To reduce its dependence on fossil fuel imports, Central America has embraced alternative energy in recent decades. Non-fossil fuel resources now account for 64.9 percent of electricity capacity in the region. But the largest source of this renewable energy—hydropower—cannot only be considered clean energy. Hydropower accounts for 51.6 percent of the region’s installed power capacity, supplying – with over 20,000 gigawatt-hours per year, more than all other energy sources combined. Although hydropower is “renewable” to the extent that the water resource is regenerated through hydrological and climate cycles, the damming of rivers has major social and environmental impacts.

The 134MW Pirris Hydroelectric Dam in the Southern part of San Jose province, Costa Rica

These impacts are frequently overlooked because hydropower can be one of the least expensive sources of electricity. After relatively high initial upfront costs, there are fewer recurring risks than fossil-fuel based energy. Hydropower also serves an important role in a stable energy supply because it provides baseload power that can be ramped up or down on demand, unlike more variable renewable energy sources such as wind that depend on favorable weather conditions.

Costa Rica currently derives over 90 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, 76 percent of this from hydropower. Political leaders in the country have praised large-scale hydro because of the economic development and energy security benefits it can provide. In 2011, the 134 megawatt (MW) Pirris Dam was brought online to address rising domestic electricity demand and further reduce Costa Rica’s petroleum fuel imports.

Large hydro’s heavy footprint

Proponents of large hydropower often portray the technology as “green.” The evidence, however, suggests a more mixed picture. One report indicates that dammed reservoirs in tropical regions produce as much as 4 percent of total human caused greenhouse gas emissions. The methane released from decomposing organic material in reservoirs would otherwise be stored in carbon sinks such as topsoil, forests, rivers, or oceans. Building hydroelectric facilities also requires large amounts of carbon-intense concrete, steel, and other materials.

In many cases, dams fundamentally change the chemical and mineral composition of a watershed, affecting micro-organisms, plants, insects, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Habitat loss is the leading cause of species extinction worldwide, and in some cases, dams have been responsible. The human caused sixth mass extinction that is now expected to be underway is among the most critical environmental concerns of our era. Conservative estimates are that globally, at least 10,000 species go extinct each year. The protection of ecosystems, including river systems, is a critical challenge facing biodiverse tropical regions such as Central America.

Hydroelectric dams can also result in the displacement of people who occupy land in the flood zone of a reservoir, and can affect the lives of those living downstream by fundamentally changing a river’s natural cycles. In China, dams have displaced millions of people. The world’s largest hydroelectric project, the Three Gorges Dam, displaced 1.2 million people—the residents of three cities, 140 towns, and 1,350 villages.

Opposition to dams in Central America

In Central America, the concerns are similar on a smaller scale. Costa Rica’s El Diquís project has been in the spotlight of controversy since 2006. The proposed 631 MW hydroelectric plant would displace more than 1,500 people and submerge hundreds of kilometers of mangroves and other fragile ecosystems. In March 2011, with legal support from human rights groups, the Terraba indigenous community filed a lawsuit against the Costa Rican state utility, ICE, to protest the project. Concerns and recommendations have also been expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur on indigenous rights.

Also controversial is the proposed 100 MW dam on the Patuca River in Honduras, which has been on the table since 2006. Here too, opponents—including the indigenous Tawahka, Pech, and Miskitu peoples; the Afro-Honduran Garifuna; and human rights organizations such as Cultural Survival— have formed a movement to prevent what would be a series of three dams in the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, one of Central America’s most diverse expanses of wilderness.

In both instances, opponents to the dams have cited the International Labor Organization’s Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as potential environmental impacts. If these projects continue as planned, Costa Rica’s El Diquis dam, the largest hydro facility in Central America, could break ground as soon as 2013 and be commissioned in 2016. Meanwhile, the effects on Honduras’s previously undammed Patuca River are only beginning to be understood through science and by learning from people who have lived along the river for thousands of years.

Small hydropower alternatives

Not all forms of hydroelectricity are as controversial as conventional large dams. For example, some types of small-scale power stations—typically less than 10 MW in capacity—provide an uninterrupted branch of the river that bypasses the dam to enable fish, insects, and other species to navigate the river for spawning and other purposes. Also, some dams are required to turn off their turbines during fish migration. Other dam efforts try to mimic seasonal flow variations that trigger the spawning in fish and natural environmental processes, or they take into account the silt and mineral composition of a healthy flowing river and try to release the same amounts. However, this often proves difficult.

