WORLD ENVIRONMENT
ORGANIZATON:
A DESPERATE NEED FOR
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir YASAMIS
Sabanci University
Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: firuz@sabanciuniv.edu
Phone: (90) (216) 483 9254
Fax: (90) (216) 483 9250
Paper prepared for the
European Sociological Association - 5th Conference
“Visions and Divisions – Challenges to European Sociology”
Helsinki, Finland
August 28th-Sep.1st, 2001
ABSTRACT
Environmental calamities
and destruction do not recognize national borders. Furthermore, environmental
“crimes” are being committed everyday through out the whole planet. Rare
species of flora and fauna of the Globe are insistently in the process of extinction.
Deforestation and desertification are going on with full speed. Not only the
rain forests of South America, but also the forests of Africa and ex-Soviet
block counties are being completely cleared. The impacts of global warming and
acid rain are becoming more visible thus threatening the fate of the global
civilization. GMOs are being explored and put into the service of mass
consumers day by day without any adequate control over it. Toxic and hazardous
wastes are still being exported illegally to especially developing countries.
Hundreds of international documents have been put into effect for several
years. However, since there is no global monitoring organization, the
implementation status of these treaties is not clearly known.
All these indicate that
global environmental planning and management needs require institutional
remedies to be set by the international community. However, on the other hand,
the available international organizations such as the United Nations, The United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Global Environmental Facility (GEF) do
not have such a global organizational setup, global power and global financial
resources. Therefore, these organizations cannot provide any light of hope for
the global future.
The subsequent
transformation of the GATT, into the World Trade Organization (WTO) has created
a new example and genre of international institutions. Member countries have
transferred some of their rights to this Organization in order to accelerate
the pace of global trade.
The world’s environmental
problems desperately need a unique and comprehensive body to run the planning,
organizing, execution, coordination and cooperation functions of the global
environmental management. This organization should be the World Environment
Organization.
KEY WORDS: Global environmental management, World Environment
Organization, Global environmental policy.
“…Thirty years ago,
photographs taken from space by the Apollo expeditions indelibly impressed on
all who saw them that our planet, while divided by political boundaries, is
united by ecological systems. These photos helped inspire the first Earth Day,
which in turn motivated numerous countries to pass environmental laws and
create environmental ministries. This year, the world will celebrate Earth Day
2000. The time has come for a comparable groundswell in support of the
international governance reforms that are needed to safeguard the health of the
planet in the new millennium.”
Hilary French [1]
Introduction
The last three
decades on our Globe, have witnessed two important environmental phenomena:
first, the glamorous success in environmental diplomacy thus leading the way to
ample amount of global bilateral and multilateral environmental agreements,
conventions and protocols resulting in further enhancement of legal framework
and enrichment of international environmental law and, second, continuing
deterioration in global environmental quality despite the international and
national actions and remedies already taken against this ongoing process.
“The Limits to Growth, A
Global Challenge; a Report for the Club of Rome Project on the Predicament of
Mankind” [2],
was the first eye opening declaration in this regard. Having its own thoughts
traced back to Malthus (An Essay on the
Principle of Population), P. and A. Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) and G. Hardin (The Tragedy of Commons), Meadow and his friends have made this
astonishing statement: “If the present
trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and
resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will
be reached within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be sudden
and uncontrollable decline in population and industrial capacity… It is
possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of
ecological and economic stability that is sustainable for the future.”
Similarly, almost at the same period, another Report [3]
submitted to the US President was also repeating the above mentioned statement:
“If public policies unchanged through the
end of the century, a number of serious world problems will become worse…”
The Report indicated that the world population will go up to 6.35 billion in
the year 2000, GNP will still be low and the food problem will be unsolved in
developing countries, there will be more pollution but less stable economies,
national states will be more vulnerable to social and political disruptions,
regional water shortages will be observed, the year 2050 will be turning point
for global climate change and the rate of extinction of plants and animals will
be accelerated.
