Environmental Management: Principles and practice

Environmental crisis?
Warnings that the Earth’s environment faces a ‘crisis’ have blossomed since the
1960s (Ehrlich, 1970; Eckholm, 1976; White, 1993). The cause is usually identified
as one or a combination of the following: people’s cavalier use of nature; over-
population; misapplication of technology; faulty development ethics. ‘Crisis’ is a
turning-point, a last chance to avoid, mitigate or adapt. One may recognize several
categories of perceived crisis (these are not arranged in order of importance, do not
represent a comprehensive list, nor are they all wholly separate and discrete):
1
Renewable resource depletion (especially shortfall in food production and
problems with water supplies) and degradation;
2
Global environmental change;
3
Pollution;
4
Nuclear or biological warfare;
5
Biodiversity loss;
6
Increasing hunger and poverty;
7
Increasing human repression, marginalization and disempowerment;
8
Rapid, often poorly planned, urban growth.
‘Crisis’ has become an overworked word. People’s perceptions differ, so not
all agree on the circumstances that constitute a crisis—‘crisis’ for one may be normal
to another, an opportunity to another. The term is also prone to emotive, journalistic
usage (Blaikie, 1988). Some, mainly on the political left, suggest that the idea of a
crisis is a ‘liberal cover-up’ to divert attention from doing anything about ‘real
problems’ like social injustice and poverty (Young, 1990:142–143). Others feel that
environmental problems are mainly due to social problems, that there is a social or
ethical crisis behind any environmental crisis (e.g. Weston, 1986:4; Caldwell, 1990;
Merchant, 1992:17).
Identification of large-scale crisis may be a mistaken response to a patchy problem,
reflecting inadequate observation. Science is vital, providing the environmental manager
with the means for objective and careful monitoring (Blaikie, 1989; Blaikie and Unwin,
1988:7; Thompson et al., 1986). Writing on ‘rural poverty unperceived’, Chambers
(1983:13–27) noted a range of social science research errors which lead to false

---

SCIENCE
143
impressions (physical science can make similar errors), e.g. a researcher’s tendency to
view roadside areas and miss the ‘interior’; the fact that the majority of studies are
made during dry seasons; interviews with unrepresentative groups of people; research
that is too short term. Ives and Messerli (1989), in discussing the Himalayas, which
many identify as in environmental crisis, indicated little firm evidence that this is so.
Indeed, some records show areas markedly worse several decades ago that have now
improved. Blaikie and Unwin (1988:13) cited an example of gully erosion in Zimbabwe
identified as constituting a crisis, where careful study revealed that only about 13 per
cent of total soil loss was from the spectacular gullies, while 87 per cent was from
insidious inter-gully sheet erosion. Funds could easily have been spent treating gullying
(a symptom of the problem) rather than sheet erosion (the actual problem).
Another danger in adopting a crisis orientation is that decision makers suddenly
respond to a problem (crisis management or ‘fire-fighting’) rather than make sustained
efforts to avoid or solve it (Henning and Mangun, 1989:3). It should be stressed that
infrequent or random events can suddenly cause considerable environmental change
with no sign of an approaching crisis.
The growing number of environmental problems has been seen as indicating a
‘progressive loss of ecological stability’ (Simmonis, 1990:26)—it might also reflect
more research and awareness. A wise comment was made by Sir Crispin Tickell:
‘We can remove one, two, or ten rivets. But at a certain point—it could be the eleventh
or the thousandth rivet…things fall apart’ (The Times, 27 April 1991:4). With any
complex system there may be failure of component parts, the breakdown of one of
which is relatively insignificant, but it might, alone or in combination with other
factors, contribute to overall collapse. The global environment is a complex system.
Environmental managers need to recognize significant thresholds, and act to avoid
problems. An area of mathematics, catastrophe theory (which is concerned with the
way in which systems can suddenly change by passing a crisis point), may aid the
identification of critical environmental thresholds before they are reached. However,
even with adequate knowledge of the structure and function of the environment and
of human behaviour, and using tools like impact assessment and catastrophe theory
(see later), advance warning may be difficult to provide.
Another aid to threshold identification is ultimate environmental thresholds
assessment. This is derived from threshold analysis, which is based on the assumption
that there are final boundaries which may be broken by direct or indirect (including
cumulative) impacts. Kozlowski (1986:146) defined these thresholds as: ‘stress limits
beyond which a given ecosystem becomes incapable of returning to its original condition
and balance’. It is possible to recognize temporal, quantitative, qualitative and spatial
dimensions of these thresholds (Kozlowski, 1986:18–30), and to assess their present
and future status. The approach has many things in common with EIA, and possibly
some advantages, including a chance of better integration into the planning process.
There have been regional catastrophes which ultimate environmental thresholds
assessment might have helped avoid, e.g. the ruination of the Aral Sea or the recent
forest fires in Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico and South East Asia.
The Brundtland Report rekindled crisis warnings made in the 1960s and 1970s,
and suggested a rough timescale: ‘Most of today’s decision-makers will be dead before

