Adopted from the Report of the Secretary-General: Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
The Year 2012 has been proclaimed the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All, emphasizing the importance of energy access for all to sustainable development and poverty eradication as well as of protection of the environment through the sustainable use of traditional energy resources, cleaner technologies and newer energy sources
Current energy systems are inadequate to meet the needs of the world’s poor and are jeopardizing the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).Worldwide, the “energy-poor” suffer the health consequences of inefficient combustion of solid fuels in inadequately ventilated buildings, as well as the economic consequences of insufficient power for productive income-generating activities and for other basic services such as health and education. Women and girls in the developing world are disproportionately affected in this regard.
Despite two decades of climate change policies; thousands of programmes, initiatives, regulations, market-based instruments and international agreements; and the disbursement of hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, funds, research and development (R&D) efforts and development aid, the declared goal of establishing a renewable low-carbon energy system on a global scale remains elusive.
The growth rates for the diffusion of renewable energy technologies since 2000 have been impressive but are still insufficient. In 2005, fossil fuels accounted for 85 per cent of the global primary energy mix, while low-carbon nuclear power accounted for 6 per cent, hydroelectricity for 3 per cent and biomass for 4 per cent. Modern renewables jointly accounted for less than 1 per cent. Similarly, the renascence of nuclear power has barely made up for losses of older capacities that are increasingly being phased out. The current trajectory is nowhere near attaining a realistic path towards complete decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.
Simplistic solutions dominate present national and global debates on how to meet the energy technology innovation imperative. Technology optimists suggest “big push” policies to scale up available technologies. Others focus on market incentives and hope that the necessary technological transformation will come about by “getting prices right” through internalizing environmental externalities.
The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD / Rio+ 20) has the opportunity to bring all this together in a common effort to transform the global energy system over the coming decades, by: a) expanding access to clean energy, b) enhancing industrial energy efficiency, and c) promoting green industry as an integral component of the transition to a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication. UNCSD can be an opportunity to ask the global community to set very concrete targets conducive to this energy transformation.
Timescales for this transition to sustainable energy need to be realistic and feasible. By 2030, there is an opportunity for the world to be well on its way to a fundamental transformation of its energy system, allowing developing countries to leapfrog current systems and shift to cleaner, sustainable, affordable and reliable energy services. The international community can also be asked to provide by 2030 universal access to modern energy services, thus widening access for the 2-3 billion people excluded from modern energy services to a basic minimum threshold of modern energy services for both consumption and productive uses. UNCSD can also promote the use of renewable energy to be 30 per cent of all global energy use by 2030. This will play a central role in securing more reliable and sustainable energy path. The UNCSD can also spearhead the reduction of global energy intensity by 40 per cent by 2030. By 2050, it is feasible to transform the global energy system into an almost carbon-free one
Attaining these goals will require unprecedented and worldwide coordinated measures , including major shifts in regulatory regimes in almost every economy, vast incremental infrastructure investments (likely to be more than $1 trillion annually), an accelerated development and deployment of multiple new energy technologies, and a fundamental behavioral shift in energy consumption. Major shifts in human and institutional capacity and governance will also be required.
Both the international community and governments need to make renewables cost-competitive with other energy sources and technologies, and to stimulate technological advances.
All countries have a role to play: the high-income countries can contribute by making this goal a development assistance priority and catalyzing financing; the middle-income countries can contribute by sharing relevant expertise, experience and replicable good practices; and the low-income countries can help create the right local institutional, regulatory and policy environment for investments to be made, including by the private sector. Policy-makers and business leaders must place much greater emphasis on transforming the performance of national and regional energy systems over the coming decades. UNCSD would also be a good opportunity to find strategies and solutions including the role of the public sector and international cooperation.
Developing countries in particular need to expand access to reliable and modern energy services if they are to reduce poverty and improve the health of their citizens, while at the same time increasing productivity, enhancing competitiveness and promoting economic growth.
Developed and developing countries alike need to build and strengthen their capacity to implement effective policies, market based mechanisms, business models, investment tools and regulations with regard to energy use. Achieving this goal will require the international community to harmonize technical standards for key energy-consuming products and equipment, to accelerate the transfer of know-how and good practices, and to catalyze increased private capital flows into investments in energy efficiency. The successful adoption of these measures would reduce global energy intensity by about 2.5 per cent per year – approximately double the historic rate.
In this context, energy is a strong amplifier of sustainable development and a necessary element of a transition to a green economy. This requires a long-term approach towards energy security. Better-focused and greater efforts to move to cleaner and renewable energy will be needed to ensure climate stabilization while allowing developing countries to satisfy their rapidly increasing demand for commercial energy which is linked to their development aspirations.
Global and national energy policy is also development policy and thus must demonstrate special consideration of the poor. Optimal policy packages depend strongly on a country’s institutions, development stage, resource endowments and socio-political preferences, and will change over time.