The works of Mishan (The Costs
of Economic Growth), Odum (The
Strategy of Ecosystem Development), White Jr. (The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis), Stone (Should Trees Have Standing), Komarov (The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet
Union), Commoner (Closing Circle), Boulding (The Economics of Coming Spaceship Earth) and
Lovelock (Gaia) have also resulted in
indicating the same problem: World’s resources are finite and under a big
threat of irrational consumption thus endangering the right of living of the
next generations on this Globe.
Amidst these theoretical and philosophical understandings,
perceptions and conceptions, the well known Brundtland Report [4]
has finally shaped the commonly shared belief of the Globe’s unescapable fate: ‘there are also environmental trends that
threaten to radically alter the planet, that threaten the lives of many species
upon it, including he human species.’ [5]
The authors of “The Limits to
Growth” have repeated their study almost 20 years later in 1991, and showed
that “the world has already overshot some
of its limits and, if present trends continue, we face the prospect of a global
collapse –perhaps within the lifetimes of children alive today”. [6]
This statement is also confirmed by another very important,
independent and dependable study carried out by the World Resources Institute [7],
under the title of “PAGE: Pilot Analysis
of Global Ecosystems” - a study to be completed by another but more global
study called “MEA: Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment”.
PAGE has analysed five of the World’s major ecosystem types, namely,
agroecosystems, forest ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems, grassland ecosystems
and coastal and marine ecosystems. Study on agroecosystems revealed that
environmental damage threatens future
world food production. Forest ecosystems study showed that forest areas in developed countries continue to increase
slightly, while clearance for
agriculture, development and logging in developing countries is reducing their
forests by at least 140.000 square kilometres every year. Likewise,
freshwater systems study also revealed that the world’s freshwater systems are so degraded that their ability to
support human, plant and animal is greatly in peril. Grassland ecosystem
study warned that the world’s grasslands
have declined in their extent and condition, as well as their ability to
support human, plant and animal life. Finally, the coastal and marine
ecosystems study indicated that the Planet’s
coastal zone is in danger of loosing its capacity to provide fish, protect
homes and businesses, reduce pollution and erosion and sustain biological
diversity. [8]
Hilary French, from the Worldwatch Institute, has also proclaimed
similar findings for the global environment in her book titled “Vanishing Borders, Protecting the Planet in
the Age of Globalisation”. [9] French said “The world economy and the natural world that it relies on are both in
precarious states as we enter the new millennium, provoking fears that an era
of global instability looms on the horizon. Over the course of the twentieth
century, the global economy stretched the planet to its limits.”
Basing upon this belief and giving so many convincing data and
evidence, French came to the conclusion that “the time is now ripe to build international governance structures
needed to ensure that the world economy of twenty-first century meets people’s
aspirations for a better future without destroying the natural fabric that
underpins itself.”
However, a considerable amount of effort has been spent to change
the ongoing trends and the course of global environmental fate. These include
both dealing with the individual cases and episodes of environmental pollution
and establishing technological and institutional infrastructure for more
effective environmental management. Countries mainly in the north and some in
the south have taken steps to stop the environmental calamities, problems and
nuisances.
On the other hand, more than 200 MEAs (multilateral environmental
agreements) have been signed to protect and enhance the global environmental
quality. Amongst these, CITES-Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, RAMSAR-Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, BONN-Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, BASEL-Convention on the
Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal,
Convention to Combat Desertification, Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention
on the Protection of the Ozone Layer are few to name.
These international legal documents covered almost every aspect of
global environment including climate change, global warming, acid rain, ozone
layer depletion, extinction of rare species and deforestation in rain forests.
Undoubtedly, these endeavours have played very important role in diminishing
the environmental nuisances. For instance, Montreal Protocol, on ozone layer
depletion succeeded in achieving the original objectives. CITES, BASEL, RAMSAR
conventions can also be seen as other successful initiatives. Naturally some
others were not so successful due to several reasons. Consequently, it would
not be wrong to state those international agreements, conventions and protocols
were the proofs of a glamorous success
for global environmental diplomacy.
