Matt McGrath
Reportero de Medio Ambiente de la BBC
Traducción: Guillermo F. Guzmán L.
Se esperan más malas noticias sobre cambio climático al reunirse más de 2,000 científicos en Copenhague.
Tratarán de reunir las investigaciones más recientes sobre cambio climático en anticipación a las negociaciones políticas que se llevarán a cabo más adelante este mismo año.
A los científicos les preocupa que los reportes de 2007 del Panel Intergubernamental sobre Cambio Climático (PICC) ya no estén al día.
Los datos estadísticos que tienen apuntan hacia un mayor incremento del nivel del mar en este siglo.
Para los científicos reunidos en la capital danesa, esta reunión se trata de no dejar lugar para rodeos en las negociaciones políticas para un nuevo tratado global sobre cambio climático que se llevarán a cabo en diciembre.
Aunque los reportes del PICC de 2007 fueron elogiados por reconocer las causas del calentamiento global, la naturaleza lenta y basada en consenso del proceso hizo que no se incluyeran datos más recientes.
Mayor claridad
Pero al realizarse esta reunión fuera del PICC, se tendrán las estimaciones más recientes, y los científicos no necesitarán ponerse de acuerdo con los superiores políticos sobre cada palabra.
Se espera que este ambiente sin restricciones produzca mayor claridad sobre la escala de algunas de las tendencias más preocupantes, especialmente el incremento del nivel del mar.
El PICC es muy criticado por declarar que el incremento del nivel del mar en este siglo solo será de 59 cm. (23 pulg.)
Los datos más recientes, que serán presentados en esta reunión, arrojan una cifra mucho más alta, con implicaciones dramáticas para muchas naciones insulares y regiones costeras.
La reunión es organizada por la Universidad de Copenhague. Su rector, Lykke Friis, dijo que los científicos presentarán la información más reciente y clara, de tal forma que los líderes políticos no tendrán la excusa de que se necesita más investigación para poder llegar a un acuerdo.
Además de escuchar a los científicos, la reunión también tratará los impactos sociales y económicos del incremento global de la temperatura.
miércoles, 11 de marzo de 2009
miércoles, 10 de diciembre de 2008
Japan sells Icelandic whale meat / Japón vende carne islandesa de ballena
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC news website
Whale meat imported from Iceland and Norway has gone on sale in Japan, according to the Icelandic firm which caught and exported most of the meat.
Hvalur hf told BBC News that after completing food safety checks, the meat was now being distributed.
The consignment is Iceland's first whale export to Japan in 20 years.
The trade is legal because all three countries have registered exemptions to rules banning international trade in whale products.
There were unconfirmed reports last weekend that the meat was on sale, but this is the first official notification.
Some environmental groups fear that Iceland and Norway want to step up whale meat exports to Japan, which is seen as having the biggest potential market.
The present consignment consists of 65 tonnes of fin whale meat caught by Hvalur hf, and five tonnes of minke whale meat exported by the Norwegian company Myklebust Trading.
It arrived in Tokyo in June, received an import permit last month, and has now been given a clean bill of health.
"The meat has now cleared customs in Japan after undergoing very rigorous testing to ensure that it meets every aspect of Japan's food safety regulations," said Hvalur's CEO Kristjan Loftsson.
"We were always confident that this would be the case. It was only a question of time, as Japan is legally obliged to handle whale meat imports in the same way as any other seafood."
Profit warning
Mr Loftsson, whose company is the only one in Iceland equipped to hunt fin whales - the second biggest species - told BBC News that this export was designed to re-introduce fin meat to Japanese palates.
It is considered one of the tastiest varieties, but has largely been absent from the market in recent years, as Japan's own hunts excluded the species until the 2005/6 Antarctic season.
Mr Loftsson said that if the market permitted, he could eventually hunt as many fin whales as Icelandic scientists recommended - provided the government granted a quota, which is likely if there is a proven market.
Although the fin is internationally classified as an endangered species, estimates of the north Atlantic stock run to about 30,000, and Icelandic scientists recently suggested that an annual catch of 200 would not damage the local stock.
But Arni Finnsson of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) believes the market may not be as welcoming as the exporters hope.
"I don't believe there will ever be a market in Japan for Icelandic meat that can be profitable," he said.
"If they allow it from Iceland, they have to allow it from Norway, and then you could have thousands of minke whales flooding the market - it's impossible."
He believes the export is a political move designed to show the coalition government - which is divided on the issue - that whaling can be a profitable venture, generating jobs at a time when the country is in dire economic straits.
He also believes Hvalur has an interest in scuppering the "peace progress" within the International Whaling Commission which is exploring whether pro- and anti-whaling countries can find a compromise between their very different positions.
The next meeting in the process takes place next week in Cambridge.