Public opposition has successfully averted proposed hydroelectric dam projects in Central America in the past. In 2001, indigenous and local community protests, as well as assessments of the river’s recreational value, prevented development of a 40 MW facility on the Cangrejal River in Honduras, and plans for the project have been put on hold.

Community activism, legal support, and international attention are pushing countries to look toward alternatives to large hydropower. But the success of other renewable energy options depends on a stable and consistent political framework, effective policy administration, and a financial climate that encourages investment in renewables and the appropriate infrastructure. In Central America, alternatives are gaining ground, and the region is in the position to add up to 130 MW of geothermal energy in 2012. Significant wind power installations also exist in four of the seven countries, although much more could be done to embrace sustainable energy options.

The Worldwatch Institute is currently prioritizing energy planning in Central America that incorporates new and sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. The Institute’s Climate & Energy initiative in Central America is spearheading these efforts in collaboration with the Energy and Environment Partnership of Central America as well as policy and energy experts from the Central American Institute for Business Administration, based in Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

Go to Source

By Isaac Hopkins and Jenny Beth Dyess

According to the United Nations, access to reliable and sufficient sources of energy will be critical to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of reducing poverty and hunger by 2015. Many of the world’s poorest people are rural farmers with no connections to power grids or large-scale energy sources. Most of their day-to-day energy currently comes from the burning of wood and charcoal, practices that contribute to air pollution, deforestation, and the loss of precious time and energy collecting firewood.

A farmer in Nairobi, Kenya displays his home-made fuel briquettes. (Photo Credit: Bernard Pollack)

Today, Nourishing the Planet introduces five sources of renewable energy that are meeting the demands of poor farmers and allowing them to improve their harvests and their lives.

1. Solar Energy: Solar energy is widely harvested in two basic ways. The first is the use of solar panels, which use photovoltaic cells to convert solar radiation directly into electrical current. Such installations are efficient and versatile but have high start-up costs. The second is solar heating, which harnesses the heat of direct sunlight to boil water and cook food, activities which often constitute more than 25 percent of a household’s energy use.

Solar Energy in Action:  The Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) is a non-profit organization that is working in more than 20 countries to install solar energy systems in rural and poor areas. One of their projects is an innovative drip-irrigation system in Benin that is powered by photovoltaics. Farmers are able to grow crops throughout the long dry season, greatly improving their food security, and SELF hopes to provide solar-powered water and lighting for all 44 villages in the district.

Solar Household Energy, Inc. (SHE) provides rural farmers, often women, with solar cookers, called HotPots, and the training to use them effectively. These cookers are less expensive than photovoltaic arrays, and can heat to 250 degrees Fahrenheit, enough to boil beans. Nearly all of Africa, and much of southern Asia and Latin America, are considered prime locations for using the ovens, with plenty of sunshine. One project in Chad decreased household wood usage by up to 40 percent in only two months.

2. Wind Energy:  Small-scale wind turbines typically have capacities up to several hundred kilowatts (kW), which in some cases is enough to power an entire village. Wind power can often be used in regions where solar is less effective, and can generate power at night or during storms. This makes wind energy a viable way to generate energy, and an excellent complement to a solar system.

Wind Energy in Action:  The organization Practical Action helps provide many forms of renewable energy to poor residents of Asia and Africa, and they have several projects based on wind energy. They have helped villages in Sri Lanka install a wind turbine that provides electricity for the entire community. This has had benefits beyond simple access to power. Villagers pooled their resources to install and manage the turbine, they received technical education from Practical Action and as a result a number of steady jobs are created. Installing a local turbine also means people no longer have to travel long distances and pay large amounts to recharge batteries that they regularly use.

3. Biogas: Biogas can be an excellent source of free, renewable energy for poor farmers. Biogas is mostly methane that is released from any organic matter that is decaying in the absence of oxygen. Biogas can be captured from animal manure, vegetable scraps, and even human waste, and used as a clean source of energy. The sludge leftover from biogas can be used as safe organic compost because  pathogens that may be harmful to humans have been inactivated by the heat.

