‘Climate Change is Killing People in Drylands’
Luc Gnacadja
Ramesh Jaura talks to UN Assistant Secretary General Luc Gnacadja
IDN-InDepth NewsInterview

“Enhancing soils anywhere enhances life everywhere,” says UN’s top official Luc Gnacadja, who is tasked with combating land degradation and drought – not only in Africa, the most vulnerable continent, but all along the drylands belt running from Latin America through Sahel and Asia.

Gnacadja is executive secretary of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), which along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emerged from the Earth Summit June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

UNCCD is often regarded an African convention. “Two-thirds of the continent is drylands but it is a global convention, with global scope and global benefit. 41 percent of the total land mass is made of drylands and 34 percent of the global population live in the drylands. Among those 34 percent, one billion are really the poorest among the poor of the world.”

Gnacadja, a former environment minister of Benin, says in an exclusive interview: “I believe that a climate change solution will be found in the land and the soil. The soil is where we know all players have reasons to really tap into: the potential of the land and soil to adapt to climate change challenge and also to mitigate greenhouse gases.”

A slightly abridged version of the interview with IDN-InDepthNews editor Ramesh Jaura follows:

IDN: You have been attending climate change conferences as UNCCD executive secretary since October 2007 and earlier as head of the delegations of your country, Benin. Where did it all go wrong, in your view, with the landmark UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December last year?

Luc Gnacadja: I am afraid the global players have their individual agenda and some of that agenda cannot fit into the intergovernmental process. Within the UN, the biggest and the smallest do count and they should all sit around the table and strike a deal that will be a sound deal for all the players.

This is really important, especially as we are moving away from the Cold War and the world is getting more and multi-polar. There are new powers emerging with new national or local agendas that that they want to see fit into the global agenda – and of course this is not easy to make happen. The UN is the sole context to make it happen. Moving away from that baseline means jeopardizing global sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY

IDN: How far are your experiences similar to those of your colleague at the climate change secretariat, Yvo de Boer, who has announced that he will quit on July 1, 2010?

Luc Gnacadja: Our responsibilities are really pressing, especially in the context of the ongoing negotiations on climate change – and the Copenhagen conference was a milestone. [. . . ] What is from time to time worrying me is that the UNCCD is given a low political profile in the global debate.

But I believe that this convention is in fact the future of all the global sustainability debates. I believe that a climate change solution will be found in the land and the soil. The soil is where we know all players have reasons to really tap into: the potential of the land and soil to adapt to climate change challenge and also to mitigate greenhouse gases.

By doing so, they will be bringing more resilience especially for the poor and they will also be improving soil productivity – and, therefore, addressing poverty issues at the local level. They will be securing people’s livelihoods and reducing the ‘push factor’ of environmental induced migration.

This is a kind of win-win ground that is not yet fully on the (global) agenda. From the UNCCD side we are pleading for synergies. [. . .] I am calling for the nations’ leaders to pull down the ivory tower that we have built over the years around the conventions whereby we tend to implement them on a much clustered way. It doesn’t make any sense; there is no cluster in nature; in nature there is no boundary. Whatever you do here that is not attainable, will harm you – maybe not today but at the end of the day it will harm you.

IDN: That would mean really integrating land degradation, drought and sustainable land management in the climate change negotiations. Right?

MDGs

Luc Gnacadja: Right. I am saddened by the fact that whenever land as such is raised as option it is immediately bracketed and those who bracket it have a kind of agenda built out of concepts of fear – that it might jeopardize their national agenda or bring the global community to have a close look at what they are doing with their land and soil. But we know, we should know that whenever we enhance soil, we enhance land globally. Awareness raising about this fact is essential.

Unfortunately – as in Copenhagen – whenever the potential that has now been clearly established by science, potential of the land and the soil not only to address adaptation but also to mitigate climate change is brought up in the context of the REDD programme (on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) or NAMAS (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Measures) there are a number of big players who bracket it. And I believe that the challenges in Copenhagen were mainly challenges of lack of trust between the players.

IDN: Do you expect something better at the negotiations in Bonn in June 2010?

Luc Gnacadja: We will continue advocating the improvement of land and the soil and focussing on drylands. The human face of climate change is to be seen in the drylands. People are already dying due to the impact of climate change in drylands, because of prolonged droughts that are followed by sudden rain and flood. Because of severe degradation of land, some people are starving, some of them are dying, and others are migrating.

Look at the MDGs (millennium development goals). In September this year, we are going to review the MDGs (at a special session of the UN General Assembly). One thing that will come up clearly is that the countries and the areas that are affected by desertification are those that are ranking at the bottom of the implementation scale of the MDGs.

And if you look at the human development index (of the UN Development Programme), we see that the populations that are at the bottom of the human development index are mostly in the drylands. When you take a given country, the people living in that country are ranking at the bottom of the MDGs. So this is saying something clearly […].

IDN: But apparently this is not recognized by governments and by the people at large . . .

Luc Gnacadja: It is not yet recognized. That’s why I am campaigning for it. And I do hope that the international community will recognize that it is not by accident that eight out of ten conflicts in the world are in drylands, the drylands belt running from Latin America through Sahel and Asia. What is at the root of those conflicts? If you look at it closely, it is the fight to have access to very scarce resources. It’s about productive land and water.

