Say No to Corporate Locusts
Budi Widianarko
I took pleasure in reading Ong Hock Chuan’s column in this newspaper (March 24, 2006) commenting sympathetically on the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s statement defending the interest of foreign mining investors against the despotism of political elite. He advised that if the pressure on investors continues there a great chance that this country will lose its foreign investments. This, of course, sounds very reasonable and in favor of everybody’s interest.
Ong’s line of reasoning is well ordered and straightforward, thanks to his concise and yet eloquent phrases. Frankly, Ong’s article has enriched my understanding on the beauty of idea diversity, something that we should celebrate in this current age of post-modernism. However I am truly amazed at Ong’s stance with regard to the nature of corporations, including those called “big boys”.
Reading through his arguments, one will certainly get the impression that big foreign corporations are merely helpless creatures when facing criticisms by the political elite in this country. It is hard to accept as true that corporations, especially those in the international mining arena, are just powerless entities which can not defend themselves.
Actually, with experiences gained throughout the course of their existence corporations are already forced to devise themselves with multitude strategies to cope with external pressures. In this respect, corporations may resemble living organisms and behave accordingly. Thanks to John Elkington (The Chrysalis Economy, 2001) who has ingeniously categorized corporate environmental strategies according to four kinds of organism: the locusts, caterpillars, butterflies and honeybees. These groupings are based on a two dimensional character of the corporation, i.e. the nature of its resources utilization combined with the corresponding level of impact.
In terms of resource utilization, CORPORATE LOCUSTS are classified as a degenerative model with high impact on the environment. They are part of the “decreasing return” world, where the more they do something - the worse things get. Its characteristics include, among other, a highly unsustainable business model; a tendency to swarm, overwhelming habitat; destroys various forms of capital,; zero cross-pollination; and blind to early warnings.
CORPORATE CATERPILLARS are also representing a degenerative model. However, they are usually more difficult to spot than locusts. Here are some traits of corporate caterpillars: longer-term, an unsustainable business model; high “burn rate”; relatively local impacts; and potential for switching to regenerative model.
Two generative models are represented by CORPORATE BUTTERFLIES and CORPORATE HONEYBEES. They are part of the “increasing return” world. The first model are typified by a sustainable business model; strong commitment to corporate social responsibility or sustainable development (CSR/SD), high visibility, loud voice; may publicly attack locusts; widely networked; and commercial lightweight. The second model have the following traits: sustainable business model; strong business ethics; constant innovation, cross-pollination; capacity for heavy lifting; strategic use of natural capital and other resources; sophisticated technology; and multiple capital formation.
Unfortunately, most big mining corporations fall under the category of CORPORATE LOCUST. An infamous example of this model is Russian Aluminum, the world’s second largest aluminum producers. Which according to Elkington (2001) in a lawsuit filed in New York, the company has been accused of an array of crimes, including murder, death threats, fraud, bribery, and money laundering. Elkington also stated that apart from Russian Aluminum, the list of LOCUSTS is long, including Freeport-Mc MoRan Copper and Gold operated in Papua. (In page 80 of Elkington’s book you can find a detailed account on LOCUST-like behaviors performed by this corporation).
Being acquainted with their common attitudes, it seems safe to assume that it is nothing new for big mining corporations to dealing with social and environmental protests. In dealing with such pressures, Sharon Beder in her contentious book (GLOBAL SPIN, 2000), pointed out that actually big international corporation have been developing a special technique known as corporate activism. With their massive financial resources and power corporations defy claims made by environmentalist, to reshape public opinion and to persuade politician against tightened environmental regulation. In the western world, corporate activism which is ignited in the 1970s and rejuvenated in 1990s has enabled corporate agenda to dominate most debates about the state of the environment and what should be done about it. While numerous alternatives available, two most perilous, and yet most common modes of environmental activism are (1) the setting up of front groups, and (2) public relation strategies.
Basically, the first mode is like to put your works in someone else’s mouth. When a corporation wants to oppose environmental regulations, or support an environmentally damaging development, it may do so openly and in its own name. But it is far more effective to have a group of citizens or experts – and preferably a coalition of such groups – which can publicly promote the outcomes desired by the corporation whilst claiming to represent the public interest. When such groups do not already exist, the modern corporation can pay a public relation to create them. The use of such front groups enables corporation to take part in public debates and government hearings behind a cover of community concern. The names of corporate front groups are carefully chosen to mask the real interest behind them but they can usually be identified by their funding sources, membership and who controls them. In extreme cases, some front groups are quite blatant working out of the offices of public relation firms and having staff of those firms on their boards of directors. Two most striking examples for this is the Council for Solid Waste Solutions which shares office space with the Society of the plastic Industry, Inc., and the Oregon Lands Coalition which works out of the offices of the Association of Oregon Industries (see Beder, 2000).