Biogas in Action: A project run by the International Fund for Agricultural Development has been changing farmer’s lives in rural China. Farmers in Fada, a village in China’s Guangxi province, each built their own plants to channel waste from household toilets and nearby shelters for animals into a sealed tank. As the waste ferments, gas is captured and used in cooking. Forests are being protected because pressure for firewood has been reduced, saving 56,000 tons of firewood per year. Over five years, area farmers increased tea production from 400 to 2,500 kilograms a day and average income in the village quadrupled to more than $1 per day.

4. Micro Hydropower: Micro hydroelectric power is different from typical hydroelectric power because it doesn’t attempt to significantly interfere with the flow of the river. Typically rated at a maximum capacity of 300 kW hours, the micro hydro systems don’t dam rivers, but instead divert a stream of water that flows downhill through a pipeline dropping into the turbine. The turbine then generates electricity which can be stored in batteries and transported to where villagers may need it most.

Micro Hydropower in Action: The Tungu-Kabri micro-hydro power project was the first of its kind in Kenya. Rural families in Kenya use at least one-third of their income on kerosene for lighting and diesel for the milling of grain. With funds from United Nations Development Programme and development assistance from Practical Action East Africa and the Kenyan Ministry of Energy, the village of Mbuiru built a micro hydropower system that generates about 18 kW hours of electricity and benefits about 1,000 people.

5. Biomass Briquettes: Biomass briquettes are made of readily available waste materials, including potato peals, banana peals, dry leaves, and paper that shredded and pounded together into a fuel briquette that burns longer and cleaner than charcoal.

Biomass Briquettes in Action: Charles Onyoni Onyando, a farmer with NEFSALF (Nairobi and Environs Food Security, Agriculture, and Livestock Forum), is helping provide this clean, long-lasting fuel to people in his own community. Charles collects waste from his neighbors and uses a crank-powered shredder to make the briquettes. Each briquette lasts six to seven hours and is enough to cook two kilograms of dried beans. Charles isn’t just saving the environment, he’s making a profit. To make one 70-80 kilogram bag (100-200 briquettes) costs him about 400 Kenyan shillings (5.34 USD) which he then sells for about twice that much.

The Legacy Foundation is providing training and support for briquette makers all over the world. They have ongoing partnerships with individuals, groups, and institutions in more than 30 countries. They are even selling kits to teach people in the U.S. how to heat their home by making briquettes out of junk mail!

To read more about farmers gaining access to energy in renewable ways, see: Innovation of the Week: Harnessing the Sun’s Power to Make the Water Flow and Afterthought for some, daily struggle for others.

Isaac Hopkins and Jenny Beth Dyess are research interns with the Nourishing the Planet project.

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source

By Eun Jae Park

The Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP), a consortium of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. of Canada and Anglo-American plc of the UK, has claimed exclusive rights to begin mineral mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska. An estimated 36.6 billion kilograms (80.6 billion pounds) of copper, 2.5 billion kilograms (5.6 billion pounds) of molybdenum, and 3.0 million kilograms (107.4 million ounces) of gold have been discovered in this region, just northwest of the Alaskan Peninsula. With state approval, open pit mining and construction for a waste rock dump site, an artificial lake that stores excess mined rock, could feasibly begin as early as late 2012 and persist for 25 to 35 years.

"We love our fish!" says Ina Bouker, a Yupik native and teacher from Dillingham who opposes the mine. (Photo credit: National Geographic)

The proposed 51.8 square kilometers (20 square miles) mine site is located between the headwaters of the Kvichak and Nushagak Rivers, two of eight major rivers feeding into Bristol Bay. The potential 10 billion tons of waste rock could pose a significant threat to the pristine waterways, fish populations, and wildlife. Although PLP has proposed the construction of an artificial lake to act as a dump for the waste material, over 25.9 square kilometers (10 square miles) of land will be flooded behind 183 meter (600 feet) high earthen dams in this active earthquake zone.

This project has been met with tremendous opposition from fishermen, conservation activists, native groups, seafood restaurant owners, chefs, nature guides, scientists, cabin managers, and local residents. PLP has recently published a comprehensive 27,000 page report on the environmental and social conditions in Bristol Bay, but it has been dismissed by critics because of the subjective nature of the data and the lack of a clear development strategy and project description.

