Tag Archives: development
“Carbon Farming” Makes Waves at Stalled Bonn Talks
By Stephen Leahy Civil society organisations warn that if agriculture becomes part of a carbon market, it will spur more land grabbing in Africa. Credit: Patrick Burnett/IPS UXBRIDGE, Canada, Jun 12 2013 (IPS) – U.N. climate talks have largely stalled with the suspension of one of three negotiating tracks at a key mid-year session in Bonn, Germany. Meanwhile, civil society organisations claim the controversial issue of “carbon farming” has been pushed back onto the agenda after African nations objected to the use of their lands to absorb carbon emissions. “There is a profound danger to agriculture here, with real potential for more land grabbing and expansion of monocultures in order to harvest credits.” — Helena Paul of EcoNexus At the Bonn Climate Change Conference this week, Russia insisted on new procedural rules. That blocked all activity in one track of negotiations called the “Subsidiary Body for Implementation” (SBI). The SBI is a technical body that was supposed to discuss finance to help developing countries cope with climate change, as well as proposals for “loss and damage” to compensate countries for damages. The SBI talks were suspended Wednesday. “This development is unfortunate,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Figueres also said the two-week Bonn conference, which ends Friday, had made considerable progress in the two other tracks. A complex new global climate treaty is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2015 with the goal of keeping global warming to less than two degrees C. “Governments need to look up from their legal and procedural tricks and focus on the planetary emergency that is hitting Africa first and hardest,” said Mithika Mwenda of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA), an African-wide climate movement with over 300 organisations in 45 countries. And where there is “progress” at the climate talks it is in the wrong direction, according to civil society. “We’ve seen many governments in Bonn call for a review of the current failed carbon markets to see what went wrong, why they haven’t actually reduced emissions and why they haven’t raised finance on a significant scale,” said Kate Dooley, a consultant on market mechanisms to the Third World Network. “If we don’t learn these lessons we’ll be doomed to repeat these environmentally and financially risky schemes, at the cost of real action to reduce emissions,” Dooley said in a statement. In Bonn, two key African negotiators appear to be pushing the World Bank agenda rather than their national interests, civil society organisations claim. Those negotiators are also working for organisations receiving World Bank funding. One appears to want African nations’ mitigation actions to be based on agriculture, they said. The World Bank and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation and other organisations favour what they call “climate smart” agriculture. This is defined as forms of farming that are sustainable, increase productivity and with a focus on soaking up carbon from the atmosphere. African environment ministers from 54 nations recently stated they were not obligated to use their lands to mitigate carbon emissions since Africa is not responsible for climate change. They also instructed African negotiators at the Bonn climate talks to focus on helping African agriculture adapt to a changing climate. “Are these people serving two masters?” asked Mariam Mayet of the Africa Centre for Biosafety, which works to protect farmers’ rights and biodiversity across the continent. “What is the World Bank’s level of influence over these individuals, and is there a risk that this is impacting on their actions and the outcome here?” Mayet told IPS. In December 2011, more than 100 African and international civil society organisations sent a joint letter to African ministers asking for “no soil carbon markets in Africa”. Globally, agriculture is a major source of global warming gases like carbon and methane – directly accounting for 15 percent to 30 percent of global emissions. Changes in agricultural practices such as reducing or eliminating plowing and fertiliser use can greatly reduce emissions. Agriculture can also be used to absorb or trap carbon in the soil. When a plant grows, it takes CO2 out the atmosphere and releases oxygen. The more of a crop – maize, soy or vegetable – that remains after harvest, the more carbon is returned to the soil. Civil society organisations warn that if agriculture becomes part of a carbon market, it will spur more land grabbing in Africa, with woodlands being used mainly for carbon sequestration instead of food production. “There is a profound danger to agriculture here, with real potential for more land grabbing and expansion of monocultures in order to harvest credits,” Helena Paul of EcoNexus, an environmental NGO, previously told IPS. Soils are extraordinarily variable and different climatic regimes affect how they function, said Ólafur Arnalds, a soil scientist at the Agricultural University of Iceland. While soils are a key part of the planet’s carbon cycle, we don’t know enough about soil carbon, Arnalds told IPS at a recent Soil Carbon Sequestration conference in Iceland. That complexity does not suit carbon markets well and drives up costs of accounting and verification. However, Arnalds does believe that soils and agriculture have an important role in climate change and farmers should be compensated for their efforts. Continue reading
Database Says Level Of Global ‘Land Grabs’ Exaggerated
By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News While the majority of investment still comes from developed countries to Africa, there is a growing trend for regional and national investment in land Researchers have released a new version of a database that records global land acquisitions by governments and private investors. There has been growing concern that large purchases, often in Africa, were in effect “land grabs” by the rich. But the Land Matrix Global Observatory says that many deals have been significantly exaggerated. The database has been developed by a group of five international research centres. For several years now, media reports of land acquisitions have highlighted the growing trend of private investors and national governments to secretly acquire land in poorer countries in order to secure supplies of food and other resources. Campaigners have complained that these investments were often unjust, with the people living on the land being thrown off by the new owners. Verified