The transformation of energy systems could be uneven and, if poorly handled, has the potential to lead to a widening “energy gap” between advanced and least developed nations, and even to periodic energy security crises. But handled well – through a balanced framework of cooperation and competition – energy system transformation has the potential to be a source of sustainable wealth creation for the world’s growing population while reducing the strain on its resources and climate.
Source
Friday, August 19, 2011
Adapting to Climate Change Can be Simple
By Athar Parvaiz, IPS
Saraswoti Bhetwal’s terraced fields stand out in the sub-Himalayan Lamdihi village as a mosaic of shapes and colours formed by beans, bitter gourd, chilly, tomato, lady’s fingers and other crops.
The reason for this abundance is simple. She took the training offered at a watershed management project run by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in Kathmandu seriously.
"After attending ICIMOD’s interaction programmes, where several experts offered help to famers like me, I realised the importance of integrated land management in boosting production," she told IPS.
Saraswoti’s success at adaptation became apparent last year when a prolonged dry spell during the monsoon left her unscathed, but damaged her neighbours’ crops in Lamidihi, which falls in the Jikhu Khola watershed of Nepal’s Kavrepalanchok district, 45 km east of the national capital.
"I have been telling the others to adopt the same simple water management techniques that I learned at ICIMOD in order to avoid losses from erratic rains that is said to be caused by climate change," she said.
Nepal’s farmers felt the impact of climate change worst during the 2008-2009 winter drought when most of the country received less than 50 percent of normal rainfall while average temperatures were one to two degrees Celsius above normal.
With wheat and barley production dropping by 15 percent and 17 percent respectively and maize severely affected, the World Food Programme (WFP) has had to step up aid. .
WFP is expected to provide food to 1.2 million Nepalese this year at a cost of 98.5 million dollars, particularly in the mid-and far-western hills of Nepal, a country considered among the poorest in the world.
Saraswoti said that farming has been difficult for several years now because of erratic rainfall and the consequent shortfall of water for irrigation in the natural springs.
"Over the last few years, farming has become increasingly tough with the lack of proper irrigation and the long-standing droughts," she told IPS.
"Changing climate has baffled farmers in many parts of Nepal and they need institutional support for combating impacts as this involves improvement of soil fertility and land management through integrated farming practices," says Tek Chand Mahant at ICIMOD.
Farmers attest to the new difficulties from climate change that they are facing. "Earlier the rains used to be so predictable that we could rely on it, but now we can never be sure about rains. We have no idea what is happening," says Ramesh Kamal, a famer in Dhulikhel village.
Sarswoti swears that she has survived as a farmer only because she switched over to the integrated farming methods she picked up from ICIMOD’s watershed management project.
The technologies she learned included roof water harvesting, collecting surface run-off in ponds with plastic lining, drip irrigation, levelling terraces, planting grass and trees on the risers, composting and tapping ground water.
"Earlier, I could grow just one maize crop a year in the rainy monsoon season and had to leave the land fallow for the rest of the year. But now I grow three crops a year using drip irrigation, water harvesting and other simple technologies."
Saraswoti’s 0.7 hectare of red-soil terrace lies at an altitude of about 860 metres with the sub-tropical climate and average annual rainfall of 1,200 mm conducive to agriculture, provided the rains do not play truant.
"I am very pleased with the results. I now earn an additional Nepali rupees 60,000 (around 1,000 dollars) per year from my farm," she told IPS.
Saraswoti has new challenges. "My drip irrigation pipes get eaten by rats frequently. When that happens, I have to change them, but I am confident that ICIMOD experts will have a solution."
Regarded as a country that is most vulnerable to climate change, Nepal is looking to better cultivation practices by its farmers as an important way to cope with impacts.
"Sustained production has always been a key concern to farmers in these parts," says Mahant.
Yet, many farmers in the area are only beginning to wake up to the new technologies. "Our effort is to attract more and more farmers towards the examples like that of Saraswoti," says Nira Gurung, communications officer at ICIMOD.
ICIMOD has set up a demonstration centre in Lamdihi village, where Saraswoti shows other farmers techniques such as roof water harvesting, creating plastic-lined farm ponds, drip irrigation, composting and terracing.
"Saraswoti serves as our model. From growing one maize crop a year, she now harvests rice, potato and vegetables thrice a year," said Mahant.
Last year, says Saraswoti, the rain was scanty and the roof water lasted only for five months. "But I was still able to grow crops, though the production was not as good as the previous year," she told IPS. Now the people come to learn from her success.
"I am impressed by the way she is dealing with drought and other harsh weather conditions. All this is worth emulating and that is why I am here," said Madan Sherpa, a neighboring farmer who had come to see Saraswoti’s lush terraces.
