In June, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
hosted the unprecedented United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED). As a specially invited guest, Captain
Cousteau met with Fernando Colior de Mello, President of Brazil
and of UNCED, King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden,
UNCED, Secretary-General Maurice Strong, ministers, delegates, and
other eminent persons. including President Bernard Dowiyogo of the
Pacific island country of Nauru, and Dr. W. Jackson Davis, science
adviser to Nauru. Nauru is the site of a recent Cousteau
expedition.
Among the audience were an
Amazonian tribesman, one of many spokespersons for indigenous
peoples at UNCED. A film was shown which had been made by a
Cousteau film team, visiting a favela, or slum, in Rio de Janeiro.
In one of many UNCED displays, a 'lie-o-meter' used Plnocchio's
famous nose to depict a nation's alleged
prevarication.
Captain Cousteau delivered a major
lecture to the distinguished assembly of world leaders, delegates
and journalists attending the United Nations Conference. We
present the text in full.
Rio, June 5,
1992.......
Distinguished ladies and
gentlemen,
Two days ago, the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development was inaugurated.
Whatever the difficulties encountered during the lengthy
preparation of this Assembly, its importance was emphasized by
President Fernando Collor de Mello when I visited him in Brasilia
on December 11, 1991. He said: We cannot permit ... Rio to be just
one more conference ... to discuss the problem of the devastation
of the
planet. To make sure that the
Conference will be a success, we must insist that heads of state
come to this and be ready to discuss matters that we know are not
easy to tackle.'
He was mentioning the problems of
demography, of disparity between poor and rich countries, of
climate changes, and of the threat to biodiversity.
I have had the opportunity,
throughout 59 years of worldwide explorations, to witness and
study two striking examples of ill-fated communities: Haiti and
Easter Island, both victims of distressing ecological tragedies of
our time. Easter Island has experienced the same uncontrolled
development, which ended after 1,000 years of mishaps in the
collapse of an original culture and the physical eradication of
the islanders by a 'self-genocide.
Haiti is terribly overpopulated:
7.5 million people on an exiguous and impoverished land. Six
children per family, but fathers of eleven are not rare. Nigh
infant death rate, insufficient schooling, and misery due to
ignorance, superstition and poor political management. Haitians,
though, are beautiful, proud, intelligent, good-humored, and
hardworking. But they have exhausted the marine resources of their
narrow continental shelf. They have deforested, without
precaution, two-thirds of their country and tropical rains have
thereafter wiped out the soil, laying bare the ground rock and
impeding agriculture for centuries to come. To cook their scanty
meals, they continue to deforest, and turn wood into charcoal. We
asked: 'What will you do when there is no wood left at all? 'That
will be the end of the worldl Yes, the end of the world, they
answered. Until then, the men of Haiti procreate, hoping that
their male children will take care of their old fathers; and the
women say, I am not the one to decide how many children I will
have.'
The fuse connected to a demographic
explosion is already burning. We have less than ten years to put
it out. There should be a general mobilization to reverse the
trend and to avoid the population big bang. But instead, there is
a certain disarray about how to tackle such a giant
threat.
Political changes will fail to
resolve Haiti's tragedy, as this country will be poverty-stricken
for many years. Maybe forever, because in certain cases
environmental destruction may reach a point of no
return.
In the seventh century A.D., as
told by petrogiyphs, two large outriggers landed on a virgin, lush
and uninhabited tropical island; two hundred Polynesians-men,
women and children and pigs and hens landed on the beautiful
beaches of Easter Island. They came from the Marquesas Islands,
where they had been ostracized and chased after a tribal
war.
For eight centuries after they
settled, they cultivated, multiplied, and developed a unique
civilization, a society divided into three castes: peasants,
sculptors and priests. Their population reached the number of
70,000; ,famine, bloody revolts and social chaos brought about the
total collapse of their society. When Dutch navigators landed at
Easter Island in the seventeenth century, it was a barren, totally
deforested piece of rock where a few hundred cannibals were
hunting each other for survival. Easter Islands natural exuberance
had expired under the load of too many consumers. All that
remained were undecipherable tablets and proud statues, a stern
warning to humankind of what will happen to Island Earth if humans
do not strictly control their demography.
The fuse connected to a demographic
explosion is already burning. We have less than ten years to put
it out. There should be a general mobilization to reverse the
trend and to avoid the 'population big bang." But instead, there
is a certain disarray about how to tackle such a giant
threat.
Soon after World War II, the Club
of Rome revealed the cause-and-effect relationship between the
drain on nonrenewable resources and the effects of expanding
demography combined with increasing living standards. Today, such
organizations as the United Nations Development Program and the
Woridwatch Institute constantly reassess the consequences on the
Human Development Index. The HDI is based on life expectancy,
literacy and income. But all of those factors are influenced by
the quality of world management and mainly by the terrifying rate
at which the global population increases. In spite of some
hard-won sporadic improvements, the balance sheet is bleak: Some
countries still have a life expectancy of only 40 years. Global
illiteracy remains close to 40 percent. More than one billion
people live at the absolute poverty level. Two billion human
beings have a decreasing quality of life.
