| Sustainable Development Update Issue 6, Volume 3, 2003 The Sustainable Development Update (SDU) focuses on the links between ecology, society and the economy. It is produced by Albaeco, an independent non-profit organisation. SDU is produced with support from Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Environment Policy Division. Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor If you want to download the newsletter as PDF click here 
To read the PDF you need Acrobat reader, download for free here: http://www.adobe.com 
 | ||
| Editorial | ||
| Biodiversity will matter even more in the future I read in the newly released “Red List” from IUCN - The World Conservation Union about threatened species of plants and animals in the world. IUCN updates its Red List each year, with the help of 8,000 experts around the world. This year’s list concludes that island plants and animals are the world's most threatened species. This is mainly due to invasive species that eat the natives and destroy their habitat. On Hawaii, 85 plant species that are found nowhere else are in danger of extinction. This is also the case for 35 species of snail on the Galapagos Islands. So what? Who cares? Does it matter at all if a few species disappear? Or as former US-president Ronald Reagan put it in the 60s when opposing expansion of the Redwood National Park in California: "A tree is a tree. How many more do you need to look at?” Today scientists estimate that species extinctions are occurring 100 to 1000 times faster than without human influence. It is obvious to many that the earth's poorest people use dozens or even hundreds of species of wild and semi-domesticated plants and animals for food, medicine, fodder, energy, clean water, cash incomes, and insurance. But also people in urban and industrial contexts depend on healthy ecosystems. Natural ecosystems and their biodiversity support our health, our environment and our economies. They supply food, much of our raw materials, including genetic materials for agriculture, medicine, and industry, they help maintain the chemical balance of the atmosphere, protect watersheds, control pests, absorb pollutants, renew soils, and nutrients. So biodiversity matters. It is not just a large number of peculiar insect species on a remote tree in the rainforest or a bunch of seemingly insignificant invertebrates in a coral reef. It concerns us all. Everyday. Biological diversity also plays a significant role in the long-term capacity of ecosystems to cope with disturbances and environmental change, that is, it provides the capacity of ecosystems to sustain the production of essential goods and services on which human development depends. In this sense, many scientists argue that biodiversity will matter even more in face of forthcoming global environmental change and increased uncertainty. Biodiversity is much more than a red list of threatened species. It is the future. /Dr. Fredrik Moberg, Editor | ||
| SDU - Feature | ||
|
Rainwater harvesting: low-tech help in dry regions for future food production In the coming 50 years food production will have to quadruple in dry regions in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in order to feed the growing population. Harvesting of rainwater is a low-tech alternative solution to increase food production in dry areas with high rainfall variability. - One of the most widespread misconceptions of semiarid savannahs is that there is no water, says Dr. Johan Rockström from Unesco-IHE, in The Netherlands. - During rains there is plenty of water. The problem is that the water that falls on the land rapidly runs off the soil and that the gullies dry up so quickly. Johan Rocktröm has focused much of his research on the possibilities of what he calls ”closing the yield gap” between the actual yields achieved by farmers and the potential yields that could be met with a better management of the limited soil and water resources. Taking advantage of the vast amount of water that falls on land during heavy rainfall events is one of the most promising areas for increased food production in the dry tropics, according to Rockström and his colleagues within the new Sida-financed research programme "Smallholder system innovations in integrated watershed management: Strategies of water for food and environmental security in drought prone tropical and subtropical agro-ecosystems (SSI)" (see box 1 and 2). However, some other scientists argue that it is much more important to focus on better management of nutrient levels in the soil. Water or nutrients the limiting factor? The population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia has forced people to start cultivating more marginal land with low soil fertility. One area of intense scientific debate is whether crop yields in the dry tropics primarily are limited by scarcity of nutrients or of water. Experiments have illustrated that both fertilisation and supplementary irrigation can increase yields. Patrick Fox, at the Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University, has studied the role of fertilisation and supplementary irrigation for increased yields of Sorghum. His research was carried out in northern Burkina Faso, in the dry Sahel region of West Africa. Here the soils have low fertility and the main staple crops are Sorghum and Millet. Fox’s three year long experiment illustrated that crop yields could be increased by an average of 50% through supplementary irrigation alone. However, when only fertilisers (and no irrigation) were applied the crop yields increased by roughly 90%. At a first glance the interpretation of these results seems to be that nutrient scarcity is the main limiting factor in this region. However, Fox has strongly emphasised the tight interaction between both water and nutrients. His experiments showed that when fertilisation and supplementary irrigation was combined the yields increased with as much as 300%.  