GLOBAL NOT LOCAL

IDN: What would you say has the UNCCD been able to achieve since the convention came into force in 1996?

Luc Gnacadja: The convention came into force around a debate that coincided with its opening for signature in Paris on June 17, 1994. It came into force in a political context where there were divergent views on how to implement the convention. Some believed that it is a matter just of a local challenge – that is roughly the view of the developed countries – but the developing and African countries are saying that it is not local but global.

The UNCCD 10-year strategic plan and framework to enhance the implementation of the Convention (2008–2018) highlights the importance given to the development and implementation of scientifically-based and sound methods for monitoring and assessing desertification, and underlines the need for a holistic view.

Meanwhile, UNCCD’s first scientific conference (September 2009 in Buenos Aires) has provided advisory to the COP (conference of parties to the Convention) regarding how to monitor the impact of the implementation.

The three main strategies of judging how to monitor impact consist of the proposed eleven indicators. The COP picked two as mandatory. This is a major breakthrough because when you have a strategy and you have a yardstick to measure progress you can set targets.

So I do hope that we are moving towards where parties will agree on a global baseline on the methodologies and then they will be able to set targets – targets at local, national as well as at regional and global levels. Some of those targets will be closely linked to the targets of climate change and targets of biodiversity.

Let me give you an example: when there are a lot of voices calling for zero net forest degradation – in the context of climate change – it will be impossible to reach such a target if we don’t aim at having zero net land degradation. Because, where is the pressure on forest coming from? It is coming from land being degraded, and people looking for new land. Then they go for deforestation. So one is closely linked with the other. In other words, if we say that we want to preserve the forest we must make better use of the land under management and we must attach importance to reclaiming or rehabilitating the degraded land.

NOT AN ‘AFRICAN CONVENTION’

IDN: So it’s not just an African convention as some people insist?

Luc Gnacadja: It’s not an African convention. Of course Africa has been referred to because Africa is the most vulnerable. Two-thirds of the continent is dyland but it is a global convention, with global scope. 41 percent of the total land mass is made of drylands and 34 percent of the global population live in the drylands. Among those 34 percent, one billion are really the poorest among the poor of the world.

So this is really where we need to change the perception: UNCCD is a global convention, with global scope and of course global benefit to be delivered. For instance, when you are reclaiming land, land is long-term food security. Food security is not about Africa only. When you are rehabilitating land or improving land cover, it is not only about Africa. So it’s a kind of paradigm that requires paradigm shift. And we are working on this.

IDN: Would the International Year of Biodiversity and the special session of the UN General Assembly help you move forward with the governments and in the awareness of the people at large?

Luc Gnacadja: We have a programme of close cooperation with my colleague Ahmed Djoghlaf, executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and we have a programme of raising global awareness about this year of biodiversity. We will not only release a joint statement but we will also be a part of a number of activities throughout the year.

We are working to launch a land day at the CBD’s global conference (October 18-29, 2010) in Nagoya in Japan. After all, eight out of 25 global “biodiversity hotspots” are in drylands. That’s why we have carefully chosen and crafted our team for awareness raising. Enhancing soils anywhere enhances life everywhere. This is at the core of the work on biodiversity. (IDN-InDepthNews/01.03.2010)

Source: IDN InDepthNews, March 01, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

Climate change will impact infectious diseases worldwide
but questions remain as to how
Katherine Harmon

As climatologists weather the IPCC controversy, another storm is brewing, and this one is filled with not with bloggers but with beasts, bugs and bacteria. It is the potential plague of infectious diseases—threatened to be made worse, many scientists propose, by projected changes in the Earth's climate.

At a symposium held yesterday at the New York Academy of Sciences, researchers from public health, climate, medicine and other fields gathered to discuss some of the big questions that remain in uniting these evolving fields. "The relation between climate change and infectious diseases is highly controversial to say the least," Richard Ostfeld, of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, said here.

Basic assumptions, such as the notion that rising temperatures will increase the number of mosquitoes that can transmit malaria among humans (rather than just shift their range), have been the subject of painstaking parsing over the past decade. But to Otsfeld, who is a disease ecologist, the question of whether climate change will expand the prevalence of infectious diseases "is an unequivocal 'yes,'" he said. "Climate has a strong impact on the incidence of disease." And now it is time to move on, the researchers noted, and start trying to develop real-word strategies to curtail potential pandemics before they can get started.

Stemming the tide, however, depends on a thorough understanding of both the dynamics of climate change and the behaviors of the more than 1,400 species of organisms that are pathogenic to humans—and, crucially, how the former might impact the latter.

Modeling the global climactic shifts itself—past, present or future—has proved to be no walk in the park, but the current science nearly breaks down when scientists try to pinpoint forecasts for specific locations or specific years, noted NASA researcher Gavin Schmidt. "Climate change scientists are not fortune tellers," he said. But for public health officials, government decision makers and even the biologists studying the diseases, the devil (and transmission rates) is in the details. Without a clear picture of how rainfall or daily minimum temperatures are going to change in many areas of the globe, it has been difficult to establish predictions about just how infectious diseases, such as malaria or Lyme disease, are likely to spread—or plans about how to cope with them.