deals But despite the concerns that many investors are buying to take advantage of high food prices, there has been very little clear information about the scale of the issue. After being launched in beta mode last year, the Land Matrix Global Observatory now hopes to paint a more realistic picture of the number and impact of land purchases. The database suggests that more than 46 million hectares of land have changed hands in 756 verified land deals. About half of all transactions take place in Africa, with many in Mozambique and Ethiopia. Land battle in India In the Indian state of Gujarat, some 50,000 hectares have been acquired near Ahmedabad by the government for development as a special economic zone. But for the 16,000 people who live in 44 villages in the region and who graze their animals on this land, the move is unwelcome. As they don’t have legal title, they would receive no compensation if the plan goes ahead. But the researchers say that getting accurate information remains a significant challenge. They quote the example of the investment by Agri-SA, the South African national farmers’ union, in land in Congo-Brazzaville. Initial reports suggested that 10 million hectares were being purchased. In the end, a contract was actually signed for 80,000. Much of the hype comes from investment companies trying to influence the market, the researchers say. They also believe the role of countries like China has been exaggerated. “We see from the new data that the activities of China have been overestimated,” Dr Ward Anseeuw, from the French research centre CIRAD, told BBC News. Demonstrators in Burma protest about land grabs that have become the focus of growing resistance “In the press you see China everywhere, but in the database there is not as much China as we think there is.” While the bulk of direct investment continues to come from western countries and companies, there are growing numbers of land purchases that are funded by national or regional governments. In Asia, over 80% of acquisitions are financed from within the region. The researchers found that when land has been bought for agriculture, it was split equally between food and non-food crops. The team said there was no clear bias towards biofuel crops. Invisible hand But apart from direct investment, the new database suggests there are some worrying trends emerging. “What we are seeing is the development of other instruments that allow investors to be more invisible, such as contract farming or through bank control,” said Dr Answeeuw. “Instead of buying land through a foreign entity, they are buying stakes in local agribusiness that are controlling these lands.” While the researchers say that economic failures especially in Africa have made investors more cautious about where they put their money, the inflow of funds is still posing some significant challenges for indigenous peoples. “In many cases, it is common land or community land that is under threat,” said Michael Taylor from the International Land Coalition. “If it is grazing land or land that local people use, they don’t have any legal protection. It is on this land that we see the gravest of threats,” he said. The database now uses a wide number of data sources to help increase both accuracy and transparency. While those involved recognise its limitations they believe that it will promote good practice. Not all foreign direct investment is land-grabbing. “If there is no investment in agriculture in Africa, it will not grow,” said Dr Answeeuw. “We need these investments; the public sector alone can’t do this. We need the private sector to come in,” he added. Continue reading
Unilever And Nestlé Join Aid Charities To Call For Biofuel Curbs
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2023d3e6-ceae-11e2-ae25-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2W6Bin3bz By Andrew Bowman ©Eyevine Unilever and Nestlé have joined development non-governmental organisations in calling on David Cameron to use the Group of Eight presidency to press for an end to the use of biofuels made from food crops. In a letter to Downing Street, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, the Nestlé chairman, and Paul Polman, the Unilever chief executive, say agri-biofuels are “exacerbating global hunger”, with many varieties “worse for climate change than the fossil fuels they were meant to replace”. The letter, co-signed by ActionAid, Oxfam, and WWF, urges the UK to back a European Commission proposal for a 5 per cent cap on the use of agri-biofuels in the EU’s overall consumption of transport fuel. International development charities have long criticised EU biofuel policy, with ActionAid researchers estimating that foodstuffs converted to fuel by G8 members each year would be sufficient to feed 441m people. Concerns about the impact on commodity prices are shared by the two food multinationals, who say that biofuel mandates in EU and G8 countries are affecting their ability to make affordable products. In a statement, Unilever said: “The development of a new generation of biofuels which do not compete with food crops is essential.” The companies have stepped up their lobbying efforts in advance of the mid-June G8 summit in Northern Ireland and a meeting of the EU’s energy council on Friday to discuss the European Commission’s proposals. On Saturday, Mr Cameron will host Nutrition for Growth, an international summit, and a meeting of the New Alliance on Food Security and Nutrition, an initiative launched by President Barack Obama at last year’s G8 summit to spur investment in African agribusiness. The EU renewable energy directive set a target of sourcing 10 per cent of all transport fuel from renewable sources by 2020, with much of this expected to come from biofuels. As well as the 5 per cent cap, the European Commission’s proposals released in October include environmental reporting obligations to account for carbon sinks destroyed by farmland expansion, and the promotion of “second generation” non-food biofuels. This week, the UK parliament’s international development committee said in a report that Britain should revise the country’s Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation to remove support for agri-biofuels, and push for similar reforms in the EU. The commission’s proposals have provoked angry responses from European biofuel producers, however, and on Tuesday the UK’s Renewable Energy Association said it “would mean the destruction of thousands of jobs, see millions of pounds of investment squandered and increase the cost of meeting renewable energy targets”. Continue reading
