pop-
ulated state of California has lost 91 percent of its wetlands in the past 200 years2. The United
States as a whole has lost 50 million of the 90 million hectares of wetlands it had 500 years ago.
Wetlands along the flood-prone Mississippi once stored 60 days of the river’s floodwater; today
they are so reduced that they can only store 12 days’ worth. Those around the edge of Lake
Victoria, the world’s second largest freshwater lake, have degraded so much in recent decades
that they can no longer filter the nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates that flow into the lake
from surrounding land. The result has been eutrophication and an explosive growth of water
hyacinth that is clogging the lake.
136 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Freshwater wetlands

NUMBER OF M A J O R I N L A N D W AT E R S A N D R I V E R
PEOPLE LIVING C AT C H M E N T S O F T H E W O R L D
IN THE TEN
LARGEST RIVER Freshwater marshes and floodplains
C AT C H M E N T S ,
L AT E 1 9 9 0 s Inland open waters
Nile 1
Peatlands
Niger 2
Saline systems
Mississippi 3
Parana Seasonally flooding inland systems 5
4
Congo Swamp forests

Ob
Tidal/coastal systems
Lake Chad
Unclassified wetlands
Amazon
River catchment (see table below)
Yenisey

Lena Recognition of the significance of wetland ecosystems as 6

ecological regulators has been relatively slow to emerge. At
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 the time of the establishment of the Ramsar Convention on
Millions
7
Source: WRI.
Wetlands of International Importance in 1972, it was for their
role as sites for migrating and overwintering bird populations
that wetlands were recognized by the conservation community
as in need of specific protection measures.

D E F O R E S T A T I O N A N D P O P U L AT I O N D E N S I T Y I N T H E
RAMSAR SITES: W O R L D ’ S L A R G E S T R I V E R C AT C H M E N T S , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
WETLANDS OF River catchment % original forest lost Population density per square kilometer
I N T E R N AT I O N A L
I M P O R TA N C E , 1 9 9 7 1. Yukon 23 0.2
2. Mackenzie 8 0.2
B y re g i o n a l s h a re 3. Nelson 24 2.2
4. Mississippi 52 21.5
North America Europe 5. St. Lawrence 23 41.6
23% 21% 6. Amazon 13 4.3
7. Parana 71 23.5
8. Niger 95 31.2
9. Lake Chad 100 11.0
Central 10. Congo 46 14.5
America Asia 11. Nile 92 42.7
2% 8% 12. Zambezi 43 17.7
South 13. Volga 53 41.4
America 14. Ob 38 191.9
16% 15. Yenisey 19 2.3
16. Lena 19 1.3
Oceania 17. Kolyma 56 0.5
Africa 21% 9%
18. Amur 33 35.2
19. Ganges/Brahmaputra 78 296.4
Total: 66 840 000 hectares 20. Yangtze 85 223.7
over 891 sites 21. Murray-Darling 64 2.1
Source: Ramsar Bureau. Source: WRI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Freshwater wetlands 137

F R E S H W AT E R
FISH SPECIES
T H R E AT E N E D ,
1996

Madagascar

17 Portugal

15 16 Croatia
14 South Africa
13
18 Spain

Italy

Mexico

Greece

19 20 USA

Hungary
8 Australia Countries
9 11 whose fish
Romania populations
have been
Bulgaria
10 evaluated
Moldova and which
have the
12 Slovakia largest
numbers of
Turkey threatened
species
Germany
21
Sri Lanka

Canada

Papua New Guinea

Japan
Source: UNEP-WCMC; WRI. 0 10 20 30 40
% threatened
Source: IUCN.
HUMAN ACTIONS LEADING TO WETLAND LOSS
Cause of loss Floodplains Rivers Lakes Peatlands Swamps

Drainage for agriculture, forestry and mosquito control • • + • • P O P U L AT I O N

Dredging and channelization for navigation and flood protection o + o o o
Filling for solid waste disposal, roads and commercial, industrial TRENDS IN A
or residential development + + + o o SAMPLE OF
Conversion for aquaculture • • + o o
Construction of dykes, dams and seawalls for flood and storm
F R E S H W AT E R
control, water supply and irrigation • • • o o SPECIES
Discharge of pesticides, herbicides, domestic and industrial
waste, agricultural runoff and sediment • • • o o Increasing
Mining of wetlands for peat, coal, gravel, phosphate and
Stable
other materials + o • • •
Logging and shifting cultivation • + o • • Decreasing
Groundwater abstraction + • o o o 1970-79 1980-89 1990-99
Fire • + o • •
Sediment diversion by dams, deep channels and other structures • • + o o 9% 11% 13%
Hydrological alteration by canals, roads and other structures • • • + +
Subsidence due to extraction of groundwater, oil, gas 32% 34% 35%
59% 55% 52%
and other minerals • • o o o
• Common and important cause of loss + Present but not a major cause of loss o Absent or exceptional
Source: UNEP. Source: WWF.
138 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Freshwater wetlands

THE RISE OF People have created artificial wetlands for specific purposes such as rice paddies, farm
A Q U A C U LT U R E I N ponds, and reservoirs on dammed rivers, but this has often been at the expense of natural
F R E S H W AT E R wetlands. In peninsular Malaysia, 90 percent of freshwater swamps have been drained for
FISH PRODUCTION rice cultivation.
Conservationists have ensured that more than 800 of the world’s most important wetlands in
18
Million metric tons around a hundred countries are protected as wildlife habitats under the 1971 Ramsar Convention.
16
But there is an increasing realization that they have a large economic value to human society as
14 well. They cleanse water of organic pollutants; soak up floodwaters, so preventing inundation
Aquaculture
12 downstream; protect riverbanks and seashores against erosion; recycle nutrients; capture
10
sediment and recharge groundwater.
A study of the large Hadejia-Nguru wetland in arid northern Nigeria found that water in the
8
wetland yielded a profit in fish, firewood, cattle grazing lands and natural crop irrigation that was
6 Capture
30 times greater than the yield of water being diverted from the wetland into a costly irrigation
4 project3. A recent attempt to put a dollar value on the “ecological services” provided by
2 different ecosystems worldwide put wetlands top at almost US$15 000 per hectare per year,
0
seven times that of tropical rainforest4. Much of this value comes from flood prevention.
1984 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 Wetlands store very large amounts of carbon in organic matter. Peat bogs in Siberia, North
Source: FAO. America and Scandinavia contain a third of all the carbon in the world’s soils. Scottish peat bogs
contain more than 90 percent of the carbon in British soils and forests.
Much of the carbon in wetlands is released as methane by natural processes, accounting for
roughly half of the methane currently released into the air. Molecule for molecule, this is a much
more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide5, and much more could be released if climate
change warms and dries the northern peatlands, triggering slow destruction or catastrophic
burning. Wetland maintenance is therefore significant in helping to moderate global climate change.
The world’s largest wetland restoration project will spend US$700 million over two decades
to revive the Florida Everglades. It will include a series of six artificial wetlands known as “storm
water treatment areas”, which will receive and clean up excess nutrients that enter the wetland
from neighboring farming districts6.

THE MEDITERRANEAN
Among the world's most threatened wetlands are those around the Mediterranean, which for
two millennia has been one of the most densely populated regions on Earth. Draining of wet-
lands and floodplains for agriculture – and more recently for urban areas, tourist developments
and to eradicate malarial mosquitoes – has been among the largest engineering endeavors of
the region. More recently, rising demand for water from the 160 million people who live on the
Mediterranean coastline and the similar number of tourists who visit each year has caused a
general water shortage in the region that peaked with a series of droughts in the 1990s. It left
little water to be “set aside” in wetlands.
Both Spain and Greece have drained 60 percent of their wetlands in the last century.
Pumping of groundwater for agricultural irrigation is drying up Spanish wetlands such as the
Doñana reserve, one of Europe's top sanctuaries for wintering birds, where the water table is
falling by a meter every two years7.
Other wetland ecosystems have become convenient cesspits for large cities, overwhelm-
ing their natural cleansing capacities and leaving stagnant water clogged with algae. Examples
include the Lac du Tunis, outside the Tunisian capital, the Manzalah lagoon outside Cairo, and
wetlands on the River Po, which runs through many of northern Italy's industrial cities.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mangroves and estuaries 139

M a n g rove s a n d
e st u a r i e s

ANGROVES protect coastlines by absorbing the force of

M storms, and provide sufficient nutrients to nurture most

of the world’s marine life. Many have been lost, largely
through conversion to rice paddies and shrimp farms,
and with coastal regions set to double their human
populations over the next 25 years, coastal ecosystems such as
mangroves, estuaries, mud flats and seagrass beds are coming
under increasing threat.

Mangroves are forests of salt-tolerant trees and shrubs that grow in the shallow tidal waters of
estuaries and coastal areas in tropical regions. They require slow currents, no frost and plenty of
fine sediment in which to set their roots. Their muddy waters, rich in nutrients from decaying
leaves and wood, are home to sponges, worms, crustaceans, molluscs and algae, and provide
shelter for marine mammals, snakes and crocodiles. They act as fish nurseries and help feed life
further out to sea. Queensland’s mangroves, for instance, do much to sustain the Great Barrier
Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system. Mangroves are also strongly correlated with the pres-
ence of shoals of shrimp further offshore.
Mangroves extend over 18 million hectares worldwide, covering a quarter of the world’s
tropical coastline1. They dominate the river deltas and tidal creeks of Southeast Asia from
Thailand, Burma and Vietnam through Malaysia to Indonesia, with more than 5 million hectares
around the thinly populated islands of New Guinea and Borneo alone2. The largest single system
is the 570 000 hectares of the Sundarbans of Bangladesh, which harbor the Bengal tiger and sus-
tain some 300 000 people.
Mangroves have many uses, providing large quantities of food and fuel, building materials and
medicines. One hectare of mangroves in the Philippines can yield 400 kilos of fish, shrimps, crab-
meat, molluscs and sea cucumbers annually, and help feed a further 400 kilos of fish and 75 kilos
of shrimps that mature elsewhere3. The majority of the world’s marine species, including most
fish catches, depend on coastal wetlands such as mangroves for part of their life cycle. The
seedlings of the main tree species, Rhizophora, cure a sore mouth and are said to have aphro-
disiac powers. Filipinos use Nypa foliage to thatch roofs, while its fermented sap produces an
annual 10 000 liters of alcohol per hectare of mangroves4.
But mangroves are nonetheless under grave threat. Their many communal benefits are no
match for the quick cash profits that can be made from chopping them down for timber for fire-
wood, draining them for urban development and farming, or converting them into salt pans and
brackish shrimp ponds5. Most Caribbean and South Pacific mangroves have disappeared, while
India, West Africa and Southeast Asia have all lost half their mangroves6. Growing population den-
sity is a major factor. Most of the Philippine mangroves that survive are on the least populated
island of Mindanao, while the heavily populated Indonesian islands of Java and Bali have lost almost
all theirs. But the increasing international trade in timber and shrimps has also been critical.
140 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mangroves and estuaries

MANGROVES OF M A N G R O V E A R E A S A N D C O A S TA L A N D
THE WORLD, E S T U A R Y C I T I E S , L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
MID-1990s
By regional share Mangrove

South and
Southeast Asia 41.5% Major inland waterway

Americas
27.1% • Coastal and estuary cities
of more than 1 million people

Mangroves are only able to grow in coastal areas

West Africa
15.5% such as estuaries that are free from wave action,
making them particularly vulnerable to
East Africa and
Middle East 5.5% transformation by human populations, who favor
Australasia 10.4% similar sites for development.
Total mangrove area:
18 107 700 hectares
Source: ISME.

T H E WO R L D ' S
MAJOR SHIPPING
PORTS, 1997

Port Approximate H U M A N A C T I O N S L E A D I N G T O C O A S TA L D E G R A D AT I O N
shipping volume
Gross tons Cause of degradation Estuaries Mangroves Open coasts

Singapore 768 000 000 Drainage for agriculture, forestry and mosquito control • + •
Rotterdam 315 500 000 Dredging and channelization for navigation and flood protection • • o
Kaohsiung 310 038 615 Filling for solid waste disposal, roads and commercial, industrial
Chiba 173 600 000 or residential development • • +
Hong Kong 169 229 000 Conversion for aquaculture • • •
Nagoya 143 000 000 Construction of dykes, dams and seawalls for flood and storm
Antwerp 120 000 000 control, water supply and irrigation • • •
Yokohama 117 800 000 Discharge of pesticides, herbicides, domestic and industrial
Hamburg 76 000 000 waste, agricultural runoff and sediment • • •
Long Beach 60 000 000 Mining of wetlands for peat, coal, gravel, phosphate and
Los Angeles 60 000 000 other materials + o +
Busan 46 500 000 Logging and shifting cultivation + • o
Kobe 41 910 796 Fire + + o
South Louisiana 33 000 000 Sediment diversion by dams, deep channels and other structures • • •
Ulsan 31 000 000 Hydrological alteration by canals, roads and other structures • • •
Dubai Ports 28 000 000 Subsidence due to extraction of groundwater, oil, gas
Shanghai 3 600* and other minerals • o +
*Number of vessels • Common and important cause of degradation + Present but not a major cause o Absent or exceptional
Source: ISEL; Fairplay. Source: UNEP.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Mangroves and estuaries 141

SOME MANGROVE
LOSSES
Thailand: 185 000 hectares
between 1960 and 1991, to
shrimp ponds
Malaysia: 235 000 hectares
between 1980 and 1990, to
shrimp ponds and clearance
for agriculture
Indonesia: 269 000 hectares
between 1960 and 1990, to
shrimp ponds
Vietnam: 104 000 hectares
between 1960 and 1974, to
US Army defoliants
Philippines: 170 000 hectares
between 1967 and 1976, largely
to shrimp ponds
Bangladesh (Chokoria):
74 000 hectares since 1975,
largely to shrimp ponds
Guatemala: 9 500 hectares
between 1965 and 1984, largely
to shrimp ponds and salt
farming
Source: Choudhury; ISME.

Source: UNEP-WCMC; UNPD.

C O U N T R I E S W I T H L A R G E A R E A S O F M A N G R OV E RISING SHRIMP
AND PRAWN
Mangrove area As % of total As % of total Population density GDP per capita
Square kilometers land area forest area per square kilometer US$ PRODUCTION
1995 1995 1995 3.5
Indonesia 42 550 2.23 3.88 109.1 1 003 3.0
Million metric tons

Brazil 13 400 0.16 0.24 19.1 4 327

Australia 11 500 0.15 2.81 2.4 19 522 2.5
Nigeria 10 515 1.14 7.63 122.7 362 2.0
Cuba 7 848 7.07 42.60 100.5 id
India 6 700 0.20 1.03 314.7 349 1.5
Malaysia 6 424 1.95 4.15 61.3 4 236
1.0
Bangladesh 5 767 4.00 57.10 925.2 246
Papua New Guinea 5 399 1.17 1.46 9.5 1 139 0.5
Mexico 5 315 0.27 0.96 49.1 2 743
0
Note: The mangroves in these countries represent 64% of world mangroves. 1961 1971 1981 1991 97

Source: ISME; WRI. Source: FAO.

142 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S
T H E R E V I VA L O F
C H E S A P E A K E B AY
Phosphorus
content
1984-87
1997-2000
High Low
Source: CBP.
Following the initiative to
rehabilitate Chesapeake
Bay in the United States,
there has been a marked
decrease in the levels of
phosphorus found in the
waters of the bay and
surrounding areas. Levels
of nitrogen and suspended
particulates have not
declined to the same degree.
However, there has been an
improvement in the health
of wildlife in and around the
bay, even while the human
populations have increased
considerably. Future
population growth and sprawl
represent the biggest
challenges to the health of
Chesapeake Bay.
Mangroves and estuaries
The fate of mangroves shows in stark relief the crisis facing the world’s coastal regions, which
have the fastest rates of both urbanization and population growth. Half the world’s population,
some 3 billion people, live within 200 kilometers of the coast. By 2025 that figure may double,
rising to three quarters, or 6 billion people7.
Thirteen of the world’s 16 largest cities are on the coast8, as are most of the fastest growing
Asian cities: Bangkok, Jakarta, Karachi, Manila, Mumbai and Shanghai. An estimated 80 million
Chinese have moved to coastal cities in recent years; in the United States people are moving to
the coast at the rate of 3 600 a day and the five fastest growing states are all coastal; in Australia,
90 percent of all building activity is in the coastal zone.
Coasts offer fertile soils for tilling, flat land for urban development and sites for trading ports.
A detailed analysis by the World Resources Institute9 found 51 percent of the world’s coastlines
under “moderate” or “high” threat from development activities. The study found a strong corre-
lation between mangrove loss and the growth of cities and ports, and a moderate relationship
with population density. Development for tourism was found to be a major threat to coastal
ecosystems in the Caribbean.
People also bring pollution. The most serious sources of coastal pollution are nutrients from
farming, land clearance and sewage disposal – a problem often made worse by the loss of
natural filters such as mangroves. One result of the consequent overfertilization of coastal
waters is “red tides” of toxic algae, such as the explosive growth that covered much of the South
China coast, including all of Hong Kong, in 1998, decimating fish farms and causing seafood
poisoning10. Other outbreaks of toxic algae are thought to have caused mass mortalities of sea
mammals, such as the 100 critically endangered Mediterranean monk seals found dead on the
Mauritanian coast in 199711.
The world’s seagrasses are also under threat because of urban pollution and the invasion of
alien species. In recent years Australia has lost 450 square kilometers of seagrasses and the
United States 900 square kilometers12. Meanwhile the habitat of Mediterranean seagrasses along
the French and Italian Riviera has been invaded by tropical algae, Caulerpa taxifolia, thought to
have escaped from the Monaco Oceanographic Observatory13.
Many governments find it hard to secure communal benefits from the protection of habitats
such as coastal wetlands in the face of the private profit motive. To be successful requires complex
coastal management programs. The United States has begun a long process of rehabilitating its
largest brackish estuary, Chesapeake Bay, by cutting pollution, including from nutrients in the
surrounding catchment, and restricting coastal development. Popular local support is vital to
such programs. Ecuador has discouraged the further destruction of its mangroves by giving
shrimp farmers incentives to restore them14. Bangladesh employs villagers in its Sundarbans
reserve in a program of mangrove planting on coastal mudflats. More than 100 000 hectares have
been planted so far.
STORM PROTECTION
Mangroves protect shorelines from devastation by storms. The trees both shield the land
from wind and trap sediment in their roots, maintaining a shallow slope on the seabed
that absorbs the energy of tidal surges. Their loss can prove disastrous. In the Indian
state of Orissa, where the low-lying coastline has been stripped of mangroves to make
way for tiger-prawn farms, a cyclone came ashore in 1999, drowning an estimated
10 000 people15.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Coral reefs 143

C o ra l re e f s

C
ORAL REEFS are among the most ancient and biologically rich THE WORLD’S
of the planet’s ecosystems. Often called “the rainforests of the R E E F S AT R I S K ,
oceans”, they first emerged more than 200 million years ago. 1998
A number of living coral reefs are believed to be more than Low risk 42%
2 million years old, though most began growing within the
last 10 000 years. Their rich fish stocks alone feed a billion people
annually, but they now face the combined threats of local assault from
destructive fishing methods and coastal development, and the global
phenomenon of climate change.
High risk Medium
The coral polyp is a tiny invertebrate creature related to the jellyfish. For most of its food and 27% risk 31%
energy it depends on algae that live inside it, and when it dies its skeleton forms the calcium car-
bonate structure on which new coral grows. Over hundreds of years, this symbiotic relationship Total area of near-surface reefs:
has created the vast coral reefs that could cover as many as 600 000 square kilometers of the 255 300 square kilometers
world’s oceans. Many of these are in warm tropical waters, but deep, cold waters have their own Source: WRI.
coral reef systems, such as those recently discovered in the North Atlantic.
The global area of the most biologically productive near-surface reefs has been estimated at
255 300 square kilometers1. These are among the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth,
calculated to contain more than a million species. Around a quarter of all the world’s sea fish feed,
T h e d i s a p p e a ra n ce
grow, spawn and hide from predators in their labyrinths. Hotspots for fish include most of the
of species
Philippines and much of Indonesia, as well as Tanzania and the Comoros in Africa, and the Lesser
One of the many threats to
Antilles in the Caribbean2.
For millennia humans have taken fish from reefs without destroying them. But conventional coral reefs is the overfishing
nets get torn on reefs and more destructive fishing methods have become widespread. Some of target species. Entire
fishers dynamite reefs to capture fish; others use a cyanide solution to catch live fish for East Asian populations can be eliminated
restaurants. This stuns the target fish, such as the large grouper, but also kills many of the by fishers who “clear” a reef
surrounding invertebrates and smaller fish. In the past three decades an estimated million kilos
before moving on to a new
of cyanide have been deposited onto the reefs of the Philippines alone.
area. In the Philippines in the
Coral reefs face many other threats from human activity. They are dismembered by souvenir-
seeking divers, mined for building materials and damaged by the anchors of cruise ships. Silt from late 1980s the sea urchin
dredging, deforestation and urban sewage smothers and kills coral, or feeds the growth of suffo- Tripneustes gratilla, which
cating and sometimes toxic algae, which now cover almost all Jamaican reefs. had thrived throughout the 24-
Attempts to identify the world’s threatened coral reefs have found a strong correlation between square-kilometer seagrass
risk of damage and coastal population density. Most species-rich coral reefs in Southeast Asia face
bed of a flat reef in Bolinao,
the gravest threats from rising populations, growing reef tourism and rapidly expanding exports
became the target of traders
of reef fish. Where coastal populations are generally low, however, the risk of physical assault is
also lower. Around 60 percent of reefs in the Pacific Ocean – including Australia and atoll nations from China. By 1995 the
such as Kiribati and Tuvalu – fall into this category3. urchin was believed to have
But there are also remote threats. Dust storms from Africa, spread on the winds across the disappeared from the reef4.
144 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E CO SY S T E M S Coral reefs

NUMBER OF DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORLD’S NEAR-

PEOPLE LIVING S U R FA C E R E E F S , C O R A L D I S E A S E A N D
WITHIN 100 BLEACHING EVENTS, 1998
KILOMETERS OF
A REEF, 1998 • Coral reef

Caribbean • Disease

Atlantic
• Light bleaching

• Moderate bleaching
Middle East
• Severe bleaching

Indian Ocean Coral take, 1997 (kilos)

■ Western Central
Atlantic 13 775
Southeast Asia

■ Eastern Central
Pacific 907
Pacific

0 50 100 150 200 250

Millions
Source: WRI.

The map shows the global distribution of coral reefs together with
the locations of recent mass bleaching events and disease
FA C T O R S outbreaks. Coral bleaching is most commonly the result of
T H R E AT E N I N G unusually warm sea temperatures, while the immediate cause of
REEFS most of the diseases is bacterial infection. There is concern that
40 increasing evidence of these diseases may be related to greater
Medium threat human impacts on reefs.
35
High threat
30
% of reefs threatened

25

20

15 A R E A O F N E A R - S U R FA C E R E E F S A N D L E V E L O F T H R E AT , 1 9 9 8
10
Square kilometers
Total Low Medium High
5 area threat threat threat

0 Caribbean 20 000 7 800 6 400 5 800

Overexploitation

Coastal
development

Inland pollution

Marine-based
pollution

Atlantic 3 100 400 1 000 1 700

Middle East 20 000 7 800 9 200 3 000
Indian Ocean 36 100 16 600 10 500 9 000
Southeast Asia 68 100 12 300 18 000 37 800
Pacific 108 000 63 500 33 900 10 600
Total 255 300 108 400 79 000 67 900

Source: WRI. Source: WRI.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E CO SY S T E M S Coral reefs 145

C O R A L TA K E B Y
COUNTRY, 1997
Kilos
coral

Malaysia 4 000 000

Indonesia 1 500 000
Philippines 500 000
Fiji 110 000
India 55 000
■ Mediterranean and Haiti 13 000
Black Sea 25 300 China 10 245
Spain 8 400
Algeria 5 400
Japan 5 114
Italy 4 100
■ Northwest
France 2 500
Pacific 15 359
Croatia 1 600
Morocco 1 600
Tunisia 1 200
■ Western Central Greece 1 100
Pacific 6 110 000 USA 907
Albania 800
Mexico 775
Turkey 100
Total 6 221 841
Source: FAO.

■ Eastern
Central Atlantic
1 500

■ Eastern Indian
Ocean 55 000

CORAL, PEARL
AND SPONGE
TA K E , 1 9 9 7
10

Million kilos 8
Source: UNEP-WCMC; FAO. Corals
6
4
2
0
1972 77 82 87 92 97

15
Million kilos

Pearls
10

COUNTRIES WITH LARGE CORAL REEFS, 1998 0

1972 77 82 87 92 97
Reef area Coastal population GDP per capita
Square kilometers density per square kilometer US$ 1998
400
Thousand kilos

Australia 48 000 12 19 241 Sponges

300
India 6 000 412 439
Indonesia 42 000 93 462 200
Papua New Guinea 12 000 7 814
Philippines 13 000 174 866 100
Saudi Arabia 7 000 15 6 227
0
Note: Half of the world's near-surface reefs are found in these countries. 1972 77 82 87 92 97
Source: WRI. Source: FAO.
146 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E CO SY S T E M S Coral reefs

TO U R I S M I N T H E Atlantic, may have introduced bacterial infections from soils to Caribbean reefs5. On a global level,
CA R I B B E A N , 1 9 9 7 no reef can escape the threat posed by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This
S e le c t e d co u n t r i e s works in three ways. Firstly, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air make surface
waters more acidic and reduce coral growth rates6. Secondly, a warming of the oceans could cause
Tourists Tourism Tourism
as % of receipts as %
sea-level rise at a rate that coral reefs cannot match as they grow – threatening the survival of atoll
local Million of nations. Thirdly and most immediately, the rise of ocean temperatures by half a degree or more in
population US$ GNP recent decades has already placed many reefs at the top end of temperature ranges they can tol-
Antigua 352 260 53 erate without undergoing “bleaching”.
and Barbuda
Aruba 722 666 56
Bleaching occurs when high temperatures expel the algae in coral, removing their distinctive
Bahamas 547 1 416 43 color – hence the coral appears bleached. If bleaching persists and new algae do not appear, the
Barbados 177 717 41 coral will starve and die, and the reef will become brittle and break up.
Dominica 92 37 16
Dominican 27 2 107 16 As a result of an epidemic of bleaching in the 1990s, culminating in the El Niño induced warm-
Republic ing of 1998, more coral is believed to have died in the last few years of the 20th century than from all
Grenada 119 61 21
Haiti 2 97 4
human causes to date7. A US State Department study in 1999 concluded that two thirds of all the
Jamaica 47 1 131 28 world's coral reefs were deteriorating8.
Puerto Rico 86 2 046 8 Until recently scientists believed that reefs in good general health and remote from human
St Kitts 226 72 29
and Nevis activity were not vulnerable to bleaching. But that view was thrown into question when one of the
St Lucia 168 282 49 largest, most remote, pristine and biodiverse coral atolls, at the Chagos Islands in the Indian
St Vincent 58 70 25
Trinidad 25 108 2 Ocean, was found extensively bleached9. Investigators found an area the size of New Jersey strewn
and Tobago with dead and broken coral. Most of the reef fish had disappeared.
World 10 435 981 1
Coral reefs are a major global biological and economic resource for both fisheries and tourism,
Source: World Tourism Organization; and because they protect vulnerable coastlines from wave action and storms. Countries such as
UNPD; World Bank.
Barbados, the Maldives and the Seychelles rely on reef tourism for much of their foreign income.
Florida’s reefs attract annual tourism revenues of US$1.6 billion. One estimate puts the global
annual value of coral reefs in fisheries, tourism and coastal protection at US$375 billion. That is
US$60 for every member of the human race10.
Worldwide, there are more than 400 protected coral reefs. The overwhelming number are in
Australia and Indonesia, the two countries with the most reefs overall. But most reserves are
small and at least 40 countries with reef systems – in both the industrialized and developing world
– lack any marine protected areas. Nonetheless, there are several examples of good management
and planning. Bermuda, for example, closed its pot-fishing industry for the benefit of biodiversity
and the lucrative reef-based tourism. The Philippines has organized locally managed marine
reserves to protect reefs from cyanide fishing on Apo Island, and developed scuba-diving tourism.
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Site has imposed “no take” fishing zones as well as
local bans on mining and tourism infrastructure11.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Regional seas 147

Regional seas

HE REGIONAL SEAS, hugging the coasts and largely surrounded

T by land, have been the cradles of many ancient civilizations

and lent their names to many of the world’s regions, for
example the Mediterranean, Caribbean and Baltic. With major
trading cities and states huddling around their shores they
have been routes for the exchange of goods, information and culture,
and have supplied large populations with food, raw materials and,
increasingly, entertainment and leisure.

Mostly occupying shallow continental shelves and closely tied to coastal ecosystems such as
mangroves and coral reefs, regional seas are naturally rich in marine life. They have been viewed
as an endless supply of fish, as well as a bottomless pit for garbage. But their capacity to absorb
the impacts of human exploitation is in many cases being stretched to the limit.
Urbanization and rising population densities along their shores are turning many of these
seas into reservoirs of undispersed pollution. Their sediment flows are becoming impoverished,
their ecosystems are overfished and invaded by alien species, and sometimes even their circu-
lation patterns are disrupted.
The Mediterranean, home to the Egyptian, Phoenecian, Greek and Roman empires, now has
160 million residents on its shores and a similar number of annual visitors. More than 500 mil-
lion tons of sewage are poured into the sea each year, along with 120 000 tons of mineral oils,
60 000 tons of detergents, 100 tons of mercury, 3 800 tons of lead and 3 600 tons of phosphates1.
One fifth of all the world’s oil spills have occurred in its waters2. It was the first sea to have its own
treaty and an action plan to reduce pollution and protect coastal ecosystems – so far with only
moderate success.
About 75 percent of marine pollution worldwide originates on land, reaching the sea either
directly, down rivers or via the fallout of atmospheric pollution. Nutrients from agricultural run-off
and sewage discharge are causing algal blooms that starve the waters of oxygen and drive away
sea life – a process known as eutrophication. Inputs of nitrates to the North Sea in Northern
Europe have risen fourfold and phosphate inputs eightfold since the 1970s3, causing eutrophica-
tion on its eastern shores and tides of toxic algae that have killed stocks in offshore fish farms.
One consequence of eutrophication can be the formation of “dead zones” on the seabed. As
excessive amounts of algae die and decay, the water’s oxygen levels drop, depriving other species
of the oxygen they need to survive. The collapse of the Baltic Sea cod fishery in the early 1990s is
blamed on oxygen loss in deep waters, which interfered with cod reproduction. One of the largest
dead zones has formed along the United States shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico4, where increasing
volumes of fertilizer wash into the Gulf from the Mississippi river system. The river water is rich in
nutrients from both pollution and natural sources which, along with the algae that feed on it, con-
sume all the available oxygen. This hypoxic zone was first documented in 1972.
Offshore mining and the extraction of oil and gas reserves from the continental shelf are a
148 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Regional seas

NUMBER OF C O A S TA L P O P U L AT I O N S , M A R I N E P R O T E C T E D
PEOPLE LIVING AREAS AND LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
WITHIN 100
KILOMETERS OF Proportion of the population living within
T H E C O A S T , L AT E 100 kilometers of the coast, 2000
1990s
More than 90%
1 200
Millions 70-90%
1 000
50-70%
800
30-50%
600
15-30%
400
1-15%
200
0%
0
North America
Latin America
and Caribbean
Europe and Russia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East and
North Africa
Asia (excl. Middle East)
Oceania

Marine protected areas, 1997

• Smaller than 100km2
• 100-1 000km2
• 1 000-5 000km2
• Larger than 5 000km2

Source: WRI.
Large marine ecosystems
Closely linked to the regional seas, a number of large marine
ecosystems, each with distinct characteristics, has been
identified in response to the need for a comprehensive
approach to marine management. Unmarked coastal areas
have yet to be studied.

OIL AND GAS RESERVES OF THE REGIONAL SEAS

OIL POLLUTION
AC C I D E N T S I N T H E
MEDITERRANEAN
By type of
accident

Grounding

Fire/explosion

Collision

Terminal operations

1981-90
• Oil reserves
Sinking
1991-95
• Gas reserves
Other • Oil/gas reserves

0 % 10 20 30

Source: EEA. Source: ESRI.

 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Regional seas 149

COASTLINES UNDER
T H R E AT , 1 9 9 8

High threat
Moderate threat
Low threat
North and Central America

South America

Europe

Former USSR

Africa

Asia

Oceania

0 % 20 40 60 80 100
Source: FAO.

A recent study by FAO found

that more than half the world's
coasts are at threat from
human development. With
coastal populations expected
to double in the next 20 or 30
years, the rapid increase in
construction and urban and
industrial waste output will
Source: UNEP-WCMC; CIESIN. put enormous stresses onto
the regional seas' fragile
THE DIVERSITY OF THE REGIONAL SEAS, 1990s
ecosystems.
Numbers of species
Molluscs Shrimps Sharks Seabirds Marine Endemic
and lobsters mammals S E D I M E N TAT I O N
East Africa 80 91 73 44 28 7
A N D EROSION IN THE
Southern Africa 145 42 93 39 36 9 MEDITERRANEAN,
West and Central Africa 238 47 89 51 44 8 1998
Antarctica 7 3 0 51 20 22
Arctic 44 9 5 27 23 0
South Asia 246 117 58 26 29 6 Adriatic Sea
North Atlantic 432 77 87 56 48 12
Southwest Atlantic 299 46 68 33 49 11 Ionian Sea
Southwest Australia 197 25 64 22 43 9
Black Sea 6 7 1 17 4 1 Balearic Islands
Caribbean 633 68 76 23 31 23
East Asian seas 1 114 210 140 39 29 31 Sardinia
Kuwait marine area 66 26 34 21 27 1
Mediterranean Sea 138 42 43 22 17 1 Gulf of Lion Erosion
Northeast Pacific 517 45 57 66 50 28
Aegean Sea Sedimentation
Northwest Pacific 404 128 93 69 45 27
South Pacific 984 105 128 115 52 98
Southeast Pacific 393 33 67 68 47 36 0 10 20 30 40
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 57 38 39 22 26 26 % affected
Source: WRI. Source: EEA.
150 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Regional seas

further pollution threat to regional seas. The North Sea hydrocarbon industry, for instance, has
left hundreds of piles of drill cuttings on the seabed. Contaminated with metals such as boron
and cadmium as well as diesel used to lubricate drilling, there is an estimated 2 million tons of
this debris spread across hundreds of square kilometers.
Enclosed seas, cut off from the wider ocean, have seen some of the worst ecological damage,
including the loss of water itself. Forty years ago the Aral Sea in Central Asia was the fourth
largest inland sea in the world. Its fisheries were sufficiently plentiful to feed the Soviet empire.
But since then more than 90 percent of the water from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers that
feed it has been diverted to irrigate cotton fields in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The sea has
lost two thirds of its volume and almost all native organisms, including its 24 known fish species,
have died out5. This decline has triggered further environmental damage as winds whip up sand on
3 million hectares of exposed salt and pesticide-impregnated seabed, contaminating ecosystems,
water supplies and food over a wide area. Local doctors blame it for epidemics of anemia, kidney
disease, cancer and other health problems6.
Increasingly, countries are banding together in an effort to save their seas. The environmental
action plan for the Mediterranean has been followed by others for the Black, Aral, Baltic and
North Seas. The North Sea programs have had conspicuous success in reducing the discharge
of many pollutants and in lowering fish catch limits, though others have fared less well.

F I S H C AT C H * O F
THE COUNTRIES
BORDERING THE
BLACK SEA
600
Turkey
Thousand metric tons

500

400

300

200
Area of
100 former USSR

0
1980 85 90 95 97 THE BLACK SEA
20 The fish of the Black Sea once supported the ancient Persian and Byzantine empires. In
Bulgaria the 20th century, its beaches played host to both holiday-making Russians and the great
Thousand metric tons

15 Soviet Black Sea navy. But fertilizers, sewage and toxic effluents from 170 million people
Romania in 13 countries of Eastern and Central Europe wash into the sea down great rivers such
10 as the Danube and Dneiper at levels ten times those of half a century ago7. The pollution
has smothered sea meadows in the northwest of the sea, inhibiting oxygen generation.
5 The result has been massive eutrophication, with thick mats of algae invading beaches,
and fisheries diminished. Into this badly disrupted ecosystem an Atlantic comb jelly, a
0 kind of jellyfish, was accidentally released from a ship’s ballast water in the early 1980s.
1980 85 90 95 97
Feeding on native fish eggs and larvae, it reached a biomass of 900 million tons within
* Includes the Mediterranean and a decade, triggering a 90 percent decline in fish stocks at a cost of hundreds of millions
Black Sea catch of dollars8.
Source: FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Oceans 151

O ce a n s

HE OCEANS cover 70 percent of the planet’s surface and SOURCES OF

T make up some 90 percent of space habitable by life forms.

Most of their volume is far from land and locked deep beneath
the surface, away from contact with the atmosphere. Less than
a tenth of it has ever been explored; even so the human hand
is increasingly evident.

Beyond the regional seas and the continental shelves lies the deep ocean – the most widespread
P O L L U TA N T S
FROM HUMAN
ACTIVITIES
ENTERING THE
SEA

Runoff and land-based

discharge 44%
natural habitat on the planet. Once dismissed as a marine desert, the deep ocean is now emerging
as a center of vast biological richness. The seabed is peppered with “black smokers”, volcanic vents
Atmosphere
that are home to a huge variety of marine life. A fantastic range of invertebrates has been found 33%
occupying the sediment on the ocean floor1.
Historically, fisheries have been the most abundant resource of the oceans. However, our over-
exploitation is threatening some of the world’s largest fish stocks. Such is the intensity of this
assault that we may so reduce stocks that we will have to “farm” the bulk of our marine fish just as
Maritime
we do our livestock on land. transportation
12%
Other human activities are beginning to impinge on the ecological health of the vast expanse of
Dumping 10%
oceans. Oil exploration is a major activity in such regions as the Gulf of Mexico, the South China Sea Offshore production 1%
and the waters around the British Isles. The threats vary. There is growing evidence of widespread Source: UNEP.
toxic effects on benthic communities on the floor of the North Sea in the vicinity of the 500-plus oil
production platforms in British and Norwegian waters2. Meanwhile, oil exploration in the deep
waters of the North Atlantic, northwest of Scotland, threatens endangered deep-sea corals. There is
evidence, too, that acoustic prospecting for hydrocarbons in these waters may deter or disorientate
some marine mammals3.
In the future, the biological riches of the “black smokers” face threats from deep-sea mining.
The mid-ocean hot springs spew out potentially valuable metal sulfides, such as gold, silver and
copper. In the cold water, they are deposited in thick crusts, attracting exploitation. Rights have
already been given to one company to prospect for metals on 4 000 square kilometers of the bed of
the Bismarck Sea north of Papua New Guinea.
The oceans, like the atmosphere, are fundamental to the health of the planet. They dominate
many of its cycling processes as well as being the ultimate sink for a variety of pollutants. They
absorb about 2 billion tons of carbon – in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) – and disperse an esti-
mated 3 million tons of oil spilt annually from ships and, predominantly, from sources on land.
The oceans store a thousand times more heat than the atmosphere and transport enormous
amounts of it around the globe. In consequence, they are largely responsible for determining cli-
mate on land. The warm Gulf Stream washing up from the tropics in the Atlantic Ocean keeps
Europe many degrees warmer in winter than Hudson Bay on the opposite shore. The oscillation
between El Niño and La Niña currents in the tropical Pacific Ocean fundamentally changes the
weather across the ocean, flipping Indonesia, Australia and coastal South America into and out of
152 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Oceans

FISHING VESSELS OCEAN PRODUCTIVITY

B y ow n e rs h i p , 1 9 9 5 Wo r l d m a r i n e ca tc h , d i s ca rd s a n d f i s h e r y st a t u s ,
by fishing zone

China 23.1%
Marine catch 1997, in metric tons
Catch includes marine fishes,
crustaceans and molluscs.