One thing that Schmidt is certain of is the unexpected: "We have a lot of confidence that there are more surprises in the system," he said. Models can help predict some aspects of climate change—but only to the extent that the researchers understand possible inputs and dynamics. "They can't tell you about the unknown unknowns," Schmidt said.

And the same might be said for the current understanding of many infectious diseases—especially those that might emerge or reemerge in the future. Even for a relatively well-studied vector-borne disease such as malaria, crucial information about historical and current case numbers are often shaky in the areas that need the most intervention. "You need to know what the baseline is—and that in itself has been a huge problem" in the field, noted Madeline Thomson, of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society.

As many of the researchers hastened to point out, however, climate is not the only force at work in increasing the spread of infectious diseases into the future. Other factors, such as expanded rapid travel and evolution of resistance, are already changing the ways pathogens infect people, plants and animals. As climate change accelerates, it is likely to work synergistically with many of these factors, especially in populations increasingly subject to massive migration and malnutrition.

But as Thompson noted, despite its challenges, climate change can be a relatively solid rock on which to moor infectious disease planning. Many functions of human populations—from geographical displacement to lifestyle changes—that influence disease transmission can be exceedingly hard to track, she said. "Climate is one thing you can actually measure."

Image of malaria-carrying genus Anopheles mosquito courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Rsabbatini

Source: Scientific American, March 03, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

EU considers general carbon tax 

The European Commission is planning an EU-wide minimum tax on carbon as part of the EU's green energy agenda - but the UK opposes such a move. The minimum tax would apply to fuel, natural gas and coal.

The EU's new Taxation Commissioner, Algirdas Semeta, is working to revise the EU's existing Energy Taxation Directive, his spokeswoman said.

Carbon taxes already exist in EU members Sweden, Finland and Denmark. In France the idea is being hotly debated.

Responding to the EU plan on Thursday a UK government spokeswoman said: "We do not support the idea of a mandatory pan-European carbon tax.

"The existing Energy Taxation Directive gives member states the flexibility to introduce a carbon tax if they wish.

"We believe that member states are best placed to choose the policy tools for achieving their climate change objectives."

In Brussels earlier this week, Commissioner Semeta said the adoption of carbon taxes "on a larger, European scale seems desirable, as they would undoubtedly encourage innovation to strengthen energy efficiency and environmental protection". An EU-wide carbon tax would require the agreement of all 27 EU member states' governments.

A new carbon tax that was supposed to go into effect in France at New Year was struck down, in a blow to President Nicolas Sarkozy.

France's Constitutional Council, a legal compliance watchdog, said there were too many exemptions for polluters in the tax plan. The tax was set at 17 euros (£15) per tonne of emitted carbon dioxide (CO2).

Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the government would work on a new law taking account of the legal ruling. 

Source: Scientific American, March 05, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

Humans must be to blame for climate change, say scientists
No possible natural phenomenon could have caused the huge rise in temperatures experienced in last half-century
Steve Connor

Climate scientists have delivered a powerful riposte to their sceptical critics with a study that strengthens the case for saying global warming is largely the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.

The researchers found that no other possible natural phenomenon, such as volcanic eruptions or variations in the activity of the Sun, could explain the significant warming of the planet over the past half century as recorded on every continent including Antarctica.

It is only when the warming effect of emitting millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from human activity is considered that it is possible to explain why global average temperatures have risen so significantly since the middle of the 20th century.

The study updates a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has discovered several new elements of the global climate which have been influenced by humans, such as an increasing amount of water vapour evaporating from the warmer oceans into the atmosphere and a corresponding increase in the saltiness of the sea.

"There is an increasingly remote possibility that climate change is dominated by natural rather than anthropogenic [man-made] factors," the scientists concluded in their study, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews of Climate Change.

Scientific observations based on temperature recordings on every continent, as well as thermometer readings on, in and above the oceans, leave "little room for doubt" that the earth is warming, but trying to attribute a cause for this global warming is not possible unless man-made activity in the form of carbon dioxide emissions is taken into account, the scientists said.

The review, led by Peter Stott of the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, found the "fingerprints" of human activity on many different aspects of climate change, including the overall warming of the Antarctic recently documented for the first time by other researchers.

"The observations cannot be explained by natural factors," Dr Stott said. Since 1980, the Earth has warmed by about 0.5C and is now warming at a rate of about 0.16C per decade, with even higher rates at higher latitudes such as in the Arctic.

"The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns," Dr Stott said. "What we see here are observations consistent with a warming world. This wealth of evidence we have now shows there is an increasingly remote possibility of climate change being dominated by natural factors rather than human factors."

He dismissed suggestions that variations in solar activity – the intensity of the Sun – could explain warming patterns over the past few decades. If the Sun was responsible then both the upper and lower atmosphere would be getting warmer, instead of just the lower atmosphere as predicted by computer models of greenhouse gas warming.

He also said that more water vapour is evaporating into the atmosphere as a result of warmer oceans and this is driving the water cycle harder, causing wetter areas in northern latitudes such as Britain to get wetter and drier areas in tropical regions such as East Africa to get drier.

