Daily Express Subscriber
Sign in to your account.

The new President of WWF International is Ecuador's former Minister of Environment 1998-2000, YOLANDA KAKABADSE, who visited Sabah mid May to attend the top-notch NGO's Annual Conference 2010, at the Star. Yolanda replaced Emeka Anayaoku who stepped down after eight years.

Her new role in presiding WWF is nothing new though, since she was also President of the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 1994-2004, the world's largest association of conservation agencies.

Yolanda is a driving force behind the creation of the Foundation for the Future of Latin America.

In 2005, Yolanda was recognised with the Lindbergh Award for her lengthy record of co-ordinating the efforts of international environmental agencies for resolving conflicts between industry and environmental concerns throughout Latin America and the world, especially in sustainable development relating to energy, trade and forest management. Yolanda co-founded the Foundation Natura in Ecuador, rated as one of the world's most effective environmental NGOs.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Express, the moral leadership of Yolanda as a critic of "wealth without values" became evident as she answered questions. She speaks and writes books on the 'role of ethics' in globalisation especially how to find ways of giving higher priority to "being" instead of "having", ie. give more emphasis on values and check the prosperity craze that is driving consumption to dizzying height.

During the Earth Dialogue 2002 in Lyon, France, she was reported as saying: " We have prioritised 'having' over 'being'.

We practise remediation rather than prevention. Science and technology are developing weapons of destruction instead of instrument for creation."

Here she talks to Special Writer KAN YAW CHONG.

DAILY EXPRESS: Being the new President of WWF International, are there going to be fresh ideas from you?

KAKABADSE: I hope so, in the sense that I think every person brings its baggage of interest, special things that are dear to one's heart and experience and history. As I mentioned before, for me consumption is a very important issue, I put a lot of weight on that but at the same time I have been with WWF for more than 20 years, as a friend of institutions, as a partner in my country Ecuador and the region, as a past member of the Board more than a decade ago. So the institution is not new to me and I have followed that evolution and very happy to see it.

DE: What do you think is the biggest environmental issue in the world right now?

Kakabadse: I don't think anyone can respond by pinning down a species or an ecosystem or a country because the problem is a mix of things.

You have seen last year the climate change agenda taking over every agenda of the world in relation to conservation and into the future of humanity but at the same time, the cause of climate change is not only energy, it's biodiversity. It's whether human beings can conserve ecosystems, can manage them well, can make good use of the natural resources because if you don't, climate change will sink even deeper.

It's the most serious problem. So I always have a hard time in trying to put my fingers just on one issue because that is not the answer.

The answer has to do with trade, economics, culture, political decisions and our ability to look into the long term not just into the immediate term policy. It has to do with population and consumption.

I would say I put a lot of weight on consumption patterns.

DE: You said you will put a lot of weight on consumption. Why is that?

Kakabadse: Very much, because I think we are crazy.

We have mixed up prosperity with wealth, a wealth that is not based on values, education, or maturity for decision-making in policy.

Wealth today is material things. So, the more you have, the better off you are. And that is how we are defining development today.

That is absolutely crazy because the planet cannot provide all of humanity with material wealth that we believe is now the aspiration of everybody - the western level of consumption, which is everywhere, it's not geographical definition, it's a cultural definition of wealth, it's here in Malaysia, it's in my country Ecuador, it's in China now, Russia, Finland, Patagonia. So all of us are striving to become richer in material things, depleting the world's resources and there is going to be an explosion in some moment if we continue that trend. We are seeing that already - by less fish stocks, less physical space, because we are competing with mass agriculture, processes that are absolutely unsustainable.

One planet cannot satisfy everyone's demand as it is today.

DE: Most people think climate change has to do with just energy but you say it has to do with biodiversity, too. How does biodiversity figure in climate change?

Kakabadse: No, no, no. That's the problem. Climate change is the result of energy and the type of combustion we have for transportation, or for industries. But climate change is also the reaction of an ecosystem to mismanagement. If you deforest an area that used to keep the balance of water and the balance of climate into that region or continent and you eliminate the forest cover or the vegetation cover, it doesn't have to be a forest necessarily. That ecosystem becomes an added problem to the climate stability because it has no more ability to keep the water in place or to continue to produce what it used to produce in terms of carbon capture, to produce what it could produce which is food and security for that social group or that country. So it becomes a vicious circle that is aggravated by poverty and lack of vision in terms of policy to keep those resources alive.

