An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing

one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with

four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the

beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I as-

sure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young

frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had

become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him

to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother,

to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the

hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother,

coming up and missinone of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a

very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself

out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry;

for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod

on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his

brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool,

and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.”

“Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than success-

fully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them

to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear

mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The

Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son,

“and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.

An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing

one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with

four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the

beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I as-

sure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young

frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had

become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him

to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother,

to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the

hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother,

coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a

very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself

out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry;

for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod

on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his

brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool,

and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.”

“Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than success-

fully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them

to death. The mother, coming up and missing one of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear

mother; for just now a very huge beast with four great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.”

The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast was as big as that in size.” “Cease, mother, to puff yourself out,” said her

son, “and do not be angry; for you would, I assure you, sooner burst than successfully imitate the hugeness of that monster”.An

Ox, drinking at a pool, trod on a brood of young frogs, and crushed one of them to death. The mother, coming up and missing one

of her sons, inquired of his brothers what had become of him. “He is dead, dear mother; for just now a very huge beast with four

great feet came to the pool, and crushed him to death with his cloven heel.” The Frog, puffing herself out, inquired, “If the beast

21

AS HUMAN CULTURE CHANGES FROM HUNTER-GATHERER TO AGRARIAN TO INDUSTRIAL, INCREASINGLY LARGE HUMAN POPULATIONS REQUIRE INCREASING MANIPULATION OF THE NATURAL WORLD TO MAKE FOOD

PRODUCTION EFFICIENT ENOUGH TO FEED SO MANY PEOPLE.

2

WHY EXACTLY DO WE HUMANS HAVE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY LARGE INFLUENCE ON OTHER SPECIES AND THE NATURAL WORLD? WE ARE UNIQUE AMONG ANI-MAL SPECIES IN THAT WE SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS. IN CONTRAST, OTHER SPE-CIES ARE PRIMARILY ABLE TO SURVIVE

Current patterns of rural–urban migration also provide im-portant opportunities to achieve land-use efficiency. Between 1990 and 2000, many rural areas throughout Latin America lost population (Preston 1997). For example, in Mexico 28% of the municipalities had negative population growth between 1990 and 2000, representing 31% of the area of Mexico. Although the populations of all Latin America countries are increasing, regions within many countries are losing popu-lation due to rural–urban migration. In some cases, rural outmigration may promote environmental degradation by reducing the local labor power needed to maintain irriga-tion and soil conservation systems (Zimmerer 1993, Harden 1996), or may promote less intensive but highly inefficient land uses such as cattle ranching replacing agriculture or sheep grazing (e.g., Preston 1998, Rudel et al. 2002). But, in many cases, outmigration results in land abandonment, particularly in mountain and desert ecosystems, as well as areas with poor soils.

Often, these ecosystems are disproportionately important for watershed and biodiversity conservation. Migration to urban centers, frequently in the USA or Europe, is generally associated with remittances to local relatives, who become less dependent on marginal agriculture, further favoring ecosys-tem recovery. For example, in Mexico and El Salvador there is a positive correlation between the level of remittance and forest recovery (Bray and Klepeis 2005, Hecht and Saatchi 2007). By moving to urban centers, people consume agricul-tural products that originate in more efficient systems such as mechanized agriculture, planted pastures, and feedlots; and in general, they improve their living conditions in terms of education, health, and services (Polèse 1998). Furthermore, usually within one generation, these immigrants reduce their

fertility to levels typical of urban areas, helping to reduce population growth (United Nations Population Fund (UN-FPA) 2007).

In summary, although rural–urban migrations are often complex and frequently involve conflictive social adjustments (Preston 1997, Fearnside 2008, Padoch et al. 2008), they represent an important opportunity to combine social and environmental improvements (Aide and Grau 2004, UNFPA 2007, Grau and Aide 2007). As the process of ecological transition is largely associated with the market economy and the free movement of people, goods, and information, it will be enhanced by policies facilitating migration and discourag-ing non-competitive production systems. This can even favor ecosystem recovery in parts of severely threatened ecoregions such as the Cerrado, the Atlantic forest or the Chaco dry forests, which include areas that, due to steep slopes or dry climates, are not suitable for modern agriculture. In contrast, ecosystem recovery in marginal lands will be difficult when inefficient systems of production are maintained through subsidies from government or non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs), and where marginal conditions and external illegal markets provide opportunities for highly profitable illegal crops (e.g., coca, opium, or cannabis).