The whale meat trade is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but Iceland, Japan and Norway have all registered reservations, as the treaty permits, exempting themselves from the ban.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
THE LEGALITIES OF WHALING
Under the global moratorium on commercial whaling, hunting is conducted in three ways:
Objection - A country formally objects to the IWC moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway
Scientific - A nation issues unilateral 'scientific permits'; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan
Aboriginal - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat
Environment correspondent, BBC news website
Whale meat imported from Iceland and Norway has gone on sale in Japan, according to the Icelandic firm which caught and exported most of the meat.
Hvalur hf told BBC News that after completing food safety checks, the meat was now being distributed.
The consignment is Iceland's first whale export to Japan in 20 years.
The trade is legal because all three countries have registered exemptions to rules banning international trade in whale products.
There were unconfirmed reports last weekend that the meat was on sale, but this is the first official notification.
Some environmental groups fear that Iceland and Norway want to step up whale meat exports to Japan, which is seen as having the biggest potential market.
The present consignment consists of 65 tonnes of fin whale meat caught by Hvalur hf, and five tonnes of minke whale meat exported by the Norwegian company Myklebust Trading.
It arrived in Tokyo in June, received an import permit last month, and has now been given a clean bill of health.
"The meat has now cleared customs in Japan after undergoing very rigorous testing to ensure that it meets every aspect of Japan's food safety regulations," said Hvalur's CEO Kristjan Loftsson.
"We were always confident that this would be the case. It was only a question of time, as Japan is legally obliged to handle whale meat imports in the same way as any other seafood."
Profit warning
Mr Loftsson, whose company is the only one in Iceland equipped to hunt fin whales - the second biggest species - told BBC News that this export was designed to re-introduce fin meat to Japanese palates.
It is considered one of the tastiest varieties, but has largely been absent from the market in recent years, as Japan's own hunts excluded the species until the 2005/6 Antarctic season.
Mr Loftsson said that if the market permitted, he could eventually hunt as many fin whales as Icelandic scientists recommended - provided the government granted a quota, which is likely if there is a proven market.
Although the fin is internationally classified as an endangered species, estimates of the north Atlantic stock run to about 30,000, and Icelandic scientists recently suggested that an annual catch of 200 would not damage the local stock.
But Arni Finnsson of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) believes the market may not be as welcoming as the exporters hope.
"I don't believe there will ever be a market in Japan for Icelandic meat that can be profitable," he said.
"If they allow it from Iceland, they have to allow it from Norway, and then you could have thousands of minke whales flooding the market - it's impossible."
He believes the export is a political move designed to show the coalition government - which is divided on the issue - that whaling can be a profitable venture, generating jobs at a time when the country is in dire economic straits.
He also believes Hvalur has an interest in scuppering the "peace progress" within the International Whaling Commission which is exploring whether pro- and anti-whaling countries can find a compromise between their very different positions.
The next meeting in the process takes place next week in Cambridge.
The whale meat trade is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), but Iceland, Japan and Norway have all registered reservations, as the treaty permits, exempting themselves from the ban.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
THE LEGALITIES OF WHALING
Under the global moratorium on commercial whaling, hunting is conducted in three ways:
Objection - A country formally objects to the IWC moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway
Scientific - A nation issues unilateral 'scientific permits'; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan
Aboriginal - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat
World Bank predicts global gloom / El Banco Mundial predice desaceleración global
The World Bank has forecast a significant decline in global economic growth in 2009 for both developed and emerging countries.
In a report assessing economic prospects, the Bank has predicted that the world's annual economic growth will slow to 0.9%, from 2.5% this year.
The rate of growth for emerging economies is expected to be around 4.5%, down from 7.9% in 2007.
The Bank said a deep global recession could not be ruled out.
And its forecast suggests that, on a per capita basis, world growth would be negative in 2009.
"Following the insolvency of a large number of banks and financial institutions... capital flows to developing countries have dried up and huge amounts of market capitalisation have evaporated," the bank said.
The World Bank has warned that some emerging economies are likely to face serious challenges, including bank failures and currency crises, even if global bail-out plans start restoring confidence in financial markets.
The Bank's chief economist, Justin Lin, said the financial crisis "has eased tensions in commodity markets, but is testing banking systems and threatening job losses around the world".
t also warns that capital flows to developing countries are shrinking fast, reducing the level of investment, while the slowdown in world trade is likely to cut into their export markets.
Regional impacts
Even the fast-growing emerging giants, India and China, are likely to suffer from the slowdown. The World Bank projects China's growth to slow from 11.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2009, while India's growth prospects will be cut from 9% to 5.8%.
The impact of falling commodity prices has been positive for around half of developing countries.
In response to the global downturn, the World Bank is increasing its support for developing countries by helping local banks recapitalise and providing aid for infrastructure projects.
Despite the current crisis, the Bank says that the long-term growth prospects for developing countries remain strong, and this will lead to substantial reduction in world poverty rates by 2015, with just 15% of people living on less than $1.25 per day, compared to 25% in 2005.
However, it warns that severe poverty in sub-Saharan Africa will fall less quickly, with 37% still living on $1.25 per day by 2015.
In a report assessing economic prospects, the Bank has predicted that the world's annual economic growth will slow to 0.9%, from 2.5% this year.
