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!

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.

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.

I recently found the 2008-2009 UN report on the trends on sustainable development (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_publtrends_2009.shtml). This reports talks about agriculture, rural development, land, desertification and drought as major trends in this field.

The report states as agriculture is key to poverty reduction. It states: “GDP growth generated in agriculture is, on average, four times more effective in benefiting the poorest half of the population than growth generated outside agriculture, although this effect declines as countries get richer.” In many impoverish societies, agriculture is the sole provider of income for families. With the ever growing impacts caused by great powers (industrialized countries) on the environment, we always seem to forget that the greatly affected are the small and poor countries that rely on the environment for sole income survival. Furthermore, research as shown that external assistance to agriculture as decreased with time (agriculture accounted for just 4% of bilateral assistance in 2003, down from 16% in 1980)(there is a great graph about that in the report which I cannot import) This is the ever continuing debate about how western civilization and great powers influences the poor inadvertently and then reduce the help they provide.

As I mentioned in one of my previous blog about developing countries, can developing countries understand the realm of the sustainable development problem when all their tools to survive are taken from them. It should be an important element in their overall survival as we are all part of this one planet, but westerners do not understand the economics of being poor. I do not want to blame the western world for all the faults of the world, but just to state that they are a big part in the effect on the planet and others, so they should also own their responsibility and act appropriately. To finish, I really like this quote I found in this UN report: “Feeding the majority of the poor and vulnerable populations in Africa, while preserving the natural resource base and the environment, is one of the most pressing development challenges of the twenty-first century.” —Akin Adesina, AGRA

It is for us the new generation to act!!!

I thought it would be useful to outline some of the environmental challenges in my country. The paradox we face is that our country has urgent development needs while at the same time our natural heritage is sensitive and represents our biggest asset.

Here are some issues (big and small):

• ageing infrastructure that contributes to water pollution
• rampant illegal developments
• habitat loss threatening endangered species
• illegal hunting with dogs
• air pollution from generating electricity
• shortage of properly managed landfill sites
• collection of plants and animals for traditional medicine
• Lack of recycling facilities and collection points

To complicate matter environmental problems are complicated by:

• Lack of skills and passion in government departments
• complicated system of governmental cooperation
• low awareness around environmental issues
• a perception that green is anti-development
• low priority given to environmental crimes
• poor enforcement of legislation

On the positive side:

• many critical areas have been conserved
• many companies are on par with global sustainability leaders
• poverty alleviation projects have been geared to environmental improvement
• Awareness is growing
• to compete in EU markets (our major trading partner) we need to maintain high standards.

The challenge for us will be to improve peoples lives without destroying our natural capital. While our country is blessed with mineral resources we will need to gradually diversify into other areas. Provided we can solve some of our social issues, tourism could become the major contributor to GDP in the future.

To see what ordinary people are doing in South Africa see:

www.wildlifesociety.org.za

www.terrapi.org

www.wildernessfoundation.co.za

www.landmarkfoundation.co.za

Hi

The following point came up in some discussions this morning;

“Developing countries need to address multiple levels of basic human needs before they can really be able to get a good handle on the sustainable development aspect of things.”

The question here is how much they need to do before moving to SD efforts? And where do you draw the line before you start SD?

It is of concern that the external global pressures are forcing developing countries to deal with SD issues before even achieving the basic level of needs for their people! The underlying issue I believe is the support of unsatisfied people is not possible, and SD is really dependent on the contribution of all. For example, Part of the discussion this morning touched upon the Eco tourism ( Jordan example ) and the feeling was more that it is far from being started given the economical state and the “needs vs. means” of the population … this does not seem to be the case ! looks like the initiative is going on and the realization of the fragile resource is seen. This is a link to the Middle East Economic Engineering Forum(http://www.eng-forum.com/ecotourism/speakers.htm)which hosted a conference on Eco tourism. An interesting direction to SD efforts when the poverty and over-population of the country is very high! Any thoughts?

Saad

The goal of creating a sustainable environmental future is one which has been put under the headline recently, but the path by which to reach that bright future is one which has not found an answer. In our path to trying to seek a sustainable future, it may be interesting to look at the driving factors behind the consumption. The goal of trying to achieve higher standards of living and continuous and steady GDP growth has come at the price of the increased consumption of resources that are needed to support the economy, and which in their raw form represent the goods which we get to our houses. If looking at the financing behind all this though, the reality may become quite troubling as we begin to notice that it is only the continuous growth of GDP at a stable rate that is preventing our financial system from collapsing, putting yet another barrier in the way to a sustainable environmental or financial future.

