The Switch � October 2008

The planet is headed for an ecological "credit crunch", according to the 2008 Living Planet Report published by the WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network.

It says that more than three quarters of the world's population lives in countries where consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal.

This makes them "ecological debtors", meaning that they are drawing - and often overdrawing - on the agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them. This detrimental process is stimulated by the mindset of corporate globalization. When China imports wood from Tanzania, or Europe imports beef from cattle raised on Brazilian soy, these countries are relying on biocapacity outside of their borders to provide the resources being consumed by their population.

The report shows the US and United Arab Emirates have the largest ecological footprint per person. The report concludes that the reckless consumption of natural capital is endangering the world's future prosperity, with clear economic impacts including high costs for food, water and energy.

If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles. We are entering a self-constructed perfect storm where economic turmoil is coupled with an ecological credit crunch.

ANPED Prague Statement on EU SCP Action Plan

At the European Regional Meeting on Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) in Prague, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED) delivered a statement addressing the recently adopted EU Action Plan on SCP.

ANPED commends the EU for moving forward in some respects. However, it states that "changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and production requires a comprehensive, coherent and consistent approach". In this regard, ANPED refers to a set of key elements of a broad-based approach to SCP defined by NGO representatives at the 2004 Ostend EU Stakeholder meeting on SCP, which include: ecological fiscal reform; clean and eco-effective production; education for SCP; corporate responsibility and accountability; and information and public participation for SCP.

According to ANPED, the EU focus on energy is far too narrow a scope. Instead, the EU should developed a vision that also takes into account the social dimensions and a wider range of products and services in terms of use of natural resources and waste production. Referring to the 2007 SCP conference in Ljubljana, ANPED stresses the specific attention that should be given to those areas with the highest environmental relevance, which are housing, food and mobility. Furthermore, ANPED states, EU policy on SCP should be as concrete as possible, and the EU should move from a "quantitative towards a qualitative economic model whereby sustainability in terms of production as well as consumption is the key".

Finally, ANPED calls on the EU to promote, facilitate and support SCP policy development and implementation in all European countries, including those outside of the EU in order to avoid any double standards throughout the European region. Here, ANPED calls for Member States and other European countries to develop national action plans on SCP or incorporate SCP action in their national strategies on sustainable development.

Protecting Agriculture by Standing Up Against GM Crops

EU Ministers are currently locked in crucial discussions on the future of the EU�s authorisation system for GM crops. The EU is still unable to predict the long-term impact of GM crops on the environment, biodiversity and on our health. Member States clash on the issues of protecting sensitive and protected territories and establishing GMO-free zones. Some delegations believe that the current legislative framework already allows for such protection measures if there is scientific evidence of risk. Others underline the importance of retaining control of their national territories and seeing the subsidiarity principle better respected in this regard, allowing them to establish GMO-free zones for sensitive eco- and agro-systems.

Given the climate and food crises the world is currently facing, ministers need to protect Europe from the dangerous distraction of GMOs and instead focus on real solutions. Europe need modern farming methods that ensure higher yields, are more climate-resilient, do not destroy natural resources and can guarantee food security. EU environment ministers must therefore act immediately to protect our food and agriculture.
Member States should be allowed to establish GMO-free areas and implement measures to avoid seed contamination. The EU's current authorisation process is fundamentally flawed since it ignores the long-term effects of GMOs, evidence on their biodiversity impacts, diverging scientific opinions and concerns from EU Member States. Changes in agricultural practices, loss of traditional farming knowledge and the effects of contamination are also not considered under the EU process.

For more information about the background and risks of GMOs, please see Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl; the interview with Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, What's Wrong With GMOs?; and the report by the Independent Science Panel, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World.

Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa

The UNEP-UNCTAD Capacity Building Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development (CBTF) has been implementing an initiative in East Africa on the promotion and production and trade opportunities for organic agriculture. The initiative has resulted in the development of an East African Organic Product Standards (EAOPS). In addition, it was successful in catalysing policy changes at the national level in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in favour of organic agriculture. Thematic research studies, country level integrated assessment projects and platforms for cross fertilisation of experiences were major components of this initiative.

