Author
 |
Schepers, James |
|
Submitted to: Proceedings of the OECD Workshop on Dissemination of GMOS in Agro-Ecosystems
Publication Type: Proceedings Publication Acceptance Date: 1/2/2003 Publication Date: 4/20/2003 Citation: Schepers, J.S. 2003. Environmental and socio-economic implications of government land management programs. Proceedings of the OECD Workshop on Dissemination Of GMOS in Agro-Ecosystems pp 278-287. Interpretive Summary: Environmental interests are frequently left to absorb the brunt of poorly integrated governmental programs intended for the public good. It is not that solutions to societal problems are not needed, but that the approach and proposed remedies may be narrow sided. All too often, the agency or contractor in charge of the project does not explore the implications of their efforts on other interests or consider how their program could cause a shift in societal values and community dynamics. There are many examples around the world where problems could have been avoided and society would have benefited if those in charge at the time had taken a more holistic view of the problem that they were trying to address. Similar situations exist in industry where the profit motive dictates that disposal of waste materials be accomplished expediently. Unfortunately, by the time a problem develops or is recognized considerable damage may have already been done to the environment. Environmental impact assessments can significantly reduce the likelihood of environmental catastrophes that society will have to address. Many times people don't want to talk about their mistakes, but that is the way others learn and so hopefully society will not have re-invent the wheel as many times. Technical Abstract: Governmental programs to address commodity surpluses, stabilize prices that are paid to producers, and encourage selected cultural practices are frequently implemented without an obvious consideration for the impact that these programs could have on natural resource management and the environment. Multiple examples probably exist in nearly every country where well-intended governmental programs and management strategies have gone astray or resulted in other concerns. For example, government grain purchase programs may be an attempt to protect producers against extremely low commodity prices, but this policy could include production limits for a given crop, which might result in production of other crops. The net effect can be a series of trickle-down adjustments in the supply/demand options, and along the way nutrient management and natural resource conservation strategies can get interrupted or abandoned. It seems that all too often, one segment of government works to solve a problem, but innocently creates several more problems for somebody else to address. The implications of some programs become apparent within months or a few years, but in other cases these programs have slowly changed the demographics of entire communities or regions. Differences in price-support strategies and marketing of agricultural products in the international arena have significant implications on how producers and consumers respond to food safety and environmental concerns. A greater effort is needed to make policy-makers aware of the potential for socio-economic shifts and adverse environmental implications of proposed programs. |