An Ecuadorian environmental group presents a petition with hundreds of
thousands of signatures supporting an abstention from exploiting oil in
the Yasuni reserve in the Amazon
Monday, April 28, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Permaculture vs Gold Mining in Guatemala
By Trina Moyles & KJ Dakin, Permaculture
Guatemalan farmers are finding solutions in permaculture to grow their own food and protect the landscape from the destructive gold mining industry.
In the arid mountain village of Tuixcajchis, Aurelia Jimenez Zacories is always growing something on her small but productive tract of land. She spends her days coaxing vegetables and the staples of corn, wheat and potatoes from the soil, raising livestock, building organic soil, planting trees and saving her seeds for the next harvest. Aurelia is a Maya-Mam woman, mother, wife and farmer.
For 2,000 years, Maya-Mam farmers of northwestern Guatemala, descendants of the Maya civilization, which flourished from 2000 BC to AD 900, have been planting and harvesting criolla (indigenous) maize, beans and ayote (pumpkin) on small plots of land scattered along the sides of the sun-baked Sierra Madre de Chiapas mountains.
Today, many Maya-Mam farmers are integrating aspects of permaculture, agroecology and agroforestry into the way they grow food - not only with the intention of feeding their families - but with the larger goal of resisting and struggling against the social and environmental changes caused by gold, silver and nickel mining on their indigenous territories.
Environmental & Social Impact of Gold Mining
In 2003, the Guatemalan government leased the land from underneath the Maya-Mam’s homes and gardens to a Canadian-incorporated company, Glamis Gold - without conducting public consultation, or receiving community consent. It wasn’t agricultural land the government was after; it was what lay beneath the soil on which people planted: mass reserves of gold, silver and nickel for large-scale mineral extraction.
After signing the lease with the Guatemalan government, Glamis Gold set forth developing Marlin Mine in the province of San Marcos with a major helping hand from the World Bank’s International Financing Corporation who lent the company $45 million dollars.
When local Maya-Mam communities learnt of the mine being constructed on their indigenous land, they began to protest that their government had broken the International Labor Organization Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which ensures indigenous people’s land rights and rights to self-determination.
On December 3rd, 2003, more than 2,000 Maya-Mam gathered to block the passage of a convoy traveling on the Pan-American Highway that was hauling construction materials for Marlin Mine. They expressed anger at not being consulted by their government, and declared that the mine would have serious environmental and social consequences.
The community blockade endured for more than 40 days until January 11th, 2004 when the government deployed military and security forces to remove the protestors. The military shot tear-gas and fired their weapons into the crowd, killing one man, Raul Castro Bocel, a 37-year old farmer from Solola. And so it began, a decade of gold mining and the use of violent state repression against Maya-Mam communities in northwestern Guatemala.
Since 2005, Marlin Mine (which was acquired from Glamis Gold by another Canadian-owned company, Goldcorp in 2006) has extracted over 1 million ounces of gold using open pit and underground technologies. In 2013, Goldcorp extracted 49,400 ounces of gold and 1.7 million ounces of silver from Marlin in their third quarter alone, which contributed to $1.2 billion dollars in adjusted revenue for the company.
Goldcorp claims that their “production is low-cost”; however, many Maya-Mam farmers and organizations would disagree.
Human rights and environmental organizations, including Rights Action and COPAE (Pastoral Commission for Peace and Ecology), have documented cases of poor health and environmental degradation, including high levels of cyanide, arsenic, aluminum and nitrates (chemicals used in the extractive process) in the rivers and waterways of communities living downstream from the mine.
In addition, farmers fear that the gold mining operations, which can potentially consume up to 250,000 liters of water per hour, are depleting groundwater sources they desperately need. While no conclusive studies on the level of water supply in San Marcos and the activities of Marlin Mine’s have been conducted and documented, Goldcorp continues to access local water supply for their operations without paying a cent for the privilege.
In 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) ordered the Guatemalan government and Goldcorp to provide the affected communities with sufficient, safe drinking water; but both institutions have continued to deny any negative impact to health or the environment and ignore the IACHR’s order. Goldcorp says that it’s “confident that the Marlin Mine has had a positive impact on social and economic development”. Their funded non-profit organization, Fundación Sierra Madre has constructed schools and health clinics in the communities surrounding the mine.
Despite local and international protests and resistance to gold mining in northwestern Guatemala, Goldcorp continues mineral exploration and expansion of the Marlin Mine. In 2014, the company projects that it will produce upwards of 185,000 ounces of gold.
Growing Resistance on Aurelia’s Permaculture System
Aurelia’s small adobe-constructed home, garden and fields of maize are situated atop the mountain village of Tuixcajchis, at an elevation of 2,650m above sea level - and located only 10km away from Goldcorp’s most recent exploration and expansion into the Los Chocoyos site.
In recent months, Goldcorp representatives approached Aurelia and her husband, along with their neighbours, urging them to sell their property, but Aurelia and other community members of Tuixcajchis are adamantly opposed to the idea of losing control of the land that feeds them.
Raising Livestock & Generating Organic Soil
Aurelia continues to expand her knowledge of farming. Recently she began raising pigs in a small wooden pen outside her home. Raising grazing livestock on the high, arid slopes is exhausting work as it demands a farmer physically herd the animals to the bottom of the steep valley to find greener pastures; however, pigs are a practical solution as they don’t require fresh greens and can be fed most organic scraps. Aurelia saves the waste materials from her maize, bean and pumpkin harvests, including the dried husks and immature maize ears, to feed to her pigs. Pig manure, rich in nitrogen, is excellent for hot composting, a quick method of creating organic soil for her fields and kitchen garden.
Growing Vegetables & Medicinal Plants
Aurelia grows non-traditional vegetables in a small kitchen garden to help diversify her family’s diet, including beets, kale, carrots and spinach. She allows one or two plants to go to seed in order to keep her seeds for the following season. Aurelia also grows different varieties of plants with basic medicinal properties, which can be dried and made into teas, or applied as a salve for treating rashes and skin irritations. She calls the garden her “pharmacy” and explained how it often saves her from having to walk two hours into the nearest town to buy medicine that she cannot afford.
Grey Water System
Access to water is a serious issue for Aurelia and her neighbors. They are without potable water and rely on a nearby well to draw water for drinking, cooking, washing and irrigating their kitchen gardens. Aurelia saves the water she uses for cooking and washing in round washing basins, and reuses it on her avocado and pear tree seedlings.
Food Storage & Indigenous Seed Saving
Aurelia and her husband have built lofts for storing criolla (indigenous) potato seed, and tie the husks of dried maize to the rafters inside their kitchen and home. She saves different varieties of pinto and fava beans, and chili peppers inside her kitchen in contained bins.
Women Organizing & Planting Trees
Through the training and guidance of a Mayan-Mam development organization, Asociación Maya-Mam de Investigación y Desarollo (AMMID) (Mayan-Mam Association of Research and Dvelopment), Aurelia recently began participating in a the community’s organizing and reforestation project, run for and by women. She and 22 other women in Tuixcajchis attended AMMID’s training on agroecology and reforestation, and formed a group that meets weekly to care for a tree nursery. AMMID supplies Aurelia’s group with avocado, pine and indigenous tree seedlings and the women work collaboratively to tend to the seedlings before distribution to every woman in the group.
Through education Aurelia and her community now recognize the importance of reforestation around their gardens and fields, for maintaining water in the soil, preventing erosion and providing a sustainable source of food and fuel for her family, as well as protecting the land and environment for future generations.
The group has also evolved into a secure space for women to support one another and discuss important issues in their homes and community, including the threat of Goldcorp’s mining activities in the region and its increasing proximity to their land and livelihoods.
In early January 2014, Aurelia and other women in her group attended a protest against Goldcorp’s expansion into the Los Chocoyos area. “We don’t want the mine here – today or tomorrow,” said Aurelia.
An Uncertain Future – Land Ownership & Gold Mining
As Aurelia and her husband continue to develop their diverse growing system in Tuixcajchis, uncertainty surrounding land ownership and Aurelia’s rights to ‘surface resources’ over the government’s rights to ‘sub-surface resources’ looms ahead.
There is a growing resistance within Maya-Mam communities to the gold mining industry in the region, evidenced in community mobilization and protests, yet the Guatemalan government and Goldcorp appear keen to move forward with exploration and expansion of the Marlin Mine on the Los Chocoyos site.
Whatever happens in the boardrooms of business or in the business of politics, Aurelia is determined that she will fight “with sticks and stones” for her indigenous land, her garden and the criolla seeds she will continue to reap and sow, season upon season.
Permaculture vs Gold Mining in Guatemala
Guatemalan farmers are finding solutions in permaculture to grow their own food and protect the landscape from the destructive gold mining industry.
In the arid mountain village of Tuixcajchis, Aurelia Jimenez Zacories is always growing something on her small but productive tract of land. She spends her days coaxing vegetables and the staples of corn, wheat and potatoes from the soil, raising livestock, building organic soil, planting trees and saving her seeds for the next harvest. Aurelia is a Maya-Mam woman, mother, wife and farmer.