Food security is an issue of great concern in many countries, particularly in Africa. A common question that the UNEP-UNCTAD CBTF faced in East Africa was to what extent organic agriculture can enhance food security in the African context�. This study was developed in response to that question. It analyses organic agriculture�s impact on food availability as well as natural, social, human, physical and financial capital in the region. While special attention has been given to East Africa throughout the paper, including analysis of 15 case studies, the conclusions and findings are, however, relevant for all African countries as well as many other countries around the world.

The evidence presented in the study Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa supports the argument that organic agriculture can be good for food security in Africa � equal or better than most conventional systems and more likely to be sustainable in the longer-term. The 15 case studies examined in-depth have shown increases in per hectare productivity for food crops, increased farmer incomes, environmental benefits, strengthened communities and enhanced human capital.

Developing Effective Local Food Networks

Effective networks are required for consumers to buy food that has been produced locally between participants, including consumers, producers and retailers. New research into local food schemes in Europe demonstrates how different forms of knowledge, such as scientific and lay knowledge, need to be managed to enable participants to be actively involved in the process.

In many parts of Europe, 'food deserts' have arisen where consumers have no choice but to buy food from supermarkets and all connection with local producers has been lost. The importance of consuming local food has received attention recently as a means of encouraging sustainable rural development and of reducing 'food miles'. The rising popularity of the local food movement can also be viewed as a reaction to the organic certification movement, increasingly seen as aimed at wealthy consumers and promoting products that may be shipped long distances. The authors differentiate between two main tendencies in Europe to strengthen local food networks. These are:

the move to rebuild local networks of food production and consumption
the promotion of typical local specialities destined for more distant consumers. For example, the European Union scheme for Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO) which certifies the origin of food products

There are also two main forms of knowledge involved in developing local food: lay, local, tacit and traditional, and expert, technical, scientific and managerial. Food relocalisation projects in 10 European countries showed that the balance of knowledge and power in local food networks varies according to whether the scheme is aimed at reconnecting local producers with local consumers, or whether it is aimed at valuing food specialities by certification.

In Ireland, Scotland, Sweden and Germany, food is typically organised by large supermarkets and there is a lack of a strong local food culture. However, since the 1990s there has been a growing trend towards relocalisation of food with new schemes emerging such as farmers' markets, community supported agriculture and training courses for farmers in local food production. These schemes have tended to be consumer-driven and aimed at addressing concerns about food miles, quality and community revitalisation. In these contexts, there is a strong need to rebuild lay knowledge that has been lost through delocalisation, for example learning which crops suit local soil types. Scientific knowledge can help with this adaptation process in some circumstances.

In contrast, countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway and Poland have a stronger local food culture. Food is often sold through local markets and traditional agriculture persists through small family farms. Here the emphasis tends to be on sustaining local livelihoods and economies. In these contexts, many small-scale producers have retained traditional knowledge originating from pre-industrial times.

The researchers point out that a better understanding of the individual contexts of local food schemes will affect how they need to be monitored for social, environmental or economic impacts. They believe that the opportunities for diversified models of rural development based on local food are great, but the role of the expert and of scientific knowledge has to be carefully considered to avoid risks of excluding the local community from the benefits arising from local food production.

Global Economic Crisis: Historic Opportunity for Transformation

The global financial system is unravelling at great speed. This is happening in the midst of a multiplicity of crises in relation to food, climate and energy. It severely weakens the power of the US and the EU, and the global institutions they dominate, particularly the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. Not only is the legitimacy of the neo-liberal paradigm in question, but the very future of capitalism itself.

Such is the chaos in the global financial system that Northern governments have resorted to measures progressive movements have advocated for years, such as nationalisation of banks. These moves are intended, however, as short-term stabilisation measures and once the storm clears, they are likely to return the banks to the private sector. We have a short window of opportunity to mobilise so that they are not.