But today, population increase has
become exponential. It is no longer the time to discuss the
theories of Malthus. During my lifetime -80 years only - the world
population has more than tripled, jumping from 1.7 billion in 1910
to 5.4 billion today. If nothing drastic is done, in another 80
years, in 2072, population will triple again, reaching the absurd
figure of 16 billion human beings. Every six months, the
equivalent of France (50 million) is added. Every ten years, there
is a new China born in the poorest regions of our Earth. Let us
face it: Whether the level-off figure is 18,16,14, or even 12
billion, it is unacceptable. Even if we found a way to feed this
human tidal wave, it would be impossible to provide this multitude
with decent living conditions. Surviving like rats is not what we
should bequeath to our children and grandchildren.
In November 1989, in Ottawa, Barber
Conable, then President of the World Bank, expressed his anxiety
about the constraints these billions of new human beings will
impose on the planet, and the foreseeable drop in the quality of
life of men and women.
Five months ago, speaking at the
United Nations Salas Memorial Lecture, Robert McNamara asked the
basic question: "Is the increase in human numbers and its
environmental and developmental
ramifica-tions a cause for concern?' After a thorough analysis of
this crucial problem, he concluded that it is.
A few months ago, at the
initiative of their presidents, Sir Michael Atiyah and Dr. Frank
Press, two of the most prestigious scientific
communities of the world, the Royal Society of London and the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, published a statement in which one
can read: There is an urgent need to address economic activity,
population growth and environmental protection as interrelated
issues, and as crucial components affecting the sustainability of
human society. The next 30 years may be cruciall On March 19, 1
interviewed Dr. Press, who declared to my cameras: 'Each
additional person on Earh requires more resources, more food, more
water; and each releases into the environment by-products that can
affect the natural environment. We feel that unlimited growth of
population means disaster and that science cannot rescue the world
from the consequences of an unlimited population
growth.'
Thus, the first priority of a
concerned human community is to avoid famines. In the 1960s, an
American geneticist, Norman Borlaug, developed new breeds of wheat
to increase the production of food. The 'Green Revolution,' a
consequence of his research, saved hundreds of millions of people
from starvation, mainly in India, Pakistan and China. In 1970, Dr.
Borlaug was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his memorable
achievements. I discussed the future of farming technology with
Dr. Borlaug in Geneva two weeks ago. "I call it the Population
Monster," he said, 'that makes it impossible to improve the
quality of life of the poor countries. In my acceptance speech for
the Nobel Prize, I said that, by improving the yield of wheat,
rice and maize by a factor of three, I had provided the leaders of
the world with a provision of 30 years to find solutions to the
population problem. Today, they have wasted 22 years during which
they did not even discuss the matter! With only a few years left
before it will be too late, I warn them: There will not be another
Green Revolution!'
To hearten public opinion, some
technocrats spread a reassuring statement: 'Don't worry! If we
ever run short of resources, we will dig into our Inexhaustible
reserve: the sea.' And actually, fishing enterprises have
improved, in scope and in efficiency. From 20 million tons in
1950, the total catch of the world fisheries today reaches a
ceiling of 90 to 100 million tons. But at what price! Bigger
ships, devastating nets and traps, sonar arid radar, and the
unerring eyes of satellites spotting ocean temperature, tracking
schools, revealing all spawning areas. But more than a reliable
source of food for a hungry world, technology and larger fleets
have only built a dangerous illusion: the myth of an inexhaustible
sea.
How much food can fishing provide?
The oceans cover 71 percent of the planet, but 92 percent of that
is similar to a desert - which means that carbon production is
less than 50 grams per square meter per year (man has nothing to
do with this fact).
To start with, the global primary
production (vegetable source of all animal forms) of the oceans is
only half the primary production of land (55 billion compared to
115 billion tons). Second: The food chain is much more efficient
on land than in the sea: Ten kilos of grass produce one kilo of
cow or sheep or goat. But 10 tons of marine grass are needed to
produce one kilo of tuna. Third: On land, we raise animals for
food. In the sea, we hunt them (fishing is hunting). And as we
already overfish, we have reduced fish stocks; overflshing is
proven by the growing ratio of tonnage of ships versus the tonnage
of fish. Fourth: The tonnage of catch is stable, but it is
falsified. Twenty-seven percent of the catch is turned into fish
flour for cattle! Fish to feed herbivoresi Fish as fertilizer ...
to feed grass! The official 97 million tons from the sea should be
compared with 2 billion 400 million tons from the land - a factor
of 25. To sum up, the sea produces today a maximum of 35 grams per
day per person, and this figure will drop to 10 grams per day per
person if the population triples. Fifth: in fact, the prices rise
faster for fish than for meat. And aquaculture has only been able
to produce luxury food, like shrimp.