The rate of growth for emerging economies is expected to be around 4.5%, down from 7.9% in 2007.
The Bank said a deep global recession could not be ruled out.
And its forecast suggests that, on a per capita basis, world growth would be negative in 2009.
"Following the insolvency of a large number of banks and financial institutions... capital flows to developing countries have dried up and huge amounts of market capitalisation have evaporated," the bank said.
The World Bank has warned that some emerging economies are likely to face serious challenges, including bank failures and currency crises, even if global bail-out plans start restoring confidence in financial markets.
The Bank's chief economist, Justin Lin, said the financial crisis "has eased tensions in commodity markets, but is testing banking systems and threatening job losses around the world".
t also warns that capital flows to developing countries are shrinking fast, reducing the level of investment, while the slowdown in world trade is likely to cut into their export markets.
Regional impacts
Even the fast-growing emerging giants, India and China, are likely to suffer from the slowdown. The World Bank projects China's growth to slow from 11.9% in 2007 to 7.5% in 2009, while India's growth prospects will be cut from 9% to 5.8%.
The impact of falling commodity prices has been positive for around half of developing countries.
In response to the global downturn, the World Bank is increasing its support for developing countries by helping local banks recapitalise and providing aid for infrastructure projects.
Despite the current crisis, the Bank says that the long-term growth prospects for developing countries remain strong, and this will lead to substantial reduction in world poverty rates by 2015, with just 15% of people living on less than $1.25 per day, compared to 25% in 2005.
However, it warns that severe poverty in sub-Saharan Africa will fall less quickly, with 37% still living on $1.25 per day by 2015.
Poor countries 'need carbon cuts' / Paises pobres 'necesitan disminuir sus emisiones de carbono'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Poznan, Poland
People in developing countries will need to make big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if "dangerous" climate change is to be avoided, a report warns.
Researchers at the Third World Network calculate that even if rich nations make deep cuts, the developing world will face per-capita reductions of 60%.
It suggests this would pose challenges to these countries' development.
Meanwhile, another report warns that current proposals for cutting developed world emissions do not go far enough.
The Global Climate Network, an alliance of research groups, says that current pledges by the EU and by US President-elect Barack Obama will not put the world on track to halving emissions by 2050.
Both reports have been under discussion here at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Poznan, Poland.
Growth curve
"The figures are very grim," said Martin Khor, director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network.
"They're grim if we go for a 50% [global] cut by 2050, and we may need more - I think we only went for a 50% figure so as not to scare politicians."
Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to a 1990 baseline) would mean that they are unlikely to rise more than 2.5C above the pre-industrial average, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further IPCC analyses suggest this would avoid some of the most serious potential climate impacts.
The leaders of the G8 major industrialised nations endorsed the global target at their summit this year in Japan.
A number of countries, including the UK, want to keep their own emissions in 2050 80% below the 1990 baseline.
If the entire industrialised world took on this commitment, the Third World Network calculates, developing nations would have to cut their emissions by 23% in order for the world to hit its 50% target.
But because the populations of developing countries are growing, this 23% figure translates to a per-capita cut of 60%.
If the developing world made a more modest commitment, to keep its per-capita emissions constant at 1990 levels, population growth would still mean that the total emissions from these countries would double by 2050, scuppering any chance of a global 50% cut.
Although some developing countries have established plans for improving energy efficiency and curbing the rate at which their emissions are rising, there is no appetite within the bloc for an actual cut, and industrialised nations are not pressing them to take on firm targets.
Without such a commitment, this report suggests, there is little chance of avoiding temperature rises that are likely to bring major impacts, if the IPCC is right.
Cooking up
Ewah Eleri, executive director of the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, said there were some obvious easy ways for the poorest developing countries to reduce emissions.
One would be to replace traditional open wood-burning stoves with more efficient models.
"Being able to introduce efficient wood stoves is not rocket science," he told BBC News.
"But it holds a lot of promise in terms of reducing the health hazard to men, women and children who work in the kitchen."
Making the switch across Nigeria could probably reduce the country's emissions by 20-30%.
Globally, he said, about two billion people use wood as their primary fuel; and switching them all to locally-made efficient stoves would cost about $6bn.
Mr Eleri said that although developing countries could do more, the lead has to be taken by the West.
The EU has staked a claim to that lead by vowing to cut its emissions by 20% by 2020, or by 30% if there is a global deal.
Mr Obama has proposed a more modest goal - bringing US emissions down by 2020 to the level they were at in 1990.
The analysis by the Global Climate Network suggests these pledges are not enough to halve global emissions by 2050, even if they are implemented.
There is, it says, a "mitigation gap".
"We have got to unlock emissions growth in developing countries," said the organisation's co-ordinator Andrew Pendleton, who is based at the Institute for Public and Policy Research (IPPR) in London.
"But we have got to find an equitable way of doing that."
The clear message from putting these two reports together was, he said, that richer nations will have to get finance and clean technology into the developing world if they want to turn the goal of a 50% cut into reality.rii
Environment correspondent, BBC News, Poznan, Poland
People in developing countries will need to make big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions if "dangerous" climate change is to be avoided, a report warns.