For 2,000 years, Maya-Mam farmers of northwestern Guatemala, descendants of the Maya civilization, which flourished from 2000 BC to AD 900, have been planting and harvesting criolla (indigenous) maize, beans and ayote (pumpkin) on small plots of land scattered along the sides of the sun-baked Sierra Madre de Chiapas mountains.
Today, many Maya-Mam farmers are integrating aspects of permaculture, agroecology and agroforestry into the way they grow food - not only with the intention of feeding their families - but with the larger goal of resisting and struggling against the social and environmental changes caused by gold, silver and nickel mining on their indigenous territories.
Environmental & Social Impact of Gold Mining
In 2003, the Guatemalan government leased the land from underneath the Maya-Mam’s homes and gardens to a Canadian-incorporated company, Glamis Gold - without conducting public consultation, or receiving community consent. It wasn’t agricultural land the government was after; it was what lay beneath the soil on which people planted: mass reserves of gold, silver and nickel for large-scale mineral extraction.
After signing the lease with the Guatemalan government, Glamis Gold set forth developing Marlin Mine in the province of San Marcos with a major helping hand from the World Bank’s International Financing Corporation who lent the company $45 million dollars.
When local Maya-Mam communities learnt of the mine being constructed on their indigenous land, they began to protest that their government had broken the International Labor Organization Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which ensures indigenous people’s land rights and rights to self-determination.
On December 3rd, 2003, more than 2,000 Maya-Mam gathered to block the passage of a convoy traveling on the Pan-American Highway that was hauling construction materials for Marlin Mine. They expressed anger at not being consulted by their government, and declared that the mine would have serious environmental and social consequences.
The community blockade endured for more than 40 days until January 11th, 2004 when the government deployed military and security forces to remove the protestors. The military shot tear-gas and fired their weapons into the crowd, killing one man, Raul Castro Bocel, a 37-year old farmer from Solola. And so it began, a decade of gold mining and the use of violent state repression against Maya-Mam communities in northwestern Guatemala.
Since 2005, Marlin Mine (which was acquired from Glamis Gold by another Canadian-owned company, Goldcorp in 2006) has extracted over 1 million ounces of gold using open pit and underground technologies. In 2013, Goldcorp extracted 49,400 ounces of gold and 1.7 million ounces of silver from Marlin in their third quarter alone, which contributed to $1.2 billion dollars in adjusted revenue for the company.
Goldcorp claims that their “production is low-cost”; however, many Maya-Mam farmers and organizations would disagree.
Human rights and environmental organizations, including Rights Action and COPAE (Pastoral Commission for Peace and Ecology), have documented cases of poor health and environmental degradation, including high levels of cyanide, arsenic, aluminum and nitrates (chemicals used in the extractive process) in the rivers and waterways of communities living downstream from the mine.
In addition, farmers fear that the gold mining operations, which can potentially consume up to 250,000 liters of water per hour, are depleting groundwater sources they desperately need. While no conclusive studies on the level of water supply in San Marcos and the activities of Marlin Mine’s have been conducted and documented, Goldcorp continues to access local water supply for their operations without paying a cent for the privilege.
In 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) ordered the Guatemalan government and Goldcorp to provide the affected communities with sufficient, safe drinking water; but both institutions have continued to deny any negative impact to health or the environment and ignore the IACHR’s order. Goldcorp says that it’s “confident that the Marlin Mine has had a positive impact on social and economic development”. Their funded non-profit organization, Fundación Sierra Madre has constructed schools and health clinics in the communities surrounding the mine.
Despite local and international protests and resistance to gold mining in northwestern Guatemala, Goldcorp continues mineral exploration and expansion of the Marlin Mine. In 2014, the company projects that it will produce upwards of 185,000 ounces of gold.
Growing Resistance on Aurelia’s Permaculture System
Aurelia’s small adobe-constructed home, garden and fields of maize are situated atop the mountain village of Tuixcajchis, at an elevation of 2,650m above sea level - and located only 10km away from Goldcorp’s most recent exploration and expansion into the Los Chocoyos site.
In recent months, Goldcorp representatives approached Aurelia and her husband, along with their neighbours, urging them to sell their property, but Aurelia and other community members of Tuixcajchis are adamantly opposed to the idea of losing control of the land that feeds them.
Raising Livestock & Generating Organic Soil
Aurelia continues to expand her knowledge of farming. Recently she began raising pigs in a small wooden pen outside her home. Raising grazing livestock on the high, arid slopes is exhausting work as it demands a farmer physically herd the animals to the bottom of the steep valley to find greener pastures; however, pigs are a practical solution as they don’t require fresh greens and can be fed most organic scraps. Aurelia saves the waste materials from her maize, bean and pumpkin harvests, including the dried husks and immature maize ears, to feed to her pigs. Pig manure, rich in nitrogen, is excellent for hot composting, a quick method of creating organic soil for her fields and kitchen garden.
Growing Vegetables & Medicinal Plants
Aurelia grows non-traditional vegetables in a small kitchen garden to help diversify her family’s diet, including beets, kale, carrots and spinach. She allows one or two plants to go to seed in order to keep her seeds for the following season. Aurelia also grows different varieties of plants with basic medicinal properties, which can be dried and made into teas, or applied as a salve for treating rashes and skin irritations. She calls the garden her “pharmacy” and explained how it often saves her from having to walk two hours into the nearest town to buy medicine that she cannot afford.
Grey Water System
Access to water is a serious issue for Aurelia and her neighbors. They are without potable water and rely on a nearby well to draw water for drinking, cooking, washing and irrigating their kitchen gardens. Aurelia saves the water she uses for cooking and washing in round washing basins, and reuses it on her avocado and pear tree seedlings.
Food Storage & Indigenous Seed Saving
Aurelia and her husband have built lofts for storing criolla (indigenous) potato seed, and tie the husks of dried maize to the rafters inside their kitchen and home. She saves different varieties of pinto and fava beans, and chili peppers inside her kitchen in contained bins.
Women Organizing & Planting Trees
Through the training and guidance of a Mayan-Mam development organization, Asociación Maya-Mam de Investigación y Desarollo (AMMID) (Mayan-Mam Association of Research and Dvelopment), Aurelia recently began participating in a the community’s organizing and reforestation project, run for and by women. She and 22 other women in Tuixcajchis attended AMMID’s training on agroecology and reforestation, and formed a group that meets weekly to care for a tree nursery. AMMID supplies Aurelia’s group with avocado, pine and indigenous tree seedlings and the women work collaboratively to tend to the seedlings before distribution to every woman in the group.
Through education Aurelia and her community now recognize the importance of reforestation around their gardens and fields, for maintaining water in the soil, preventing erosion and providing a sustainable source of food and fuel for her family, as well as protecting the land and environment for future generations.
The group has also evolved into a secure space for women to support one another and discuss important issues in their homes and community, including the threat of Goldcorp’s mining activities in the region and its increasing proximity to their land and livelihoods.
In early January 2014, Aurelia and other women in her group attended a protest against Goldcorp’s expansion into the Los Chocoyos area. “We don’t want the mine here – today or tomorrow,” said Aurelia.
An Uncertain Future – Land Ownership & Gold Mining
As Aurelia and her husband continue to develop their diverse growing system in Tuixcajchis, uncertainty surrounding land ownership and Aurelia’s rights to ‘surface resources’ over the government’s rights to ‘sub-surface resources’ looms ahead.
There is a growing resistance within Maya-Mam communities to the gold mining industry in the region, evidenced in community mobilization and protests, yet the Guatemalan government and Goldcorp appear keen to move forward with exploration and expansion of the Marlin Mine on the Los Chocoyos site.
Whatever happens in the boardrooms of business or in the business of politics, Aurelia is determined that she will fight “with sticks and stones” for her indigenous land, her garden and the criolla seeds she will continue to reap and sow, season upon season.
Permaculture vs Gold Mining in Guatemala
Saturday, April 26, 2014
A sustainable future for all: The inequality and exclusion challenge | Patrick Keuleers | UNDP
Over the past few decades, the world as a whole has experienced unprecedented progress, coupled with complex development challenges. Ending poverty remains an unfinished agenda, societies are growing increasingly unequal and too many people continue to be left behind. One percent of the global population now owns nearly half of the world’s wealth.
Inequality and exclusion are major impediments to human progress, already threatening both global security and social stability within countries. It is thus not surprising that people, and in particular young men and women, are amplifying their frustrations with a world that remains deeply unfair. Indeed, in the global “MY World” survey, people consistently ranked “honest and responsive government” among their highest priorities.
Hence, for development to be sustainable – economically, socially and environmentally – and equitable (from a human rights perspective), a new approach is needed that deals as much with the often sensitive political and governance aspects of the questions, as with the technical answers and solutions.
Aspiring for such a development outcome does not imply the promotion of a one-size-fits-all model of governance. The real challenge in integrating governance into the post-2015 development framework is no longer convincing stakeholders of its importance, but rather translating this multi-dimensional concept into a concrete, global development goal and targets.
While a variety of diverse stakeholders (parliamentarians, civil society, the private sector, foundations, member states) continue to lobby for governance to be included in the post-2015 development framework, whether and how governance will be included remains to be decided.
