I found the following article quite interesting for 8 separate solutions it offers in that some of the suggested solutions are already in place and the rest is to arrive in the near future;

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/8-farming-solution-help-stop-world-hunger

They range from farming the desert to resurructing the degraded soil to eliminating the fertilizer use.

It seems to me that the focus of the science on such matters will continue to grow with increased interest from the private sector. The only question that still remains to be answered is that; will these initiatives be quick enough to patch the holes or not ?…

Clic for ENG Trailer
Clic for FR Movie (divided into chapters)
Clic for IMDB reference

Opening in 181 countries on June 5th, 2009 during the World Environment Day (WED) and thanks to the contribution of many luxury brands, this movie without copyright by Yann Arthus-Bertrand was widely broadcasted for a few days for free in french, english and spanish.

Provided also in cinemas, DVD, TV on the same day, this french documentary about the EMERGENCY to save the planet broke the world record for the largest film release in history!

Non only the message remains frightening but realistic, but also the images look astonishing, as well as the music is powerful. Watch and (re)act!

New policies globally are encouraging the production of bio-fuel crops. Take for instance, Europe, where the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has profoundly influenced by crop production patterns through its high support prices, planting restrictions, intervention buying, stock management, and rigid border controls. International Trade agreements have also been influential on cropping decisions.  Many of these supports had distorted the commodity market prior to 2003. Since 2003 there had been removal of these barriers though major reforms in the policy. These reforms have been beneficial in fall of cereal price within Europe. CAP includes rules on agricultural land use, as well as payment subsidies for the production of crops dedicated to bio-fuels.

In order for farmers to qualify for the total CAP benefits, they are required to set aside 10% of their land and they then receive a set-aside land compensation payment (European Union, 1999). On this land farmers can then plant oilseed for bio-fuel use, under the restrictions of the Blair House Memorandum of Understanding.

Under the Blair House Memorandum of Understanding of 1992, there was a set limit to EU oilseed production (rapeseed, sunflower, soya). This limit called a Maximum Guaranteed Area (MGA), limited producer’s production of oilseeds. Producers then benefited from crop-specific oilseeds payments. This inhibited expansion of bio-fuels. Since then, the European commission, due to CAP reforms of 2003, believes that it no longer under the limitations of the Blair House Memorandum of Understanding (United States Department of Agriculture, 2005). Consequently freeing markets and enabling increases in bio-fuel production.

Special aid has now been set up for the production of bio-fuel crops on non-set aside land under the reforms of 2003. Farmers producing bio-fuel crops are eligible for a premium of €45 per hectare. Overproduction is limited by a ceiling of maximum guaranteed area of 2 million hectares ( United States Department of Agriculture, 2005). If this is breached then a reduction in payments will be put in place to not allow budgetary overruns.

In February 2006, the EU cut internal sugar price supports by 36% over a period of 4 years (United States Department of Agriculture, 2005). Many smaller sugar manufacturers consequently left the industry. There are expected drops in production of food-based sugars over the next few years. Europe is expected to become the world’s chief importer of sugar. On the other hand, two reform provisions will be of great benefit for sugar beet used in bio-fuel production. Sugar beet produced for bio-fuel will now also be eligible for €45 per hectare payment when produced on non-set-aside land and it will also be excluded from production quotas.

Coinciding with the CAP reforms of 2003, three new directives were put in place by the EC, to influence the use of bio-fuels. The “Bio-fuels Use Directive (European Union, 2003)”, “Energy Taxation Directive (European Union, 2003)” and “Fuel Quality Directive” (European Union, 2006).

The Bio-fuels Use Directive goal was for 2% of the EU’s transportation fuel would be bio-fuel. Following that a target of 5.75% was set for December 2010. A new taxation framework came into place with the Energy Taxation Directive, which allowed member states to provide tax reductions and / or exemptions on the use of bio-fuels. The Fuel Quality Directive amended the specifications of Petrol and Diesel, while also establishing specifications for the incorporation of bio-fuels.

There is the potential for new EU Policies to support developing countries through trade of bio-fuel grains. Bio-ethanol could be a possible alternative for sugar producing countries affected by the EU sugar reform. The EU could stimulate trade with sugar cane producing countries such a Guiana and Barbados. This could rejuvenate their economies and bring them out of debt.