Taking advantage of the opportunity of so many people from movements gathering in Beijing during the Asia-Europe People�s Forum, the Transnational Institute and Focus on the Global South convened informal nightly meetings between 13 and 15 October 2008. They took stock of the meaning of the unfolding global economic crisis and the opportunity it presents to put into the public domain some of the inspiring and feasible alternatives many have been working on for decades. The resulting statement represents the collective outcome. The initial signatories mean this to be a contribution towards efforts to formulate proposals around which movements can organise as the basis for a radically different kind of political and economic order.

Halting Amazon Oil Exploration to Protect People and Biodiversity

Growing global demand for oil and gas is leading to unprecedented exploration and development in the Amazon region. New research says it is putting the western Amazon basin at risk. This is still largely an intact ecosystem with an extraordinary array of biodiversity. The region is predicted to maintain stable climatic conditions in the face of global warming and is also home to some of the world's last uncontacted people.

The western Amazon includes parts of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and western Brazil. National governments claim the rights for oil and gas resources and specify geographic areas or 'blocks' for oil and gas activities, which they may lease to state and multinational energy companies for exploration and production. Around 180 oil and gas blocks now cover around 688,000 km2 of the western Amazon and overlap the most species-rich part of the region.

The research produced maps showing which blocks are already leased out to some of the 35 US, Canadian, European and Chinese multinational companies operating in the area. It also shows which blocks are under negotiation and which overlap areas of peak biodiversity or areas which are home to indigenous peoples. For example, of 64 blocks in Peru, 58 affect land that is titled to indigenous peoples.

Since the 1970s there have been several major oil projects which have had major direct impacts, such as deforestation for access roads and contamination from spillages. Indirect impacts include illegal logging, unsustainable hunting and human settlement. First contact with outsiders can result in the deaths of between one-third and a half of the indigenous population within just a few years.

There is a lack of understanding of the full extent of the territories of indigenous people who have had no contact with the outside world, such as the Taromenane and Tagaeri in Ecuador. The researchers point out that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples emphasises free, prior and informed consent before government approval of projects affecting indigenous lands. The Inter-American Court on Human Rights also issued a landmark ruling that a state must ensure the right of local peoples to give or withhold consent to development in their territories.

The researchers call for improved policies to ensure that the region does not suffer further massive ecological and social disruption, including:

attention to be paid to the rights of indigenous peoples, especially those living in voluntary isolation who by definition cannot be consulted or give their consent;
clarification of who controls the land and its oil and gas resources as this would greatly influence the development of the region;
regional Strategic Environmental Assessments conducted by neutral parties to prevent habitat fragmentation and progressive damage across large areas of untouched forest;
support Ecuador's Yasuni-ITT proposal, which seeks compensation from the international community in exchange for leaving the country's largest oil fields, located beneath untouched rainforest, unexploited.

Public Consultation Improves Decision-Making

According to a new report by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, well-designed public consultations improve environmental decision-making. It also increases the legitimacy of these decisions for those affected by them, making it more likely that the decisions will be implemented effectively.

U.S. Federal agencies have taken steps to include the public in a wide range of environmental decisions. Although some form of public participation is often required by law, agencies usually have broad discretion about the extent of that involvement. Approaches vary widely, from holding public information-gathering meetings to forming advisory groups to actively including citizens in making and implementing decisions.

Proponents of public participation argue that those who must live with the outcome of an environmental decision should have some influence on it. Critics maintain that public participation slows decision making and can lower its quality by including people unfamiliar with the science involved.

The book concludes that, when done correctly, public participation improves the quality of federal agencies' decisions about the environment. Well-managed public involvement also increases the legitimacy of decisions in the eyes of those affected by them, which makes it more likely that the decisions will be implemented effectively. This book recommends that agencies recognize public participation as valuable to their objectives, not just as a formality required by the law. It details principles and approaches agencies can use to successfully involve the public.