---

CHAPTER SEVEN
144
the planet feels the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone
depletion…. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive’ (World Commission
on Environment and Development, 1987:8). At present global warming is generally
seen to pose the greatest threat. Other threats are: projected population growth rates set
against projected per capita availability of key resources: land, water, food and fuelwood,
and there can be little doubt that pollution with hazardous compounds, soil degradation
and loss of biodiversity are serious problems world-wide.
In roughly one generation from now human population will probably have
doubled, and might use 80 per cent of primary production. Even if climatic change
and pollution do not depress photosynthesis, and if agricultural productivity improves,
the limits are getting close (Holmberg, 1992:27).
There is still wide disagreement over strategies to counter problems. Questions
often asked are:
♦
Are the environmental problems faced by developed countries and the
developing countries the same?
♦
Are some or all of the developing countries’ problems caused by the developed
countries (or vice versa)?
♦
Are developing countries suffering more environmental damage than the
developed countries?
♦
Are the developing countries more vulnerable to problems?
Countries have tremendous diversity of environment, government, administration,
historical background, etc. However, two things are widely shared by developing
countries: poverty and environmental degradation. Whether poverty reflects accidents
of history or special handicaps associated with the tropics has been debated (Huntington,
1915; Adams, 1990:6–8; Kates and Haarmann, 1992). Developing countries’
populations are growing more than those of the developed. However, they consume far
less per capita of the world’s resources. In an interdependent world both developed
and developing countries will have to co-operate, or conflict and failure to resolve
problems will probably follow. Whether global environmental change will disadvantage
developing countries more than developed is difficult to predict. For example, climatic
change may have very different effects on even closely neighbouring countries.
Africa is frequently singled out as having or being close to an environmental
crisis, a development crisis or both (Watts, 1989; Davidson et al., 1992). Blaikie and
Unwin (1988:20) were sceptical, noting that soil erosion was not really serious. Others
feel things seem to be getting worse, especially in the Maghreb and south of the
Sahara (excluding South Africa). Many refer to a crisis in sub-Saharan Africa
(Harrison, 1987:17–26, 56), caused by:
1
a decline in per capita food production;
2
increasing poverty;
3
a debt crisis;
4
civil unrest (Africa, with less than 10 per cent of the world’s population had
almost 50 per cent of the world’s refugees in the late 1980).

---

SCIENCE
145
Drought is often cited as a cause of a sub-Saharan African crisis, yet there is no
conclusive evidence that rainfall is less or receipts more variable in recent decades
than during the past few thousand years (Holmberg, 1992:225). More likely drought
in Africa exposes other weaknesses—a ‘litmus of development’.
Often it is possible to recognize what might cause a crisis, but tracing why
these things happen is less easy. It has been suggested that shortcomings in western
ethics are frequently the root cause. However, non-western countries also have
environmental problems. Population growth cannot be blamed where, despite very
low settlement density, certain activities (e.g. ranching) lead to severe damage.
Population growth projections are therefore not a certain indicator that environmental
problems will occur. Livelihood strategies which have long served people, often in
harsh environments, have often broken down in recent years. The reasons are diverse,
including: population increase; structural adjustment; spread of commercial
agriculture; adoption of new crops; restrictions on movement of people or livestock.
Environmental management must look carefully at physical, social and economic
factors before drawing conclusions—false impressions are easily gained.