Researchers at the Third World Network calculate that even if rich nations make deep cuts, the developing world will face per-capita reductions of 60%.
It suggests this would pose challenges to these countries' development.
Meanwhile, another report warns that current proposals for cutting developed world emissions do not go far enough.
The Global Climate Network, an alliance of research groups, says that current pledges by the EU and by US President-elect Barack Obama will not put the world on track to halving emissions by 2050.
Both reports have been under discussion here at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Poznan, Poland.
Growth curve
"The figures are very grim," said Martin Khor, director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network.
"They're grim if we go for a 50% [global] cut by 2050, and we may need more - I think we only went for a 50% figure so as not to scare politicians."
Halving global emissions by 2050 (relative to a 1990 baseline) would mean that they are unlikely to rise more than 2.5C above the pre-industrial average, according to calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Further IPCC analyses suggest this would avoid some of the most serious potential climate impacts.
The leaders of the G8 major industrialised nations endorsed the global target at their summit this year in Japan.
A number of countries, including the UK, want to keep their own emissions in 2050 80% below the 1990 baseline.
If the entire industrialised world took on this commitment, the Third World Network calculates, developing nations would have to cut their emissions by 23% in order for the world to hit its 50% target.
But because the populations of developing countries are growing, this 23% figure translates to a per-capita cut of 60%.
If the developing world made a more modest commitment, to keep its per-capita emissions constant at 1990 levels, population growth would still mean that the total emissions from these countries would double by 2050, scuppering any chance of a global 50% cut.
Although some developing countries have established plans for improving energy efficiency and curbing the rate at which their emissions are rising, there is no appetite within the bloc for an actual cut, and industrialised nations are not pressing them to take on firm targets.
Without such a commitment, this report suggests, there is little chance of avoiding temperature rises that are likely to bring major impacts, if the IPCC is right.
Cooking up
Ewah Eleri, executive director of the International Centre for Energy, Environment and Development based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, said there were some obvious easy ways for the poorest developing countries to reduce emissions.
One would be to replace traditional open wood-burning stoves with more efficient models.
"Being able to introduce efficient wood stoves is not rocket science," he told BBC News.
"But it holds a lot of promise in terms of reducing the health hazard to men, women and children who work in the kitchen."
Making the switch across Nigeria could probably reduce the country's emissions by 20-30%.
Globally, he said, about two billion people use wood as their primary fuel; and switching them all to locally-made efficient stoves would cost about $6bn.
Mr Eleri said that although developing countries could do more, the lead has to be taken by the West.
The EU has staked a claim to that lead by vowing to cut its emissions by 20% by 2020, or by 30% if there is a global deal.
Mr Obama has proposed a more modest goal - bringing US emissions down by 2020 to the level they were at in 1990.
The analysis by the Global Climate Network suggests these pledges are not enough to halve global emissions by 2050, even if they are implemented.
There is, it says, a "mitigation gap".
"We have got to unlock emissions growth in developing countries," said the organisation's co-ordinator Andrew Pendleton, who is based at the Institute for Public and Policy Research (IPPR) in London.
"But we have got to find an equitable way of doing that."
The clear message from putting these two reports together was, he said, that richer nations will have to get finance and clean technology into the developing world if they want to turn the goal of a 50% cut into reality.rii
lunes, 11 de agosto de 2008
Feeling the heat of food security / Sintiendo el calor de la seguridad alimentaria
VIEWPOINT
Peter Baker
Reforming the economics of food production and supply would be beneficial for a number of environmental and social problems, argues Peter Baker. A key issue, he says, is understanding the energy involved in putting food on your plate.
Global development, global debt, global warming, food miles, food security, food riots, peak oil, peak water…
What's this got to do with small farmers and global food chains?
The answer is that all the issues mentioned above intersect over small farmers.
If we can't quite get a grip on what is happening to the world, we won't be able to do a good job for them, and we'll waste a lot of resources in the process.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to assist farmers to build a better life by adding value.
It's also perfectly reasonable to expect their produce to be fresh and non-toxic. And it's only natural to want to facilitate this process through aid, technical assistance, capacity building and the like.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maintaining order
I had originally planned to call this article Supermarkets, Smallholders and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law is about order; the Universe is inexorably heading to increased randomness and disorder.
For practical purposes, this does not have to be a problem because we can increase order locally by hard work, by expending energy. But in the process we create greater disorder (heat and waste) elsewhere.
If there is plenty of energy and plenty of "elsewhere", then we don't have to worry.
Indeed, for our whole existence, we largely haven't worried; in fact the whole world order, built on trade and economics, hasn't worried.
Biological systems know all about thermodynamics. All living things are highly ordered assemblies of molecules continuously battling against disorder.
Commodity chains must also obey the Second Law; in a sense, they are living things, creating highly ordered products and emitting significant waste and heat in the process.