Although marginal agricultural lands are being abandoned in many regions of Latin America, there is no guarantee that this will always lead to the recovery of natural ecosystems. For example, secondary forests in peri-urban areas are often dominated by naturalized exotic species (Grau et al. 2003, 2008b, Aragón

3

“RURAL OUTMIGRATION MAY PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION BY REDUCING THE LOCAL LABOR POWER NEEDED TO MAINTAIN IRRIGATION AND SOIL CONSERVATION SYSTEMS”

WHY EXACTLY DO WE HUMANS HAVE SUCH AN INCREDIBLY LARGE INFLUENCE ON OTHER SPECIES AND THE NATURAL WORLD? WE ARE UNIQUE AMONG ANI-MAL SPECIES IN THAT WE SURVIVE AND REPRODUCE IN A WIDE VARIETY OF ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH CULTURAL ADAPTATIONS. IN CONTRAST, OTHER SPE-CIES ARE PRIMARILY ABLE TO SURVIVE

6

The relationship between humans and nature has changed dramatically over the last 10,000 years.

As human culture changes from hunter-gatherer to agrarian to industrial, increasingly large human populations require increasing manipulation of the natural world to make food production efficient enough to feed so many people.

7

DEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATION

The expansion of modern agriculture is having its greatest effects on the two most threatened biomes both at global and continental scales (Hoeckstra et al. 2005): tropical and subtropical dry forests

DEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATION

DEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATIONDEFORESTATION South America

The Temperate Jungle of South America, which covers regions of Southern

Chile and Argentina, represents the largest tract of essentially undisturbed

temperate forest in the world.

Chile Dominated by southern beeches such as ulmo and laurel, these ancient

forests support large numbers of plant and animal species exclusive to this

region.These include the Darwin Frog, the Pudú deer, the Chilote fox and the

Chilean pine, or monkey puzzle tree.

“Chile’s temperate forests contain at least 50 species of trees used for timber

and more than 700 species of vascular plants - half of which do not occur

elsewhere.” - World Resources Institute, 1997

These forests are also home to indigenous communities such as the Pehuenche

community of Chile’s Quinquen Valley, the Mapuche Indians of Huitrapulli

and other local communities who have long depended on the natural wealth

of the forest for their physical, cultural and spiritual way of life.

The Great Chaco and Yungas Rainforests of Argentina

The Yungas Rainforest and the Great Chaco American forest are two neigh-

bouring ecosystems. They are rich in biodiversity and wildlife, such as rare

jaguars. However, these forests are being destroyed at one of the fastest

rates in the world. The deforestation rate of the Chaco forest of northern

Argentina, is up to six times higher than the world average.

The rate of this destruction has accelerated since 1996, when Monsanto

introduced genetically engineered soya beans into Argentina. Since then,

the country has extended its agricultural frontiers to grow genetically

engineered soya for export as animal feed, at the expense of its threatened

forests, wildlife and the homes and livelihoods of many people.

The combination of agricultural modernization and rural–urban migration often leads to a shift in the mode of food production and the abandonment of mar-ginal agricultural and grazing land, which can favor ecosystem recovery both as spontaneous processes and by facilitating the implementation of protected areas or conservation policies (Mather and Needle 1998, Mather 2001, Aide and Grau 2004, Grau and Aide 2007, Izquierdo and Grau 2008). For-est transition or more generally, ecological transition (ecosys-tem recovery occurs also in non-forested biomes), occurs when an economy shifts toward non-agricultural production, agriculture concentrates in the most productive lands, and mar-ginal agriculture is abandoned, favoring the recovery of forests and other natural ecosystems. Although comparatively less important than deforestation and much less perceived by the general public and the scien-tific community, processes of ecosystem recovery can be ob-served in many Latin American areas (Fig. 1). Forest expansion or recovery of degraded forests during recent decades has been reported for several Caribbean and Central American areas in association with the strong impact of rural outmigration and economic modernization, including Puerto Rico (Lugo 2002, Grau et al. 2003, Parés Ramos et al. 2008), Dominican Republic (Grau et al. 2008c), Mexico (Klooster 2003, Bray and Klepeis 2005), El Salvador (Hecht et al. 2006), Hondu-ras (Southworth and Tucker 2001), Costa Rica (Kull et al. 2007), and Panama (Wright and Samaniego 2008). In South America, examples of ecosystem recovery include

forest expansion in peri-urban ecosystems (Baptista 2008, Grau et al. 2008b), expansion of Andean forests into grasslands (Grau 1985, Kitzberger and Veblen 1999), and land-use disintensification in deserts and semi-arid ecosystems (Moran et al. 1996, Preston et al. 1997, Wiegers et al. 1999, Morales et al. 2005, Jepson 2005, Grau et al. 2008a).

Although agriculture is being abandoned in some marginal areas, in other areas it contin-ues to expand; for example, in regions used for illegal crops. Compared with moodern agri-culture, which concentrates in fertile and flat soils, illegal crops are often cultivated in marginal areas, mainly because of poor accessibility, which reduces le-gal controls. The most common of these areas in Latin America are the humid slopes of the Andes, where cultivation of coca and opium are a major source of deforestation and environmen-tal degradation (Cavelier and Etter 1995, Fjdelsa et al. 2005, Bradley and Millington 2008). These areas are also affected by armed conflicts and are outside the legal system of the country, a situation with two contrasting consequences for conserva-tion. On the one hand, social and economic deterioration may lead to outmigration and land abandonment, but on the other hand, conditions for establish-ment of protected areas and legal enforcement of conserva-tion become very difficult.