Russia Marine bycatch
12.4% Northwest Atlantic
Estimate of the proportion of the
Northeast Pacific ■ 2 057 809
overall marine catch that is made
Japan 6.3%
■ 2 518 953 ■ 27%
up of non-target species, low-value ■ 26% ■ 1971
USA 5.8% species or undersized target fish, ■ 1990
India 4.5% presumed to be dead or dying when
Other 47.9% Western Central
returned to the sea. Atlantic
■ 1 889 765
Total: 24 million metric tons ■ 14%
Fishery status Eastern Central Pacific
■ 1987
Source: FAO.
Estimate of the year in which fishing ■ 1 702 491
■ 27%
zones became or will become fully ■ 1988
fished.

Trends in the marine catch,

1972-97 Southwest Pacific
■ 901 123 Southeast
■ 15% Pacific
■ 1991 ■ 14 534 337
■ 21% Southwest
■ 2001 Atlantic
■ 2 661 788
■ 14%
■ id

OCEAN TRAFFIC
By type, 1998
Bulk carriers 36.7%

O I L TA N K E R S P I L L S AT S E A , W I T H S E L E C T E D M A J O R S P I L L S
Crude oil
tankers 600 600
32.4%
Thousand Atlantic Empress
metric tons 287 000 tons
500 500

General 400 400

cargo 10.9% Castillo de Bellver ABT Summer
Containers 8.4% 252 000 tons 260 000 tons
300 300
Oil products 5.8%
Chemical 3.4%
Bulk dry/oil 1.7% 200 200
Passenger ro-ro cargo 0.5%
Cruise ships 0.15% Sea Empress
Other passenger 0.07% 100 72 000 tons 100
Total: 726.6 million
deadweight metric tons 0 0
1970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Source: Lloyds Register. Source: ITOPF.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Oceans 153

M A R I N E C AT C H
Fisheries (million
metric tons)
Northeast Atlantic 25 15
■ 12 186 072
20
■ 19% 10
■ 1983 15
Cods,
10 Herrings, hakes,
5 haddocks
sardines,
5 anchovies
Mediterranean and
Black Sea 0 0
■ 1 739 825 1972 97 1972 97
■ 25% 12 8
■ 1995 Northwest Pacific
■ 31 709 949 9 6
■ 22%
6 4
■ 1998 Jacks, Redfishes,
3 mullets, 2 basses,
sauries congers
Eastern Central 0 0
Atlantic 1972 97 1972 97
■ 3 542 313 Western Central Pacific 5 5
■ 47% ■ 9 256 298 4 4
■ 1984 ■ 33%
Western Indian ■ 2003 3 3
Ocean Mackerels,
2 snoeks, 2 Tunas,
■ 4 108 870 cutlassfishes bonitos,
■ 22% 1 1 billfish
■ id 0 0
Eastern Indian Ocean 1972 97 1972 97
Southeast
Atlantic ■ 3 991 310 5 1.5
Squids,
■ 1 083 966 ■ 30% 4 cuttlefish,
■ 27% ■ id octopuses 1.0
3
■ 1978 Flounders,
2 halibuts,
0.5 soles
1
0 0
1972 97 1972 97
Antarctic Atlantic 0.8 0.3
Antarctic Indian Ocean Antarctic Pacific
■ 87 876 ■ 8 216 ■0 0.6
■ 10% ■ 10% ■– 0.2
Source: FAO.
■ 1980 ■ 1980 ■ 1980 0.4 Sharks,
rays,
chimaeras 0.1 Lobsters,
0.2 spiny-rock
lobsters
0 0
1972 97 1972 97

O C E A N C I R C U L AT I O N
Mammals (thousands)
Surface
500 200
currents Sperm and
400 150 pilot whales

Deep 300
100
currents 200 Seals,
walruses 50
100
Source
0 0
areas 1972 97 1972 97
of cold 20
bottom 15
water
10
Blue
Zones of 5 and
fin
upwelling whales
0
Source: UNEP-WCMC. 1972 97 Source: FAO.
154 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Oceans

droughts and floods. All these processes now face disruption from the global scale of human
activity, particularly climate change. Currently, the oceans moderate climate change by absorbing a
third of the CO2 emitted into the air by human activity. But several studies suggest that global warm-
ing will stratify the oceans and reduce their capacity to act as a CO2 “sink” by 10 to 20 percent over the
next century, accelerating warming4.
Global warming may already be triggering fundamental shifts in the ocean's El Niño oscillation5.
And if warming continues, climate modellers predict that freshwater from melting Arctic ice may
form a cap on the salty waters of the North Atlantic. This could shut down the local plunging of
dense, salty water to the ocean depths, which is one of the main engines of the global ocean circu-
lation system known as the conveyor6. One effect would be to displace the Gulf Stream, resulting in
considerably colder European winters.
There have been some successes in the international handling of the marine environment. The
International Whaling Commission’s moratorium introduced in the mid-1980s, though not honored
by all nations, has helped revive whale stocks. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
signed in 1982 but only entering into force in 1994, established a framework of law for the oceans,
including rules for deep-sea mining and economic exclusion zones extending 200 nautical miles
around nation states.
A series of international laws have effectively eliminated the discharge of toxic materials – from
drums of radioactive waste to sewage sludge and air pollution from incinerator ships – into the
waters around Europe. International public pressure in the mid-1990s forced the reversal by a major
oil company of plans to scuttle the Brent Spar, a large structure from the North Sea offshore oil
industry, into deep water west of Scotland. European agreements since then have indicated that all
production platforms and other structures should be removed from the oil fields at the end of their
lives wherever possible.
Efforts have also been made to safeguard marine fisheries. In 1993, more than a hundred
nations signed a treaty promising to draw up regional agreements to protect international fish
stocks. But progress has been slow, and the failure to reach effective common cause over protecting
the planet’s fish stocks could arguably be one of the greatest failures of environmental diplomacy.

SEA-LEVEL RISE
One of the more predictable effects of global warming will be a rise in sea levels. It is already
under way at a pace of about a millimeter a year – a consequence of both melting land ice and
the thermal expansion of the oceans. Current predictions put the likely rise over the coming
century at half a meter at the most7. But modelling studies suggest that once under way,
thermal expansion will last for many centuries after warming of the atmosphere ceases. This is
because it will take around a thousand years for the warming at the ocean surface to penetrate
to the ocean depths. Even modest global warming over the next half century is likely eventu-
ally to raise global sea levels by between 1 and 2 meters – sufficient to drown many coastal
areas and atoll islands – from thermal expansion alone8. Moreover, the IPCC predicts that a
warming of 3oC would trigger the irreversible melting of the Greenland ice sheet, raising sea
levels by 7 meters over a thousand years or more.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Polar regions 155

Po l a r re g i o n s

HE WORLD’S POLAR REGIONS are its least populated areas.

T But while Antarctica has no permanent residents, the Arctic

has more than 3.7 million inhabitants from eight countries.
The prime environmental influences come from outside,
whether long-distance tourism or long-distance pollution.
But these same influences are also crucibles for new forms of
international cooperation.

The Arctic region – defined as the ice-covered Arctic Ocean and surrounding tundra – has a rich his-
tory of semi-nomadic communities living off its meagre resources of fish, marine mammals, caribou,
berries and mushrooms. These communities live largely in harmony with their environment, cre-
ating little pollution and managing their resources sustainably.
Indigenous communities are now outnumbered by migrants from the south in most parts of the
region except Greenland and Nunavut (though the Russian migrant population in Siberia is declining).
Nonetheless, they remain vibrant societies and are gaining self-governance, culminating in 1999
with the creation of the world’s newest autonomous territory, Nunavut in northern Canada1.
The Arctic’s specialized ecosystems and animals, adapted to the cold and dark, are particularly
vulnerable to the accumulation of toxic contaminants such as heavy metal, hydrocarbons and per-
sistent organic pollutants (POPs), including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides, that
accumulate in body fat. Some pollutants have local sources: PCBs leaking from old Canadian mili-
tary equipment and Siberian oil pipelines and metal refineries, for instance. But levels of most POPs
can only be explained by long-range movement from lower latitudes. They reach the region via
rivers flowing north into the Arctic, particularly from Siberia; via sea ice transporting contaminants
from the coast; via global ocean currents; and by the strong south to north air flows, particularly
from Europe.
The cold Arctic air is believed responsible for “capturing” and then depositing passing air
pollution, including POPs and mercury, through a process known as “global distillation”. The long
marine food webs are extremely efficient at increasing the concentrations of such toxins so that
birds and animals at the top of the chain receive large doses. Heavy metals such as cadmium and
mercury, and POPs such as PCBs, all bioaccumulate in this way. The build-up is made more acute
because many of the toxins accumulate in fats, the main food of many polar animals. As a result,
studies suggest, polar bears are dying after imbibing PCBs in their mothers’ milk 2.
The local people, at the top of the food chain, are among the most heavily exposed populations in
the world to such pollutants, which reach dangerous concentrations in the flesh of whales, seals
and other mammals. Approaching 17 percent of Greenlanders have potentially harmful levels of
mercury in their blood, mostly from eating whale and seal meat. A typical traditional meal of these
foods may sometimes exceed maximum daily allowed doses of mercury, PCBs and other toxins.
Thus the contaminants directly threaten customary ways of life and cultural traditions.
Arctic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to contamination, taking a long time to recover.
156 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Polar regions

TOURISM IN THE THE ARCTIC

A R C T I C , E A R LY
1990s
Arctic Number of
region tourists per year

Alaska 25 000
Greenland 6 000
Iceland 129 000
Northern Scandinavia 500 000
Northwest Territories* 48 000
Russia Some tens
of thousands
Svalbard 35 000 Greenland
Yukon* 177 000
*Canada
Source: UNEP.

P O P U L AT I O N S
OF THE ARCTIC, Canada
1989-94 Russia

Arctic Total % indi-

region population genous
Alaska
Alaska 481 054 15.2
Canada 92 985 50.9
Faroe Islands 43 700 0.0
Finland 200 677 2.0
Greenland 55 419 86.7
Iceland 266 783 0.0
Norway 379 461 9.9
Russia 1 999 711 3.4
Sweden 263 735 2.3
Source: AMAP.

Source: AMAP; UNEP/GRID-Arendal.

THE TEN TOP
F I S H I N G N AT I O N S Arctic boundary (AMAP) Oil/gas extraction
IN THE ARCTIC Gas
REGION*, 1997 Intermittent permafrost Oil
Marine catch** Oil and gas
Metric tons Permafrost Exploration
Norway 2 855 091
Iceland 2 204 553 Icesheet
Denmark 1 825 159
USA 1 191 556
UK 905 448
Russia 828 828
Canada 681 686 PROTECTED AREAS IN THE ARCTIC, 1997
Spain 637 382
France 554 560 Arctic Number of Square % of region
Netherlands 443 009 region protected areas kilometers protected

Other 2 116 612 Canada 48 462 674 8.8

Total 14 243 884 Finland 52 25 905 32.6
Greenland 14 993 023 45.7
* Includes Northeast and Northwest Iceland 26 12 165 11.8
Atlantic Norway 38 41 637 25.5
** Includes marine fish, molluscs Russia 31 313 818 4.9
and crustaceans Sweden 44 20 348 21.4
USA 41 331 425 56.1
Source: FAO. Source: UNEP.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Polar regions 157

T H E A N TA R C T I C A N TA R C T I C F I S H
C AT C H B Y
COUNTRY, 1997
South Atlantic
Marine fish Krill
Ocean Metric tons
Indian
Ocean
Australia 1 088 0
Chile 2 079 0
France 3 680 0
Tierra Japan 335 60 898
del Korea, Rep. 459 0
Fuego Poland 0 19 156
South Africa 2 106 0
Spain 294 0
UK 408 308
Ukraine 1 007 4 246
Total 11 456 84 608
Source: FAO.

TOURISM IN THE
A N TA R C T I C
Southern Summer Number of
Ocean season tourists
South Pacific 1992/93 6 565
Ocean 1993/94 8 016
1994/95 8 120
1995/96 9 367
1996/97 7 413
1997/98 9 604
1998/99 10 383
Source: IAATO.

Source: NSIDC; NOAA; SCAR.

Scientific research stations Ice shelf

CLAIMS TO
Antarctic circle Zooplankton concentrations
SOVEREIGNTY
Low Argentina, Australia, Chile,
France, New Zealand, Norway
Minimum/maximum ice extent High
and the United Kingdom – the
seven countries that assert
sovereignty over the continent –
PA R T I E S T O T H E A N TA R C T I C T R E AT Y , 2 0 0 0 have all frozen their claims
under the Antarctic Treaty. The
Argentina*5 Czech Republic Japan*1 Slovakia
Australia*3 Denmark Korea, DPR South Africa*1 treaty incorporates the 1972
Austria Ecuador Korea, Rep.*1 Spain Convention for the Conservation
Belgium Finland Netherlands Sweden of Antarctic Seals, the 1980
Brazil*1 France*1 New Zealand*1 Switzerland Convention for the Conservation
Bulgaria Germany*1 Norway Turkey
of Antarctic Marine Living
Canada Greece Papua New Guinea Ukraine*1
Chile*4 Guatemala Peru United Kingdom*2 Resources, and the 1991
China*2 Hungary Poland*1 United States of Protocol on Environmental
Colombia India*1 Romania America*3 Protection, which specifically
Cuba Italy Russia*6 Uruguay*1 prohibits the exploitation of
* Countries with research stations and number of stations in 1999 Source: UNEP. the region for minerals.
158 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E C O SY S T E M S Polar regions

T H E PAT H W AY S O F P E R S I S T E N T Oil, for instance, breaks down only very slowly in the cold and dark.
O R G A N I C P O L L U TA N T S T O T H E A R C T I C The oil spill from the Exxon Valdez in Alaskan waters in 1989 left
36 000 seabirds and 3 000 sea otters dead and a legacy that lasted far
longer than it would have in warmer regions.
Arctic ecosystems have also accumulated radioactive isotopes
spread through the atmosphere following the atmospheric testing in
the 1950s, and the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine in 1986.
While levels of fallout in the Arctic were no higher than elsewhere,
Arctic lichens absorbed large amounts of caesium-137. The lichen is
the staple diet of animals such as reindeer, which are eaten by
humans. As a result, Arctic inhabitants typically have five times as
much of the isotope in their bodies as people to the south, and some
reindeer herders have levels 300 times higher. Herders of northern
Scandinavia have been prevented from eating and selling reindeer
meat because of the fallout from Chernobyl.
Landuse threats to Arctic ecosystems have historically been
small, but they do exist. Norwegian reindeer herds have increased
threefold since 1950, exhausting lichen cover over an area of several
hundred thousand square kilometers. Overgrazing has contributed
to severe erosion of the loose volcanic soils in Iceland, and commer-
cial forestry has fragmented the Siberian boreal forests3.
HCH: Hexachlorocyclohexane, particularly in the The Arctic was an important theatre of the Cold War, providing
form of the pesticide lindane Source: UNEP. remote sites for military installations and weapons tests, and hiding
submarines beneath the sea ice. In the future, its economic role is
likely to grow. Long-standing metal smelting in Siberia and coal mining in the far-north island of
Svalbard are being joined by oil exploitation in Alaska and the Barents Sea, and plans to reopen the
old shipping route north of Norway and Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the eight Arctic
nations have come together to discuss their shared environment. Besides creating nature reserves
in the region, they have taken the lead in pushing through a protocol to an existing United Nations
convention, curbing 16 POPs in Europe and North America, and have spurred negotiations for a
global treaty.
Many of the human-induced environmental threats in the Arctic do not occur in the largely
unpopulated Antarctic, where economic activity has declined since the great sealing and whaling
expeditions of the 19th century. The main pursuit is now science. The continent has 35 permanently
occupied bases, with the oldest, the Argentinean Orcadas base, having been continuously inhabited
since 1904. The fastest growing activity is tourism, which now brings some 15 000 people there
annually, mostly by cruise ship.
A certain amount of economic activity is also concentrated on fisheries, and there is concern
about large-scale overfishing, particularly of the Patagonian toothfish, which makes up by far the
largest share of the finfish catch in the region. In contrast to the rich marine life in the nutrient-
filled waters of the Southern Ocean, the largely ice-covered continent has few land species.
Beyond the immediate threat of human activity, the polar regions are falling prey to global
threats: notably climate change and the thinning of the ozone layer. The Arctic has lost around
5 percent of its sea ice in the past two decades4, and land ice could follow. Recent modelling
studies suggest that a warming of 3oC would be sufficient to melt the entire Greenland ice sheet,
raising sea levels worldwide by 7 meters over a thousand years or more5.
Warming is already threatening the survival of polar bears around Hudson Bay, because the
sea ice from which they hunt is disappearing. And the additional ultra-violet radiation streaming
through the Antarctic ozone hole each southern spring is believed to be killing large numbers of
fish eggs and larvae floating on the surface of the Southern Ocean by damaging their DNA. It also
kills an estimated 15 percent of the phytoplankton in parts of the ocean6.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Introduction 159

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
b i o d i ve rs i t y

OBODY KNOWS how many species there are in the world – or

N how fast they are disappearing. Fewer than 2 million have

been cataloged and estimates of the total vary wildly, ranging
from 7 million to as many as 80 million. The currently
accepted working estimate is 13.6 million.

A quarter of the total number of species may be beetles, whose diversity is especially rich high in
the rainforest canopy of the Amazon. Many more could be nematodes on the floors of the oceans.
As many again could exist among single-cell microbes, whose diversity is beginning to be assessed
for the first time using gene-typing1.
Biodiversity is a term applied to describe the complexity of life. It is generally measured at three
levels: the variety of species; the genetic diversity found within members of the same species (what
makes you different from your neighbor); and the diversity of the ecosystems within which species
live. These three levels are intimately connected. Genetic diversity is essential to the prosperity of
the species, giving it the resources to adapt. And the number of species within an ecosystem is
closely tied to the health and size of the ecosystem itself2.
However it is defined, biodiversity is the stuff of life. However far we may be removed from "wild"
biodiversity in our daily lives, it remains the source of our food and most of our medicines. In addition,
15 percent of our energy is derived from burning plant materials. Even in the United States, wild
species contribute around 4.5 percent of GDP3.
Some of our uses are direct. Billions of people still harvest wild or "bush" food around the world.
Between a fifth and a half of all food consumed by the poor in the developing world is gathered
rather than cultivated, while at global level we gain 16 percent of our animal protein from sea fish
caught in the wild. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 60 percent of
the world's population relies on traditional plant medicines for day-to-day primary health care4, and
3 000 plant species are used in birth control alone5.
In the Uxpanapa region in Mexico peasant farmers use 435 wild plants and animals, eating 229 of
them6. One Thai village was found to eat 295 different local plants and use 119 in medicines.
Europe's prime treatment for prostate disorders comes directly from the bark of the African cherry
tree, now severely depleted in its homeland in the Central African highlands.
But biodiversity's role extends far beyond these direct uses. We may today only eat a small
proportion of the 70 000 plants known to have edible parts7, but most food crops constantly require an
infusion of "wild" genes to maintain their resistance to ever-evolving pests. These raids on nature's
"genetic library" enable increases in crop productivity of about 1 percent a year, worth in excess of a
billion dollars8.
Approximately 118 out of the top 150 prescription drugs sold in the United States are labora-
tory versions of chemicals found by "bioprospectors" in the wild – mostly synthesized from plants
but also from fungi, bacteria and extracts from vertebrate animals such as snakes9. Aspirin, for
instance, derives from an acid first taken from the bark of willow trees. The promising anti-
160 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Introduction

BIODIVERSITY CENTERS OF PLANT DIVERSITY, GENE

FOR FOOD BANKS AND GENETIC ORIGINS OF CROPS
AND LIVESTOCK

270 000 plants Centers of high plant

are known to science
diversity
of which:
Sites and areas identified
7 000 have ever as important centers of
been used for food
plant diversity at regional
and global level

Major gene banks

of which: International centers 1
belonging to the
120 are
cultivated today Consultative Group
on International
2
Agricultural Research
of which:
(CGIAR) plus major
90 cultivated plant species national plant gene
provide 5% of human food
banks

Genetic origins of crops 3

21 species 9 species and livestock (see below)
provide 20% provide 75% of
of human food human food
The majority of the world’s gene banks are situated in or near the
Source: FAO.
richest regions of biodiversity, from which most of our staple foods
originated. These repositories are gaining in importance as wild
biodiversity comes under increasing pressure from population
GERMPLASM OF growth and landuse change.
N U T R I T I O N A L LY
I M P O R TA N T C R O P S
HELD BY CGIAR*
CENTERS
Number of % of wild
samples species not yet
held, 2000 collected+

Barley 24 218 0-10 GENETIC ORIGINS OF CROPS AND LIVESTOCK

Cassava 7 886 80
Chickpea 26 077 50
Common 27 595 id 1. North America Sweet potato Pumpkin Rape Hazelnut
bean Cranberry Tabasco pepper Quinine Sugar beet Leek
Cowpea 15 001 70 Jerusalem Tomato Rubber Lentil
Forages 52 456 id artichoke Vanilla Upland cotton Belgium Pea
Groundnut 14 357 30 Muscadine grape Brussel sprout Pig
Maize 19 548 85 Sunflower 3. Andes/South 4. Mediterranean Plum
Millet 30 300 90-98 Turkey America Asparagus North Africa Rye
Potato 5 057 60 Cashew Broad bean Cattle Shallot
Rice 122 632 70 2. Mexico/Central Cayenne Cabbage Marjoram Sheep
Sorghum 35 780 90 America Cocoa Cauliflower Spelt wheat
Soybean 1 909 70 Avocado Groundnut/ Celery 5. Near East Sugar beet
Wheat 110 182 40 Common bean peanut Common grape Alfalfa Sweet cherry
Yam 2 878 id Grapefruit Lima bean Globe artichoke Barley
Hemp/sisal Manioc Lavender Cabbage 6. Horn of Africa
* Consultative Group on Maize/corn Pepper Mint Einkorn wheat Black-eye pea
International Agricultural Research Papaya Pineapple Oat Fig Bread wheat
+ Global estimate
Pecan Potato Parsnip Goat Castor bean
Source: CGIAR; UNEP-WCMC; FAO.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Introduction 161

E S T I M AT E D VA LU E
OF WILD
RESOURCES IN
DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES, 1990s
Pre-ban ivory exports, Africa:
US$35-45 million per year
Tropical non-coniferous forest
product exports: US$11 billion
per year
Fruit/latex forest harvesting, Peru:
US$6 330 per hectare
7 Sustainable timber harvesting,
Peru: US$490 per hectare
Buffalo range ranching, Zimbabwe:
4 9 US$3.5-4.5 per hectare
Wetlands fish and fuelwood,
Nigeria: US$38-59 per hectare
5 Viewing value of elephants, Kenya:
US$25 million per year
Ecotourism, Costa Rica: US$1 250
per hectare
8 Tourism, Thailand: US$385 000-
860 000 per year
6 10 Research/education, Thailand:
US$38 000-77 000 per year
Tourism, Cameroon: US$19 per
hectare
Genetic value, Cameroon: US$7
per hectare
Pharmaceutical prospecting, Costa
Rica: US$4.81 million per product
Source: UNEP.

MAJOR DRUGS
DERIVED FROM
Source: UNEP-WCMC; FAO.
PLANTS
Plant Application

Amazonian liana Muscle relaxant

Annual mugwort Antimalarial
Autumn crocus Antitumor agent
Belladonna Anticholinergic
Coca Local anesthetic
Common thyme Antifungal
Coffee Common Pear 9. East Asia 10. Southeast
Ergot fungus Hemorrhage control
Cowpea grape Watercress Buckwheat Asia
in childbirth
Date palm Cucumber Camphor Apricot
Foxglove Cardiotonic
Egyptian cotton Flax/linseed 8. India/ tree Banana
Indian snakeroot Antihypertensive
Finger millet Garlic Indo-Malaya Chive Cinnamon and
Meadowsweet Analgesic
Mustard Onion Black pepper Foxtail millet cassia
Mexican yam Birth-control pill
Okra Rhubarb Breadfruit Ginseng Clove
Nux vomica CNS stimulant
Pearl millet Spinach Cardamom Lychee Coconut palm
Opium poppy Analgesic,
Short staple Chick pea Mulberry Eggplant
antitussive
cotton European Chicken Peach Indian almond
Pacific yew Antitumor agent
Sorghum Siberian Region Dwarf wheat Radish Lemon
Recured thornapple Sedative
Yam Cattle Lime Soybean Mung bean
Rosy periwinkle Antileukemia
Chicory Mango Sweet orange Sugar cane
Velvet bean Antiparkinsonian
7. Central Asia Gooseberry Moth bean Tea Tangerine
White willow Analgesic
Almond Kale Rice Turnip
Yellow cinchona Antimalarial,
Apple Lettuce Safflower Water
antipyretic
Carrot Licorice Sesame chestnut
Source: WWF. Source: WWF.
162 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Introduction

cancer drug taxol was first extracted from the wild Pacific yew tree. Globally, it has been estimated
that the pharmaceuticals industry gains US$32 billion in profits a year from products derived from
traditional remedies10.
The emerging science of biotechnology offers new potential for using the world's genetic
resources, but it is an area of some controversy, yet to be fully developed. Moreover, many of these
resources are under threat from human activity. Species are being lost at a rate probably unpre-
cedented outside times of mass extinction millions of years ago. One estimate puts the loss
at 27 000 species a year11. The United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Biodiversity
Assessment estimates current extinction rates at 50 to 100 times "normal", and anticipates a ten-
fold or even 100-fold increase over the next quarter century, when between 2 and 25 percent of
species could be lost12.
The primary cause of this loss is not hunting or overexploitation, though these play a part, but
loss of natural habitat. Habitat loss is generally greatest where population density is highest. A study
of biodiversity data from 102 countries found that in the most densely populated 51 countries
(averaging 168 people per square kilometer), 5.1 percent of bird species and 3.7 percent of plant
species were threatened. In the 51 less densely populated countries (averaging 22 people per
square kilometer), the proportions of threatened species were only half as high at 2.7 percent and
1.8 percent respectively13.

MASS EXTINCTIONS IN HISTORY

Looked at on a geological timescale, the planet's biodiversity has always been faced with
threats of one form or another. Mass extinctions have a history almost as long as biodiversity.
There are five known cataclysmic extinctions in the Earth's history. The biggest, at the end of
the Permian era 250 million years ago, eliminated between 75 and 95 percent of all species,
while the best known, 65 million years ago, saw off the dinosaurs and much else. The extinc-
tions appear to have been caused by massive climatic disruptions, some at least arising from
meteor impacts.
Extinction, moreover, is an essential engine for evolutionary progress. Even mass
extinctions, by killing large numbers of creatures, open up ecological "niches" to which sur-
viving organisms swiftly adapt. Thus the demise of dinosaurs allowed the rapid evolution,
within 10 million years, of bats, whales, horses and numerous other species of mammals
and birds. Nonetheless, whatever such benefits to life on Earth may be in the long term,
our own immediate future on the planet is jeopardized by the current human-induced
mass extinctions.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Species 163

Species

umans have been causing the extinction of species for

H thousands of years. Wherever people have settled they have

hunted the local fauna or so altered natural habitats that
species within them have suffered. Whether for subsistence
or for trade, whether by design or by default, the human
impact on the Earth may be bringing about more extinctions than any
other single factor since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The most direct evidence of human-induced extinction comes from North and South America and
Australia, where humans are thought to have first arrived around 10 000 to 25 000 years ago. Within
a few hundred years, some 70 species of "megafauna" in North America disappeared from the
fossil record. These included mammoths and mastodons, giant beavers, sabre-tooth cats, giant
ground sloths, horses, camels and more. Climate change may have been partly to blame. But there
is abundant evidence that hunting was key1.
More conjecturally, human alterations to the land have probably caused extinctions dating
back as much as 50 000 years – when we have the first evidence of the deliberate use of widespread
burning of bush and grasslands to round up wild animals during hunting. By 5 000 years ago,
Europeans were deforesting large areas for pasture2.
Species extinctions occur as a result of human causes ranging from hunting to climate change.
The proportions vary with time and place, but one study of animal extinctions since 1600 found that
39 percent arose mainly from the introduction of alien species, 36 percent from habitat destruction,
and 23 percent from hunting or deliberate extermination3.
There have been some spectacular examples of our ability to hunt to extinction even the most
populous species. One was the passenger pigeon. In the early 1800s, billions of the birds darkened
the North American skies. In September 1914, the last died in a Cincinnati zoo. More recently, the
tiger has been under severe threat from the Asian medicinal trade in tiger bones, while primates
and other mammals in Central Africa face a booming trade in bushmeat.
But an even bigger cause may be the introduction of non-native species. As people have
travelled around the globe, they have taken many other species with them. We have introduced
plants that have taken over whole ecosystems and exterminated local species; and predatory
animals against which indigenous species had no defence. Sometimes the introductions were
deliberate. Plantation crops (such as the rubber plants taken from Brazil to Malaya by British
colonial botanists) often thrive best when taken from their natural homes, where there are
pests that control them, to new lands where they may be freed from such constraints.
Sometimes the introductions have been accidental, and have created widespread ecological
dislocation and species extinctions. Many endemic flightless birds have disappeared from the
islands of Polynesia and elsewhere following the arrival of humans who, besides hunting,
brought rats, cats and other alien species with a liking for birds’ eggs.
River and marine ecosystems can be as vulnerable as those on land. One dramatic example
164 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Species

E S T I M AT E D LEVEL OF BIODIVERSITY, BY COUNTRY, 1990s

NUMBERS OF
SPECIES, KNOWN High
AND UNKNOWN,
L AT E 1 9 9 0 s
Estimated Described
numbers of species as
described % of total
species and level Low
of accuracy

Viruses 4 000 1.00 VP

Bacteria 4 000 0.40 VP The map illustrates relative
Protozoa 80 000 13.33 VP
and algae biodiversity at country level,
Vertebrates 52 000 94.55 G taking into account richness
Insects and 963 000 12.04 M
and endemism in the four
myriapods
Arachnids 75 000 10.00 M terrestrial vertebrate classes
Molluscs 70 000 35.00 M and vascular plants, and
Crustaceans 40 000 26.67 M
Nematodes 25 000 6.25 P adjusting according to
Fungi 72 000 4.80 M country area.
Plants 270 000 84.38 G

Level of accuracy: VP very poor;

P poor; M moderate; G good.

Note: Estimates of described

species are invariably incomplete
because new species are being
added all the time. The generally
accepted working totals used by
scientists are 1.75 million for all
described species and 13.62
million for all species, both
described and unknown.
Source: UNEP-WCMC; UNEP.

N U M B E R S O F T H R E AT E N E D A N I M A L S P E C I E S , 1 9 9 9
By major biome
1 100 1 100

1 000 1 000

KNOWN 900 Marine 900

V E R T E B R AT E S Inland water
800 800
Terrestrial
Fishes
48% 700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

Mammals Amphibians 200 200

9% Birds Reptiles 10%
19% 14%
100 100

Total known vertebrate 0 0

species: 52 000 Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Fishes Spiders Crustaceans Insects Molluscs
Source: UNEP-WCMC. Source: UNEP-WCMC.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Species 165

WORLD TRADE*
IN A SAMPLE OF
ENDANGERED
SPECIES, 1997
Live specimens
Corals 1 045 342
Orchids 343 801
Snakes 258 714
Parrots 235 771
Tortoises 76 047
Primates 25 692
Skins
Lizard 1 639 244
Snake 1 459 964
Crocodile 850 837
* Includes legal trade only
Source: CITES; UNEP-WCMC.

Trade in wildlife and wildlife

products is estimated to be
worth up to US$20 billion a
year, of which 25 percent is
thought to be illegal. Under the
Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES), some species are
protected from all international
trade (Appendix I), while
trade in others that are not
immediately threatened
with extinction is regulated
(Appendix II). CITES also
gives countries the option of
regulating international trade
Source: UNEP-WCMC. in some native species already
protected within their own
borders (Appendix III).

F I S H E X T I N CT I O N S
Global number of freshwater fish
T H R E AT E N E D A N D E X T I N C T S P E C I E S , 1 9 9 9 species known to have become
extinct, by decade
Species known Estimated % of total Species known Estimated % of 1890s 2
to be threatened in group threatened to be extinct total in group extinct 1900s 1
1910s 0
Mammals 1 096 24 88 2 1920s 4
Birds 1 107 11 107 1 1930s 2
Reptiles 253 3 20 0.3 1940s 3
Amphibians 124 3 5 0.1 1950s 4
Fishes 734 3 172 0.7 1960s 1
Insects 537 0.05 73 0.004 1970s 8
Molluscs 920 1 237 0.3 1980s 53
Crustaceans 407 1 10 0.03 1990s 3
Plants 30 827 11 >400 0.2
Note: The extinction of 50 species
Note: Other than mammals and birds, only a small proportion of the total species group has been assessed of cichlid in Lake Victoria in the
for threatened status. 1980s is largely attributed to the
introduction of the Nile perch.
Source: UNEP-WCMC. Source: UNEP-WCMC.
166 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Species

was the deliberate introduction of the large and carnivorous Nile perch into the rich ecosystem of
the world's second largest freshwater lake, Lake Victoria in East Africa, in the 1960s. The result
was the extinction of an estimated 50 species of the indigenous cichlid fish within a couple
of decades4.
A recent study by IUCN–the World Conservation Union found that primates, with the excep-
tion of human beings, constitute the most endangered order of mammals; some 46 percent are
known to be at risk. Overall, a quarter of mammals are endangered, not just "charismatic" ani-
mals such as pandas and tigers but many lesser known species of bats, rodents and marsupials.
Some 11 percent of birds were found to be threatened. Much less is known about the status of
other groups (see table on page 165). While it was estimated that 3 percent of the amphibians and
reptiles that have been identified are threatened, a closer study of representative samples of
these lesser known groups found a quarter of the amphibians to be at risk, alongside a fifth of
the reptiles5. The most threatened group was fish, with up to a third endangered. Marine life at
risk includes many species of shark and sturgeon, along with other marine animals from the blue
whale to sea horses, of which 20 million are harvested annually.
Humans do not always have an entirely negative impact on local biodiversity, however. Our
activities, while destructive of some species, create new ecological niches for many forms of
wildlife, whether birds nesting in the eaves of houses, rats feeding off waste landfills or mosqui-
toes breeding in the ruts left by tracks in the mud. With the transportation of species around the
world, there are more species of flowering plant in England than ever before, thanks to the coun-
try's propensity for planting exotic species in gardens.
Humans have also deliberately added to the genetic diversity within species through thousands
of years of plant and animal breeding. As recently as 50 years ago, China grew 10 000 wheat
varieties. Andean farmers bred 3 000 varieties of potato6.
But our plant and animal breeding has in modern times been directed towards the creation of
"superbreeds" distributed so widely and universally that others are relegated to gene banks or,
worse, lost altogether. China grows only a tenth of the wheat varieties it grew half a century ago,
Mexico a fifth of its former corn varieties7. More than 6 000 of the 7 000 apple varieties grown in the
United States in the 19th century are now extinct, and just two make up half the national crop8.
Crop genetic resources are disappearing from fields at an estimated 1 or 2 percent a year9, and
domesticated livestock breeds at 5 percent a year10. Many traditional plant varieties now live on
only in gene banks, where their ability to be transplanted back into fields is sometimes uncertain.
This is a biological tragedy. The ability of certain varieties to withstand drought, grow on poor soil,
resist insects and disease, prosper in local environments or under global warming, or simply taste
better, are contained in these genes. If the genes are lost, so is the future ability to innovate for
peasant farmers and global corporations alike.

CLONING
One novel yet controversial approach to protecting individual species is cloning. Species
on the verge of extinction, such as the Sumatran rhino or the Yangtze dolphin, could have
their DNA captured within a single cell and held within a frozen zoo (like a seed in a gene
bank) for eventual cloning11. The technique could even bring recently extinct species
back to life, using samples of preserved tissue. One proposed candidate is the thylacine,
or Tasmanian tiger, which became extinct in 1936.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Ecosystems and conservation 167

E co s y st e m s a n d
co n s e r va t i o n

umankind's greatest assault on the planet's biodiversity

H comes from the destruction of ecosystems. These are not

merely the home to the world's species, they are also the
providers of numerous "ecological services" without which
life on the planet could not persist.

A conventional measure of biodiversity, the counting of species, produces some remarkable

conclusions. Most of the world's known species are contained within an extremely small area. An
estimated 44 percent of all plant species and 35 percent of all land vertebrates live exclusively
within just 25 "hotspots" that together make up only 1.4 percent of the land surface of the globe,
an area roughly the size of Greenland1. Most of these hotspots are within the tropics and particularly
in tropical rainforests, where biologists estimate that half the world's species live.
There are many reasons for this concentration. Species proliferate best where there is more
solar energy to drive natural systems (hence in the tropics); where ecosystems have developed
that provide a huge variety of habitats (such as the many layers of a tropical rainforest or the nooks
and crannies of a coral reef); or where isolation creates conditions in which, over millions of years,
evolution takes a unique course2. Thus many islands have species of plants, insects and verte-
brates, especially birds, that are found nowhere else. A tenth of the world's bird species live on
only one island.
This "endemism" is especially pronounced on large islands cut off for millions of years, such
as Madagascar (which has more than 6 000 unique species of flowering plants) and Australia
(home of marsupials). But the isolation that creates such biodiversity also makes those species
particularly vulnerable to outside interference, both because of their limited spread and because
they have little resistance to disease or pests from outside. Birds endemic to individual islands
make up more than 80 percent of known species extinctions.
Other hotspots of endemism were, in effect, ecological islands in past eras. Many patches of
especially diverse tropical forest, for instance, are ancient forests that survived through the colder
and often drier conditions of the ice ages. During those periods evolution pursued its own
individual course in forest islands surrounded by savannah. One such "fossil forest" is the Korup
rainforest in Cameroon.
One approach to conservation is to concentrate on protecting these hotspots as ecological
fortresses3. But this runs the danger of ignoring the many other functions of natural ecosystems,
particularly in their provisions of vital and diverse environmental management functions.
Ecosystems break down pollutants, purify dirty water, and store and cycle nutrients. They thus
maintain chemical equilibrium in both ocean waters and the atmosphere. They create and regen-
erate soils and regulate rates of erosion. They sustain insects that pollinate most of the world's
crops, provide free pest control and disperse seeds4. They even help create rain. Half the rainfall
in parts of the Amazon basin swiftly evaporates from tree leaves to create rain in the interior5.
Many of the services offered by genetic, species and ecosystem biodiversity – whether directly
168 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Ecosystems and conservation

COUNTRIES WITH THE P R O T E C T I O N O F N AT U R A L A R E A S , 1 9 9 7

MOST AND LEAST
PROTECTED AREAS, Protected area
1997-98
Proportion of country protected
% of GDP per Popu-
land capita lation
pro- US$ density Less than 1%
tected 1998 per km2

Ecuador 43.1 1 508 44.0 1-3%

Venezuela 36.3 4 088 26.3
Denmark 32.2 33 182 124.2
Dominican 31.5 1 926 170.2 3-5%
Republic
Austria 28.3 26 027 98.4
Germany 27.0 25 985 235.2 5-7.5%
New 23.6 13 921 14.2
Zealand
Slovak 21.8 3 787 111.8
7.5-10%
Republic
Bhutan 21.2 177* 42.6 10-20%
Belize 20.9 2 761* 10.1

20% and above

Afghanistan 0.3 id 32.7
Lebanon 0.3 5 399 311.9
Myanmar 0.3 id 67.7 Insufficient data
Lesotho 0.2 384 67.9
Libya 0.1 4 984+ 3.0
Jamaica 0.1 2 529 234.3 There is growing concern amongst international organizations, such
Iraq <0.1 2 755+ 49.8 as The World Bank, that many protected areas are mere “paper
United Arab <0.1 20 074 28.1
Emirates parks”, enjoying a far greater degree of attention in the world’s filing
Yemen <0.1 256 32.0 systems than is the case in reality.
Papua New <0.1 814 10.2
Guinea
* GNP + 1995
Source: WRI; UNPD; World Bank.