Source
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Secretary General’s Report (August 9, 2011) on the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation: The case of Water as a Priority Sector
Adopted from the Report of the Secretary-General: Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development
Water is essential for achieving sustainable development and the MDGs. Properly managing water resources is an essential component of growth, social and economic development, poverty reduction and equity, and sustainable environmental services.
As there are many competing demands on water, investment in water infrastructure and better management of water are key to meet all needs, particularly in rural areas and to enhance agricultural productivity. As development proceeds, with the shift to commercial and industrial activities in urban areas, water has to be managed for energy and food production, transportation, flood control, and drinking water and sanitation, as well as for industrial and commercial activities.
These needs are not always recognized. Usually water is mostly talked about in context of safe drinking water and sanitation. These are important issues as 2.6 billion people do not use improved sanitation, while 884 million people do not use improved sources for drinking water, but it also needs to be recognized that there is an urgent need to address the inherent interrelationship between water and other important development-related sectors, like energy, food, and the environment.
Decision-making on water requires seeking synergies and selecting appropriate trade-offs. It also requires distinguishing between short-term ‘fire-fighting’ – responding to the urgent issues of the day – and long term strategic development. Developing multipurpose water schemes and reusing water wherever feasible can lessen the need for trade-offs by enabling the same volumes of scarce water to deliver multiple outcomes.
A new dialogue between developed countries and developing countries on water management and its role in sustainable development in urgently needed. Countries should work together to identify socioeconomic priorities and to invest in and use water to power the engines of growth, so that instead of competing demands on water, they will become complimentary.
The challenges are great, but the unsustainable management and inequitable access to water resources cannot continue – because the risks of inaction are even greater and can jeopardize achievements in other sectors of sustainable development. Leaders inside and outside the water domain have critical, complementary roles. Leaders in the water domain can inform the processes outside this domain and manage water resources to achieve agreed socioeconomic and environmental objectives. But leaders in government, the private sector and civil society determine the direction that actions will take. The international community can provide a platform where this integrated approach to water is recognized and commitments are undertaken in its support. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+ 20) can be such a platform.
Source
Water is essential for achieving sustainable development and the MDGs. Properly managing water resources is an essential component of growth, social and economic development, poverty reduction and equity, and sustainable environmental services.
As there are many competing demands on water, investment in water infrastructure and better management of water are key to meet all needs, particularly in rural areas and to enhance agricultural productivity. As development proceeds, with the shift to commercial and industrial activities in urban areas, water has to be managed for energy and food production, transportation, flood control, and drinking water and sanitation, as well as for industrial and commercial activities.
These needs are not always recognized. Usually water is mostly talked about in context of safe drinking water and sanitation. These are important issues as 2.6 billion people do not use improved sanitation, while 884 million people do not use improved sources for drinking water, but it also needs to be recognized that there is an urgent need to address the inherent interrelationship between water and other important development-related sectors, like energy, food, and the environment.
Decision-making on water requires seeking synergies and selecting appropriate trade-offs. It also requires distinguishing between short-term ‘fire-fighting’ – responding to the urgent issues of the day – and long term strategic development. Developing multipurpose water schemes and reusing water wherever feasible can lessen the need for trade-offs by enabling the same volumes of scarce water to deliver multiple outcomes.
A new dialogue between developed countries and developing countries on water management and its role in sustainable development in urgently needed. Countries should work together to identify socioeconomic priorities and to invest in and use water to power the engines of growth, so that instead of competing demands on water, they will become complimentary.
The challenges are great, but the unsustainable management and inequitable access to water resources cannot continue – because the risks of inaction are even greater and can jeopardize achievements in other sectors of sustainable development. Leaders inside and outside the water domain have critical, complementary roles. Leaders in the water domain can inform the processes outside this domain and manage water resources to achieve agreed socioeconomic and environmental objectives. But leaders in government, the private sector and civil society determine the direction that actions will take. The international community can provide a platform where this integrated approach to water is recognized and commitments are undertaken in its support. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+ 20) can be such a platform.
Source
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Op-Ed: How green is our economy?
By Dr Vandana Shiva in The Deccan Chronicle, August 17, 2011
In 1992, citizens and activists from across the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit. On December 24, 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to hold the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio — to mark 20 years of the Earth Summit, and to discuss the way forward. On June 4, 2012, the world community will gather again in Rio de Janeiro. Member states have agreed on the focus of Rio+20: “Green economy within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” and “institutional framework for sustainable development”.
Now, what is this “green economy” and what is the “institutional framework for sustainable development”? If the answers are offered within the old paradigm of market-driven solutions, which have failed to protect the Earth, “green economy” will mean more of the same: more carbon trading, which has failed to reduce emissions; more commodification of food, water, land and biodiversity, which has not just failed to reduce hunger, thirst, poverty and ecological degradation but has, in fact, increased them.
If the “institutional framework for sustainable development” creates a “World Environment Organisation” along the line of the World Trade Organisation, based on the commodification of, and trade in, nature’s gifts, and trade wars as part of global environment management, we will further impoverish the Earth and local communities. We will further destroy democracy.