DE: WWF still has its critics but reading up on what it has done, one realises it has many successes with saving mega species.

For instance, the Indian Rhino population was down to a precarious 20 at one time but because of a WWF-driven conservation initiative to concentrate the rhino remnant in one single natural environment to boost breeding, there are 8,000 Indian Rhinos today. What are your comments?

Kakabadse: Yes, I think WWF is an important organisation today as it was 50 years ago when it was born, with a difference in evolution of thought.

When we started 49 years ago, WWF concentrated just on species conservation. As time evolved, WWF's goals and programmes also changed when we realised that species cannot survive if we don't deal with ecosystems, if we don't deal with education, if we don't deal with public policy at the national government level and also international bodies.

We cannot ensure conservation of anything if there is no awareness.

So the programmes with media, with decision makers, with children, with scientists are equally important because we are looking at the whole, not just the part.

DE: Why is Sabah picked to host the WWF International Annual Conference 2010?

Kakabadse: Now that I am here I know why it was chosen, not only do we have exceptional forests, exceptional ocean resources, the Heart of Borneo is an icon in world conservation which I looked forward to seeing.

You have incredible leaders like Dr Dionysius Sharma and his team that have been working in conservation for many years. We want the network of WWF to see what's happening on the ground because that's not only inspirational but it forces us to think of how can we learn from the lessons of what's happening here in Malaysia and of course, linking Malaysia to the world. It's not Malaysia that is going to drown or survive, it's the planet.

And we have to work with a global vision on specific places.

DE: You knew fully well the weight of responsibility is heavy but you dare to take up the job as new President of WWF International.

Is that a matter of heart?

Kakabadse: Absolutely! I consider environmental concerns, conservation and survival of the human species, the social cultures as well as nature, is a sort of virus that gets into your blood.

It will never leave you.

It will always be in your heart.

DE: What is it about nature you really devote and commit yourself to?

Kakabadse: In terms of my personal interest, I think it is the link between motherhood and survival.

The day you become a mother, it matters much more what is going to happen tomorrow.

Then all the beauty that implies spiritual values along with it is your ability to understand all those relations, all that energy that flows between human being and other species.

Basically it is recognising with humility that you are not to dominate, that you are not stronger than the other species.

DE: As far as we know, WWF International has six major global focuses, namely the three biomes (entire community of living organisms in a single major ecological area): forests; freshwater systems; oceans and seas coasts, besides flagship species and the twin threats, that is, global warming and chemicals (toxics), citing the fact that about 75,000 chemicals had been released into the global environment over the last few decades.

First of all, what's the threat from chemicals?

Kakabadse: Again, it is not an issue that is top of the agenda even though it is very important and it has to do with a model of development where we are not aware of the implications of that development process.

In agriculture, the use of chemicals at one time was thought to be the most important ingredient to ensure production. In building of electric goods such as the refrigerator, we saw the model of production was something that would last forever but it did not help the world (ozone depletion) and I think that would continue to happen. We as a society continue to be very creative, very inventive but unfortunately we measured the impact when it was a bit too late. In terms of chemicals, that is an ongoing process.

We are concerned about the damage it did before and we are continuing to produce more items for development that probably in 10 years time we'll be sorry for having done so. But it is an issue, it is important but it is at the forefront of our struggle in WWF in joining hands with many other organisations.

DE: What about global warming where a group of Australian scientists from the University of New South Wales and the National University in Canberra warned that Earth's temperature might rise by 10 to 12 degrees Celsius in 300 hundred years and therefore too hot for human habitation?

Kakabadse: Oh, less than that. I believe it will come sooner if we don't do anything about it.

And I feel that the impact of climate change is already tangible . We can see in every continent the most vulnerable societies are always affected - the ones who used to have water every day and don't have it any more, the ones who used to have productive land and don't have it any more or the ones who are underwater too often because of floods that was not part of life in the past. And usually those vulnerable communities are the ones who have less capacity to react in terms of financial resources to look for alternatives and options. So we already see changes that are happening. I still wonder whether we will take radical measures to change only when the industrialised countries are affected and I think that for example, Germany has been stronger in reaction after the Rhine flooded several of its cities.