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS

Latin America, particularly South America, has had the luxury of being a large continent

Deforestation continues to be the dominant land-use trend in Latin America (Fig. 1) (Raman-kutty and Foley 1999, Achard et al. 2002), and subsistence agriculture, an important part of many local economies, is one of the major contributors (Chow-dhury and Turner 2006, Pan et al. 2007). But, socioeconomic changes related to globalization are promoting a rapid change toward agricultural systems oriented to local, regional, and global markets. The Amazon basin is the region that has lost the largest area to deforesta-tion, and where deforestation has had the greatest impact on biodiversity and biomass loss (Houghton et al. 1991, Laurance 1998, Lambin et al. 2003), but most other biomes have also been and continue to be severely affected by conver-sion to agriculture and pastures (e.g., Ellenberg 1979, Sader and Joyce 1988, Viña and Cavelier 1999, Galindo-Leal and De Gusmao Camara 2003, Klink and Machado 2005, Viglizzo et al. 2006, Gasparri et al. 2008). Historically, traditional shifting agriculture and cattle ranching, often favored by government subsidies and migration policies, have been the main drivers of deforestation in the Amazon, as well as in other ecosystems in Latin America such as the An-dean forests, Central American lowlands, and South American dry forests (Hecht 1993, Kaimowitz 1995, Grau et al. 2008a). Although these driving forces continue to act in many places, export-oriented indus-trial agriculture has become the main driver of South American deforestation. In Brazil, Bo-livia, Paraguay, and Argentina, extensive areas of seasonally dry forest with flat terrain and enough rainfall for rain-fed

agriculture are now being deforested for soybean produc-tion, which is mainly exported to China and the European Union (Dros 2004). This process af-fects the species-rich Amazon forests (Fearnside 2001, Killeen et al. 2008) and indirectly favors other forms of degradation beyond the agriculture frontier, such as logging and fire (Neps-tad et al. 1999). The expansion of modern agriculture is having its greatest effects on the two most threatened biomes both at global and continental scales (Hoeckstra et al. 2005): tropical and subtropical dry forests (Zak et al. 2004, Grau et al. 2005, Silva et al. 2006) and temper-ate grasslands and savannas (Paruelo and Oesterheld 2003, Baldi and Paruelo 2008). Al-though the “soy boom” in Latin America is an important threat to the region’s biodiversity, it has brought large economic benefits to the economy sec-tors associated with production, transportation, commercial-ization, and processing of agricultural products and to the local and national governments through taxes. Furthermore, the “soy boom,” partly based on transgenic cultivars, is supplying cheap calories and high-quality protein to help meet the growing demand for food in Southeast Asia, and is thus contributing to increasing nutrition levels in this region.Although the efficiency of modern agriculture and the associated lower food costs are positive for consumers, smallhold farmers, particularly those on marginal lands, are frequently unable to compete with large-scale agriculture. This process and the increase in off-farm jobs in the service and industry sectors in the cities stimulate rural–urban migration.

OPPORTUNITIES AND

THREATS

2

In 1533, Spanish conquistadores sacked the imperial Incan palace of Cori-

cancha in Cuzco, stripping its sumptuous ornamentation and melting down

the gold. The treasure that didn’t become personal booty was sent to

Spain and used to pay off the Flemish and German bankers who had under-

written the royal family’s expeditions of conquest1.

As viewed by the ‘dependency theorists’ who emerged from the 1960s on-

wards, that was emblematic of Latin America’s post-conquest history. The

plunder which typified the Spanish and Portuguese empires continued into

the post-independence age, as the rapidly industrializing countries in

northern Europe exploited Latin America for its raw materials. Unequal

exchange between the industrial ‘core’ and dependent ‘periphery’ was

perpetuated in the twentieth century, as multinational companies sucked

profit from Latin economies. It was this ongoing process of exploitation,

argued the dependentistas, which explained the chronic underdevelopment

of Latin American countries.

Dependency theories provided new and penetrating analyses of Latin

America’s pathway to underdevelopment. However, I will argue that the

perspectives which recognised the importance of political processes

within dependent countries have proved more insightful and enduring than

those which gave an exaggerated role to external domination.

The foundations for dependency theories were laid by the group of econo-

mists associated with the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA)

from around 1950. The ECLA economists maintained that Latin American

countries’ struggles for economic progress were hindered by their struc-

tural disadvantage as primary producers. Critiquing Ricardo’s law of

comparative advantage, they argued that loss of value of raw materials

relative to sophisticated manufactured goods resulted in gradually de-

clining terms of international trade2.