Major Health Savings Through Stricter Climate Policies

According to a report commissioned by health and environmental NGOs, raising the EU's 2020 target for greenhouse gas emission cuts from 20 to 30% would increase health savings by as much as 48%, or �6.5 to 25 billion each year. Moreover, the benefits would accrue year on year.

The estimates in the report The co-benefits to health of a strong EU climate change policy, commissioned by the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E) and WWF, are based on economic evaluations of reduced loss of life and health resulting from better air quality. Savings to industry and governments are also taken into account in terms of fewer lost working days and reduced health service costs.

According to the report, the higher emissions reduction target would reduce lost years of life by 105,000 annually and lead to 2,800 fewer hospital admissions. These societal benefits would be accompanied by industry savings of two million work days saved every year.

"Until now the discussion on climate change has been all about costs to industry and the economy, while costs of climate pollution to the society have largely been neglected," said Delia Villagrasa, senior advisor to WWF, referring to the improved quality of European citizens' life as a result of using cleaner sources of energy.

The report also pointed out that stronger climate policies help protect forests, ecosystems and historical buildings, which adds to the quantified benefits. Moreover, European companies are expected to make considerable savings from implementing air pollution control measures.

"Action on climate change produces win-win-win scenarios. Tougher targets means a win for the planet, a win for European citizens' health and a win for industry in reducing air pollution control cost," stated Tomas Wyns, policy officer on the emissions trading scheme at CAN-E.

The NGOs hope that the health benefits demonstrated will persuade the EU to support a minimum target of 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Currently, the EU has pledged to cut its total greenhouse gasses by 20% by 2020. But it has promised to increase this target to 30% if a new global climate change pact that embraces other major emitters such as the US and China is agreed next year in Copenhagen.

No Such Thing as "Clean Coal"

1Sky invites people to tell the U.S. Presidential campaigns that "Clean Coal" is a myth.

During the Vice Presidential debate, both Senator Biden and Governor Palin touted their support for "clean coal". But both presidential campaigns and Congress are missing the point: Conventional coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of global warming pollution in the United States. "Clean Coal" is a myth--a contradiction in terms. Coal companies claim they can develop coal plants at some point in the distant future that will capture and sequester carbon pollution. But carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is unproven and exorbitantly expensive.

There is no such thing as �clean coal�. Conventional coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of global warming pollution in the United States � pollution that will cost us billions of dollars and millions of lives in the future if we do nothing. "Clean coal" is a coal industry dream about what maybe could happen in two decades if we give coal companies billions of dollars to research �carbon capture� technologies that don�t exist today. We can�t afford to wait � we need zero-carbon solutions NOW.

Instead, 1Sky wants the candidates to commit to:

Enacting an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants that emit global warming pollution.
Dedicating resources to renewable energy such as solar and wind.
Setting strong, science-based targets for the reduction of global warming emissions of least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Creating 5 million new green jobs and pathways out of poverty with a sweeping national mobilization for climate solutions and investment in a new energy economy.
For more information about the "Clean Coal" myth, and the facts about coal, visit Coal is Dirty, a joint project managed by the DeSmog Project, the Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA.

Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World

Green Jobs: Towards Decent Work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World is the first comprehensive report on the emergence of a �green economy� and its impact on the world of work in the 21st Century.

The report was commissioned and funded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as part of the Green Jobs Initiative of UNEP, the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization of Employers (IOE) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). It has been compiled by the Worldwatch Institute with technical assistance from the Cornell University Global Labor Institute.

Until now, there has been much anecdotal evidence indicating that the pattern of employment is indeed changing�and that new jobs are beginning to emerge in favor of greener, cleaner and more sustainable occupations. This report shows for the first time at global level that green jobs are being generated in some sectors and economies.

This is in large part as a result of climate change and the need to meet emission reduction targets under the UN climate convention. This has led to changing patterns of investment flows�flows into areas from renewable energy generation up to energy efficiency projects at the household and industrial level.