That happened 10 years ago when the streets of several towns were under water for several weeks and agricultural lands were affected. So, you know having a drought in Europe will make that society react more than they do at the moment. I think that often the fury of the threat is not enough we need to live the drama of these threats to become activists in struggling for change. Also, at this moment, not all the affected can become activists because they have no voices and I fear that we are delaying our decisions too much. By this time, we should already have important changes in policies. Policies about energy sources - for example - oil and carbon are tremendous threats and while the processes are still reasonable, we are not investing in alternative energy sources as much as we should. So, it all ties into ways of life, into technology evolution, investment in technologies as well as political decisions that should be taken by leaders of the whole planet and not just a few.

DE: Looking at priority, it seems that the weight of WWF's conservation focus is very good, that is, you give major focus to three biomes (biome means an entire community of living organisms in a single major ecological area): the forests, the fresh water systems and the oceans and sea coasts, for conservation, because you are trying to tell the world that's where the bulk of the world's biodiversity and processes are found on which all life on Earth depends?

Kakabadse: I would say there is a tremendous difference between those in the oceans and in the forests but they are equally important.

The benefit of the forest is we can see. You can take a helicopter and fly over a forest or via satellite you can already see where the damage is being done and you can stop it any time. In the ocean we can't see.

I am terribly concerned, horrified sometimes, that by the time we notice we have depleted the resources of the ocean, it will be too late because it is not something that common citizens or politicians can be aware of and there is a general tendency in the world not to listen to the scientists and not to listen to technical information.

DE: What about freshwater systems?

Kakabadse: Well, it has to do basically with land, rivers and lakes, the depletion of not only the quantity of water in management of water resources but also the quality of water are two important issues in looking into fresh water. Both are affected and both need to be worked on.

There are important achievements I would say in all our countries and regions, basically in the reaction of local communities who are key actors in the management of water resources but it's not enough I think.

We need to put much more effort in public policies.

DE: What does WWF International suggest governments should do to ensure biodiversity is not disturbed too much?

Kakabadse: I think continue to do what we are doing, which is bring information to decision makers, not in a threatening way but inviting decision makers of local governments and international entities also to discuss the links about conservation and good management of biodiversity and stability in economic terms, in production and social terms.

I very much emphasise health of an ecosystem and society.

If you don't manage the ecosystem well, you have malaria, dengue, as the Americans use the same words here of these tropical diseases that immediately affect especially the poor. It's not that it affects them because they will need medicine, it kills! An ecosystem that is not healthy does not provide clean water, or enough water. And that means death.

If we don't have water for drinking or water for agriculture, it means death. So these links, as I said, we have not been very good at marketing our message, it doesn't mean that we will lose (just) beauty, we will lose life. That is important to discuss. And I think you see more and more decision makers, especially at the local government level, there are fantastic leaders here in Asia, Africa, Latin America and also in the developed world about changing development patterns.

I think we have hope and we need to invest a lot in local governments.

DE: Rapid population growth exerts an obvious pressure to environmental protection, what firm policies are needed to respond to the challenge?

Kakabadse: WWF don't get into population policies. We know that it is an important issue but obviously it will be getting into an issue that will be too broad to manage. So we concentrate on the importance of the management of natural resources. But we are fully aware that we need to think about population growth.

We need to think about scarcity and mismanagement and over-consumption of resources.

That is something that we care very much.

DE: So where is the world right now? Has the battle to preserve wildlife faced the greatest obstacles and why?

Kakabadse: Well, I think we are all aware that wildlife is not just beauty but wildlife is a symbol of the broader interest, which is the natural resources on which we depend. So, focusing on species allow us to bring a broader message to society. I think compare today to 10 years ago or to 20 years ago, there are more actors in society that care about conservation.

DE: What are some of WWF's achievements so far?

Kakabadse: I would say that the largest achievement is generating awareness through the different campaigns. We have been working on climate change these past years - on biodiversity and species that go from elephant, panda, tiger, forests or coral triangle in general, to coral reefs.

Those icons have allowed us to generate changes in development policies, to reach political agreement of the top decision makers of governments in different regions, has allowed us to generate an awareness in different social groups to be more careful and foresighted about how we manage the resources.

It has allowed us to make decisions about priorities.

Is it better to invest in a specific energy process or to look for alternatives that are clearly presented in other parts of the world?

So I would say conservation has allowed us to influence development patterns.