Finally the EU must ensure that it does not overlook the use of second generation bio-fuels in it policies.  More detailed policy support is needed globally, especially in Europe. Broad polices encouraging the production is only beneficial to a certain limit. There need to be a priority for the production of certain bio-fuel crops (second generation bio-fuels). The policies must focus on crops with a high yield, like sugar cane, or focus on cradle-to-cradle bio-fuels.

It is only by the awareness of this focus, and by a total dedication to its correct and planned implementation via the use of policies governing production of food and bio-fuels, that the benefits can be realised.

European Union. (1999). Council Regulation (EC) No. 1251/1999, Article 6(1), May 17,1999.

European Union. (2003). Council Directive 2003/30/EC of 8 May 2003 (O.J. L123, 17/5/2003)

European Union. (2003). Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (O.J. L283, 31/10/2003)

European Union. (2006). Standard EN 590 as discussed in EC Memo/06/65, Brussels, 8 Feb. 2006

United States Department of Agriculture. (2005). EU-25, Oilseeds and Products Outlook for EU Oilseeds and Biofuels, United States Department of Agriculture: Foreign Agricultural Service. Foreign Agricultural Service. www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200509/146130849.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (2005). EU-27, Agricultural Situation, EU Program for Energy Crops Oversubscribed. Foreign Agricultural Service.http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200710/146292760.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (2005). EU-27,Sugar,EU Agrees to Mandatory 2007/08 Sugar Production Cut. Foreign Agricultural Service.http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200710/146292760.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). EU-25, Bio-Fuels, Biofuels Annual Report. Foreign Agricultural Service. Washington: www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200702/146280256.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum 2007. Retrieved November 30, 2007, from United States Department of Agriculture: http://199.134.226.12/agency/oce/forum/2007%20Speeches/PDF%20speeches/KCollins_doc.pdf

I believe the anthropocentric view that has long been held in the  world, unnecessarily pits humans against the environment. I believe that the view of Henry Ford clearly illustrates this view:

“I foresee the time when industry shall no longer denude the forests which require generations to mature, nor use up the mines which were ages in the making, but shall draw its raw material largely from the annual products of the fields,” he declared.

“I am convinced that we shall be able to get out of the yearly crops most of the basic materials which we now get from forest and mine. We shall grow annually many if not most of the substances needed in manufacturing.”

“When that day comes, and it is surely on the way, the farmer will not lack a market and the worker will not lack a job. More people will live in the country. The present unnatural condition will be naturally balanced again. Chemistry will reunite agriculture and industry. They were allowed to get too far apart and the world has suffered by the separation.”

Clearly this cannot continue, fuel for our life is depleting our natural capital, furthermore it illustrates  a negative global ecological economic efficiency ratio as it illustrates that the amount of natural capital lost, with negative output. Surprisingly fossil fuels are not only inefficient fuels, biofuels can also be inefficient. This inefficiency is a result of inefficient crops and farming practices.
Especially when taken into consideration that one full tank of first generation bio-ethanol in a Range Rover could feed a person for a year (McNeely, 2006). Hiighlighting the threats on food supply highlighted in earlier blogs.

An evolved view of bio-fuels indicate three distinct stages, first generation bio-fuels, good bio-fuels and second generation bio-fuels (Murphy, 2008). The first generation bio-fuels are made from feedstocks such as rapeseed in the production of bio-diesel and sugar and starch containing crops as sugar beet are used in the production of bio-ethanol. Good bio-fuels are integrated energy efficient first generation systems using all of crop in production. Second generation bio-fuels are produced from residues and non-food crops (lingo-cellulosic material) to produce bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and bio-methane.

The use of second generation bio-fuel, bio-methane has been overlooked as a possible sustainable bio-fuel. It does not impact on the environment. It can be produced through grass cuttings. Take for instance; that there is 300 hectares of parkland in Cork City Ireland, this would be sufficient to power the Cork bus fleet of 89 buses (Murphy, 2008).

If Irish Government is to implement a bio-fuel strategy for Ireland, the following is a breakdown of the effectiveness of each bio-fuel power each bus.

Clearly bio-gas/bio-methane is the best solution for  the powering of the bus service. Calculations can be easily done to evaluate whether it is suitable for your region, by dividing the land requirement into the available grassland. It takes a cradle-to-cradle approach making it completely sustainable.