Expectations, however, are higher than ever before. People all over the world want to see a new development agenda that transcends the MDGs. Stakeholders called for inclusive, participatory, effective and accountable democratic governance to be at the centre of a transformative development agenda. Member States declared in September 2013 that the new development agenda should promote peace, security, democratic governance, the rule of law, gender equality and human rights for all.
Improving systems of governance is a critical pathway to delivering other development goals. Inclusive and effective governance, guided by a set of ethical and democratic values and principles, is also a laudable development outcome in itself.
Our world has the capacity to design pathways to a future grounded in equitable and sustainable development, which meets the needs of current generations without compromising those of the future. Having governance, peace and security as an integral part of the new development agenda is possible. It would certainly reinforce the foundations of a sustainable future for all peoples.
A sustainable future for all: The inequality and exclusion challenge | Patrick Keuleers | UNDP
Inequality and exclusion are major impediments to human progress, already threatening both global security and social stability within countries. It is thus not surprising that people, and in particular young men and women, are amplifying their frustrations with a world that remains deeply unfair. Indeed, in the global “MY World” survey, people consistently ranked “honest and responsive government” among their highest priorities.
Hence, for development to be sustainable – economically, socially and environmentally – and equitable (from a human rights perspective), a new approach is needed that deals as much with the often sensitive political and governance aspects of the questions, as with the technical answers and solutions.
Aspiring for such a development outcome does not imply the promotion of a one-size-fits-all model of governance. The real challenge in integrating governance into the post-2015 development framework is no longer convincing stakeholders of its importance, but rather translating this multi-dimensional concept into a concrete, global development goal and targets.
While a variety of diverse stakeholders (parliamentarians, civil society, the private sector, foundations, member states) continue to lobby for governance to be included in the post-2015 development framework, whether and how governance will be included remains to be decided.
Expectations, however, are higher than ever before. People all over the world want to see a new development agenda that transcends the MDGs. Stakeholders called for inclusive, participatory, effective and accountable democratic governance to be at the centre of a transformative development agenda. Member States declared in September 2013 that the new development agenda should promote peace, security, democratic governance, the rule of law, gender equality and human rights for all.
Improving systems of governance is a critical pathway to delivering other development goals. Inclusive and effective governance, guided by a set of ethical and democratic values and principles, is also a laudable development outcome in itself.
Our world has the capacity to design pathways to a future grounded in equitable and sustainable development, which meets the needs of current generations without compromising those of the future. Having governance, peace and security as an integral part of the new development agenda is possible. It would certainly reinforce the foundations of a sustainable future for all peoples.
A sustainable future for all: The inequality and exclusion challenge | Patrick Keuleers | UNDP
Thursday, April 24, 2014
UN releases 'multiple choice' of options for 2015 climate deal
Released
document outlines various pathways towards global carbon cutting
package due to be agreed in Paris - See more at:
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/22/un-releases-multiple-choice-of-options-for-2015-climate-deal/#.dpuf
By Ed King document outlines various pathways towards global carbon cutting
package due to be agreed in Paris - See more at:
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/22/un-releases-multiple-choice-of-options-for-2015-climate-deal/#.dpuf
The UN has released a set of options that envoys working on a global climate change deal believe could form the basis of an agreement next year.
These include the potential legal framework behind any treaty, the future role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and possible sanctions against countries who fail to cut carbon emissions.
The 20-page document, written by Kishan Kumarsingh and Artur Runge-Metzger, co-chairs of the negotiating process, aims to kickstart a June round of talks in Bonn.
“It summarizes our understanding of what Parties have elaborated and proposed to see reflected as elements for a draft negotiating text,” they write, stressing that all enclosed ideas are those of participating countries.
The chairs indicate they see the June session as a chance to identify a “limited number of options”. But the huge variety of suggestions outlined by today’s document indicates this in itself will be challenging.
There appears to be no resolution over who expected to take the greatest burden of emission cuts, a key point of conflict between some developed and developing countries.
The proposed legal nature of any deal still seems vague,with options for international, domestic or some form of obligation to contribute all on the cards.
Negotiators also seem undecided over whether they should aim to limit warming to 1.5C, a target favoured by climate vulnerable states, or 2C, a level agreed in 2009.
The UN wants a draft agreement to be presented at the main climate summit of 2014, which takes place in Lima this December.
National and regional ‘pledges’ to cut carbon pollution are then expected to start falling into place at the start of 2015, although it remains unclear what will happen if they are deemed insufficient to avert dangerous levels of warming.
Below are some of the more interesting aspects of the release. You can read a full version at the bottom of the page.
The 2015 agreement is to:
- Be under the Convention and guided by its principles and objective
- Be applicable to all Parties
- Be durable, flexible and effective
- Aim for and incentivize universal/broadest possible participation
- Strengthen the multilateral rules-based regime
- Respect/not compromise the right to development, as well as the right to survival
- Protect the integrity of Mother Earth
Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC):
- To be applied according to the provisions and annexes of the Convention. In the context of historical responsibility and capabilities, taking into account national circumstances
- Bold action is required from all Parties based on their CBDR-RC
- To be applied in a dynamic way; all Parties to participate over time in accordance with their evolving responsibilities and capabilities
- A binary approach is untenable in the light of shifts in countries’ emissions and economic profiles; it might place a ceiling on what Parties could do
What are capabilities?
- Current capacity and responsibilities are important
- Different levels of capacity and resources are to be considered
- Capabilities evolve over time
Who takes the lead?
- To be taken by developed countries, due to their historical emissions and the wide gap of per capita emissions/due to their capacity and historical responsibility
- To be global
- To be taken by those with greatest responsibly and highest capacity
What levels of carbon cuts are necessary?
- Collective mitigation efforts should be adequate for staying under 2/1.5C of global warming and should combine near-term quantified commitments/contributions with long-term ambition
- The 2015 agreement should include a global goal to limit temperature increase to well below 1.5C
- Anchoring the 2C long-term global goal in the agreement to increase its status and to use it for future reviews of the adequacy of countries’ obligations under the agreement
- A long-term mitigation goal for 2050 should be in line with the pathway to 2C based on most recent science
- Identify a global goal for 2025
- Developed countries to identify zero emissions pathways and define a 2050 carbon neutrality goal
- Substantial emission reductions are needed to stay under 2C, with negative emissions after 2080; financial and technology support is required
- Use the Brazilian proposal to look at the global temperature goal in terms of the principles and provisions of the Convention
On legal form – contributions will be:
- The basis for legally binding commitments
- Of the same legal force for all Parties
- Legally binding for developed countries, voluntary for developing countries
Options for legal force to be considered:
- Legally binding at the international level
- Legal obligation to put forward a contribution
- Recognize domestic legally binding character
How can the UN enforce the deal?
- Measures should range from assistance to sanctions
- An enforcement branch/punitive measures for developed country Parties/compelling measures, different set of elements for different sets of Parties
- A facilitative branch/incentive measures to assist developing country Parties/facilitative measures
- Should involve expert review teams to review MRV [measuring, reporting and verification] of mitigation effort and financial support
- Define the relationship of the compliance mechanism with contributions in terms of means of implementation
Who else should be involved?
- Need to consider how the work of local governments, sub-regional entities and the private sector can be taken into account
- On adaptation, the agreement should strengthen the linkages with organizations and institutions outside the Convention, in particular the private sector
- Private-sector resources and action should be leveraged and mobilized by public-sector actions
UN releases 'multiple choice' of options for 2015 climate deal
Sunday, April 20, 2014
International Year of Small Island Developing States
The International Year of Small Island Developing States seeks to celebrate the contributions that this group of countries has made to the world. Small islands are home to vibrant and distinct cultures, and have enriched the world through their music, diversity and heritage.
Islanders are also at the forefront of efforts to protect the world's oceans and their vast biodiversity, and are addressing pressing global issues such as climate change and rising sea levels through ingenuity, innovation and use of traditional knowledge.
For more information on how you can get involved in the International Year go to http://www.un.org/islands2014
Islanders are also at the forefront of efforts to protect the world's oceans and their vast biodiversity, and are addressing pressing global issues such as climate change and rising sea levels through ingenuity, innovation and use of traditional knowledge.
For more information on how you can get involved in the International Year go to http://www.un.org/islands2014
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure - FAO
The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security promote secure tenure rights and equitable access to land, fisheries and forests as a means of eradicating hunger and poverty, supporting sustainable development and enhancing the environment. They were officially endorsed by the Committee on World Food Security on 11 May 2012. Since then implementation has been encouraged by G20, Rio+ 20, United Nations General Assembly and Francophone Assembly of Parliamentarians.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
IPCC Climate Report Calls for “Major Institutional Change” - Inter Press Service
By Carey L. Biron, IPS News Agency
Greenhouse gas emissions rose more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than anytime during the previous three decades, the world’s top climate scientists say, despite a simultaneous strengthening of national legislation around the world aimed at reducing these emissions.
The conclusions come in the third and final instalment in a series of updates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-overseen body. The new update warns that “only major institutional and technological change will give a better than even chance that global warming will not exceed” two degrees Celsius by the end of the century, an internationally agreed upon threshold.