Rainwater harvesting in Tanzania: a low-tech alternative to increase food production in dry regions with variable rainfall. Photo: Elin Enfors Securing water supply generates interest in investing in the land Farmers in the semi-arid regions have to deal with great uncertainty due to a variable rainfall. Some regions have an annual rainfall of 600 mm, which can vary between 200 mm in a bad year and 1000 mm in a good year. The rainfall variability within a year can also be high. There is always a risk of crop failure if the region is hit by a drought spell in a sensitive phase of the crop development, even if the total rainfall throughout that specific year is higher than average. Patrick Fox illustrated that one of the most crucial points is having water available when dry spells occur. The heavy, but short rainfall events in the region generates substantial amounts of rapidly disappearing runoff that flows through the landscape. To collect a small amount of this runoff water in a storage pond is one way of securing water availability for drier parts of the season. These small-scale ponds (with a capacity to store roughly 150-300m3) can be constructed with limited availability of external inputs and at low costs. Since pumps are expensive, the pond should preferably be situated upstream of the fields in order to take advantage of gravity when it is time for irrigation. One hypothesis that often has been brought forward is that if it is possible to secure water supply for the crops the farmer would be more interested in investing in his land. Today the risks of investing in nutrients are often perceived by the farmers to be too high due to the risk of crop failures from droughts. There are several alternative methods of ”harvesting” rainwater in order to improve water availability in the soils for crop production. Contour bounding, ridges and terracing are example of small-scale, local solutions. Intentional diversion of gully flows during rainfall into the fields by the construction of simple canals is another method. These methods can be used to increase soil moisture after rainfall, but does not store water for usage later in the season. The wide variety of innovative water use systems illustrate the ability of farmers to come up with agricultural innovations that help them make the most of the short periods of rainfall. Several water-harvesting structures have been around for a long time. They have, however, so far not been analysed from a broader spatial and temporal perspective in order to understand potential impacts on systems at different scales. Increased need for a system perspective If rainwater harvesting proves to be as effective as Rockström, Fox and several other water experts believe there is a possibility of more investments in these small-scale systems. The potential consequences of up-scaling rainwater harvesting have however not been addressed previously. There has, for example, not been any scientific study so far of the potential downstream effects on ecosystem services due to a larger water use in water harvesting systems upstream. The new large international research programme "SSI", mentioned above, will take the challenge of studying the potential of rainwater harvesting for improved livelihoods among poor rural farmers in the dry tropics (see box 1 and 2). One of the main research focuses is on the effects of up-scaling rainwater harvesting on the generation of ecosystem services in the surrounding landscape. It is possible that the effects of rainwater harvesting on surrounding ecosystems primarily will be positive, and that this provides a tool of reversing some of the trends in land degradation. If more of the rainwater infiltrates the soil during high rainfall events, erosion can potentially be decreased. More infiltration can also lead to higher base flow of water through the soils to downstream rivers. As described above, there is also the possibility that with decreased risks of crop failures, farmers might be more willing to invest in their land. Hopefully rainwater harvesting is one way of increasing intensification of agriculture without compromising the capacity of surrounding ecosystems to produce goods and services. If this proves to be the case there is a huge potential for livelihood improvement for poor farmers, through small-scale and low-tech agricultural development in dry tropical regions. /Line Gordon More at: http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/
| ||
| Sustainability School | ||
|
Response diversity is a newly proposed term that refers to the multitude of responses to environmental change and disturbances, among species contributing to the same ecosystem function. Biodiversity plays a crucial role in sustaining the capacity of ecosystems to cope with disturbance and change, a capacity called resilience by ecologists. In an ecosystem there are a number of so called functional groups of species, like organisms that are pollinators, grazers, predators, seed dispersers, decomposers, or organisms that fix nitrogen, generate soils or modify water flows. When such functional groups contain several species that perform a similar function, species can replace or compensate for one another in times of disturbance and insure against loss of ecosystem functions. If all species within such a functional group would be equally sensitive to a particular disturbance the system would have low response diversity and be very vulnerable. If, on the other hand, they respond in different ways to environmental changes there is high response diversity. It is like a financial asset manager that distributes his investment by purchasing shares in different companies across different (and unrelated) industries to spread the risk. Take a forest with many different species of trees, for instance. Some species are probably more fire tolerant than others, some might be less likely to fall during a storm and yet others might not be affected by an outbreak of a particular insect pest. They all respond in different ways to disturbances and hence provide insurance against the loss of all essential functions trees provide to a forest. Erosion of functional diversity and response diversity may lead to vulnerability due to alterations in nature’s capacity to supply society with essential ecosystem services and support. Source: Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, J. Bengtsson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. “Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(9):488-494. Website: http://www.frontiersinecology.org | ||