The ECLA proposed that Latin America embark on a path to greater self-

sufficiency through import-substituting industrialisation (ISI), a process

that had already begun in some countries during the international capi-

talist crises of the 1930s and 1940s. However, after initial progress in

countries with large internal markets like Argentina, Mexico and Brazil,

industry stagnated and was forced to rely on foreign finance, making it

easy pickings for the multinational companies that began to dominate

Latin American domestic markets. Paradoxically, the push for development

through local industrialisation left Latin American countries more de-

pendent than ever.

In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved beyond

the ECLA’s identification of structural inequalities between countries,

to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periph-

ery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries

had been part and parcel of the historical expansion of capitalism, and

could not simply be overcome by cultural and social ‘modernization’.

However, there was significant variation in the theoretical details. Fol-

lowing Vernengo3, we can recognise a ‘continuum’ of dependency theories,

with the respective ends represented by Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando

Henrique Cardoso.

In Gunder Frank’s view, the underdevelopment of the periphery was an

inevitable reflection of the development of the core. He argued that the

industrial ‘metropolis’ extracts a surplus from its ‘satellites’ in order to

sustain its own dynamic growth. Exploitative metropole-satellite relation-

ships are reproduced between countries in the periphery, and even within

countries (as the rich countries are to Brazil, so is Brazil to Paraguay,

and the industrial-commercial centre of Sao Paulo to the impoverished

Brazilian northeast). While internal political and social structures con-

tribute to the process of underdevelopment, they can only be understood

as a function of this external dominance. Given the ongoing extraction of

locally-generated capital, Frank doubted whether development was possible

in dependent countries.

Cardoso on the other hand, placed much more emphasis on the political dy-

namics within dependent countries. Historical economic changes, while

driven by the technological and financial dominance of the core countries,

offered the opportunity for a range of political responses in the periphery,

including greater popular participation or resistance. Furthermore, he dis-

tinguished between the political situation of dependence, and the economic

question of development. For Cardoso, development was possible in a situa-

tion of dependence, even if it were only ‘associate-dependent’ development.

How plausible were the dependency theorists’ accounts of the historical un-

derdevelopment of Latin America?

The arguments of the ECLA economists that underlie dependency theory have

gained considerable currency4 . Not only do primary products risk declining

terms of trade, but they are also prone to sudden collapses in value. Latin

American history is littered with examples of boom and bust periods based

on a single product, leaving little more than scars on the local environ-

ment, territorial disputes and bitterness5.

Yet dependence on primary products, and a few key markets, did not neces-

sarily condemn countries to underdevelopment. Australia, New Zealand and

Canada were all colonies built on exporting primary agricultural products

back to the industrial core, but by the 1950s all were firmly established

as part of the developed world. Even today, two of the world’s three ‘most

developed’ countries (Norway and Australia) export 70 to 80 percent primary

products6.

While these countries are thoroughly different from most Latin America na-

tions, it is difficult to avoid the parallels between Australia and Argentina

– both countries where colonisers drove out small native populations and

established an export economy based on extensive agricultural land use.

What was different about Australia and Argentina that saw them ultimate-

ly take divergent paths? Harrison7 provides a foil for dependency theory,

blaming Latin American underdevelopment on the historical lack of social

ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY IN THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THOSE

RELATIONSHIPS...

For millennia, relationships have developed between animals and people through the context of work, sport, companionship, or some combination of these activities. Often, a bond between animal and human results that is based on affection and/or respect. In the research environment, it is not uncommon for a bond to develop between the investi- gator, veterinarian, and/or animal care technicians and the animals with which they work; and such a bond can be just as strong for a mouse as it is for a dog. Circumstances that foster the formation of these bonds include the close and frequent contact between the researchers and their animals during studies or during training of animals to particular tasks, the long periods of time many research animals live in the facilities (often years), the dependency of the animals on the ani-mal care staff for their daily needs, and the veteri- narian/patient relationship, which is not unlike that of pri- vate practitioners and client-owned animals. In addition, overlaying the fundamental relationship with the research animal are special bonds that can form with certain animals. Among those that engender a special attach-ment are animals that are particularly friendly, amusing, or intelligent; ani- mals requiring extra supportive care; animals that show courage; animals that represent a milestone in a particular scientific advancement; and animals that reflect humans’ own strengths and foibles. The development of these rela- tionships is enriching to both personnel and animals inas- much as people who care about their animals are committed to promoting and ensuring the well-being of those animals.Key Words: animal well-being; environmental enrichment; human-animal bond; training“It’s proper to make the distinction When explanations are given;Between those who care as a hobby And others who care for a livin’.”Baxter Black, 1986 “Animal Lovers” Coyote Cowboy PoetryKathryn Bayne, M.S., Ph.D., D.V.M., is Associate Director of AAALAC International, Rockville, Maryland.Personnel who work in animal research facilities are oc-casionally the targets of claims that they are unfeel- ing. However, Baxter Black (1986) more accurately captures the essence of animal facility staff as individuals who do their jobs, in sometimes difficult circumstances, because they care. It is not only an interest in scientific endeavors that leads animal research facility staff to choose a career in the field, but also a regard for animals. This caring attitude characterizes the ideal animal facility em- ployee;