As far as the monitoring,
implementation, compliance management and enforcement of these MEAs concerned,
two distinctive institutional models have been materialised: first, to set-up a
unique institutional framework for each individual agreement in which the
original and the ratified documents are deposited, secretarial works are
provided, the management functions have been performed or, secondly, to set-up
a world-wide institutional entity such as UNEP and GEF to deal with the
problem.
Unfortunately, either way has proved to be in great problems. These
problems range from securing the adequate financial contribution, to manning
and cooperation and coordination among the parties to the MEA.
Additionally, UNEP institutionally and financially was so weak to
deal with the complicated global environmental problems and GEF has so far
resulted in a disappointment especially for the southern countries.
The overall consequence of these global trends and actions have
become the ongoing global environmental and ecological deterioration and the
destiny of the Globe seems to be still in same direction as forecasted by the
above mentioned studies.
Institutional Reasons of
the Failure: Inadequacies in Organisation, Management and Finance
The present global
institutional set-up for managing the global environment is rather weak and ineffective. United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Sustainable Development Commission
(CSD) and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) mainly constitute the present
system. As all we know, UNEP with its financial and personnel availabilities can
not cope with the global environmental problems. Additionally, the legal status
in which UNEP is trying fulfil its mission can not provide a base for an
effective and efficient handling of global matters. As far as GEF is concerned,
it is totally unrealistic to expect that GEF would even minimally be successful
in re-coursing the global environmental problems such as climate change,
bio-diversity, deforestation, and desertification. CSD of ECOSOC even do not
have its own financial resources.
In addition to above-mentioned directly related global organisation,
there are several indirectly related
global organisations. These, among several others, include the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the World Trade Organisation. Some of
these organisations have not yet
incorporated the environmental concerns with their own mandates and some of
them have attached secondary importance
to the global environmental concerns.
The third group of global environmental organisations is the “secretariats” established by the MEAs.
Some of these secretariats have been
successful in fulfilling the missions such as ozone layer depletion and
whale protection but the majority of them have
failed.
Furthermore, there is no
institutional relation whatsoever among
these secretariats and between the
secretariats and other international organisations.
These secretariats are dispersed all over the world thus
experiencing huge amount of communication,
cooperation and coordination problems. Even, most of them are not aware of the priorities of others
and political differentiation and
contradiction are highly likely among them.
And, again, it is almost impossible to expect that these
secretariats will come together and form a kind of global collaboration
platform to fight in harmony and close contact with the global environmental
problems.
Naturally and expectably, the
NGOs -either national or international- such as the Greenpeace, the Friends
of Earth and the Audubon Society, despite their intense work can not be a leverage to modify and reshape
the global organisational misgivings described above.
Under these circumstances, planning
the global environmental problems is almost impossible whereas the planning
of global environmental problems bears an utmost necessity.
Scientists due to the lack of
data and information on the nature and characteristics of the issues
concerned have not adequately defined most of the global environmental
problems. GMOs, chemicals and ozone layer depletion are the examples in this
regard. The boundaries of science have
been reached in most cases and further knowledge is an absolute necessity
to make accurate predictions and develop secure solutions. Scientific research
needs have not yet been adequately met for global ecological and environmental
problems.
Similarly, directing and/or
managing the Globe’s ecosystem is not possible under the given conditions.
There is no global management of world’s
ecosystems and there will not be in the future.
The management function requires development of management
procedures. These include technological,
financial, administrative, legal, institutional and managerial ones. Global
rules have to be formulated. These
rules are to be legislated and put into effect all over the world.
Certain organisations should be
set-up to monitor the developments
and implement the sanctions agreed
upon internationally. Technical and
administrative infrastructures should be established. Finance should be secured to run all these procedures. International courts should be able to
issue binding resolutions on the offenders.
Funds should be available to help the countries in need of assistance.
However, none of these crucial systemic inputs is available at the moment. Therefore, global management of ecosystems
is not possible.
Consequently, the global ecosystems will continue to deteriorate, the global environmental quality will be jeopardised
and extinction processes of some certain living creatures -including human
species- will continue.