DE: Fish resources are depleting. So would you suggest to the Malaysian Government to pass laws to forbid catching fish of certain sizes?

Kakabadse: We are doing that. There is a process called the marine stewardship. It's the same thing with forests that we have generated a certification for timber. We have done the same thing for fisheries.

There are several fishing companies that sell in the market fish that is already certified. Here in Malaysia, we have had a lovely diner with fish that have been certified. It means that those companies are catching fish of only a specific size. They are not fishing the younger ones so as to allow regeneration of the species. It means we are not depleting other species when we fish one, for example, we are not destroying turtles when we are fishing tuna. It means that the process of fishing is responsible.

So WWF has been one of the creators of this model, both for forests and fisheries and we are working very strongly in involving new actors in that process. We have more than 20 companies working with us but that is not enough. There are hundreds or thousands of companies that we would like to be part of this responsible fisheries process.

DE: How do you rate the conservation record of Malaysian Government, the strengths and weaknesses?

Kakabadse: I don't know Malaysia enough to be able to answer that.

I only know that there is a fantastic team of WWF-Malaysia working here with other partners.

It doesn't work alone. It works with local communities, in education and all sorts of industries.

I would say that is the value of what we see today that it is not just an isolated effort.

There are many people involved.

DE: WWF stands out in 'thinking big' particularly in your 'ecoregion' approach to global conservation where 200 ecoregions have been identified. Of course the nearest to us is the million sq km Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (SSME) and the much larger 2.3 million sq mile (1.6 billion acres) Coral Triangle. Could you enlighten our readers on the 'ecoregion' idea?

Kakabadse: In terms of ecosystems I think it is important that we look not only at one country that is the beneficiary of that ecosystem but the whole region. What I am fascinated by this conference (WWF International Annual Conference 2010) is the effort that has been done in the region, to look at the efforts of WWF must do not just at the country level but at the regional level in order to look after the resources. That is something we have in our hands. That effort was completed last month but here we are looking at it and discussing it but Dr Dionysius Sharma has more information about what Malaysia is doing with Coral Triangle.

Dr Sharma: As Yolanda has very eloquently put it, a lot of conservation cannot be achieved primarily at a political level, where political boundaries carve up and divide ecosystems or ecoregions.

So we have been very conscious of trying to escalate that level of understanding of the interchangeability of resources, looking at the spawning of fish versus the places they swim and being captured.

Look at the marine turtles for instance. The areas where they nest versus the areas where they feed, these all transcend political boundaries. They all share resources, share stocks.

So through these large programmes, we try to bring the understanding of the shared resources of the governments so that it does not get to the point where there could be a country that operates a more exploitative mode and not appreciating the existence of those resources that they exploit are actually being cared for and nurtured somewhere else in the life cycle of the species. Seeing this big connection is very important.

For example, some of our turtles that nest in Malaysia are actually living elsewhere, feeding in the reefs of other countries. We may not capture turtles in our fisheries because we don't have a culture of eating marine turtles but in other cultures, there are other societies where that is acceptable. So we can't on the one hand be investing in conservation and someone else is, for all the reasons that seem right to them, are capturing and consuming those resources. So this kind of large programmes bring to the governments those stories. In the case of the Coral Triangle, it brings understanding of tuna, understanding of the live reef fish trade, how we need to understand and finance our marine protected areas because these are the sources of that biodiversity - the reefs and all the reef life, such as the marine turtle which is an iconic shared species. It brings to the table things that we expect the governments to escalate on their understanding and of course, with the commitment they have now made in Manado last year - that is, six governments (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste) have pledged through a declaration to jointly work on a common plan of action on those issues.

For governments, it's about food security, captured fisheries but the real thing is not just about WWF as an organisation just selling conservation stories. These are conservation stories that relate to livelihoods and relate to the socio-economic wellbeing of people and it relates the security of resources in the long haul. That's why it wasn't too difficult for the governments to be led to the common table to sign a declaration because it was entrenched in being able to provide for the long haul need of the people.

DE: So the Sulu Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (SSME) is obviously one of those marine biomes highlighted by WWF for focussed protection. Out of its 10 Priority Conservation Areas (PCA) marked by red blobs to indicate their top-flight significance, three are found in Sabah: Kudat-Banggi; Turtle Islands and the Darvel Semporna area. That means the WWF has all the compelling scientific evidence that Darvel Bay, Turtle Islands and Banggi-Kudat must be protected against water quality degradation from polluting industries?