The bulk of documented growth in Green Jobs has so far occurred mostly in Northern countries, and some rapidly developing countries like Brazil and China. Green Jobs are also beginning to be seen in Southern countries. A project in Bangladesh, training local youth and women as certified solar technicians and as repair and maintenance specialists, aims to create some 100,000 jobs. In India, an initiative to replace inefficient biomass cooking stoves in nine million households with more advanced ones could create 150,000 jobs. It now appears that a green economy can generate more and better jobs everywhere and that these can be decent jobs.

The Green Collar Economy

Provocative, personal, and inspirational, The Green Collar Economy is not a dire warning but rather a substantive and viable plan for solving the biggest issues facing the country�the failing economy and our devastated environment. From a distance, it appears that these two problems are separate, but when we look closer, the connection becomes unmistakable.

Acclaimed activist and political advisor Van Jones delivers a real solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment. The economy is built on and powered almost exclusively by oil, natural gas, and coal�all fast-diminishing nonrenewable resources. As supplies disappear, the price of energy climbs and nearly everything becomes more expensive. With costs and unemployment soaring, the economy stalls. Not only that, when we burn these fuels, the greenhouse gases they create overheat the atmosphere. As the headlines make clear, total climate chaos looms over us. The bottom line: we cannot continue with business as usual. We cannot drill and burn our way out of these dual dilemmas.

Instead, Van Jones illustrates how we can invent and invest our way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into the healthy new green economy. Built by a broad coalition deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of ordinary people, this path has the practical benefit of both cutting energy prices and generating enough work to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral.

EU Bans Incandescent Light Bulb

This month, EU Energy Ministers decided to ban incandescent light bulbs in Europe as of 2010. The move came a few days before the lift of anti-dumping duties on energy saving lamps imported from China, which took effect on 18 October.

However, the EU has not yet committed to a binding target reducing primary energy consumption by 20% by 2020 to boost energy conservation in all sectors. Although it was discussed by the European Council in 2007, so far this objective is only applied by European countries on a voluntary basis.

Lighting is responsible for 19% of global domestic energy consumption. Incandescent light bulbs consume three to five times more than efficient lights, such as integrated compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). The replacement of worst-performing lamps with today�s best available technology will contribute to reduce domestic energy consumption for lighting by 60% in the EU, equivalent to some 30 million tons CO2 yearly savings.

The ban of energy-intensive lamps will increase demand for more efficient products such as CFLs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). The lift of anti-dumping duties on CFLs imported from China will make CFLs cheaper for European consumers. CFLs, like all fluorescent lamps, contain small amounts of mercury as vapour inside the glass tubing, averaging 4.0 mg per bulb, and it is a concern for landfills and waste incinerators where the mercury from lamps is released and contributes to air and water pollution.

EU Bans Export of Mercury

The Council on 25 September adopted a regulation in order to ban exports of metallic mercury and to provide for its safe storage, with a view to reducing risks of exposure to population and to the environment, wrapping up a key part of a European strategy to limit emissions of the toxic heavy metal into the environment. Under the regulation, the ban will apply to exports of metallic mercury, cinnabar ore, mercury chloride, mercury oxide and mixtures of metallic mercury with other substances, including alloys of mercury, with a mercury concentration of at least 95% weight will be prohibited as from March 2011. The new legislation also requires that the remaining surplus of mercury needs to be put into safe storage as of the same date.

Mercury has been recognized world wide to be toxic, especially when transformed during its life cycle into methylmercury.

In 2005, the Commission adopted a strategy addressing all aspects of the mercury life cycle made up of twenty actions and, the following year, presented a proposal on the banning of exports and safe storage of metallic mercury in line with two key actions identified in the strategy. In December 2007, the Council adopted its common position and the Parliament voted in second reading in May 2008.

The Council's adoption follows a compromise deal struck between the three EU institutions earlier this Spring after debate on when the ban should enter in force and whether it should have also included imports. Demands by the Parliament to impose a ban on mercury imports were rejected as impractical and importing mercury will therefore still be possible. Meanwhile the export ban enters in force earlier than initially proposed by the Commission (October 2011).