however, this approach also makes it difficult for these individuals to work in this special environment.Although much has been written about the human- animal bond, both in descriptions of relationships between people and their pets as well as in animal-assisted therapy programs, catalysts for the bond that develops between re- search animals and the staff that work with them have re- ceived attention only recently (Arluke 1990). As described else-where in this issue (Chang and Hart 2002; Davis 2002; Herzog 2002; Iliff 2002; Russow 2002), the bond that de- velops between staff and animals in the laboratory involves a variety of species used in diverse projects with differing outcomes for the animals.The following descrip-tion of the circumstances in which bonds develop in the laboratory is not intended to be all inclu-sive. In some research studies, such as those in which the animals are infected with a highly zoonotic agent, it may be virtually impossible for a relationship of any substance to develop between staff and the animal subjects. In other cases, personnel will allow their feelings for the animals to deepen only to a limited degree as a self-protective mecha- nism, inasmuch as there is an obvious personal cost to the individual who becomes emotionally attached to laboratory animals that may eventually be euthanized.Tannenbaum (1987) argues that a true bond can only be defined as bidirectional, which he describes as a relation-ship that benefits both parties and is mutually voluntary. I be- lieve that a bond may be unidirectional, rather than solely bidirectional. For example, a staff member may become particularly attached to an animal that shows no special regard for that individual. In addition, an animal (e.g., a dog) may actively seek or initiate a relationship with animal facility personnel as a result of its exposure as a puppy to a socialization program that included people.

The ECLA proposed that Latin America embark on a path to greater self-sufficiency through import-substituting industrialisation (ISI), a process that had already begun in some countries during the international capitalist crises of the 1930s and 1940s. However, after initial progress in countries with large internal markets like Argentina, Mexico and Brazil, industry stagnated and was forced to rely on foreign finance, making it easy pickings for the multinational companies that began to dominate Latin American domestic markets. Paradoxically, the push for development through local industrialisation left Latin American countries more dependent than ever.

In the face of this apparent impasse, dependency theorists moved beyond the ECLA’s identification of structural in-equalities between countries, to a more radical critique of the relations between core and periphery. Most agreed that the underdevelopment of Latin American countries had been part and parcel of the historical expansion of capitalism, and could not simply be overcome by cultural and social ‘modernization’. However, there was significant variation in the theoretical de-tails. Following Vernengo3, we can recognise a ‘continuum’ of dependency theories, with the respective ends represented by Andre Gunder Frank and Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

In Gunder Frank’s view, the underdevelopment of the periph-ery was an inevitable reflection of the development of the core. He argued that the industrial ‘metropolis’ extracts a surplus from its ‘satellites’ in order to sustain its own dynamic growth. Exploitative metropole-satellite relationships are reproduced between countries in the periphery, and even within countries (as the rich countries are to Brazil, so is Bra-zil to Paraguay, and the industrial-commercial centre of Sao Paulo to the impoverished Brazilian northeast). While internal political and social structures contribute to the process of underdevelopment, they can only be understood as a function of this external dominance. Given the ongoing extraction of

locally-generated capital, Frank doubted whether develop-ment was possible in dependent countries.

Cardoso on the other hand, placed much more emphasis on the political dynamics within dependent countries. Histori-cal economic changes, while driven by the technological and financial dominance of the core countries, offered the opportunity for a range of political responses in the periph-ery, including greater popular participation or resistance. Furthermore, he distinguished between the political situation of dependence, and the economic question of develop-ment. For Cardoso, development was possible in a situation of dependence, even if it were only ‘associate-dependent’ development.

How plausible were the dependency theorists’ accounts of the historical underdevelopment of Latin America?

The arguments of the ECLA economists that underlie depen-dency theory have gained considerable currency4 . Not only do primary products risk declining terms of trade, but they are also prone to sudden collapses in value. Latin American history is littered with examples of boom and bust periods based on a single product, leaving little more than scars on the local environment, territorial disputes and bitterness5.

Yet dependence on primary products, and a few key markets, did not necessarily condemn countries to underdevelopment. Australia, New Zealand and Canada were all colonies built on exporting primary agricultural products back to the industrial core, but by the 1950s all were firmly established as part of the developed world. Even today, two of the world’s three ‘most developed’ countries (Norway and Australia) export 70 to 80 percent primary products6.