Conclusion: Not only are the
resources from the sea negligible compared to agriculture, but we
are already overexploiting,
eating up the stocks to provide luxury food to the rich countries,
which do not need it. If neither scientists, agronomists nor
oceanographers can help solve the consequences of an exponential
population growth, we should urgently find ways to fight Dr.
Bourlaug's population monster, without resorting to any
authoritarian measure. The demographic tsunami is everybody's
business,
It is generally feared that
obstacles to family planning are cultural (or spiritual), and as
such, are impossible to get around. Facts prove the contrary.
Italy, the country closest to the Vatican, has today the lowest
natality in Europe and in the world; and Spain, also a Catholic
country, is about the same case. The largest Muslim country,
Indonesia, has developed an efficient action plan and now has a
still-decreasing birthrate about one-third that of Kenya. Even the
Voodoo priests are softening their stand. However, two formidable
obstacles remain that must and can be overcome: the status of
women and the insecurity of old age.
In all the countries with an
excessive birthrate, women are segregated, deprived of appropriate
health care; the rate of illiteracy among women is one-third
higher than for men. Two examples of the importance of education
of women:
South Yemen: Women's Illiteracy:
95% Birthrate: 3.4%
Thailand: Women's Illiteracy: 15%
Birthrate: 1.3%
The same kind of proportionality
exists between the birthrate and the percentage of GNP allocated
to social security and eventually to retirement plans.
Unfortunately, during the past 10 years in developing countries,
the mean percentage of the national product allocated to health,
social security and education has decreased by about 20 percent
while defense expenditures have increased: Today, in less-favored
nations, armies spend the same share of the budget as health and
education combined, while this proportion is only 55 percent in
the advanced nations.
A rough estimate of what an
efficient plan would cost to provide drinking water to all and to
implement the social promotion of women and decent security in old
age amounts to 400 billion dollars a year, or about one-third of
the aggregate global military budget. In a world of debts,
deficits and armed conflicts, such a plan surely appears utopian.
But the countdown has started, and future generations would not
forgive us for having deliberately spoiled their last
opportunity.
The capacity of our planet to
sustain life - in other words, the habitability of Earth - is
extremely difficult to assess. Temporary necessities or even
simple temptations have unfortunately much more influence on the
behavior of human beings than regards for the preservation of our
heritage. Thus, developing nations, where, today, the only thing
that develops is population, claim that the main problem Is an
equitable sharing of resources rather than overpopulation or
environmental protection, while many ecologists from more favored
nations cry shame when people in Asia or Africa deforest for
survival.
..
Jean Michel and
Jacques Yves Cousteau on the Calypso
This misunderstanding between rich
and poor countries is becoming bitter and may lead to violence, in
the Southern nations, the 20th
century has generalized poverty and hunger, while in the North and
the West, it has generated confusion: confusion between
instruction and education, pleasure and joy, money and morality,
tradition and innovation, individual risks and risks imposed on
others, even on those yet unborn. Universities have become
employment agencies; free enterprise is leading to scandalous
inequalities; the reign of the Golden Calf, to whose law we
submit, is putting the finishing touches on the assassination of
morality, which no society has yet been able to do
without.
Students are incited to despise
tradition for the sake of innovation, while it is tradition that
offers the most fertile ground for creativity. From this
confusion, from this absence of internal
discipline, emerges the 'Me Society,' whose byword is:'Everyone
has the right to everything - including the superfluous -
immediately.'
In Africa, my heart broke to see
little girls running ten kilometers to fetch a small pall of
potable water instead of going to school. In Amazonia, intrigued
by the children swarming around a cottage on stilts, I asked the
master of the house how many children he had: 'I don't know any
more,' he said. 'My wife knows, surelyl' One look from these
youngsters is enough to stir rebellion: Let us stop this
delayed-action genocide! Let us cease thinking only of ourselves
and reasoning only in the short term. Let us assure for the
children to come the same rights that have been declared for their
parents.
We are living in an interminable
succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of
short-term thinking.: the population big bang., the North-South
divorce, the climatic changes of all sorts, the elimination of
thousands of species, the new dictatorship of materialism. All
these evils must be cured urgently, and the only medicine is a
recourse to Utopia. In a remarkable speech at the Ateneo Veneto on
April 6, 1990, Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO, said:
'Since the Renaissance, one has often ascertained that today's
utopias. Are the realities of tomorrow .... Utopia is the
necessity to get over and break the barriers of the established
order.'
I wish that at this Rio Conference,
heads of state and their delegates realize the urgency of drastic,
unconventional decisions. You have an extraordinary opportunity to
change the course of the world .... but only if you decide to
challenge the
huge problems with radical
solutions. The people of the world are anxiously awaiting a new
light. This is our responsibility, as we hold in our hands the
future of tomorrow's exacting generations.
.. 