If on the other hand the answers are offered in the context of the emerging paradigm of the Rights of Mother Earth, then the green economy is Gaia’s economy, and the institutional framework is “Earth Democracy” — democracy from the bottom up and a democracy rooted in the Earth.
The world order built on the economic fundamentalism of greed, commodification of life and limitless growth, and the complementary technological fundamentalism that there is a technological fix for every social and environmental ill is clearly collapsing.
The “green economy” agenda for Rio+20 can either deepen the privatisation of Earth, and with it the crisis of ecology and poverty, or it can be used to “re-embed” economies in the ecology of the Earth.
Green economics needs to be an authentic green. It cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources — land and water, seeds and food. As Mahatma Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for some people’s greed”.
To be green, economics needs to return to oikos. Both ecology and economics are derived from the Greek oikos, which means “home”. Ecology is the science of household, and economics is supposed to be the management of the household. When economics works against the science of ecology, it results in the mismanagement of the Earth — our home. The climate crisis, the water crisis, the biodiversity crisis and the food crisis are different symptoms of the crisis of mismanagement of the Earth and her resources.
We mismanage the Earth when we do not recognise nature’s capital as the real capital and everything else as derived. If we have no land, we have no economy. When we contribute to the growth of nature’s capital, we build green economies. And the richer nature’s capital, the richer human society will be.
Nature-centred, women-centred perspective takes us down a road that is sustainable and equitable. The Earth Summit in 1992 produced two legally binding treaties — the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the Summit, the participating members also produced a Women’s Action Agenda 21 through Women’s Environment & Development Organisation, which I co-founded with former US Congresswoman Bella Abzug.
As we move towards Rio+20, there is danger that the gains of Rio will be eroded. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has already been undermined by the Copenhagen Accord. There is an attempt to revisit the Rio principles that gave us the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle”. We need to strengthen Rio, not undermine it.
The “green economy” can either commodify all of nature, or it can create a new harmony with the Earth while providing for basic needs and increasing sustainable livelihoods. We must value nature. The question is how? Will nature be valued on the basis of the Rights of Mother Earth, on the basis of sacred values, or will nature be valued on the basis of speculative investment?
In the Earth-centred green economy, the market obeys nature’s laws, Gaia’s laws, the laws of Mother Earth. In the greed-centred green economy, the volatile and predatory laws of the market are forced on nature. Ecological laws are violated to impose the laws of the market. Since the majority of people derive their livelihoods from the Earth, violation of the laws of the Earth translates into the violation of laws that uphold justice and human rights. Poverty increases, hunger and thirst increases, inequality increases.
The laws of the market have proved unreliable for managing the market itself. How can they be trusted with the lives of people and the care of the Earth?
We have two options. Either the greed economy will be green-washed and presented as a green economy. In that case, the “green” will just be the colour of money. Our other option is to bring back harmony in our relationship with the Earth, live within her limits and means and create an inclusive wellbeing for all. In the latter case green will be the colour of life.
Rabindranath Tagore, in his essay The Robbery of the Soil, warns us of the consequences of the economy based on greed: “This passion of greed that rages in the heart of our present civilisation, like a volcanic flame of fire, is constantly struggling to erupt in individual bloatedness… A sudden increase in the flow of production of things tends to consume our resources and requires us to build new storehouses. Our needs, therefore, which stimulate this increasing flow, must begin to observe the limitation of normal demand.
If we go on stoking our demands into bigger and bigger flames, the conflagration that results will no doubt dazzle our sight, but its splendour will leave on the debit side only a black heap of charred remains.”
Source
In 1992, citizens and activists from across the world gathered in Rio de Janeiro for the Earth Summit. On December 24, 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to hold the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio — to mark 20 years of the Earth Summit, and to discuss the way forward. On June 4, 2012, the world community will gather again in Rio de Janeiro. Member states have agreed on the focus of Rio+20: “Green economy within the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” and “institutional framework for sustainable development”.
Now, what is this “green economy” and what is the “institutional framework for sustainable development”? If the answers are offered within the old paradigm of market-driven solutions, which have failed to protect the Earth, “green economy” will mean more of the same: more carbon trading, which has failed to reduce emissions; more commodification of food, water, land and biodiversity, which has not just failed to reduce hunger, thirst, poverty and ecological degradation but has, in fact, increased them.
If the “institutional framework for sustainable development” creates a “World Environment Organisation” along the line of the World Trade Organisation, based on the commodification of, and trade in, nature’s gifts, and trade wars as part of global environment management, we will further impoverish the Earth and local communities. We will further destroy democracy.
If on the other hand the answers are offered in the context of the emerging paradigm of the Rights of Mother Earth, then the green economy is Gaia’s economy, and the institutional framework is “Earth Democracy” — democracy from the bottom up and a democracy rooted in the Earth.