Asked whether climate sceptics would agree with the findings, Dr Stott said: "I just hope people look at the evidence of how the climate is changing in such a systematic way. I hope they make up their minds on the scientific evidence."

Source: Independent (UK), March 05, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

International Women's Day 2010
Dealing with climate change demands a more gendered approach
Rezina Sultana

Equal Rights, Equal Opportunities: Progress for all -- with this very theme, the women of the world will be observing International Women's Day 2010.

The major concern of the present world is climate change and environmental degradation. In fact, involving women in protecting the environment would help societies develop the sense of responsibility needed to maintain a good balance between humans and the earth's resources.

Environmental degradation, however, is a result of the dynamic interplay of socio-economic, institutional and technological activities. Environmental changes may be driven by many factors including economic growth, population growth, urbanization, intensification of agriculture, rising energy use and transportation. Poverty still remains a problem at the root of several environmental problems.

Idiatou Camara, Guinea's National Environment Director, one of four environmental protection experts exchanging views with the Commission on the theme of the gender perspective in environmental management and disaster mitigation, said: "Women need to participate at the national level and get their countries to empower women in regions unable to afford protection activities. They must encourage democratization and discourage the economic oppression that led to massive population movements degradingthe environment. They must mobilize to reverse the poverty which excluded the poor from protecting the environment because limited knowledge and technical ability prevented them from addressing problems."

Marie Yolene Surena, Director, Civil Protection, Ministry of Interior of Haiti, said, "Investing in women for roles in environmental risk management was not only beneficial, but profitable. Managing environmental risk was part of the development process, while managing disasters now is a drain on development funds. The priorities must be to develop human resources, change laws, address food security and slow population increases."

Women's role after Haiti disaster: When Haitian commercial banks remained closed after the terrible effect of the earthquake, Fonkoze, the Haitian branch of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, mobilized over one weekend to get funds to its members in rural towns as well as Port-au-Prince. Between 2 a.m. and 2 p.m., on January 23, 2010 Fonkoze brought in 2.0 million dollars in cash from their US bank and distributed it by helicopters to regional offices in the most remote parts of the country.

Fonkoze has been operating in Haiti for 15 years. Ninety-nine per cent of its members are women. In addition to micro-lending programmes, Fonkoze sponsors major literacy, health care and micro-insurance programmes. Its remittances and savings accounts serve more than 200,000 people, making it a significant part of the country's financial system.

It isn't the first time that a micro-lending network of mostly women has taken a lead role in helping rebuild a country's economy after a natural disaster. In Poland, after a devastating flood in the mid-1990s, the US-backed Fundusz Mikro became the conduit for credit to small businesses, ultimately funnelling more than US$10 million to rebuild when the central government proved inept and also tone-deaf to the challenge.

Salving Briceno, Director, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, said economic losses due to natural disasters had increased nearly ten-fold during the past four decades. In some cases, as in Afghanistan now, persistent drought was amplifying man-made emergencies. Numerous elements of a comprehensive and sustained policy for hazard awareness and disaster reduction should be looked at from a gender perspective. Balanced and equal participation of men and women in formulating and implementing policies and programmes was essential.

The case of Bangladesh: The problems of women and environmental degradation have recently been addressed by women's groups. NGOs have been the most active, with 600 registered organizations. Among these 40 per cent wereinternational , 38 per cent national, and 22 per cent local. NGOs have promoted the recent inclusion of environmental concerns into development plans.

The data shows about 100 NGOs are engaged in forestry projects. The National Association for Resource Improvement, for example, involves women in tree planting along roadsides and income-generating activities. About 75 per cent of upazilas (sub-districts) have environmental and women's projects, but fewer than 20 per cent of all villages are affected and 1.0 per cent landless people are reached.

In fact, women's groups have created awareness on women's problems and advocated for socio-economic changes. Women, despite cultural and social restrictions imposed on them, have changed environmental and economic conditions. Women's leadership and organizing abilities have contributed to public awareness of environmental degradation. Because Bangladesh is a delta, a rise in sea level from greenhouse effects would have serious consequences for the land and population.

Global warming has contributed to river flooding and climate changes that have increased rainfall and tropical storms. Deforestation upriver adds to the water overflow problems. About 20 per cent of the cultivable land area is affected by natural disasters. Population density is 760 persons per sq km. About 50 per cent of forested areas have been destroyed within the past 20 years. Around 4.0 per cent of gross domestic product comes from forest activity. The lack of wood fuel limits the ability of people to boil water and contributes to the increased incidence of diarrhoea, other intestinal problems, and less nutritious food.

Drought is another problem. Urban migration has overwhelmed the ability of urban centres to provide basic services. Coastal areas have been settled by 20 per cent of total population, but coastal storms regularly impact on people's lives and livelihoods.

The different roles and responsibilities of women and men in water resources use and management are closely linked to environmental change and well-being. This is true both for how women and men affectthe environment through their economic and household activities and how the resulting environmental changes affect people's well-being. Understanding these gender differences is an essential part of developing policies aimed at both better environmental outcomes and improved health and well-being.

Women play a critical role in the field of environment, especially in the management of plants and animals in forests, arid areas and wetlands. Rural women in particular maintain an intimate interaction with natural resources, the collection and production of food products.