P R O T E C T E D A R E A S I N T H E A N TA R C T I C , 1 9 9 7

Land mass

PROTECTION OF Ice shelf

N AT U R A L A R E A S ,
1997 Site of special scientific interest

Square As %
kilometers of total Ecosystem protection and monitoring;
protected land area entry prohibited without permit
North America 2 147 140 11.7
Latin America 1 438 070 7.2 Seal reserve
and Caribbean
Europe 1 052 090 4.7
Africa 1 540 430 5.2 Area under management to minimize
Asia 1 628 770 5.3 environmental impact
Oceania 603 820 7.1
World* 8 410 410 6.4
* Includes areas not included in Antarctic Treaty zone (60o southern latitude)
regional totals; excludes Greenland Protects the region from minerals
Source: WRI. Source: SCAR. exploitation
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Ecosystems and conservation 169

LEVELS OF
ENDEMISM, 1990s
S e le c t e d co u n t r i e s

Costa Rica 1.885

Ecuador
Madagascar
Malaysia
Indonesia
Venezuela
Mexico
Greece
Japan
Peru
Turkey
Bulgaria
Italy
Sweden
China
Australia
India
Myanmar
Colombia
Ethiopia
Kenya
Congo, Dem. Rep.
USA
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Known endemic species
per 100 square kilometers
Source: UNEP-WCMC; WRI.

Source: WRI.

MAJOR COUNTRIES OF ENDEMISM, 1990s

Mammals – known species Birds – known species Higher plants – known species REGIONAL SHARE
Total Endemic Total breeding Endemic Total Endemic
OF THE WORLD’S
Australia 252 201 649 353 15 000 14 074 ENDEMIC PLANTS,
China 394 77 1 100 68 30 000 18 000 1990s
Colombia 359 29 1 695 63 50 000 1 500
Congo, Dem. Rep. 415 28 929 22 11 000 1 100 North America Europe
Ecuador 302 24 1 388 38 18 250 4 000 3% 2%
Ethiopia 255 31 626 28 6 500 1 000
India 316 45 923 55 15 000 5 000
Indonesia 436 206 1 519 393 27 500 17 500
Japan 132 38 >250 21 4 700 2 000
Madagascar 105 84 202 104 9 000 6 500 Asia
39%
Malaysia 286 28 501 9 15 000 3 600
Mexico 450 140 769 89 25 000 12 500 Latin
America
Myanmar 251 6 867 4 7 000 1 071 and
Peru 344 48 1 538 109 17 121 5 356 Caribbean
Turkey 116 1 302 0 8 472 2 675 34%
USA 428 101 650 69 16 302 4 036
Venezuela 305 17 1 181 42 20 000 8 000 Africa 11% Oceania 11%

Source: WRI. Source: WRI.

170 P O P U L AT I O N A N D B I O D I V E R S I T Y Ecosystems and conservation

supplied food and medicines, genetic resources or wider environment management services –
could not be replaced by human structures or management systems. But because these benefits
are not traded in the marketplace, they carry no price tag and can easily be ignored until it is too
late6. If they were effectively valued and took their place within the prevailing market system, they
would be cherished as much as a share portfolio or factory. But since they are not, they are con-
stantly open to being squandered in the name of short-term profit.
Even single species could dramatically change the appreciation of natural resources often
deemed by governments as little better than wasteland. When a successful drug against child-
hood leukemia was developed from the rosy periwinkle, a plant found on the rainforest island of
Madagascar, the royalties during the period when the drug came under patent protection exceeded
US$100 million, but none got back to the people of the island7. Had it done so, the incentive to pro-
tect the forests in the interest of finding new pharmaceuticals would have been underlined. Nobody
would destroy a laboratory responsible for such a cash return.
Signatories to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity have pledged to develop property
rights for natural resources to help protect biodiversity, but there is a long way to go. Generally,
governments only seem to recognize the environmental management services provided by nat-
ural ecosystems when, through negative impacts, they actually fail, causing such problems as
desertification, floods and mudslides, "red tides" of toxic algae and coastal erosion.
Protecting biodiversity and the environmental services that ecosystems provide will require not
only the creation of protected havens for wildlife, but a much more sophisticated management of
entire landscapes, integrating ecological services within largely human-dominated environments.
In heavily populated regions such as much of Europe, this is effectively the only viable approach.
But increasingly it will also be true of tropical landscapes, where human rights often have to be
integrated with environmental protection.
Land demands in the tropics mean that surviving natural forests can rarely be fenced off
without damaging the livelihoods of people who harvest their fruit, nuts, medicinal plants and
bushmeat. Many believe that such uses need to be promoted and sustained – along with other
profitable activities from rubber-tapping to ecotourism, sustainable timber harvesting to trophy
hunting – if the forests are to survive rather than being converted to other uses.
On a crowded planet, some protected areas will retain their place as reservoirs of biodiversity.
But the hardest challenge – to preserve both species and the ecological services that sustain
the Earth – will be to find room, and a profitable role, for nature in managed landscapes where
people, too, can live and prosper.

Endnotes
P O P U L AT I O N A N D
NATURAL RESOURCES
1. FAOSTAT, 2000.
2. Ibid.
3. WWF, Living Planet Report
1999, 1999.
4. Gleick, Water in Crisis, Oxford
University Press, 1993.
5. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
6. Abramouitz and Mattoon,
Paper Cuts: Recovering the
Paper Landscape, Worldwatch
Institute, 1999.
7. Ibid.
Energy
1. Kete, What Might a Developing
Country Climate Commitment
Look Like, WRI, 1999.
2. Ibid.
3. Flavin, in State of the World
1999, Worldwatch Institute, 1999.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Goldemberg, Guardian,
29 October 1998.
7. Martin, Shell World, April
1999.
8. Pearce, New Scientist, May 1,
1999.
9. Brown, in State of the World
2000, Worldwatch Institute, 2000.
10. WHO, Health and
Environment in Sustainable
Development, 1997.
11. Sinton, Energy Policy, 26:
813, 2000.
A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Freshwater
1. Postel et al., Science, 271:
785, 1996.
2. Ibid.
3. Serageldin, quoted in
Population Reports, 1995.
4. WRI, World Resources 2000-
2001, 2000.
5. Gleick, The World’s Water,
Island Press, 1999.
6. Worldwatch Institute, Vital
Trends 1999-2000, 2000.
7. Brown, Beyond Malthus, W.W.
Norton, 1999.
Foodcrops
1. After Bender, Environment,
29(2): 10, 1997.
2. FAOSTAT, 2000.
3. Conway, The Doubly Green
Revolution, Penguin, 1997.
4. Ibid.
5. Pretty, Agricultural Systems
2000, in press.
6. Conway, op. cit.
7. Brown, Beyond Malthus, W.W.
Norton, 1999.
8. FAO, Food for All, 1996.
9. Parry, Global Environmental
Change, 9: 551.
10. FAO, op. cit.
Meat and fish
1. US Department of
Agriculture, World Markets and
Trends 1998.
2. Steinfeld et al., Livestock-
Environment Interactions,
FAO, 1996.
3. Ehui, 2020 Vision, IFPRI,
March 1999.
4. IFPRI, The World Food
Situation, 1997.
5. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
6. Steinfeld, op. cit.
7. Robinson et al., Science, 284:
595, 1999.
8. WRI, World Resources 1996-
97, 1997.
9. Advisory Committee on
Fisheries Management,
International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES),
1999.
10. Brown, Beyond Malthus,
W.W. Norton, 1999.
11. Nickerson, Ecological
Economics, 29: 279, 1999.
12. Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters
of the World, Island Press, 1998.
Forest products
1. Population Action
International, Forest Futures,
1999.
2. FAO, Forest Resources
Assessment 1990, 1995.
3. Population Action
International, op. cit.
4. FAO, op. cit.
Endnotes 171
5. FAOSTAT, July 2000.
6. FAO, op. cit.
7. Sedjo, Resources for the
Future, 1998.
8. Worldwatch Institute, Vital
Signs 1998, 1998.
9. Calder, The Blue Revolution,
Earthscan, 1999.
10. Dijk, Assessment of Non-
wood Forest Product Resources
in Cameroon, Tropenbos
Foundation, 1998.
11. Robinson et al., Science,
284: 595, 1999.
International
trade
1. Gornitz, Climate Change,
7: 285, 1985.
2. WTO Secretariat, Trade
and Environment Report,
October 1999.
3. Communication from Egypt to
the WTO’s High-Level
Symposium on Trade and
Development, March 1999.
4. Pretty, Agricultural Systems
2000, in press.
5. Gong, China Daily,
December 1, 1999.
172 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
P O P U L AT I O N A N D
LANDUSE
1. Richards, in Clark and Munn,
Sustainable Development of the
Biosphere, Cambridge
University Press/IIASA, 1986.
2. Ibid.
3. Dean, in Tucker and Richards
(eds), Global Deforestation and
the 19th Century World
Economy, Duke University
Press, 1983.
4. Woodall, Japan under
Construction, University of
California Press, 1996.
5. O’Meara, Reinventing Cities,
Worldwatch Institute, 1999;
Robins, Suburbs: best of both
worlds, Resurgence, January
2000.
6. Box, Conservation or
greening, the challenge of post-
industrial landscapes, British
Wildlife, 3: 273, 1993.
7. Gibson, Brownfield red data:
the values artificial habitats
have for uncommon
invertebrates, Research
Reports, English Nature, 1998.
8. Dover, To Feed the Earth,
WRI, 1987.
9. Pearce, New Scientist,
November 27, 1993.
Croplands
1. Tilman, PNAS (Proceedings of
the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA), 96: 5995,
1999.
2. Ibid.
3. Vitousek et al., Issues in
Ecology, Spring 1997.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Matson, Science, 277: 504,
1997.
7. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
8. Ibid.
9. Pimentel, Science, 267: 1117,
1995.
Endnotes
10. Ibid.
11. Tilman, op. cit.
12. The Potential of
Agroecology to Combat Hunger
in the Developing World, IFPRI,
1998.
Pastures
1. Richards, in The Earth as
Transformed by Human Action,
Turner et al. (eds), Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
2. FAOSTAT, July 2000.
3. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
4. Conway, The Doubly Green
Revolution, Penguin, 1997.
5. Steinfeld, Livestock-
Environment Interactions, FAO,
1996.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI),
Livestock and Nutrient Transfer,
(www.cgiar.org/ilri/ factsheet).
10. Ibid.
11. de Haan et al., Livestock and
the Environment, FAO, 1996.
12. Steinfeld, op. cit.
13. de Haan et al., op. cit.
Mineral extraction
1. Gardner and Sampat, Mind
over Matter, Worldwatch
Institute, 1998.
2. Jernelov and Ramel, Ambio,
27: 155, 1998.
3. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
4. Gardner and Sampat, op. cit.
Migration and
tourism
1. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
2. Myers, Environmental
Exodus, Climate Institute, 1995.
3. Homer-Dixon, Population and
Conflict, International Union for
the Scientific Study of
Population (IUSSP), 1994.
4. Brown, Beyond Malthus, W.W.
Norton, 1999.
5. Myers, op. cit.
6. Ibid.
7. Töpfer, Our Planet, 10(1),
UNEP, 1999.
8. Ibid.
9. Honey, Environment, 41(5): 4.
Urbanization
1. Girardet, Connections,
Autumn 1995.
2. United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA), pers. comm.
3. Irwin, UNESCO Courier, June
1999.
4. WRI, World Resources 1996-
97, 1997.
5. Ibid.
6. Satterthwaite, An Urbanizing
World, United Nations Centre
for Human Settlements, 1996.
7. Ibid.
8. Rees, People and the Planet,
5(2): 6, 1996.
9. Girardet, Independent on
Sunday, April 14, 1996.
10. Chameides, PNAS
(Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the
USA), November 1999.
11. People and the Planet, 5(2):
9, 1996.
12. Satterthwaite, op. cit.
13. Ibid.
P O P U L AT I O N A N D
AT M O S P H E R E
1. Brimblecombe, The Big
Smoke, Methuen, 1987.
2. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
3. Stoddard et al., Nature, 401:
575, 1999.
4. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
5. Vitousek et al., Issues in
Ecology, Spring 1997.
6. Carson, Silent Spring,
Houghton Mifflin, 1962.
7. Colborn et al., Our Stolen
Future, Little Brown, London,
1996.
8. AMAP, Arctic Pollution
Issues, 1997.
9. UNEP, op. cit.
10. Ibid.
11. Houghton and Skole, in The
Earth as Transformed by
Human Action, Turner et al.
(eds), Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
12. Houghton et al., Climate
Change 1995, Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
13. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
14. Rasmussen and Khalil,
Nature, 332: 242, 1998.
Climate change
1. IPCC Working Group 1, Third
Assessment Report, forthcoming.
2. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
3. Ibid.
4. WRI, World Resources 1994-
95, 1995.
5. Hadley Centre, Climate
Change and its Impacts, 1999.
6. Houghton et al., Climate
Change 1995, Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
7. Hadley Centre, op. cit.
8. Ibid.
9. Sharp, Lancet, 347: 1612,
1996.

10. Rahmstorf, New Scientist,
February 8, 1997.
11. Sinton et al., Energy Policy,
26: 813, 1998.
12. Reilly et al., Nature, 401:
549, 1999.
13. Worldwatch Institute, Vital
Signs 2000, 2000.
14. IPCC Working Group 1, Third
Assessment Report, forthcoming.
15. Pearce, New Scientist,
November 29, 1997.
Air pollution
1. Schwele, Public Health
Implications of Urban Air
Pollution in Developing
Countries, Proceedings of the
10th World Clean Air Congress,
1995.
2. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
3. Ibid.
4. World Bank, News Release,
96/68S, May 18, 1996.
5. Ibid.
6. Data on areas where critical
loads are exceeded, RIVM, 1998.
7. Stoddard et al., Nature, 401:
575, 1999.
8. Forest Condition Survey of
Europe 1998, United Nations
Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE), 1999.
9. Clear Water, Blue Skies:
China’s Environment in the New
Century, World Bank, 1997.
10. UNEP, op. cit.
11. RAINS Asia: An assessment
Model for Air Pollution in Asia,
report to World Bank, 1995.
12. AMAP, Arctic Pollution
Issues, 1997.
13. Science News, 154: 374,
1998.
14. The Indonesian Fires and
Haze of 1997, International
Development Research Centre
(IDRC), 1998.
A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
POPULATION, WASTE
A N D C H E M I CA L S
1. Technologies for the
Abatement of Methane
Emissions, International Energy
Agency Greenhouse (IEA) Gas
R&D Programme, 1999.
2. European Topic Centre on
Waste, http://www.etc-waste.int.
3. Cointreau-Levine, Private
Sector Participation in
Municipal Solid Waste Services
in Developing Countries, World
Bank, 1994.
4. EPA, Characterization of
Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 1992 Update,
EPA/OSWAER, 1992.
5. Waste management in Ghana,
Warmer Bulletin, 69, November
1999.
6. Lean et al., Our Planet, 10(4),
UNEP, 1999.
I n d u st r i a l c h e m i c a l s
1. Smith, Introduction to
contaminated land,
Environment 97, 1997. On
http://www.environment97.org/
text/reception/r/techpapers/
g22_biog-ab.htm.
2. Jacobson and Jacobson, New
England Journal of Medicine,
335: 783, 1996.
3. AMAP Assessment Report:
Arctic Pollution Issues,
from Strosveien 96, PO Box
8100, Dep. N-0032, Oslo,
Norway.
4. The ENDS Report, 285: 12,
October 1998.
5. UNEP Chemicals, Dioxin
and Furan Inventories:
National and Regional
Emissions of PCDD/PCDF,
Geneva, May 1999.
6. The ENDS Report, 220: 11,
May 1993.
7. Alcock and Jones,
Environmental Science and
Technology, 30: 3133, 1996.
8. Allanou et al., Public
Availability of Data on EU High
Production Volume Chemicals,
European Chemicals Bureau,
Ispra, Italy, 1999. On
http://ecb.ei.jrc.it/Data-
Availability-Documents/
datavail.pdf.
9. Matthiessen, Environmental
Science and Technology, 32(19):
460A, 1998.
10. The ENDS Report, 282: 50,
July 1998.
Agrochemicals
1. FAO (Alexandratos, ed.),
World Agriculture: Towards
2010, 1995.
2. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
3. FAO, op. cit.
4. The ENDS Report, 260,
September 1996.
5. Nature, 403: 80-84, January
2000.
6. The ENDS Report, 278: 9,
March 1998.
7. Paerl, Limnology and
Oceanography, 45: 1154-1165,
1997.
8. Czepiel et al., Environmental
Science and Technology, 29(9):
2352-2356, 1995.
9. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
10. FAO, What is Integrated Pest
Management?, 1998.
11. The ENDS Report, 286: 9,
March 1992.
12. Turnbull et al., Journal of
the Chartered Institute of Water
and Environmental
Management, 11, 1997.
Endnotes 173
P O P U L AT I O N A N D
ECOSYSTEMS
1. Clark and Munn, Sustainable
Development of the Biosphere,
Cambridge University Press,
1986.
2. Ibid.
3. WWF, Living Planet Report
2000, 2000.
4. Turner et al., The Earth as
Transformed by Human Action,
Cambridge University Press,
1990.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Moffat, Science, 279: 988,
1998.
Mountains
1. Denniston, People and the
Planet, 5(1), 1996.
2. Price, Unasylva, 49: 3-12,
1998.
3. Denniston, op. cit.
4. World Bank, World
Development Report 1998,
1998.
5. Denniston, op. cit.
6. Ibid.
7. Worldwatch Institute, State of
the World 1995, 1995.
8. Hasnain, Report of Working
Group on Himalayan Glaciology,
International Commission on
Snow and Ice, 1999.
9. Krajick, Science, 279: 1853,
1998.
10. International Federation of
the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), World
Disasters Report 1999, 1999.
11. Calder, The Blue Revolution,
Earthscan, 1999.
Forests
1. Lewin, Science, 226: 36, 1984.
2. Worldwatch Institute, State of
the World 1998, 1998.
3. FAO, Forest Resources
Assessment 1990, 1995.
4. Ibid.
174 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
5. Dobson, Conservation and
Biodiversity, Scientific American
Library, 1998.
6. FAO, op. cit.
7. WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, 1999.
8. Department for International
Development (UK), Indonesia-
UK Tropical Forest Management
Programme, London, 1999.
9. ITTO, Guidelines for the
Sustainable Management of
Natural Tropical Forests, 1990.
Deserts and
drylands
1. UNCCD, Fact Sheet 1: An
Introduction to the UN
Convention to Combat
Desertification, 2000.
2. Smith and Koala,
Desertification: Myth and
Reality, International
Development Research Centre
(IDRC), 1999.
3. Kerr, Science, 281: 633, 1998.
4. Thomas and Middleton,
Desertification: Exploding the
Myth, John Wiley, 1994.
5. UNEP, World Atlas of
Desertification, Edward Arnold,
1992.
6. Western, In the Dust of
Kilimanjaro, Island Press, 1998.
7. Jean-Marie Cour, The Sahel
(report), Club du Sahel, 1998.
8. Middleton, Research Paper
40, University of Oxford School
of Geography, 1986.
9. Tiffen et al., More People
Less Erosion, John Wiley, 1994.
10. Ibid.
11. Harrison, The Greening of
Africa, Paladin, 1987.
12. Mortimore, Adapting to
Drought, Cambridge University
Press, 1989.
13. Worldwatch Institute, State
of the World 1984, 1984.
Endnotes
Freshwater
wetlands
1. Dugan, Wetlands in Danger,
Mitchell Beazley, 1993.
2. Moser, Wetlands International,
quoted in New Scientist, March
30, 1996.
3. Barbier et al., Economic
Valuation of Wetland Benefits,
International Institute for
Environment and Development
(IIED), 1991.
4. Roush, Science, 276: 1029,
1997.
5. EPA, Wetlands and Nature,
1999.
6. Young, Environmental Science
and Technology, 30: 292A, 1996.
7. Crivelli and Pearce,
Characteristics of Mediterranean
Wetlands, Tour du Valat, 1994.
Mangroves and
estuaries
1. Choudhury, World Forestry
Congress, 6, topic 38.6, 1997.
2. Hinrichsen, Coasts in crisis,
Issues in Science and
Technology, Summer 1996,
AAAS.
3. Ibid.
4. Choudhury, op. cit.
5. Nickerson, Ecological
Economics, 29: 279, 1999.
6. Hinrichsen, op. cit.
7. Cohen, Science, 278: 1209,
1997.
8. Economist, May 23, 1998.
9. Bryant et al., Coastlines at
Risk, WRI Indicator Brief,
1995.
10. Sunghui and Hodgkiss,
Harmful Algae News, (18),
UNESCO, 1999.
11. Harwood, Nature, 393: 17-
18, 1998.
12. Butler, Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization (CSIRO),
reported by Reuters, March 28,
2000.
13. Meinesz, EU International
Seminar on Caulerpa Taxifolia,
Nice, 1994.
14. Hecht, New Scientist,
February 21, 1998.
15. Pearce, New Scientist,
November 6, 1999.
Coral reefs
1. Bryant et al., Reefs at Risk,
WRI, 1998.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Shinn, Coral mortality and
African dust, Proceedings of
Oceanographic Society (US),
1996.
6. Kleypas, Science, 284: 118,
1999.
7. Pearce, Our Planet, 10(3),
UNEP, 1999.
8. Seaweb, Pollution, climate
change threaten world’s coral
reefs, Ocean Update, 1999.
9. Sheppard, Chagos Islands
(report), UK Foreign Office, 1999.
10. Costanza, Nature, 387: 253,
1997.
11. Bryant et al., op. cit.
Regional seas
1. Jeftic, UNEP Regional Seas
Reports No 132, 1990.
2. Platt, Dying Seas, Worldwatch
Institute, 1995.
3. Weber and Gradwohl, Wealth
of the Oceans, W.W. Norton,
1995.
4. Malakoff, Science, 281: 190,
1998; Moffat, Science, 279: 988,
1998.
5. UNEP (Heywood, ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
6. Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters
of the World, Island Press, 1998;
UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook-1, Oxford University
Press, 1997.
7. Economist, May 23, 1998.
8. Mulvaney, E Magazine, 9,
Jan/Feb 1998.
Oceans
1. Snelgrove and Madin,
Oceanus, Fall 1995.
2. Olsgard and Gray, Marine
Ecology Progress Series,
1995.
3. Holmes, New Scientist,
March 1, 1997.
4. IPCC Working Group 1, Third
Assessment Report,
forthcoming.
5. Ibid.
6. Broecker, Science, 278: 1582,
1997.
7. IPCC, op. cit.
8. Nicholls et al., Global
Environmental Change, 9: 589,
1999.

Polar regions
1. Stone et al., Arctic Pollution
Issues, AMAP, Oslo, 1997.
2. Ibid.
3. UNEP, Global Environment
Outlook 2000, Earthscan, 1999.
4. IPCC Working Group 1, Third
Assessment Report,
forthcoming.
5. Ibid.
6. Malloy et al., PNAS
(Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the
USA), 94: 1258, 1997.
A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
P O P U L AT I O N A N D
BIODIVERSITY
1. Service, Science, 275: 1740,
1997.
2. Rosenzweig, Science, 284:
276, 1999.
3. De Leo and Levin,
Conservation Ecology, 1: 3,
1997.
4. Balick and Cox, Plants,
People and Culture, Scientific
American Library, 1996.
5. Myers, The Sinking Ark,
Pergamon, 1979.
6. Agro-ecology: Creating the
Synergism for Sustainable
Agriculture, UNDP, 1995.
7. Wilson, Threats to
biodiversity, Scientific
American, September 1989.
8. Managing Global Genetic
Resources, National Academy
of Sciences of the USA, 1992.
9. Rosenthal and Grifo,
Biodiversity and Human Health,
Island Press, 1997.
10. Shand, Human Nature,
Rural Advancement Foundation
International (RAFI), 1997.
11. Wilson, The Diversity of Life,
Harvard University Press, 1992.
12. UNEP (Heywood, ed.),
Global Biodiversity Assessment,
1995.
13. United Nations Population
Fund (UNFPA), Population and
Sustainable Development: Five
Years after Rio, 1997.
Species
1. Bryant, Biodiversity and
Conservation, hypertext book,
1997.
2. WRI, A History of Extinction,
1992.
3. World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Global
Biodiversity: Status of the
Earth's Living Resources,
Chapman and Hall, 1992.
Endnotes 175
4. World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Biodiversity
Series No. 8, Freshwater
Biodiversity: A Preliminary
Global Assessment, 1998.
5. IUCN, 1996 Red List of
Threatened Animals, 1996.
6. UNEP (Heywood, ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, 1995.
7. Tuxill, Nature’s Cornucopia,
Worldwatch Institute, 1999.
8. Shand, Human Nature, RAFI,
1997.
9. FAO, Plant Genetic
Resources, 1993.
10. Shand, op. cit.
11. Cohen, Science, 276: 1329,
1997.
Ecosystems and
conservation
1. Myers, Nature, 403: 853,
2000.
2. Harrison, The Third
Revolution, Penguin, 1993.
3. Myers, op. cit.
4. Nabham and Buchmann,
Nature's Services, Island Press,
1997.
5. Salati, The Geophysiology of
Amazonia, John Wiley, 1987.
6. Daily et al., Issues in Ecology
2, Ecological Society of America,
1997.
7. Jenkins, Madagascar: An
Environmental Profile, World
Conservation Monitoring Centre,
1987.
178 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

The Northern
A n d e s e co re g i o n

HE NORTHERN ANDES ecoregion, extending from Venezuela

T to northern Peru, contains an exceptionally diverse set of

landscapes. Its rugged topography, extreme climatic variation,
geologic and biogeographic history have created a unique
collection of habitats found nowhere else on Earth.

The montane forests and meadows of the region nurture a rich complex of species, including many
that are endemic. Some of the more well-known representatives of local fauna are the spectacled
bear, the puma and the Andean tapir. The biota of the Northern Andean paramos is equally out-
standing. These unique high altitude grasslands developed in altitudinal isolation, leading to an
exceptional degree of biological diversity. It has been estimated that up to 60 percent of this ecosys-
tem’s approximately 3 000 to 4 000 species of vascular plants may be endemic.
Intense pressures from urbanization, logging, grazing and land conversion threaten the
Northern Andes ecosystem. As habitats are destroyed, animal and plant populations decrease, and
many species eventually become extinct. Since habitat loss is highly correlated with the intensity of
human population and activities, a map showing the location of people and their economic activi-
ties provides a close approximation to a map of threats to biodiversity. By mapping demographic
and related variables, WWF can strategize conser-
P O P U L AT I O N vation action across an ecoregion. These maps help
G R OW T H R AT E S I N target operations in regions where threats co-occur
THE NORTHERN with important biological phenomena. Areas with
ANDES ECOREGION, relatively little threat are prime candidates for new
1990s reserves or wildlife corridors between reserves.
Less than 0%
Population growth is a useful indicator of
0-1%
current and future threat to biodiversity as high
1-2%
growth rates are indicative of an increase in con-
2-4%
sumption and the exploitation of natural resources.
4-6%
Consequently, habitat and species are adversely
More than 6%
affected. Conversely, depopulation of an area (neg-
ative growth) can support biodiversity if previously
Northern Andean
exploited lands are left to grow back to a natural
montane forest
state. Examining these patterns of growth can help
WWF detect where threats to biodiversity will con-
Northern Andean
tinue to rise in the near term. Current statistics for
paramos
the Northern Andean countries show positive
growth rates throughout yet growth is significantly
lower in the Andean mountains than in adjacent
forest lowlands. In large part, this is because land-
less peasants have been moving to the coast or are
Source: WWF-Colombia; CIAT. attracted to oil or mining developments in the
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 179

Amazon. The Ecuadorean canton of Pichincha is the only Andean political unit with a growth rate
over 2 percent. This canton could be losing habitat at an alarming rate.
Population statistics are often only available for large administrative units such as counties
or municipios. Such coarse resolution makes it difficult to associate population patterns with par-
ticular sites of interest. Human populations tend to concentrate in cities or towns or locate near
roads or other transportation routes. Future human populations are more likely to settle in these
relatively accessible areas as well. Therefore, mapped layers of roads and towns can indicate
probable population densities at finer scales than entire counties. The maps on this page, the
result of a market accessibility model based on town and road locations, approximate the dis-
tribution of human populations and their activities in the Northern Andes. The model uses time
value as a surrogate for accessibility to each location throughout the ecoregion. Topography and
the networks of roads, rivers and streams were all used to calculate the results. On the maps,
higher values indicate low accessibility (high travel time requirement), while lower values indi-
cate high accessibility (low travel time requirement).
In spite of the threat that they present to the natural environment, roads and other transportation
corridors often provide a positive social function. Better access to urban centers and markets leads
to diversification of rural economies by opening up markets to villagers who want to sell labor, arti-
san products or agricultural produce. In some cases, increased access to towns allows rural people
to participate in a wage economy, potentially reducing the need to exploit local resources. It is more
likely, however, that increased access to urban centers combined with close proximity to those cen-
ters can lead to higher levels of habitat degradation as a result of cash cropping, logging and other
economic opportunities introduced by market integration. Therefore, priority areas for conserva-
tion will have a better chance of remaining intact if they are located in relatively inaccessible sites.
The accessibility model provides a useful viability indicator for locating these sites, which have the
potential to function as buffer zones, wildlife corridors and protected areas. Meanwhile, taking areas
of high biological diversity into account when planning for additional infrastructure will help mini-
mize the impact of social infrastructure on existing parks and wilderness areas while supporting
human development needs.

ACCESSIBILITY IN THE
NORTHERN ANDES, 2000

Accessibility measure

High Low

Northern Andes ecoregion

Protected area

Source: WWF-Colombia; CIAT.

180 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

Canaima National
Pa r k , Ve n e z u e l a

HE IMPACTS of population and population growth can vary

T widely, depending on the activities of the people involved

and the nature of the environmental setting in which they
live. A good example of this is Canaima National Park
in Venezuela.

Covering about 30 000 square kilometers in the state of Bolívar in southeastern Venezuela,
Canaima National Park is a place of spectacular natural beauty. Although known best as the home
of Angel Falls, the world’s tallest, and dozens of tall rock mesas called tepuys that rise dramati-
cally out of the surrounding flat lands, Canaima contains a wide array of biological resources in
the forests that still cover much of the park. It is also the home of thousands of Pemón, an indige-
nous people who have resided in this portion of northern South America for 200 to 300 years.
For generations, the Pemón have relied primarily on shifting cultivation, or swidden agricul-
ture, for their livelihood. Swidden agriculture involves growing crops in small plots that are cleared
of forest through a combination of cutting and burning foliage. Each plot is used for a short period
of time, after which the Pemón abandon it to allow the forest to regenerate and soil nutrients to

P O P U L AT I O N
DENSITY NEAR
CA N A I M A N AT I O N A L
PA R K , 2 0 0 0
Population density per square
kilometer

0-1.2
1.2-2.9
2.9-5
5-7.7
7.7-16.8
16.8-57.8
57.8-502.2

Park boundary

¥ Community

30 0 30 kilometers

Source: OCEI.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 181

recover. Unfortunately, in recent years forest regeneration has declined dramatically, and much of
the area cleared by the Pemón has become grasslands instead – areas that are not suitable for
agriculture because of their lack of soil nutrients. Researchers blame much of this transition on
population growth.
Nearly all of the human residents of Canaima are Pemón. Population tends to be widely dis-
persed in small villages, usually located on the edge of dense stands of forest. Due to this
dispersed settlement pattern, population density in Canaima and its surrounding area is quite low
– so low that population-related problems at first glance seem unlikely. But population has been
growing rapidly in recent years, for two main reasons. One is natural increase, where the number
of births exceeds the number of deaths – in the case of Canaima, due largely to improved health
care saving more lives. The other is in-migration, mainly by other Pemón relocating from the
nation of Guyana east of the park, due largely to uncertainty about their future under the govern-
ment of that country. The result has been extremely high rates of population growth throughout
much of Canaima, a trend expected to continue in coming decades.
What are the impacts of this population growth? Although population densities remain low,
they are increasing. The swidden agriculture that the Pemón practice is sustainable only for
extremely sparse populations, where continual relocation of plots is possible to allow the recovery
of forest and soil nutrients.
When population density increases, plots are used for longer periods and recovery times are
reduced. Moreover, denser populations mean more fires to clear land, increasing the risk that for-
est not being cleared will be affected when fires get out of control. In the absence of adequate base
nutrients to begin forest regrowth, and with less and less forest to serve as a source of seed due
to lack of regeneration or inadvertent burning, grasslands become established. Thus, in delicate
ecosystems such as those found in Canaima, even slight increases in population density can lead to
an imbalance in the cycle of life under certain conditions. Such situations point up the real impor-
tance of understanding not only how many people occupy an area, but what they are doing and how
those activities affect their natural surroundings.

AV E R AG E A N N U A L
P O P U L AT I O N
CHANGE, 1990-
2000
Average annual change

Less than –4.8%

–4.8-0.0%
0.0-1.0%
1.0-2.0%
2.0-4.0%
4.0-6.5%
More than 6.5%

Park boundary

¥ Community

30 0 30 kilometers

Source: OCEI.
182 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
h y d ro lo g y i n t h e
Dominican Republic
HE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC occupies the eastern part of the

T island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean Sea. Covering nearly

50 000 square kilometers, this island nation encompasses a
broad array of environmental zones, from the pine-covered
slopes of the highest peak in the Caribbean to dense webs of
mangroves along large stretches of its coasts.

Much of the surface of the Dominican Republic today is dominated by agriculture, practiced on a
small scale by the native Taino Indians when Christopher Columbus arrived there in 1492, but now
much more extensive. Known especially for its sugar production, the Dominican Republic also pro-
duces coffee, cocoa and rice, along with other crops of lesser importance and livestock. In recent
decades, tourism and manufacturing have come to dominate the economy.
The demography of the Dominican Republic has changed considerably since the arrival
of Europeans in the 15th century. Disease and maltreatment, both from the Spanish, virtually
eradicated the indigenous population by the early 1500s. In response the Spanish brought slaves
from Africa to replace the indigenous peoples as a source of labor. Due primarily to continuing in-

P O P U L AT I O N
CHANGE IN
THE DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC,
1981-93
Average annual change

Less than –5%

–5 - –3%
–3 - –1%
–1 - 0%
0 - 1%
1 - 2%
2 - 4%
4 - 7%
7 - 10%
More than 10%
id

Protected area
0 20 40 kilometers

Source: ONE.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 183

migration, the population began to grow – slowly at first, then more rapidly. By the time of its first
systematic census in 1920, roughly 890 000 people lived in the Dominican Republic. Steady pop-
ulation growth occurred over the ensuing seven decades, resulting in a total population of about
7.3 million in 1993, the date of the most recent census. Natural increase, augmented by slight in-
migration, has fuelled this population growth. Between the most recent two censuses of 1981 and
1993, population was still growing on average at a rate of 2.3 percent per year. But the most note-
worthy characteristic of the country’s demographic change in the past three decades has been
internal migration, primarily from rural areas to cities, leading to dramatic shifts in the geographic
distribution of people in this island nation.
As home to more than 30 national protected areas, the conservation of the natural environment
is a major consideration in the Dominican Republic. One of the most important components of con-
servation is freshwater, most of which originates as rainfall in the central mountain chain that runs
east-west across Hispaniola. Fulfilling demands for domestic use in major cities along the coast,
freshwater also plays a key role in maintaining all ecosystems on the island and contributes to var-
ious economic activities, most notably agriculture. The more than 100 major watersheds in the
Dominican Republic can be classified as to their general condition through an examination of satel-
lite imagery to measure the amount of vegetation disturbance in each. Comparing these levels of
disturbance to population levels reveals a general correlation between the number of people res-
iding in a watershed and its condition – that is to say, the watersheds in poorest condition tend to be
those with the largest populations. However, this association is not perfect. In some cases, heavily
disturbed watersheds contain fewer people, while in other cases watersheds with minimal distur-
bance contain high populations. The former condition tends to occur in areas of high agricultural
activity, the latter in areas with less agricultural activity and populations concentrated in a few main
settlements. Through the further study of how humans and human activity are spatially distributed
across the Dominican Republic, researchers and government planners can better understand how
people affect freshwater and how this key resource can be conserved and used more wisely in this
small island nation.

WAT E R S H E D
DISTURBANCE AND
TOTA L P O P U L AT I O N
I N T H E D O M I N I CA N
REPUBLIC, 1993
( D E TA I L )
Proportion of watershed
disturbed

0-25%
25-50%
50-75%
75-100%

Protected area

¥ 1 dot = 500 people

0 5 0 10 kilometers
Source: ONE; Ministry of Territorial
Organization, Dominican Republic.
184 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

T h e E a st e r n
H i m a l a ya s

EW PLACES ON EARTH can match the breathtaking splendor

P O P U L AT I O N
F of the Himalayas. The towering peaks and secluded valleys
of this mountain range form a 2 400-kilometer barrier
separating the lowlands of the Indian subcontinent from the
high, dry Tibetan Plateau.