| In Brief | ||
|
Food security and global climate change: the need for adaptive strategies in vulnerable areas The potentially serious impacts of climate change provide additional incentive to manage present climatic risks. Disaster mitigation and early warning are essential, but will only be effective if adaptive capacity is enhanced. This means greater emphasis on resource management, environmental planning and governance.  Climate change and food security: reasons for concern in relation to different predictions of global warming. Click to enlarge... Climate change poses risks to agricultural systems and vulnerable populations in addition to the climate stresses currently experienced. Most developing countries depend heavily on agriculture, hence the anticipated effects of global warming on agriculture is a particular threat to both the welfare and future development potential in these countries. Figure 1 suggests five areas of concern about agricultural systems over the next 100 years. At the global level, an enduring concern is the threat to global food supply. The adaptability of commercial agriculture suggests that this is not a serious risk for the next few decades at least—although warming beyond 4°C might start to endanger productivity of key agricultural systems. However, small agrarian economies and those based on a narrow range of crops, i.e. parts of Central America, are at much greater risk. At present and in the near term, the most serious concerns are production variability, food security of vulnerable populations, and increases in extreme events (Figure 1). While vulnerability is often closely correlated with poverty, other factors including farming practices, diversification of income, access to social services and networks, age, and gender are also significant determinants. Too much or too little water A genuine worry is that an increase of less than 2°C in the average global temperature in the next 100 years may exacerbate the frequency and magnitude of droughts in parts of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and Australia. Droughts will most likely entail reduced crop productivity as well as food, economic, and health insecurity, particularly among currently vulnerable populations. In other areas, climate change may increase flooding and severe storms. The impact on small-island economies could be devastating, as these events can devastate agriculture, as well as livelihoods, assets, shelter, and public infrastructure. The potentially enormous toll of climatic disasters on public funds could jeopardise economic growth in some countries. What adaptive options are feasible and worth pursuing? Mainstreaming climate change. Improving the integration of climate concerns in resource management, planning, poverty reduction, and governance policy is a key strategy for increasing adaptive capability. Over the next decade or so this effort to increase overall capacity may be more valuable than specific responses to future climate change. Strengthening disaster mitigation and early warning. Assuring timely and appropriate responses is a priority. Better indicators and profiles at local levels are required to create more accurate picture of affected people and their needs. For instance, implementing disaster mitigation through improving urban land-use planning could reduce flooding. Security of adequate freshwater supply can be improved by drought early warning and planning efforts. Other options will become increasingly important as climate change and climatic risks become greater in the future. For example, insurance will be needed to support local livelihoods as well as ensure replacement of key infrastructure. Public health systems need to address the potential spread of diseases, such as malaria. /Mattias Nordström, Linda Stephen, Kirstin Dow, and Thomas E. Downing Challenging conflicting ‘brown’ and ‘green’ environmental agendas Advocates of the ‘Green Agenda’ and the ‘Brown Agenda’ often disagree over which environmental problems should be tackled first. The Green Agenda concentrates on reducing human impacts on the world’s natural resources and ecosystems, whereas the Brown Agenda focuses on the environmental threats to health in poor areas. However, these seemingly opposing agendas stretching from water supply to conservation of endangered species can be combined into a true sustainable development agenda. When some societies discuss climate change and species decline, others are working with local sanitary issues like water supply and solid waste disposal. These two clusters of environmental questions are treated by two separate agendas; the brown focusing on environmental health and the green on ecological sustainability. The Brown Agenda emphasises the need to reduce the environmental threats to health that arise from poor sanitation, overpopulation, insufficient water provision, air and water pollution, and municipal waste. The brown issues have direct impacts on humans at a local scale and primarily affect low-income groups. The Green Agenda, on the other hand, concentrates on reducing the human impact on natural resources and ecosystems. As such the green agenda have more dispersed and delayed effects on future generations. The difference in time and space scales is significant between the brown and green issues. But, in the shadow of a growing global population and urbanisation, the issues are becoming more cross scale.  