PLP’s efforts will likely have the greatest impact on the Alaskan fishing industry. According to a poll conducted by Anchorage Daily News in 2011, 85 percent of commercial netters and drift fishermen opposed the pebble mine and 98 percent believed that Bristol Bay should be further protected. Some 25 million salmon are caught annually in the ocean and upstream, making Bristol Bay one of the most productive renewable salmon fisheries in the world. In addition, Bristol Bay residents consume over 2.4 million tons of fish per year, with 52 percent of the total indigenous diet consisting of wild salmon.

There is no scientific analysis that predicts how pebble mining will affect the salmon population or fishing industry as a whole; however, many Bristol Bay fishermen are still concerned for the health of the bay and the fishing industry. Trout Unlimited, an activist group devoted to preserving wild salmon and trout populations in Alaska, highlights commercial fisherman Dylan Braund in their campaign against PLP: “Open pit mining ruins watersheds. In Bristol Bay our water is our life. I want my son Finn to be able to fish out here one day.”

Do you think that the pebble mining project should be stopped? Let us know in the comments below!

To read more on similar topics: Conserving Fisheries, Protecting Ecosystems, Before GE Salmon Goes to Market, FDA Needs to Label It, Teaching a Man to Fish: Building Agricultural Resiliency to Climate Change, Fishing for Sustainable Aquaculture Practices, and Sustainability Questions Over Fish Farming.

Eun Jae is an intern with the Nourishing the Planet project.

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source

Preparations are already underway for the second annual Food Day, a nationwide celebration of healthy, sustainable, and affordable food founded by the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Michael F. Jacobson.

Food Day brings together organizations and individuals working on food issues as varied as hunger, nutrition, agriculture policy, animal welfare, and farmworker justice. Next year, Food Day will take place just 12 days before the 2012 elections, and organizers expect that it will provide an opportunity for citizens and candidates alike to discuss important food policy issues.

Check out this video of highlights from last year’s Food Day events.

Click here to find out more information on the second annual Food Day.

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source

By Graham Salinger 

For 25 years Yacouba Sawadogo, a small-scale farmer in Mali, has been working to stop the process of desertification in the Sahel region of western Africa. During  the 1970s and 1980s the Sahel, a semi-arid area along the southern edge of the Sahara desert that stretches from Senegal’s Atlantic coast to the Ethiopian highlands, experienced severe droughts that left the land baron.

For years farmers have been adapting numerous innovations to re-green the Sahel. (Photo credit: W4RA)

For years farmers like Sawadogo have been adapting numerous innovations to re-green the Sahel. In 2010 the Web Alliance for Regreening in Africa (W4RA) was established to increase access to communication technology so that farmers in the region can share their innovations with one another.

The program, which lasts through 2012, partners with Vrije Universiteit (VU) in Amsterdam  and the Africa Regreening Initiative to increase the means of communication between farmers. With only 5.7 percent of the population in Africa having internet access, the program helps provide web based and mobile phone based communication technology to small scale farmers in the Sahel.

W4RA also trains large numbers of farming communities to use computers and phones.  And the program uses radios to transmit information about agriculture. Chris Reij, who works on the Africa Regreening Initiative and is the author of “Investing in Trees to Mitigate Climate Change” featured in State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, says that increasing communication between farmers will help them adapt better farming practices.

“In this region, tens of thousands of hectares of land that was completely unproductive has been made productive again thanks to the techniques of Yacouba,” he said of the small-scale farmer from Mali. Sharing such techniques through communication technology will help with food security in the region and “play an increasingly vital role in reducing poverty and conflict,” according to W4RA.

What do you think about efforts to increase communication technology in the Sahel? Tell us in the comments section!

Graham Salinger is a research intern for the Nourishing the Planet project.