For example, a recent study looking at Nicaraguan coffee production and processing showed that the total energy embodied in coffee exported to several countries - though not all - was not compensated by the dollar price paid for that energy.
Essentially, the conclusion was that the country is exporting subsidised energy.
It could well be that coffee is still the best way for farmers to earn a living and that the available energy could not readily be put to a better purpose. But it should at least make a country's decision-makers wonder about the long term policy, the true value of exported products and how sustainable a country's commodity chains will be in an energetically expensive future.
Look too at a modern high value vegetable chain. The orderliness required to plant, grow, harvest, process, pack, store, monitor, administer, transport, display and sell the produce in a supermarket is simply staggering, and the expended energy intense.
As an example, tomato production in the US consumes four times as many calories as the calorific value of the tomatoes created.
The point of this article may now be apparent. We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand.
Waste of energy
This is not a tirade about supermarkets; no one is forcing farmers into these chains. Indeed, the retail sector has only done its job: ordering and quantifying according to its own criteria, to a state of near optimal efficiency.
It's just that the rest of us have not been able to match its brilliance.
And it's not about food miles. The argument about the cost to the environment versus the gains to poor rural farmers has its pros and cons.
Instead, it's about different sorts of sustainability and the clash of very different interests.
The economic argument, revealed through agribusiness plans, may well be very strong. But these are inevitably rather short-term positions, and the funds invested may be hedged for exchange rate changes, freight costs and other risks.
When these are just stand-alone business operations then we could leave it at that - they invest their money and take their chances.
But it's no longer a matter of a few agribusiness operations in a few developing countries. With the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements now being signed, for instance, countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are on course to completely open their borders to food trade, and will be encouraged to export whatever products they can to the EU.
Foreign investment will descend on certain countries and will look for good deals on infrastructure. Politicians there may feel obliged to provide subsidised water, road and other infrastructure to secure new export initiatives, and they in turn will look for donor support to carry them through.
Trade departments of development banks and other donors will examine the short-to-medium-term economic argument, but may not adequately determine whether this is sustainable into the long term.
Hence, before significant public funds are assigned to this end, we must do our utmost to ensure they are well spent.
Thinking locally
Getting back to the Second Law; agribusiness operations in under-developed countries are highly ordered physical and information entities producing products with high embodied energy.
They exist in a landscape of increasing disorder caused by growing populations and a degrading environment.
Trucks carrying away the produce along bumpy rural roads sometimes pass food aid trucks coming in the opposite direction. For example, some $45m (£22.5m) of food aid came from the US to Kenya last year.
Even before its sea voyage, the calorific value of US wheat is only twice the amount of calories expended to produce it. Compare this with cassava production in Tanzania where 23 times the calorific value is gained for each calorie of human energy input.
Is it energetically sound, socially advisable and economically sensible in the long term to encourage and sustain such long two-way supply chains that evolved in a low-cost energy era?
CARE International has recently declined the food aid it gets for Kenya, suggesting that it is distorting local agriculture. Are they right? How can they and donors make the right decisions?
Could it be more sustainable and cost effective for donors to pay farmers a "fair" price to develop food production for local markets - based on costs of fuel, importing food, the risk of the supply chain collapsing or moving to another country, and so on?
There are many possibilities and a large number of variables, but the most important is to find out how close to the margins of impossibility any business plan might approach.
Surely at some point, let's say between $50 and $500 per barrel of oil, it no longer makes any sense to simultaneously export and import food high in embodied energy.
But we simply lack the user-friendly models and metrics that decision-makers need to calculate such figures and project them into the future.
So private standards are fine; but there should be public standards too, or at least a set of criteria based on the most fundamental laws of physics and biology, before significant public funds are spent.
Dr Peter Baker is a commodities development specialist at CABI, a not-for-profit agricultural research organisation.
Peter Baker
Reforming the economics of food production and supply would be beneficial for a number of environmental and social problems, argues Peter Baker. A key issue, he says, is understanding the energy involved in putting food on your plate.
Global development, global debt, global warming, food miles, food security, food riots, peak oil, peak water…
What's this got to do with small farmers and global food chains?
The answer is that all the issues mentioned above intersect over small farmers.
If we can't quite get a grip on what is happening to the world, we won't be able to do a good job for them, and we'll waste a lot of resources in the process.
It's perfectly reasonable to want to assist farmers to build a better life by adding value.
It's also perfectly reasonable to expect their produce to be fresh and non-toxic. And it's only natural to want to facilitate this process through aid, technical assistance, capacity building and the like.
But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Maintaining order
I had originally planned to call this article Supermarkets, Smallholders and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law is about order; the Universe is inexorably heading to increased randomness and disorder.
For practical purposes, this does not have to be a problem because we can increase order locally by hard work, by expending energy. But in the process we create greater disorder (heat and waste) elsewhere.
If there is plenty of energy and plenty of "elsewhere", then we don't have to worry.
Indeed, for our whole existence, we largely haven't worried; in fact the whole world order, built on trade and economics, hasn't worried.