WEO: A Desperate Global Need
This alarming phenomenon necessitates the establishment of a global
institution to deal with the problem, to forecast the future, to identify the
required counter measures, to develop rules, norms and sanctions to be applied
to all related parties, to generate funds, to finance the expenditures, to
establish the global monitoring systems and laboratories and to try the
polluters ad offenders.
Similar thoughts in this line have also been reflected by the “OECD Environmental Strategy for the First
Decade of the 21st Century” which the OECD Environment Ministers
have adopted on May 16, 2001. Although, the Strategy did not call for the
establishment of the WEO, the following statements taking place in the Strategy
are remarkable in this regard: “Efforts
are needed to better manage the environmental affects of globalisation through
improved national and international environmental governance. Over time,
non-OECD countries will account for an increasing share of environmental
pressures at regional and global levels. Action by OECD countries to combat
these pressures will only be effective if accompanied by countries require
robust policy and institutional frameworks to play their role in addressing
global and regional environmental problems and to ensure that maximum benefits
are derived from globalisation… Stronger efforts are needed to ratify,
implement and ensure compliance with and enforcement of existing Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and instruments. Best practices in the
implementation of existing MEAs should routinely disseminated. Some new
multilateral instruments may need to be developed to address gaps in the
existing international environmental governance system, but the priority should
be on making existing MEAs as effective as possible. Improved cooperation and
coherence between existing MEAs should also be promoted…” [10]
Several important calls came from the prominent world leaders and
global organisation. The Prime Minister of France, M. Jospin, in his speech at
the World Bank Conference on Development Economics in Paris on 26 June 2000,
said “Problems are now global and require
global solutions. States acting in isolation are not in position to protect
their citizens’ interest and guarantee them the benefits of globalisation”.
Jospin, called for the strengthening of the United Nations and other
institutions “which endeavour to
guarantee international public assets, especially in areas where there are
still gaps.” Jospin said “to this
end, France will propose a new ‘World Environment Organisation to enforce
international commitments. France will be taking an initiative along these
lines, based on the UN system, when it assumes the Presidency of the European
Union…” [11]
Similar idea has been voiced by Germany in June 1977 at the Special
Session of the UN General Assembly (Rio + 5). Germany has proposed the
establishment of “World Environment Organisation” under the possible formats of
“World Environment Council” at the
level of UN “ECOSOC” or even at the level of UN “Security Council” or as an
independent “Global Environment
Organisation” with competencies similar to World Trade Organisation”. [12]
WTO, also, proposed the establishment of World Environment
Organisation. The Director General of WTO, Renato Ruggiero, in his speech in
Geneva on March 15, 1999 suggested that “we
need a WTO-similar, multilateral, rules-based system for the environment – a
“World Environment Organisation” to also be the institutional and legal
counterpart to the World Trade Organisation”.
Recently, in a meeting held in Canberra, Global Greens Conference,
in June 2001, delegates from more than 60 countries proposed that the World
Trade Organisation should be subject to environmental controls imposed by the
new World Environment Organisation which would be backed up by an environmental
court. [13]
Several academicians are also supporting the idea and proposing the
establishment of “World Environment and
Development Organisation”. [14] Biermann and Adonis, in their article have
stated the following conclusion: “While
improved efficiency and more coordination are desirable, they will not suffice
on their own to upgrade the efficacy of the existing system of international
institutions in global environmental and development policy. This system,
therefore, needs to be complemented by a further specialised agency of the
United Nations: a World Environment and Development Organisation that
integrates existing programs and institutions. This could, first, serve to give
an enhanced status to the urgent tasks of global environmental and development
policy among national governments, international organisations, NGOs and civil
society at large. Secondly, it could help to improve the institutional setting
for the negotiation of new conventions and programs of action and for the
implementation and coordination of existing ones. Thirdly, this would be a way
to strengthen the capacity for action of states, particularly in Africa, Asia
and Latin America, through improved international cooperation and support.”
What Kind of New Global
Institutional Framework?