To read more about how communication technology is helping farmers, see: Mobile Phone Technology Improves Farmers’ Fortunes in UgandaListening to Farmers’ Voices: An Interview with Eugenio Tisselli VélezInnovation of the Week: Cell Phone App—Applications of Local Knowledge, and Five Media Innovations That Help Feed the Planet.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source

A View of Central Park by Mathew Knott via Flickr

New York City. For some people the first thoughts that pop into their head are Central Park, urban density, low-ecological impact. Others think of traffic jams, trash piled high on city streets, and the consumeristic orgy that is Times Square. But in truth, it is neither of these extremes. Or perhaps it is both. The Big Apple is at the same time a leader in going green while also showing us the flaws in urbanization.

The issue of sustainable cities is not going away anytime soon. Historically, the world’s population, as it increased, has grown more urban. According to the United Nations Population Fund, already half of the world’s population lives in cities – a number that is projected to increase to 5 billion people by 2030. This means that cities are quickly becoming a focal point for sustainability.

David Owen explains one sustainable aspect of NYC in an article for The New Yorker.

“By the most significant measures, New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world. The most devastating damage humans have done to the environment has arisen from the heedless burning of fossil fuels, a category in which New Yorkers are practically prehistoric. The average Manhattanite consumes gasoline at a rate that the country as a whole hasn’t matched since the mid-nineteen-twenties, when the most widely owned car in the United States was the Ford Model T. Eighty-two per cent of Manhattan residents travel to work by public transit, by bicycle, or on foot. “

The city also has 27,000 acres of parks divided between Central Park, Riverside Park and Prospect Park – an area the size of Disney World. Those are indeed both very positive trends, however, NYC is not exempt from many of the sustainability issues inherent in urban areas.

Where does all our waste go? (Courtesy of United Nations Photo via flickr.)

One of the major issues is disposing of the daily 24,000 tons of waste its resident and visitors produce per day. The Department of Sanitation deals with nearly 13,000 tons waste generated by residents, while the rest is dealt with by private companies. A growing lack of landfill space combined with increasing restrictions and costs mean New York City will be facing a crisis in the near future.  Or if the city chooses to burn the waste, then the problem gets distributed to the global population through the atmosphere. Ultimately, the best solution to the rotten half of the Big Apple’s sustainability record is a major economic shift that centers on degrowth rather than continued growth.

A shift to a shorter work week, simpler lifestyles, less consumerism, more public goods to replace private goods and more self-provisioning – what Erik Assadourian describes in Chapter 2 of State of the World 2012, “The Path of Degrowth in Overdeveloped Countries.” That, while not an easy sell, would help to address many of the social, health and environmental problems New Yorkers, Americans, and yes, all people face. And combined with New York’s density and green spaces, The Big Apple would then certainly be one of the greenest cities on the planet.

 

Go to Source

Global fossil fuel subsidies most likely total between US$750 billion and $1 trillion per year—significantly more than the widely publicized estimate of $500 billion, according to Steve Kretzmann, founder and Executive Director of Oil Change International.

Kretzmann, who has been an advocate for environmental, social, and corporate responsibility for 25 years, sat down with Worldwatch last week to discuss fossil fuel subsidy reform efforts in the United States and around the globe. He founded Oil Change International in 2005 to educate the public about the true impacts of fossil fuels, expose troublesome oil industry practices, change patterns of public and private finance around the energy industry, and “separate oil and state.” [Below, watch a brief interview featuring Kretzmann and Worldwatch Climate and Energy Director Alexander Ochs.]

One goal of Oil Change International is to reduce fossil fuel subsidies in order to make renewable energy resources more competitive, based on the belief that climate change is best tackled through structural change rather than by focusing simply on emissions output. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that if global fossil fuel consumption subsidies were phased out by 2020, carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced by as much as 4.7 percent.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has defined subsidies as any financial contribution from a government or public body that confers a benefit, but the G20 and other organizations have yet to use the WTO’s definition for fossil fuel subsidies, choosing a more narrow definition. Most of the focus on fossil fuel subsidies has been on consumption subsidies, which reduce the cost to consumers, rather than production subsidies, which either lower costs or raise revenue for producers. Kretzmann and Oil Change International are seeking to move the focus to production subsidies, which they view as the greater problem.

The IEA estimates that global consumption subsidies for fossil fuels were $409 billion in 2010, up roughly $100 billion from the previous year. This change, however, is mostly explained by fluctuations in oil prices. Officially, the IEA estimates that global production subsidies were between $45 billion and $75 billion in 2010, based on data from 36 countries. But production subsidies are very difficult to calculate due to a lack of governmental transparency.