Biological systems know all about thermodynamics. All living things are highly ordered assemblies of molecules continuously battling against disorder.
Commodity chains must also obey the Second Law; in a sense, they are living things, creating highly ordered products and emitting significant waste and heat in the process.
For example, a recent study looking at Nicaraguan coffee production and processing showed that the total energy embodied in coffee exported to several countries - though not all - was not compensated by the dollar price paid for that energy.
Essentially, the conclusion was that the country is exporting subsidised energy.
It could well be that coffee is still the best way for farmers to earn a living and that the available energy could not readily be put to a better purpose. But it should at least make a country's decision-makers wonder about the long term policy, the true value of exported products and how sustainable a country's commodity chains will be in an energetically expensive future.
Look too at a modern high value vegetable chain. The orderliness required to plant, grow, harvest, process, pack, store, monitor, administer, transport, display and sell the produce in a supermarket is simply staggering, and the expended energy intense.
As an example, tomato production in the US consumes four times as many calories as the calorific value of the tomatoes created.
The point of this article may now be apparent. We are intervening, politically and normatively, in very complex systems that we only partially understand.
Waste of energy
This is not a tirade about supermarkets; no one is forcing farmers into these chains. Indeed, the retail sector has only done its job: ordering and quantifying according to its own criteria, to a state of near optimal efficiency.
It's just that the rest of us have not been able to match its brilliance.
And it's not about food miles. The argument about the cost to the environment versus the gains to poor rural farmers has its pros and cons.
Instead, it's about different sorts of sustainability and the clash of very different interests.
The economic argument, revealed through agribusiness plans, may well be very strong. But these are inevitably rather short-term positions, and the funds invested may be hedged for exchange rate changes, freight costs and other risks.
When these are just stand-alone business operations then we could leave it at that - they invest their money and take their chances.
But it's no longer a matter of a few agribusiness operations in a few developing countries. With the EU's Economic Partnership Agreements now being signed, for instance, countries in the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group are on course to completely open their borders to food trade, and will be encouraged to export whatever products they can to the EU.
Foreign investment will descend on certain countries and will look for good deals on infrastructure. Politicians there may feel obliged to provide subsidised water, road and other infrastructure to secure new export initiatives, and they in turn will look for donor support to carry them through.
Trade departments of development banks and other donors will examine the short-to-medium-term economic argument, but may not adequately determine whether this is sustainable into the long term.
Hence, before significant public funds are assigned to this end, we must do our utmost to ensure they are well spent.
Thinking locally
Getting back to the Second Law; agribusiness operations in under-developed countries are highly ordered physical and information entities producing products with high embodied energy.
They exist in a landscape of increasing disorder caused by growing populations and a degrading environment.
Trucks carrying away the produce along bumpy rural roads sometimes pass food aid trucks coming in the opposite direction. For example, some $45m (£22.5m) of food aid came from the US to Kenya last year.
Even before its sea voyage, the calorific value of US wheat is only twice the amount of calories expended to produce it. Compare this with cassava production in Tanzania where 23 times the calorific value is gained for each calorie of human energy input.
Is it energetically sound, socially advisable and economically sensible in the long term to encourage and sustain such long two-way supply chains that evolved in a low-cost energy era?
CARE International has recently declined the food aid it gets for Kenya, suggesting that it is distorting local agriculture. Are they right? How can they and donors make the right decisions?
Could it be more sustainable and cost effective for donors to pay farmers a "fair" price to develop food production for local markets - based on costs of fuel, importing food, the risk of the supply chain collapsing or moving to another country, and so on?
There are many possibilities and a large number of variables, but the most important is to find out how close to the margins of impossibility any business plan might approach.
Surely at some point, let's say between $50 and $500 per barrel of oil, it no longer makes any sense to simultaneously export and import food high in embodied energy.
But we simply lack the user-friendly models and metrics that decision-makers need to calculate such figures and project them into the future.
So private standards are fine; but there should be public standards too, or at least a set of criteria based on the most fundamental laws of physics and biology, before significant public funds are spent.
Dr Peter Baker is a commodities development specialist at CABI, a not-for-profit agricultural research organisation.
martes, 5 de agosto de 2008
Primates 'face extinction crisis' / Primates 'ante crisis de extinción'
Primates 'face extinction crisis'
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
A global review of the world's primates says 48% of species face extinction, an outlook described as "depressing" by conservationists.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says the main threat is habitat loss, primarily through the burning and clearing of tropical forests.
More than 70% of primates in Asia are now listed as Endangered, it adds.
The findings form part of the most detailed survey of the Earth's mammals, which will be published in October.
Other threats include hunting of primates for food and the illegal wildlife trade, explained Russell Mittermeier, chairman of the IUCN Primate Specialist Group and president of Conservation International.
"In many places, primates are quite literally being eaten to extinction," he warned.
"Tropical forest destruction has always been the main cause, but now it appears that hunting is just as serious a threat in some areas, even where the habitat is still quite intact."