"The report makes clear that if we’re going to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to get out of investing in fossil fuels." -- Oscar Reyes
The full report, which focuses on mitigation, is to be made public on Tuesday. But a widely watched summary for policymakers was released Sunday in Berlin, the site of a week of reportedly hectic negotiations between government representatives.
“We expect the full report to say that it is still possible to limit warming to two degrees Celsius, but that we’re not currently on a path to doing so,” Kelly Levin, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute (WRI), a think tank here, told IPS.
“Others have found that we’re not on that pathway even if countries were to deliver on past pledges, and some countries aren’t on track to do so. A key message is that we need substantially more effort on mitigation, and that this is a critical decade for action.”
The previous IPCC report, released last month, assessed the impacts of climate change, which it said were already being felt in nearly every country around the world. The new one looks at what to do about it.
“This is a strong call for international action, particularly around the notion that this is a problem of the global commons,” Levin says.
“Every individual country needs to participate in the solution to climate change, yet this is complicated by the fact that countries have very different capabilities to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. We can now expect lots of conversation about the extent to which greater cooperation and collective action is perceived to be fair.”
Substantial investments
The full report, the work of 235 authors, represents the current scientific consensus around climate change and the potential response. Yet the policymakers’ summary is seen as a far more political document, mediating between the scientific findings and the varying constraints and motivations felt by national governments on the issue.
The latest report is likely to be particularly polarising. The three updates, constituting the IPCC’s fifth assessment, will be merged into a unified report in October, which in turn will form the basis for negotiations next year to agree on a new global response to climate change, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
While previous IPCC updates focused on the science behind climate change and its potential impacts, mitigation goes most directly to the heart of what can make the UNFCCC negotiations contentious: how to pay for the expensive changes required to move into a new, low-carbon paradigm.
In order to keep average global temperature rise within two degrees Celsius, the new report, examining some 1,200 potential scenarios, finds that global emissions will need to be brought down by anywhere from 40 to 70 percent within the next 35 years. Thereafter, they will need to be further reduced to near zero by the end of the century.
“Many different pathways lead to a future within the boundaries set by the two degrees Celsius goal,” Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the co-chairs of the working group that put out the new report, said Sunday. “All of these require substantial investments.”
The report does not put a specific number on those investments. It does, however, note that they would have a relatively minor impact on overall economic growth, with “ambitious mitigation” efforts reducing consumption growth by just 0.06 percent.
Yet they caution that “substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.”
The IPCC estimates that investment in conventional fossil fuel technologies for the electricity sector – the most polluting – will likely decline by around 20 percent over the next two decades. At the same time, funding for “low cost” power supply – including renewables but also nuclear, natural gas and “carbon capture” technologies – will increase by 100 percent.
“The report makes clear that if we’re going to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to get out of investing in fossil fuels. Yet the way the IPCC addresses this is problematic, and is a reflection of existing power dynamics,” Oscar Reyes, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank here, told IPS.
“While it’s positive that they point out that renewables are achievable at scale, they also talk about gas as a potential transition fuel. Yet many models say that doing so actually discourages investment in renewables. There are also problems with the tremendous costs of many of the technological fixes they’re putting forward.”
Equity and income
The policymakers’ summary is a consensus document, meaning that all 195 member countries have signed off on its findings. Yet it appears that last week’s negotiations in Berlin were arduous, particularly as countries position themselves ahead of the final UNFCCC negotiations next year.
Debate over how the financial onus for mitigation and adaptation costs will be parcelled out has played out in particular between middle-income and rich countries. While the latter are primarily responsible for the high greenhouse gas emissions of the past, today this is no longer the case.
Even as previous IPCC reports have categorised countries as simply “developing” or “developed” (similar to the UNFCCC approach), some rich countries have wanted to more fully differentiate the middle-income countries and their responsibility for current emissions. Apparently in response, the new IPCC report now characterises country economies on a four-part scale.
Yet some influential developing countries have pushed back on this. In a formal note of “substantial reservation” seen by IPS, the Saudi Arabian delegation warns that using “income-based country groupings” is overly vague, given that countries can shift between groups “regardless of their actual per capita emissions”.
Nine other countries, including Egypt, India, Malaysia, Qatar, Venezuela and others, reportedly signed on to the Saudi note of dissent.
Bolivia wrote a separate dissent that likewise disputes income-based classification. But it also decries the IPCC’s lack of focus on “non-market-based approaches to address international cooperation in climate change through the provision of finance and transfer of technology from developed to developing countries.”
Greenhouse gas emissions rose more quickly between 2000 and 2010 than anytime during the previous three decades, the world’s top climate scientists say, despite a simultaneous strengthening of national legislation around the world aimed at reducing these emissions.
The conclusions come in the third and final instalment in a series of updates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N.-overseen body. The new update warns that “only major institutional and technological change will give a better than even chance that global warming will not exceed” two degrees Celsius by the end of the century, an internationally agreed upon threshold.
"The report makes clear that if we’re going to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to get out of investing in fossil fuels." -- Oscar Reyes
The full report, which focuses on mitigation, is to be made public on Tuesday. But a widely watched summary for policymakers was released Sunday in Berlin, the site of a week of reportedly hectic negotiations between government representatives.
“We expect the full report to say that it is still possible to limit warming to two degrees Celsius, but that we’re not currently on a path to doing so,” Kelly Levin, a senior associate with the World Resources Institute (WRI), a think tank here, told IPS.
“Others have found that we’re not on that pathway even if countries were to deliver on past pledges, and some countries aren’t on track to do so. A key message is that we need substantially more effort on mitigation, and that this is a critical decade for action.”
The previous IPCC report, released last month, assessed the impacts of climate change, which it said were already being felt in nearly every country around the world. The new one looks at what to do about it.
“This is a strong call for international action, particularly around the notion that this is a problem of the global commons,” Levin says.
“Every individual country needs to participate in the solution to climate change, yet this is complicated by the fact that countries have very different capabilities to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. We can now expect lots of conversation about the extent to which greater cooperation and collective action is perceived to be fair.”
Substantial investments
The full report, the work of 235 authors, represents the current scientific consensus around climate change and the potential response. Yet the policymakers’ summary is seen as a far more political document, mediating between the scientific findings and the varying constraints and motivations felt by national governments on the issue.
The latest report is likely to be particularly polarising. The three updates, constituting the IPCC’s fifth assessment, will be merged into a unified report in October, which in turn will form the basis for negotiations next year to agree on a new global response to climate change, under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
While previous IPCC updates focused on the science behind climate change and its potential impacts, mitigation goes most directly to the heart of what can make the UNFCCC negotiations contentious: how to pay for the expensive changes required to move into a new, low-carbon paradigm.
In order to keep average global temperature rise within two degrees Celsius, the new report, examining some 1,200 potential scenarios, finds that global emissions will need to be brought down by anywhere from 40 to 70 percent within the next 35 years. Thereafter, they will need to be further reduced to near zero by the end of the century.
“Many different pathways lead to a future within the boundaries set by the two degrees Celsius goal,” Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the co-chairs of the working group that put out the new report, said Sunday. “All of these require substantial investments.”
The report does not put a specific number on those investments. It does, however, note that they would have a relatively minor impact on overall economic growth, with “ambitious mitigation” efforts reducing consumption growth by just 0.06 percent.
Yet they caution that “substantial reductions in emissions would require large changes in investment patterns.”
The IPCC estimates that investment in conventional fossil fuel technologies for the electricity sector – the most polluting – will likely decline by around 20 percent over the next two decades. At the same time, funding for “low cost” power supply – including renewables but also nuclear, natural gas and “carbon capture” technologies – will increase by 100 percent.
“The report makes clear that if we’re going to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to get out of investing in fossil fuels. Yet the way the IPCC addresses this is problematic, and is a reflection of existing power dynamics,” Oscar Reyes, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a think tank here, told IPS.
“While it’s positive that they point out that renewables are achievable at scale, they also talk about gas as a potential transition fuel. Yet many models say that doing so actually discourages investment in renewables. There are also problems with the tremendous costs of many of the technological fixes they’re putting forward.”
Equity and income
The policymakers’ summary is a consensus document, meaning that all 195 member countries have signed off on its findings. Yet it appears that last week’s negotiations in Berlin were arduous, particularly as countries position themselves ahead of the final UNFCCC negotiations next year.
Debate over how the financial onus for mitigation and adaptation costs will be parcelled out has played out in particular between middle-income and rich countries. While the latter are primarily responsible for the high greenhouse gas emissions of the past, today this is no longer the case.
Even as previous IPCC reports have categorised countries as simply “developing” or “developed” (similar to the UNFCCC approach), some rich countries have wanted to more fully differentiate the middle-income countries and their responsibility for current emissions. Apparently in response, the new IPCC report now characterises country economies on a four-part scale.
Yet some influential developing countries have pushed back on this. In a formal note of “substantial reservation” seen by IPS, the Saudi Arabian delegation warns that using “income-based country groupings” is overly vague, given that countries can shift between groups “regardless of their actual per capita emissions”.
Nine other countries, including Egypt, India, Malaysia, Qatar, Venezuela and others, reportedly signed on to the Saudi note of dissent.
Bolivia wrote a separate dissent that likewise disputes income-based classification. But it also decries the IPCC’s lack of focus on “non-market-based approaches to address international cooperation in climate change through the provision of finance and transfer of technology from developed to developing countries.”
