| | | 17.5 Understanding |
An adequate understanding of eutrophication is for the moment not effortlessly available. The main reason for that is the fragmentation of interest, education and responsibility. Despite of a basic understanding how nutrients flow through an aquifer and into the coastal zone, there exist few institutions and composite research groups that study the entire route and the involved processes simultaneously and from a superior perspective. Eutrophication of the coastal zone, freshwater, run-off from forests, agriculture, industry and sewage treatment are usually dealt with by different scientist and institutions that have few contacts. Education of students and scientists is separate too and we have at present not the adequate expertise and the will that binds the different sectors together.
While industry and citizens pay taxes for the damages of the environment to the costs for sewage treatment plants no such costs are imposed on the by far main contributor of cultural eutrophication, i.e. agriculture and in certain regions forestry. The public focus is directed to point sources that play only a minor role. While industry and cities give raise to environmental problems, the most significant contributors to cultural eutrophication are characterised as nature friendly. Sector thinking prevents holistic solutions or accomplishments that are proportional with the environmental damage. For an environmental impact that has probably a most important environmental effect [171] and occurs virtually worldwide, this inadequacy is surprising. A public debate that attempts to focus upon the most important global environmental effect, that is not characterised by sector interest, and that does not hesitate to focus upon the key problem, is indispensable. Emphasis has to be given to normal praxis regarding negative environmental impact -- i.e. the polluter pays for the negative environmental effects. The greatest contributor to cultural eutrophication is exempted from this obligation, probably because the public is not aware of the full extent of the problem and is afraid to pay more for food. However, food has become a comparatively minor cost in our budget. In addition, all industrialised countries significantly subsidise agriculture. It must be puzzling that many societies subsidise activities that can cause anoxic bottom waters, nuisance blooms, reduced water quality, harmful algae blooms, reduced fisheries, prevent aquaculture etc. Obviously a holistic perspective is needed to solve this apparently inconvincible dilemma. At the end of the day we all pay for our approach to deal with cultural eutrophication, either through food costs, subsidies, environmental taxes or a negative development of the environment.
Assuming a connection between agriculture subsidies and increased production, taking notice of the lack of nutrient discharge appropriate limitations from agriculture and husbandry and considering the consequential eutrophication, a connection exists between subsidies, demands for inexpensive food, decreased environmental quality, reduced fisheries and increased HAB. Can removal of agricultural subsidies give rise to increased costal zone environmental quality and fisheries? It is timely to promote these type of questions and study the complete costs of food production and environmental losses.
| | | 17.5 Understanding |