The survey, involving hundreds of experts, showed that out of 634 recognised species and subspecies, 11% were Critically Endangered, 22% were Endangered, while a further 15% were listed as Vulnerable.
Asia had the greatest proportion of threatened primates, with 71% considered at risk of extinction. The five nations with the highest percentage of endangered species were all within Asia.
'Depressing' picture
"It is quite spectacular; we are just wiping out primates," said Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN Species Programme.
He added that the data was probably the worst assessment for any group of species on record.
"The problem with these species is that they have long lives, so it takes time to reverse the decline. It is quite depressing."
Although habitat loss and deforestation were deemed to be the main threats globally, Dr Vie explained how human encroachment into forests was also creating favourable conditions for hunters.
"This creates access, allowing people to go to places that they could not go in the past," he told BBC News.
"Primates are relatively easy to hunt because they are diurnal, live in groups and are noisy - they are really easy targets.
"Many of the Asian primates, like langurs, are 5-10kg, so they are a good target. Generally, you find that what is big and easy to get disappears very quickly."
In Africa, 11 of the 13 kinds of red colobus monkeys assessed were listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered.
Conservationists fear that two may already be extinct. The Bouvier's red colobus has not been seen for 25 years, and no living Miss Waldron red colobus has been recorded since 1978.
The authors of the primate Red List did consider downlisting mountain gorillas to Endangered from Critically Endangered because the great apes had recorded a population increase.
But they decided to delay reclassification as a result of five of the gorillas being killed in July 2007 by gunmen in the DR Congo's Virunga National Park, which is still at the centre of a conflict between rebel forces and government troops.
During 2007, wildlife rangers in the park recorded a total of 10 gorilla killings. The rangers have been documenting their struggles in a regular diary on the BBC News website over the past year.
"If you kill seven, 10 or 20 mountain gorillas, it has a devastating impact on the entire population," Dr Vie explained.
"Within the Red List criteria, you are allowed to anticipate what will happen in the future as well as look at what has happened in the past.
"So it was decided not to change the mountain gorillas' listing because of the sudden deaths, and we do not know when it is going to stop."
Golden glimmer of hope
Despite the gloomy outlook, the Red List did record a number of conservation successes.
Brazil's populations of golden lion tamarins and black lion tamarins were downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
"It is the result of decades of effort," said Dr Vie. "The lion tamarins were almost extinct in the wild, but they were very popular in zoos so there was a large captive population.
"So zoos around the world decided to join forces to introduce a captive breeding programme to reintroduce the tamarins in Brazil."
However the first attempts were not successful and the released population quickly crashed because the animals were ill-prepared for life in the wild, he recalled.
"They were not exposed to eagles or snakes and they did not know how to find food, so a lot of them died. But some did survive and, slowly, the numbers began to increase."
Ultimately, the success was a combination of ex-situ conservation in zoos and in-situ conservation by protecting and reforesting small areas around Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.
"It took time, money and effort at all levels, from the politicians to scientists and volunteers on the ground, for just two species."
The findings, issued at the International Primatological Society Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, will be included in a survey described as an "unprecedented examination of the state of the world's mammals", which will be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October.
By Mark Kinver
Science and nature reporter, BBC News
A global review of the world's primates says 48% of species face extinction, an outlook described as "depressing" by conservationists.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species says the main threat is habitat loss, primarily through the burning and clearing of tropical forests.
More than 70% of primates in Asia are now listed as Endangered, it adds.
The findings form part of the most detailed survey of the Earth's mammals, which will be published in October.
Other threats include hunting of primates for food and the illegal wildlife trade, explained Russell Mittermeier, chairman of the IUCN Primate Specialist Group and president of Conservation International.
"In many places, primates are quite literally being eaten to extinction," he warned.
"Tropical forest destruction has always been the main cause, but now it appears that hunting is just as serious a threat in some areas, even where the habitat is still quite intact."
The survey, involving hundreds of experts, showed that out of 634 recognised species and subspecies, 11% were Critically Endangered, 22% were Endangered, while a further 15% were listed as Vulnerable.
Asia had the greatest proportion of threatened primates, with 71% considered at risk of extinction. The five nations with the highest percentage of endangered species were all within Asia.
'Depressing' picture
"It is quite spectacular; we are just wiping out primates," said Jean-Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN Species Programme.
He added that the data was probably the worst assessment for any group of species on record.
"The problem with these species is that they have long lives, so it takes time to reverse the decline. It is quite depressing."
Although habitat loss and deforestation were deemed to be the main threats globally, Dr Vie explained how human encroachment into forests was also creating favourable conditions for hunters.
"This creates access, allowing people to go to places that they could not go in the past," he told BBC News.
"Primates are relatively easy to hunt because they are diurnal, live in groups and are noisy - they are really easy targets.
"Many of the Asian primates, like langurs, are 5-10kg, so they are a good target. Generally, you find that what is big and easy to get disappears very quickly."
In Africa, 11 of the 13 kinds of red colobus monkeys assessed were listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered.