Brown or green? Why not both? Cross-scale inequalities. Working with the brown agenda, lots of problems have been solved at a local level, resulting in increased human welfare and health in many poor sites. However, the solution often means displacement of problems, resulting in regional or even global impacts. In this sense the green problems have actually grown partly because brown problems have been solved. From a ‘green’ point of view this is inequitable and economically unsound and shifts the burdens onto distant people and ecosystems, and even onto future generations. From a brown agenda perspective, the inequities and economic inefficiencies lie in the inadequate local water supplies, local air pollution and poor sanitation. This is the core of the conflict between the brown and green agendas. Sustainable development agenda in Brazil In Pantanal Biosphere Area in Brazil, management is focused on river basin management, urban sanitation, promotion of sustainable economic activities and protected areas. The management program is critical to: reduce sedimentation and pollution arising from agriculture and mining, increase production and productivity, conserve biodiversity and provide a better quality of life for the population. The Pantanal Program works on parallel agendas with nature conservation, economic development, improved water supply and waste treatment at the same time. It’s about avoiding conflicts and to build on complementarities between the agendas. A lot remains to be learnt about these complex development issues, but one critical component is to support locally driven environmental initiatives. If people are engaged and not left passive, a significant step towards a true sustainable development agenda has been taken. /Sara Borgström More information: http://www.pantanal.org http://www.mercedessanchez.com.br/pantanal/ingles Book: ”Citizens at risk. From urban sanitation to sustainability” Getting more girls into school crucial for fulfilling the Millennium Development Goals Educated girls are less vulnerable to poverty, hunger, disease, violence, abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and more likely to have healthy children in the future. A new UNICEF report calls on development agencies to focus much more on the underlying factors that keep girls out of school.  Photo: Caroline Cederlöf In its annual The State of the World’s Children 2004, UNICEF reveals that 121 million children (65 million girls) worldwide receive no schooling. The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of gender parity in primary and secondary education is set to be achieved by 2005 - a full 10 years before the other MDGs. Without the foundation of gender parity in education as the necessary step towards the equality of women, any achievements towards the later goals will not be sustainable, according to the report. ”When a girl is without the knowledge and life skills that school can provide, there are immediate and long-term effects. She is exposed to many more risks than her educated counterparts and the consequences are bequeathed to the next generation.” As mothers, educated women are more likely to have healthy children and more likely to ensure that their children, both boys and girls, complete school. Illiteracy and ignorance puts women at risk in knowing how to space children and protect themselves against disease. The signs in the first three years since the Millennium Declaration are not encouraging for universal education, or gender parity in education or for any other MDG, the UNICEF report contends. The events of September 11th 2001 have occupied much of the world’s attention and soaked up resources that could have been devoted to human development. If progress does not accelerate, it will take some regions more than 100 years to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In sub-Saharan Africa, it will be well into the 22nd century before all children are in school, child mortality is reduced by two-thirds and poverty is reduced by half. /Caroline von Post Carlsson More at: http://www.unicef.org/sowc04/index.html The Swedish International Biodiversity Programme to focus on the social and economic dimensions of biodiversity Governments and donors have previously not been convinced that biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides are crucial for human development. This is beginning to change, but much more must happen. This was concluded at a workshop initiated to provide advice and guidance for the future work of The Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio).  