The recently published World Resources Institute Report reveals the
following: “The Pilot Analysis of Global
Ecosystems (PAGE) shows that the overall capacity of ecosystems to deliver
goods and services is decreasing. Yet human demand for ecosystem products -from
water to food to timber- continues to increase. Globally, we have managed
agriculture, forests and freshwater systems to achieve remarkable growth in the
output of food and fiber. But, when PAGE researchers examined the full range of
goods and services produced by five major ecosystems, they found that the
increased output of some goods and services has resulted in steep declines in
virtually all others -from water quality and quantity to biodiversity and
carbon storage. In many cases, these trade-offs were unconscious. Nonetheless,
even with a new awareness of the value of traditionally overlooked ecosystem
services like biodiversity and carbon storage, we can’t simply reverse the
trade-offs we’ve made… The poor and disadvantaged would pay the human
consequences of such strategy.” [15]
Therefore, the correct answer to the question of “What kind of
management” lies within the limits of the management approach to be adopted for the global environmental and ecological
problems. Since, the present approach is based upon continuos and extensive
abuse of scarce resources for social and economic development, which naturally
results in creating more pressures for ecosystems, the new approach should base
upon the concept of ecosystem management
of global resources.
The WRI report also points out five major criteria of ecosystem
approach:
·
An integrated approach,
·
Reorients the boundaries that
traditionally have defined our management of ecosystems,
·
Takes the long view,
·
Includes people, and
·
Maintains the productive
potential of ecosystems.
Although, above mentioned criteria are developed mainly for local
and regional ecosystems, same principles can also be applied to global
ecosystems. Therefore, the WEO should try to manage the global ecosystems in
the same line. This approach, if adopted, also specifies the statute,
functions, duties, responsibilities, authorities and powers of the new
institution.
However, the proponents and adversaries of WEO seem to have
contradicting ideas over the institution. While the proponents are supporting
the idea, the adversaries are sceptical about the success of the new
organisation. Both parties are expressing their opinions taking into
consideration of environmental and political realities of today’s world. Since,
the ecological problems is always discussed simultaneously with the problem of
unemployment and achieving economic growth especially in the poor and developing
countries, it is expected that consolidation and/or compromising the
contradicting interests of world nations will not be an easy endeavour.
Despite this discouraging difficulty, the proponents of the idea
seem to be convinced on the merits of the new organisation. In this regard two
main options/strategies can be thought for the establishment of the new WEO:
·
Radical option: A totally
brand-new and comprehensive international body.
·
Incremental and transient
option: Utilisation of present international organisations such as UNEP and
GEF.
Naturally, first option is the ideal solution. However, the
feasibility of this option is greatly doubtful. The existing and very serious
contradictions between the north and south -as materialised in Kyoto and
aftermaths- and the problem of securing revenue sources for the operational
expenses of the WEO -as has been observed in GEF practices where the donor
countries have much more power and right to say than the receiving countries-
make this option rather difficult if not impossible.
Therefore, the second option seems to be more practicable. In this
regard, the UN path should be followed and UNEP, GEF and CSD should be united
under a single umbrella. Biermann and Simonis perhaps like to see UNDP under
the same entity. Likewise, World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) may also take part in the new
organisation.
What would be more significant is the integration of individual
secretariats of MEAs in the scheme. These organisations must be effectively
incorporated into new system.
The management functions of the new body
should be planned according to the phases. At the first phase, which would be
the transition phase, status gaining and institutional strengthening should be
given the priority. Upon the completion of this stage, a full-scale management
of global ecosystem -perhaps incorporating an international court into the
system- should be the overall target for the new entity. International
arbitration of environmental disputes and management of ISO 14000 series should
also be included in this process.
The recently GATT-transformed body of World Trade Organisation is
certainly a good example in this regard. First, the international experience
gained in the Uruguay Round should be repeated for the enhancement of the idea
and then again the WTO model should be replicated in terms of status,
structure, relations, decision-making, functions, duties, authorities and fund
raising.
Therefore, the main functions of the WEO should be similar to those
of WTO as follows:
·
Administering MEAs
·
Acting as a forum/platform for
environmental negotiations
·
Settling environmental disputes
·
Reviewing national
environmental policies
·
Assisting developing countries
in environmental policy issues through financial and technical assistance and
training programs
·
Cooperating with other
international organisations.