The world order built on the economic fundamentalism of greed, commodification of life and limitless growth, and the complementary technological fundamentalism that there is a technological fix for every social and environmental ill is clearly collapsing.
The “green economy” agenda for Rio+20 can either deepen the privatisation of Earth, and with it the crisis of ecology and poverty, or it can be used to “re-embed” economies in the ecology of the Earth.
Green economics needs to be an authentic green. It cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources — land and water, seeds and food. As Mahatma Gandhi said: “The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for some people’s greed”.
To be green, economics needs to return to oikos. Both ecology and economics are derived from the Greek oikos, which means “home”. Ecology is the science of household, and economics is supposed to be the management of the household. When economics works against the science of ecology, it results in the mismanagement of the Earth — our home. The climate crisis, the water crisis, the biodiversity crisis and the food crisis are different symptoms of the crisis of mismanagement of the Earth and her resources.
We mismanage the Earth when we do not recognise nature’s capital as the real capital and everything else as derived. If we have no land, we have no economy. When we contribute to the growth of nature’s capital, we build green economies. And the richer nature’s capital, the richer human society will be.
Nature-centred, women-centred perspective takes us down a road that is sustainable and equitable. The Earth Summit in 1992 produced two legally binding treaties — the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the Summit, the participating members also produced a Women’s Action Agenda 21 through Women’s Environment & Development Organisation, which I co-founded with former US Congresswoman Bella Abzug.
As we move towards Rio+20, there is danger that the gains of Rio will be eroded. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has already been undermined by the Copenhagen Accord. There is an attempt to revisit the Rio principles that gave us the “precautionary principle” and the “polluter pays principle”. We need to strengthen Rio, not undermine it.
The “green economy” can either commodify all of nature, or it can create a new harmony with the Earth while providing for basic needs and increasing sustainable livelihoods. We must value nature. The question is how? Will nature be valued on the basis of the Rights of Mother Earth, on the basis of sacred values, or will nature be valued on the basis of speculative investment?
In the Earth-centred green economy, the market obeys nature’s laws, Gaia’s laws, the laws of Mother Earth. In the greed-centred green economy, the volatile and predatory laws of the market are forced on nature. Ecological laws are violated to impose the laws of the market. Since the majority of people derive their livelihoods from the Earth, violation of the laws of the Earth translates into the violation of laws that uphold justice and human rights. Poverty increases, hunger and thirst increases, inequality increases.
The laws of the market have proved unreliable for managing the market itself. How can they be trusted with the lives of people and the care of the Earth?
We have two options. Either the greed economy will be green-washed and presented as a green economy. In that case, the “green” will just be the colour of money. Our other option is to bring back harmony in our relationship with the Earth, live within her limits and means and create an inclusive wellbeing for all. In the latter case green will be the colour of life.
Rabindranath Tagore, in his essay The Robbery of the Soil, warns us of the consequences of the economy based on greed: “This passion of greed that rages in the heart of our present civilisation, like a volcanic flame of fire, is constantly struggling to erupt in individual bloatedness… A sudden increase in the flow of production of things tends to consume our resources and requires us to build new storehouses. Our needs, therefore, which stimulate this increasing flow, must begin to observe the limitation of normal demand.
If we go on stoking our demands into bigger and bigger flames, the conflagration that results will no doubt dazzle our sight, but its splendour will leave on the debit side only a black heap of charred remains.”
Source
Pakistan: Poverty pushing people to join timber mafia
By Ali Hazrat Bacha, Dawn.com, July 16, 2011
The hike in prices of firewood, liquefied petroleum gas and construction material has been forcing the poverty-stricken people to join hands with traditional timber smugglers, who have intensified their activities in parts of Upper and Lower Dir districts, officials and locals said.
Owing to the official neglect, the lush green areas of Dir are being converted into barren lands and there seems no plan for reforestation or saving the existing forests in the areas.
“Seeing the unchecked activities of timber mafia in different areas of the district and growing wealth of the smugglers, the common people have also been lured into joining the illegal business to fight off poverty,” residents said.
During a recent visit to the forest-covered areas in lower and upper Dir, this correspondent observed that the people considered timber smuggling as their due right. The forests of Dalkhakhel Darra, Karo Darra, Nehag Darra and Usherai Darra are cut ruthlessly and transported to the lower parts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The worst affected are the forests of Karo Darra and Usherai valleys. According to officials, the personnel of law-enforcement agencies are hand in glove with the timber mafia, who take their share and allow the loaded vehicles to pass through different checkpoints. The smugglers have even constructed link roads in several areas at their own expenses for transporting the timber to main commercial markets.
In some areas the timber is transported using mules and horses. The logs are sold at different rates, depending on their thickness and size.
In Karo Darra, the forests are cut at Doghalgi, Maban and Nasapai and transported through a link road of Gul Bagh, which crosses Akhagram village, to avoid any action.
A pickup truck driver at Akhagram Bazaar told this correspondent that he used to transport at least 50 timber logs daily from the forest area to the market from the last about 10 years. He said that some 300 non-custom-paid vehicles plied on the link roads of Karo Darra and majority of them were transporting timber and earning handsome amounts.
He said that the timber was supplied to down districts in connivance with the relevant officials. “Some of the wealthy smugglers have prepared special trucks having oil tanker-like bodies for transporting the timber,” he disclosed.
When contacted, an official Bahadur Zeb at the DFO office, Upper Dir, said that despite shortage of staff and resources the forest department was making efforts to save the forests. He said that most parts of the forest had been damaged during militancy.
However, he said that Kor Koi, Siddiqa Banda and Shamai were the most affected parts of Usherai Darra and cases had been registered against unknown people.
Mr Zeb said that they had very few staff for the protection of three forest ranges รข€“ Dir Kohistan, Upper Dir and Darrora (Wari). He also said that one of their two patrol vehicles had been snatched by militants and there was no alternative in this regard.
He said the strength of the existing staff of 73 should be doubled to effectively discourage the forest cutting and timber smuggling. “We have been demanding appointment of the necessary staff from the last four years, but still there is no response to our requests,” he said.
Source
The hike in prices of firewood, liquefied petroleum gas and construction material has been forcing the poverty-stricken people to join hands with traditional timber smugglers, who have intensified their activities in parts of Upper and Lower Dir districts, officials and locals said.
Owing to the official neglect, the lush green areas of Dir are being converted into barren lands and there seems no plan for reforestation or saving the existing forests in the areas.
“Seeing the unchecked activities of timber mafia in different areas of the district and growing wealth of the smugglers, the common people have also been lured into joining the illegal business to fight off poverty,” residents said.
During a recent visit to the forest-covered areas in lower and upper Dir, this correspondent observed that the people considered timber smuggling as their due right. The forests of Dalkhakhel Darra, Karo Darra, Nehag Darra and Usherai Darra are cut ruthlessly and transported to the lower parts of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The worst affected are the forests of Karo Darra and Usherai valleys. According to officials, the personnel of law-enforcement agencies are hand in glove with the timber mafia, who take their share and allow the loaded vehicles to pass through different checkpoints. The smugglers have even constructed link roads in several areas at their own expenses for transporting the timber to main commercial markets.
In some areas the timber is transported using mules and horses. The logs are sold at different rates, depending on their thickness and size.
In Karo Darra, the forests are cut at Doghalgi, Maban and Nasapai and transported through a link road of Gul Bagh, which crosses Akhagram village, to avoid any action.
A pickup truck driver at Akhagram Bazaar told this correspondent that he used to transport at least 50 timber logs daily from the forest area to the market from the last about 10 years. He said that some 300 non-custom-paid vehicles plied on the link roads of Karo Darra and majority of them were transporting timber and earning handsome amounts.
He said that the timber was supplied to down districts in connivance with the relevant officials. “Some of the wealthy smugglers have prepared special trucks having oil tanker-like bodies for transporting the timber,” he disclosed.
When contacted, an official Bahadur Zeb at the DFO office, Upper Dir, said that despite shortage of staff and resources the forest department was making efforts to save the forests. He said that most parts of the forest had been damaged during militancy.
However, he said that Kor Koi, Siddiqa Banda and Shamai were the most affected parts of Usherai Darra and cases had been registered against unknown people.
Mr Zeb said that they had very few staff for the protection of three forest ranges รข€“ Dir Kohistan, Upper Dir and Darrora (Wari). He also said that one of their two patrol vehicles had been snatched by militants and there was no alternative in this regard.
He said the strength of the existing staff of 73 should be doubled to effectively discourage the forest cutting and timber smuggling. “We have been demanding appointment of the necessary staff from the last four years, but still there is no response to our requests,” he said.
Source
Sustainable agriculture key in developing a green economy, both at home and abroad
By Danielle Nierenberg and Haibing Ma in The Vancouver Sun
Vancouver is one of the greenest cities in North America, ranking second out of 27 major cities in the U.S. and Canada Green City Index report. As the world's largest burner of coal and emitter of industrial carbon dioxide (CO2), China, on the other hand, may not be the greenest of countries.
A constant layer of smog in Beijing is a stark reminder that carbon emissions are affecting air quality. This is largely due to the fact that coal accounts for nearly 70 per cent of China's total energy consumption. But efforts are underway to lessen the environmental impacts of China's rapid industrialization and shift the economy towards one that favours sustainable development.
According to a new Worldwatch Institute report, "Green Economy and Green Jobs in China," the three sectors of energy, transportation, and forestry could provide at least 4.5 million green jobs in China in 2020.
China's wind power industry alone created an average of 40,000 direct green jobs annually from 2006 to 2010. But, according to the report, "greening can and should occur in all sectors of the economy."