As their knowledge is transmitted through generations, girls and women often acquire a thorough understanding of their environment, and more specifically of its biodiversity. Their experience gives them valuable skills required for the management ofthe environment. Women have an important role to play in preserving the environment and in managing natural resources to achieve ecologically sustainable production (UNEP, 2004).

Despite women's assumed special relations to nature it should be stressed that all people depend on the environment and all should share the responsibility for sustainable use of water and other natural resources.

The impacts of the degradation of the environment on people's everyday lives are not the same for men and women. When the environment is degraded, women's day-to-day activities, such as fuel and water collection, require more time, leaving less time for productive activities. When water becomes scarce, women and children in rural areas must walk longer distances to find water, and in urban areas are required to wait in line for long hours at communal water points.

Despite their efforts, women living in arid areas tend to be categorized among the poorest of the poor, and have absolutely no means to influence real change. They are often excluded from participating in land development and conservation projects, agricultural extension activities, and policies directly affecting their subsistence. Men make most decisions related to cattle and livestock, and even in households headed by women, men still intervene in the decision-making process through members of the extended family. However, because of the important contribution of women, the fight against the degradation of arid areas requires a gender-inclusive approach.

In conclusion, we may say that women's status in conserving biodiversity may be enhanced through the following types of actions to integrate gender concerns into environmental planning:

l Improve data collection on women's and men's resource use, knowledge of, access to and control over resources. Collecting sex-disaggregated information is a first step towards developing gender-responsive policies and programmes.

l Train staff and management on the relevance of gender issues to water resources and environmental outcomes.

l Establish procedures for incorporating a gender perspective in planning, monitoring, and evaluating environmental projects.

l Ensure opportunities for women to participate in decisions about environmental policies and programmes at all levels, including as designers, planners, implementers, and evaluators.

l Foster commitment at all levels -- local, national, and international -- to integrate gender concerns into policies and programmes which will lead to more equitable and sustainable development.

l Incorporate a gender perspective into national environmental policies, through a gender policy declaration that demonstrates the government's commitment.

So, it is evident that the gender perspective should feature strongly in all our development efforts, especially in dealing with the adverse affects of climate change and environmental degradation, where women have equal stakes as men, if not more.

The writer works as a general training manager in Bangla CAT and teaches part time at Dhaka University

Source: The Financial Express, March 07, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

Global climate battle plays out in World Bank

The United States and Britain are threatening to withhold support for a $3.75 billion World Bank loan for a coal-fired plant in South Africa, expanding the battleground in the global debate over who should pay for clean energy.

The opposition by the bank's two largest members has raised eyebrows among those who note that the two advanced economies are allowing development of coal-powered plants in their own countries even as they raise concerns about those in poorer countries.

While the loan is still likely to be approved on April 6 by the World Bank board, it has revealed the deep fissures between the world's industrial powers and developing countries over tackling climate change.

Both camps failed to reach a new deal in Copenhagen in December on a global climate agreement because of differences over emissions targets and who should pay for poorer nations to green their economies.

Some $3 billion of the loan to South African power utility Eskom will fund the bulk of the 4,800-megawatt Medupi coal-fired plant in the northern Limpopo region and is critical to easing the country's chronic power shortages that brought the economy to its knees in 2008. The rest of the money will go toward renewables and energy efficiency projects.

The battle playing out in the World Bank was prompted by new guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury to multilateral institutions in December on coal-based power projects, which infuriated developing countries including China and India.

The guidance directs U.S. representatives to encourage "no or low carbon energy" options prior to a coal-based choice, and to assist borrowers in finding additional resources to make up the costs if an alternative to coal is more expensive.

In a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick, board representatives from Africa, China and India said such actions "highlighted an unhealthy subservience of the decision-making processes in the bank to the dictates of one member country".

GOING GREEN

South Africa, together with Brazil, is a leader among developing countries in fighting climate change and foresees a peak in its greenhouse gas emissions between 2020 and 2025. By contrast, the United States is the only major developed nation with no legal target for cutting its own emissions.

To be fair, the Obama administration wants to cut emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels, or about 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, but that plan is stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Britain is better off in lecturing about clean energy -- its emissions were 19.5 percent below 1990 levels in 2008 -- and closure of coal mines and a shift to natural gas primarily for economic reasons explain a large part of the fall.

Eskom has proposed to develop Medupi with the latest supercritical "clean coal" and carbon storage technologies available on the market, which is used by most rich countries.

Still, Medupi will be a major polluter that could make it harder for South Africa to meet its emissions targets.

A U.S. Treasury official told Reuters the United States was in the process of reviewing the Eskom proposal and will develop a position that "is consistent with administration policy and with facts surrounding the project."

World Bank Vice President for Africa, Obiageli Ezekwesili, said South Africa's energy security was key because the country's growth, or lack of it, was felt throughout Africa.

"There is no viable alternative to safeguard Africa's energy security at this particular time," she told Reuters. "This is a transitional investment that they are making toward a green economy and that should count for something."

But the politically connected Center for American Progress in Washington argued in a report last week that the World Bank is a standard-setter for development banks and should push sustainable economic development models in client countries.