Stretching from lush moist forests in the south to towering snowcapped peaks in the north, the
Himalayas feature an astonishing variety of animals and plants. The Eastern Himalayas, located in
DENSITY IN THE the rugged mountain terrain of Nepal, Bhutan and northeast India, are a conservation priority for
EASTERN WWF. These ecoregions consist of some of the world's most diverse temperate forests, the world's
H I M A L AYA S tallest grasslands with the highest densities of tigers and rhinos in Asia, and alpine meadows rich in
Population density per plant and animal life. The ecoregions are globally outstanding because they support habitats that
square kilometer protect many of the world's rarest animals, including greater one-horned rhinos, Asian elephants,
golden langurs, tigers, takins, red pandas and snow leopards.
Less than 10
Population density and continuing rapid population growth are among the most significant pres-
11-25
sures influencing the intensity of land and resource use. In turn, negative patterns of land use con-
26-50
tribute directly to the decline of local habitats and species. In an effort to clarify the distribution and
51-100
intensity of negative pressures associated with humans and their activities, WWF has mapped sev-
101-200
eral population variables across the Eastern Himalayan region. By overlaying these variables with
201-300
habitat or species data onto one map, high biodiversity regions under the greatest threat from pop-
301-400
ulation pressures are revealed. Focused conservation action needs to occur when these areas con-
401-500
tain unique and irreplaceable species or habitats.
501-1 000
The major human activities that threaten biodiversity in the Eastern Himalayas are agricultural
1 000-2 000
conversion, overuse of forest resources, hunting and overgrazing. The intensity of many of these
More than 2 000
human induced pressures is positively correlated with population density, which follows a steep,
Source: National census data; CIESIN.

CHINA

N E PA L

B H U TA N
M YA N M A R
INDIA

INDIA

BANGLADESH
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 185

positive gradient from east to west and from north to south. The highest densities are TOTA L F E R T I L I T Y R AT E
reached in the Tarai, a grassland in the south of Nepal, Bhutan, and the Indian states of I N N E PA L
Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Up until the mid-1950s this region was populated only by
Tharus, an ethnic group with genetic immunity to malaria. Once malaria was brought under
control, the Tarai’s rich agricultural land attracted migrants from both the mountainous
north and Indian plains to the south. The subsequent growth in people and agriculture since
the 1950s is mirrored by the decline in forests, natural grasslands and their wild inhabitants. 1986
A more direct link between humans and habitat can be made by combining human den-
sity and remaining forest figures into one ratio. People in the Eastern Himalayas depend
upon the forests for timber, fuelwood, grazing, foraging, sub-canopy plantations of car-
damom, and many other uses. At the same time, the forest represents important habitat
for the majority of the region’s fauna. Mapping the area’s forest to person ratio indicates the
relative level of pressure human population exerts on habitat. The lower the ratio, the less
forest available per person and the higher the pressure on habitat. All of Nepal shows a
great deal of pressure on remaining forests, leaving a threatening situation for protected
areas which may be the only source of forest products for the local population. The further 1991
east in the ecoregion, the more forests are left, with especially high values in Arunachal
Pradesh and Myanmar. The forests in these high value regions are most certainly in better
Source: Central Bureau of
condition with more intact species assemblages. Statistics, Nepal.
Population growth in the Eastern Himalayas averages 2.1 per cent per year with a maximum of
4.83 per cent in the Kailali district in Nepal. The doubling time for 2.1 per cent is approximately 33
years, while the doubling time for 4.83 is just over 14 years. The short doubling time underscores
the fact that slowing population growth is desirable from both human and ecological standpoints.
Birth rate is one of the factors that control growth rate. A practical measure of birth rate is total FO R E S T TO
fertility, which measures the average number of children that women would have, assuming that P E O P L E R AT I O
these women had children at the average rate for each period in their lives. Statistics from Nepal IN THE EASTERN
show that, in recent years, the total fertility rate is declining. Growth in both the urban and rural envi- H I M A L AYA S
ronment can be influenced to decline by increasing access to health facilities and raising the female Forest to people ratio
literacy rate. WWF is encouraging activities that will help accelerate progress in these two areas.
Extremely low
Biologists agree that, due to the limited effectiveness of small, isolated protected areas, conser-
Low
vation must occur in areas inhabited by people. However, in doing this, potential conflicts between
Medium
human development and conservation will increase, as will the need for innovative solutions to
High
address both elements. Demographic maps give WWF a good indication of where pressure on habi-
Extremely high
tat and species is most acute. WWF is reallocating much of its efforts to areas where high human
pressure and recognized biological importance coincide. Within these areas, WWF is seeking and Source: National census data;
applying strategies to help foster behavior and attitudes that will better serve conservation goals. CIESIN; USGS.

50 0 50 100 kilometers
186 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

Po p u l a t i o n t re n d s
and the environment
i n M a d a g a s ca r
HE ISLAND OF MADAGASCAR is a living laboratory of

T evolution. More than 150 million years ago, the widening

Mozambique channel split Madagascar off from Africa and
created the world's fourth largest island, covering more
than 587 000 square kilometers.

An astonishing 98 percent of Madagascar's land mammals, 92 percent of its reptiles, 68 percent of its
plants and 41 percent of its breeding bird species exist nowhere else on Earth. Madagascar boasts
two thirds of the world's chameleons and 50 species of lemur, which are unique to the island. The dry
and spiny forests are one of the many fascinating subregions of the island. Within this landscape,
rare species of tortoise, including the radiated and angonoka tortoises, inch their way across the
ancient landscape. Other residents include Verreaux's coua, part of a sub-family of cuckoo-like
birds, and the sicklebill vanga. The spiny desert is also known for its plant species. Here, forests of
Didiereaceae, a unique plant
P O P U L AT I O N G R OW T H A N D F E M A L E L I T E R ACY family with no obvious affin-
ity to any other, mix with
Levels of female literacy Population growth rates endemic Euphorbia species.
Sifakas, ringtails and other
0-20% 2-3% lemurs lounge in these
20-40% 3-4% unusual woody succulents.
40-60% More than 4% The future of these re-
60-80% markable plants and ani-
80-100% mals is far from secure.
Massive deforestation has
taken place since the 1970s.
Only a fragment of the
island’s original forest cover
remains and over 300
species of its plants and
animals are threatened with
extinction. The plight of the
human population is also
grim. With an average per-
capita income of US$216 a
year and a foreign debt that
nearly equals its gross
national product, the island
is ranked amongst the
poorest nations in the
Source: Census Bureau of Madagascar.
world.
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 187

Madagascar's exploding population exacerbates its economic stress. The island’s average
population growth rate ranks among the highest in Africa at 2.8 percent per year. The population
of around 14.1 million is expected to double by 2025. Since in-migration is negligible, population
growth is driven by high fertility rates. In turn, poverty and a lack of reproductive health facilities
contribute to the high fertility rate. Research has also shown a clear correlation between fertility
and women's access to education. This is significant for Madagascar as over 40 percent of the
female population over the age of 15 is illiterate. Female literacy is exceptionally low in the spiny
forest but higher in the central highlands in and around the capital, Antananarivo.
Understanding the significant relationships between population growth, fertility and literacy
in Madagascar is important for those concerned with protecting the island's biological diversity.
First, it suggests the need for fine-scale investigation into how specific demographic trends in
and around important biological sites affect wild species and habitat. The results of these inves-
tigations could spur partnerships between conservation organizations, local agencies and com-
munities. An effort to depress fertility through education may benefit natural spaces as well as
improve the prospects for Madagascar's younger generations.

LIVESTOCK AND THE ENVIRONMENT

To the Malagasy people, cattle have great cultural, spiritual and economic significance. As
bargaining chips for exchanges including brides and personal property, cattle are a form
of wealth, pride and financial security. The cattle culture is especially strong in central and
southern Madagascar. Unfortunately, too many cattle on too little land have disastrous effects on
natural habitat. Heavy grazing as well as slash-and-burn agriculture cause severe erosion even
where human populations are comparatively sparse. The soils of western Madagascar have been
degraded to the point where the native dry forests and thickets seem unable to regenerate. Exotic
weeds are becoming more
and more prevalent in the L A N D D E G R A DAT I O N A N D L I V E S TO C K D E N S I T Y
resulting savannah-like land-
scape. Needless to say, native Degree of degradation Cattle per square kilometer
fauna is disappearing at a
startling rate. Light 0-5
The study of the spatial Moderate 5-10
pattern of human and live- Strong 10-20
stock demographic trends Extreme 20-30
can help explain the current 30-90
state of Madagascar's natural
environment. Understanding
the intricacies of human-
environment relations is a
prerequisite for protecting
the island’s environment for
both people and wildlife.
By assessing the human
pressures associated with
environmental degradation,
WWF and its partners hope to
understand and ultimately to
stem threats to ancient and
diverse habitats.

Source: GLASOD/UNEP-GRID;
Census Bureau of Madagascar.
188 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies

Po p u l a t i o n a n d
co n s e r va t i o n i n t h e
S o n o ra n D e s e r t
EW AREAS in North America can match the challenges to

F conserving the natural environment that have accompanied

human population growth and development in the Sonoran
Desert. The biological resources in this region comprise a
broad array of plant and animal species, many found nowhere
else in the world. But the threats to the survival of these resources are
considerable, with population growth and development in the Sonoran
Desert over the past half-century occurring at rates rarely matched
anywhere on the North American continent.

Located in the states of Arizona and California in the southwestern United States, and in the
states of Baja California and Sonora in northwestern Mexico, the Sonoran Desert covers about
222 700 square kilometers. As with all deserts, it receives minimal precipitation – as little as
100 millimeters annually in its driest sections. But despite this aridity, the Sonoran Desert
contains remarkably high biological diversity. Available evidence indicates the presence of about
130 species of mammals, 20 of amphibians, nearly 150 of reptiles, about 25 of fish, and at least
500 species of birds. Plant diversity is marked as well; the state of Sonora alone contains at
least 20 percent of Mexico’s plant species. In terms of the number of life forms and the variety
of ecological communities, the Sonoran has been called the richest desert in North America.
As often is the case, the species in the Sonoran Desert that has come to dominate all others
is human beings. Human occupation began about 11 000 years ago, when prehistoric hunter-
gatherers entered the region. Although some indigenous peoples eventually developed
elaborate irrigation systems, providing an adequate agricultural foundation for sedentary settle-
ments, total population in the Sonoran Desert remained of the order of a few tens of thousands
until European contact in the 16th century. For several reasons, most notably its remote location
and its arid natural environment, population grew slowly during the ensuing four centuries of
Hispanic and Anglo-American occupation. But late in the 19th century, the connection of this
remote region to other areas by road and rail, and the emergence of large-scale projects to
control water, provided the foundation for considerable population growth. This growth began in
earnest after the Second World War. By 1970 the population of the Sonoran Desert had reached
nearly 2.3 million people and was growing at a rate in excess of 4.0 percent annually; by 1995,
regional population was nearly 5.5 million, and still growing at a rate of 3.0 percent per year.
The vast majority of current population in the Sonoran Desert occurs in and around urban areas.
Some cities have grown quite large. For example, in the Mexican portion of the region, the cities of
Mexicali and Hermosillo both currently contain more than half a million people, while in the United
States portion of the region, metropolitan Phoenix contains about 2.5 million people and metropol-
itan Tucson another half-million. In 1990, the most recent year for which we have reliable data for
the entire region, more than 88 percent of the Sonoran Desert’s inhabitants lived in 40 communi-
ties containing 10 000 people or more. Although concentrated population tends to concentrate
impacts to the natural environment, in the Sonoran Desert sprawl serves to disperse impacts
 P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Case studies 189

around the urban centers. Moreover, the modern technology that has enabled the development of P O P U L AT I O N A N D
large concentrations of population also serves to deplete surface and subsurface water supplies far C O N S E R VAT I O N I N
beyond the geographic limits of these cities, causing enormous environmental impacts. THE SONORAN
Although an excess of births over deaths has contributed to the population increase in the DESERT REGION, 1990
Sonoran Desert, the majority of population growth has been due to migration. Between 1985 and Population density per square
1990, for instance, in several United States counties and Mexican municipios in the region more kilometer
than 20 percent of the population aged five years and older had relocated from another state or
country – the total for the desert in excess of 650 000 in that short period alone. The reasons for 0.1-0.5
this high rate of migration vary between the two countries, but seem to share a common foundation 0.6-1.0
in economic opportunity. In the Mexican part of the Sonoran Desert, many people have relocated 1.1-1.6
from other parts of the country to areas close to the border to take advantage of potential employ- 1.7-2.0
ment – primarily to work in manufacturing plants called maquiladoras, and to a lesser extent to 2.1-4.1
work in the Borderlands cities and in coastal resorts. In the United States portion of the region, 4.2-7.8
growth in the Sonoran Desert has been part of a larger phenomenon of growth throughout the Sun 7.9-11.8
Belt, a combination of relocation for retirement coupled with economic growth in manufacturing, 11.9-40.1
the tourism industry, and to support the growing population of retirees. 40.2-69.4
A recent conservation plan developed by The Nature Conservancy and partner organizations 69.5-150.3
identified 100 landscape-scale conservation sites and about 30 smaller conservation sites in the 150.4-304.5
Sonoran Desert. Many of these sites are in areas of sparse population and minimal population More than 304.5
growth. Others, unfortunately, lie in areas of dense and growing population, or in the path of likely Current and proposed
growth. What the future holds for these sites depends in large part on the direction of future pop- conservation sites
ulation change and development and, in particular, on efforts to guide development in a way that Ecoregion boundary
uses scarce resources wisely and minimizes the damage done to the natural environment.
Source: US Bureau of the Census; INEGI.

Phoenix

Tu c s o n
Mexicali

H e r m o s i l lo

30 0 30 60 kilometers
198 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Sources
AAAS American Association for
the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org
de Sherbinin and Dompka
Markham (eds), Water and
Population Dynamics: Case
Studies and Policy Implications,
AAAS, IUCN, Population
Reference Bureau, USAID and
University of Michigan
Population and Environment
Fellows Program, Washington
DC, 1998
Dompka Markham (ed.), Human
Population, Biodiversity and
Protected Areas: Science and
Policy Issues, AAAS,
Washington DC, 1996
AMAP Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme
http://www.amap.no/
Rekacewicz and Bournay, Major
Areas of Oil and Gas
Development and Potential
Development in the Arctic, Oslo,
1998
Rekacewicz and Bournay, Total
and Indigenous Populations of
the Arctic, by Arctic Area of each
Country, Oslo, 1998
Sources
BP http://www.bp.com
BP Amoco Statistical Review of
World Energy 2000 (and earlier
years), UK, 2000, also at
http://www.bp.com/worldenergy
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
http://www.chesapeakebay.net
Water Quality Database,
Annapolis, Maryland, 2000
CDIAC Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(US) http://cdiac-esd.ornl.gov/
Brenkert, Carbon Dioxide
Emission Estimates from Fossil-
Fuel Burning, Hydraulic Cement
Production, and Gas Flaring for
1995 on a One Degree Grid Cell
Basis, CDIAC, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1998
Olson, Watts and Allison, Major
World Ecosystem Complexes
Ranked by Carbon in Live
Vegetation, CDIAC, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, 1985
CEFIC European Chemical
Industry Council
http://www.cefic.org/
Census Bureau of Madagascar
Some data at http://www.ons.
dz/unfpa/pmappl/madatlas.htm
Central Bureau of Statistics
(Nepal)
CGIAR Consultative Group on
International Agricultural
Research
http://www.sgrp.cgiar.org
Choudhury World Forestry
Congress, 6, topic 38.6, 1997
CIAT International Center for
Tropical Agriculture
http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/
CIESIN Center for International
Earth Science Information
Network http://www.ciesin.org
CIESIN, IFPRI and WRI, Gridded
Population of the World (GPW),
ver. 2, CIESIN, Columbia
University, Palisades, New York,
2000,
http://sedac.ciesin.org/plue/gpw
CITES Convention on
International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
http://www.cites.org
http://international.fws.gov/
global/citesnew.html
Dobson, Conservation and
Biodiversity, Scientific American
Library, 1998
EC European Commission
http://europa.eu.int/comm/
Allanou, Hansen and van der
Bilt, Public Availability of Data
on EU High Production Volume
Chemicals, European
Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Health and
Consumer Protection, European
Chemicals Bureau, Italy, 1999,
http://ecb.ei.jrc.it/Data-
Availability-Documents/
datavail.pdf
EEA European Environment
Agency http://www.eea.eu.org
Environment in the European
Union at the Turn of the
Century, Environmental
Assessment Report No. 2,
Luxembourg, 1999
EEA and UNEP, State and
Pressures of the Marine and
Coastal Mediterranean
Environment, Luxembourg, 1999
EPA United States
Environmental Protection
Agency http://www.epa.gov/
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response,
Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United
States: 1992 Update,
Washington DC, 1992

ESRI Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc. (US)
http://www.esri.com
ArcAtlas: Our Earth, ESRI,
Redlands, California, 1996
Fairplay Fairplay Publications
Limited
http://www.fairplay.co.uk
Fairplay Ports Guide, Surrey,
UK, 2000,
http://www.portguide.com/
FAO Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United
Nations http://www.fao.org
FAOSTAT database
http://apps.fao.org
State of the World’s Forests
1999 (and earlier years), FAO,
Rome, 1999
The State of Food Insecurity in
the World, FAO, Rome, 1999
Food for All, FAO, Rome, 1996
Dimensions of Need: An Atlas of
Food and Agriculture, FAO,
Rome, 1995
Alexandratos (ed.), World
Agriculture: Towards 2010, FAO
and John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, UK, 1995
FASE Foundation for
Advancements in Science and
Education
http://www.fasenet.org/
Fase Research Report, Spring
1996
A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
GLASOD/UNEP-GRID Global
Assessment of Human-induced
Soil Degradation / United
Nations Environment
Programme Global Resource
Information Database
http://www.grid.unep.ch/
datasets/gnv-data.html
Oldeman, Hakkeling and
Sombroek, World Map of the
Status of Human-induced Soil
Degradation: An Explanatory
Note, International Soil
Reference and Information
Centre, Wageningen,
Netherlands, 1990
Gold Institute, The
http://www.goldinstitute.org
Data supplied by Gold Fields
Mineral Services Ltd, UK
Hadley Centre Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research,
Meteorological Office (UK)
http://www.meto.govt.uk/sec5/
sec5pg1.html
HadCM3, Hadley Centre,
London, UK, 1998
Harvard School of Public
Health, Division of
Environmental Science and
Engineering, and the Center for
Health and the Global
Environment http://www.med.
harvard.edu/chge/
Epstein and Sherman, Global
Precipitation Anomalies and
Associated Disease Outbreaks,
Harvard School of Public
Health, Cambridge,
Massachussetts, 1999
IAATO International Association
of Antarctica Tour Operators
http://www.iaato.org
ICLARM International Center for
Living Aquatic Resources
Management
http://www.cgiar.org/iclarm/
IFPRI International Food Policy
Research Institute
http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/
index1.asp
IIASA International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/
Leemans and Cramer, The
IIASA Database for Mean
Monthly Values of Temperature,
Precipitation and Cloudiness of
a Global Terrestrial Grid, IIASA,
Laxenburg, Austria, RR-91-18,
1991
Independent Commission on
Population and Quality of Life
Harrison, Carrying Capacity in
Relation to Production and
Consumption Patterns,
Independent Commission on
Population and Quality of Life,
Paris, 1994
INEGI Instituto Nacional de
Estadística, Geografía e
Informática (National Institute
of Statistics, Geography and
Informatics) (Mexico)
http://www.inegi.gob.mx
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
ISEL Institute of Shipping
Economics and Logistics
http://www.isl.uni-bremen.de/
Shipping Statistics Yearbook,
Bremen, Germany, 1998
Sources 199
ISME International Society for
Mangrove Ecosystems
Spalding et al. (eds), World
Mangrove Atlas,
ISME/WCMC/ITTO, 1997
ITOPF The International Tanker
Owners Pollution Federation
Limited http://www.itopf.com
ITOPF Past Spill Statistics,
http://www.itopf.com/stats.html
ITTO International Tropical
Timber Organization
http://www.itto.org.jp
IUCN IUCN–The World
Conservation Union
http://www.iucn.org
1996 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals, IUCN,
Geneva, 1996
McNeely et al., Conserving the
World’s Biological Diversity,
IUCN, Gland, 1990
Jones et al. Jones, Osborn and
Briffa, Climatic Research Unit,
University of East Anglia, and
Parker, Hadley Centre (UK)
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/
temp/jonescru/jones.html
Lloyds Register
http://www.lr.org
World Fleet Statistics, London,
UK, 1999
Meadows et al. Meadows,
Donella et al., Beyond the
Limits, Earthscan Publications,
1992
200 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Sources

Met. Office The Meteorological
Office (UK) http://www.met-
office.gov.uk/
Climate Change and its Impacts,
1993, http://www.met-
office.gov.uk/sec5/CR_div/pubs/
brochures/B1999/contents.html
Ministry of Territorial
Organization (Dominican
Republic)
NADP/NTN National
Atmospheric Deposition
Program/National Trends
Network (US)
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/
Sulfur Concentration 1999,
NADP/NTN, Champaign, Illinois,
2000
NASA National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (US)
http://www.nasa.gov
SeaWiFS Project, Sea-viewing
Wide Field-of-view Sensor
(SeaWIFS), Distributed Active
Archive Center, Goddard Space
Flight Center, Goddard,
Maryland, 1998, under the
auspices of NASA,
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/
SEAWIFS.html
National Census Data Central
Statistical Office of the Ministry
of Planning, Bhutan; Central
Bureau of Statistics, Nepal
Nature Conservancy, The
http://www.tnc.org
NOAA National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(US) http://www.noaa.gov/
National Geophysical Data
Center, Digital Relief of the
Surface of the Earth, NOAA,
Boulder, Colorado, 1988,
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
Ocean Climate Laboratory,
Global Plankton Database,
National Oceanographic Data
Center, NOAA, 1998, http://www.
nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/RESEARCH/
PLANKTON/plankton.html
Operational Significant Event
Imagery,
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/
NSIDC National Snow and Ice
Data Center (US)
http://nsidc.org/
DMSP SSM/I Brightness,
Temperatures and Sea Ice
Concentration Grids for the
Polar Regions, 1987 - present,
NSIDC Distributed Active
Archive Center, University of
Colorado at Boulder, 1999,
digital data available from
nsidc@kryos.colorado.edu
OCEI Oficina Central de
Estadística e Informática
(Central Office of Statistics and
Informatics) (Venezuela)
http://www.ocei.gov.ve
OECD Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development
http://www.oecd.org/
OECD Environmental Data
Compendium 1999,
ENV/EPOC/SE(98)2/FINAL
Environmental Indicators,
OECD, Paris, 1998
ONE Oficina Nacional de
Estadística (National Office of
Statistics) (Dominican Republic)
http://www.one.gov.do
ORNL Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (US)
http://www.ornl.gov/gist/
Geographic Information Science
and Technology (GIST) Group
data, ORNL, 1998, featured in
Dobson, Bright, Coleman,
Durfee and Worley, LandScan: a
global population database for
estimating populations at risk,
Photogrammetric Engineering
& Remote Sensing, 66(7): 849-
857, 2000
PopMap An Information and
Decision Support System for
Population Activities
http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/
softproj/software/popmap.htm
Population Action International
http://www.populationaction.org/
Gardner-Outlaw and Engelman,
Sustaining Water, Easing
Scarcity: A Second Update,
Population Action International,
1997
Ramsar Bureau Bureau of the
Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
http://www.ramsar.org
RIVM National Institute of
Public Health and the
Environment (Netherlands)
http://www.rivm.nl/
Klein Goldewijk, A History
Database of the Global
Environment: HYDE, RIVM,
Bilthoven, the Netherlands, 2000,
http://www.rivm.nl/env/int/hyde
SCAR Scientific Committee on
Antarctic Research
http://www.scar.org
Stations of SCAR Nations
Operating in the Antarctic,
Cambridge, UK, 1999
British Antarctic Survey,
Antarctic Protected Areas,
SCAR, Cambridge, UK, 1999,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk
British Antarctic Survey,
Antarctic Digital Database,
ver. 2.0, SCAR, Cambridge, UK,
1998,
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk
Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2,
Princeton University Press, New
Jersey, 1996
STATBASE UK National
Statistics Online
http://www.statsbase.gov.uk/
statbase/mainmenu.asp
Times Times Books Group Ltd
The Times Atlas of the World,
Comprehensive Edition, Times
Books Group Ltd, London, UK,
1999
UN United Nations
http://www.un.org
United Nations Statistics Division
http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/
global.htm
World Cities Population
Database, UN, New York, 1999
Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, Article 3,
Annex B, UN, New York, 1997,
http://www.unfccc.de

UNDP United Nations
Development Programme
http://www.undp.org/
Human Development Report
1999, UNDP, 1999
UNEP United Nations
Environment Programme
http://www.unep.org
UNEP ENTRI Query System,
http://www.ciesin.org/harvest/
brokers/entri2/query.html
Our Planet 11(2), 2000 (and
earlier issues), also at
http://www.ourplanet.com
Global Environment Outlook
2000, Earthscan Publications Ltd
for and on behalf of UNEP, 1999
Production and Consumption of
Ozone Depleting Substances
1986-1998, Ozone Secretariat,
UNEP, 1999
World Atlas of Desertification,
2nd edition, Arnold, London, UK,
1997 (and 1992)
Heywood (ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment,
Cambridge University Press for
UNEP, Cambridge, UK, 1995
UNEP/GRID-Arendal
http://www.grida.no/
International Permafrost
Association, Circum-arctic Map
of Permafrost and Ground-Ice
Conditions, ver. 1.0, 1998, http://
www.grida.no/prog/polar/ipa/
UNEP-WCMC The UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre
http://www.wcmc.org.uk
Protected Areas Database
A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Groombridge and Jenkins,
Global Biodiversity: Earth’s
Living Resources in the 21st
Century, World Conservation
Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000
Information Services and the
Protected Areas Unit, Protected
Areas of the World, ver. 1.1,
WCMC, Cambridge, UK, 1997
UNESCO United Nations
Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
http://www.unesco.org
World Heritage Centre, World
Heritage Sites, Paris, 2000
UNFPA United Nations
Population Fund
http://www.unfpa.org
UNHCR United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees
http://www.unhcr.org
1999 Statistical Overview,
UNHCR
UNICEF United Nations
Children’s Fund
http://www.unicef.org
The State of the World’s
Children 2000, also at
http://www.unicef.org/sowc00/
UNPD United Nations
Population Division
http://www.un.org/esa/
population/pop.htm
World Population Prospects:
The 1998 Revision, UN, New
York, 1999, data also available at
http://apps.fao.org
Urban Agglomerations, 1950-
2015 (The 1996 Revision),
UNPD, 1997
Department for Economic and
Social Information and Policy
Analysis, International Migration
Policies, UNPD, 1995
Annual Populations, 1994
USAID US Agency for
International Development
http://www.usaid.gov
US Bureau of the Census
http://www.census.gov
USGS US Geological Survey
http://usgs.gov/
Mineral Commodity Summaries,
February 2000
Global Land Cover
Characteristics Data Base, ver.
1.2, EROS Data Center, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, 1998, http://
edcdaac.usgs.gov/glcc/glcc.html
WHO World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/
WMO World Meteorological
Office http://www.wmo.ch
World Bank, The
http://www.worldbank.org
World Development Indicators
2000 (and earlier years), World
Bank, Washington DC, 2000, print
and CD-ROM versions, some
data at http://www.worldbank.
org/data/edi2000/index.htm
World Energy Council
http://www.worldenergy.org/
wec-geis/
World Tourism Organization
http://www.world-tourism.org
Yearbook of Tourism Statistics
1999, Madrid
Sources 201
Worldwatch Institute
http://www.worldwatch.org
World•Watch, March/April 2000
WRI World Resources Institute
http://www.wri.org/
WRI, UNEP, UNDP, World Bank,
World Resources 2000-2001
(and earlier years), WRI,
Washington DC, 2000, print and
CD-ROM versions, some data at
http://www.wri.org/facts/
data-tables.html
Bryant et al., Reefs at Risk,
WRI/ICLARM/WCMC/UNEP,
Washington DC, 1998
WSP–USDA World Soil
Program, United States
Department of Agriculture
http://www.usda.gov
WSP, Global Cropland
Degradation, USDA, Washington
DC, 1999
WTO World Trade Organization
http://www.wto.org
Trade Statistics: World Trade
Overview and Long-term Series
WWF World Wide Fund For
Nature http://www.panda.org
Living Planet Report 2000,
WWF, Gland, 2000
Myers, The Wild Supermarket,
WWF, Switzerland, 1986
WWF-Colombia World Wide
Fund For Nature Programme
Office, Colombia
http://www.andesdelnorte.net
WWF-US World Wildlife Fund
http://www.worldwildlife.org
A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

C o co a : h a r ve st t o
s a ve t h e fo re st

OCOA CULTIVATION can be a major driver of rainforest destruction.

C Clearance to plant cocoa has for a century or more opened up the forests
of West Africa, with Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire at the forefront. Reports in
2001 that cocoa plantations were being worked by child labor, so-called
“chocolate slaves”, only enhanced the industry’s unsavory reputation.

But in Cameroon, cocoa farms employ no slaves and scientists say cocoa could be the key to sav-
ing the Central African rainforest. Now, in an attempt to clean up their act in the wake of the slave
scandal, some chocolate manufacturers are backing a new development strategy.
Joseph Essissima first planted his cocoa trees in the bush outside Yaounde, the capital of
Cameroon, 60 years ago. He hacked down the jungle to fill the confectionery shelves of Europe and
North America. Ever since, many ecologists have branded Joseph and his fellows as environmental
pariahs. But now the ecologists are praising him. Even more remarkably, they want to help him
make more money out of his trees so that he can plant some more. They say that planting cocoa
could be the best way to save Africa’s greatest surviving rainforest, which stretches southwards
from Cameroon into the Congo basin.
“Cocoa has been an important agent of deforestation during the 20th century,” says Francois
Ruf of France’s Center for International Cooperation in Agronomic Research and Development in
Paris. “But in the 21st century, cocoa may switch from being an agent of deforestation to an agent for
reforestation.”
Cameroon farmers harvest some 120 000 tons of cocoa a year, most of it grown on smallholdings
of a hectare or less close to the forests. But cocoa cultivation here is unusually benign to the
environment. Joseph’s plantation is typical. It feels more like a rainforest than a farm: dark, dank
and full of life. There are cocoa trees, but also many others, some natural and some planted.
Various fruit trees are dotted around: orange and mango, avocado and cherry. Some original rain-
 A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

forest trees have been kept for their timber, for medicinal bark and to provide additional shade. Of
one tree he says: “We keep this one because it attracts caterpillars that we eat.”
Cameroon’s cocoa forests are quite unlike the monocultures of Côte d’Ivoire. They are biologi-
cally very diverse, with more than half as many species as a natural forest, says Jim Gockowski of the
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Yaounde, who has studied the methods of
the local farmers. What is more, Joseph’s smallholding is as fertile as when he first planted. The
number of earthworms – a key test of the forest floor’s ability to recycle nutrients – is almost as high
as in a natural rainforest.
“By maintaining a shady canopy of diverse forest species, these farmers manage one of the
most biologically diverse landuse systems in Africa,” says Gockowski. It may not be virgin rainforest,
but “if the farmers didn’t plant cocoa, they would be doing slash-and-burn farming.” The country’s
fast-growing population would be clearing the forest wholesale, and planting maize or oil-palm or
turning it over to cattle.
Across southern Cameroon, large areas of former rainforest land now lie fallow after the
exhaustion of their soils by farming. Yet in their midst the cocoa forests, which were once dismissed
as just another scar on the natural landscape, are green oases.
“In many ways, the environmental benefits of a closed, natural forest are now being provided by
cultivated forests of cocoa and fruit trees,” says the IITA’s station chief in Yaounde, Stephan Weise. “So
why not convert the large areas of unused former forest into cocoa forest? If we can do that, we will
create a physical and economic buffer to protect the surviving natural rainforest.”
A few farmers are taking up the challenge. Not far from Joseph’s smallholding, Madame Abomo
is growing cocoa trees and bananas in abandoned maize fields. But most farmers are moving in the
opposite direction.
For many years, cocoa was a profitable crop in Cameroon. The government guaranteed good
prices. But in the past decade, the privatization of the marketing system and a collapse in the inter-
national price of cocoa have impoverished cocoa farmers here. “The government used to be like a
father to us,” one of Joseph’s neighbors, Mani Alexandre, says. “Now buyers can pay what they like.”
According to Gockowski, the fall in cocoa prices “led directly to a very significant increase in
forest clearing” in Cameroon in the 1990s. Thousands of farmers left their cocoa forests to decay
and cleared forest to plant maize, groundnuts or palm-oil.
Today, they call cocoa an “old man’s crop”. “Young people don’t have cocoa production in their
heads. Prices are too low,” says Mani. The tragedy is that at the very time when cocoa emerges as an
environmentally friendly crop, its profitability has slumped. Soon, maybe the chocolate slave-mas-
ters will be in business here.
Enter the chocolate companies. Firms like Mars and Cadbury’s buy cocoa through the big trad-
ing and milling conglomerates that trade here. And they are growing worried. They fear the current
market free-for-all could ultimately jeopardize their supplies, and may create more PR disasters.
Martin Gilmour, UK-based cocoa research manager for Mars, says: “We would like to see farmers
get higher prices for their cocoa. It would be better for both of us.”
Like the farmers, Mars claims an interest in ethical and environmentally sustainable production
of the crop. “We find it interesting that they appear to grow cocoa in Cameroon in a more sustain- Article by Fred Pearce
able way. Agroforests are ecologically speaking almost as good as natural mature forest,” says the
Additional sources
man from Mars. “That is why we are funding research into these systems.” CGIAR, 2000, Alternatives to Slash-
That research is aimed at improving cocoa and fruit tree varieties and fighting the diseases that and-Burn: Summary Report and
Synthesis of Phase II in Cameroon.
are running rampant through the ill-tended cocoa forests. But it will be useless, unless the farm- B. Duguma, Smallholder cocoa
cultivation in agroforestry systems
ers can win a proper price for their product. of West and Central Africa:
Many ecologists believe that agroforestry on the model of the Cameroon cocoa forests is the only challenges and opportunities, IRAD
Yaounde [http://natzoo.si.edu/smbc/
way that many of the world’s rainforests can be saved. And yet there is a real risk that the model Research/Cacao/duguma.htm].
J Gockowski, Integrated perennial and
itself will expire before it can be properly researched and copied. annual cropping systems: Building
As I left the forest one young boy, the son of a farmer, came up to me and asked simply: “What household assets, IITA, Yaounde
[http://www.iita.org/research/
does chocolate taste like?” His family, he said, could not afford the price of a bar. projann2000/proj13.pdf].
A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

C u l t i va t i n g t h e
u r b a n s ce n e

N CUBA they call them organoponicos. There are market gardens growing

I organic produce on every patch of wasteland across the capital, Havana. The
gardens were born of necessity, when the country’s state-organized farming
system collapsed with the demise of the Soviet Union a decade ago and cheap
imports of agrochemicals ceased. Now their constant supply of vegetables
stops the city from starving, and is helping to pioneer new intensive methods of
farming without chemicals.

According to the United Nations Development Programme’s urban agriculture network, around
15 percent of the world’s food is now grown in urban areas, a figure that appears to be rising all the
time. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, as wages slump, jobs disappear and state and com-
mercial food distribution systems break down, more and more city-dwellers turn to growing their
own food in the city.
In Harare, Zimbabwe, cultivated food plots have doubled in a decade. The proportion of
people involved in urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, rose from 18 to 67 percent in a
generation. In many cities, farming is the biggest industry. Most of the poultry, pork and
vegetables eaten in urban areas is grown in those same urban areas.
Most Europeans known about allotments. The image is of ageing city-dwellers growing their
potatoes and onions on a strip of public land between the railway line and the gas works. But
 A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

today demand for allotments in many cities is booming, with long waiting lists to acquire a plot.
There are more than 300 000 allotment plots in Britain alone, tended by over a million people.
Many of the new tenants are young.
James Petts of Sustain, a UK organization backing better food and farming, says people do
not trust the commercial food industry any more. “The only way of getting round that is producing
the food yourself.” Sustain is pushing the idea of commercial city harvests, with crops grown on the
city’s composted organic waste. Many other cities round the developing world have similar plans.
In parts of Germany and Switzerland, urban developers are required to replace the green space
they cover over – usually on the roof.
For the rich world, growing your own is in part a luxury and a welcome change from super-
market shopping. But for the poor in the developing world, it is often a necessity. Explore a typical
city in Asia, Latin America, Africa or the former Soviet Union and the extent of urban food pro-
duction is extraordinary.
In Calcutta an estimated 20 000 people farm the richly-composted old waste dumps and raise
carp and tilapia in tanks filled with treated sewage water. In Kampala, Uganda, they grow bananas
in their backyards and maize on roadside verges. Cactuses sprout on rooftops of Mexico City. In
Lima, Peru, they raise guineapig meat in the squatter settlements and in Nairobi, Kenya, chickens
fatten in coops bolted to apartment walls.
Sheep graze the verges of Armenia’s capital Yerevan, and cattle are driven in from the coun-
tryside along the motorway verges. In Haiti they grow vegetables in old tyres, baskets and even
kettles. People grow food in allotments and on high-rise rooftops, on river banks and roadside
verges, in parks and market gardens and any piece of wasteland they can find.
Nor is it a marginal activity. In Bangkok, Thailand, fully 60 percent of the land is devoted to
farming. In Bogota, Colombia, farming provides 50 jobs per hectare – more than a supermarket.
Cairo has 80 000 livestock within the city limits. Hong Kong, the densest large city in the world,
produces two-thirds of its own poultry, a sixth of its pigs and half its vegetables.
One in three urban households worldwide grows some food. In Moscow it is two-thirds, three
times the level of a generation ago. Scientists that the state cannot afford to pay turn up at their
laboratories each day to grow cabbages and cucumbers in the grounds. Sarajevo did not starve
during the long siege of the Bosnian city in the late 1990s because it fed itself.
Sometimes it can be dangerous, of course. Leafy vegetables soak up air pollution, especially
lead from exhausts. Close contact with livestock such as pigs brings the risk of diseases. Children
may play in the back garden where pesticides have been sprayed. And in Peru in 1992, sewage
water used to irrigate urban crops helped spread cholera.
For a long time city authorities discouraged or even banned farming in the city. But, says Jac
Smit, president of the UNDP network, that view is changing. Recent studies in the Philippines and
elsewhere have linked better child nutrition to the local production of food in urban areas.
“Urban farming is often minimized as being merely “kitchen gardening” or marginalized as a
leftover of rural habits. But urban farming goes far beyond gardening,” says Smit. It creates green
spaces, recycles waste, cuts down on traffic, provides employment, substitutes for imported high-
value goods, prevents erosion and is good for the microclimate.”
It is, Smit says, an efficient use of resources. Typically, intensive production of vegetables in
urban areas uses less than a fifth as much irrigation water and one-sixth as much land as mech-
anized rural cultivation. An estimated 800 million people in cities and towns around the world
spend some time each week tending to plants that will help feed their families or make money
in the local market.
Ignored by researchers and frowned on by officials, urban farming is nonetheless, hectare for
hectare, among the most productive in the world. People are farming small areas extremely
intensively, making nonsense of conventional views about countries’ inability to feed themselves.
Urban farming, quite simply, offers a means of survival for hundreds of millions of the world’s
poorest, most vulnerable inhabitants. Article by Fred Pearce
.
A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

Fa r m i n g t h e
d e s e r t m a rg i n s

N THE KENYAN DISTRICT OF MAKUENI, farmer Jane Ngei built her own dam

I with an ox-plough, spade and wheelbarrow. “It collects the water running
down the road after it rains,” she says. With a bucket and a perforated hose
pipe she then uses the water to irrigate her couple of hectares of vegetables,
maize and fruit trees in the dry season. The extra harvest is enough to feed her
family and pay for her children to attend school. Of such things are agricultural
revolutions made.