Dr Sharma: In the early days when we were looking at the ecoregion model, the Sulu Sulawesi Sea was seen as an ecoregion. Of course, there was a lot of investment, there was a joint plan of action by the governments of the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia for a series of priority conservation areas and that was a really long exercise of bringing all the science to the table and say: "Ugh, where are our reefs, where are our fish, where are our invertebrates, where are all the things we care about?"

Because their intrinsicity are important to protect, and also the resources we depend for food - for protein. So, by putting on all those maps, sea grass beds and turtle nesting sites, those are overlays of all those biodiversity, we started to see blobs appear on the map. At various scales of what they contain, we decided to grade those priority areas and it became apparent that in mapping out the priority areas for SSME, three places stood out as far as Malaysia was concerned - the northern part of Borneo - Kudat/Banggi area; the turtles and nesting sites and sea grass area off Sandakan/Trusan and of course the Semporna/ Darvel Bay areas.

It was the early days of putting the ecoregion to the three governments only (Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines). Of course, there was a bigger body of science out there and we looked at it and said, wow, really, the Sulu Sulawesi Sea is just the apex of a larger place called the Coral Triangle.

The Coral Triangle encompasses more than three countries concerned. It encompasses six countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste).

In fact, this place has a marine life that is greater than any other place on the planet.

Greater than even the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef surpasses us in terms of size, but this area in the planet in terms of marine life surpasses anything on Earth. We have been slow to read the science.

The science has been there. Now we have awaken, we have excited the six governments about what this is all about. In fact, the challenge that we have is how to take that commitment into action.

How to resource that commitment into real actions because if other things happen around us - climate change by a two degrees Celsius rise and that starts to prevail on us, it is really the connectivity as opposed to isolated patches in the seascape that will create the resilience - the ability to fight back, the ability for species to move. Even if ocean levels rise, there will always be shallow areas, there will always be an ability for species to move and occupy the niches that are pertinent to them. But the ability to do that will be based on whether there is still enough space for species to change, evolve, adapt to the resiliency that is so dependent on connectivity of the large seascape and not small isolated patches that will just die off without any chance at all to the changes around them. So, that was the power of keeping the entire Coral Triangle intact. And of course the governments said, because it relates to not just biodiversity, it's the food that the coastal nations depend upon captured fisheries. People and livelihoods and food and what the governments careabout, you got to keep the people fed.

DE: So the scientific evidence is conclusive that the Coral Triangle is indeed the 'epicentre' of global marine biodiversity?

Dr Sharma: It is established, published and accepted that this is really the epicentre of marine life.

It happens to be through geological reasons, the meeting of the crustal plates, the upwelling that takes place within this part of the world just gives so much nutrients for that marine life to prevail and proliferated over the years and centuries.

DE: So how should we protect this Semporna /Darvel Bay clearly marked out in red blobs by WWF as a Priority Conservation Area which WWF has clearly marked out, against heavy coastal industries?

Dr Sharma: So from broad understanding to specific commitments, as I said, resourcing the actions that are the ones that the governments have articulated and had made the commitments to themselves - how to ensure they keep themselves in tune with their own commitments, how to ensure that they periodically meet and exchange the progress that they are taking to work together but also equally important is the part where we exercise our own mandates. If we are doing something that is land-based that brings impacts on the marine environment, I would expect governments of the joint declaration to address the problem. It is really the shared parts of the joint declaration that we have to work together but there must be a lot of things that must step up to the pledge and be accountable for the things that impact.

So, as you can imagine, if agriculture and the effluence that feeds into the rivers and flow out into the sea and brings that detrimental effect, that's ours to tackle. We would not have to wait for the joint declaration.

We have to tackle it ourselves because we see the immediate effects.

We owe it ourselves.

DE: So one big problem and worry about Darvel Bay is the proposed coal-fired plant in Sinakut and the prospect of non-stop waste water discharge into this bay. Is WWF doing anything to advice the Government against it?

Dr Sharma: Coal-fired plants are very damaging to the environment.