Monday, April 14, 2014
Join the Call to Action on Sanitation (+playlist)
The United Nations is leading a call to action on sanitation: 2.5 billion people worldwide lack access to basic sanitation. Recognizing that greater progress on sanitation is essential for fighting poverty and disease, the United Nations Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson has initiated, on behalf of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a renewed effort to drive progress on sanitation and water goals towards the 2015 target date of the Millennium Development goals and beyond.
To break the silence on open defection and improve sanitation for all, join the UN's call to action on sanitation.
To break the silence on open defection and improve sanitation for all, join the UN's call to action on sanitation.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
World Urban Forum Highlights Opportunities for Sustainable Cities | World Resources Institute
By Manish Bapna and Dario Hidalgo
In recent months, popular protests have broken out in cities around the globe. The causes were different: soaring pollution in Beijing; violent, gender-based crime in New Delhi; and access to public services in São Paulo. But, for each, inequality was a significant underlying factor.
Many cities face increasing pressure. The urban population has increased five-fold since 1950. Vehicle ownership is on course to double by 2050, while traffic accidents lead to 1.3 million deaths each year. Cities emit approximately 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. All of this is even more staggering when you consider that 1.5 billion people will move into cities in the next two decades, bringing the total to 5 billion worldwide.
The reality is that well-designed cities can generate jobs, innovation, and economic growth for all. But when designed poorly--with too much sprawl, waste, and inefficiency--they can divide cities and exacerbate pollution, inequality, and political instability. Moreover, poor design has long-term consequences given that urban infrastructure often lasts decades.
Against this backdrop, some 25,000 people have gathered in Medellin, Colombia, for the UN Habitat’s World Urban Forum this week. The key question they face is: How can cities drive growth that is inclusive and sustainable at the same time?
The answer is complex, but three common elements stand out.
1) Design Matters
In order to create well-designed, compact cities, spatial planning needs to be explicitly integrated into municipal and national policies.
Compact cities often carry many advantages. New York City is notable for its highly dense layout that contributes to its using 40 percent less electricity and 25 percent less water, while containing 20 percent more green space compared with other large U.S. cities. In 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC, a cross-agency effort to drive innovation and growth, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve life for the city’s residents. Under the plan, New York’s GDP has increased by 13 percent while emissions have fallen by 16 percent in just six years.
Nearly 300 miles east of the World Urban Forum, Bogota’s Master Plan promotes compact, mixed-use, and accessible development. The city is already one of the densest in the world, and planners have proposed to prevent future sprawl by improving the occupation of central areas, enhancing accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, expanding mass transit, and protecting fragile watersheds and green areas.
Unfortunately, these examples remain the exception. More frequently, poor planning and perverse financial incentives lead to greater sprawl, create congestion, and promote excessive consumption and waste. In order to create healthy and compact cities, deliberate early design that avoids lock in to future problems is crucial.
2) Unlocking Urban Finance
Cities need their own revenue sources in order to avoid selling land that can lead to more sprawl and inefficiency.
Well-designed property taxes and development fees can increase investment for smart infrastructure. Finance can be leveraged through real estate developer fees, value capture taxes, green bonds, and carbon finance. In Hong Kong, for instance, the “Rail Plus Property” model enables the state to capture the increase in property revenues along new transportation routes, rather than have them accrue to private property holders.
Shanghai raised $900 million by implementing a quota system that auctions a license to drive on city streets to the highest bidders—an approach which has been adopted by six other large Chinese cities.
With urbanization on the rise, investment is expected to soar. One potential source of city financing is a 2012 pledge of $175 billion for transport infrastructure by the eight largest multilateral development banks; however, to date, less than 5 percent has been allocated to urban public transport systems. With additional funds, cities can control their growth and resources can be channeled to ensure greater efficiency.
3) Citizens Engage
Finally, citizens, especially vulnerable communities, need the right information and an ability to influence decisions by their city leaders.
Traditionally, many European cities have been at the forefront of citizen participation. For example, in Stockholm, citizens voted to support the nation’s first congestion pricing charges. In Geneva, residents cast ballots to determine how the city should allocate urban space among private vehicles, public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Meanwhile in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a new open data portal is helping city officials make decisions on mobility, environment, sanitation, and public health. And in Mexico City, citizens are taking matters into their own hands by expanding cycling infrastructure and bike lanes. These examples illustrate how citizen engagement can promote more livable and sustainable cities.
An Opportunity to Put Cities on the International Development Agenda
These issues -- and more -- are being discussed in Medellin. Among the major topics is how the future international development agenda will speak to the poverty, inequality, and sustainability challenges facing cities. As leaders consider what comes once the Millennium Development Goals expire in 2015, it is clear that cities should be a key element of the agenda.
Near-term decisions by local governments, developers, and planners will determine the resource management and quality of life for billions of people in the coming decades. The World Urban Forum can spur new ideas and drive a deeper commitment to sustainable, equitable urban growth around the world.
World Urban Forum Highlights Opportunities for Sustainable Cities | World Resources Institute
In recent months, popular protests have broken out in cities around the globe. The causes were different: soaring pollution in Beijing; violent, gender-based crime in New Delhi; and access to public services in São Paulo. But, for each, inequality was a significant underlying factor.
Many cities face increasing pressure. The urban population has increased five-fold since 1950. Vehicle ownership is on course to double by 2050, while traffic accidents lead to 1.3 million deaths each year. Cities emit approximately 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. All of this is even more staggering when you consider that 1.5 billion people will move into cities in the next two decades, bringing the total to 5 billion worldwide.
The reality is that well-designed cities can generate jobs, innovation, and economic growth for all. But when designed poorly--with too much sprawl, waste, and inefficiency--they can divide cities and exacerbate pollution, inequality, and political instability. Moreover, poor design has long-term consequences given that urban infrastructure often lasts decades.
Against this backdrop, some 25,000 people have gathered in Medellin, Colombia, for the UN Habitat’s World Urban Forum this week. The key question they face is: How can cities drive growth that is inclusive and sustainable at the same time?
The answer is complex, but three common elements stand out.
1) Design Matters
In order to create well-designed, compact cities, spatial planning needs to be explicitly integrated into municipal and national policies.
Compact cities often carry many advantages. New York City is notable for its highly dense layout that contributes to its using 40 percent less electricity and 25 percent less water, while containing 20 percent more green space compared with other large U.S. cities. In 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC, a cross-agency effort to drive innovation and growth, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and improve life for the city’s residents. Under the plan, New York’s GDP has increased by 13 percent while emissions have fallen by 16 percent in just six years.
Nearly 300 miles east of the World Urban Forum, Bogota’s Master Plan promotes compact, mixed-use, and accessible development. The city is already one of the densest in the world, and planners have proposed to prevent future sprawl by improving the occupation of central areas, enhancing accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, expanding mass transit, and protecting fragile watersheds and green areas.
Unfortunately, these examples remain the exception. More frequently, poor planning and perverse financial incentives lead to greater sprawl, create congestion, and promote excessive consumption and waste. In order to create healthy and compact cities, deliberate early design that avoids lock in to future problems is crucial.
2) Unlocking Urban Finance
Cities need their own revenue sources in order to avoid selling land that can lead to more sprawl and inefficiency.
Well-designed property taxes and development fees can increase investment for smart infrastructure. Finance can be leveraged through real estate developer fees, value capture taxes, green bonds, and carbon finance. In Hong Kong, for instance, the “Rail Plus Property” model enables the state to capture the increase in property revenues along new transportation routes, rather than have them accrue to private property holders.
Shanghai raised $900 million by implementing a quota system that auctions a license to drive on city streets to the highest bidders—an approach which has been adopted by six other large Chinese cities.
With urbanization on the rise, investment is expected to soar. One potential source of city financing is a 2012 pledge of $175 billion for transport infrastructure by the eight largest multilateral development banks; however, to date, less than 5 percent has been allocated to urban public transport systems. With additional funds, cities can control their growth and resources can be channeled to ensure greater efficiency.
3) Citizens Engage
Finally, citizens, especially vulnerable communities, need the right information and an ability to influence decisions by their city leaders.
Traditionally, many European cities have been at the forefront of citizen participation. For example, in Stockholm, citizens voted to support the nation’s first congestion pricing charges. In Geneva, residents cast ballots to determine how the city should allocate urban space among private vehicles, public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Meanwhile in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a new open data portal is helping city officials make decisions on mobility, environment, sanitation, and public health. And in Mexico City, citizens are taking matters into their own hands by expanding cycling infrastructure and bike lanes. These examples illustrate how citizen engagement can promote more livable and sustainable cities.
An Opportunity to Put Cities on the International Development Agenda
These issues -- and more -- are being discussed in Medellin. Among the major topics is how the future international development agenda will speak to the poverty, inequality, and sustainability challenges facing cities. As leaders consider what comes once the Millennium Development Goals expire in 2015, it is clear that cities should be a key element of the agenda.
Near-term decisions by local governments, developers, and planners will determine the resource management and quality of life for billions of people in the coming decades. The World Urban Forum can spur new ideas and drive a deeper commitment to sustainable, equitable urban growth around the world.