The second mode is based on the so called “therapeutic alliance” – a technique commonly used by psychiatrists when dealing with an irrational patient – as described by Lindheim (1989) (see in Beder, 2000): “When an anxious patient first arrives, the psychiatrist will be a very sympathetic listener. The whole time that his mind is telling him that he has a raving lunatic on his hands, his mouth will be telling the patient that his problems are indeed quite impressive, and that he the psychiatrist is amazed at how well the patient is coping, given the enormity of the situation …Once that bound of trust is established, true therapy can begin and factual information can be transmitted”. Corporations can build a therapeutic alliance with the public, which they often consider as irrational and emotion-based reaction to environmental and social risks. Corporations, thus, must use their communications resources to demonstrate their commitments to solving environmental problems, and making environmental improvements. They employ risk communicators, whose job is to develop ways to effectively explain findings of the risk assessments done by company experts, and therefore to reassure the public and to win the people’s trust.
This two modes of corporate activism are not at all new in the environmental arena in this country. Clearly, corporate activism may cause serious danger to the aptitude of democratic societies to respond to environmental threats. It is therefore very crucial for political elite, NGOs, media and concerned individuals to constantly voice their critical account on the behavior of corporations – be it domestic or foreign investments. This country should certainly welcoming the butterflies and honeybees but rejecting the caterpillars and locusts.
--------------------------------
The writer is a professor at SOEGIJAPRANATA CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, Semarang
Sunday, April 13, 2008
SAY IT WITH FOOD
SAY IT WITH FOOD
Emotionalizing Pollution Discourse
Budi Widianarko
Professor in Environmental Toxicology and Food Safety - Soegijapranata Catholic University (UNIKA), Semarang, Members of Board of Directors Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Asia Pacific
Environmental pollution seems to be an everlasting problem in many developing countries, including Indonesia. Although the problem has been recognized for three decades, pollution is still prevalent in this country. A growing number of environmental regulation, as well as, public protests fail to reduce the number of pollution incidence, instead an ever- increasing trend of pollution is revealed. In Central Java, for example, a most recent report by the Province’s Environmental Impact Control and Management Agency (Bappedal Jateng) indicated an escalation of pollution events during the last five years.
One of several classic examples of the unrelenting environmental pollution problems in Indonesia is the Kali Tapak case in Semarang, the capital city of Central Java. Since its emergence, pollution at the Kali Tapak area has attracted a number of studies and policy intervention. The recognition of pollution incidence in the 70s has staged the Tapak case as a pioneer of environmental movement in Indonesia, however, up to now public outcries complaining the pollution have still taken place intermittently. Pollution due to industrial discharges along the Kali Tapak River was and is still the main environmental problem in the Kali Tapak area. The pollution have directly victimized the farmers and fishermen whose rice fields and fishponds dependent on water input from the Kali Tapak River. This never-ending pollution incidence has also affected the nearby coastal ecosystem.
Conspicuously, the existing pollution control regime, which mainly draws on the command-and-control paradigm has failed to reveal a satisfying performance. Piles of environmental regulation of various levels, from act down to local regulation, have not been able to deliver a substantial impact on the mitigation of environmental pollution in Indonesia. Lack of adequate enforcement has often been recognized as the cause of incompliance to environmental regulations by industries. Most probably, inadequate enforcement of environmental regulations is attributed not only to rampant practice of corruption but also to the absence of environmental awareness in the most part of the society.
Since awareness is closely connected to people’s perception, most likely there is a need to improve visualization of the effect of pollution in the people’s mind by incorporating issues that can easily touch their emotion. In this case, food safety issue may be considered as a suitable candidate.
Pollution and Food Safety
Interaction between food system and ecosystem is unavoidable, since the biological aspect of food provision is basically attached to the ecosystem. Until the present day, almost all ingredients of food are extracted from ecosystem.