Conservationists fear that two may already be extinct. The Bouvier's red colobus has not been seen for 25 years, and no living Miss Waldron red colobus has been recorded since 1978.
The authors of the primate Red List did consider downlisting mountain gorillas to Endangered from Critically Endangered because the great apes had recorded a population increase.
But they decided to delay reclassification as a result of five of the gorillas being killed in July 2007 by gunmen in the DR Congo's Virunga National Park, which is still at the centre of a conflict between rebel forces and government troops.
During 2007, wildlife rangers in the park recorded a total of 10 gorilla killings. The rangers have been documenting their struggles in a regular diary on the BBC News website over the past year.
"If you kill seven, 10 or 20 mountain gorillas, it has a devastating impact on the entire population," Dr Vie explained.
"Within the Red List criteria, you are allowed to anticipate what will happen in the future as well as look at what has happened in the past.
"So it was decided not to change the mountain gorillas' listing because of the sudden deaths, and we do not know when it is going to stop."
Golden glimmer of hope
Despite the gloomy outlook, the Red List did record a number of conservation successes.
Brazil's populations of golden lion tamarins and black lion tamarins were downlisted from Critically Endangered to Endangered.
"It is the result of decades of effort," said Dr Vie. "The lion tamarins were almost extinct in the wild, but they were very popular in zoos so there was a large captive population.
"So zoos around the world decided to join forces to introduce a captive breeding programme to reintroduce the tamarins in Brazil."
However the first attempts were not successful and the released population quickly crashed because the animals were ill-prepared for life in the wild, he recalled.
"They were not exposed to eagles or snakes and they did not know how to find food, so a lot of them died. But some did survive and, slowly, the numbers began to increase."
Ultimately, the success was a combination of ex-situ conservation in zoos and in-situ conservation by protecting and reforesting small areas around Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo.
"It took time, money and effort at all levels, from the politicians to scientists and volunteers on the ground, for just two species."
The findings, issued at the International Primatological Society Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, will be included in a survey described as an "unprecedented examination of the state of the world's mammals", which will be presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October.
martes, 29 de julio de 2008
World trade talks end in collapse / Negociaciones de comercio mundial terminan en colapso
Marathon talks in Geneva aimed at liberalising global trade have collapsed, the head of the World Trade Organisation has said.
Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".
The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.
The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.
India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.
Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.
Possible solution?
The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.
"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.
"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."
He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.
The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.
However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.
The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.
Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.
Recent complications
Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.
Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.
The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.
Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.
Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.
"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.
'Protecting livelihoods'
Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.
The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".
"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.
But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.
"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.
Pascal Lamy confirmed the failure, which officials have blamed on China, India and the US failing to agree on import rules.
EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said the result was "heartbreaking".
The talks were launched in 2001 in Doha and were seen as providing a cornerstone for future global trade.
The main stumbling block was farm import rules, which allow countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on certain goods in the event of a drop in prices or a surge in imports.
India, China and the US could not agree on the tariff threshold for such an event.
Washington said that the "safeguard clause" protecting developing nations from unrestricted imports had been set too low.
Possible solution?
The negotiations floundered as trade officials gathered for a ninth day.
"There's no use beating around the bush, this meeting has collapsed," Mr Lamy said.
"Members have simply not been able to bridge their differences."
He added that time was needed to determine "if and how" WTO members could end the stalemate.
The Doha development round of trade talks initially started in 2001 with the aim of remedying inequality so that the developing world could benefit more from freer trade.
However, the talks have repeatedly collapsed as developed countries failed to agree with developing nations on terms of access to each others' markets.
The US and the European Union want greater access to provide services to fast-growing emerging countries, including China and India.
Meanwhile, developing countries want greater access for their agricultural products in Europe and the US.
Recent complications
Analysts have said that the collapse of the Doha talks could symbolise an end to multilateral trade agreements.
Instead, nations may pursue dual agreements with partner nations, preferring to focus on their own requirements rather than a more common negotiating goal.
The talks in Geneva were complicated by recent increases in the price of food and fuel.
Higher prices have prompted protests in both developed and developing nations, making it harder for negotiators to reach a compromise on opening up their markets to greater competition, analysts said.
Mr Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, blamed the collapse on a "collective failure" but warned that the "consequences would not be equal", predicting that it would be countries that most needed help that would be hit hardest.
"They [the consequences] will fall disproportionately on those who are most vulnerable in the global economy, those who needed the chances, the opportunities most from a successful trade round." he said.
'Protecting livelihoods'
Trade officials had struck an optimistic tone on Friday, but this evaporated over the weekend amid acrimonious exchanges with the US accusing India and China of blocking progress.
The US said they were being overly protective towards their own farmers and are failing to do enough to open their markets, with US trade representative Susan Schwab calling the stance "blatant protectionism".
"In the face of the global food price crisis, it is ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food," she said.
But India's trade minister, Kamal Nath, who had been criticised by a number of countries for his intransigence said the US demands were unreasonable.
"It's unfortunate in a development round we couldn't run the last mile because of an issue concerning livelihood security," Mr Nath said.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
Entradas