Even if you put aside the various grades of coal that can be used, what it spews out and all the impact that it has in increasing temperature from the cooling process. So WWF has been in public domain already because we actually have a coalition against the coal-fired power plant but that coalition against the coal-fired plant came up-front to try to tell the Government. We should invest more in understanding the future scenario of energy needs, understanding the mix that we can have if we start to think and invest with a full street of producing the energy we need , going to renewables obviously, but also understanding that we can only come to that kind of arrangement if we start from the onset of understanding the end game. If we start with the end in mind, and that end is really for a healthy environment, then we need to know and be accountable for all the decisions we make now and the actions we take now. If we don't start something with the end in mind and start to do things that are detrimental to yourself in the long haul, that is not good decision making, I am afraid.

So, it's always about starting, and being responsible for the future.

Kakabadse: I want to comment on this. I think in general, we in the world of conservation have not been marketing our message in the right way because we have always been talking about future generations.

There is a fantastic study that I advise conservationists to look into in the web that is now completed and about to be published by UNEP and it's a project called Teeb (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity).

In this project is a compilation of data that managing ecosystems well is good business today.

It's not good business five generations from now, not even for our children in 30 years.

We should be talking about today's benefits of doing good business. In conservation, managing water, forests, soil and everything around us well, it's good business this year.

In that document is producing several products for decision makers of the economic sector in government, for business people, for media and for the public and it will tell us and guide us and give us information why you shouldn't wait. You can do those investments this way. That's important, delivering the message in a different way because I think the sceptics are criticising us. You are looking into the ideal world. No, no, no, we are concerned with the present world. That's real to us.

DE: What might be the impacts on the Coral Triangle if coal-fired plant is up with non-stop discharge of massive waste water into Darvel Bay over decades?

Dr Sharma: The Coral Triangle is a large seascape but we, the six governments which have committed to the security of the Coral Triangle need to hold themselves accountable to each other for their joint commitment. But the various countries go out and take things on a national scale and do things on their own and every country that starts to impact on the same space they had made a commitment for security. That is not going to be a long term model. That may have then been a commitment made without understanding what they have committed to. So, you would find that you have sovereign rights in decision making and go ahead and decide on plants like coal-fired power plant or all kinds of coastal development projects that bring detrimental impacts on the coastal environment.

Every decision made in that irresponsible manner then collectively will have that impact on the commitment and that becomes a contradiction that the right hand is inconsistent with the left hand.

So that is not the model of accountability to each other. As a national organisation, our job is to keep them reminded of the joint commitment, ensuring that the governments constantly come and meet and talk about the joint commitment, keep looking that common plan of action and then escalate their understanding that even national decisions add impacts across that joint space.

So we have to constantly remind them about policy intervention, environmental awareness and education and propose solutions.

Sometimes it is easy to criticise but it is more difficult to find alternate solutions. We have to be leaders in ensuring people that as a science-based organisation, that there are options and let's start to explore those options because those options invariably don't compromise our people and development aspirations. We must be pertinent to the government, to the people and the constituencies.

DE: South America where you are from is the Heart of The Amazon, famous world icon, like the Coral Triangle. Can you tell us your side of the story - South America?

Kakabadse: It's very much like what we are saying about the Coral Triangle here. There are nine countries which are part of the Amazon Basin. None of us can do anything alone if the others are sharing the same policies and concerns and the same work. None of us will make the difference on our own.

The effort in the Amazonian Basin is to bring these nine governments together but not only the governments because they can take decisions into the peoples, and it is indigenous peoples, it's conservation groups, it is the private sector, it is the science community sharing a vision, sharing the resources, lessons and knowledge that we need to have on the table in order to respond, to better slow change or change the direction of these development processes that we have been creating in the last decade.

DE: Is Ecuador part of the Amazon Basin and in what's your share of the Amazon?

Kakabadse: That's right. A third of our country is in the Amazonian Basin.

It's a small part of the Amazon Basin but a third of our territory.

DE: We have heard stories that there are threats to the Amazon. Is that real?

Kakabadse: Absolutely!

DE: How, in what ways?

Kakabadse: The threat is deforestation. It is the competition of the wrong perception of what development is in terms of oil exploration versus the protection of the biodiversity.

We are very rich in underground resources as much as over-ground resources.

The oil is exceptional.

We have mines and we have oil and very often decision makers look into the immediate term of the government and so getting financial resources out of exploration out of the mine has more relevance than looking into 50 years of the coming future. So that is the major threat - the lack of vision of our decision makers about the importance of the stability of the ecosystem.