Organisationally, the WTO structure, which is mainly comprised of
the Ministerial Conference, the General Council, specialised committees, MEA
secretariats and the General Secretariat, can be adopted.
Biermann and Simonis seem to be certain about the sources of
finance. They are basically pointing out the sources to be derived from the
developed countries’ already promised environmental financial assistance (like
Sweden and the Netherlands) to developing countries, buying up of the debts of
developing countries by the developed ones, a levy on international air travel
and a levy on foreign exchange transactions.
Conclusion
The time has arrived to revolutionise
the global environmental governance.
The ongoing deterioration of global
environmental and ecological quality parameters should create an effective
alarm for world leaders, leading countries and international organisations.
It is already proven that even the
spectacular success in environmental diplomacy is not adequate to reverse the
well-known adverse, unmitigable and irrevocable impacts of global environmental
deterioration.
The establishment of the World
Environment Organisation can only achieve such a revolution.
The existing bodies of UNEP and GEF and
the huge accumulation international relations expertise in the UN can provide a
very effective leverage in this regard.
REFERENCES
Biermann, Frank Dr. and
Prof. Udo Simonis, “Pleading for a World
Environment and Development Organisation”, http://business.hol.gr.
Biermann, Frank Dr., “The
Case for a World Environment Organization, Environment”, Nov. 2000, vol.
42, Issue 9, pp. 22.
French, Hilary, “Vanishing Borders, Protecting the Planet in
the Age of Globalization”, Norton/Worldwatch Books, New York, 2000.
French, Hilary, “Coping with Ecological Globalization”,
in “State of the World 2000”, The Worldwatch Institute, Norton/Worldwatch Book,
New York, 2000, pp. 184-202.
House of Commons, (UK)
Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, “Sixteenth Report”.
Meadows, D., “The Limits
to Growth, A Global Challenge; a Report for the Club of Rome Project on the
Predicament of Mankind” Universe Books, New York, 1972.
Nellisen, Nico, Jan Van Der
Straaten and Leon Klinkers, “Classics in
Environmental Studies: An Overview of Classical Texts bin Environmental
Studies”, International Books, Utrecht, 1997.
OECD, “Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st
Century”, May 16, 2001, p. 9.
Ryding, Sven-Olof, “Environmental Management Handbook, The
Holistic Approach – from problems to strategies”, IOS Press, the
Netherlands, 1998, p. 777.
World Commission on
Environment and Development, “Our Common
Future”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.
World Resources Institute,
“World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life”,
Washington DC, September 2000, p. 387.
[1] French, Hilary, “Coping with Ecological Globalization”, in State of
the World 2000, The Worldwatch Institute, Norton/Worldwatch Book, New York,
2000, pp. 184-202.
[2] Meadows, D., Universe Books, New York, 1972.
[3] “The Global 2000 Report to the President of the USA”, 1980.
[4] World Commission on Environment and Development, “Our Common
Future”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.
[5] Nellisen, Nico, Jan Van Der Straaten and Leon Klinkers, “Classics
in Environmental Studies: An Overview of Classical Texts bin Environmental
Studies”, International Books, Utrecht, 1997.
[6] Ibid.
[7] World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001, People and
Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life”, Washington DC, September 2000, p. 387.
This book contains huge amount of statistical data covering almost every
section of the Planet.
[8] Further information can be obtained from this web page:
“www.wri.org”.
[9] French, Hilary, “Vanishing Borders, Protecting the Planet in the
Age of Globalisation”, Norton/Woldwatch Books, New York, 2000.
[10] OECD, “Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st
Century”, May 16, 2001, p. 9.
[11] “www.edie.net”
[12] House of Commons, Select Committee on Environment, Transport and
Regional Affairs, “Sixteenth Report”.
[13] “www.commondreams.org”
[14] Biermann, Frank Dr. and Prof. Udo Simonis, “Pleading for a World
Environment and Development Organisation”, http://business.hol.gr.
[15] World Resources Institute, “World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life”, Washington DC, September 2000, p. 227.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder