Thursday, June 23, 2011

G20 Agriculture: 5 priorities to end food crises

Ahead of the G20 Agriculture Ministers' meeting in Paris on June 22 and 23 to make progress on key issues such as reducing commodity price volatility, limiting financial speculation and establishing a global action plan against food crises, The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food - Olivier De Schutter provided five priorities may give this G20 summit a vital role in improving long-term global food security.

Olivier De Schutter calls upon our G20 leaders to endorse these priorities, and act upon them:

1. Regulate and make more transparent, the markets for agricultural products. The impact of financial speculation on food prices is now widely recognized, and this needs to be subject to control without delay. The United States legislated on derivatives nearly a year ago. The G20, under French presidency, could encourage other major economies to follow the same path.

2. Encourage the development of regional storage facilities. As we are faced with growing instability in production due to climate change, it is urgent to strengthen systems of storage at the regional level. Currently, in developing countries, 30% of crops – 40% of fruits and vegetables – are lost because of lack of adequate storage facilities. We may in fact move beyond storage facilities to the establishment of food reserves, not just to allow the humanitarian agencies to respond to emergencies, but also to reduce price volatility across seasons. Provided they are managed in a transparent and participatory way, food reserves may be capable of smoothing prices between periods of good harvests and low periods, characterized by rising prices. The G20 should encourage international institutions and cooperating agencies to further support these regional storage facilities.

3. Support the provision of public goods. To enhance the productivity of small farmers in developing countries, it is necessary to accelerate the provision of public goods such as agricultural extension services or construction of roads linking farmers to urban consumers. It is also crucial to help small producers organize themselves into cooperatives and unions in order to strengthen their positions in food chains and to collaborate with governments in designing programs that are supposed to benefit them.

4. Support the capacity of all countries to feed themselves by strategies based on the right to food. Since the early 1990s, the food bills of the least developed countries have increased five- or six-fold due to lack of investment in the production of food crops. The continued promotion of export agriculture has made these countries highly vulnerable to exchange rate volatility and price spikes in international markets. This trend can be reversed by the implementation of multi-year national strategies, designed to restore efficient subsistence agriculture. Where they are adopted in a participatory way, and where they include mechanisms for monitoring the commitments of governments, such national strategies can improve accountability of governments. The experience of some Latin American countries shows that such strategies focusing on the right to food may improve food security in a sustainable manner. The G20 should reiterate this message and recognize the importance of institutional frameworks and adequate governance in any strategy for food security.

5. Strengthen global food security governance. The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) has been reformed in the wake of the 2007-2008 food crisis to strengthen cooperation and coordination between States and international agencies. CFS is now the only forum linking governments, international institutions and civil society in improving food security policies. The G20 should affirm its support for this important step towards better coordination of efforts at international level. It is no longer acceptable that policies in trade or international investment policies, for example, contradict rural development programs in the field that are aimed at improving the situation of poor farmers.

Hunger is not a natural disaster – it is, rather, a political problem. And that is precisely why this scandal must and can be stopped. Today, France, together with its G20 partners, has the unique opportunity of contributing decisively to this end, and I am confident it will do so.

Source

Rain Water Harvesting Improves Lives of Small Farmers

"If there's a bad year, we can stay up to 20 days without rain. The young crops die, that's the problem over here", says Rabiet E. Mkumbwa, 60, in front of his home in Mwembe village in Tanzania’s Kilimanjaro region.

With less than 400 mm of rain annually, when 900-1000 mm is the average in the country, this is one of Tanzania’s driest region. Climate change is affecting the rain patterns and this year, like last, the traditionally rainy months of October and November brought no steady showers. Erosion is another serious problem that reduces soil fertility and crop yield.

To help the villagers farm their land, feed their families and earn an income, UNDP supported a local NGO, the Same Agricultural Improvement Project (SAIPRO) in constructing large pools to collect water streaming down the hills. These micro-dams are based on the concept of traditional local water reservoirs known as ndiva.

The dam is owned and maintained by a group of community members, 20 women and 30 men, who clean out the mud from the pool and manage the distribution and channeling of the water.

The micro-dam in Mwembe can store up to 220 000 litres of rain water that flows down the surrounding hills. The dam’s valve is opened once a week to distribute water to the community members’ farm plots. Once released, the water is manually channeled to the plots that cover 200 acres of farmland and serve up to 150 households.

With improved water supply to their plots, small-scale farmers in the region are not only feeding their families but also earning extra income from selling their produce at local markets. Their children can attend school, they can afford keeping poultry and cows and their houses have been improved with iron sheets replacing hay roofs.

Source

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Health in the Green Economy

The World Health Organization’s Health in the Green Economy series, to be published in 2011, is reviewing the evidence about expected health impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies in light of mitigation options for key economic sectors, considered in the Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 (IPCC).

The aim is to propose important health co-benefits for sector and health policy-makers, and for consideration in the next round of IPCC mitigation reviews (Working Group III – Fifth Assessment Report [AR5]). Opportunities for potential health and environment synergies are identified here for household energy in developing countries.

IPCC assessment notes that the residential and commercial building sector has the highest immediate mitigation potential to reduce climate change pollutants. In comparison with other sectors, larger absolute reductions in CO2-equivalent emissions of climate change pollutants addressed in the Kyoto protocol are possible by the year 2030 – at a cost of less than US$ 100 per ton of CO2-equivalent. This arises from opportunities to markedly reduce energy consumption in buildings, to switch to low-carbon and renewable fuels and to control emissions of climate change pollutants other than CO2 (e.g. methane).

Particularly in developing countries, household solid fuel use also results in a substantial disease burden. Close to three billion people obtain their household energy for cooking and heating from solid fuels (wood, coal, charcoal, dung and crop wastes) burned in open fires and traditional stoves.

Such indoor air pollution is a major risk factor for childhood pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and also lung cancer where coal is used. Recent evidence has also shown associations with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, cataracts and tuberculosis, as well as other cancers. In low-income countries, indoor smoke was responsible for an estimated 4.0% of the overall disease burden in 2004, making it the most important cause of death and illness after childhood underweight, unsafe sex, lack of safe water and sanitation and suboptimal breastfeeding.

Women and children are most directly exposed to indoor air pollution, as well as being more at risk for burns and scalding, and vulnerable to attack and injury during fuel collection.

But new technologies for more efficient household fuel use in developing regions hold some of the greatest potential co-benefits for both health and climate in the household energy sector because they greatly reduce emissions. These interventions offer other co-benefits to health, gender equity and sustainable development for billions of people.

For example, in India, household and community-level photovoltaic systems are already being widely used to power domestic lights. Photovoltaic (PV) electricity also offers potential for expanded use and development of other low-power direct current (DC) devices, including for communications and refrigeration.

Read the full WHO brief from here

Monday, June 20, 2011

Rio+20: From Earth Summit to Earth Grab?

Diana Bronson, ETC Group writing in the UN Non Governmental Liaison Services' first edition of its “Road to Rio” e-newsletter argues that Rioplus2012 could be our best opportunity to tackle the intertwined environmental, economic, food and climate crises, or it could be the launching pad for an unprecedented attack on the Earth’s natural systems and the most vulnerable populations on the planet.

She adds that there are two paths we could take: one relies on market mechanisms and technological fixes and will be led by bankers and engineers. The other relies on fostering greater global equality and democratic governance, and it will bring affected communities and countries into the centre of decision-making.

Reflecting on what has happened to the commitment on technology assessment, Diana reveals that back in 1992, Agenda 21 had a whole chapter (34) [link to http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf] on the transfer of environmentally sound technologies. Governments spoke about a programme of technology cooperation, improved access, capacity building, facilitating informed choices, even transferring patented technologies on non-commercial terms!

Two years after this, open trade, investment liberalization and structural adjustment became the table d’hôte of development policy and any remaining notions of government stewardship over markets or technology to ensure sustainability went out of fashion.

There has been an extremely rapid technological development – the internet, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, synthetic biology, genomics, geoengineering – each innovation more rapid, more astonishing and more obscure in its implications than the last. For example, Big Oil and the chemical industry have also begun serious investment in bio-based “renewables,” which will compete with food production, threaten biodiversity and will have potentially devastating implications for Southern countries where 86% of global “biomass” is located and where three-quarters of it, is regarded as ripe for commercialization.

Many of these new technologies are parading as “green.” Many of them are seeking accreditation under various market mechanisms such as carbon-offset schemes, thereby multiplying the financial stakes and the incentives for corruption. Corporate-sponsored think tanks make independent assessment hard to come by. And workers, local communities and indigenous people, when affected by their testing or deployment, have poor access to decision makers and little, if any, possibility for judicial recourse when things go wrong. They are affecting commodity prices, resource distribution, and manipulating the minutest elements of life – the DNA of the natural world. Their technical merits are unproven and their applicability to national needs is speculative, and yet, the industrial and financial interests backing them will posit them as essential to the Green Economy.

That means big subsidies and little regulation. The global South will be the guinea pig for testing these powerful technological packages as well as the source of the raw materials needed to keep the industrialized north powered up. The debacle of corn ethanol – which managed to increase hunger and greenhouse gas emissions while attracting massive subsidies by successfully portraying itself as a green solution – could be repeated many times over.

Diana then makes a worthwhile proposal: Rio+20 must break this pattern. Rio+20 should be the launching pad for inter-governmental negotiations on a new treaty – the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). This treaty would have institutional mechanisms to identify new technologies requiring special scrutiny for their anticipated environmental or social risks, it would undertake ongoing evaluation and monitoring, and would share information about technologies, supporting their transfer and diffusion when warranted.

Read Diana Bronson's full article in the UN Non Governmental Liaison Services' first edition of its “Road to Rio” e-newsletter here

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Lifeline for Africa’s freshwater species

Edmund Smith-Asante from Ghana Business News, reports on an online interactive map, released by IUCN for each of the 7,079 river and lake sub-catchments across mainland Africa that reveals information on the distribution, conservation and ecological needs of 4,989 freshwater species, of which 21% are already threatened.

This tool and the accompanying IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ report ‘The Diversity of Life in African Freshwaters: Underwater, Under Threat’ provide vital information to help plan development in ways that minimize or avoid impacts to freshwater species.

According to the report the number of threatened freshwater species in Africa will increase dramatically if development of water resources is not planned sustainably. Major threats include loss or degradation of habitat to agriculture, and impacts of new infrastructure such as dams for irrigation and hydropeower.

More

Friday, June 17, 2011

Bolivia Proposes A Six-step Pathway to Solve Climate Talks

Ambassador Pablo Solon of the Plurinational State of Bolivia addressed reporters at the UN climate talks in Germany. Ambassador Solon outlined a clear plan, based on submissions from other countries and civil society, on how to move the talks forward in 2011, ahead of the UNFCCC COP17 in Durban later this year.

“The key issue at these talks is the gap between how much climate pollution we need to reduce and how much countries are committed to reducing. We call that the “gap” and it’s the difference between 4C of warming and 2C of warming. The Cancun outcome sets us on a path to 4C.” Ambassador Solon Said.

Solon highlighted Article 4.2 (a) of the UN Convention on Climate Change, which all countries had agreed to in 1992, which required developed countries to ‘peak’ their emissions by the year 2000.

To respond to the current deadlock in talks Ambassador Solon proposed a six-step path:

- Agreement on the size of the gap (12-14 Gigatonnes of C02e)

- Recognise that developed countries will need to take a larger share of the reduction.

- Agree on parameters for sharing the burden, based on historical responsibility and
capacity of the parties.

- Have developed countries’ emissions peak immediately.

- Represent every countries’ target in terms of gigatonnes, defined as reductions from
domestic emission levels and without the use of ‘offsets’.

- Agreement on legal actions for parties that do not fulfil their obligations under
the Kyoto Protocol (for a second commitment period) and under the Convention.

Read the full submission from here

One million Bangladesh homes on solar power

The number of households in electricity-starved Bangladesh using solar panels has crossed the one million mark -- the fastest expansion of solar use in the world, officials said Wednesday.

In 2002, just 7,000 households were using solar panels but now more than a million households -- or some five million people -- gather solar energy, said Nazmul Haq of the Infrastructure Development Company (IDCOL).

"It's the fastest expansion of solar energy anywhere in the world," said Haq, who heads the state-run IDCOL, which provides financing for clean energy projects.

"We crossed the one million threshold more than 18 months ahead of schedule (and) we have set a new target to cross 2.5 million by 2014," he said.

Rural households in Bangladesh are frequently not on the state electrical grid and so have embraced solar power, helped by NGOs providing panels which can be paid for in small monthly instalments.

Some 60 percent of Bangladesh's 150 million people have no access to mains electricity, with many relying on costly kerosene lamps for lighting.


Years of under-investment in infrastructure means state-owned power plants generate only around 4,700 megawatts of electricity a day against demand of 6,000 megawatts -- which is growing by 500 megawatts a year.

A World Bank report last month said solar panels had "changed the face of the remote, rural areas of Bangladesh," by providing cheap, reliable electricity.

Source