Agriculture, for example, can contribute significantly to the green economy. Small-scale, sustainable farming encourages job creation and reduces the environmental impact associated with energy intensive industrial farming.
Because this type of farming is meant to be small in scale, it can be practised even in crowded cities where space is limited. Here in Vancouver, several urban farming projects are working to provide the community with fresh, local food by growing vegetables in backyard gardens. Kitsilano Farms, for example, converts unused backyard space around the Kitsilano neighborhood into productive vegetable gardens.
Inner City Farms is also focused on bringing urban agriculture to the city of Vancouver. Like Kitsilano Farms, Inner City Farms offers the community access to fresh, locally-grown produce through participation in a summer community supported agriculture (CSA) program. Fresh Roots Farm operates a CSA program as well, providing east Vancouver residents with local, healthy, organic food. Fresh Roots additionally offers educational opportunities through urban farming internships and workshops.
Then there's SOLEfood, an enterprising non-profit organization that is providing employment opportunities as well as fresh produce. SOLEfood is an urban farm located in Vancouver's downtown eastside neighbourhood. By providing residents with job training and employment, SOLEfood is directly contributing to the economic revitalization of this inner-city neighbourhood. Local residents are hired and trained to build, plant, maintain and harvest the farm, which sells its produce to local restaurants and community organizations and at farmers' markets, thereby strengthening neighbourhood food security.
Although agriculture contributes as much as one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, greening agriculture — by maintaining soil fertility and reducing soil erosion, increasing water use efficiency and decreasing deforestation, for example — could transform agriculture from being a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) to possibly being a GHG sink. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), green agriculture has the potential to substantially reduce agricultural GHG emissions by annually sequestering nearly six billion tons of atmospheric CO2.
In addition to providing environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration, sustainable agriculture can provide significant economic opportunities and help reduce rural poverty. A vast majority of the 2.6 billion people worldwide who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods live in rural areas on less than US$1 per day. According to UNEP, evidence shows that sustainable or green farming practices could increase yields between 54 and 179 per cent. Increased crop yields mean that farmers not only have enough food to feed themselves and their families, but they also have a surplus that they can sell at local markets. Estimates indicate that for every 10 per cent increase in farm yields, poverty has been reduced by seven per cent percent in Africa and by more than five per cent in Asia.
Agriculture should be part of the equation in developing a new, green economy, both here at home as well as in China. As urban farms begin to emerge in Vancouver, so too do new opportunities for employment. And while China is starting to transition to a green economy, particularly in the areas of energy, transportation, and forestry, green agriculture also has enormous potential to create jobs, reduce poverty and protect the environment.
Source
Vancouver is one of the greenest cities in North America, ranking second out of 27 major cities in the U.S. and Canada Green City Index report. As the world's largest burner of coal and emitter of industrial carbon dioxide (CO2), China, on the other hand, may not be the greenest of countries.
A constant layer of smog in Beijing is a stark reminder that carbon emissions are affecting air quality. This is largely due to the fact that coal accounts for nearly 70 per cent of China's total energy consumption. But efforts are underway to lessen the environmental impacts of China's rapid industrialization and shift the economy towards one that favours sustainable development.
According to a new Worldwatch Institute report, "Green Economy and Green Jobs in China," the three sectors of energy, transportation, and forestry could provide at least 4.5 million green jobs in China in 2020.
China's wind power industry alone created an average of 40,000 direct green jobs annually from 2006 to 2010. But, according to the report, "greening can and should occur in all sectors of the economy."
Agriculture, for example, can contribute significantly to the green economy. Small-scale, sustainable farming encourages job creation and reduces the environmental impact associated with energy intensive industrial farming.
Because this type of farming is meant to be small in scale, it can be practised even in crowded cities where space is limited. Here in Vancouver, several urban farming projects are working to provide the community with fresh, local food by growing vegetables in backyard gardens. Kitsilano Farms, for example, converts unused backyard space around the Kitsilano neighborhood into productive vegetable gardens.
Inner City Farms is also focused on bringing urban agriculture to the city of Vancouver. Like Kitsilano Farms, Inner City Farms offers the community access to fresh, locally-grown produce through participation in a summer community supported agriculture (CSA) program. Fresh Roots Farm operates a CSA program as well, providing east Vancouver residents with local, healthy, organic food. Fresh Roots additionally offers educational opportunities through urban farming internships and workshops.
Then there's SOLEfood, an enterprising non-profit organization that is providing employment opportunities as well as fresh produce. SOLEfood is an urban farm located in Vancouver's downtown eastside neighbourhood. By providing residents with job training and employment, SOLEfood is directly contributing to the economic revitalization of this inner-city neighbourhood. Local residents are hired and trained to build, plant, maintain and harvest the farm, which sells its produce to local restaurants and community organizations and at farmers' markets, thereby strengthening neighbourhood food security.