On a final note, another sustainable cheap approach for bio-methane is in slaughter waste/sewage. This waste is free. It requires no land, no diversion of feedstock and it only costs €0.66/m3 to produce.

McNeely, J. A. (2006, September 22). Biofuels: Green energy or grim reaper? Retrieved March 27, 2008 from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm

Murphy, Jerry D. (2008, January 30). “Biofuels: Are they good.. or bad?”. 10. Cork, Ireland.

I have seen a documentary in the past 2 months that was talking off the restoration of the mining waste, which is call tailing, and consist of dry residue of the mineral extraction. The method uses the waste of one industry to help regenerate the land into a green field. I am posting you the link below.

You will notice that the article date from 2002, but it’s only recently that I have seen this.

 http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/general/resrpt2002/11.pdf

Justification of state intervention in the agricultural sector.

Traditionally, agriculture is seen as a means of production. Its value is assessed in terms of the value of farm products. Similar to how a country’s value is measured in GDP. However, there is a growing realisation that agriculture has a greater value than this. It has multiple functions and provides many benefits, often referred to as “externalities”. These include food security, environmental protection, the maintenance of rural traditions and communities, and Landscape values.

Externalities occur when the production of a “good” creates a benefit (positive externality) or damage (negative externality) on the people who themselves have not been involved in the decision leading to the benefit or damage. According to Cahill, C. (2001, The multifunctionality of agriculture: What does it mean?) because these benefits and damages are not taken into account in the decisions of the producers, positive externalities tend to be undersupplied, and negative externalities tend to oversupplied. Crop production is an example of a farming procedure that has both positive and negative externalities, it can cause nitrate leaching while it also maintains landscape values.  Positive and negative externalities are a prime reason for state intervention in the agricultural sector, the state will try to eradicate as many “negative externalities” and try to develop as many “positive externalities” as possible in an attempt to improve society.

Intervention provides many positive “externalities”, and to that effect the state is justified in intervening in the agriculture sector, some of the effects/benefits of state intervention are as follows: 

1. Food Security benefits

Food security concerns, not only food production, but the availability of food, and access to food. It has been defined by FAO as “access by all people at all times to the food needed for a healthy and active life”.

Due to the fact that there is increasing globalisation of agricultural markets, many nations are concerned that they retain a sufficient agricultural base- both in farms and farmers- to avoid excessive dependence on caprice of international agricultural trade, Cahill, C. (2001, The multifunctionality of agriculture: What does it mean?)

Exporting countries: claim that Asian countries can replace the food they produce themselves with imported food, and still have a stable and secure food supply. However, most Asian countries are reluctant to become completely dependent on imports. They want to keep a certain level of self-sufficiency in food production. They worry that if there is a global food crisis caused by war or bad weather, exporting countries may not want to sell their food stocks overseas. (Japan, Basic Law on Food, Agriculture and Rural areas)

For importing countries, food security means removing the uncertainties which result from free trade. At the FFTC seminar, Director Torng-Chuang Wu suggested that addressing these concerns should involve action by both exporting and importing countries. Exporting countries might consider contracts, under which they undertake to reserve a certain level of food for export. Importing countries might need to maintain a certain level of self-sufficiency in food production, and adequate stocks of staple foods.

2. Environmental protection benefits

Environmental protection is a phrase that is uttered from the lips of politicians on a daily basis, but it is not for any unjust reason! Environmental protection of our land, our waters and our air is pivotal to the survival of man-kind. Many nations have recognised this and have instigated procedures to encourage farmers to use environmentally friendly methods of farming.

One example of a farming method that pollutes the environment is the excess use (or use at all) of inorganic fertilisers. These chemicals run off the land into the streams and rivers that supply water to a region, these polluted streams are no longer a source of nutrients to the surrounding wildlife and are in effect killing off the local habitat.

The State intervenes in many countries by financially rewarding farmers that are using environmentally friendly (sometimes completely organic) methods of farming.

3. Landscape values

Landscapes are a major tourist attraction to countries, especially countries not blessed with sundrenched beaches, for instance Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Countries, like these, are starting to recognise this fact and are putting in place incentives for farmers to keep the natural landscape of their land intact. This is prevalent in Ireland at the moment with the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS). REPS have been in operation since 1994, involving some 45,000 farms at a total cost of almost €1.3 billion. The scheme provides a valuable opportunity for improved landscape quality in Ireland.

Carrying on from our discussion about the water crisis in China, another country with many water issues is the South American country of Bolivia. In the early 1990’s the Central Bank forced the poor nation of Bolivia to privatise its water in order to pay off its debt. As Bolivia was a struggling country it relied a lot on foreign aid and therefore succumbed to the Central Bank’s Pressures.

Control of the water was handed over to international corporations which resulted in the rapid increase of water prices in Bolivia. The main corporations in control of the water in Bolivia were Betchel and Aguas del Illimani of which Suez is the main shareholder. The water company charged residents $445USD for a connection which was an off the wall figure in comparison to the minimum wage in Bolivia which is $60USD per month!!!

Before privatisation, farmers and citizens had their own water rights, but after the corporation entered the ring their water became property which could be bought and sold for a high price out of  reach for the average Bolivian. Everybody has the right to clean fresh water, and Bolivia’s citizens were denied this right due to the greediness of corporations.

The Bolivian people, however did not stand for this, they revolted and protested against the corporations  especially when they refused to consider reducing their rates. Eventually the people power was successful and Becthe and Suezl was thrown out of Bolivia. However they did attempt to sue the country of Bolivia for $50 million but later dropped their case.

For more information

Watch the corporation availablehttp://www.thecorporation.com/

See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050214/shultz

See http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html

See http://jamesptaylor.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/bolivia-bechtel-and-the-fight-for-public-water/

Ecological advocates have been trying to encourage and popularise the idea of companies achieving competitive advantage through sustainable development for the last number of years. The driver behind this is the hope that companies will increase their environmental awareness and reduce the ecological damage that they do. In order to effectively do this though, an entire organisational culture shift is required that sees environmental issues being embedded in the core of all activities rather than have them peripheral to daily business activities. It occurred to me however that while some organisations have the foresight and resources to redesign their business processes to be truly environmental conscious, most organisations will continue to skirt around the issue until it is more than too late. With this in mind, I believe a great responsibility lies with our governments and international agencies to be the leaders in beginning a societal paradigm shift towards environmental sustainability. It is my belief that world leaders need to go beyond the current efforts and focus on changing people’s mentalities. A good starting point would be to introduce measures of growth based on ecological economics rather than the limited measures that are currently used. The article “Towards an ecological argument” by Robert Constanza gives a very interesting overview of the benefits of this.

Please see http://www.eoearth.org/article/Toward_an_ecological_economy for further reading.

PLA also known as Polylactic acid is a biodegradable, thermoplastic (polyester) based upon renewable resources and 100% recyclable. It can be used as a replacement for petroleum based plastics such as PET (polyethylene terephthalate) in the packaging industry.

Although the quality features of this plastic are much lower than a normal Petroleum based plastic, who needs a plastic that last forever (see the Great Ocean garbage). Why does the package of a product needs to live much longer than the product inside.

WallMart and many other grocery store (Delhaize, etc.) use this plastic as a package for products with a very short lifecycle (ie. cheese, bread, single-use bags, …). This plastic biodegrades into carbon dioxide and H2O in a “controlled composting environment” in fewer than 90 days. However, what’s a “controlled composting environment”? Corn Plastic is to be composted in a large facility where the compost (scrap being digested by microbes) reaches 140 degrees for over 1,5 weeks.

Anyway, in reality the costumer throws this package in the rubbish bin with all other plastics because he doesn’t have such large facilities and because he has no idea what he’s doing. The idea of producing corn plastic is good but a smart solution to close to supply chain has yet to be invented.

This plastic could be a perfect solution for businesses as McDonalds with extremely short life-cycle packaging. A company as such, fully controls their supply chain and their packaging waste. Ultimatly, this could deliver the company advantage!

There is an informal meeting starting tomorrow in Åre/Sweden between EU environmental ministers :

http://www.isria.com/pages/23_July_2009_213.php

According to current presidency of EU they see a great potential for success in reaching a climate change agreement whereby expecting more companies to be willing to invest in climate-friendly products producing more jobs etc. Apparently this informal meeting will be a sort of preparation and review session for upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in December where a commitment of 10 Billion dollars from rich countries is expected to be on table;

http://en.cop15.dk/

In my opinion, given the current economic context, the end result will either be 1/10th of this expected amount or maybe an extended period of cash injections, i.e. not as effective as one would hope.