While these countries are thoroughly different from most Latin America nations, it is difficult to avoid the parallels

between Australia and Argentina – both countries where colonisers drove out small native populations and established an export economy based on exten-sive agricultural land use.

What was different about Australia and Argentina that saw them ultimately take divergent paths? Har-rison7 provides a foil for dependency theory, blaming Latin American underdevelopment on the historical lack of social cohesion and economic dynamism due to fatalistic world views and authoritarian social structures inherited from Spain. Yet while his is an explicitly ‘culturalist’ thesis, Harrison’s actual analysis of Argentina’s and Australia’s differences looks not unlike the story of lost political opportunities told by Cardoso and Faletto8.

In Argentina, the post-independence period of the 19th century was riven by internal conflict, while the large land-owners – Cardoso and Harrison agree – maintained a hegemonic grip on power. Despite considerable economic growth driven by agricul-tural export, it wasn’t until 1912 that anything like democratic government was achieved, and then it was chaotic and faction-ridden. Peronist populism in the 1940s produced economic and political gains for some previously-excluded groups, but couldn’t reconcile the conflicts between classes and between rural and urban sectors, and in fact exacerbated them by setting the unfortunate precedent of having the military act as arbiter.

By contrast, Australia saw political reforms more than 60 years before Argentina. There were forms of parliamentary government in place from 1850; land reform in Victoria from 1860; and some of the world’s first social welfare programmes by 1910.

Importantly, the large landholding interests had never maintained a grip on political power.

Differences in internal politics are again highlighted when we review a further challenge to dependency theory: the recent transformation of several East Asian countries from part of the poor periphery to members of the rich core. In 1950, the income per capita in Taiwan and South Korea was a third of that in Argentina and half that of Mexico. By 1990, both Asian countries were easily richer than any Latin American country, while also having some of the most equitable income distributions in the world.9

Among the direct comparisons with Latin America, Kay10 places emphasis on the much earlier and more thorough land reforms that took place in the Asian countries which ended the influence of landlords and allowed the agricultural surplus to be used to support industrialisation. While not downplaying the authoritarian nature of governments in South Korea and Taiwan, he notes that their reforms had significant redistributive effects and that they continued to pro-mote productivity improvements in both agriculture and industry.

In contrast, land reform in Latin American countries was late, partial, and ineffective. In many cases, “landlords were able to block any attempts at reform in the countryside”11. Attempts to use agricultural profit to finance industry mainly hurt peasants and the rural proletariat. Compared with East Asia, govern-ments lacked authority and “statecraft”, partly due to the “polarised and entrenched class structure”12. Industrialists sought ongoing protection and subsi-dies, and policy makers were never able to engineer a move to the next phase of competitive export-oriented

industrialisation.

In both Australia and East Asia, internal reforms al-lowed the benefits of economic growth to be shared more widely, despite continued dependence on the in-ternational economy. The conflicts which undermined similar reforms in Latin America had their origin in the rigid hierarchies and exploitative social structures dat-ing from colonial times. But these internal factors had a life of their own, and were not just the products of economic dependence. As Cardoso argues, and as the examples from elsewhere illustrate, failures to reach new political compromises were not inevitable.

While these counter-examples partly undermine the historical analyses of dependency theorists, a big-ger problem for the dependentistas is summed up by Gunder Frank’s own statement that: “if the policy is ineffective, it renders suspect the theory from which it is derived”.13

The policy recommendations of dependency theorists were, at best, rather vague. On the one hand, obses-sion with structure allowed little attention to the human details of underdevelopment such as the ethnic inequalities which even the most casual observer can see have been a major factor in many Latin American countries. On the other hand, while the ECLA pro-duced detailed proposals for reform (by the 1970s seen to have failed), dependency theorists identified an impasse, beyond which they could only gesture. Frank sets the Cuban revolution as his unique and mostly unexamined model. Even Cardoso and Faletto only establish the rather nebulous challenge of build-ing “paths towards socialism”14.

Given the lack of attention to detail, it is perhaps

unsurprising that little was achieved by either revolutionary or reformist attempts to overcome dependence. External factors can share some of the blame, notably the US attempts to undermine socialist regimes in Cuba, Chile, and Nicaragua. But in Cuba, the relationship of dependence was hardly changed by socialist revolution, with sugar exports to the Soviet Union remaining a domi-nant part of the Cuban economy15.

Elsewhere, as argued by diverse contributors to Edwards and Dornbusch, heroic attempts to restructure Latin American economies almost invariably resulted in balance of payments crises, rampant inflation, and ultimately a decline in real wages16. Again, several analysts point to the political difficulties in implementing stable social and economic reforms. The need to provide short-term payoffs for members of fragile alliances resulted in unsustainable economic stimulation interspersed with destabilising reac-tions against internal or external antagonists.