Moreover, there is disagreement about whether to define production subsidies as the amount received by corporations or as the cost to taxpayers. Kretzmann suggests that production subsides total at least $100 billion (and may exceed $150 billion) and argues that, on a per capita basis, they are higher in developed countries than consumption subsidies are in developing countries. Moreover, production subsidies in developing countries are growing rapidly and are largely invisible due to a lack of transparency.

Yet “official” statistics on fossil fuel subsidies tend to be narrowly focused and fail to take into account other costs to society. According to the National Academy of Sciences, U.S. fossil fuel use has led to $120 billion in health care and pollution costs annually. One study suggests that the United States spends at least $1.6 trillion annually on maintaining infrastructure for its current fossil fuel transportation regime, money that could otherwise be invested in cleaner transportation options such as high-speed rail.

Independent sources estimate that the U.S. federal government provides roughly $10 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel producers annually, with two-thirds to three-quarters of this going to extraction. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that the governments of Alaska, Texas, and West Virginia provide an additional $5 billion in production subsidies annually. Doug Koplow of Earth Track estimates that annual U.S. production subsidies to fossil fuels are between $52 billion and $100 billion.

So far, there has been little progress in reducing these subsidies in the United States, as this has become a partisan issue. President Obama has advocated for a $4 billion cut in fossil fuel subsidies, and Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey recently proposed a bill seeking to end $2.4 billion in subsidies to the five largest U.S. oil companies, but the measure was voted down in Congress. So far, the only subsidy that has been reduced successfully is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, one of the few U.S. consumption subsidies, and one that benefits low-income consumers rather than oil companies.

Kretzmann notes that many prominent Republicans receive major contributions from fossil fuel producers, contributing to the highly partisan nature of subsidy reduction. To bring attention to this issue, Kretzmann helped create the Dirty Energy Money campaign, which aims to expose the amount of money that members of Congress receive from fossil fuel interests. He hopes this information will help to turn U.S. public opinion against fossil fuel subsidies.

Worldwide, subsidy reduction efforts have experienced minimal success as well. In 2009, the G20 agreed to reduce global fossil fuel subsidies, a commitment that also was adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). However, as of 2010, Earth Track found that no country had reduced subsidies in response to the agreement. The language of the G20 statement remains weak, and many participating countries have under-reported the amount of subsidies they provide.

Nevertheless, some countries have demonstrated success in reducing consumption subsidies. Iran, which until 2009 spent the most on consumption subsidies of any individual nation, reduced subsidies significantly and used the money it saved to distribute cash handouts to the poorest 80 percent of the population, significantly reducing the national income gap. Nigeria also successfully reduced subsidies, although in a more controversial manner. The government completely eliminated subsidies, which resulted in widespread protests and violence, and then re-implemented two-thirds of the supports. Kretzmann suggests that this method of complete elimination, followed by widespread protest and then concession, may have been the government’s strategy from the beginning.

Oil Change International is pushing for stronger language of reform in the draft agreement developed for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also known as Rio+20), including a firm date and the creation of an intergovernmental support center for coordination of subsidy reform between UNCSD forums. Kretzmann suggests that the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change could help with subsidy reporting and providing incentives for subsidy reform. Production subsidy reform remains difficult because of a perceived first-mover disadvantage.

Fossil fuel subsidy reform faces many challenges both in the United States and globally. Kretzmann stresses that the best way to bring about reform is to increase transparency in terms of both what subsidies exist and who benefits from these subsidies. In the long term, fossil fuel subsidy reduction could play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping to limit both climate change and health costs from pollution.

Eric Anderson is a member of the Climate and Energy team at the Worldwatch Institute.

Go to Source

To achieve sustainable prosperity, overdeveloped countries will need to degrow their economies. And fast.
Go to Source

This week, PBS’ Newshour featured the One Acre Fund and their work helping small farmers in East Africa. The organization supports farmers by providing them with credit, good-quality seeds and fertilizer, and insurance.