"This is a problem for an institution with the moral and financial responsibility to foster large-scale investment in sustainable economic development," it said.

It said the U.S. should press the point in negotiations over a general capital increase for the World Bank, which ponies up billions of dollars a year to fight global poverty.

Environmental groups argue that the Bank shouldn't be allowed to manage a Clean Technology Fund for donors while also funding coal plants that emit tens of millions tons of harmful carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

It is not the first time the Bank is facing a backlash over its support for coal-fired projects. Last year, it backed India's Tata Ultra Mega supercritical coal-fired plant, one of the world's top 50 greenhouse gas polluters.

LOW-EMISSION PATH

Steve Lennon, Eskom's managing director for corporate services, said while Medupi involved a significant chunk of coal, there were also elements of the project that would meet South Africa's Copenhagen commitment.

"The package of projects that we are applying for the funding for is part of South Africa's long-term climate change mitigation scenario, all aimed at putting the country on a low emissions path in the future," said Lennon, who was part of a high-level Eskom delegation who visited Washington recently.

David Wheeler, an environmental expert at the Center for Global Development, said the World Bank should press Western donors to fund the cost gap to help South Africa afford an alternative to coal.

"This recalls a central problem at Copenhagen: ample rhetoric about the need for carbon mitigation in developing economies, but little actual willingness to finance the extra cost of clean technology for countries that remain very poor," he added.

(Additional reporting by Agnieszka Flak in Johannesburg, Editing by Jackie Frank)

Source: Reuters, March 07, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab
An Observer investigation reveals how rich countries faced by a global food shortage now farm an area double the size of the UK to guarantee supplies for their citizens
John Vidal

We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia's largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 20 hectares – the size of 20 football pitches.

The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 500m rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tonnes of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world's most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

The 1,000 hectares of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2bn acquiring and developing 500,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.

But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

An Observer investigation estimates that up to 50m hectares of land – an area more than double the size of the UK – has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.

The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union's insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015. In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of "land grabbing".

The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: "All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.

"The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.

"All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry."

It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.

Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world's cheapest land.

Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per hectare.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East's largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential.

Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1bn buying land and growing 7m tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa's land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.

Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.

Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 2.8m hectares of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 1.2m hectares deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country's arable land.

Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. "European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 3.9m hectares in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities," said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 17.5m hectares, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.

"The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase," he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.

Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 700,000 hectares of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 750,000 hectares and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 42,000-hectare deal in Nile province.

The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. "We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on," said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. "A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile."

In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 800,000 hectares in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of "grabbing" communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.

Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. "Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap," he said.

"Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames," said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50m on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. "Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally," she said.

But many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as "new colonialism", driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.

We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 500 hectares of land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (75p) per hectare per year – less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.

"The land and labour is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone – Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians – is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years' crop yield," he said.

Oromia is one of the centres of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies' association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 1m hectares, Djibouti 10,000 hectares, Saudi Arabia 100,000 hectares, and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.

"This is the new, 21st-century colonisation. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak," he said.

The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesman said: "Ethiopia has 74m hectares of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use – mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage – 3 to 4% – is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water."

The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. "If land in Africa hasn't been planted, it's probably for a reason. Maybe it's used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users."

Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.

"We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline," she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. "I would avoid the blanket term 'land-grabbing'. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development."

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.

Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. "We would like to, but the deal is made by central government," said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.

Source: Guardian, March 07, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

Global climate change and biodiversity

Dr. Mohammad Ibrahim, an eminent scientist of Bangladesh and nature lover notes that about 40 per cent of about 44 thousand species of the world are at stake due to climatic and other disasters. Human-induced climate change tends to reduce the genetic diversity of individual species. Again, successful adaptation to climate change may depend to a greater extent on the ability of species to disperse to new areas but this ability is also increasingly impeded by human-induced landscape change. If we can't mitigate and tackle climatic disasters properly, global biotic community will seriously be in danger in future.

The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that by the end of this century, climate change will be the main cause of biodiversity loss. But as climate changes, the value of biodiversity for food and agriculture will increase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that a significant number of species will be at risk of extinction as the global mean temperature increases.

Of particular concerns are relatives of major crops surviving in the wild. For example, research by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research based on distribution models of wild relatives of three staple crops that sustain the poor - peanuts, cowpea and potato - suggests that by 2055, between 16 and 22 percent of wild species will be threatened by extinction.

Climate change also threatens fishery, an important source of income and nutrition for the 200 million poor people with more than 98 percent from developing countries. Impacts of climate change will affect fish diversity and availability in particular. Here, what climate change will bring include higher water temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, changes in ocean salinity and acidity, more cyclones in some areas, less rainfall in others, thus shifting paterns and in abundance of fish stocks. The species of fish which will be able to adapt the changed aquatic conditions will survive but which will not be able to do so will face extinction.

E.O. Wilson, an advocate of the movement of biodiversity conservation, says, "The one process that will take millions of years to correct the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats caused by human-induced climate change and direct human thoughtless activities even if world wide biodiversity conservation is properly taken and if human induced climate change is stopped even today.