World Urban Forum Highlights Opportunities for Sustainable Cities | World Resources Institute
Thursday, April 10, 2014
FAO - News Article: Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean
A new FAO report finds that urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) is widespread in Latin America and the Caribbean, but realizing its full potential requires increased support from national, state and local governments.
“Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean” looks at the progress that has been made toward realizing 'greener cities' in which urban and peri-urban agriculture is recognized by public policy and included in urban development strategies and land-use planning. It is based on the results of a survey in 23 countries and data on 110 cities and municipalities.
The new report released at the World Urban Forum in Medellín, Colombia, includes profiles of agriculture practiced in and around cities such as Havana, Mexico City, Antigua and Barbuda, Tegucigalpa, Managua, Quito, Lima, El Alto (Bolivia), Belo Horizonte (Brazil) and Rosario (Argentina).
FAO’s inquiry found that UPA is practised by 90 000 residents of Havana, and by 20 percent of urban households in Guatemala and Saint Lucia. In Bolivia’s main cities and municipalities, 50 000 families are also food producers. In Bogotá, 8 500 households produce food for home consumption.
The main benefit of UPA is improved access to food by low-income families. However, in 16 of the 23 countries surveyed, people practising UPA earned some income from the activity.
A strong trend in many UPA programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean is toward agricultural technologies and practices that produce more, and better quality, food while optimizing the use of natural resources and reducing reliance on agrochemicals.
In Rosario, Argentina, gardeners cultivate high-yielding beds of compost substrate. In Managua, they enrich the soil with fertilizer made by anaerobically fermenting household wastes. In El Alto, a project installed, in small, locally made greenhouses, hydroponic gardens that produce one tonne of vegetables per year.
Another trend in Latin American cities is the spread of farmers’ markets that sell locally-grown organic food. Many urban farmers have entered the value chain as intermediate or final processors of fruit, vegetables, meat, canned goods, dairy foods, snacks and natural cosmetics.
Many urban and peri-urban farmers have been tapped as suppliers of institutional feeding programmes. In Havana, UPA provided in 2013 some 6 700 tonnes of food to almost 300 000 people in schools, public health centres and hospitals.
Government support needed
FAO says that growing greener cities with agriculture needs the support of government. However, only 12 of the 23 countries surveyed have national policies that explicitly promote UPA. FAO’s survey also found that UPA is often excluded in city land use planning and management in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The good news is that UPA has been mainstreamed at a fairly high level within national institutions. In Bolivia, for example, the Ministry of Productive Development and Plural Economy will launch, with FAO’s assistance, a national UPA programme in 2014.
In a growing number of cities, urban and peri-urban agriculture is recognized in urban development planning. In Rosario, the municipality is building a “green circuit” of farmland passing through and around the city. Food production is also recognized as a legitimate non-residential land use, on a par with commerce, services and industry, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
FAO stresses that meeting urban food needs requires not only UPA but performing food systems that supply a variety of food products to - and distribute them within - expanding urban areas, an understanding of their structure, how their activities impact food safety and quality and natural resources, and how they might exclude vulnerable sectors of the urban population.
Addressing short-comings in complex food system requires strong political commitment, regional development plans and effective public-private partnerships.
FAO - News Article: Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean
“Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean” looks at the progress that has been made toward realizing 'greener cities' in which urban and peri-urban agriculture is recognized by public policy and included in urban development strategies and land-use planning. It is based on the results of a survey in 23 countries and data on 110 cities and municipalities.
The new report released at the World Urban Forum in Medellín, Colombia, includes profiles of agriculture practiced in and around cities such as Havana, Mexico City, Antigua and Barbuda, Tegucigalpa, Managua, Quito, Lima, El Alto (Bolivia), Belo Horizonte (Brazil) and Rosario (Argentina).
FAO’s inquiry found that UPA is practised by 90 000 residents of Havana, and by 20 percent of urban households in Guatemala and Saint Lucia. In Bolivia’s main cities and municipalities, 50 000 families are also food producers. In Bogotá, 8 500 households produce food for home consumption.
The main benefit of UPA is improved access to food by low-income families. However, in 16 of the 23 countries surveyed, people practising UPA earned some income from the activity.
A strong trend in many UPA programmes in Latin America and the Caribbean is toward agricultural technologies and practices that produce more, and better quality, food while optimizing the use of natural resources and reducing reliance on agrochemicals.
In Rosario, Argentina, gardeners cultivate high-yielding beds of compost substrate. In Managua, they enrich the soil with fertilizer made by anaerobically fermenting household wastes. In El Alto, a project installed, in small, locally made greenhouses, hydroponic gardens that produce one tonne of vegetables per year.
Another trend in Latin American cities is the spread of farmers’ markets that sell locally-grown organic food. Many urban farmers have entered the value chain as intermediate or final processors of fruit, vegetables, meat, canned goods, dairy foods, snacks and natural cosmetics.
Many urban and peri-urban farmers have been tapped as suppliers of institutional feeding programmes. In Havana, UPA provided in 2013 some 6 700 tonnes of food to almost 300 000 people in schools, public health centres and hospitals.
Government support needed
FAO says that growing greener cities with agriculture needs the support of government. However, only 12 of the 23 countries surveyed have national policies that explicitly promote UPA. FAO’s survey also found that UPA is often excluded in city land use planning and management in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The good news is that UPA has been mainstreamed at a fairly high level within national institutions. In Bolivia, for example, the Ministry of Productive Development and Plural Economy will launch, with FAO’s assistance, a national UPA programme in 2014.
In a growing number of cities, urban and peri-urban agriculture is recognized in urban development planning. In Rosario, the municipality is building a “green circuit” of farmland passing through and around the city. Food production is also recognized as a legitimate non-residential land use, on a par with commerce, services and industry, in Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
FAO stresses that meeting urban food needs requires not only UPA but performing food systems that supply a variety of food products to - and distribute them within - expanding urban areas, an understanding of their structure, how their activities impact food safety and quality and natural resources, and how they might exclude vulnerable sectors of the urban population.
Addressing short-comings in complex food system requires strong political commitment, regional development plans and effective public-private partnerships.
FAO - News Article: Growing greener cities in Latin America and the Caribbean
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Ecuador's Environmentalists Call to Halt Activities at Oil Block 31 - WSJ.com
By Mercedes Alvaro
Environmentalists, non-government organizations and a lawmaker from Ecuador's Amazon region on Thursday called on the Ecuadorean government to halt all oil extraction in a concession that is partially inside Yasuni National Park, a Unesco world biosphere reserve.
The coalition, known as the YasUnidos, said there are indications that oil-sector workers had run into uncontacted native tribes inside block 31 and block 43, known as the ITT. The coalition also is demanding an anthropological study of the uncontacted tribes.
Yasuni National Park is an area of high biodiversity in Ecuador's Amazon rainforest and also home to two nomadic tribes, the Tagaeri and Taromenane, who shun contact with the outside world.
Jose Miguel Goldaraz, a missionary, told El Comercio newspaper that oil workers from block 31 had spotted naked indigenous people last week.
Patricia Carrion, a spokeswoman from the YasUnidos group, said at a news conference that Congress should move to suspend activities in block 31, "otherwise there will be a crime of ethnocide against peoples in voluntary isolation."
Indigenous people that have little or no contact with the outside world are highly susceptible to common diseases.
Congress last year declared developing oil activity in blocks 31 and 43 a "national interest," but also said that if there are any sightings of peoples in voluntary isolation, then oil-sector activities will be suspended until guarantees to protect the tribes are put into place.
Ruling party members of Congress on Thursday said there wasn't enough evidence to take action.
Block 31 previously was operated by Brazilian oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. It was given back to the state after Petrobras clashed with the government of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa over tax issues.
Last month, state-owned Petroamazonas said it was pumping about 4,076 barrels per day from the Apaika field, located in block 31.
YasUnidos also is collecting signatures to request the government hold a national referendum to decide on the future of the ITT.
The ITT, or block 43, is believed to hold 900 million barrels of oil.
Ecuador's Environmentalists Call to Halt Activities at Oil Block 31 - WSJ.com
Environmentalists, non-government organizations and a lawmaker from Ecuador's Amazon region on Thursday called on the Ecuadorean government to halt all oil extraction in a concession that is partially inside Yasuni National Park, a Unesco world biosphere reserve.
The coalition, known as the YasUnidos, said there are indications that oil-sector workers had run into uncontacted native tribes inside block 31 and block 43, known as the ITT. The coalition also is demanding an anthropological study of the uncontacted tribes.
Yasuni National Park is an area of high biodiversity in Ecuador's Amazon rainforest and also home to two nomadic tribes, the Tagaeri and Taromenane, who shun contact with the outside world.
Jose Miguel Goldaraz, a missionary, told El Comercio newspaper that oil workers from block 31 had spotted naked indigenous people last week.
Patricia Carrion, a spokeswoman from the YasUnidos group, said at a news conference that Congress should move to suspend activities in block 31, "otherwise there will be a crime of ethnocide against peoples in voluntary isolation."
Indigenous people that have little or no contact with the outside world are highly susceptible to common diseases.