For she and hundreds of others farmers in the district are using simple methods like this to
transform their lives in a landscape believed by ecologists a generation ago to be on the cusp of
desertification. Since those forecasts were made, the district’s population has risen fivefold, but
farm output has risen tenfold, the soils are still intact and the hills are greener than ever, with more
trees than for at least a century.
The story calls into serious question some of the more Malthusian predictions about fast-
growing populations in the arid regions of Africa causing a near-inevitable advance of deserts.
Makueni shows it does not have to be like that. In reality, farmers are finding ways to intensify their
farming methods and feed their growing families without destroying their soils. In places, the sands
are actually retreating – even where rainfall is in decline.
Nor is Makueni unique. Take the dusty and densely populated region around Kano in northern
Nigeria – so heavily farmed it is called the “Kano close-settled zone”. Here farmers are planting
cowpeas alongside maize in their fields, and tethering sheep and goats to gather manure for
 A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

spreading on the fields. Result: more fertile soils and bigger crop yields without the use of
chemicals or cash.
“This zone has supported intensive cultivation without suffering land degradation. The integration
of crops and livestock enhances nutrient recycling,” says Frances Harris, a soil scientist from
Kingston University, London. And far from high population density being a liability, it actually helps
the process by supplying labor to feed animals, spread manure and work the fields.
B.B. Singh from the Kano office of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, who has
pioneered these techniques, says: “We can double yields here easily and improve the environment at
the same time. We can do it all over Africa.”
David Niemeijer from Wageningen University in the Netherlands has seen much the same thing
in eastern Burkina Faso. A geographer, he went there in the mid-1990s to measure land degradation
as populations grew and rainfall diminished. But he has found “no evidence of land degradation,
nor any decline in farm productivity. In fact yields of many crops have risen sharply”. Rice and maize
yields have tripled in eastern Burkina Faso, while the levels of soil nutrients remain what they were
when French scientists first studied the area in the 1960s.
Even more remarkably, farming techniques are not vastly different. “All they do is apply some of
their soil and water conservation practices more intensively,” says Niemeijer’s co-worker, social
scientist Valentina Mazzucato. They erect stone and earth walls to keep the soil from washing off
the land in the occasional heavy downpours. They spend more time weeding and thinning crops.
They swap seeds and farm equipment and even land. And they work the land more intensively by
forming labor gangs that tend each others’ fields during busy times.
Back in the early 1970s, at the height of the Sahel droughts, Burkina Faso was widely seen as
being on a one-way trip to desertification. Yet per-capita food production here is 20 percent up on
1970 figures. “Of course, life remains hard, but things are not going down the drain,” says Niemeijer.
The same story comes from neighboring Niger, where 20 years ago the southern provinces were
facing repeated droughts and fears of desertification. But again farmers seem to have turned things
around. According to Boubacar Yamba of the University of Abdou Moumouni in the capital Niamey,
rains remain 30 percent down on the figure in the 1960s and the population has doubled in 25 years.
But millet farmers have diversified into growing vegetables and tree crops and tending livestock.
Similarly, in the highlands of western Kenya, where 1 000 people and more occupy each square
kilometer, farmers are keeping ahead by replacing their maize monocultures with a much richer
mix of crops. They produce milk and honey, and grow medicinal plants, trees for timber and fruit,
and even weeds. Napier grass, once regarded as a roadside weed, is now widely grown for sale as
feed for dairy cattle.
These stories are hard to reconcile with the statements of many United Nations agencies about
advancing deserts. The Food and Agriculture Organization, for instance, says that “an area [of Africa]
the size of Somalia has become desert over the past 50 years. The same fate now threatens more
than one-third of the African continent... The main cause is mismanagement of the land.” The
Convention to Combat Desertification, completed in 1996, was designed to try and halt this trend.
But increasingly analysts are calling into question the whole desertification hypothesis. They say
farmers are in many places responding positively to the challenges of rising populations and falter-
ing rainfall. Even Camilla Toulmin, head of the drylands program at the London-based International
Institute for Environment and Development and a key figure in drafting the Desertification
Convention, now admits that “evidence for soil fertility decline [in Africa] stems from a few highly Article by Fred Pearce
influential studies, which have been quoted again and again. Detailed field-level studies demon- Additional sources
FAO, Multimedia Collections on
strate that the soil fertility problem is far more complex.” Desertification [http://www.fao.org/
The reality of life in arid Africa appears to be far more diverse than many believed. Yes, deserts do desertification/objects/factsh/eng/
FCT3-e.htm].
advance; but they also retreat. Soils do deteriorate and farms do get things wrong. But they can also Mazzucato and Niemeijer, 2000, The cul-
tural economy of soil and water con-
get things right and make improvements in the most unlikely circumstances. Above all, says Singh, servation, Development and Change,
there is nothing inevitable about the link between population growth and spreading deserts. “There vol 31, No 4, pp 831-855, September.
Tiffen et al, 1994, More People, Less
is no reason why Africa cannot feed itself.” Erosion, Wiley.
A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

H y d ro g e n : f u e l
o f t h e f u t u re

N TWENTY YEARS Iceland will be the "Bahrain of the North". Thorsteinn

I Sigfusson, professor of physics at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik and

chairman of Iceland New Energy, says the island is set to become birthplace
of the hydrogen economy – providing electricity, heating its buildings through
the long winters, and running its buses, trucks, cars and even trawlers. And
selling the new wonder-fuel to the world.

It is early days yet, Sigfusson admits. Just three buses, so far. But unlike most hydrogen-powered
buses, which fill up with hydrogen made from old fuels such as oil, Reykjavik’s buses will run on
hydrogen made by splitting water, using hydroelectricity generated from Iceland’s raging rivers.
The umbilical cord to fossil fuels has been cut.
Both oil companies and automobile manufacturers say hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Ford
chairman Bill Ford told a Greenpeace conference in late 2000 that hydrogen “will finally end the
100-year reign of the internal combustion engine. Fuel cells, which run on hydrogen, a renewable
resource, have zero emissions. Fuel cells could be the predominant automotive power source
in 25 years.”
There are compelling reasons for change. Emissions of carbon dioxide from internal combus-
tion engines are stoking the greenhouse effect faster than anything else. And burning oil in engines
fills our cities with smogs that kill hundreds of thousands every year. Technological improvements
to cut emissions from conventional cars cannot keep pace with the rising tide of vehicles. There
will probably be a billion on the world's roads by 2020, one for every seven people.
Hydrogen gas is a combustible fuel just like oil or natural gas. But unlike them, it is ubiquitous,
inexhaustible and clean. It can be made either by extracting it from a conventional hydrocarbon
fuel, or by splitting water into its component elements: hydrogen and oxygen.
 A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

BMW has developed a prototype car that burns hydrogen, and hopes to have a network of
hydrogen filling stations across Europe by 2010. “Our vision is that, from the year 2020, more than
a third of all BMW vehicles sold in Europe will be hydrogen-powered,” says company chairman
Joachim Milberg.
But many believe that, rather than burning hydrogen, the key to the new fuel’s success in the
21st century is likely to be the development of the hydrogen fuel cell – a portable and versatile
energy storage medium, rather like a souped-up battery, that can power an electric motor. This
has become a practical proposition with the development in the mid-1990s of a dramatically more
powerful fuel cell that could fit under the bonnet of a conventional car. Till then, fuel cells deliv-
ered around 170 watts per litre. A Vancouver company, Ballard Power Systems, had raised that to
more than 1 300 watts.
Suddenly, you can drive across the USA on hydrogen without adding to the atmosphere any-
thing more noxious than a bathtub of water. The first mass-produced cars run using hydrogen
fuel cells will be in the showrooms by 2004. Ford, General Motors, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler,
Nissan and Honda all have designs in the works. Ferdinand Panik, director of DaimlerChrysler’s
fuel-cell project in Germany, reckons hydrogen fuel cells will power a quarter of new cars world-
wide by 2020.
Amory Lovins, of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Colorado, believes this change could signal
the start of a revolution in car-making that will massively increase their efficiency and reduce
pollution. His non-profit institute is dedicated to bringing this about through the development of
what he calls the Hypercar, through using lighter materials and better engines. The internal com-
bustion engine, he points out, converts barely 20 percent of its fuel energy into traction, whereas
electric motors can have an efficiency of up to 80 percent.
Is hydrogen safe? The image of the 1937 Hindenburg airship disaster still looms large, even
though cars are already carrying round tanks of dangerously explosive liquid. "Hydrogen is less
hazardous than gasoline," says Lovins.
The critical question now is how the hydrogen is produced. Initially, much of it will be made
by “reforming” readily available hydrocarbon fuels such as methanol or natural gas. This can be
done either at the filling station, or in small onboard reformers. There are clear greenhouse gains
here. Rob Macintosh of the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development in Alberta has
analyzed how much carbon dioxide would be emitted from making and using enough fuel to drive
a standard car across Canada. A gasoline-burning car emits 248 kilos, most of it as exhaust
gases. A car with an onboard reformer chalked up between 80 and 190 kilos, depending on the
fuel being reformed.
Some favor this route. But instead of “reforming” hydrocarbons, hydrogen can also be made
by running electricity through water, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen. This requires a lot of
energy, however. And if that energy came from burning fossil fuels, the gains in terms of reduced
emissions of greenhouse gases would be minimal. So the key to the “hydrogen economy”, to
breaking the link to fossil fuels, is to deploy renewable sources of this energy.
That is why Iceland, with its abundant potential for generating hydroelectric and geothermal
energy, is so excited. All that energy is not a lot of use to a country of a quarter of a million people.
But if it could be used to generate hydrogen – effectively converting it into a new, portable form of
energy – it would become a money-spinner. Other countries could set up hydrogen manufactur-
ing plants using solar or wind power.
To take over the world, hydrogen will need a whole new hydrogen infrastructure, costing per-
haps trillions of dollars. But we have to start somewhere. Hence the interest in kick-starting the
hydrogen economy either in smog hot-spots such as southern California, or in areas of abundant
"green" energy for hydrogen production, such as Iceland. Iceland has the great advantage that you
do not drive to or from it. It would be easy to convert the entire island to hydrogen.
The hydrogen age could be closer than we think. Certainly, the route map is slowly emerging.
But who will get on the road first? Right now, revving up at the front of the grid is Iceland. Article by Fred Pearce
A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

Fishing out the

B a n c d ’A rg u i n

S THE SUN SET over the Atlantic, Italie de Silva worked fast: gutting the

A sharks, rays and guitar fish, cutting off their fins and laying out the
flesh to be salted by the incoming tide. It was a good catch, he said.
Good for these days, anyway. There were maybe 100 fish, worth in all
perhaps US$1 000, brought back after two days at sea.

But as he slit the bellies of the female sharks, fetuses spilled out. The fishermen were, in
effect, killing many fish for the meat and fins of just one. Those fetuses should have been next
year's catch.
This scene, on the beach by the tiny village of Iwik in the Banc d'Arguin, a giant national park
in the West African state of Mauritania, summed up the crisis in one of the world’s richest
fishing grounds. The park’s mudflats and islands stretch for about 100 kilometers into the
Atlantic, just at the point where a cold ocean current, rich in nutrients, reaches the surface. The
rush of nutrients and the shallow waters warmed by the sun make this an immensely productive
marine ecosystem.
The Banc is West Africa's biggest fish spawning and feeding area. And with the fish come fish-
ing boats. Not just the few dozen from the park's villages – who are allowed to fish as long as they
use sails rather than outboard motors – but also thousands of motorized fishing boats, called
pirogues, sailing from as far away as Senegal and Gambia. And, worst of all, the riches of the Banc
draw hundreds of huge trawlers from Europe's oversized and underemployed fishing fleets.
 A A A S • P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T I SS U E S

Foreign vessels take more than half a million tons of fish from Mauritanian waters each year.
Among the vessels cruising just beyond the park’s boundary is one of the world's largest fishing
vessels, the Irish-owned Atlantic Dawn, which is 144 meters long, has a crew of 60, and can hold
7 000 tons of fish.
From these waters, the fins of sharks and rays are sold to Asia, shrimps to Spain, mullet roe
to Italy and France, octopus to Japan, shark meat to half of Africa and almost anything to Dutch
fishmeal factories, from where it feeds European livestock. A similar fish-rush extends down the
coast through the rich waters of Senegal and Guinea-Bissau.
But it cannot go on. These poor coastal nations are sacrificing their long-term prosperity by
allowing European fishing fleets to catch their fish at rock-bottom prices, says the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). In a study of the impact of free trade on the environment, it says
they are forfeiting the future health of fish stocks worth billions of dollars and the incomes of their
own fishers in return for paltry short-term financial gains.
And the situation is worsening daily as rich nations send their surplus fleets to foreign waters,
where they drive local fishing communities into ever greater poverty, as well as robbing the marine
environment. The report concludes that the European Union’s fishing of West African waters over
the past decade has had a devastating effect on some key fish stocks and resulted in "a serious
impact on local food supplies". Two thirds of Senegal's export revenues come from fish exports to
Europe. And the EU for one is pushing for more.
Conservationists have sought to safeguard the region’s fisheries by protecting the Banc
d’Arguin breeding grounds. Luc Hoffmann, environmental éminence grise and founding presi-
dent of the park, says: “For centuries the local fishers lived in harmony with the natural
resources. But today the park faces a huge challenge.”
Even within the park, the signs of overfishing are obvious to all. "In the old days we could see
the mullet coming," says Mohammed ould Swidi, chief of Iwik village. "We just walked into the
water with our nets to catch them." Not any more. Not since the rest of the world got wise to the
riches here.
Dimas Santos, who exports fresh Mauritanian grouper, bream and hake to European restau-
rants, looks gloomy in his packing plant behind the beach at Nouakchott, the Mauritanian
capital. "The fish just aren't in the sea any more. I can only buy half of what I could get two years
ago. We are paying the price for years of overfishing," he says.
Nobody can doubt the importance of the fishing grounds to locals. On Hann beach outside the
Senegalese capital of Dakar, more than a thousand motorized pirogues are lined up daily.
According to veteran fisherman Bira Gueye, 30 years ago "there were just five boats here". Until
perhaps a decade ago, they could be at rich fishing grounds within half an hour. Today it takes
four hours. And many Senegalese fishers travel the 600 kilometers to the Banc d'Arguin.
Such fishers often get the blame for declining fish stocks. But in Mauritanian waters foreign
boats take 30 times more fish than locals. Callum Roberts of York University, one of the world's
leading experts on marine reserves, says: "Foreign trawlers are strip-mining African waters of
their fisheries resources. It is a scandal.” Western countries, he says, “have signed up to inter-
national treaties that promise sustainable fishing. But having failed to do it at home, they are
wrecking the future of African fisheries."
What is to be done? The UNEP report, in a detailed case study of Senegal, recommends that
governments here should charge foreign vessels more for access to its fish and "suspend fish- Article by Fred Pearce
ing in cases where a stock is seriously depleted".
Additional sources
The fish, says Pierre Campredon, a French marine biologist who advises the Mauritanian Campredon, P., Between the Sahara
government, would be best protected by the locals. He believes that if they can get rights to a and the Atlantic, Parc National du
Banc d’Arguin, Nouakchott,
greater share of the catch, it may give them the long-term interest needed to manage the fish- ISBN 2 951 14914 0 9.
Pearce, F., 2001, Breaking the Banc,
eries better. "They are the key figures, the primary managers of ecosystems and their resources. New Scientist, 23 June.
It is only by working with them and helping to address their concerns that we will be able to better UNEP, 2002, Economic Reforms, Trade
Liberalization and the
manage the coastal zone," he says. Environment.
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Biodiversity
Section I:
Introduction to
biodiversity
1. Biodiversity and
ecosystem functioning
(H.A. Mooney et al., Global
Biodiversity Assessment)
2. Biodiversity and its value
(Biodiversity Series, Paper No.1,
Dept. of Environment, Sports,
and Territories, Australia)
3. What is biodiversity?
(World Resources Institute)
4. Chapter 6: Global patterns
of biodiversity (Peter J. Bryant,
Biodiversity and Conservation)
5. Do we still need nature?
The importance of biological
diversity (Anthony C. Janetos,
CONSEQUENCES)
6. All the world’s a garden
(Joel Achenbach, The
Washington Post, Jul. 10, 1992,
B5)
7. Biodiversity and
ecosystem function: The debate
deepens (J.P. Grimes, Science,
v277 n5330 p1260-1261)
8. The multifaceted aspects
of ecosystem integrity (Guilio
A. De Leo, Conservation
Ecology, v1 n1 p3)
9. Biodiversity in a vial of
sugar water (Virginia Morell,
Science, v278 n5337 p390)
10. Knowing the Earth’s
biodiversity: Challenges for the
infrastructure of systematic
biology (Stephen Blackmore,
Science, v274 n5284 p63)
11. The effects of plant
composition and diversity on
ecosystem processes (David
Hooper et al., Science, v277
n5330 p1302)
12. The influence of island
area on ecosystem properties
(David A. Wardle et al., Science,
v277 n5330 p1296)
13. The influence of functional
diversity and composition on
ecosystem processes (David
Tilman et al., Science, v277
n5330 p1300)
14. Human Nature:
Agricultural Biodiversity and
Farm-Based Food Security
(Hope Shand, Rural
Advancement Foundation
International, 1997)
15. Biodiversity:
Microbiologists explore
life’s rich, hidden kingdoms
(Robert F. Service, Science,
v275 n5307 p1740)
16. A molecular view of
microbial diversity and the
biosphere (Norman R. Pace,
Science, v276 n5313 p734)
17. Forward (E.O. Wilson, in
Susan Middleton et al., Witness
- Endangered Species of North
America)
Section II:
Biodiversity and
human population
18. The fall of a sparrow: The
passing of biological diversity
(Paul Harrison, The Third
Revolution)
19. Population and
biodiversity: A commentary
(Wolfgang Lutz, Human
Population, Biodiversity and
Protected Areas: Science and
Policy Issues)
20. Biodiversity data tables
(WRI, World Resources 1998-
99)
21. Losing strands in the
web of life (John Tuxill et al.,
State of the World 1998)
22. Vertebrates signal
biodiversity losses (John Tuxill,
Vital Signs, 1998)
23. Primate diversity
dwindling worldwide (John
Tuxill, Vital Signs, 1997)
24. Biodiversity (WRI, World
Resources 1994-95)
25. Biological diversity and
genetic resources (Geoffrey
Lean et al., Atlas of the
Environment)
26. Areas of endemism
(Geoffrey Lean et al., Atlas of
the Environment)
27. Root causes of biodiversity
loss – wildlife and habitat (WRI,
World Resources 1992-93)
28. How and Why Biological
Resources are Threatened (WRI)
Background sources 1
29. 1 in 8 plants in global study
threatened; 20-year project
warns of major diversity loss
(Curt Suplee, The Washington
Post, Apr. 8, 1998, A01)
30. 200 amphibian species
face extinction (Star Tribune
MPLS.ST.PAUL, Jun. 1, 1998, A6)
31. Heeding the seas’
vanishing species (Gary
Lee, The Washington Post
April 1, 1996, A3)
32. Extinction on the high
seas (David Malakoff, Science,
n277 v5325 n486)
33. A paleontologist looks
to the future (Charles C. Mann,
The Washington Post, Jan. 7,
1996, X8)
34. Chapter 3: Extinction
and depletion from over-
exploitation (Peter J. Bryant,
Biodiversity and Conservation)
35. Chapter 5:
Overexploitation threatening
living species (Peter J. Bryant,
Biodiversity and Conservation)
36. Gardenification of
wildland nature and the human
footprint (Daniel Janzen,
Science, v279 n5355 p1312)
37. Heeding the warning
in biodiversity’s basic law
(Michael L. Rosenzweig,
Science, v284 n5412 p276)
38. Rare habitats vie for
protection (Karen Schmidt,
Science, v274 n5289 p916)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources

39. Global nitrogen overload 52. Unique, all-taxa survey in

problem grows critical (Anne
Simon Moffat, Science, v279
n5353 p988)
40. Can cloning help save
beleaguered species?
(Jon Cohen, Science, v276
n5317 p1329)
41. Extinction and the loss of
evolutionary history (Sean Nee
et al., Science, v278 n5338 p692)
42. Wildlife harvest in
logged tropical forests (John G.
Robinson et al., Science, v284
n5414 p595)
43. Tree species diversity in
commercially logged Bornean
rainforest (Charles H. Cannon et
al., Science, v281 n5381 p1366)
44. Papers posit grave impact
of trawling (David Malakoff,
Science, v282 n5397 p2168)
45. No need to isolate
genetics (Michael E. Soul’e et
al., Science, v282 n5394 p1658)
46. Dams drain the life out of
riverbanks (Nigel Williams,
Science, v275 n5313 p683)
Why population matters –
47.
endangered species (Population
Action International)
Costa Rica “self-destructs”
(Jocelyn Kaiser, Science, v276
n5314 p893)
53. Model Indian deal
generates payments (Pallava
Bagla, Science, v283 n5408
p1614b)
54. Bioprospecting in an
African context (Lydia Makhubu,
Science, v282 n5386 p41)
55. Botanical gardens
cope with bioprospecting
loophole (Alan Dove, Science,
v281 n5381 p1273)
56. Brazil wants cut of
its biological bounty (Elizabeth
Pennisi, Science, v279 n5356
p1445)
57. Entering the century of
the environment: A new
social contract for science
(Jane Lubchenco, Science,
v279 n5350 p491)
58. Planning for biodiversity
(Stuart L. Pimm et al., Science,
v279 n5359 p2068)
59. New research horizons
(Terry E. Smith, Science, v278
n5346 p2040)