Victoria Corpuz, TEBTEBBA, Mats Segnestam, Sida, Maria Berlekom, SwedBio, at the workshop in Uppsala, Sweden. “Donor agencies are so powerful. This power must be used in a good way”, said Victoria Corpuz from the Philippines in the beginning of a workshop that came to emphasise the broader social and economic dimensions of biological diversity. The workshop was organised by SwedBio a joint initiative by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Swedish Biodiversity Centre (CBM). SwedBio was launched in March 2003 to contribute to increased capacity and support within Swedish development cooperation to address biodiversity issues. Swedish and international experts participated in the workshop to help SwedBio to identify strategical issues and developing their criteria for what types of activities to support. Mats Segnestam, Head of Sida’s Environment Policy Division started off by stating that scientists and NGOs working with conservation have been notoriously bad at explaining the importance of biodiversity for social and economic development. The focus has been on protection of species and areas, while the importance of biodiversity for people has not been highlighted enough. However, he concluded that there has been a change in the last decade or so, and that many donors actually take environmental issues seriously today. Sida’s own policy on sustainable development is one example, which actually states that environment is a decentralised responsibility within Sida. “However, the present efforts are not enough. We address governments, support NGOs etc, but much more must happen”, continued Segnestam. Sustainable use and conservation of the world’s biological diversity is crucial for achieving many of the Millennium Development Goals: to halve severe poverty and improve human health, food production and water supply. Conserving biodiversity is about safeguarding natural systems that regulate climate, form soils, pollinate crops, cleanse air, filter water and provide food, medicines and raw materials for countless other goods. However, participants concluded that present global polices and processes, such as Poverty reduction plans (PRSPs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) seem rather to promote economic growth at the expense of biodiversity and natural resources. Focus on benefit sharing and ecosystem services As biodiversity is of special importance to many poor households, their possibilities to share the benefits arising from a sustainable management of biodiversity must be strengthened in the future. This was emphasised by many at the workshop, not the least by Elenita Dano, from SEARICE in the Philippines, who called attention to the many inequalities between the rich and poor. Charles McNeill from UNDP put it this way: “the wealthy control access to a greater share of biodiversity and ecosystem services, consume them at higher rate, and are buffered from changes in availability by their ability to purchase scarce ecosystem services or substitutes”. There was a strong consensus among participants that ensured access to and control of biological resources by local communities is crucial for both biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Moreover, virtually all workshop participants agreed on the importance of focussing on the role of biodiversity for securing the long-term provision of goods and ecosystem services. Carl Folke, Stockholm University, was one of the strongest advocates of this idea: “A diversity of species within each functional group sustains the capacity of ecosystems to respond to change. It helps insure the environmental resource base for human communities and their livelihood in a world of rapid transformation and increased uncertainty”, as he expressed it in his background paper to the workshop. /Fredrik Moberg
More at: http://www.swedbio.com Conservation efforts in corrupt countries: meaningless? Biologists are too naive and narrow minded when dealing with wildlife conservation in corrupt countries. As long as threatened species are more valuable dead than alive, economics is more important than biological research, according to a new study presented in Nature. Investments are crucial for conservation work to be successful in the less industrially developed parts of the world. However, donors are becoming more and more selective when it comes to investing. The reason is that in some areas the money disappears and illegal poaching or logging continues undisturbed. Unfortunately, the new study also shows that more corrupt areas have higher species richness. In the study conservation work efficiency and poaching rate was compared with a corruption index, based on public opinion polls. The result showed a strong link between corruption and conservation failures that explained trends better than any other factor. If the money that is sent is not getting through, do not continue to send more, is the message from the article. It has long been suspected that political and economic powers have a strong impact on conservation, but the connection has not been given enough attention, argue the authors behind the new findings. The reason to this – according to the study – is that most often biologists are in charge of conservation work, and they have little knowledge about or interest in problems outside the biological sphere.  Shooting rhinos to help out in conservation work? Cost: approximately 45,000$ in South Africa. Legalize ivory trade So what can be done? The authors of the article propose alternative solutions for international organisations to fight corruption. First of all make sure that the staff in corrupt areas get good salaries, so that they are not tempted to become corrupt or assist in illegal actions. Secondly, to diminish the profitability of the illegal trade there should be a discussion about a legal market for goods from endangered species. The profit could go back into conservation and local communities – not into the hands of criminals. This is a controversial suggestion. Even if the procedure in selecting individuals would be strictly regulated many critics have questioned whether it is the right approach. Should trade with endangered species be allowed just because there is a strong market? Another example of an alternative conservation method is practised in Tanzania and South Africa where you can buy exclusive trophy hunting for any of the big five game, and the money goes back into management work. Are these new conservation methods innovative solutions or bargaining with the devil? The opinions differ. The preservation of unique natural resources is a complex problem. This study carried out by a group of scientists from the U.K, clearly shows that wildlife conservation involves politics and economics. As long as threatened species are more valuable dead than alive, economics is more important than data on inbreeding and effective population size. Source: Smith, R. J. et al. Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature, 426, 67 - 70, (2003). More at: In SDU 4/02 we reported about a study that showed that conservation efforts can pay off 1:100 http://www.nature.com/nsu/031103/031103-12.html The Amazon was a cultural landscape already when Columbus arrived When Christopher Columbus arrived in the dense Amazon rainforest in 1492, he was convinced he had reached a new land, untouched by mankind. He was wrong. The remains of nineteen large villages from the times before Columbus have recently been found inside the rainforest by a group of archaeologists. The archaeologists found signs of an old advanced civilisation with managed forests and an agricultural system that was supported by irrigation and water canals. Many people share Columbus’ belief that the Amazon is an untouched wilderness and loud protests from all over the world echoe the farming expansion into the rain forest. Rightly so – one might argue – since it has been proven difficult to use the thin and nutrient poor soils for sustainable farming. After a heavy rainfall rivers and streams are red with soil particles that are swept away with erosion. This forces farmers to go deeper into the forest. The Amazon is world famous for its rich biodiversity that is threatened by the rapid decrease of size mainly because of logging and farming practices. These new archaeological findings, published recently in “Science”, prove that large societies have lived off this land for a thousand years! Remnants and local traditional knowledge of agriculture indicate that our ancestors cultivated small patches inside the forest, instead of clearing large fields. Also, the generation cycles were long and sometimes trees were mixed into the plantations. So, perhaps history has a lesson to teach us. Traditional knowledge is experiencing a renaissance as a valuable and useful tool in sustainable agricultural practices. If it was possible to practise a successful agriculture inside the rainforest in the past, it can probably be done again. Source: Heckenberger, M. J. “Amazonia 1492: pristine forest or cultural parkland?” Science, 301, 1710, (2003). Hunger on the rise again reports FAO The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) annual hunger report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003 declares that hunger is on the rise again after falling steadily during the first half of the 1990s. If this continues, the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015 cannot be reached. The figures presented are dire. FAO estimates that 842 million people were chronically malnourished in 1999-2001. However, the report also includes a few success stories: China and 19 other countries managed to reduce the number of undernourished throughout the 1990s whereas 22 other countries, including Bangladesh, Haiti, and Mozambique succeeded in turning the tide against hunger during the second half of the decade after having seen a continuous increase in the number of undernourished during the first 5 years. In 17 other countries, including India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Sudan, the number of undernourished people rose. Countries with high economic and agricultural growth, lower population growth and higher levels of economic and social development show positive developments in fighting hunger. ”International trade can also have a major impact on reducing hunger and poverty in developing countries” says FAO. “Countries where more than 15% of the population goes hungry spend more than twice as much of their export earnings to import food as more food-secure countries.” Water scarcity the biggest problem Conflict and AIDS is also having a great impact on food security, leading to labour and know-how loss to grow staple and commercial crops. However, drought is seen as the “single most common cause of severe food shortages in developing countries”. FAO reports that one way of achieving food security in these countries is to rely on ‘virtual water’ (see SDU No 5), through the import of food from countries where there is an abundance of water. Africa is mentioned as both the driest continent and the continent with the most prevalent hunger. The FAO proposes an Anti-Hunger Programme setting out priorities and budgets for five target areas: improving agricultural production in poor rural communities, developing and conserving natural resources, expanding rural infrastructure and market access, strengthening capacity for knowledge generation and dissemination, and ensuring access to food for the most needy. Similar points were also brought up at the December 1-3 “International Conference on Successes in African Agriculture: Building for the Future” in Pretoria. The conference concluded that only if productivity is boosted can welfare of both rural households and the urban poor improve. A statement at the end of the conference said: “…Africa remains the only region in the developing world where per capita agricultural production has fallen over the past 40 years.” More at: http://www.fao.org The quote: “Consumer products start and end with nature … Christmas season means advertising season. Local mailboxes and newspapers laden with flyers. Children pleading for the latest toys they've seen on television. Awash in consumer products and commercials, it's easy to forget where all this stuff comes from and where it goes.” Editorial by Dr. David Suzuki December 19 at: http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-19/s_11496.asp |