Congress last year declared developing oil activity in blocks 31 and 43 a "national interest," but also said that if there are any sightings of peoples in voluntary isolation, then oil-sector activities will be suspended until guarantees to protect the tribes are put into place.
Ruling party members of Congress on Thursday said there wasn't enough evidence to take action.
Block 31 previously was operated by Brazilian oil giant Petroleo Brasileiro. It was given back to the state after Petrobras clashed with the government of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa over tax issues.
Last month, state-owned Petroamazonas said it was pumping about 4,076 barrels per day from the Apaika field, located in block 31.
YasUnidos also is collecting signatures to request the government hold a national referendum to decide on the future of the ITT.
The ITT, or block 43, is believed to hold 900 million barrels of oil.
Ecuador's Environmentalists Call to Halt Activities at Oil Block 31 - WSJ.com
Monday, April 7, 2014
Adaptation as complicated as cutting emissions – UN disasters envoy
By Sophie Yeo
Adaptation should not be seen as the “politically easy”
option when governments are dealing with climate change, warns a top UN
official.
Margareta Wahlström, the UN’s special representative for disaster
risk reduction, said that the action required to prepare for the now
inevitable impacts of a warmer world need to be “drastic”.
Her view challenges those of many sceptics, who have argued that
adaptation should now be at the heart of climate change policy as the
cheaper and easier way of tackling the problem. The alternative – a
massive overhaul of the world’s energy systems – provides immense
challenges economically, politically and socially.
“We need to remove the sense that one choice is politically easier than the other,” Wahlström told RTCC in an interview.
“Both of them are quite complicated for people today, for the
societies and strapped governments that feel this involves a lot of
money and they really don’t have enough financial resources to make
these choices.
“Whereas we know that the choices will be much more expensive if you have to wait 10 or 20 years to make them.”
Irreversible
The UN’s latest blockbuster report
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the state of
climate science focused on the impacts of climate change, what the
world can do to prepare for them – and what it can’t.
The report weighs heavily on a particular point: climate change will
inevitably cause risks across all continents, and these need to be
managed. It is a point that Wahlström has long been making herself.
“They’ve clearly said that the factors that drive climate change are
on a path that are in some cases irreversible,” she explained. “The
triggers that have been put in motion already require that we manage
risk for a long time.”
She added that “absolutely too little” had been invested so far in
adaptation, as governments have focused on what can be done to prevent
climate change.
Her observation is borne up by the figures. According to analysis by the World Resources Institute,
of the US$ 35billion raised in climate finance by rich countries, only
17% was ringfenced towards adaptation projects. Meanwhile, the pot of
money called the Adaptation Fund has been forced to put projects on hold
while it scrambles to raise adequate donations year on year.
This has left countries vulnerable to the impacts that climate change
will have, and the IPCC report shows that these are many. Flooding,
food insecurity and water scarcity are some of the issues that it says
will affect the poorest most over coming decades as the world warms up.
Scepticism
There are many sceptics who would welcome a shift in policy away from mitigation towards adaptation.
Adaptation is the better approach, wrote Conservative peer Matt Ridley in the Spectator last week,
as it yields quick results that enable people to cope with “anything
the weather might throw at you”. Mitigation, on the other hand, requires
every country make deep cuts to their emissions in order to keep global
warming to safe levels.
But Wahlström emphasised that it was wrong to use adaptation as an
“excuse” – partly because the world still has a responsibility to
mitigate, and partly because the effort required to adapt to climate
change is substantial in itself, requiring a much more precise
understanding than we have today.
“Even adaptation today means some really tough choices for people,”
she said. “We should not shift to adaptation as a way of giving up on
our future, but just trying to make it a little bit better. That’s no
solution. We need to be very drastic.”
The one sense in which adaptation is politically easier is that it
deals with timeframes that people now can understand, she says. Efforts
so far have tackled the problem of climate change through mitigation “as
if that timeframe that was understandable for human beings,” she says.
“I think it’s clear that it’s not.”
Adaptation reinforces that climate change is an issue that is already
affecting people, and creates solutions that can tackle it today, she
says. Efforts to cut the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, have
yet to pay dividends – despite two decades of international
negotiations, emissions continue to rise.
“We need to stop talking about it as something that’s only concerning the future. Climate change is today already.”
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/07/adaptation-as-complicated-as-cutting-emissions-un-disasters-envoy/#.dpuf
Adaptation should not be seen as the “politically easy”
option when governments are dealing with climate change, warns a top UN
official.
Margareta Wahlström, the UN’s special representative for disaster
risk reduction, said that the action required to prepare for the now
inevitable impacts of a warmer world need to be “drastic”.
Her view challenges those of many sceptics, who have argued that
adaptation should now be at the heart of climate change policy as the
cheaper and easier way of tackling the problem. The alternative – a
massive overhaul of the world’s energy systems – provides immense
challenges economically, politically and socially.
“We need to remove the sense that one choice is politically easier than the other,” Wahlström told RTCC in an interview.
“Both of them are quite complicated for people today, for the
societies and strapped governments that feel this involves a lot of
money and they really don’t have enough financial resources to make
these choices.
“Whereas we know that the choices will be much more expensive if you have to wait 10 or 20 years to make them.”
Irreversible
The UN’s latest blockbuster report
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the state of
climate science focused on the impacts of climate change, what the
world can do to prepare for them – and what it can’t.
The report weighs heavily on a particular point: climate change will
inevitably cause risks across all continents, and these need to be
managed. It is a point that Wahlström has long been making herself.
“They’ve clearly said that the factors that drive climate change are
on a path that are in some cases irreversible,” she explained. “The
triggers that have been put in motion already require that we manage
risk for a long time.”
She added that “absolutely too little” had been invested so far in
adaptation, as governments have focused on what can be done to prevent
climate change.
Her observation is borne up by the figures. According to analysis by the World Resources Institute,
of the US$ 35billion raised in climate finance by rich countries, only
17% was ringfenced towards adaptation projects. Meanwhile, the pot of
money called the Adaptation Fund has been forced to put projects on hold
while it scrambles to raise adequate donations year on year.
Source: World Resources Institute
will have, and the IPCC report shows that these are many. Flooding,
food insecurity and water scarcity are some of the issues that it says
will affect the poorest most over coming decades as the world warms up.
Scepticism
There are many sceptics who would welcome a shift in policy away from mitigation towards adaptation.
Adaptation is the better approach, wrote Conservative peer Matt Ridley in the Spectator last week,
as it yields quick results that enable people to cope with “anything
the weather might throw at you”. Mitigation, on the other hand, requires
every country make deep cuts to their emissions in order to keep global
warming to safe levels.
But Wahlström emphasised that it was wrong to use adaptation as an
“excuse” – partly because the world still has a responsibility to
mitigate, and partly because the effort required to adapt to climate
change is substantial in itself, requiring a much more precise
understanding than we have today.
“Even adaptation today means some really tough choices for people,”
she said. “We should not shift to adaptation as a way of giving up on
our future, but just trying to make it a little bit better. That’s no
solution. We need to be very drastic.”
The one sense in which adaptation is politically easier is that it
deals with timeframes that people now can understand, she says. Efforts
so far have tackled the problem of climate change through mitigation “as
if that timeframe that was understandable for human beings,” she says.
“I think it’s clear that it’s not.”
Adaptation reinforces that climate change is an issue that is already
affecting people, and creates solutions that can tackle it today, she
says. Efforts to cut the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, have
yet to pay dividends – despite two decades of international
negotiations, emissions continue to rise.
“We need to stop talking about it as something that’s only concerning the future. Climate change is today already.”
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/04/07/adaptation-as-complicated-as-cutting-emissions-un-disasters-envoy/#.dpuf
By Sophie Yeo, RTCC
Adaptation should not be seen as the “politically easy” option when governments are dealing with climate change, warns a top UN official.
Margareta Wahlström, the UN’s special representative for disaster risk reduction, said that the action required to prepare for the now inevitable impacts of a warmer world need to be “drastic”.
Her view challenges those of many sceptics, who have argued that adaptation should now be at the heart of climate change policy as the cheaper and easier way of tackling the problem. The alternative – a massive overhaul of the world’s energy systems – provides immense challenges economically, politically and socially.
“We need to remove the sense that one choice is politically easier than the other,” Wahlström told RTCC in an interview.
“Both of them are quite complicated for people today, for the societies and strapped governments that feel this involves a lot of money and they really don’t have enough financial resources to make these choices.
“Whereas we know that the choices will be much more expensive if you have to wait 10 or 20 years to make them.”
Irreversible
The UN’s latest blockbuster report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the state of climate science focused on the impacts of climate change, what the world can do to prepare for them – and what it can’t.
The report weighs heavily on a particular point: climate change will inevitably cause risks across all continents, and these need to be managed. It is a point that Wahlström has long been making herself.
“They’ve clearly said that the factors that drive climate change are on a path that are in some cases irreversible,” she explained. “The triggers that have been put in motion already require that we manage risk for a long time.”
She added that “absolutely too little” had been invested so far in adaptation, as governments have focused on what can be done to prevent climate change.