For example, in Chile, the nationalisation of the copper industry by the Allende government (seen as essential for breaking relations of dependence) had bipartisan support. But the government inexplicably decided not to indemni-fy the mining companies, and then moved to also expropriate banks, industry, and all land holdings larger than 80 hectares. This was combined with large wage rises and price controls intended to bolster popular support, but producing short-ages and inflation. Social unrest and economic crisis were undermining Allende well before the 1973 military coup17.

Training of the animal care staff in animal behavior is a key component to improving job performance and, more impor-tantly, enhancing animal well-being. For example, personnel who have a sound understanding of the species- typical behaviors of the nonhuman primates with whom they work will be able to use that knowledge to expedite animal training programs, avoid behaviors that may be in- terpreted by the animals as threatening (e.g., direct staring/ eye contact, jerky arm movements), and increase their sensitivity to changes in an animal’s behavior that may in- dicate an alteration in that animal’s physical or psychologi- cal well-being. The training should include the general behaviors for the species as well as the specific behaviors expressed by individual animals (Fouts et al. 1994). This increased understanding of the animals can lead to empathy for them, which builds a bridge between staff and animals. The editors of Webster’s Diction-ary (1999) recognize that understanding is essential to the development of a relation- ship. They define understanding as a “sympathetic aware- ness,” implying an affinity or bond between two parties based on their definition of the word sympathy.Talking to the AnimalsFor training programs to be successful, there must be ef-fec- tive communication between the trainer and the animal. In general, a positive reinforcement paradigm will promote achievement of training goals. However, it is not uncom- mon for the trainer also to use verbal commands and praise during behavioral shaping sessions. Staff may also use ver- bal communication as they would with a pet animal. For example, staff at one facility successfully use the command “NO!” to

stop or reduce the occurrence of undesirable (e.g., aggres-sive) behaviors in nonhuman primates (S. Iliff, MerckResearch Laboratories, Rahway, New Jersey, personal com- munication, 2001).Human-animal communication also occurs outside the con-text of training regimens. For example, staff provide special food treats to the animals while using species- relevant visual and auditory cues that signal behaviors or intentions. As little as 6 min of staff time each week spent handing out food treats to rhesus monkeys while the indi- vidual exhibits submissive or affiliative behaviors (e.g., lipsmacking and casting the eyes down) results in a reduc- tion of stereotypic behavior and an increase in species- typical behavior for a protracted period of time

. THIS INDICATES THE CLOSENESS OF A RELATIONSHIP AND IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN OUR ATTITUDES TOWARDS TREATING PETS AS FAMILY.

24

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMANS AND NATURE HAS CHANGED

DRAMATICALLY OVER THE LAST 10,000 YEARS.

THE CHANGING STATUS OF ANIMALS AND HUMAN-ANIMAL BONDS

Animals and people have been living together for thousands

of years, but the past 100 years have been extraordinary in

the amount of change in those relationships. In the last

100 years, people have markedly changed their perceptions,

their relationships, and their uses of animals and ani-

mal products. Many of these changes have occurred in our

lifetimes.

Some of us grew up on farms and had considerable contact

with livestock and wildlife. We knew that dairy cows were

kept to provide milk and meat. Beef cattle and pigs were

slaughtered to provide meat, and chickens provided eggs

as well as meat. Wildlife, living on the farm or nearby, was

often hunted by farm families to provide meat and skins.

Even though we understood, or perhaps because we under-

stood the primary role of animals in our lives, we were

often in a close relationship that gave us a perspective of

our interdependence and the nature of life and death in

our ecosystem. Today, less that 1% of families in the US are

engaged in raising livestock; few children have seen or ex-

perienced the cycle of life and death of livestock or plants;

few know first hand where their milk, cheese, eggs, meat,

vegetables and fruit actually come from.

One hundred years ago, nearly all dogs were kept for

herding, pulling power, hunting, tracking, or protection

and were seldom allowed in the house, almost never in the

bedroom. Today most dogs in the US are kept in the house for

companionship and only occasionally kept for work.

Current studies also show that 60-80% of dogs sleep with

their owners at night in the bedroom, either in or on the

bed. This indicates the closeness of a relationship and is a

major change in our attitudes towards treating pets as fam-

ily. Today the media and most people consider pets as part of

their families.

One hundred years ago, cats were kept to hunt down and

kill intruding mice or rats. By watching cats, we as chil-

dren saw an example of the prey-predator relationship and

learned the utilitarian reasons for life and death. Today,

people are shocked and consider it cruel when a cat express-

es its natural instinctive behavior to kill a mouse or bird,

bring it home, and lay it before the mistress of the home.

Bird lovers and ecologists are now advocating keeping all

cats in the house to protect some bird populations, which

studies

show are being decimated by cats that kill birds even though

the cats are being fed in their home. One hundred years ago,

nearly all cats were kept outdoors, and only a few were al-

lowed in the house. Today, studies show that the majority of

cats in homes sleep in the bedroom at night, and most sleep

on or in the bed indicating the close relationship of pets as

members of the family.