Despite of the ever-progressing food technology, which led to invention of a great number of novel foods, human food system is still heavily reliant on ecosystem. As represented by the slogan “from land and to mouth”, our food is coming from a chain of processes starting from within the ecosystem. Quality and safety of food is accordingly determined by the quality of the ecosystem. Pollution taking place in an ecosystem will certainly affect living organisms, including edible species.
In the course of a pollution event, either of natural or anthropogenic origin, toxicants are released into environment. Consequently aquatic and terrestrial organisms are exposed to these chemicals. Biaccumulation of toxicants by edible species is not a surprising phenomenon. A great number of studies have demonstrated that due to the bioaccumulation-biomagnification mechanism the various toxicants are transferred along ecological food chains and reach human as one of top consumers. Concerns on the safety of food consumption related to the presence of toxicants in the environment have therefore been raised worldwide
A growing number of reports from many parts of the world have shown that pollution of aquatic
and marine ecosystems is the primary cause of accumulation of toxicants by edible species harvested or cultured in these ecosystems. Elevated levels of toxicants in seafood species are known to be responsible for increasing dietary intakes of the hazardous chemicals by the human consumers.
Emotional Touch
Learning from responses toward media coverage on food safety issues, it is clear that it has a strong potential to drag public attention. Food safety issue is relatively more “eye-catching” and emotionally more significant than other conventional environmental issues. There is, therefore, an opportunity to make use of food safety issues for dragging public attention to environmental matters.
Traditionally, environmental pollution campaigns employ various issues, such as air and water quality, “lungs of the world” (in preservation campaign of tropical rain forest), biodiversity and indigenous knowledge, and many others. These issues, however, are sometimes too abstract for laypeople. Even if an issue can be digested cognitively by general public, but to transform it into real action is a different story. As mentioned previously, lack of awareness is one of important factors contributing to environmental negligence in the society. Since awareness is closely connected to people’s perception, most likely that incorporation of issues - which have emotional significance - may contribute to the increase of environmental consciousness.
The Buyat case, in North Sulawesi - involving Newmount Mining Company - has demonstrated how food safety issue is very effective in raising people’s awareness on pollution incidence. It is interesting to learn that Nabiel Makarim, who was then the State Minister for Environment, declined to eat fish caught from the gulf of Buyat during a dialogue session with local community (see KOMPAS 5/8/04). Ironically, only a few days earlier, the Minister declared that no pollution took place there (KOMPAS 27/7/04). As expected, this refusal was immediately and openly criticized by public. For general public, a very important message conveyed from the above incidence is that the fish from Buyat is unfit for consumption.
Most likely, the minister’s refusal is a genuine personal decision, driven by survival instinct. This is, of course, reflecting the very nature of human being. A lesson that can be learned from this little “drama” is that food safety seems to be an effective means for communicating the state of environment. The prompt emotional response toward a food safety issue can be explained by the fact that food has a direct personal link to human. It has physical and emotional ties to human body and mind. Borrowing words from Elspeth : “Food at different times touches disparate aspects of life, including love, sex, relationships, family, economics, comfort, obsession, pleasure, control, desire, shame, disgust, fear, hatred, work, leisure, sickness, death, birth and many more”.
From the history of industrial pollution, particularly in Japan, it is very well recognized that sickness due to severe pollution incidents, such as the Minamata and Itai-itai diseases in Japan were directly connected to food consumption. The Minamata disease was resulted from consumption of seafood contaminated with methyl-mercury, whereas the Itai-itai disease was triggered by consumption of cadmium-contaminated rice.
To sum up, despite of the fact that environmental pollution is an everlasting problem in Indonesia, there are still opportunities to improve the situation. One of them is by incorporating food safety issue in the public discourse of pollution. Incorporation of an issue that has physical and emotional significances to human, such as food safety, can be expected to rise to environmental consciousness among the people.
````````````
Emotionalizing Pollution Discourse
Budi Widianarko
Professor in Environmental Toxicology and Food Safety - Soegijapranata Catholic University (UNIKA), Semarang, Members of Board of Directors Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Asia Pacific
Environmental pollution seems to be an everlasting problem in many developing countries, including Indonesia. Although the problem has been recognized for three decades, pollution is still prevalent in this country. A growing number of environmental regulation, as well as, public protests fail to reduce the number of pollution incidence, instead an ever- increasing trend of pollution is revealed. In Central Java, for example, a most recent report by the Province’s Environmental Impact Control and Management Agency (Bappedal Jateng) indicated an escalation of pollution events during the last five years.