Section III: The

future of
biodiversity

48. Saving plant and

animal life: Treaty on biological
diversity offers possibility of
breakthrough (Tom Kenworthy,
The Washington Post, Jun. 1,
1992, A15)
49. A Guide to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (Lyle
Glowka et al., IUCN, 1994)
50. The convention about
life on Earth (GEF Clearing-
House Mechanism)
51. Biodiversity Prospecting:
Using Genetic Resources for
Sustainable Development
(Walter V. Reid et al., WRI)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Wetlands
Section I:
Introduction to
wetlands/wetland
types and ecology
1. Types of wetlands and
their roles in the watershed
(Water Quality Group, North
Carolina State University,
http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/
info/wetlands/types3.html)
2. Wetlands loss and
degradation (Water Quality
Group, North Carolina State
University,
http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/
info/wetlands/types3.html)
3. Types of wetlands (US
Environmental Protection
Agency)
4. What are wetlands? (US
Environmental Protection
Agency,
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/
wetlands/vital/what.html)
5. America’s wetlands: Our
vital link between land and
water (US Environmental
Protection Agency)
6. Wetlands and nature (US
Environmental Protection
Agency,
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/
wetlands/vital/nature.html)
Section II: Climate
and wetlands
7. Potential feedbacks of
northern wetlands on climate
change (Scott D. Bridgham and
Background sources 1
Carol A. Johnston, BioScience, and swine operations: A review
v45 n4 p262, Apr. 1995) (Julie Cronk, Agriculture,
Ecosystems, and Environment,
Section III: v58 p 97-114, 1996)
We t l a n d
conservation Section VII:
We t l a n d
8. Protection of wetlands and
references
coastal lands and their habitats
(Tom Kabil and Peter Bacon, 14. World’s wetlands sucked
Special Paper, XI World Forestry dry (Ian Anderson, New
Congress, p329-336, 1997) Scientist, Database: Academic
Search Elite, Record 1-5 in
S e c t i o n I V : Va l u e GEOBASE.
of wetlands 15. Wetlands of the world:
Inventory, ecology, and
9. Putting a price tag on
nature’s bounty (Wade Roush, management (Dennis Whigham,
Science, v276 n5315 p1029, May Dagmar Dykyjova, and Slavomil
16, 1997) Hejny, includes bibliographical
references and index)
S e c t i o n V : We t l a n d
mitigation/
restoration
10. Creating and restoring
wetlands (William J. Mitsch and
Xinyuan Wu et al., BioScience,
v48 n12 p1019, Dec. 1998)
11. Restored wetlands flunk
real-world test (David Malakoff,
Science, Apr. 1998)
Section VI:
Population and
wetlands
12. Population and wetlands
(National Wildlife Federation
Fact Sheet)
13. Constructed wetlands to
treat wastewater from dairy
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Climate
Section I: Climate
change and
greenhouse gases
1. Protecting the
atmosphere, Agenda 21, Chapter
9 (WRI, http://www.wri.org/
rio-5/rio5clim.html, Mar.13-19,
1997)
2. Climate change: State of
knowledge (USGCRP,
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
documents/CCSOKNOW.html)
3. Climate brief: Searching
for a green-house fingerprint
(WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, p173, 1998)
4. The science of climate
change (Tom M.L. Wigley,
http://www.pewclimate.org/proj
ects/index.cfm, 1999)
5. Climate change
information kit (UNEP
Information Unit for Conventions,
p1-66, http://www.unep.ch/iuc/
submenu/infokit/factcont.htm,
May 1999)
6. The greenhouse effect:
An interdisciplinary perspective
(Moti Nissani, Population and
Environment, v17 n6 p459-487,
Jul. 1996)
7. Can the climate treaty
stop this? (World Watch, v11 n6,
Dec. 1998)
8. Global temperature
reaches record high (Molly
O’Meara, in Lester Brown et al.
(eds), Vital Signs, p69, 1998)
9. Power surge: Energy use
and emissions continue to rise
(WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, p170-173, 1998)
10. Carbon emissions resume
rise (Seth Dunn, in Lester
Brown et al. (eds), Vital Signs,
p66, 1998)
11. Top ten greenhouse gas
emitters (WRI, World
Resources, p201, 1994)
12. Carbon dioxide emissions
from the use of fossil fuels
in Asia: An overview (Toufiq A.
Siddiqi, Ambio, v25 n4 p229,
Jun. 1996)
13. An estimation of methane
emissions from agricultural
activities in China (Dong
Hongmin et al., Ambio, v25 n4
p292, Jun. 1996)
14. Chill in the air
(New Scientist,
http://www.newscientist.com/
ns/19990501/chillinthe.html,
May 1, 1999)
15. Climate forcings in
the industrial era (James E.
Hansen et al., Proceedings
of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, v95
p12753-12758, Oct. 1998)
16. A common-sense climate
index: Is climate changing
noticeably? (James Hansen et
al., Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, v95
p4113-4120, Apr. 1998)
17. Can increasing carbon
dioxide cause climate change?
(Richard S. Lindzen,
Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, v94
p8335-8342, Aug. 1997)
18. Greenhouse wars (Fred
Pearce, New Scientist, p38,
Jul. 19, 1997)
19. Greenhouse forecasting
still cloudy (Richard A. Kerr,
Science, v276, May 16, 1997)
20. Climate Change and
Human Health, Executive
Summary (USGCRP,
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
WHO/WHOEXEC.html)
21. Climate change and
human health (Population and
Development Review, v23 n1,
Mar. 1997)
22. Ecology of increasing
disease (David Pimentel et al.,
Bioscience, v48 n10 p817)
23. Malarial range set to
spread in a warmer world
(David Sharp, Lancet, v347
n9015 p1612)
24. Climate change:
A greener North (Inez Fung,
Nature, v386 n6626 p659-660,
Apr. 17, 1997)
25. Increased plant growth
in the northern high latitudes
from 1981 to 1991 (R.B. Myneni
et al., Nature, v386 n6626
p698-702, Apr. 17, 1997)
26. Plant responses to global
changes in CO2: Unfinished
business? (Christophe Thebaud,
Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
v12 p425, Nov. 11, 1997)
Background sources 1
27. Food, Agriculture, and
Climate Change: The US and
International Outlook (Cynthia
Rosenzweig and William E.
Easterling (speakers), USGCRP,
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
seminars/9717DD.html)
28. Agriculture and Global
Climate Change, Executive
Summary (Richard M. Adams,
Brian H. Hurd and John Reill,
http://www.pewclimate.org/
projects/index.cfm, 1999)
29. Climate change and
world food supply, special
issues of global environmental
change and food policy (A.
Barrie Pittock, Environment,
v37 p25-30, Nov. 1995)
30. 5.3.2 Human-induced
perturbations to biodiversity
(V.H. Heywood (ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment,
p318-323, 1995)
31. Global climate:
Greenhouse effect and
global climate change
(Congressional Research
Service, http://www.cnie.org/
nle/crsreports/briefingbooks/
climate)
32. 89005: Global climate
change (Wayne A. Morrissey
and John R. Justus,
http://www.cnie.org/nle/
crsreports/climate/clim-2.cfm,
May 13, 1999)
33. Human influence on the
atmospheric vertical
temperature structure:
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Detection and observations
(Simon F.B. Tett et al., Science,
v274 n5290 p1170)
34. Uncertainities in
projections of human-caused
climate warming (J.D. Mahlman,
Science, v278 n5342 p1416)
35. Evidence for human
influence on climate from
hemispheric temperature
relations (Robert K. Kaufman
and David I. Stern, Nature, v388
n6637 p39-44, Jul. 3, 1997)
36. A search for human
influences on the thermal
structure of the atmosphere
(B.D. Santer et al., Nature, v382
n6586 p39-46, Jul. 4, 1996)
37. Simulated response of
the ocean carbon cycle to
anthropogenic climate
warming (Jorge L. Sarmiento et
al., Nature, v393 n6586
p245-249, May 1998)
Section II: Climate
change and human
population
38. Population and Global
Warming (Wolfgang Lutz et al.,
IIASA, Apr. 30, 1996)
39. Population, carbon
emissions, and global
warming: The forgotten
relationship at Kyoto (Frederick
A.B. Meyerson, Population and
Development Review, v24 n1
p115-130, Mar. 1998)
40. Population, carbon
emissions, and global
warming: Comment (Paul
DeSa, Population and
Development Review, v24
n1 p797-803, Mar. 1998)
41. Climate, population
and UNCED+5 (Lindsey Grant,
http://www.npg.org/
forum_series/sustainability_3.
htm, Oct. 1997)
42. Chapter 11: The effect of
changing climate on population
(Nathan Keyfitz, in Irving M.
Mintzer (ed.), Confronting
Climate Change, SEI)
43. Population and global
warming with and without CO2
targets (Stuart R. Gaffin, et al.,
Population and Environment,
v18 n4 p389-413, Mar. 1997)
44. Population growth could
affect global warming (Stuart R.
Gaffin and Brian C. O’Neill, EDF
News, v27 n6, Nov. 1996)
45. Global warming policy:
Population left out in the
cold (John Bongaarts and Brian
C. O’Neill, Environment, v39 n9
p40, Nov. 1997)
Population and Climate
46.
Change (National Wildlife
Federation, Fact Sheet,
http://www.nwf.org/population/
climate.html)
47. Profiles in Carbon:
An Update on Population,
Consumption, and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions (Robert
Engleman, Population
Action International, 1998)
48. Stabilizing the
Atmosphere: Population,
Consumption and Greenhouse
Gases (Robert Engleman,
Population Action
International, 1994)
49. The greenhouse gas
methane (CH4): Sources
and sinks, the impact of
population growth, possible
interventions (Gerhard K.
Heilig, Population and
Environment, v16 n2, Nov. 1994)
50. Population, consumption
patterns and climate change: A
socioeconomic perspective
from the South (Jyoti K. Parikh
and J.P. Painuty, Ambio, v23 n7
p434-437, Nov. 1994)
51. Population, consumption
and atmospheric equity (Robert
Engleman, Population Action
International, Linkages Journal,
Background sources
v4 n1, http://www.iisd.ca/
linkages/journal/, Feb. 1, 1999)
52. Global warming and
population growth: Inseparable
(Werner Fornos, Christian
Science Monitor, v89 n145 p19,
Jun. 23, 1997)
53. The effect of population
on global climate change
(Tonalee Carlson Key,
http://www.cnie.org/pop/intros/
globalclimate1.htm)
54. The terrestrial carbon
cycle: Implications for the Kyoto
Protocol (IGBP Terrestrial
Carbon Working Group,
Science, v280 n5368 p1393)
55. Understanding Climate
Change: A Beginner’s Guide to
the UN Framework Convention
(IUC, http://www.unfccc.de/
resource/beginner.html,
Jan. 1997)
56. The Convention and
Kyoto Protocol (UNFCC,
http://www.unfccc.de/resource/
convkp.html, Jul. 13, 1999)
57. 98-2: Global climate
change treaty: The Kyoto
Protocol (Susan R. Fletcher,
Feb. 4, 1999)
58. 89005: Global climate
change II (Wayne A. Morrissey
and John R. Justus,
http://www.cnie.org/nle/
clim-24.html, May 13, 1999)
59. Greenhouse gas emission
abatement: Equitable burden
sharing (Fayen D’Evie and John
Taylor, Ambio, v28 n2 p148,
Mar. 1999)
60. The Kyoto Protocol: CO2,
CH4 and climate implications
(T.M.L. Wigley, Geophysical
Research Letters, v25 n13
p2285-2288, Jul. 1, 1998)
61. Pollution permits
for greenhouse gases?
(Jocelyn Kaiser, Science,
v282 n5391 p1025)
62. The key to the success of
the Kyoto Protocol: Integrity,
accountability and compliance
(Annie Petsonk and Chad
Carpenter, Linkages Journal,
http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/
journal/, v4 n2, May 28, 1999)
63. A low-cost way to control
climate change (Byron Swift,
Issues in Science and
Technology, p75-81, Spring 1998)
64. Ministerial talks on
climate change set for 2-4
November in Bonn (United
Nations, http://www.unfccc.int/
press/pr699sb.html,
Jun. 11, 1999)
65. Climate talks to start
drafting rulebook for Kyoto
emissions cuts (United Nations,
http://www.unfccc.de/press/
pr5-99.htm, May 1999)
66. 84 signatories to the
Kyoto Protocol (United Nations,
http://www.unfccc.int/press/
presse/presskp.html,
Mar. 16, 1999)
67. Greenhouse gas deadline
pact (Vanessa Houlder,
Financial Times, Nov. 16, 1998)
68. Anticipated climate
changes in a high-CO2 world:
Implications for long-term
planning (Jerry D. Mahlman
(speaker), USGCRP,
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
seminars/9799DD.html)
69. World responds to climate
change and ozone loss (Alan
Miller and Mack McFarland,
Forum for Applied Research
and Public Policy, v11 p55-63,
Summary, 1996)
70. Kyoto and beyond (Robert
M. White, Issues in Science and
Technology, p59-65, Spring 1998)
71. Implementing the Kyoto
Protocol (Rob Coppock, Issues
in Science and Technology,
p66-74, Spring 1998)
72. Bogging down in the sinks
(Ashley T. Mattoon, World Watch,
v11 n6 p28-36, Nov./Dec. 1998)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Section III:
Climate change
and the future
73. Global change and
coral reefs: impacts on reefs,
economies and human
cultures (Clive R. Wilkinson,
Global Change Biology, v2
p547-558, 1996)
74. Ecological and
socioeconomic impacts of 1998
coral mortality in the Indian
Ocean: An ENSO impact and a
warning of future change (Clive
Wilkinson et al., Ambio, v28 n2
p188, Mar. 99)
75. Climate change,
hurricanes and tropical storms,
and rising sea level in coastal
wetlands (William K. Michener
et al., Ecological Applications,
v7 n3 p770-801, 1997)
76. Abrupt climate changes
revisited: How serious and how
likely? (Richard B. Alley and
Peter B. deMenocal (speakers),
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
seminars/980217DD.html)
77. Global warming and the
Earth’s water cycle: What do the
changes mean and why be
concerned? (Thomas R. Karl
(speaker), http://www.usgcrp.
gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.
html)
78. Sea Level Rise –
Global Vulnerability
Assessment Atlas (CZMC
http://www.minvenw.nl/rws/
projects/netcoast/gva/, 1992)
79. Water resources and
climate change (Kenneth
Frederick, http://www.rff.org/
issue_briefs/summaries/
ccbrf3.htm, Jun. 1997)
80. Carbon Sinks in the Post-
Kyoto World (Roger A. Sedjo et
al., RFF Climate Issue Brief #12,
http://www.weathervane.rff.org/
features/feature050.html,
Oct. 1998)
Background sources 3
81. Changes in carbon
sources and sinks: The outlook
for climate change and
managing carbon in the future
(Pieter Tans, Jorge L.
Sarmiento and William H.
Schlesinger (speakers),
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/
seminars/981201DD.html)
82. Converting terrestrial
ecosystems from sources to
sinks of carbon (Richard A.
Houghton, Ambio, v23 n4
p267-271, Jun. 1996)
83. Greenhouse gas
mitigation strategies:
Preliminary results from the
US Country Studies Program
(Robert K. Dixon et al., Ambio,
v25 n1 p26-33, Feb. 1996)
84. Greenhouse gas
emissions inventory and
mitigation strategies for Asian
and Pacific countries: Summary
of workshop presentations and
working group discussions
(Hoesung Lee et al., Ambio,
v25 n4 p220-229, Jun. 1996)
85. Technology options
for CO2 mitigation in China
(He Jiankun et al., Ambio, v25
n4 p249-253, Jun. 1996)
86. Costs of reducing carbon
emissions from the energy
sector: A comparison of China,
India, and Brazil (Jayant
Sathaye et al., Ambio, v 25 n4
p262-267, Jun. 1996)
87. What Might a Developing
Country Climate Commitment
Look Like? (Kevin A. Baumert
et al., World Resources
Institute, May 1999)
88. Burying the problem
(David Schneider, Scientific
American, Jan. 1998)
89. Fossil fuels without CO2
emissions (E.A. Parson and
D.W. Keith, Science, v282 n5391
p1053)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Coasts
Section I: Coastal
systems
1. Coastal systems
(V.H. Heywood (ed.) Global
Biodiversity Assessment,
p37, 1995)
2. Ecosystems on the edge
(Don Hinrichsen, The Amicus
Journal, v18, Winter 1997)
3. Abandoned Seas (Peter
Weber, Worldwatch Paper 116,
Nov. 1993)
4. Coasts in crisis (Don
Hinrichsen, Issues in Science
and Technology, p39, Summer
1996)
5. A sea of troubles (Kieran
Mulvaney, E magazine, v9 n1
p28-35, Jan./Feb. 1998)
6. Dying seas (Anne E. Platt,
World Watch, p10, Jan./Feb.
1995)
7. Mangrove systems
(V.H. Heywood (ed.) in Global
Biodiversity Assessment,
p387, 1995)
8. A mangrove is more than
just a tree... (AIMS, 1998)
9. Mangroves and their
products (AIMS, 1999)
10. The global conservation
status of mangroves (Elizabeth
J. Farnsworth and Aaron
M. Ellison, Ambio, v26 n6
p328-334, Sept. 1997)
11. The global distribution
and status of mangrove
ecosystems (Mark D. Spalding,
Intercoast Network – Mangrove
Edition, p20, Fall 1998)
12. Mangroves and other
coastal forests (Junaid K.
Choudhury, XI World Forstry
Congress, v6 Topic 36.6,
Antalya, Turkey, Oct. 13-22,
1997) http://www.fao.org/
montes/foda/wforcong/PUBLI/
V6/T386E/DEFAULT.HTM)
13. Stirring up the
Chesapeake’s cradle of
life (Jocelyn Kaiser, Science,
v281 n5374 p196)
14. Salt marshes (John M.
Teal, Oceanus, p13, Spring/
Summer 1998)
15. Natural and human-
induced disturbance of
seagrasses (Frederick T.
Short et al., Enviromental
Conservation, p17-27, 1996)
16. Marine botanical
communities in southern
Mozambique: Sea grass
and seaweed diversity and
conservation (Salomoa
Olinda Bandeira, Ambio, v2
n7-8, Dec. 1995)
17. Great Lakes Erosion Fact
sheet (Great Lakes Hydraulics
and Hydrology Branch)
18. Coastal zone typology
(Dutch Coastal Zone
Management Center)
19. Natural processes
(Dutch Coastal Zone
Management Center)
20. CZM and the coast
sub-system (Dutch Coastal
Zone Management Center)
21. Coastal-zone biodiversity
patterns (G. Carleton Ray,
BioScience, v41 n7, Jul./Aug.
1991)
22. Varying effects of low
dissolved oxygen on trophic
interactions in an estuarine
food web (Denise L. Breitburg,
et al., Ecological Monographs,
p489-507, 1997)
23. Mangrove biodiversity and
ecosystem function (Christopher
B. Field et al., Global Ecology
and Biogeography Letters, v7
p3-14, 1998)
24. Global patterns of pre-
dispersal propagule predation
in mangrove forests (Elizabeth
J. Farnsworth, et al., Biotropica,
v29 n3 p318-330, 1997)
25. Ecological role of
grapsid crabs in mangrove
ecosystems: A review (S.Y. Lee,
Mar. Freshwater Res., v49
p335-343, 1998)
26. Utilisation of mangroves
and seagrasses by fishes in
the Negombo Estuary, Sri
Lanka (L. Pinto et al., Marine
Biology, v126 p333-345, 1996)
27. Larvae dispersion in
coral reefs and mangroves
(Eric Wolanski et al., American
Scientist, v85 p236-46,
May/Jun. 1997)
28. Oceans and coasts:
Facts about oceans and coasts
Background sources 1
(World Resources Institute,
http://www.wri.org/facts/
oceans.html)
29. Mangrove vegetation: An
evolutionary perspective (P.
Saenger, Mar. Freshwater Res.,
v49 p277-286, 1998)
30. Coastlines at Risk:
An Index of Potential
Development-Related Threats
to Coastal Ecosystems (Dirk
Bryant et al., WRI)
31. Overview of regional
status and trends (United
Nations Environment
Programme, GEO-1,
http://www.unep.org/unep/
eia/geo1/exsum/ex3.htm, 1997)
32. Polar regions (United
Nations Environment
Programme, GEO-1, Chapter 2:
Regional perspectives,
http://www.unep.org/unep/
eia/geo1/ch/ch2_15.htm, 1997)
33. Latin America and the
Carribean (United Nations
Environment Programme,
GEO-1, Chapter 2:
Regional perspectives,
http://www.unep.org/unep/
eia/geo1/ch/ch2_9.htm, 1997)
34. Europe and CIS countries
(United Nations Environment
Programme, GEO-1, Chapter 2:
Regional perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/geo1/
ch/ch2_7.htm, 1997)
35. Asia and the Pacific
(United Nations Environment
Programme, GEO-1, Chapter 2:
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Regional perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/geo1/
ch/ch2_5.htm, 1997)
36. Africa (United Nations
Environment Programme,
GEO-1, Chapter 2: Regional
perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/
geo1/ch/ch2_3.htm, 1997)
37. West Asia (United Nations
Environment Programme,
GEO-1, Chapter 2:
Regional perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/
geo1/ch/ch2_13.htm, 1997)
38. The Arctic (United Nations
Environment Programme,
GEO-1, Chapter 2:
Regional perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/
geo1/ch/ch2_16.htm, 1997)
39. North America (United
Nations Environment
Programme, GEO-1, Chapter
2: Regional perspectives,
http://grid2.cr.usgs.gov/geo1/
ch/ch2_11.htm, 1997)
Section II: Coasts
and human
population
40. Coastal population growth
(Don Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters
of the World, Chapter 1, 1998)
41. Humanity and the world’s
coasts: A status report (Don
Hinrichsen, The Amicus Journal,
v18 n4 p16, Winter 1997)
42. Estimates of coastal
populations (Joel E. Cohen et
al., Science, v278 n5341 p1209c)
43. Perception and reality:
Assessing priorities for
sustainable development in the
Niger River Delta (David Moffat
et al., Ambio, v24 n7-8, Dec.
1995)
44. Coastal demographics
and development patterns
(Jeffrey A. Zinn, Oceans and
Coastal Resources: A Briefing
Book Congressional Research
Service Report 97 - 588 ENR,
http://www.cnie.org/nle/
crsreports/briefingbooks/oceans)
45. Holding the world at bay
(Susan Pollack, Sierra, v81
p50-5, May/Jun. 1996)
46. Economic values of
ecological services from a
mangrove ecosystem (Miguel
A. Cabrera et al., Intercoast
Network – Mangrove Edition,
Fall 1998)
47. Mangrove management
and utilization in Eastern Africa
(A.K. Semesi, Ambio, v27 n8,
Dec. 1998)
48. Men, women and natural
resources in Kwale District,
Kenya (Scolastica A. Juma,
Ambio, v27 n8, Dec. 1998)
49. Different kinds of
mangrove forests provide
different goods and services
(Katherine C. Ewel et al., Global
Ecology and Biogeography
Letters, v7 p83-94, 1998)
50. Trade-offs of mangrove
area development in the
Philippines (Donna J.
Nickerson, Ecological
Economics 28, p279-298, 1999)
51. Paradise threatened:
Land use and erosion on
St. John, US Virgin Islands
(Lee H. MacDonald et al.,
Environmental Management,
v21 n6 p851-863, 1997)
52. Environmental economics
in estuary management: The
Peconic Estuary Program
(James J. Opaluch et al.,
Intercoast Network – Mangrove
Edition, Fall 1998)
53. The economic valuation of
saltwater marsh supporting
marine recreational fishing in
the southeastern United States
(Frederick W. Bell, Ecological
Economics 21, p243-254, 1997)
54. Coastal and fisheries
resources in danger (Don
Background sources
Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters of
the World, Chapter 2, 1998)
55. A fisherman’s tale
(Survey 4 of 7) (The Economist,
n2520, May 23, 1998)
56. Fishing destroys kelp
beds, study finds (The Dominion
(Wellington), Jun. 17, 1999)
57. Florida Bay’s Troubled
Fisheries: The Everglades
Connection (WWF)
58. “No-take” zones
spark fisheries debate (Karen
F. Schmidt, Science, v277
n5325 p489)
59. GESAMP: Integration of
aquaculture into coastal
management (FAO Fisheries
Department, http://www.fao.org/
waicent/faoinfo/fishery/
meetings/gesamp/wg31cm.asp)
60. Danger, shrimps at work
(John Krebs, New Scientist,
Feb. 21, 1998)
61. From small beginnings
(George Chamberlain, New
Scientist, Mar. 21, 1998)
62. Environmental impact of
prawn farming on Dutch Canal:
The main water source for the
prawn culture industry in Sri
Lanka (A.S.L.E. Corea et al.,
Ambio, v24 n7-8, Dec. 1995)
63. Self-pollution: A major
threat to the prawn farming
industry in Sri Lanka (Agnes
Corea et al., Ambio, v27 n8,
Dec. 1998)
64. Fluxes and mass balances
of nutrients in a semi-intensive
shrimp farm in north-western
Mexico (F. Paez-Osuna et al.,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, v34
n5 p290-297, 1997)
65. Abandoned shrimp ponds:
Options for mangrove
rehabilitation (N.J. Stevenson et
al., Intercoast Network –
Mangrove Edition, Fall 1998)
66. Aquaculture in
Madagascar’s Mahajamba Bay
(M. Rasolofoharinoro et al.,
Intercoast Network)
67. Market opportunities for
addressing the environmental
and social impacts of wild-
captured and pond-produced
shrimp (Jason W. Clay,
Intercoast Network - Mangrove
Edition, Fall 1998)
68. Farming and physiology of
the red algae Eucheuma:
Growing commercial
importance in East Africa
(Jonas Collen et al., Ambio, v24
n7-8, Dec. 1995)
69. Some environmental
aspects of open water algal
cultivation: Zanzibar, Tanzania
(Ron W. Johnstone, Ambio, v24
n7-8, Dec. 1995)
70. The development of
open-water algae farming
in Zanzibar: Reflections on
the socioeconomic impact
(Per Pettersson-Lofquist,
Ambio, v24 n7-8, Dec. 1995)
71. An introduction to marine
pollution (http://environment.
tqn.com/library/weekly
/aa010498.htm, Jan. 1, 1998)
72. Cleaning up the seas
(Bruce McKay and Kieran
Mulvaney, People and the
Planet, v7 n2, p14, 1998)
73. On the edge (The
Economist, n2395, May 1998)
74. Nutrient biogeochemistry
of the coastal zone (T.D. Jickells,
Science, v281 n5374 p217)
75. Is coastal eutrophication
out of control (Janet Pelly,
Environmental Science
and Technology News, 462A,
Oct.1, 1998)
76. Human impact on
nitrate export: An analysis
using major world rivers (Nina
F. Caraco et al., Ambio, v28 n2,
p167, Mar. 1999)
77. Effects of stormwater
nutrient discharges on
eutrophication processes in
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
nearshore waters of the Florida
Keys (Brian E. Lapointe et al.,
Estuaries, v19 n2B p422-435,
Jun. 1996)
78. Coastal eutrophication and
harmful algal blooms:
Importance of atmospheric
deposition and groundwater as
“new” nitrogen and other
nutrient sources (Hans W. Paerl,
Limnology Oceanology, v42 n5
(part 2) p1154-1165, 1997)
79. Trends in the types,
amounts, and toxicity of
pesticides used in Tanzania
(Avil J. Mmochi et al., Ambio,
v27 n8 p669, Dec. 1998)
80. Nitrogen pollution in the
European Union - an economy-
environment confrontation
(Ester Van Der Voet et al.,
Environmental Conservation,
v23 n3 p198-206, 1996)
81. Influence of grazing and
nitrogen loading on benthic
microalgal biomass in estuaries
of Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts
(Elisabeth J. Duffy et al., The
Biological Bulletin, v193 n2
p285-286, 1999)
82. Variability in responses
to nutrients and trace
elements, and transmission
of stressor effects through
an estuarine food web (Denise
L. Breitburg et al., Limnology
and Oceanography, v44 n3
(part 2) p837-863, 1999)
83. Marine debris kills and
injures (Center For Marine
Conservation, http://www.cmc-
ocean.org/mdio/facts.php3)
84. Coastal debris (EPA Office
of Water, http://www.epa.gov/
OWOW/coastal/debris.html)
85. Beach sweeping and
ocean keeping (Sea Frontiers,
v39 n4 p30, Jul. 1993)
86. A word from the
International Oceanographic
Foundation (Kurt C. Heinonen,
Sea Frontiers, v40 p10,
Dec. 1994)
87. New study traces
Padre Island trash to shrimpers
(M. Katherine Heinrich,
National Parks, v69 p21-3,
Sep./Oct. 1995)
88. Lessons from the
experimental oiling of mature
mangroves (AIMS Research,
http://www.aims.gov.au/
pages/research/mangroves/
exp-oiling01.html)
89. The 1997-1998 mass
bleaching event around the
world (AIMS Research,
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/
research/coral-bleaching/
1997-98-mbe/mbe-01.html)
90. Large-scale damage to
mangrove forests following two
large oil spills in Panama
(Norman C. Duke, Biotropica,
v29 n1 p2-14, 1997)
91. Retention and distribution
of heavy metals in mangrove
soils receiving wastewater
(N.F.Y. Tam et al.,
Environmental Pollution,
v94 n3 p283-291, 1996)
92. Concentrations and
spatial distrubution of trace
metals in mangrove sediments
from the Brisbane River,
Australia (A.P. Mackey,
Environmental Pollution,
v90 n2 p181-186, 1995)
93. Effects of wastewater
discharge on microbial
populations and enzyme
activities in mangrove soils
(N.Y.Y. Tam, Environmental
Pollution, v102 p233-242, 1998)
94. Health ecological and
economic dimensions of Global
Change Program (Health
Ecological and Economic
Dimensions of Global Change
Program. Marine Ecosystems:
Emerging Disease as Indicators
of Change, Dec. 1998)
95. Shellfish – molluscs and
crustacea (Health Ecological
and Economic Dimensions of
Global Change Program.
Marine Ecosystems: Emerging
Disease as Indicators of
Change, Dec. 1998)
96. Conclusions and
recommendations (Health
Ecological and Economic
Dimensions of Global Change
Program. Marine Ecosystems:
Emerging Disease as Indicators
of Change, Dec. 1998)
97. Appendix II: The cost of
the Pfiesteria outbreak,
Summer 1997 (Health
Ecological and economic
Dimensions of Global Change
Program. Marine Ecosystems:
Emerging Disease as Indicators
of Change, Dec. 1998)
98. Harmful Algae News (The
Intergovernmental
Oceanographic Commision of
UNESCO, n18, Jan. 1999)
99. Marine pollution and
coral reefs (Zvy Dubinsky et al.,
Global Change Biology, v2
p511-526)
100. Death by suffocation in the
Gulf of Mexico (David Malakoff,
Science, v281 n5374 p190)
101. Conservation biology:
What killed the monk seals?
(John Harwood, Nature, v393
p17-18, 1998)
102. Did algal toxins cause
monk seal mortality? (Mauro
Hernandez et al., Nature, v393
p28-29, 1998)
103. Accelerating invasion rate
in a highly invaded estuary
(Andrew N. Cohen et al.,
Science, v279 n5350 p555)
104. Mangroves as alien
species: the case of Hawaii
(James A. Allen, Global Ecology
and Biogeography Letters, v7
p61-71, 1998)
105. Bering Sea fish and
wildlife affected by combination
Background sources 3
of environmental changes and
human activity (National
Research Council, Feb. 21, 1996)
106. Foiling the zebra mussel
(S. Jerrine Nichols, National
Wildlife, v36 n3 p10, Apr./
May 1998)
107. Troubled waters in
North Pacific (The New York
Times, Jan. 13, 1999)
108. Killer whale predation on
sea otters linking oceanic and
nearshore ecosystems (J.A.
Estes et al., Science, v282
n5388 p473)
109. Coastal marine
communities: Trends, and
perspectives from human-
exclusion experiments (Juan
Carlos Castilla, Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, v14 n7
p280, Jul. 1999)
110. Human disturbance and
long term changes on a rocky
intertidal community (Loana
Addessi, Ecological Applications,
v4 n4 p786-797, 1994)
111. Recovery from small-
scale anthropogenic
disturbances by northern
California salt marsh plant
assemblages (Stuart K. Allison,
Ecological Applications, v5 n3
p693-702, 1995)
112. Assesment of coastal
vulnerabilty to climate change
(Richard J.T. Klein et al., Ambio,
v28 n2, Mar. 1999)
113. Climate warming and the
decline of zooplankton in the
California current (Dean
Roemmich, Science, v267 n5202
p1324, Mar. 3, 1995)
114. Climate-ocean variability
and ecosystem response in the
Northeast Pacific (John A.
McGowan et al., Science, v281
n5374 p210)
115. Natural resource
management in mitigating
climate impacts: The example
of mangrove restoration in
4 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Vietnam (Nguyen Hoang Tri,
Global Environmental Change,
v8 n1 p49-61, 1998)
116. Tragedy of Commons??? -
Land-based marine pollution
(Klaudiusz Wesolek,
http://www.geocities.com/
CapitolHill/7803/eco.html,
May 18, 1997)
117. Introduction (Commission
on Sustainable Development:
Fourth Session,
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
iacsd.htm, 1996)
118. Addendum (Commission
on Sustainable Development:
Fourth Session, http://usinfo.
state.gov/topical/global/environ
/latest/00042501.htm, 1996)
119. Aquatic risk assessment
of chemicals: Is it working?
(Peter Matthiessen,
Environmental Science and
Technology, Oct. 1, 1998)
120. The role of the Ramsar
Convention in mangrove
management (Peter R. Bacon,
Intercoast Network – Mangrove
Edition, Fall 1998)
121. The reality of the
stomach: Coastal management
at the local level in Eastern
Africa (David Moffat et al.,
Ambio, v27 n8 p590, Dec. 1998)
122. Coastal zone
management in Eastern Africa
including the island states: A
review of issues and initiatives
(Christine A. Coughanowr et al.,
Ambio, v24 n7-8, Dec. 1995)
123. Coastal resource
management in Cuba (M.
Kyewalyanga, Ambio, v27
n8 p766, Dec. 1998)
124. SEACAM: Coastal zone
management in Eastern Africa
has taken a new approach
(Custodio Voabil et al., Ambio,
v27 n8 p448, Dec. 1998)
125. The challenge of
integrated management
(Netcoast, http://www.
netcoast.nl/info/coast.htm)
126. Lessons learned from
practicing integrated coastal
management in Southeast Asia
(Chua Thia-Eng, Ambio, v27 n8,
Dec. 1998)
127. A learning-based
approach to coastal
management (Stephen B. Olsen
et al., Ambio, v27 n8, Dec. 1998)
128. Using integrated coastal
management and economics to
conserve coastal tourism
resources in Sri Lanka (Alan T.
White et al., Ambio, v26 n6
p599, Sep. 1997)
Section III: Coasts
and the future
129. Perception and reality:
Assessing priorities for
sustainable development in the
Niger River Delta (David Moffat
and Olof Linden, Ambio, v24
n7-8 p527, Dec. 1995)
130. Marine resource use and
the establishment of a marine
park: Mafia Island, Tanzania
(Jessica E.C. Andersson et al.,
Ambio, v24 n7-8 p475, Dec. 1995)
131. User groups play key role
in St. Lucia (Mathias Burt et al.,
Intercoast Network - Mangrove
Edition, Fall 1998)
132. Key principles towards
effective management of
coastal and marine resources
(Australian Nature Conservancy
Agency, Marine Protected
Areas and Biosphere Reserves:
Towards a New Paradigm,
http://www.unesco.org/mab/br/
brbullet/br3_05b.htm)
133. Protected area buzzwords:
An attempt to define some
current terminology in a more
meaningful way (D.J.
Brunckhorst, Marine Protected
Areas and Biosphere Reserves:
Towards a New Paradigm)
Background sources
134. A novel approach to Field, Intercoast Network-
identify and select core reserve Mangrove Edition, Fall 1998
areas, and to apply UNESCO http://www.ncl.ac.uk/
biosphere reserve principles to tcmweb/rehab/)
the coastal marine realm (D.J. 143. Rationales and practices
Brunckhorst et al., Marine of mangrove afforestation
Protected Areas and Biosphere (Colin Field, Mar. Freshwater
Reserves: Towards a New Res., v49 p353-358, 1998)
Paradigm, http://www.une. 144. Mangrove restoration: A
edu.au/ecosys/brunck/ potential tool for coastal
MAB_PAPR.htm) management in tropical
135. What are coastal and developing countries (Ursula
marine protected areas Kaly, Ambio, v27 n8, Dec. 1998)
supposed to do? (Frank M. 145. Developing procedures
Potter, Marine Protected for the sustainable use of
Areas and Biosphere Reserves: mangrove systems (Tom Franks
Towards a New Paradigm, et al., Agricultural Water
http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/ Management, v40 p56-64, 1999)
mpa/) 146. European marine
136. The role of monitoring in protection agreement aims
environmental management for zero discharges (ENDS
(Charles A. Jacoby, Marine Environment Daily,
Protected Areas and Biosphere http://www.ends.co.uk)
Reserves: Towards a New
Paradigm, http://www.ea.gov.au/
coasts/mpa/)
137. Marine reserves are
necessary but not sufficient for
marine conservation (Gary
Allison et al., Ecological
Applications, Jun. 1996)
138. Chapter 3: Managing
coastal areas sustainably (Don
Hinrichsen, Coastal Waters of
the World, p31-43, 1998)
139. International experiences
in integrated coastal zone
management and future
outlook (Netcoast,
http://www.minvenw.nl/projects
/netcoast/experien/experien.)
140. Private protection of the
marine environment, Tanzania:
A case study (Thomas Sterner,
Ambio, v27 n8 p768, Dec. 1998)
141. Chapter 18: A future for
coastal seas (Don Hinrichsen,
Coastal Waters of the World,
p225-232)
142. The restoration of
mangrove ecosystems (Colin
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Coral reefs
Section I: Coral
reefs
1. Reefs at Risk (Dirk Bryant,
Lauretta Burke, Dr John
William McManus, Mark
Spalding, World Resources
Institute, 1998)
2. Coral reefs: Assessing the
threat (Leslie Roberts (ed.),
World Resources : A Guide
to the Global Environment
1998-99, p193)
3. Coral reefs (V.H. Heywood
(ed.), Global Biodiversity
Assessment, p381, 1995)
4. Reefs at risk (Australian
Institute of Marine Science,
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/
research/project-net/reefs-at-
risk/apnet-rar00.html)
5. Evolution and
zoogeography of coral reefs
(Yair Achituv and Zvy Dubinsky
in David W. Goodall and Zvy
Dubinsky (eds), Coral Reefs:
Ecosystems of the World 25,
p19, 1990)
6. Irradiance and corals
(Paul G. Falkowski, Paul L.
Jokiel, and Robert A. Kinzie III,
in David W. Goodall and Zvy
Dubinsky (eds), Coral Reefs:
Ecosystems of the World 25,
p89, 1990)
7. The role of symbiotic
algae in carbon and energy flux
in reef corals (L. Muscatine in
David W. Goodall and Zvy
Dubinsky (eds), Coral Reefs:
Ecosystems of the World 25,
p75, 1990)
8. Coral reef algae (Tamar
Berner in David W. Goodall and
Zvy Dubinsky (eds), Coral Reefs:
Ecosystems of the World 25,
p253-261, 1990)
9. Aspect of trophic
relations, productivity and
energy balance in coral reef
ecosystems (YU.I. Sorokin in
David W. Goodall and Zvy
Dubinsky (eds), Coral Reefs:
Ecosystems of the World 25,
p401, 1990)
10. Sex, symbiosis and coral
reef communities (Robert A.
Kinzie, American Zoologist, v39
n1 p80-91, Feb. 1999)
11. Coral reefs: Recruitment
in space and time (Peter F. Sale,
Nature, p25-27, Jan. 1999)
12. Threats to reefs (WRI
Coastal and Marine Resources,
http://www.wri.org/wri/indictrs/
threatrr.htm)
13. Coral reefs in crisis (Don
Hinrichsen, Bioscience, v47 n9
p554-558, Oct. 1997)
14. Integration of local and
regional perspectives on the
species richness of coral
assemblages (Ronald H.Karlson,
American Zoologist, v39
p104-112, 1999)
15. State of the Reefs:
Regional and Global
Perspectives (Stephen C.
Jameson, John W. McManus
and Mark D. Spalding,
International Coral Reef
Initiative Executive Secretariat
Background paper, May 1995,
http://www.ogp.noaa.gov/misc/
coral/sor/)
16. New estimates of global
and regional coral reef areas
(M.D. Spalding and A.M.
Grenfell, Coral Reefs, v16 p225-
230, 1997)
Section II: Coral
reefs and human
population
17. Impacts of fishing on
tropical reef ecosystems
(Simon Jennings, Ambio, v25
n1, Feb. 1996)
18. Effects of fishing on the
ecosystem structure of coral
reefs (Callum M. Roberts,
Conservation Biology, v8 n5
p988-995, 1995)
19. Equivalence in yield from
marine reserves and traditional
fisheries management (Alan
Hastings and Louis. W.
Botsford, Science, v284 n5419
p1537)
20. Marine reserves: They
enhance fisheries, reduce
conflict, and protect resources
(James A. Bohnsack, Oceanus,
p63, Fall 1993)
21. Symbiosis, fisheries
and economic development on
coral reefs (Charles Birkeland,
Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, v12 n9, Sep. 1997)
Background sources 1
22. Sullied Seas: Strategies
for Combating Cyanide Fishing
in Southeast Asia and Beyond
(Charles Victor Barber and
Vaughan R. Pratt, World
Resources Institute, 1997)
23. Fishery recovery in a coral
reef marine park and its effect
on the adjacent fishery (T.R.
McClanahan and B. Kaunda
Arara, Conservation Biology,
v10 n4 p1187-1199, 1999)
24. The Bermuda fisheries:
A tragedy of the commons
averted? (James N. Bulter et
al., Environment, Jan. 1993)
25. Effects of marine reserves
on coral reef fish communities
from five islands in New
Caledonia (L. Wantiez et al.,
Coral Reefs, v16 p215-224, 1997)
26. The effects of marine
parks and fishing on coral
reefs of Northern Tanzania
(F.R. McClanahan et al.,
Biological Conservation,
v89 p161-182, 1999)
27. White pox (Science v272
n5295 p2017)
28. Rapid wasting disease:
Pathogen or predator? (Andrew
Bruckner and Robin Bruckner,
Science, v279 n5339 p2019)
29. Coral disease (James M.
Cervino et al., Science, v280
n5363 p499-500, 1998)
30. Mass spawning by
green algae on coral reefs
(Kenneth E. Clifton, Science,
v275 n5303 p116)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
31. Coral reefs: Present
problems and future concerns
resulting from anthropogenic
disturbance (Robert H.
Richmond, American Zoologist,
v33 p524-536, 1993)
32. How coral reefs respond
to stress (AIMS Research in
Status of the Worlds Coral
Reefs, Executive Summary,
http://www.aims.gov.au/
pages/research/reefs/
wcr-status/wcr-01.html)
33. Natural and
anthropogenic disturbance on
coral reefs (Richard W. Grigg
and Steven J. Dollar in David W.
Goodall and Zvy Dubinsky (eds),
Coral Reefs: Ecosystems of the
World 25, p439-451, 1990)
34. Disturbance and recovery
of coral assemblages (J.H.
Connell, Coral Reefs v16(S)
p101-113, 1997)
35. Coral reefs of Sri Lanka:
Human disturbance and
management issues (Arjan
Rajasuirya et al., Ambio v24 n7,
Dec. 8, 1995)
36. Indonesian coral reefs: An
economic analysis of a precious
but threatened resource
(Herman Cesar et al., Ambio
v26 n6, Sep. 1997)
37. Reefs since Columbus
(J.B.C. Jackson, Coral Reefs,
v16(S) p23-32, 1997)
38. Estimates of coastal
populations (Joel E. Cohen et al.,
Science, v278 n5341 p1209c)
39. Brighter prospects for
the world’s coral reefs?
(Elizabeth Pennisi, Science,
v277 n5325 p491)
40. Hidden holocaust on the
reef (People and the Planet, v6
n2, http://www.oneworld.org/
patp/vol6_2/pressrelease.html)
41. Global Climate Change
and Coral Reefs: Implications
for People and Reefs (Clive R.
Wilkinson and Robert W.
Buddemeier, 1994)
42. The 1997-1998 mass
bleaching event around the
world (AIMS Research,
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/
research/coral-bleaching/
1997-98-mbe/mbe-00.html)
43. Coral Reefs and Global
Change: Adaptation,
Acclimation, or Extinction?
(AIMS symposium and
workshop report, Overview,
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/
research/coral-bleaching/
global-change/
global-change-00.html)
44. Geochemical
consequences of increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide on
coral reefs (Joan A. Kleypas et
al., Science, v284 n5411 p118)
45. Coral bleaching:
Causes and consequences
(B.E. Brown, Coral Reefs v16(S)
p129-138, 1997)
46. Landscape ecology of algal
symbionts creates variation in
episodes of coral bleaching (Rob
Rowan et al., Nature, v388 p265-
269, Jul. 17, 1997)
47. Coral adaptation and
acclimatization: A most
ingenious paradox (Robert W.
Buddemeier and Stephen V.
Smith, American Zoologist, v29
n1 p1-9, Feb. 1999)
48. Coral community
adaptability to environmental
change at the scales of regions,
reefs and reef zones (Terence J.
Done, American Zoologist, v39
p66-79, 1999)
49. The physiological
mechanisms of acclimatization
in tropical reef corals (Ruth D.
Gates et al., American
Zoologist, v39 p30-43, 1999)
50. Paradise threatened:
Land use and erosion on St.
John, US Virgin Islands
(Lee H. MacDonald et al.,
Background sources
Environmental Management,
v21 n6 p851-863, 1997)
51. Coralline algae, important
coral reef builders threatened
by pollution (Mats Bjork et al.,
Ambio, v24 n7-8 p502-505,
1995)
52. Coral reefs in Saudi
Arabia: 3.5 years after the Gulf
War oil spill (H.P. Vogt, Coral
Reef, v14 n4 p271-273, 1995)
53. Pollution and climate
change threaten world’s coral
reefs, says scientist, State
Department (Ocean Update, n5,
1999, http://www.seaweb.org/
resources/archives.html)
54. Estimating the carrying
capacity of coral reefs for
scuba diving (Julie P. Hawkins
and Callum M. Roberts, Proc
8th Int Coral Reef Sym, v2
p1923-1926, 1997)
55. Effectiveness of coral
protection programmes in
the Ras Mohammed National
Park, Egyptian Red Sea (Rupert
Ormond et al., Proc 8th
Int Coral Reef Sym, v2
p1931-1936, 1997)
56. Effect of briefings on
rates of damage to corals by
scuba divers (D. Medio et al.,
Biological Conservation, v79
p91-95, 1997)
57. The effect of visitor use on
the hard coral communities of
the Kisite Marine Park, Kenya
(N.A. Muthiga and T.R.
McClanahan, Proc 8th Int Coral
Reef Sym, v2 p1879-1882, 1997)
58. Recreational diving and its
impact in marine protected
areas in Eastern Australia (Vicki
J. Harriott et al., Ambio, v26 n3
p173-179, 1997)
59. Marine bioprospecting
for the National Cancer Institute
(Coral Reef Research Foundation
in Palau, Reef Research,
http://www.reefnet.org/issue7/
research7.html)
60. Maldives on the beach
(The Economist, Jan. 9, 1999)
61. The International Coral
Reef Initiative (ICRI): Global
priorities for the conservation
and management of coral reefs
and the need for partnerships
(I.J. Dight and L.M. Shert, Coral
Reefs, v16(S) p139-147, 1997)
62. International Coral Reef
Initiative Report to the UNCSD
(http://www.nos.noaa.gov/
icri/csd/i.html)
63. Oceans and the Law of the
Sea: Overview (Division for
Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea)
Section III: Future
trends and coral
reefs
64. Coral reefs and
environmental change:
Adaptation to what? (A. Barrie
Pittock, American Zoologist,
v39 p10-39)
65. Global change and coral
reef ecosystems (S.V. Smith
and R.W. Buddemeir, Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. v23
p89-118, 1992)
66. Capacity building for
science and management in
Belize: Towards sustainable
reef management (S.M. Wells,
Proc 8th Int Coral Reef Sym, v2
p1991-1994, 1997)
67. Is ecotourism
sustainable? (Geoffrey Wall,
Environmental Management,
v21 n4 p483-491, 1997)
68. Environmental limits to
coral reef development: Where
do we draw the line? (Joan A.
Kleypas, American Zoologist,
v39 p146-159, 1999)
69. Do artificial reefs increase
regional fish production? A
review of existing data (Gary D.
Grossman, Fisheries, p17-23,
Apr. 1997)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
70. Artificial reefs: The
importance of comparisons
with natural reefs (Mark H.
Carr, Fisheries, v22 n4 p28-33,
Apr. 1997)
71. Coral transplantation
using unattached fragments
and cultured colonies (Austin
Bowden Kerby, Proc 8th Int
Coral Reef Sym, v2 p2063-2068,
1997)
72. Advance in environmental
mooring technology (J.C. Halas,
Proc 8th Int Coral Reef Sym, v2
p1995, 1997)
73. Connectivity and
management of Caribbean
coral reefs (Callum M. Roberts,
Science, v278 n5342 p1454)
74. Episodic fluctuations in
larval supply (Paul A. Dixon,
Science, v283 n5407 p1528)
75. Development of a marine
protected area: Mafia Island,
Tanzania (J. Christopher
Horrill, William R.T. Darwall,
and Magnus Ngolle, Ambio,
v25 n1, Feb. 1996)
76. Marine protected areas
and biosphere reserves:
‘Towards a new paradigm’
(F. Talbot in Marine Protected
Areas and Biosphere Reserves:
‘Towards a New Paradigm’,
Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, http://www.ea.gov.au/
coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/paradigm/
talbot.html)
77. A framework for the
contribution of the science to
effective coral reef
management (Stephen Bloye
Olsen, Proc 8th Int Coral Reef
Sym, v2 p1973-1976, 1997)
78. Coral reef management
(Wendy Craik, Richard
Kenchington, and Graeme
Kelleher in David W. Goodall
and Zvy Dubinsky (eds), Coral
Reefs: Ecosystems of the World
25, p453-467, 1990)
Background sources 3
79. Tropical marine fisheries White et al., Ambio, v26 n6
and the future of coral reefs: p335-344, 1997)
A brief review with emphasis 86. Community based whole
on Southeast Asia (J.W. watershed and coastal zone
McManus, Coral Reefs, v16(S) management in Jamaica (T.J.
p121-127, 1997) Goreau et al. Proc 8th Int Coral
80. Ecological criteria for Reef Sym, v2 p2093-2096, 1997)
evaluating coral reefs and their
implications for managers and
researchers (T.J. Done, Coral
Reefs, v14 n4 p183, 1995)
81. Marine protected areas
and biosphere reserves (the role
of monitoring in environmental
management) (Charles A.
Jacoby, in Marine Protected
Areas and Biosphere Reserves:
‘Towards a New Paradigm’,
Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, http://www.ea.gov.au/
coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/paradigm/
jacoby.html)
82. Key principles towards
effective management of
coastal and marine resources
(Marine Protected Areas and
Biosphere Reserves: ‘Towards
a New Paradigm’, Australian
Nature Conservation Agency,
http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/
mpa/nrsmpa/paradigm/)
83. Expanding the horizon(s)
of marine conservation: The
challenge of integrated coastal
management (Ian Dutton, in
Marine Protected Areas and
Biosphere Reserves: ‘Towards
a New Paradigm’, Australian
Nature Conservation Agency,
http://www.ea.gov.au/coasts/
mpa/nrsmpa/paradigm/
dutton.html)
84. Reef management in
developing countries: A
case study in the Philippines
(E.D. Gomez, Coral Reefs,
n16(S) p3-8, 1997)
85. Using integrated coastal
management and economics to
conserve coastal tourism
resources in Sri Lanka (Alan T.
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Drylands
Section I:
Introduction to
drylands
1. The Earth’s drylands
(Smithsonian Institute)
2. What are rangelands?
(ICIMOD, http://www.icimod.
org.sg/focus/rangelands/
rangebasic.htm)
3. What is a desert? (USGS,
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/
deserts/what/)
Section II: Dryland
ecology
4. Regular and irregular
patterns in semiarid vegetation
(Christopher A. Klausmeier,
Science, v284 p1826-1828,
Jun. 1999)
5. Quantitative effects of
grazing on vegetation and
soils over a global range of
environments (D.G. Milchunas
and W.K. Laueroth, Ecological
Monographs, v63 n4
p327-366, 1993)
6. Influence of nitrogen
loading and species
composition on the carbon
balance of grasslands (David A.
Wedin and David Tilman,
Science, v274 n5293 p1720)
7. The forests in the
conservation and sustainable
development of drylands (Kabii
et al., Protective and
Environmental Functions of
Forests, XI World Forest
Congress, v2 p237-243,
http://www.fao.org/montes/
foda/wforcong/publi/v2/t00e/
1-5.htm, Oct. 13-22, 1999)
Section III:
Drylands and
human population
8. Aridity zones and dryland
populations (UNSO/UNDP, An
Assessment of Population
Levels in the World’s Drylands
(magazine), Sep. 1997)
9. Population and land
degradation (UNDP, Sep. 1995)
10. Drought, migration and
population growth in the Sahel:
The case of the Malian Gourma,
1900-1991 (Jon Pedersen,
Population Studies, v49
p111-126, 1995)
Section IV:
Drylands
management,
policy and
development
11. Debt-for-environment
swaps for national
desertification funds (UNDP,
http://www.undp.org/seed/unso/
pub-htm/swap-eng.htm, 1998)
12. Chapter 12: Managing
fragile ecosystems:
Combating desertification
and drought (Progress Report
FAO, Agenda 21,
http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/
epre0031.htm, Jun. 1997)
13. The forests in the
conservation and sustainable
development of drylands
(XI World Forestry Congress,
v2, http://www.fao.org/forestry/
foda/wforcong/publi/v2/t00e/
1-6.htm, Oct. 12-22, 1997)
14. Planning for sustainable
development in the drylands
(UNDP, http://www.undp.org/
seed/unso/pub-htm/
eis-eng2.htm)
15. Poverty alleviation and
land degradation in the drylands:
Issues and action areas for the
international Convention on
Desertification (UNSO,
http://www.undp.org/seed/unso/
public/pov-eng.htm, 1994)
16. A market for drylands and
deserts? (Lucy Oriang (Kenya),
IDRC Reports v22 n2,
http://www.idrc.ca/books/report
s/v222/market.html, Jul. 1994)
Section V:
Drylands and
climate
17. The Sahara is not
marching (Richard A. Kerr,
Science, v281 n5377 p633,
Jul. 1998)
18. Environment: Green
grass, cool climate? (Jocelyn
Kaiser, Science, v274 n5293
p1610b, Dec. 1996)
19. Warm, warm on the range
(Jerry M. Melillo, Science, v283
n5399 p183-184, Jan. 1999)
Background sources 1
20. Grassland vegetation
changes and nocturnal global
warming (Richard D. Alward et
al., Science, v283 n5399 p229-
231, Jan. 1999)
Section VI:
Dryland
agriculture
21. World’s dryland farmers
need agricultural technology
(World Bank, CGIAR,
http://www.worldbank.org/html/
cgiar/press/dryland.html)
22. Small-scale irrigation for
arid zones (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w3094e/w3094e00.htm, 1997)
23. Drylands: A call to action
(IFAD, p2-23)
24. Agroforestry in the semi-
arid tropics (Unasylva, n168,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
u5200e/u5200e00.htm)
25. Making land from
bare rock (People and the Planet,
v7 n1, http://www.oneworld.org/
patp/pap_7_1/Harrison.html,
1998)
Section VII:
Desertification
(global)
26. Desertification, drought
and their consequences
(A.P. Koohafkan,
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
FAOINFO/SUSTDEV/Epdirect/
Epan0005.htm)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
27. Knowledge base on
desertification (UNCCD,
http://www.unccd.int/
knowledge/menu.php)
28. Desertification (WWF,
http://www.panda.org/)
29. Forest areas by main
regions in 1995 (FAO multimedia
collections on desertification,
FACTFILES, http://www.fao.org/
biodiversity/docs/html/w9950e/
w9950e02.htm)
30. Low-income food-deficit
countries (FAO multimedia
collections on desertification,
FACTFILES, http://www.fao.org/
desertification/objects/factsh/
eng/FCT9-e.htm)
31. Soil limits agriculture
(FAO multimedia collections on
desertification, FACTFILES,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
u8480e/U8480E0b.htm)
32. Number of persons
chronically undernourished in
developing countries (FAO
multimedia collections on
desertification, FACTFILES,
http://www.foa.org/
desertification/)
33. Percentage forest loss in
selected developing countries,
1980-1990 (FAO multimedia
collections on desertification,
FACTFILES, http://www.fao.org/
desertification/)
34. Where have all the forests
gone? (FAO multimedia
collections on desertification,
FACTFILES, http://www.fao.org/
desertification/)
35. Main causes of dryland
soil degradation by region
(FAO multimedia collections
on desertification, FACTFILES,
http://www.fao.org/
desertification/)
36. Spreading desert
threatens Africa (FAO
multimedia collections on
desertification, FACTFILES,
http://www.fao.org/
desertification/)
37. Actual and potential
irrigation in Africa by region
(FAO multimedia collections on
desertification, FACTFILES,
http://www.fao.org/
desertification/)
38. Desertification: Myths and
realities (Olanrewaju B. Smith
and Saidon Koala, IDRC
Briefings, http://www.idrc.ca/
Media/DesertMyths-e.html)
39. Man-induced
desertification?
(Monique Mainguet et al.,
UN University Lectures: 12,
http://www.unu.edu/
unupress/lecture12.html)
40. E-Link: Challenging
desertification in Nepal
(Derepak Gajurel,
http://www.envirolink.org/
archives/enews/0635.html)
41. Desertification in Iceland
(Rangeland Desertification
International Workshop,
Sep. 16-19, 1997)
42. Workshop report:
Rangeland Desertification
International Workshop
(Sep. 16-19, 1997)
43. Desertification and
climate change (Mike Kelly and
Mike Hulme, ODA, Tiempo
issue 9,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
cru/tiempo/issue09/desert.htm)
Section VIII:
Desertification
policy and
management and
development
44. The role of forestry in
combating desertification (Yafong
Berthe, XI World Forestry
Congress, Special Paper,
http://www.fao.org/montes/foda/
wforcong/PUBLI/V2/T10E/1.HTM)
Background sources
45. Dryland degradation 54. Fact Sheet 12: Combating
keeping hundreds of millions desertification in Asia
in poverty (Nada Osseriran, (http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
Convention to Combat factsheets/showFS.php?
Desertification, press release, number=12)
http://www.unep.ch/iuc/ 55. Fact Sheet 13: Combating
submenu/press/ccd/pr6-97.htm) desertification in Latin America
46. The UN Convention to and the Caribbean
Combat Desertification: (http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
Dispelling misconceptions, factsheets/showFS.php?
building a case (David R. Purkey number=13)
and Rob Buchanan, Sep. 1998) 56. Fact Sheet 14: Combating
47. Fact Sheet 1: desertification in the Northern
An introduction to the Mediterranean
United Nations Convention (http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
to Combat Desertification factsheets/showFS.php?
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/ number=14
57. Link desertification
factsheets/showFS.php?
solutions to biodiversity, climate
number=1)
change and water issues, UNEP
48. Fact Sheet 2: The causes
urges (UNEP news release,
of desertification
http://www.grida.no/
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
inf/news/news98/news116.htm)
factsheets/showFS.php?
58. A new framework for
number=2)
conservation-effective land
49. Fact Sheet 3: The
management and
consequences of desertification
desertification control in Latin
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
America and the Caribbean
factsheets/showFS.php?
(FAO, http://www.fao.org/
number=3)
docrep/W9298E/W9298E00.htm)
50. Fact Sheet 4: Action
59. Toward Improved
programmes for combating
Indicators to Measure
desertification
Desertification and Monitor the
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
Implementation of the
factsheets/showFS.php? Desertification Convention
number=4) (Hartmut Krugman,
51. Fact Sheet 7: The role of http://www.idrc.ca/books/focus/
science and technology 794/krugmann.html, Jul. 1994)
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
factsheets/showFS.php?
number=7)
52. Fact Sheet 10:
Desertification, global change,
and sustainable development
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
factsheets/showFS.php?
number=10)
53. Fact Sheet 11: Combating
desertification in Africa
(http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/
factsheets/showFS.php?
number=11)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Energy
Section I: Energy
statistics
1. Incandescent vs.
compact fluorescent
(http://www.ase.org/
powersmart/fbulbs.html)
2. It starts at home
(http://www.ase.org/
powersmart/strtshome.html)
3. Too ‘plugged in’
(http://www.ase.org/
powersmart/tooplggd.html)
4. Enron Energy Outlook
1999-2020 (http://www.
enron.com/outlook/
1999-energy-outlook.pdf)
5. Energy production and
consumption, 1985-95 Data
Table 15.1 (WRI, World
Resources 1998-99, p333-341)
Section II:
Introduction to
energy
6. Box 3.7: Effects of energy
taxes and subsidies on the
economy and the environment
(WRI, World Resources
1998-99, p92)
7. International Energy
Outlook 1998 with Projections
through 2020 (Report#
DOE/EIA-0484-98,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo)
8. Reinvesting in the energy
system (Christopher Flavin and
Seth Dunn Brown, in State of
the World 1999, Millennial
Edition, p22-40)
9. The environmental trends
that are shaping our future
(Christopher Flavin et al., Vital
Signs, p48-55, 1999)
10. I. Energy and its links to
major issues; II. New
technologies, new possibilities
(UNDP Initiative for Sustainable
Energy, Summary,
http://www.undp.org/seed/eap/
Publications/1996/1996a.html)
11. Science Magazine (AAAS,
Jul. 30, 1999)
12. Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges,
Executive Summary (Amulya
K.N. Reddy et al., UNDP,
International Energy Initiative,
Energy 21, Stockholm
Environment Institute, 1997)
Section III: UNDP
Report
13. Energy After Rio: Prospects
and Challenges, Chapter 1 -
Introduction (UNDP, 1997)
14. Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges,
Chapter 2 - Energy and major
global issues (UNDP, 1997)
15. Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges,
Chapter 3 - New opportunities
in energy demand, supply and
systems (UNDP, 1997)
16. Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges,
Chapter 4 - Sustainable
strategies (UNDP, 1997)
17. Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges,
Chapter 5 - Making it happen:
Energy for sustainable
development (UNDP, 1997)
Section IV:
Population and
energy
18. How does population
growth contribute to rising
energy consumption in
America? (Allan Mazur,
Population and Environment,
v15 n5 p371-378, May 1994)
19. World population,
economic growth, and energy
demand, 1990-2100: A review
of projections (Bernard Gilland,
Population and Development
Review 21, n3 p507-539,
Sep. 1995)
Section V:
Petroleum
20. Oil and gas issues at a
glance (The World Bank Group,
http://www.Worldbank.org/
html/fpd/energy/)
21. The demand for oil
products in developing
countries (Dermont Gately,
Shane S. Streifel, World Bank
Discussion Paper No. 359, 1997)
Section VI:
Natural gas
22. Private participation in the
transmission and distribution of
Background sources 1
natural gas: Recent trends (Ada
Karina Izaguirre, The World
Bank Group, n176)
23. Trends and markets in
liquefied (Rob Shepherd, The
World Bank Group, n182)
Section VII: Coal
24. Asia: Coal knowledge
transferred (NOVEM)
25. 286 Clean coal
(E. Tavoulareas et al., World
Bank Technical Paper 286,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/energy/techpapers/
wtp286.htm)
Section VIII: Other
renewable energy
26. 240 Renewable energy
technologies (Kulsum Ahmed, A
Review of the Status and Costs
of Selected Technologies, World
Bank Technical Paper 240,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/energy/techpapers/
wtp240.htm, 1994)
27. India’s low-tech energy
success (Payal Sampat, World
Watch, v8 p21-23, Nov./Dec. 95)
Section IX: Solar
28. 279 Solar energy (Dennis
Anderson and Kulsum Ahmed,
The Case for Solar Energy
Investments, World Bank
Technical Paper 279,
http://www.worldbank.org/
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
html/fpd/energy/techpapers/wt
p279.htm, 1995)
Section X: Biogas
and biomass
29. 296 Biomass gasifiers
(Hubert Stassen, Biomass
Gasifiers for Heat and Power: A
Global Review, World Bank
Technical Paper 296,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/energy/techpapers/
wtp296.htm, 1995)
30. 242 Improved biomass
stoves (Douglass Barnes et al.,
A Comparative International
Review of Stove Programs,
World Bank Technical Paper
242, http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/energy/techpapers/
wtp242.htm, 1994
S e c t i o n X I : Wo o d /
charcoal
31. Burning charcoal issues
(Robert van der Plas, The World
Bank Group, FPD Energy, n1,
http://www.worldbank.org/html,
Apr. 1995)
Forests, fuel and the
32.
future: Wood energy for
sustainable development -
Forestry topics report no. 5
(Robert Lamb, FAO, Chapter 1-6,
1995)
33. The Role of wood energy
in Asia (Prof. Thierry Lefevre
et al., FAO, Nov. 1997)
34. The role of wood energy in
Europe and OECD (Richard van
den Brock, FAO, Mar. 1997)
Section XII: Policy
35. Technology policy and
renewable energy: Public roles
in the development of new
energy technologies (Jeffrey M.
Loiter and Vicki Norberg-Bohm,
Energy Policy, v27 p85-97, 1999)
Background sources
36. The real world of power
sector regulation (Bernard
Tenenbaum, The World Bank
Group, Note No.50, Jun. 1995)
37. The impact of IPPs in
developing countries - Out of
the crisis and into the future
(Yves Albouy and Reda Bousba,
The World Bank Group, Note
No.162, Dec. 1998)
38. A scorecard for energy
Reform in developing countries
(Robert Bacon, The World Bank
Group, Note No.175, Apr. 1999)
39. Consequences of energy
policies for the urban poor
(Douglas Barnes, The World
Bank Group, FPD Energy, n7,
Nov. 1995)
40. Why environmentalists
should promote nuclear energy
(Bertram Wolfe, v12 p55-60,
Summer 1996)
41. The atomic age is not over
yet (Tor Ragnar Gerholm,
London, Eng. V127 n4404 p22-
23, S 25, 1998)
Section XIII: New
technologies and
the future of
energy
42. II. New technologies, new
possibilities (UNDP Initiative for
Sustainable Energy,
http://www.undp.org/seed/
energy/unise/chapter2.html)
43. Green-E renewable
electricity program successfully
completes nation’s first
verification of certified green
power offerings (Media
Information, Greene Press
Release, Jun. 29, 1999)
44. Our green dream
(http://www.greenmountain.
com/index.jsp)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Fisheries
Section I:
Fisheries
1. Danger at sea: Our
changing ocean - the cause of
change (Seaweb:
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/
causes.html, Aug. 6, 1999)
2. Danger at sea: our
changing ocean - signs of
trouble (Seaweb:
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/
causes.html, Aug. 6, 1999)
3. Oceans and marine life at
NRDC: Fish facts (National
Resource Defense Council:
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/
fish/ffishf.asp, Aug. 6, 1999)
4. FAO Fisheries
Department: Fishery facts
(Food and Agriculture
Organization:
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
FAOINFO/FISHERY/fifacts/
newfact.asp, Jan. 6, 1999)
5. FAO factfile: Total fish
production (Food and
Agriculture Organization:
http://www.fao.org/news/
factfile/Ff9604-e.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
6. FAO factfile: Landings by
fishing area (Food and
Agriculture Organization:
http://www.fao.org/news/
factfile/ff9803-e.htm, Aug. 6,
1999)
7. FAO Fisheries
Department: Recent trends in
global fishery production (Food
and Agriculture Organization:
http://www.fao.org/fi/trends/
catch/catch.asp)
8. FAO factfile: World catch
of bottom-dwelling open-sea
(demersal) fish 1950-1995
(Food and Agriculture
Organization:
http://www.fao.org/news/
factfile/FF9707-E.HTM, Aug. 6,
1999)
9. Figure 1: World fish
supply, catch, and aquaculture,
1950-96 (FAO FISHSTAT:
Fisheries Statistics Yearbook,
1997)
10. Various global marine
fisheries showing declines
greater than 65 percent,
between peak year of
production and 1996
(Worldwatch Institute data
based on FAO, FISHSTAT:
Fisheries Statistics Yearbook,
1998)
11. Top ten fish producers, by
catch and share of world total,
1996 (FAO, State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture,
Rome, 1997)
12. Table 3: Top 10 fish
exporters, by value, 1970-1995
(FAO Fishery Statistics
Yearbook, Commodities, vols.
45 and 81, Rome, 1978 and
1997. Consumer price index
numbers used for 1970: 0.247;
1995: 0.971)
13. Table 1: Fish imports and
exports, by world, developing
and industrial countries, 1970-
95 (FAO Fishery Statistics
Yearbook, Commodities, vols.
45 and 81, Rome, 1978 and
1997)
14. Promoting sustainable
fisheries (Anne Platt McGinn,
State of the World 1998)
15. How bountiful are ocean
fisheries? (Brian J. Rothschild,
http://www.gcrio.org/
CONSEQUENCES/winter96/
oceanfish.html)
16. III. Fish consumption and
aquatic ecosystems (WRI,
Critical Consumption Trends
and Implications: Degrading
Earth’s Ecosystems,
http://www.igc.org/wri/critcons/
fish.pdf, Aug. 6, 1999)
17. The world’s imperiled fish
(Carl Safina, Scientific
American, Nov. 1995)
18. Renewing the world’s
fisheries (Carl Safina, People
and the Planet, v7 n2 p10-13,
1998)
19. Net losses: Fishing
decimating oceans ‘unlimited’
bounty (Anne Swardson, The
Washington Post, Aug. 14, 1994)
20. Overharvesting devastates
fish population worldwide (Anne
Swardson, The Washington
Post, Aug. 14, 1994)
Background sources 1
21. Technology in the capture
fisheries (David N. MacLennan,
from FAO Fisheries Department
Kyoto conference outcome and
papers presented,
http://www.fao.org/fi/agreem/
kyoto/H6F.asp)
22. New Zealand v. the
toothfish pirates (The
Economist, Feb. 13, 1999)
23. Global environmental
trends: Diminishing returns:
World fisheries under pressure
(WRI, World Resources 1998-
99, p195-196)
24. FAO Fisheries
Department: Recent trends in
global fishery production
(Richard Grainger,
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
FAOINFO/FISHERY/trends/
catch/catch.asp, Jul. 6, 1999)
25. FAO Fisheries
Department: Review of the
state of world fishery
resources: Marine fisheries
(Marine Resources Services,
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 920,
FIRM/C920,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w4248e/w4248e00.htm, Sep. 6,
1999)
26. World review of fisheries
and aquaculture (FAO, The
State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture (Sofia) 1996,
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/F
AOINFO/FISHERY/publ/sofia/
sofiae.asp, May 5, 1999)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
27. Part 1: World review of
fisheries and aquaculture (FAO,
The State of World Fisheries
and Aquaculture (Sofia) 1998,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w9900e/w9900e02.htm, May 5,
1999)
28. Part 5: Fisheries activities
of country groupings (FAO, The
State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture (Sofia) 1998,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w9900e/w9900e06.htm, May 5,
1999)
29. Plots of regional fishery
characteristics (FAO Fisheries
Department
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
FAOINFO/FISHERY/fifacts/
PLOTS/, Aug. 6, 1999)
30. Commercial Whaling
(Seaweb:
http://www.seaweb.org/
background/book/whaling.html)
31. Declining survival
probability threatens the North
Atlantic right whale (Hal
Caswell, Masami Fujiwara, and
Solange Brault, Proceedings of
the National Academy of
Science, v96 p3308-3313, Mar.
1999)
32. Troubled waters (Deborah
Cramer, The Atlantic Monthly,
Jun. 1995)
33. Over fishing disrupts
entire ecosystem (Nigil
Williams, Science, v279 n5352
p809)
34. Fishing down the marine
food web (Danial Pauly, Villy
Christensen, Johanne
Dalsgaard, Rainer Froese and
Francisco Torres Jr., Science,
v279 n5352 p860)
35. Drastic declines weaken
Chesapeake’s rich fishery
(D’Vera Cohn, The Washington
Post, Aug. 14, 1994)
36. The bycatch problem
(National Audubon Society,
Indiscriminate Slaughter at
Sea, http://www.audubon.org/
campaign/lo/ow/iss.html, Jul. 6,
1999)
37. Bycatch management and
the economics of discarding
(S. Pascoe, FAO Fisheries
Department, FAO Technical
Paper No. 370, Rome, 1997,
http://www.fao.org/fi/publ/
abstract/t370f.asp, Jan. 6, 1999)
38. Science, v282 n5388 p391,
Oct. 16, 1998.
39. Shrimp cocktail: recipe
for disaster (National Resource
Defense Council, Oceans and
Marine Life at NRDC,
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/
fish/fshrimp.asp, Feb. 6, 1999)
40. Oceans at risk (Michael
Weber, Popular Science, v246
n5 p85, May 1995)
41. Extinction on the high
seas (David Malakoff, Science,
v277 n5325 p486)
42. Cleaning up the seas
(Bruce McKay and Kieran
Mulvaney, People and the
Planet, v7 n2, 1998)
43. Global nitrogen overload
problem grows critical (Anne
Simon Moffat, Science, v279
n5353 p988)
44. Oil in water (Marguerite
Holloway, Scientific American,
v280 n8 p38, Mar. 1999)
45. The management of
fisheries and marine
ecosystems (Louis W. Botsford,
Juan Carlos Castilla, and
Charles H. Peterson, Science,
v277 n5325 p509)
46. Farming fish: the
aquaculture boom (Global
Environmental Trends in World
Resources 1998-99, p158)
47. Part V: Aquatic resources
(25 Years of Improvement,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/cgiar/25years/aqua.html,
Jun. 8, 1999)
48. Marine Aquaculture
(Seaweb,
Background sources
http://www.seaweb.org/
background/book/aquaculture.
html, Aug. 6, 1999)
49. Review of world
aquaculture (FAO Fisheries
Department, FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 886, FIRI/C886
(Rev.1) Rome, 1997,
http://www.fao.org/)
50. Study questions
aquaculture benefits (Michael
Kahn, Journal of Commerce,
Nov. 2, 1998)
51. Nature’s subsidies to
shrimp and salmon farming
(Rosamond L. Naylor, Rebecca
J. Golburg, Harold Monney,
Malcolm Beveridge, Jason Clay,
Carl Folke, Nils Kautsky, Jane
Lubchenco, Jurgenne
Primavera and Merly Williams,
Science, v282, Oct. 30, 1998)
52. Review of the state of
world fishery resources: Inland
fisheries (Inland Water
Resources and Aquaculture
Services, FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 942, Rome, 1999,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/cir
cular/all-16a.pdf, Aug. 6, 1999)
53. Inland fisheries are under
increasing threat from
environmental degradation
(FAO, Mar. 24, 1999,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/
press_ne/presseng/1999/pren9
916.htm)
Section II:
Fisheries and
human population
54. Marine fisheries,
population and consumption:
Science and policy issues (Lisa
Speer, 1995, (password
protected)
http://www.aaas.org/internation
al/psd/fisheries/SPEER.htm)
55. Catching the Limit:
Population and Decline of
Fisheries (Population Action
International, 1995).
56. Tropical marine fisheries
and the future of coral reefs: A
brief review with emphasis on
Southeast Asia (J.W. McManus,
Coral Reefs, v16S p121, 1997)
57. Coasts in crisis (Don
Hinrchsen, Issues in Science
and Technology, v12 p39,
Summer 1996)
58. Death by suffocation in
the Gulf of Mexico (David
Malakoff, Science, v281 n5374
p190)
59. Loaves and fishes (The
Economist, Mar. 21, 1998)
60. In India, a battle for
survival (Molly Moore, The
Washington Post, Aug.14, 1994)
61. American or Canadian?
Whose salmon is it, anyway?
(Charles Trueheart, The
Washington Post, Aug.14, 1994)
62. Salmon counting takes a
high-tech turn (Steven
Perarlstein, The Washington
Post, Mar. 4, 1999)
63. Estimating the value of in-
season estimates of abundance
of sockeye salmon
(Oncorhynchus nerka) (Michael
R. Link and Randall M.
Peterman, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
Jun. 1998)
64. US and Canada Agree on
a plan to restrict catches of
endangered salmon (Sam Howe
Verhovek, The New York Times,
Jun. 4, 1999)
65. US-Canada salmon deal
aims to conserve stocks
(Edward Alden, The Financial
Times (London), Jun. 7, 1999)
66. Assessing excess fishing
capacity at world-wide level
(FAO Fisheries Department,
http://www.fao.org/fishery/
NEWS/ASSESS/CAPAsF.htm,
Jan. 6, 1999)
67. Reversal of the burden of
proof in fisheries management
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
(Paul K. Dayton, Science, v279
n5352 p821)
68. Net loss: Fish, jobs, and
the marine environment (Peter
Weber, Worldwatch Paper 120,
Jul. 1994)
69. Rocking the boat:
Conserving fisheries and
protecting jobs (Anne Platt
McGinn, Worldwatch Paper 142,
Jul. 1998)
70. Just when you thought it
was safe (The Economist, Nov.
16, 1996)
71. Oceans and the Law of the
Sea: Overview (Division for
Ocean Affairs and the Law of
the Sea,
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/
losconv1.htm, Jul. 6 1999)
72. Table showing the current
status of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the
Sea and of the agreement
relating to the implementation
of part XI of the Convention
(Division for Ocean Affairs and
the Law of the Sea,
http://www.un.org./Depts/los/
los94st.htm, Jul. 6 1999)
73. On the high seas: The law
of the jungle (Jessica Mathews,
The Washington Post, Apr. 6,
1995)
74. No more catch as catch
can (The Washington Post, Aug.
7, 1995)
75. A modest step to save the
fish (The New York Times, Aug.
8, 1995)
76. US still at sea on key
treaty (Sean Connaugton,
Journal of Commerce, Oct. 2,
1998)
77. Governments support new
international commitments to
reduce over fishing and over-
capacity (FAO, Mar. 11, 1999,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/
press_ne/presseng/1999/
pren9911.htm, Jan. 6, 1999)
78. Lifting the veil on
perverse subsidies (Norman
Myers, Nature, v392 p327, 1998)
79. The politics of over fishing
(Simon Fairlie, Mike Hagler,
and Brian O’Riordan, The
Ecologist, v25 p46, Mar./Apr.,
May/Jun., 1995)
80. Creating incentives to
curb over fishing (Rodney M.
Fujita, D. Douglas Hopkins, and
W.R. Zach Willey, Forum for
Applied Research and Public
Policy, v11 p29, Summer 1996).
81. Victoria’s not-so-secret
ruin (Mark Jerome Walters,
Audubon, v96 n1 p14, Jan.
1994).
82. Galapagos: Too many
people (The Economist, May 10,
1997)
83. Twilight of the cod (Robert
Kunzig, Discover, v16 p44, Apr.
1995)
84. Contribution to food fish
supplies in review of the state
of world aquaculture (A.G.J.
Tacon, FAO Fisheries Circular
No. 886, Rome, 1997,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w7499e/w7499e17.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
85. International trade in
review of the state of world
aquaculture (A. Lem and Z.H.
Shehadeh, FAO Fisheries
Circular No. 886, Rome, 1997,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w7499e/w7499e04.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
86. Aquaculture in Farming
Salmon: A Briefing Book
(Michael L. Weber, Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/sac/aquacul.html,
Aug. 6, 1999)
87. Forward in Farming
Salmon: A Briefing Book
(Michael L. Weber, Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/sac/aquacul.html,
Aug. 6, 1999)
88. Impacts of Salmon
Farming in Farming Salmon: A
Briefing Book (Michael L.
Weber, Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/sac/aquacul.html,
Aug. 6, 1999)
89. Shrimp farming: Going
swimmingly (The Economist,
Feb. 21, 1998)
Section III: The
future of fisheries
90. Part 4: Outlook: Expected
trends in supply and demand in
the state of world fisheries and
aquaculture 1998 (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w9900e/w9900e05.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
91. Part 2: Selected issues
facing fishers and
aquaculturists in the state of
world fisheries and aquaculture
1998 (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w9900e/w9900e05.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
92. 13. Water and fisheries
(WRI, World Resources 1996-
97, Marine Fishing Trends,
http://www.wri.org/wri/
wr-96-97/wa_txt3.html, Feb. 6,
1999)
93. Protecting fishing
resources (RT: Resources
Fisheries, SD Dimensions,
Posted Jun. 3, 1996,
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/
faoinfo/sustdev/Rtdirect/
Rtre0008.htm, Aug. 6, 1999)
94. United Nations must
strengthen protection of
straddling and highly migratory
fish (Lisa Speer, Fisheries, v19
n12, Dec. 1994)
95. Recent international
agreements and the
precautionary approach: New
direction for fisheries
management science (Laura J.
Background sources 3
Richards and Jean-Jacques
Maguire, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
v55 n6, Jun. 1998)
96. ‘No-take’ zones spark
fisheries debate (Karen F.
Schmidt, Science, v277 n5325
p489)
97. Equivalence in yield from
marine reserves and traditional
fisheries management (Alan
Hastings and Louis W. Botsford,
Science, v284 n5419 p1537)
98. FAO: Future of fish for
food depends on better
management of oceans (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/ois/
press_ne/presseng/1998/
pren9831.htm)
99. The deep green sea (The
Economist, May 23, 1998)
100. Principles and criteria for
sustaining fishing (Marine
Stewardship Council, Apr. 1,
1998, http:www.msc.org/cgi-
bin/library/artic…2&area=1&id=
891420599&html=template.html,
Jul. 6, 1999)
101. Principles and criteria for
sustaining fishing: Airlie House
draft (Marine Stewardship
Council, Issue 1, Oct. 1998)
102. Blue revolution (Anne
Platt McGinn, World Watch, v11
n2, Mar./Apr., 1998)
103. 1.3 Issues and challenges
in review of the state of world
aquaculture issues (Z.H.
Shehadeh, and M. Pedini,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w7499e/w7499e24.htm, Jan. 6,
1999)
104. 2.4 Environment and
sustainability in review of the
state of world aquaculture
issues (U. Barg and M.J.
Phillips,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w7499e/w7499e14.htm. Jan. 6,
1999)
105. Sustainable aquaculture
in agriculture technology notes
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources 4