Our institutions have also changed. The first humane so-

ciety was established 1866 in New York City as the American

Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Currently

there appear to be more than 5,000 humane and rescue groups

for animals in the US. Fifteen years ago, we recognized that

unwanted behavior was the greatest cause of death for dogs

and cats—more than all deaths from disease. Each year more

than 20 million otherwise healthy dogs and cats were being

abandoned to animal agencies and shelters for euthanasia.

Harsh training methods devised for the military in the 1890’s

were failing with new generations of pet owners who wanted

gentler and more humane methods of training. The death of

healthy animals for unwanted behavior became unaccept-

able. Today, behaviorists and trainers are teaching people to

use more natural and scientific management methods that

are gentler, help animals to learn more quickly, and are

more humane.

One hundred years, we used to speak of ‘breaking’ horses

to being ridden by a person. Today we speak of ‘gentling’

horses to being handled and ridden by people who consider

horses as companions. In the last 20 years, a veterinarian,

Dr. Robert Miller, has helped to change the horse indus-

try by demonstrating that imprint training of a foal in

the first several hours and days after birth can increase

lifelong gentle responsive behavior of horses to people and

environmental stimuli. Today, with scientific understand-

ing of natural behavior, we are seeing a revolution among

horse trainers to accept kinder, gentler methods to manage

behavior of horses.

Today we have multinational and multicultural recognition

of the mutual benefits of the human animal bond to health

and spirit. Animals offer companionship—someone to talk to

who will not criticize. They are living responding beings to

touch or hug with emotion. Animals keep us alert and help

fulfill our need to nurture and comfort others.

ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIV-ING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS

ANIMALS AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIV-ING TOGETHER FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, BUT THE PAST 100 YEARS

HAVE BEEN EXTRAORDINARY IN THE AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THOSE RELATIONSHIPS...

Soy, soy lo que dejaron, Soy las sobras de lo que te robaron,Un pueblo escondido en la cima, Mi piel es de cuero por eso aguata cu-alquier clima,Soy una fábrica de humo, Mano de obra campesina para tu consumo,En el medio del verano, El amor en los tiempos del cólera,Mi hermano!

Soy el que nace y el día que muere, Con los mejo-res atardeceres,Soy el desarrollo en carne viva, Un discurso sin saliva,Las caras más boni-tas que he conocido, Soy la fotografía de un desaparecido,La sangre dentro de tus venas, Soy un pedazo de tierra que vale la pena,Una canasta con frijoles.

Soy Maradona contra In-glaterra Anotándole dos goles.Soy lo que sostiene mi bandera, La espina dor-sal de mi planeta, en mi cordillera.Soy lo que me enseño mi padre, El que no quiere a su patria no quiere a su madre.Soy América Latina un pueblo sin piernas pero que camina.

Tú no puedes comprar al viento,Tú no puedes comprar al solTú no puedes comprar la lluvia,

Tú no puedes comprar al calor.Tú no puedes comprar las nubes,Tú no puedes comprar mi alegría,Tú no puedes comprar mis dolores.

Tengo los lagos, tengo los ríos, Tengo mis dien-tes pa cuando me sonrío,La nieve que maquilla mis montañas, Tengo el sol que me seca y la lluvia que me baña,Un desierto embriagado con pellotes, Un trago de pulque para cantar con los coyotes,Todo lo que necesito!

Tengo a mis pulmones respirando azul clarito,La altura que sofoca, Soy las muelas de mi boca mascando coca,El otoño con sus hojas desmayadas, Los versos escritos bajo las noches estrelladas,Una viña repleta de uvas, Un cañaveral bajo el sol en cuba,Soy el mar Caribe que vigila las casitas, Ha-ciendo rituales de agua bendita,El viento que peina mi cabello, Soy todos los santos que cuelgan de mi cuello,El jugo de mi lucha no es artificial porque el abono de mi tierra es natural.Vamos caminando, vamos dibujando el camino!

Trabajo bruto pero con

orgullo, Aquí se compar-te lo mío es tuyo,Este pueblo no se ahoga con marullos, Y si se derrumba yo lo reconstruyo,Tampoco pestañeo cuando te miro, Para que te re-cuerdes de mi apellido,La operación cóndor in-vadiendo mi nido, Perdono pero nunca olvido, oye!

Vamos caminado, aquí se respira lucha.Vamos caminando, yo can-to porque se escucha.Vamos caminando, aquí estamos de pie.Que viva Latinoamérica.No puedes comprar mi vida!

DEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICADEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICADEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICADEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICADEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICADEFORESTATION CONTINUES TO BE THE DOMINANT LAND-USE TREND IN LATIN AMERICA