Although agriculture contributes as much as one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, greening agriculture — by maintaining soil fertility and reducing soil erosion, increasing water use efficiency and decreasing deforestation, for example — could transform agriculture from being a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) to possibly being a GHG sink. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), green agriculture has the potential to substantially reduce agricultural GHG emissions by annually sequestering nearly six billion tons of atmospheric CO2.
In addition to providing environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration, sustainable agriculture can provide significant economic opportunities and help reduce rural poverty. A vast majority of the 2.6 billion people worldwide who depend on agriculture for their livelihoods live in rural areas on less than US$1 per day. According to UNEP, evidence shows that sustainable or green farming practices could increase yields between 54 and 179 per cent. Increased crop yields mean that farmers not only have enough food to feed themselves and their families, but they also have a surplus that they can sell at local markets. Estimates indicate that for every 10 per cent increase in farm yields, poverty has been reduced by seven per cent percent in Africa and by more than five per cent in Asia.
Agriculture should be part of the equation in developing a new, green economy, both here at home as well as in China. As urban farms begin to emerge in Vancouver, so too do new opportunities for employment. And while China is starting to transition to a green economy, particularly in the areas of energy, transportation, and forestry, green agriculture also has enormous potential to create jobs, reduce poverty and protect the environment.
Source
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Real Live Vertical Farm Built In South Korea, Churning Out Lettuce
By Chris Keenan, Planetsave
Sustainable energy is at the forefront of the green movement. While most have heard praise for electrical cars and garage doors that open through solar power, vertical farming is the concept that may economically change our food system. The concept behind vertical farming is that it is possible to cultivate plant life on vertically inclined surfaces, and the plants produced in these surfaces would be organic and higher quality plants than through traditional farming methods. While this idea has been around for years, it’s finally come to fruition in Suwon, South Korea where they have been working and producing vegetables in a little three story demonstration project.
Fabian Kretschmer and Malte E. Kollenberg commented on the project, saying, “Heads of lettuce are lined up in stacked layers. At the very bottom, small seedlings are thriving while, further up, there are riper plants almost ready to be picked. Unlike in conventional greenhouses, the one in Suwon uses no pesticides between the sowing and harvest periods, and all water is recycled. This makes the facility completely organic.”
There are many benefits to vertical farming. The vertical farm in South Korea was able to produce ripe vegetables without any pesticide and by recycling water, creating completely organic vegetables because of the controlled environment the plants were growing in. Vertical farming also allows for conservation of resources, farmland would be able to return to its natural state, water would be used less as it is recycled during the vertical farming process, and because vertical farming can be done in any building, it is likely that the distance between the produced plant and the customer will be less, thus using less energy and fuel to transport vegetables.
Many cities across the United States have expressed serious interest in building a vertical farming facility, including New York, Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles. In Chicago, The Illinois Institute of Technology has developed a plan to unfold vertical farming by placing facilities near large universities where students can conduct research while testing out this farming method.
While vertical farming was once just a conceptual idea, with facilities running and operating successfully like in South Korea, it is becoming more and more of a reality and a viable option for a greener system.
Source
Sustainable energy is at the forefront of the green movement. While most have heard praise for electrical cars and garage doors that open through solar power, vertical farming is the concept that may economically change our food system. The concept behind vertical farming is that it is possible to cultivate plant life on vertically inclined surfaces, and the plants produced in these surfaces would be organic and higher quality plants than through traditional farming methods. While this idea has been around for years, it’s finally come to fruition in Suwon, South Korea where they have been working and producing vegetables in a little three story demonstration project.
Fabian Kretschmer and Malte E. Kollenberg commented on the project, saying, “Heads of lettuce are lined up in stacked layers. At the very bottom, small seedlings are thriving while, further up, there are riper plants almost ready to be picked. Unlike in conventional greenhouses, the one in Suwon uses no pesticides between the sowing and harvest periods, and all water is recycled. This makes the facility completely organic.”
There are many benefits to vertical farming. The vertical farm in South Korea was able to produce ripe vegetables without any pesticide and by recycling water, creating completely organic vegetables because of the controlled environment the plants were growing in. Vertical farming also allows for conservation of resources, farmland would be able to return to its natural state, water would be used less as it is recycled during the vertical farming process, and because vertical farming can be done in any building, it is likely that the distance between the produced plant and the customer will be less, thus using less energy and fuel to transport vegetables.
Many cities across the United States have expressed serious interest in building a vertical farming facility, including New York, Portland, Seattle, and Los Angeles. In Chicago, The Illinois Institute of Technology has developed a plan to unfold vertical farming by placing facilities near large universities where students can conduct research while testing out this farming method.
While vertical farming was once just a conceptual idea, with facilities running and operating successfully like in South Korea, it is becoming more and more of a reality and a viable option for a greener system.
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)