Maurice and Joyce Soita were able to send their four children to school after becoming One Acre Fund members. (Photo credit: Fred de Sam Lazaro, PBS)

The report on the One Acre Fund is part of the Food for 9 Billion project, which looks at the challenge of feeding the world in a time of social and environmental change.

Click  here to read the story and watch the full report.

To purchase your own copy of State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet, please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source

By Marissa Dwyer

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the European Commission have announced a €5.3 million (approximately US$7 million) three-year project to promote “climate-smart” approaches to agriculture. FAO says that “climate-smart” agriculture “sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), [and] reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation) while enhancing the achievement of national food security and development goals.”

FAO reports that crop agriculture is responsible for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo credit: Bernard Pollack)

FAO reports that crop agriculture is responsible for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts, therefore, will need to be aimed at both improving livelihoods of farmers and improving food access, as well as reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

The announcement of this project is timely. A recent report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change finds that climate change will likely lead to a reduction in crop yields. This issue is magnified by the fact that changes will vary by region, so some countries’ agricultural outputs may suffer disproportionately from climate change effects.

The project will focus on three countries: Malawi, Vietnam, and Zambia. The European Commission will contribute €3.3 million (US$4.4 million) and the FAO will provide the remaining €2 million (US$2.6 million) and will take the lead on the implementation of the project. All three countries are expected to be significantly affected by climate change. Although the unique conditions of each location must be taken into account in developing plans, all three countries can learn from the progress of one another in pursuing strategies that are more “climate-smart.”

In Malawi, George Matiya, the Dean of Environmental Sciences at the Bunda College of Agriculture, said that the country will likely be more affected by negative implications of climate change because of its narrow economic base, where a large part of the population are farmers. Matiya pointed out that the southern region of Malawi will be especially vulnerable to more extreme weather such as floods, high temperatures, and drought. Innovations and investments to develop and make available different crops, such as ones that are more drought resistant or that can mature earlier, he states, will be crucial.

The Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) reported that droughts in Zambia have increased in both frequency and intensity over the past few decades. Droughts in 1991–1992, 1994–1995, and 1997–1998 were especially harmful for subsistence farmers. CEEPA measured that, as of 2006, agriculture provides a livelihood for over 60 percent of Zambia’s population. The increase in droughts is problematic, the report states, because Zambia’s major crops, such as maize, rice, and cotton, are “summer crops which depend almost entirely on the rains.”

In Vietnam, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) reports that the country will likely be one of the hardest hit by climate change. Because Vietnam is the second-largest rice exporter in the world and two-thirds of the rural labor force depends on growing it, rising sea levels and changes in temperature could negatively impact the country’s rice production and affect a large amount of the population. The report concluded that although Vietnam’s annual rice production could decrease by 2.7 million tons because of climate changes by 2050, such a reduction is not guaranteed because, “there is still great scope to increase crop yields by improving rural infrastructure and social services, including education and irrigation.” Through diversifying crops and bringing technological improvements to the local level, the negative effects of climate change on yields can be significantly reduced.

The climate-smart agriculture project will also try to build upon existing initiatives. Both Malawi and Zambia’s “evergreen agriculture” initiatives have significantly increased crop yields since their implementation beginning in the 1990s. Evergreen agriculture combines trees with farming systems to promote conservation. Planting trees in the soil where crops are grown can prevent soil exhaustion and land degradation.

Prior to the start of the program, Vietnam has already begun various “climate-smart” efforts. A national biogas program was implemented in 2003, allowing farmers with livestock to produce the fuel that they need for lighting and cooking with biogas digesters. This minimizes the need for wood and coal, which can both be expensive and contribute to deforestation. Aquaculture systems, such as the production of seaweed, have also developed in Vietnam. These systems are beneficial because seaweed growth has a relatively small carbon footprint and it also can help to filter marine environments.

In building partnerships at both the local and international levels, the climate-smart agriculture project will work to identify specific opportunities in each country to both develop new climate-smart policies and strengthen existing ones. It will also look at the financial aspects of agricultural developments and in doing so identify areas of investment. The implementation of this program is regarded as an important step forward in recognizing the importance of agriculture for addressing concerns about climate change.

Marissa Dwyer is a research intern with the Nourishing the Planet project.

To purchase State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet please click HERE. And to watch the one minute book trailer, click HERE.

Go to Source