Money as Debt, it is a video that I have recently discovered for myself and which explains the banking system from scratch to finish, and in the end shows why it is only continuous and sustainable growth that is stopping the system from crashing, which in turn requires the continuous increased consumption of the world’s resources. The video chews up the information and may seem quite simple at first to most people that have studied monetary policy and finances, but the conclusions which it presents are something that most of us do not think about when this matter comes to our head. It may be easier to watch the video in order to follow my post further, but here’s a little summery in short…

We will have to look at the principles of banking and the way that finances work. In simple terms banks make money by charging interest at an interest rate which is greater then what you get when you put money into a bank. So lets say, if you put $100 into a bank a year later you will have $110, while if you $100, a year later you will have to pay $130. The $20 difference is the bank’s profit which is used to cover all of its fees and to make it profitable. We then ask ourselves the question, where does most of the money which we currently have today come from? If we think back to Macroeconomics from first year university, we can remember fractional reserve ratio which is at the base of the financial system of pretty much all countries around the world. If one day ago this was related to an amount of actual gold which they had in their vaults, it is now just related to the amount of money which is stored in the accounts of the depositors, while 99% of the money in the accounts of depositors is in fact which was money created through the reserve ratio debt creating process. In order to show this, how a simple illustration. Let us assume the reserve ratio of 1:9 (Currently the US reserve requirements are 10%), so once a bank makes a deposit of $1,111.12 to the central bank (called-high powered money) it is allowed to provide a loan to a customer for the sum of $10,000. ($1111.12 x 9 = $10,000). If the borrower then writes a check to someone gives it to someone who in tern deposits the $10,000 into a bank, (And given the reality of life, the majority of the money which we have is not kept as cash) the bank is now allowed to give out a loan of $9,000 (Reserve ratio of 10% or 9:1). This process in turn continuous in an virtually infinite series, the result of which is the creation of close to $100,000, from the initial investment of $1111.12. This example shows the true extent of debt money that is put into existence, where the first question that comes to the head is how does the money to pay off all the interest come from then? If the banks have provided society with a total amount of debt worth $100,000, then the amount money that is owe’d back is $120,000 with the $20,000 of interest on the loan. Where can that money come from? Well the only answer is again more debt to pay off the interest from the previous part of the loan, thus making this system possible under two conditions: increasingly mounting total debt and continuously growing GDP, both being needed to prevent this system to collapse. The first condition explains the rise of the US government national debt of more then $9 trillion, and the latter explains the continuous inexhaustible drive to GDP growth – GDP growth that is in the end fueled by an increased consumption of our national resources. The scary part is that due to the GDP growth being a non-linear function as each next increase in GDP requires more then the previous one, the rate at which this degradation takes place only increases.

The current financial system which we have set up within the capitalist world, is unfortunately one that in the long run is not sustainable. Unfortunately, the only thing keeping us from financial collapse of the system is the continued increase in the Goods and Services that we produce. How do we get out of this loop is an immense question, and the solution to which will in the end help us find the path to a sustainable environmental future as well. There is no set solution to this problem yet, but it no doubt will require significant changes to both our mentality and our lifestyle, as well as intervention with regulations from the government.

- Andrei Ryan 19/05/08

Can I please have some comment on the impact of domestic pets. I took the ecological footprint – came in at 4.2 planets (sad to say – but flyings bad), but there was no impact given to domestic pets – who fart copious amounts of methane (at least in my home), eat meat almost daily, and are a waste (yes, unless they are doing something meaninful, like stopping the house getting burgled, rather than rolling over for a tummy rub, they are a waste).
In terms of waste – the domestic pet industry is a huge growing industry in the billions – much of it pointless and again, showing the excess and watse of the developed world.
I understand they have some medicinal benefits – assign one to each hospital and school. But if people weren’t obese to start with, they wouldn’t need an excuse to own a pet- plus pet owners are a mixed bag – notice how they resemble the owners in looks and weight.
It might sound harsh – but surely I’m not alone in my views that domestic pets should be curtailed. Far better off having pets of local threatened wildlife that have had their forests destroyed by our greed, than another dog or cat.

http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/greenview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9497272
Following a publication on the Economist web site, I’d like to comment on the fact that, according to the recent HSBC poll, people from the rich countries are less concerned of the damaging environmental effects than the people from the poor countries. Complexity of the economic system of a developed nation provides a stronger safety net to allow to mitigate or delay effects of environmental impacts, to redistribute negative implications through complex and interdependant economy. In the poor countries, where economies are often fully dependant on limited number of main industries, any environmental negative impacts are realized in much faster and more direct ways. In terms of specific examples, a drought (caused by global warming) in Canada will not bring such a devastating negative effects on national economy, as compared to Ecuador, where the main GDP component is agriculture. People in poor countries fully realize their dependancy on environmental and therefore, voice their concerns more actively.