One of several classic examples of the unrelenting environmental pollution problems in Indonesia is the Kali Tapak case in Semarang, the capital city of Central Java. Since its emergence, pollution at the Kali Tapak area has attracted a number of studies and policy intervention. The recognition of pollution incidence in the 70s has staged the Tapak case as a pioneer of environmental movement in Indonesia, however, up to now public outcries complaining the pollution have still taken place intermittently. Pollution due to industrial discharges along the Kali Tapak River was and is still the main environmental problem in the Kali Tapak area. The pollution have directly victimized the farmers and fishermen whose rice fields and fishponds dependent on water input from the Kali Tapak River. This never-ending pollution incidence has also affected the nearby coastal ecosystem.
Conspicuously, the existing pollution control regime, which mainly draws on the command-and-control paradigm has failed to reveal a satisfying performance. Piles of environmental regulation of various levels, from act down to local regulation, have not been able to deliver a substantial impact on the mitigation of environmental pollution in Indonesia. Lack of adequate enforcement has often been recognized as the cause of incompliance to environmental regulations by industries. Most probably, inadequate enforcement of environmental regulations is attributed not only to rampant practice of corruption but also to the absence of environmental awareness in the most part of the society.
Since awareness is closely connected to people’s perception, most likely there is a need to improve visualization of the effect of pollution in the people’s mind by incorporating issues that can easily touch their emotion. In this case, food safety issue may be considered as a suitable candidate.
Pollution and Food Safety
Interaction between food system and ecosystem is unavoidable, since the biological aspect of food provision is basically attached to the ecosystem. Until the present day, almost all ingredients of food are extracted from ecosystem.
Despite of the ever-progressing food technology, which led to invention of a great number of novel foods, human food system is still heavily reliant on ecosystem. As represented by the slogan “from land and to mouth”, our food is coming from a chain of processes starting from within the ecosystem. Quality and safety of food is accordingly determined by the quality of the ecosystem. Pollution taking place in an ecosystem will certainly affect living organisms, including edible species.
In the course of a pollution event, either of natural or anthropogenic origin, toxicants are released into environment. Consequently aquatic and terrestrial organisms are exposed to these chemicals. Biaccumulation of toxicants by edible species is not a surprising phenomenon. A great number of studies have demonstrated that due to the bioaccumulation-biomagnification mechanism the various toxicants are transferred along ecological food chains and reach human as one of top consumers. Concerns on the safety of food consumption related to the presence of toxicants in the environment have therefore been raised worldwide
A growing number of reports from many parts of the world have shown that pollution of aquatic
and marine ecosystems is the primary cause of accumulation of toxicants by edible species harvested or cultured in these ecosystems. Elevated levels of toxicants in seafood species are known to be responsible for increasing dietary intakes of the hazardous chemicals by the human consumers.
Emotional Touch
Learning from responses toward media coverage on food safety issues, it is clear that it has a strong potential to drag public attention. Food safety issue is relatively more “eye-catching” and emotionally more significant than other conventional environmental issues. There is, therefore, an opportunity to make use of food safety issues for dragging public attention to environmental matters.
Traditionally, environmental pollution campaigns employ various issues, such as air and water quality, “lungs of the world” (in preservation campaign of tropical rain forest), biodiversity and indigenous knowledge, and many others. These issues, however, are sometimes too abstract for laypeople. Even if an issue can be digested cognitively by general public, but to transform it into real action is a different story. As mentioned previously, lack of awareness is one of important factors contributing to environmental negligence in the society. Since awareness is closely connected to people’s perception, most likely that incorporation of issues - which have emotional significance - may contribute to the increase of environmental consciousness.
The Buyat case, in North Sulawesi - involving Newmount Mining Company - has demonstrated how food safety issue is very effective in raising people’s awareness on pollution incidence. It is interesting to learn that Nabiel Makarim, who was then the State Minister for Environment, declined to eat fish caught from the gulf of Buyat during a dialogue session with local community (see KOMPAS 5/8/04). Ironically, only a few days earlier, the Minister declared that no pollution took place there (KOMPAS 27/7/04). As expected, this refusal was immediately and openly criticized by public. For general public, a very important message conveyed from the above incidence is that the fish from Buyat is unfit for consumption.