This is the folly that our descendants are least likely to forgive us. Globally, species have been disappearing at 50-100 times the natural rate. Based on current trends, an estimated 3400 plants and 5200 animals species including one in eight of world's bird species face extinction (IUCN, 2006). The experts at international level hope that human induced climate change is responsible for much of this huge species extinction. Hopefully, domestication of crops and animals, a fraction of the world's total species of organisms, has saved us from the full consequences of human aggravated climate change on biotic kingdom. Biodiversity represents the very formation of human existence as it is part of our daily lives and livelihoods and constitutes the resources upon which families, communities and whole nation depend. But human induced-climate change and other heedless human actions are eroding this biological capital at an alarming rate. Here an atempt is made to present the existing problems and to suggest some actions in conservation of biodiversity throughout the world.

Many species are disappearing even before they are identified and registered. Because the total number of species is still not completely known. So, a scientific campaign should immediately be launched to identify and enlist all the species of organisms with a view to developing a permanent and authentic global biodiversity database that will be highly useful for conservation policy making both in national and international levels.

Still there is much lack of quantitative data as to the climate change impacts on biodiversity globally - how much biogene, species, and ecosystems are being lost due to climate related disasters? Which species are facing endangeredness and extinction and at which rate and where in particular? How much species are vulnerable to climate change at present and will be in future if climate continues changing at present rate? Regarding this questions/issues scantly information is available, mostly in scatered literature. So, it is now exigent to carry out sufficient scientific researches on global scale to assess the impacts of climate change on global biota.

Freshly developing climate and climate impact models that give a beter understanding of how climate change may affect global biodiversity in order to be beter prepared.

Improving and expanding weather and climate forecasting. Developing climate disaster risk management.

Implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Actions on climate change needs to be internationally supported if necessary.

Contingency plans need to cover new and evolving climate-induced risks on biodiversity at both national and international levels.

Land use plans, fisheries, forestry and wetland management policies must all be adjusted well with climate change.

Global concerns such as climate change and loss of biodiversity require concerted efforts among various stakeholders and institutions at local, national and international levels along with close association among other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs).

Awareness raising and communication materials on biodiversity conservation and climate change should be developed and awareness building and information dissemination should be done globally among the responsible ones about biodiversity and the ways to conserve biodiversity under the present stress of climate change through advertisement in mass media, documentary films and other means of propaganda and motivation.

Development of international and national biodiversity conservation strategy and actions plan both at national and international levels taking climate change and other threats to biodiversity into account is a must Hopefully, in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity, different countries of the world have already developed National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). Necessary support-both financial and technical- from the international community should be made if necessary for the sound implementation of NBSAP in the respective country.

Continuous monitoring, assessment and management of impact risks caused by climate change on biotic environment.

However both biodiversity and climate change are global issues. Biodiversity is a must for keeping the planet Earth vividly functioning as the only largest ecosystem of the universe. Similarly, climate change will have its impact felt throughout the whole world. So, they both should be treated globally.

Under the present circumstances of climate change and climate change-induced disasters, the future of the floral and faunal kingdom looks very bleak. If it can't be preserved, this world would be a paradise lost, to put it in beter terms, a paradise destroyed. But to save the earth's living kingdom from the impact of climate change, climate change mitigation is urgency. Yet, mitigation can't be only solution here. Because if all-out measures for climate change mitigation are taken strictly throughout the globe even today, the climate change, according to Dr. Atiq Rahman, an eminent climate change expert of IPCC, will have been having its impacts till 2030. So, adaptation strategies are also now a cornerstone. Yet, for long-term biodiversity conservation and its resilience, mitigation campaign is the main and wisely response to climate change.

Because numerous species are still out of man's known world and are disappearing even before they are identified. It is quite impossible to bring all species under man's direct supervision and care. But time is not just ticking. It has almost run out Less than 50 days left world leader are scheduled to meet in the 15th UNFCC in Copenhagen (December 7-18, 2009) for adopting a climate change agreement.

In case of formulating effective international measures, there must be clear-cut policies and actions for climate change mitigation giving highest priority to global climate impacts and the promoted or approved measures must be implemented every where legally and morally imperative thinking globally and acting locally. Otherwise, the future will hold us all to account (Concluded).

(Muhammad Selim Hossain is an M. S. student of the Department of Geography and Environment at the University of Dhaka, a young writer and researcher on environmental and disaster management issue.)

Source: The New Nation, March 08, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

United Nations review of how world assesses risk of climate change
The head of the United Nations (UN) has announced a review of how the world examines the risk of global warming following a series of scandals around the science of climate change.
Louise Gray

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the UN to assess the risk to the world of rising global temperatures. It won a Nobel Peace Prize for its 2007 report that concluded mankind is most likely responsible for the warming.

But the report included an erroneous claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. There have also been questions about the use of non-peer reviewed or "grey literature" to back up some of the claims around global warming. Sceptics also claim that emails stolen from the University of East Anglia cast doubt on the science of global warming in a scandal known as "climategate". 
Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN, insisted that the case for man made global warming is sound.

“Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors [in the report],” he said. “[But] I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that report. The threat posed by climate change is real.”

However he said there needs to be complete public confidence in the science of global warming following the earlier mistake or "glaciergate" as it has become known.