Her observation is borne up by the figures. According to analysis by the World Resources Institute, of the US$ 35billion raised in climate finance by rich countries, only 17% was ringfenced towards adaptation projects. Meanwhile, the pot of money called the Adaptation Fund has been forced to put projects on hold while it scrambles to raise adequate donations year on year.
This has left countries vulnerable to the impacts that climate change will have, and the IPCC report shows that these are many. Flooding, food insecurity and water scarcity are some of the issues that it says will affect the poorest most over coming decades as the world warms up.
Scepticism
There are many sceptics who would welcome a shift in policy away from mitigation towards adaptation.
Adaptation is the better approach, wrote Conservative peer Matt Ridley in the Spectator last week, as it yields quick results that enable people to cope with “anything the weather might throw at you”. Mitigation, on the other hand, requires every country make deep cuts to their emissions in order to keep global warming to safe levels.
But Wahlström emphasised that it was wrong to use adaptation as an “excuse” – partly because the world still has a responsibility to mitigate, and partly because the effort required to adapt to climate change is substantial in itself, requiring a much more precise understanding than we have today.
“Even adaptation today means some really tough choices for people,” she said. “We should not shift to adaptation as a way of giving up on our future, but just trying to make it a little bit better. That’s no solution. We need to be very drastic.”
The one sense in which adaptation is politically easier is that it deals with timeframes that people now can understand, she says. Efforts so far have tackled the problem of climate change through mitigation “as if that time frame that was understandable for human beings,” she says. “I think it’s clear that it’s not.”
Adaptation reinforces that climate change is an issue that is already affecting people, and creates solutions that can tackle it today, she says. Efforts to cut the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, have yet to pay dividends – despite two decades of international negotiations, emissions continue to rise.
“We need to stop talking about it as something that’s only concerning the future. Climate change is today already.”
Adaptation as complicated as cutting emissions – UN disasters envoy
Adaptation should not be seen as the “politically easy” option when governments are dealing with climate change, warns a top UN official.
Margareta Wahlström, the UN’s special representative for disaster risk reduction, said that the action required to prepare for the now inevitable impacts of a warmer world need to be “drastic”.
Her view challenges those of many sceptics, who have argued that adaptation should now be at the heart of climate change policy as the cheaper and easier way of tackling the problem. The alternative – a massive overhaul of the world’s energy systems – provides immense challenges economically, politically and socially.
“We need to remove the sense that one choice is politically easier than the other,” Wahlström told RTCC in an interview.
“Both of them are quite complicated for people today, for the societies and strapped governments that feel this involves a lot of money and they really don’t have enough financial resources to make these choices.
“Whereas we know that the choices will be much more expensive if you have to wait 10 or 20 years to make them.”
Irreversible
The UN’s latest blockbuster report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the state of climate science focused on the impacts of climate change, what the world can do to prepare for them – and what it can’t.
The report weighs heavily on a particular point: climate change will inevitably cause risks across all continents, and these need to be managed. It is a point that Wahlström has long been making herself.
“They’ve clearly said that the factors that drive climate change are on a path that are in some cases irreversible,” she explained. “The triggers that have been put in motion already require that we manage risk for a long time.”
She added that “absolutely too little” had been invested so far in adaptation, as governments have focused on what can be done to prevent climate change.
Her observation is borne up by the figures. According to analysis by the World Resources Institute, of the US$ 35billion raised in climate finance by rich countries, only 17% was ringfenced towards adaptation projects. Meanwhile, the pot of money called the Adaptation Fund has been forced to put projects on hold while it scrambles to raise adequate donations year on year.
This has left countries vulnerable to the impacts that climate change will have, and the IPCC report shows that these are many. Flooding, food insecurity and water scarcity are some of the issues that it says will affect the poorest most over coming decades as the world warms up.
Scepticism
There are many sceptics who would welcome a shift in policy away from mitigation towards adaptation.
Adaptation is the better approach, wrote Conservative peer Matt Ridley in the Spectator last week, as it yields quick results that enable people to cope with “anything the weather might throw at you”. Mitigation, on the other hand, requires every country make deep cuts to their emissions in order to keep global warming to safe levels.
But Wahlström emphasised that it was wrong to use adaptation as an “excuse” – partly because the world still has a responsibility to mitigate, and partly because the effort required to adapt to climate change is substantial in itself, requiring a much more precise understanding than we have today.
“Even adaptation today means some really tough choices for people,” she said. “We should not shift to adaptation as a way of giving up on our future, but just trying to make it a little bit better. That’s no solution. We need to be very drastic.”
The one sense in which adaptation is politically easier is that it deals with timeframes that people now can understand, she says. Efforts so far have tackled the problem of climate change through mitigation “as if that time frame that was understandable for human beings,” she says. “I think it’s clear that it’s not.”
Adaptation reinforces that climate change is an issue that is already affecting people, and creates solutions that can tackle it today, she says. Efforts to cut the use of fossil fuels, on the other hand, have yet to pay dividends – despite two decades of international negotiations, emissions continue to rise.
“We need to stop talking about it as something that’s only concerning the future. Climate change is today already.”
Adaptation as complicated as cutting emissions – UN disasters envoy
Friday, April 4, 2014
2010 Curry Stone Design Prize Winner Maya Pedal.mov
Maya Pedal, a Guatemalan non-governmental organization that reconditions used bicycles into "Bicimaquinas" or pedal powered machines, has been recognized as a winner of the 2010 Curry Stone Design Prize.
Based in the rural Guatemalan town of San Andreas Itzapas, Maya Pedal was founded by Carlos Marroquin in 1997, and has partnered with a number of international bicycle advocacy organizations to make vital machinery accessible even with limited access to traditional energy sources like electricity or gasoline. Twenty-four different kinds of bicimaquinas have been designed and manufactured by Maya Pedal, ranging from washing machines and blenders to grain mills and water irrigation devices that assist in agricultural production. Others are in the planning stage, including a new pedal-powered machine to facilitate the manufacture of animal feed.
Based in the rural Guatemalan town of San Andreas Itzapas, Maya Pedal was founded by Carlos Marroquin in 1997, and has partnered with a number of international bicycle advocacy organizations to make vital machinery accessible even with limited access to traditional energy sources like electricity or gasoline. Twenty-four different kinds of bicimaquinas have been designed and manufactured by Maya Pedal, ranging from washing machines and blenders to grain mills and water irrigation devices that assist in agricultural production. Others are in the planning stage, including a new pedal-powered machine to facilitate the manufacture of animal feed.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
Anglican parishioners make eco-bricks to build churches
By ACNS staff with reporting by Peter Balocnit, Philippine Information Agency
Parishioners in the Philippines are tackling the problem of garbage by turning rubbish into ecobricks and using them to build churches.
Every family in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Luzon has been told by Bishop Renato Abibco to pack 1.5 litre fruit juice containers with non-biodegradable waste to create ecobricks.
Ecobricks are containers, traditionally large drinks bottles, packed tightly with non-biodegradable material such as Styrofoam, plastic, or foam. All the content is packed in tightly using a bamboo stick.
They are laid horizontally in, and covered by, cob mortar, which is made by mixing clay, sand and straw. The result is three almost three times as thick as regular cement block walls and solid. Protected from UV rays the bricks are said to be able to last as long as 200-300 years.
“This environment-friendly way of processing garbage will not only help in waste management but will also recycle garbage for noble purposes like using it to build worship centers,” Bishop Abibico said.
This project was one of the agreements reached during a recent convention where Church members considered how to protect the physical person as well as promote spiritual wellbeing and salvation.
The practice of recycling biodegradable waste and making them into ecobricks is popular in schools in the Philippines which are used mostly as decorative materials and for landscaping.
It has also being trialled in such countries as South Africa (http://ecobrickexchange.wix.com/ecobrickexchange) and Australia.
Learn more about ecobricks by downloading the Vision Ecobrick Guide at http://www.ecobricks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Vision-EcoBrick-Guide-2.1.pdf
Parishioners in the Philippines are tackling the problem of garbage by turning rubbish into ecobricks and using them to build churches.
Every family in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Luzon has been told by Bishop Renato Abibco to pack 1.5 litre fruit juice containers with non-biodegradable waste to create ecobricks.
Ecobricks are containers, traditionally large drinks bottles, packed tightly with non-biodegradable material such as Styrofoam, plastic, or foam. All the content is packed in tightly using a bamboo stick.
They are laid horizontally in, and covered by, cob mortar, which is made by mixing clay, sand and straw. The result is three almost three times as thick as regular cement block walls and solid. Protected from UV rays the bricks are said to be able to last as long as 200-300 years.
“This environment-friendly way of processing garbage will not only help in waste management but will also recycle garbage for noble purposes like using it to build worship centers,” Bishop Abibico said.
This project was one of the agreements reached during a recent convention where Church members considered how to protect the physical person as well as promote spiritual wellbeing and salvation.
The practice of recycling biodegradable waste and making them into ecobricks is popular in schools in the Philippines which are used mostly as decorative materials and for landscaping.
It has also being trialled in such countries as South Africa (http://ecobrickexchange.wix.com/ecobrickexchange) and Australia.
Learn more about ecobricks by downloading the Vision Ecobrick Guide at http://www.ecobricks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Vision-EcoBrick-Guide-2.1.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)