Most likely, the minister’s refusal is a genuine personal decision, driven by survival instinct. This is, of course, reflecting the very nature of human being. A lesson that can be learned from this little “drama” is that food safety seems to be an effective means for communicating the state of environment. The prompt emotional response toward a food safety issue can be explained by the fact that food has a direct personal link to human. It has physical and emotional ties to human body and mind. Borrowing words from Elspeth : “Food at different times touches disparate aspects of life, including love, sex, relationships, family, economics, comfort, obsession, pleasure, control, desire, shame, disgust, fear, hatred, work, leisure, sickness, death, birth and many more”.
From the history of industrial pollution, particularly in Japan, it is very well recognized that sickness due to severe pollution incidents, such as the Minamata and Itai-itai diseases in Japan were directly connected to food consumption. The Minamata disease was resulted from consumption of seafood contaminated with methyl-mercury, whereas the Itai-itai disease was triggered by consumption of cadmium-contaminated rice.
To sum up, despite of the fact that environmental pollution is an everlasting problem in Indonesia, there are still opportunities to improve the situation. One of them is by incorporating food safety issue in the public discourse of pollution. Incorporation of an issue that has physical and emotional significances to human, such as food safety, can be expected to rise to environmental consciousness among the people.
````````````
HIDROSOLIDARITY
It’s Time for Hydrosolidarity
Budi Widianarko
When it comes to water human seems to suffer from some sort of “split-personality” syndrome. Although in most parts of the world, water has spiritually been regarded as a sacred substance, water pollution has still been escalating everywhere. The manifestation of this syndrome can be observed at population level down to individual level. It is not astonishing to find an individual who spiritually pay respect to water and, at the same time, he or she may deliberately contaminate water their wastes.
It is a common practice to use water for getting rid of impurities, purifying objects for ritual use as well as cleaning a person physically and spiritually. No other substance on earth bears a spiritual meaning as profound as water. For Christianity, water is prominent in initiation rituals. The pouring of clean and fresh water, symbolizing the spirit of God, signifying a new state of spiritual life. In this case, water blesses the human body and is understood as a preparation of an individual before having a spiritual union with God. The purifying quality and energy of water is also essential in Islam as Muslim ritually pure before approaching God in prayer. Water also has a distinctive role in Hinduism because of its spirituality cleansing powers as Hindus strive to accomplish physical and spiritual purity. For indigenous peoples, water is not just sacred, but it is very often even regarded as a form of life.
Sadly, in today’s world the spiritual respect toward water seems do not correspond whatsoever with the way human treat water in their physical life. Many reports show that today’s most pressing world water problems do not necessarily stem from absolute scarcity of the substance. Instead, they spring from the ever-increase quality degradation and distribution disparity of water which are mainly caused by human attitudes and activities. Pollution and claim over ownership of water is clearly an insult to the sacredness of this vital substance.
While the drive for commercialization of water is in its upswing, the prevalence of water pollution is also still rampant. The commercialization of water will potentially disturb people’s access to water, i.e. threatening human water security, whereas pollution will jeopardize the safety and health of human and other living being using the water. In worst cases the river has been referred to as sewer or even a murderer.
Clearly, without major shift in human orientation toward water the following upsetting conditions may reveal or even get worse: (i) approximately 1.1 billion people (17% world population) are without access to proper sources of water; (ii) about 2.4 billion (40%) have no access to improved sanitation sources resulting in 2.2 million people in developing countries, mostly children, die every year from diseases associated with lack of safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene; (iii) by 2025 at least 3.5 billion people or nearly 50% of the world’s population will face water scarcity; (iv) 29 of the world’s river basins with 300 million inhabitants will experience further scarcity; (v) the world’s main source of potable water (more than 90%) i.e. ground water is increasingly threatened with depletion and contamination; (vi) one fifth of the world’s freshwater fishes are either endangered or extinct due partly to pollution of water streams.
The current attitude of human toward water tends to deny the most important aspect of life, i.e. life coexistence. Quoting Rigoberta Menchu, a Peace Nobel Laureate from Guetemala: “Nothing is larger than life coexistence; and water is the core element of it - not only among human but also between human and other living beings in this planet”. If coexistence is the most important aspect of life, it is imperative to promote the value of solidarity. Hydrosolidarity is, thus, has a meaning far beyond the technical term of “water allocation” or “water distribution”. Hydrosolidarity holds spiritual and ethical values which denies full ownership of water – one of the earth’s common resources - by any living being or any human individual.