He announced an independent review will be carried out by the InterAcademy of Council, an organisation that represents national science academies around the world. The review will look at how the IPCC, that is run by volunteer scientists and relies on input from thousands of people around the world, comes to its conclusions.

Mr Ban hinted that some changes in the way the IPCC reports are compiled might be necessary to avoid future mistakes.

"We need to ensure full transparency, accuracy and objectivity, and minimise the potential for any errors going forward," he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, has come under pressure to resign and his role will be examined by the review.

He insisted the IAC will be independent and improve public confidence in the science of climate change in the long run.

“It is critically important that the science we bring into our reports and disseminate on a large scale is accepted across the globe, by governments, businesses and civil society,” he said.

“We expect that this review will help us strengthen the entire process by which we carry out preparation of our reports."

The IAC is hosted by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam and includes Britain's Royal Society, and more than a dozen other national science academies. The review will be funded by the UN, although it will be independent. A panel of experts has yet to be announced. The review should be finished by the end of August. 

Source: Telegraph, March 10, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________

TANZANIA:
Weather Changes Turn Farming into Gamble with Nature
Denis Gathanju

Changes in weather patterns have turned agriculture into a gamble with nature for Tanzanian farmers. Prolonged droughts and floods have made the lives of small-scale farmers, who don’t have access to irrigation, extremely difficult.

In Tanzania, where the economy is largely driven by agriculture, the largely poor, rural population has become even more vulnerable.

According to the national Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), agriculture accounts for up to 60 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). More than 80 percent of the population works in the sector, which makes up 60 percent of the country's exports.

A 2009 report by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) warns that Tanzania has two decades to adapt its agriculture to climate change or risk major dents in its GDP. Otherwise, GDP loss could amount to one percent within the first 20 years and rise to between 5 and 65 per cent over the next 75 years, says Muyeye Chambwera, who co-authored the report.

Climate change experts agree that the only way to prevent major economic impact is to change the way agriculture is done.

"The only way forward is to educate farmers on better farming practices, as most are still using outdated farming methods, while others are practicing farming in areas where rainfall is inadequate," said Marc Baker, executive director of Carbon Tanzania, a non-profit organisation that helps farmers in Arkaria village, 35 kilometres west of Arusha, to adapt to climate change.

The Tanzanian government has realised it needs to act quickly and initiated a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) that seeks to reduce green house gas emissions and help small-scale farmers adapt to new agricultural practices and technologies.

It plans to educate farmers on alternative practices, such as crop rotation, zero grazing and growing of crops that need litlle water, such as millet and sorghum. NAPA also promotes the planting of drought-resistant maize.

"NAPA’s objective is to enhance the adaptive capacities of vulnerable communities, since Tanzania’s economy is largely dependent on agriculture…," confirmed Abubakar Rajabu, permanent secretary in the Office of the Vice President.

Throughout the country, temperatures are likely to increase between two to four degrees Celsius by 2100, the MoA predicts. This seems a long time away, but it gives an indication that perennial crops, such as maize and beans, will eventually not be able to grow anymore and will have to be replaced with annual crops, such as millet and sorghum.

The production of maize, Tanzania’s staple food, is expected to drop by a third within the next few decades, because the crop needs lots of water to grow, MoA officials further caution. In the drier, central parts of the country, the maize harvest could even decrease by up to 84 percent.

Last year’s planting season is a good indicator that the predictions are coming true, perhaps even earlier than expected. Farmers in Iringa province told MoA officials that they harvested between three and five bags of maize per acre of land in 2009. This is a far cry from the average 15 to 18 bags harvested a few years ago.

Farmers have also observed the effects of changing rainfall patterns. "Maize is no longer doing very well," says Mama Mrema, a small-scale farmer from Arusha. "Now I have turned to growing other crops, such as cassava and sweet potatoes, that do not need a lot of rainfall, to make a living."

In another village, Mwitikilwa in Iringa province, villagers say there have been drastic changes in weather patterns during the last thirty years.

Dr. Emma Liwenga, a researcher at the Institute of Resource Assessment at the University of Dar-es-Salaam who has carried out research in the village in the past year, confirms that climate change has prevented farmers in Mwitikilwa from planting beans, coffee, peas and sweet potatoes. Her research also shows an increase in pests due to the increase in temperatures.

Farmers have been struggling to adjust to changing weather patterns. "The last decade has been really bad in terms of food production, especially in our village where we never used chemical fertilizers to grow our crops. We have been recording fewer harvests, because the dry spells have been longer and more severe while the rains have been irregular," says farmer Maimuna Hamadi.

The usually short rainfalls that occur between April and July have become sporadic, while temperatures between April and August have become abnormally high, the farmers say.

"We are no longer sure when to start preparing the land for planting or when to start planting. It is pretty much gambling with nature. The weather is no longer predictable as it was some 10 or 15 years ago," laments Mwanaisha Mwampamba, another farmer from Mwitikilwa.

"Sometimes the rains are not enough for crop production, while at other times, they are too much. They flood and destroy the crops," she adds. "If the situation persists, then most of us, who have small farms, will sink deeper into poverty, because we depend on agriculture to take care of our families." 

Source: IPS, March 10, 2010
__________________________________________________________________________________