(Rural Development
Department, The World Bank,
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/
essd/kb.nsf/0316e416c9e80790
852566a60065f4c1/
33de56a4527f24c38525671a005
3c32f?OpenDocument)
106. The Future in Farming
Salmon: A Briefing Book
(Michael L. Weber,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/sac/future.html)
107. GESAMP: Integration of
aquaculture into coastal
management (FAO Fisheries
Department,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/
faoinfo/fishery/meetings/
gesamp/wg31cm.asp, Jan. 6,
1999)
108. A precautionary approach
for the introduction of new
species in aquaculture (FAO
Fisheries Department,
http://www.fao.org/fi/news/prec
aut/sard.asp)
109. Eco-farming in Fiji (Hal
Kane, World Watch, v10 p28,
Jul./Aug., 1997)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Forests
Section I: Key
documents
1. Forest resources
assessment 1990: Global
synthesis (FAO)
2. State of the world’s
forests 1997, Executive
summary and full document
(FAO)
3. Forest and tree resources
(Jean-Paul Lanly, FAO)
4. The Distribution and
Variety of Equatorial Rain
Forest (Jonathan Adams, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory)
5. The World’s Monsoon and
Dry Forests (Jonathan Adams,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
6. The grinding of the axe:
Deforestation (Paul Harrison,
The Third Revolution)
7. Forests as human
dominated ecosystems (Ian R.
Noble et al., Science, v277
n5325 p522)
8. Resources at risk (WRI,
World Resources 1998-99)
9. Forests and range-lands
(WRI, World Resources 1994-
95)
10. Forests and human health
(USDA Forest Service,
International Programs, Issue
Brief)
11. Seeing the forest among
the trees: Forests and forestry
(FAO Silvafor Journal)
12. Putting a price tag on
nature’s bounty (Wade Roush,
Science, v276 n5315 p1029)
13. Study finds 10% of tree
species under threat (Nigel
Williams, Science, v281 n5382
p1426)
14. Biomass collapse in
Amazonian forest fragments
(William F. Laurance et al.,
Science, v278 n5340 p1117)
15. Deforestation: An
overview of global programs
and agreements (Julie Lyke et
al., Congressional Research
Service, Oct. 21, 1992)
16. Europe during the last
150,000 years; Eurasia during
the last 150,000 years, etc.
(Jonathan Adams, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory)
Section II: Related
documents
17. Protected area
deforestation in south Sumatra,
Indonesia (Steven R. Brechin et
al., in Gayl Ness et al. (eds),
Population-Environment
Dynamics)
18. The Forest sector:
Important innovations (Roger
Sedjo, Resources for the Future,
Discussion Paper 97-42)
19. Sustaining the world’s
forests (Worldwatch Institute,
State of the World 1998)
20. Forest decline continues
and tree plantations taking root
(Worldwatch Institute, Vital
Signs, 1998)
21. Forest decline continues
and ecosystem conversion
spreads (Worldwatch Institute,
Vital Signs, 1997)
22. UNHCR: An overview, the
environment (UNHCR Issues
Briefing)
23. Statement by the UNHCR
at the UN Conference on
Environment and Development
(UNHCR 1992)
24. Prominent biologists have
thrown... (Jim Randkle, Science,
v280 n5364 p663)
25. Environmental groups are
massing... (David Moore,
Science, v280 n5362 p367)
26. The Brazilian legislature
is... (Claus C. Meyer, Science,
v278 n5344 p1699)
27. Reproductive dominance
of pasture trees in a
fragmented tropical forest
mosaic (Preston R. Aldrich,
Science, v281 n5373 p103-105)
28. Return of the forest
(Virginia Morell, Science, v278
n5346 p2059)
29. Long-term effects of acid
rain (G.E. Likens et al., Science,
v272 n5259 p244)
30. Conservation targets in
South American temperate
forests (J.J. Armest et al.,
Science, v282 n5392 p1271)
31. Towards a sustainable
paper cycle, Executive
summary (International
Institute for Environment and
Development)
Background sources 1
32. Rain forest fragments
fare poorly (Nigel Williams,
Science, v278 n5340 p1016)
33. Temperate forests
gain ground (Anne Simon
Moffat, Science, v282 n5392,
p1253)
34. Global forest fire watch:
Wildfire potential, detection,
monitoring, and assessment
(A. Singh et al., UNEP)
35. Third world debt and
tropical deforestation (Oak
Ridge National Laboratory)
36. Environmental effects of
whole tree timber harvesting
(Oak Ridge National
Laboratory)
37. Causes and consequences
of deforestation in the Brazilian
Amazon (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory)
38. Accommodating
conflicting interest in forestry:
Concepts emerging from
pluralism (FAO)
39. Technologies for
Sustainable Forest
Management: Challenges for
the 21st Century (J.A. Sayer et
al., CIFOR)
40. Deforestation of tropical
rain forests (Basic Science and
Remote Sensing Initiative,
Michigan State University)
41. Deforestation and
development in Amazonia
(Center for Earth and Planetary
Studies, Smithsonian
Institution)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources

Section III:
Visuals
42. Saving the forests: What
will it take? (Allan Durning,
WorldWatch Paper 117)
43. Taking a stand (Janet
Abramovitz, WorldWatch
Paper 140)
44. Reforesting the Earth
(Sandra Postel et al.,
WorldWatch Paper 83)
45. Air pollution, acid rain,
and the future of the forests
(Sandra Postel, WorldWatch
Paper 58)
46. Forest Journey : The Role
of Wood in the Development of
Civilization (John Perlin,
Harvard University Press)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Freshwater
Section I:
Introduction to
freshwater
1. Water: Critical shortages
ahead? (WRI, World Resources
1998-99, p188-193, 1999)
2. An introduction to global
freshwater issues (Peter H.
Gleick, Water in Crisis,
Chapter 1 p3-12, 1993)
3. 13. Water and fisheries
(WRI, World Resources 1996-
97, http://www.wri.org/wri/
wr-96-97/wa_txt1.html)
4. World freshwater
resources (Igor A. Shiklomanov,
in Peter H. Gleick, Water in
Crisis, p14-24, 1993)
5. Freshwater resources and
withdrawals, 1970-98, data
table (WRI, World Resources
1998-99, p304-312, 1998)
6. Water resources:
agriculture, the environment,
and society (David Pimentel et
al., BioScience, v47 p97-106,
Feb. 1997)
7. State of the world’s water
and implications for the
western United States (Peter H.
Gleick,
http://www.globalchange.org/
impactal/96nov1d.htm)
8. Groundwater: The
invisible resource (World
Meteorological Organization
(WMO),
http://www.unicef.org/wwd98/
papers/wmo.htm)
9. Emerging water
shortages (Worldwatch
Institute,
http://www.worldwatch.org/
alerts/990717.html, Jul. 17,
1999)
10. A rare and precious
resource (Houria Tazi Sadeq
and Maghreb-Machrek,
UNESCO Courier,
http://www.unesco.org/courier/
1999_02/uk/dossier/txt11.htm)
11. Dividing the waters: Food
security, ecosystem health, and
the new politics of scarcity
(Sandra Postel, Worldwatch
Paper 132, p5-64, Sep. 1996)
12. The world’s water (Peter
Gleick, Issues in Science and
Technology, Summer 1998)
13. 6.1.13 Lakes and rivers
(V.H. Heywood (ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, p399,
1995)
14. UN assessment of
freshwater resources (Earth
Summit + 5,
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/
geninfo/sustdev/waterrep.htm)
15. Comprehensive
assessment of the freshwater
resources of the world
(Commission on Sustainable
Development,
http://www.wmo.ch/web/homs/
cfwadesc.html)
16. GEO-1 - Water (various
chapters)
(http://www.unep.org/unep/eia/
geo1)
17. General summary: The
former Soviet Union (Aquastat,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/
FaoInfo/Agricult/)
18. General summary: Near
East (Aquastat,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/
FaoInfo/Agricult/)
19. General summary: Asia
(Aquastat,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/
FaoInfo/Agricult/)
20. General summary: Africa
(Aquastat,
http://www.fao.org/waicent/
FaoInfo/Agricult/)
21. Effects of biodiversity on
water distribution and quality in
ecosystems (V.H. Heywood (ed.),
Global Biodiversity Assessment,
p412, 1995)
22. Water and ecosystems
(Alan P. Covich, in Peter H.
Gleick (ed.), Water in Crisis,
Chapter 4 p40-55)
23. What is ground water?
(D.W. Clarke and D.W. Briar,
http://water.usgs.gov/public/
pubs/FS/OFR93-643)
24. Groundwater recharge: an
overview of estimation
“problems” and recent
developments (I. Simmers, in
N.S. Robins (ed.), Groundwater
Pollution, Aquifer Recharge and
Vulnerability, p107-115, 1998)
25. Nutrient retention in
riparian ecotenes (Lena B.-
M.Vought et al., Ambio, v23 n6
p342, Sep. 1994)
Background sources 1
26. Effects of increased solar
ultraviolet radiation on aquatic
ecosystems (Donat P. Hader et
al., Ambio, v24 n3 p174, May
1995)
27. Earth’s rivers (Sandra
Postel, USA Today, 124 p74-6,
Nov. 1995)
28. Stream biodiversity: The
ghost of land use past (J. S.
Harding et al., Proceedings of
the National Academy of
Sciences, v95 n25 p14843-47,
Dec. 8, 1998)
29. Types of instream values
(The World Bank,
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/)
30. Interactions between
eutrophication and
contaminants: Towards a new
research concept for the
European aquatic environment
(Ambio, v24 n6 p383-385, Sept.
1995)
31. Water use inside the
home (Waterwiser, 1999)
32. Offstream use (USGS,
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/
wustates/tn/factoffstream.html)
33. The influence of forest
vegetation on water and soil
(H.G. Wilm, Unasylva, v11 n4,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
x5385e/x5385e03.htm)
34. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change: Working
group II second assessment
report, Water resources
management group (Peter H.
Gleick,
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
http://www.globalchange.org/
impactal/96nov2d.htm)
35. Climate change and US
water management (Peter
Gleick,
http://www.globalchange.org/)
36. Lake Victoria: A case in
international cooperation (Wulf
Klohn, Mihailo Andjelic,
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGL/
AGLW/webpub/lakevic/
LAKEVIC4.htm)
37. A transportation model
assessment of the risk to native
mussel communities from
zebra mussel spread (Daniel W.
Schneider et al., Conservation
Biology, v12 n4 p788-800, Aug.
1998)
38. Mussel mass (Ellen
Perlman, Governing, v10 p39,
Aug. 97)
Section II:
Freshwater and
human population
39. Human domination of
Earth’s ecosystems (Peter M.
Vitousek et al., Science, v277
n5325 p494)
40. Why population growth
matters to freshwater
availability
(http://populationaction.org/
why_pop/waterfs.htm)
41. Sustaining water, easing
scarcity (Tom Gardner-Outlaw,
Robert Engelman, Population
Action International, 1997)
42. Sustaining water:
Population and the future of
renewable water supplies
(Robert Engelman and Pamela
LeRoy, Population Action
International, 1993)
43. Human appropriation of
renewable fresh water (Sandra
L. Postel et al., Science, v271
n5250 p785)
44. Solution for a water-short
world (Population Reports, v26
n1, Sep. 1998)
45. Dividing the waters
(Sandra L. Postel, Technology
Review, Apr. 1997)
46. Human population and
water: To the limits in the 21st
century (Peter H. Gleick, Sep.
1995)
47. Percentages of population
with access to safe water 1990-
1994
(http://www.undp.org/popin/
wdtrends/bss/bssmapsw.htm)
48. Fact sheet: population
and water (National Wildlife
Federation, Sep. 1997)
49. Population as a scale
factor: Impacts on environment
and development (Robert
Engelman, in Barbara Sundberg
and William R. Moomaw,
People and their Planet, 1999)
50. Nonpoint pollution of
surface waters with
phosphorus and nitrogen
(Stephen Carpenter et al.,
Issues in Ecology, n3,
http://esa.sdsc.edu/carpenter.
htm, Summer 1998)
51. Water dynamics and
population pressure in the
Nepalese Himalayas (P.B. Shah,
GeoJournal, v40 n1-2 p45-51,
1996)
52. Human population growth
and over-utilization of the biotic
resources of the Murray-
Darling river system, Australia
(Russell J. Shiel, GeoJournal,
v40 n1-2 p101-113, 1996)
53. The Role of phosphorus in
the eutrophication of receiving
waters: A review (David L.
Correll, Journal of
Environmental Quality, v27
p261-266, 1998)
54. Wetlands and lakes as
Nitrogen traps (Mats Jansson
et al., Ambio, v23 n6 p320-323,
Sep. 1994)
Background sources
55. Water resources and
climate change (Kenneth
Frederick,
http://www.rff.org/issue_briefs/
PDF_files/ccbrf3.pdf)
56. Mountain lakes;
Sensitivity to acid deposition
and global climate change (Brit
Lisa Skjelkvale and Richard F.
Wright, Ambio, v27 n4 p280-
287, Jun. 1998)
57. Rapid ecological changes
in a large subtropical lake
undergoing cultural
eutrophication (Karl E. Havens
et al., Ambio, v25 n3 p150-155,
May 1996)
58. Arsenic and drinking
water contamination (Tom W.
Gebel, Science, v283 n5407
p1455e)
59. The Bangladesh arsenic
mitigation water supply project
(World Bank/UNDP Water and
Sanitation Program)
60. No single management
strategy for Nitrogen reduction
(Water Environment and
Technology, v6 n7 p27-29, Jul.
1994)
61. Switzerland: Swiss agri-
environmental policy and water
quality (Stephan Pfefferli and
Albert Zimmermann, OECD
Workshop on the Sustainable
Management of Water in
Agriculture: Issues and
Policies, p183,
http://www.oecd.org/agr/
publications/index1.htm)
62. Downstream ecological
effects of dams (Franklin K.
Ligon et al., BioScience, v45
p183-92, Mar. 1995)
63. China: The dammed (The
Economist, Nov. 1, 1997)
64. Damming the Senegal
river (WRI, World Resources
1998-99, p108-114, 1998)
65. Science and values in
river restoration in the Grand
Canyon (John C. Schmidt et al.,
BioScience, v48 n9 p735-47,
Sep. 1998)
66. Water quality and health
(Linda Nash, in Peter H. Gleick
(ed), Water in Crisis, 1993)
67. Urbanization and
waterborne disease (Timothy E.
Ford (speaker), Water
Population and Health, Jun.
1999)
68. Microbiological safety of
drinking water: United States
and global perspectives
(Timothy Ford, Environmental
Health Perspectives, v107 p191-
206 Supplement 1, Feb. 1999)
69. Water scarcity as a key
factor behind global food
insecurity: Round table
discussion (Mark Falkenmark
et al., Ambio, v27 n2 p148-154,
Mar. 1998)
70. Water for food production:
Will there be enough in 2025?
(Sandra L. Postel, BioScience,
v48 n8 p629-35, Aug. 98)
71. Challenges in the field of
water resources management
in agriculture (Wulf E. Klohn
and Bo G. Appelgren,
http://www.fao.org/)
72. Water and sustainable
development international
conference (Wulf Klohn and
Hans W. Wolter,
http://www.fao.org/)
73. Small-scale irrigation for
arid zones, principles and
options (FAO,
http://www.fao.org/)
74. Irrigating with treated
effluent (Herman Bouwer et al.,
Water Environment and
Technology, v10 n9, Sep. 1998)
75. Annex 1: Water-use
efficiency on irrigation systems,
a review of research carried out
under DFID’s engineering
research programme (Donald
Brown, Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p139-147,
1999)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
76. Priorities for irrigated
agriculture (A.W. Hall,
Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p25-29, 1999)
77. Opportunities and
constraints to improving
irrigation water management:
Foci for research (M.A. Burton
et al., Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p37-44, 1999)
78. Sustaining rice-wheat
system productivity in the Indo-
Gangetic plains: Water
management-related issues
(I.P. Abrol, Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p31-35, 1999)
79. China’s water shortage
could shake world food security
(Lester R. Brown and Brian
Halweil, World Watch Magazine,
Jul./Aug. 1998)
80. Environmental
sustainability of Egyptian
agriculture: Problems and
perspectives (Asit K. Biswas,
Ambio, v24 n1 p16-21, Feb.
1995)
81. United States: US water
management for agriculture - a
case study of the American
West (US Dept. of Agric.
(USDA), OECD Workshop on the
Sustainable Management of
Water in Agricultural Issues
and Policies, p205,
http://www.oecd.org/agr/
publications/index1.htm)
82. The flow of international
water law: The International
Law Commission’s law of the
non-navigational uses of
international watercourses
(David J. Lazerwitz, Global
Legal Studies Journal,
http://www.law.indiana.edu/
glsj/vol1/lazer.html)
83. International waterlaw:
Regulations for cooperation and
the discussion of the
International Water Convention
(Jorg Barandat and Aytul
Kaplan, in Waltina Scheumann
and Manuel Schiffler (eds),
Water in the Middle East, p12-
30, 1998)
84. IB10019: Western water
resource issues (Betsy A. Cody,
http://cnie.org/nle/h2o-31.html,
Apr. 30, 1999)
85. Western water resource
issues II (Betsy A. Cody,
http://www.cnie.org/nle/
h2o-31a.html, Apr. 30, 1999)
86. States slowly move ahead
with water pollutant trading
programs (Janet Pelley,
Environmental Science and
Technology, p446a, Oct. 1998)
87. Toward sustainable
management of water
resources (Ismail Serageldin,
The World Bank, 1995)
88. Productive efficiency and
allocative efficiency: Why better
water management may not
solve the problem (Tony Allan,
Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p71-75, 1999)
89. Water crisis in developing
world: Misconceptions about
solutions (Harold D.
Frederiksen, Journal of Water
Resources Planning and
Management, p79-87, Mar./Apr.
1996)
90. Escaping from ongoing
land/water mismanagement
(Ambio, v25 n3 p211-213, May
1996)
91. Strategically managing
the world’s water (Water
Resources Management,
http://www-
esd.worldbank.org/html/esd/
env/envmat/vol2f96/strateg.htm)
92. A snapshot of
conservation management:
1998 survey of state water
conservation programs,
Executive summary
(Joseph A. Miri,
http://www.waterwiser.org/
frameset2.cfm?b=6)
93. Strategic approaches to
freshwater management:
Background paper - the
ecosystem approach
(http://iucn.org/themes/
ramsar/key, 1999)
94. Strategic approaches to
freshwater management:
Recommendations for action
(http://iucn.org/themes/
ramsar/key)
95. The management
challenge (USDESA,
http://www.unicef.org/wwd98/
papers/undesa.htm)
96. Sustainability Criteria for
Water Resources Systems
(Task Committee on
Sustainability Criteria, Water
Resources Planning and
Management Division, Asce and
Working Group, UNESCO/IHP
Project M-4.3, p18-36, 1998)
97. Groundwater clean-up
options (Diane S. Roote et al.,
Chemical Engineering, May
1997)
98. Contain contaminated
groundwater (Robert D. Mutch,
Jr. et al., Chemical Engineering,
May 1997)
99. Restoration of Lake Erie:
Contribution of water quality
and natural resource
management (Joseph F. Koonce
et al., Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science,
v53 n1 p105-112, 1996)
100. Just when you thought it
was safe (The Economist, Nov.
16, 1996)
101. Water and conflict (Peter
Gleick, Water Supply and
Sanitation Collaborative
Council,
http://www.wsscc.org/vision21/
docs/doc15.html)
102. Water and human security
(Aaron T. Wolf, AVISO, v3, Jun.
1999)
103. Conflicts over the Nile or
conflicts on the Nile? (Manuel
Background sources 3
Schiffler, in Waltina Scheumann
and Manuel Schiffler (eds),
Water in the Middle East, 1998)
104. Economic instruments for
improving water use efficiency:
Theory and practice (R.J.
Grimble, Agricultural Water
Management, v40 p77-82, 1999)
105. Water as an economic
good (Desmond McNeill, Water
Supply and Sanitation
Collaborative Council,
http://www.wsscc.org./vision21/
docs/doc28.html)
106. Water as an economic
good: A solution, or a problem?
(C.J. Perry et al., Research
Report 14, 1997)
107. Water allocation
mechanism: Principles and
examples (Ariel Dinar et al.,
http://worldbank.org/)
108. Economic instruments for
sustainable resource
management: The case of
Botswana’s water resources
(Jaap Arntzen, Ambio, v24 n6
p335, Sep. 1995)
109. Closing a water resource:
Some policy considerations
(Brian and Lynne Chatterton,
MEWREW SOAS Occasional
Paper (not to be quoted without
the authors’ permissions), Oct.
1995)
110. ‘Virtual water’: A long term
solution for water shortage in
Middle Eastern economies?
(Tony Allan et al., 1997)
111. Resolving water
shortages via tradable water
rights (www.worldbank.org/)
112. Tradable property rights
to water (Mateen Thobani,
Private Sector,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/notes/water.htm, Feb.
1995)
113. Private sector
participation in the water sector
(Nick Johnston and Libby Wood,
Water Supply and Sanitation
4 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources

Collaborative Council,
http://www.wsscc.org/vision21/
docs/doc21.html)
114. Getting the private sector
involved in water: What to do in
the poorest of countries?
(Penelope J. Brook Cowen,
Private Sector,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/notes/water.htm, Jan.
1997)
115. Financing water and
sanitation projects: The unique
risks (David Haarmeyer and
Ashoka Mody, Private Sector,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/notes/water.htm, Sep.
1998)
116. Who pays the piper? Who
calls the tune? (UNESCO
Courier,
http://www.unesco.org/courier/
1999_02/uk/dossier/txt21.htm)
117. People and the Planet
(v5 n3, Nov. 1996)
(ed.), Water in Crisis, Chapter 9,
p105-113, 1993)
124. California Water 2020: A
Sustainable Vision, Executive
summary (Peter Gleick et al.
1995)
125. How do we get there:
Technologies and practices for
sustainable water (Peter Gleick
et al., California Water 2020: A
Sustainable Vision, p77-97,
1995)
126. VII. Conclusions and
recommendations (Peter Gleick
et al., California Water 2020: A
Sustainable Vision, p99-104,
1995)
127. Agriculture (Peter Gleick
et al., California Water 2020: A
Sustainable Vision, p6 1995)
128. Urban home and garden
(Peter Gleick, p10, 1995)
129. Environmental sanitation
from an ecosystems approach
(Steven Esrey and Ingvar
Jehl, The New York Times, Nov.
1, 1998)
135. Frequently asked
questions (Water Use
Association of California,
http://www.watereuse.org/
Pages/faq.html)
136. Water scarcity in the
twenty-first century (David
Seckler et al., IWMI Water
Brief 1,
http://www.cgiar.org/iwmi/
pubs/WBrief/Wbrief1.pdf, Mar.
1999)
137. World water demand and
supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios
and issues (David Seckler et al.,
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/)
138. Netherlands: Sustainable
drinking water supply and dairy
production (OECD Workshop on
the Sustainable Management of
Water in Agriculture: Issues
and Policies,
http://www.oecd.org/agr/

118. When the Yellow River Anderson, Water Supply and publications/index1.htm)

runs dry (South China Morning Sanitation Collaborative Council,

http://www.wsscc.org/activities/
Post, Jun. 20, 1998)
vision21/docs/doc39.html)
119. A social force called
130. Household water savings
water (Down to Earth, v7 n10,
could reduce future water
http://www.oneworld.org/, Oct.
infrastructure costs by billions
15, 1998)
(Water Environment and
120. Perpetual thirst (Down to
Technology, v10 n9, Sep. 1998)
Earth, v7 n10,
131. Integrated wastewater
http://www.oneworld.org/, Feb.
management (The World Bank,
28, 1999)
p129-135,
121. Capital’s downfall caused
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/
by drinking...of water (Sam
essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/
Dillon, The New York Times,
PPAH/$File/19_iwm.pdf)
Jan. 29, 1998)
132. Optimizing wastewater
122. Mexico policy options for
treatment (The World Bank,
managing aquifer over-
p137-143,
exploitation
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/
(www.worldbank.org)
essd/essd.nsf/GlobalView/
Section III: The PPAH/$File/20_owt.pdf)
future of 133. Satisfying an age-old
freshwater thirst (Claudia H. Deutsch, The
New York Times, May 16, 1999)
123. Water in the 21st century 134. Man-made river brings
(Peter Gleick, in Peter Gleick freshwater to coast (Douglas
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Mountains
Section I:
Introduction to
mountain
ecosystems
1. Mountains: Globally
important ecosystems (Martin
F. Price, Unasylva 195, v49
n195 p3,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
w9300e/w9300e03.htm, 1998)
2. Mountains, biodiversity
and conservation (A. Chaverri-
Polini, Unasylva 195, v49, n195
p47, 1998)
3. Animals thrive in an
avalanche’s wake (Kevin
Krajick, Science, v279 n5358
p1853)
Section II:
Population and
mountains
4. Peak season (Richard
Woodbury, Time, n2 p50-51,
1999)
5. Women, children and
well-being in the mountains of
the Hindu Kush Himalayan
region (J.D. Gurung, Unasylva
196, v50 n196 p12,
http://www.fao.org/wacient/
faoinfo/unasylva/196/, 1999)
6. People and mountains
(Derek Denniston, Overview,
People and the Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol5/overview.html)
7. Taming the tourists (Mark
Price, People and the Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol5/feature1.html)
8. Environment, culture,
economy and tourism:
Dilemmas in Hindu Kush-
Himalayas (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd983.htm)
Section III:
Mountain policy
9. Intellectual, biological,
and cultural property rights in
the HKH (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd982.htm)
10. UNESCO’s Man and the
Biosphere programme in
mountain areas (Thomas
Schaaf, Unasylva 196, v50 n196
p31-34, 1999)
11. Chapter 13: Sustainable
mountain development (Agenda
21, Progress Report, FAO,
http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/
Epre0032.htm)
Section IV:
Development and
management in
mountain
ecosystems
12. Managing mountain
parks: Special challenges
(Lawrence S. Hamilton,
Unasylva 196, v50 n196 p20-23,
1999)
13. Market and small towns
in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas:
Alternative modes of
urbanization (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd98-8.htm)
14. Development of mini- and
micro-hydropower: Issues and
constraints (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/issue972.htm)
15. Management of water for
the prevention of environmental
hazards (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/issu6.htm)
16. Integrated planning for
environment and economic
development in mountain
areas: Concepts, issues and
approaches (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/issue1.html)
17. Lessons learned from an
interregional experience in
participatory upland
development (L. Fe’d Ostiani,
Unasylva 196, v50 n196 p9-11,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
x0963e/x0963e04.htm, 1999)
18. Participation in upland
development and conservation
(J. Escobedo Urquizo, Unasylva
196, v50 n196 p3-8,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
x0963e/x0963e03.htm, 1999)
Background sources 1
19. The Andringitra National
Park in Madagascar (H.
Rabetaliana et al., Unasylva
196, v50 n196 p25-30,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/
x0963e/x0963e07.htm, 1999)
20. 2. Planning and
management of mountain
watershed in the tropics
(S.K. Datta et al., in XI World
Forestry Congress, v2, Oct. 13-
22, 1997,
http://www.fao.org/forestry/foda/
wforcong/publi/v2/t9e/1-3.htm)
21. 3.1 Mountain forests and
sustainable mountain
development (Gottle, El-Hadji
and M. Sene, in XI World
Forestry Congress, v2,
http://www.fao.org/forestry/
foda/wforcong/publi/v2/t00e/
1-5.htm, Oct. 13-22, 1997)
22. French forest communes
and sustainable development in
mountain areas (P.C. Zingari,
Unasylva 195, v49 n195 p55-57,
1998)
23. Mountain research and
development: Past, present
and the future (J.D. Ives,
Unasylva 195, v49 n195 p58-61,
1998)
24. Sustainable mountain
agricultural development
programme (LESOTHO,
http://www.fao.org/Gender/
static/tci/lesotho.htm)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources

Section V:
Mountains and
climate
25. Landscape and climate
change in the central Canadian
Rockies during the 20th century
(Brian H. Luckman, The
Canadian Geographer 42, n4
p319-336, Winter 1998)
Section VI:
Mountains and
water
26. Mountains and freshwater
supply (H. Liniger and R.
Weingartner, Unasylva 195, v49
n195 p39-46, 1998)
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/issue3.html)
31. Trends and prospects of
sustainable mountain
agriculture in the Hindu Kush-
Himalayan region (ICIMOD,
Issues in Mountain
Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd99-2.htm)
32. Bioterracing and soil
conservation (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd98-7.htm)

Section VII:
Mountain
economics

27. The economics of

mountain resource flows (Jane
Pratt and Lynelle Preston,
Unasylva 195, v49 n195 p31-38,
1998)
28. Highland-lowland
economic linkages (ICIMOD,
Issues in Mountain
Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/issu8.htm)

Section VIII:
Mountain
agriculture

29. Livestock development in

mixed crop farming systems
(ICIMOD, Issues in Mountain
Development,
http://www.icimod.org.sg/
publications/imd/imd98-5.htm)
30. Sustainable mountain
agriculture in the Hindu Kush-
Himalayas: Strengthening
education and research
capacities (ICIMOD, Issues in
Mountain Development,
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Oceans
Section I: Oceans
1. Open oceans (V.H.
Heywood (ed.), Global
Biodiversity Assessment, p309,
1995)
2. Oceans and ocean life
factoids
(http://www.conveyor.com/ovi/
factoids.html)
3. Overview (GESAMP, The
State of the Marine
Environment, Chapter 6, p115,
1990)
4. The oceans (Scientific
American, v276, Mar. 97)
5. A sea of troubles (Kieran
Mulvaney, E Magazine,
Jan./Feb. 1998)
6. Danger at sea: Our
changing ocean (Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/trouble.html)
7. Marine Mammal Mass
Mortality Events (Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
background/book/mortal.html)
8. Marine ecosystem
(Encyclopaedia Britannica
Online)
9. Chemistry and biology of
the oceans (Uppenbrink et al.,
Science, v281 n5374 p189)
10. Biogeochemical controls
and feedbacks on ocean
primary production (Paul G.
Falkowski et al., Science, v281
n5374 p200)
11. Variability of inorganic
and organic phosphorous
turnover rates in the coastal
ocean (Claudia R. Benitez et al.,
Nature, v398 p502-505, Apr. 8,
1999)
12. Ironing out what controls
primary production in the
nutrient rich waters of the open
ocean (Paul G. Falkowski,
Global Change Biology, v1
p161-163, 1995)
13. Widespread iron limitation
of phytoplankton in the South
Pacific Ocean (Michael J.
Behrenfeld and Zbigniew S.
Kolber, Science, v283 n5403
p840)
14. Primary production of the
biosphere: Integrating
terrestrial and oceanic
components (Christopher B.
Field et al., Science, v281 n5374
p237)
15. The CO2 balance of
unproductive aquatic
ecosystems (Carlos M. Duarte
et al., Science, v281 n5374
p234)
16. An estimate of global
ocean circulation and heat
fluxes (Alison M. Macdonald
and Susan Agusti, Nature, v382
n6590 p436-439, Aug. 1, 1996)
17. Diel vertical migration in
zooplankton (Stephen M.
Bollens, Oceanus, p19,
Fall/Winter 1995)
18. Life in the ocean (James
W. Nybakken et al., Scientific
American, v276 p74, Mar. 1997)
19. Estimating biodiversity
(Andrew R. Solow, Oceanus,
Fall/Winter, 1995)
20. Understanding marine
biodiversity (James T. Carlton
and Cheryl Ann Butman,
Oceanus, Fall/Winter 1995)
21. Diversity in a vast and
stable habitat (Laurence P.
Madin and Katherine A.C.
Madin, Oceanus, Fall/Winter
1995)
22. The deep sea: Desert and
rainforest (Paul V.R. Snelgrove
and J. Frederick Grassle Madin,
Oceanus, Fall/Winter 1995)
23. Getting to the bottom of
marine biodiversity:
Sedimentary habitats (Paul V.R.
Snelgrove, BioScience, v49 n2
p129, Feb. 1999)
24. Antarctic benthic diversity
(Nature, v368 , Mar. 1994)
25. Marine mammal
biodiversity (Robert L. Brownell,
Jr. et al., Oceanus, Fall/Winter
1995)
26. New insights on marine
bacterial diversity (Paul V.
Dunlap, Oceanus, Fall/Winter
1995)
27. Marine species richness
(Gary C.B. Poore and George
D.F. Wilson, Nature, v361, Feb.
1993)
28. Probing biodiversity
(David A. Caron and Rebecca J.
Gast, Oceanus, Fall/Winter
1995)
Background sources 1
Section II: Oceans
and human
population
29. Human activities affecting
the sea (GESAMP, The State of
the Marine Environment,
Chapter 1 p9, 1990)
30. Charting a new course for
oceans (Anne Platt Mcginn,
State of the World, Chapter 5
p78, 1999)
31. Biological effects
(GESAMP, The State of the
Marine Environment, Chapter 3
p66, 1990)
32. Extinction on the high
seas (David Malakoff, Science,
v277, Jul. 25, 1997)
33. Deposits and withdrawals
(Ocean Planet: Perils - Mining
and Dumping,
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/
OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/
peril_mining_and_dumping.
html)
34. Climate change effects
(GESAMP, The State of the
Marine Environment, Chapter 4
p94, 1990)
35. The oceans and weather
(Peter J. Webster and Judith A.
Curry, Scientific American, v276
p38, Mar. 1997)
36. The rising sea (David
Schneider, Scientific American,
v276 p28-35, Mar. 1997)
37. Oceans and climate
(Michael S. McCartney,
Oceanus, Fall/Winter 1996)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
38. As the oceans switch,
climate shifts (Richard A. Kerr,
Science, v281 n5374 p157)
39. The enfant terrible of the
sea (UNESCO Sources, n96,
Dec. 1997)
40. Warming’s unpleasant
surprise: Shivering in the
greenhouse? (Richard A. Kerr,
Science, v281 n5374 p156)
41. Cometh the storm (The
Economist, May 23, 1998)
42. On the edge (The
Economist, May 23, 1998)
43. Grinding to a halt? (Stefan
Rahmstorf, UNESCO Sources,
n96, Dec. 1997)
Global warming and
44.
marine carbon cycle feedbacks
on future atmospheric CO2
(Fortunat Joos, Science, v284,
Apr. 16, 1999)
45. Thermohaline circulation,
the Achilles’ heel of our climate
system: Will man-made CO2
upset the current balance?
(Wallace S. Broecker, Science,
v278 n5343 p1582)
46. Twentieth century sea
surface temperature trends
(Mark A. Cane et al., Science,
v275 n5302 p957)
47. Marine ecosystem
sensitivity to climate change
(Raymond C. Smith et al.,
BioScience, v49 n5, May 1999)
48. Impacts of global climate
change - with emphasis on US
coastal areas (1998 Year of the
Ocean, p1-52,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/
yoto/meeting/climate_316.html)
49. Simulated response of the
ocean carbon cycle to
anthropogenic climate warning
(Jorge L. Sarmiento et al.,
Nature, v393 p245-249, May 21,
1998)
50. Marine contaminants:
Levels and distribution
(GESAMP, The State of the
Marine Environment, Chapter 2,
p 41, 1990)
51. Prevention and control of
marine pollution (GESAMP, The
State of the Marine
Environment, Chapter 5 p101,
1990)
52. Marine pollution (Martin
R. Lee, Oceans and Coastal
Resources: A Briefing Book,
http://www.cnie.org/nle/
mar-20/r.html)
53. The ecology of the deep
ocean and its relevance to
global waste management
(Martin V. Angel et al., Journal
of Applied Ecology, v33 p915-
926, 1996)
54. Danger at sea: Our
changing ocean - signs of
trouble (Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/trouble.html)
55. A not so bottomless sea
(Sophie Boukhari, UNESCO
Sources, n96, Dec. 1997)
56. Enriching the sea to death
(Scott W. Nixon, Scientific
American, v276, Mar. 1997)
57. Land-based activities:
What remains to be done
(Caroline Williams et al., Oceans
and Coastal Management, v29
n1-3 p207-222, 1995)
58. Solving the mysteries of
ocean-borne trash (Kim Clark,
US News and World Report,
Apr. 12, 1999)
59. What the brochures don’t
tell you (Consumer Reports, v63
n11 p8, Nov. 1998)
60. Plasticizing the seafloor:
An overview (E.D. Goldberg,
Environmental Technology, v18
p195-202, 1997)
61. Oil pollution (Ocean
Planet,
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/
OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/
peril_oil_pollution.html)
62. Toxic materials (Ocean
Planet,
Background sources
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/
OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/
peril_toxins.html)
63. Contamination of the deep
sea (K.H. Ballschmiter et al.,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, v34
n5 p288-289, 1997)
64. Contaminants in the
Arctic marine environment:
Priorities for protection (R.W.
Macdonald et al., ICES Journal
of Marine Science, v53 p537-
563, 1996)
65. Anthropogenic lead in
Antarctic sea water (A.R. Flegal
et al., Nature, v365, Sep. 16,
1993)
Saving marine biodiversity
66.
(Robert J. Wilder et al., Issues
in Science and Technology, v15
n3 p57, Spring 1999)
67. Ecological roulette: The
global transport of non-
indigenous marine organisms
(James T. Carlton and Jonathan
B. Geller, Science, v261, Jul.
1993)
68. Pattern, process, and
prediction in marine invasion
ecology (James T. Carlton,
Biological Conservation, v78
p97-106, 1996)
69. To introduce or not to
introduce: trade-offs of non-
indigenous organisms (Curtis C.
Daehler and Dorla R. Gordon,
Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, v12 n11, Nov. 1997)
70. Biological control of
marine pests (Kevin D. Lafferty
and Armand M. Kurtis, Ecology,
v77 p1989-2000, 1996)
71. Transport of toxic
dinoflagellates via ships’ ballast
water: Bioeconomic risk
assessment and efficacy of
possible ballast water
management strategies
(Gustaaf M. Hallegraeff, Marine
Ecology Progress Series, v168
p297-309, 1998)
72. Experimental test of the
effect of ultraviolet-B radiation
in a planktonic community
(Limnology and Oceanography,
v44 n3 p586-596, 1999)
73. Too many boats in the
ocean (Serge Garcia, UNESCO
Sources, n96, Dec. 1997)
74. The mineral wealth of the
Bismarck Sea (Raymond A.
Binns and David L. Dekker,
Scientific American, v276 p92,
Mar. 1997)
75. Bobbing bytes (The
Economist, May 23, 1998)
76. A survey of international
agreements (NOAA,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/
yoto/meeting/intl_agr_316.html)
77. Convention on the Law of
the Sea: Overview (DOALOS,
Oceans and Law of the Sea,
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/
losconv1.htm)
78. Principles for sustainable
governance of the oceans
(Robert Costanza et al.,
Science, v281 n5374 p198)
79. The evolution of ocean law
(Jon L. Jacobson and Alison
Rieser, Scientific American,
v276 p100, Mar. 1997)
80. Unfinished business
(Elisabeth Mann Borgese,
UNESCO Sources, n96, Dec.
1997)
81. Abandoned seas (Peter
Weber, Worldwatch Paper 116,
p38, Nov. 1993)
82. MARPOL 73/78 overview
(MARPOL 73/78, Office of Water,
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/
OCPD/marpol.html)
83. 1998 International Year of
the Ocean: Message of UNESCO
Director General (UNESCO
Press, http://ioc.unesco.org/iyo/
newsdesk/97-250e.htm)
84. The policy makers’
challenge - radioactive
dumping in the Arctic Ocean
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T Background sources 3

(John Lamb et al., Oceanus, 95. Scientific ocean drilling

p89, Fall 1993)
85. The deep green sea (The
Economist, May 23, 1998)
86. Ocean energy and
minerals: Resources
for the future (NOAA, 1998
Year of the Ocean,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/
yoto/papers.htm)
(Thomas A. Davies, MTS
Journal, v32 n3 p5)
96. Burial of radioactive
waste under the seabed
(Charles D. Hollister and Steven
Nodis, Scientific American, Jan.
1998)

Section III: The

future of oceans

87. Danger at sea: Our

changing ocean - future
directions (Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/future.html)
88. Danger at sea: Our
changing ocean - difficulties in
addressing the problems
(Seaweb,
http://www.seaweb.org/
campaigns/danger/difficulty.
html)
89. Current status and future
trends in ocean observation
systems (Ram K. Mohan, MTS
Journal, v32 n3 p96)
90. Reflections on marine
science contributions to
sustainable development (Dr.
Gunnar Kullenberg, Ocean and
Coastal Management, v29 n1-3
p35-49, 1995)
91. Ocean research for
understanding global climate
(John Justus, Oceans and
Coastal Resources: A Briefing
Book, http://www.cnie.org/nle/
mar-20/b.html)
92. Instruments cast fresh
eyes on the sea (Robert Irion,
Science, v281 n5374 p194)
93. Global Ocean Observing
System (GOOS Project Office,
http://ioc.unesco.org/goos/)
94. Ocean drilling floats
ambitious plans for growth
(Richard A. Kerr, Science, v282
n5392 p1251)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Population
Section I: Current
status of
population
1. One part wisdom: The
great debate (Paul Harrison,
The Third Revolution)
2. The tragedy of the
commons (Garrett Hardin,
Science, v162 n3859 p1243-48)
3. Briefing packet: 1998
revision, world population
estimates and projections
(Population Division, Dept. of
Economic and Social Affairs,
United Nations)
4. Concise report on the
world population situation in
1995 (Population Division, Dept.
of Economic and Social
Information and Policy Analysis,
United Nations)
5. World population profile
1996 - highlights and full report
(International Programs, US
Census Bureau et al.)
6. IIASA population
projection results (Wolfgang
Lutz, The Future Population of
the World: What Can We
Assume Today?)
7. Population (World Bank,
World Development Indicators
1998)
8. 1997 world population
overview (Werner Foros,
President, The Population
Institute)
9. AIDS shadow cools global
population growth (Joby
Warrick, The Washington Post,
Oct. 28, 1998)
10. Demographic
consequences of declining
fertility (John Bongaarts,
Science, v282 n5388 p419-20)
11. Social trends (Worldwatch
Institute, Vital Signs, 1997)
12. Social trends (Worldwatch
Institute, Vital Signs, 1998)
13. Population and human
well-being (WRI, World
Resources 1998-99)
14. Stabilizing population
(Worldwatch Institute, State of
the World 1998)
15. International migration
1965-1996: An overview (Hania
Zlotnick, Population and
Development Review, v24 n3
p429-468)
Section II: Impacts
of population
16. The population module
(Wolfgang Lutz and Christopher
Prinz, Population, Development,
Environment)
17. Population as concept and
parameter in the modeling of
deforestation (Alan Grainger, in
Gayle Ness et al., Population-
Environment Dynamics)
18. Critical trends:
Demographic, economic, and
technical (Allen Hammond,
Which World?)
19. Population growth and
Earth’s human carrying
Background sources 1
capacity (Joel E. Cohen,
Science, v269 n5222 p341-345)
20. Food production,
population growth, and the
environment (Gretchen Daily et
al., Science, v281 n5381 p1291-
1296)
21. Winning the food race
(Johns Hopkins University
School of Public Health,
Population Reports,
Series M n13)
22. Human security and
fertility: The case of Haiti (Alex
de Sherbinin, Journal of
Environment and Development,
v5 n1 p28-45)
23. Population issues briefing
kit 1992 (UNFPA)
24. Population and the
environment (WRI, World
Resources 1994-95)
25. Dealing with population
and... (Senator Paul Simon,
Tapped Out: The Coming World
Crises in Water)
 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
Urbanization
Section 1:
Introduction to the
urban environment
1. Reinventing cities for
people and the planet (Molly
O’Meara, Worldwatch Paper
147, Jun. 1999)
2. From traumatic transition
to a reasonable urban future
(Jorge Wilheim, The Challenges
of Urban Governance, WWIC,
Jun. 3, 1999)
3. Part I-6: The urban
environment (World Resources
1996-97, Executive Summary,
Chapter 1-6)
4. A survey of cities: Turn up
the lights - the dark side (John
Parker, The Economist, Part 5
of 8, Jul. 25, 1995)
5. Urban and rural areas
(Population Division, Dept. of
Economic and Social Affairs,
United Nations,
http://www.un.org/popin/
wdtrends)
6. Urban and rural areas -
1996 - percentage of
population living in urban
areas in 1996 and 2030
(Population Division, Dept. of
Economic and Social Affairs,
United Nations,
http://www.un.org/popin/
wdtrends)
7. Urban and rural areas:
Urban population (billions)
1950-2030 (Population Division,
Dept. of Economic and Social
Affairs, United Nations,
http://www.un.org/popin/
wdtrends)
8. Urban agglomerations
1996 - world’s urban
agglomerations with
populations of 10 million or
more inhabitants in 1996: 1970,
1996 and 2015 (Population
Division, Dept. of Economic and
Social Affairs, United Nations
http://www.un.org/popin/
wdtrends)
9. Urban agglomerations
1996 - number of urban
agglomerations with 1 million
or more inhabitants: 1950 to
2015 (Population Division, Dept.
of Economic and Social Affairs,
United Nations,
http://www.un.org/popin/
wdtrends/)
10. Urban growth (WRI, World
Resources 1998-99, p146-147)
11. Urban and industrial
environments (GEO-1,
Chapter 2, http://www.unep.org)
12. Megacities: Sweet
dreams or environmental
nightmares? (Walter R. Lynn,
Proceedings of The American
Chemical Society, v33 n11 p238,
Jun. 1, 1999)
13. Ecological footprints of
the future (Dr. William Rees,
People and The Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol6/rees.html)
14. Towards healthy cities
(David Satterthwaite, People
and the Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol6/satterth.html)
15. How the cities grow
(Robert Livernash and David
Satterthwaite, People and
the Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol6/livernas.html)
Section II: Urban
statistics/figures
16. Data table 9.1: Urban
indicators, 1980-2025
(World Resources 1998-99,
p274-281)
17. Urban Upgrading: Service
Delivery to the Urban Poor (The
World Bank Group, p1-6,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/urban/urb)
Section III: Health
and urbanization
18. Secondary cities in West
Africa: The challenge for
environmental health and
prevention (May Yacoob and
Margo Kelly, Woodrow Wilson
International, Comparative
Urban Studies, Occasional
Paper Series, n21, 1999)
Section IV:
Population and
urban migration
19. Urban violence in Sao
Paulo, Brazil: Urbanization,
population growth, and
Background sources 1
inequality (Nancy Cardia, The
Woodrow Wilson Center,
Jun. 3, 1999)
20. Migration, urbanization,
and social adjustment (Michael
J. White, Policy Brief #1,
http://wwics.si.edu/THEMES/
URBAN/briefs/webwhite.htm,
Feb. 1999)
21. Population and urban
sprawl (National Wildlife
Federation, Fact sheet)
22. Population, urbanization,
environment, and security: A
summary of the issues (Ellen
Brennan, Woodrow Wilson
International, Occasional Paper
Series, Comparative Urban
Studies, n22, 1999)
23. Limits and constraints:
Excerpts from the World
Food Summit (Population
Reports, v25 n4 p10,
http://204.179.22.147/fulltext,
Dec. 1997)
24. Ecosystem appropriation
by cities (Carl Folke et al.,
Ambio, v26 n3 p167-172, May
1997)
Section V:
Urbanization and
agriculture
25. Population boom crowds
croplands (International
Wildlife, v26 n2 p31 (restricted
access),
http://204.179.122.147/fulltext,
Mar./Apr. 1996)
2 A A A S AT L A S O F P O P U L AT I O N A N D E N V I R O N M E N T
26. Urbanization and
agriculture to the year 2020
(2020 Vision News and Views,
http://www.ifpri.cgiar.org/2020/n
ewslet/nv_0496/nv_0496a.htm,
Apr. 1996)
27. Time to help the city
farmers of Africa (Diana Lee-
Smith, People and the Planet,
http://carryon.oneworld.org/
patp/vol6/leesmith.html)
S e c t i o n V I : Wa t e r
and urbanization
28. Water supply, sanitation,
and environmental
sustainability - the financing
challenge (Ismail Serageldin,
The World Bank, Directions in
Development, p1-35, 1994)
29. Water for big cities: Big
problems, easy solutions?
(Peter Rogers et al., Policy
Brief # 3, p1-5,
http://wwics.si.edu/THEMES/
URBAN/briefs/webrogers.htm,
Feb. 1999)
30. Should we pay for water?
And if so, how? (John
Kalbermatten, The World Bank
Group, Urban Magazine,
http://www.worldbank.org/htm/
fpd/urban/urb-age/winter99)
31. Bail out: The global
privatization of water supply
(Penelope J. Brook Cowen, The
World Bank Group, Urban
Magazine,
http://www.worldbank.org/
html/fpd/urban/urb_age/
winter99/bail.html)
32. Report 284: Effects of
urbanization and land-use
changes on low stream flow
(Jack B. Evett,
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/wrr
i/reports/evett.html, Apr. 10,
1999)
33. Sustainable watershed
management at the rapidly
growing urban fringe (T.H.
Cahill et al.,
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wate
rshed/Proceed/cahill.html)
Section VII: Urban
management/
planning
34. Noah’s mandate and the
birth of urban bioplanning
(Bruce Babbitt, Conservation
Biology, v13 n3, Jun. 1999)
35. What is smart growth?
(Smart Growth Network, 123,
Overview Page,
http://www.smarthgrowth.org/
topics/whatwhy.html)
36. Policies to improve the
urban environment (Ariel
Alexandre, in Our Cities Our
Future, 1996)
37. Participatory urban
environmental management:
The case of Ahmedabad, India
(Dinesh Mehta, Woodrow Wilson
International, Comparative
Series Studies, Occasional
Paper Series, n20, 1999)
38. Urban governance:
Lessons from best practices in
Asia (Dinesh Mehta, UNDP Policy
Document on Governance, 1997)
39. The Habitat II conference:
Moving slowly toward
sustainable cities (Stephen
Wheeler, Urban Ecologist,
http://www.urbanecology.org/
journal/ue96n3a.htm)
Section VIII:
Tra n s p o r t a t i o n / a i r
pollution
40. Seven megacities with the
worst air pollution (World
Health Organization and the
United Nations Environment
Programme,
http://www.wri.org/enved/
trends/atm-10f.html, 1992)
41. Synopsis, Environmentally
sustainable urbanization and
transportation in China: The
Background sources
case for territorial development Section XI: Land use
planning (Ambio, v28 n2 p198-
49. Border crossing (R.
203, Mar. 1999)
Arrowsmith, Science, v278
42. Express solutions on
n5337 p375, Oct. 1997)
Sunol: New transportation
50. Ecological principles and
choices cut congestion
guidelines for managing the
(http://www.environmentaldefen use of land (V. H. Dale et al.,
se.org/documents/ Ecological Society of America’s
687_SunolGrade.pdf, Aug. 1999) Committee on Land Use,
Version 28, Apr. 29, 1999)
S e c t i o n I X : Wa ste 51. Chapter 10: Integrated
and urbanization approach to the planning and
management of land resources
43. Analyzing urban solid (Agenda 21, Progress Report,
waste in developing countries: A FAO,
perspective on Bangalore, India http://www.fao.org/sd/epdirect/
(Peter van Beukering et al., Epre0029.htm)
Working Paper No. 24, Mar.
Section XII:
1999)
Urbanization and
Section X: Cases the future
52. The city as ecosystem
44. Shanghai’s migrant
(Mary Parlange, BioScience, v48
millions (James Irwin,
n8 p581-585, Aug. 1998)
UNESCO Courier, n6 p32, Jun.
1999)
45. Are megacities viable?
(Exequiel Ezcurra and Marisa
Mazari-Hiriart, Environment,
v38 p6-8, Jan./Feb. 1996)
46. Urbanization, roads,
and rural population change in
the Ecuadorian Andes (Thomas
K. Rudel and Samuel Richards,
Studies in Comparative
International Development, v25
n3 p73, Fall 1990)
47. Building green islands in
Bombay (Charles Pye-Smith,
People and the Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol6/pyesmith.html)
48. Brazil’s urban laboratory
takes the strain (Christina
Cavalcanti, People and the
Planet,
http://www.oneworld.org/patp/
vol6/cavalcan.html)