In other word, hydrosolidarity can be seen as a realization of the spirituality of water or hydrospirituality. Current practices by human in treating water pose a great challenge to hydrospirituality. When legal, economic and technical approaches in water management have proven to be failed, it is natural to assume that spiritual approach should ultimately provide a solid foundation for human-water interaction. Hopefully, with the still prevalent existence of respect toward the spiritual value of water among most of world’s societies there should be ample opportunities for hydrospirituality to take a lead in solving multitude water problems of today.
---------------------------
Professor of Environmental Toxicology at Soegijapranata Catholic University & Board Member of AMRTA Institute for Water Literacy (widianarko@unika.ac.id)
Budi Widianarko
When it comes to water human seems to suffer from some sort of “split-personality” syndrome. Although in most parts of the world, water has spiritually been regarded as a sacred substance, water pollution has still been escalating everywhere. The manifestation of this syndrome can be observed at population level down to individual level. It is not astonishing to find an individual who spiritually pay respect to water and, at the same time, he or she may deliberately contaminate water their wastes.
It is a common practice to use water for getting rid of impurities, purifying objects for ritual use as well as cleaning a person physically and spiritually. No other substance on earth bears a spiritual meaning as profound as water. For Christianity, water is prominent in initiation rituals. The pouring of clean and fresh water, symbolizing the spirit of God, signifying a new state of spiritual life. In this case, water blesses the human body and is understood as a preparation of an individual before having a spiritual union with God. The purifying quality and energy of water is also essential in Islam as Muslim ritually pure before approaching God in prayer. Water also has a distinctive role in Hinduism because of its spirituality cleansing powers as Hindus strive to accomplish physical and spiritual purity. For indigenous peoples, water is not just sacred, but it is very often even regarded as a form of life.
Sadly, in today’s world the spiritual respect toward water seems do not correspond whatsoever with the way human treat water in their physical life. Many reports show that today’s most pressing world water problems do not necessarily stem from absolute scarcity of the substance. Instead, they spring from the ever-increase quality degradation and distribution disparity of water which are mainly caused by human attitudes and activities. Pollution and claim over ownership of water is clearly an insult to the sacredness of this vital substance.
While the drive for commercialization of water is in its upswing, the prevalence of water pollution is also still rampant. The commercialization of water will potentially disturb people’s access to water, i.e. threatening human water security, whereas pollution will jeopardize the safety and health of human and other living being using the water. In worst cases the river has been referred to as sewer or even a murderer.
Clearly, without major shift in human orientation toward water the following upsetting conditions may reveal or even get worse: (i) approximately 1.1 billion people (17% world population) are without access to proper sources of water; (ii) about 2.4 billion (40%) have no access to improved sanitation sources resulting in 2.2 million people in developing countries, mostly children, die every year from diseases associated with lack of safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene; (iii) by 2025 at least 3.5 billion people or nearly 50% of the world’s population will face water scarcity; (iv) 29 of the world’s river basins with 300 million inhabitants will experience further scarcity; (v) the world’s main source of potable water (more than 90%) i.e. ground water is increasingly threatened with depletion and contamination; (vi) one fifth of the world’s freshwater fishes are either endangered or extinct due partly to pollution of water streams.
The current attitude of human toward water tends to deny the most important aspect of life, i.e. life coexistence. Quoting Rigoberta Menchu, a Peace Nobel Laureate from Guetemala: “Nothing is larger than life coexistence; and water is the core element of it - not only among human but also between human and other living beings in this planet”. If coexistence is the most important aspect of life, it is imperative to promote the value of solidarity. Hydrosolidarity is, thus, has a meaning far beyond the technical term of “water allocation” or “water distribution”. Hydrosolidarity holds spiritual and ethical values which denies full ownership of water – one of the earth’s common resources - by any living being or any human individual.
In other word, hydrosolidarity can be seen as a realization of the spirituality of water or hydrospirituality. Current practices by human in treating water pose a great challenge to hydrospirituality. When legal, economic and technical approaches in water management have proven to be failed, it is natural to assume that spiritual approach should ultimately provide a solid foundation for human-water interaction. Hopefully, with the still prevalent existence of respect toward the spiritual value of water among most of world’s societies there should be ample opportunities for hydrospirituality to take a lead in solving multitude water problems of today.
---------------------------
Professor of Environmental Toxicology at Soegijapranata Catholic University & Board Member of AMRTA Institute for Water Literacy (widianarko@unika.ac.id)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)