The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.

– Chinese Proverb

By Bhavani Prakash

What is this life if full of care, we have no time to plant a single tree?

And what better way to express our gratitude to Mother Nature, compensate for our heavy footprint, and restore the land for generations to come, than to plant a tree? He who plants a tree, as Lucy Larcom the 19th century poet said, plants hope. He plants a joy, he plants peace, he plants youth, and he plants love.

Today, 5th June 2012 is World Environment Day and we take this opportunity to pledge our support to Project Green Hands, an inspiring grassroots initiative of the not-for-profit organisation, Isha Foundation. Its ambitious mission is to restore the green cover in Tamil Nadu, India to 33% by planting 114 million trees.

The programme was lauched in 2004 on World Environment Day, and has enabled the planting till date of more than 14 million saplings in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, with the help of more than 1.5 million volunteers.

In 2010, Project Green Hands (PGH) won a national award in India, the Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar award in recognition of its efforts to create environmental awareness and reverse ecological degradation. PGH also has a Guinness World Record of planting most number of saplings in three days: 8,52,587.

Listen to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Founder of Isha Foundation, share his thoughts about Project Green Hands and the urgent need to reforest the earth.

Video link here

A single sapling costs only Indian Rupees 50 (less than 1 USD and just over 1 Singapore dollar). Every little counts by way of your contribution. 

By donating just Indian Rupees 50 per sapling through giveisha.org/pgh Project Green Hands (PGH) will plant trees on your behalf in Tamil Nadu, India.  The saplings will be provided to farmers for planting in their farmlands. PGH tracks the exact location of their trees and the details of the farmer who will plant and take care of it.

Project Green Hands hopes to plant 300,000 trees for World Environment Day 2012. The World Environment Day campaign will run for June and part of July 2012. PGH continues beyond that period to achieve its larger objective of planting 6 million saplings in 2012.

Your help to spread the word, and contribution, however small, really matters in achieving these goals to reforest Tamil Nadu. 

FAQs (as provided by Project Green Hands of Isha Foundation)

1. What is Give Isha?

GIVE ISHA is an online fundraising portal through which people can support for Isha Foundation’s social initiatives in Education – Isha Vidya, Health – Action for Rural Rejuvenation and Environment – Project GreenHands.

The featured project currently on Give Isha is:

World Environment Day campaign – Project GreenHands

2. Who plants the trees and where are they planted?

PGH is providing trees to farmers for planting in their farmlands. PGH has been working with farmers in Pudukottai, Erode, Tirunelveli districts of Tamil Nadu.

3. How can trees be tracked?

While taking saplings from PGH, the farmer has to register his name, contact details and location. This is stored in the PGH database. After the plantation is done, a survey will be carried out by PGH to confirm whether the saplings have been planted. So when an individual donates for a tree, he will be assigned a tree from the PGH database.

4. Will we get anything if we donate?

Once you make a donation, you will get an email with tree certificate indicating the total number of trees planted by you.

5. How can we donate?

You can donate online: log on to giveisha.org/pgh and offline: or send an Indian Rupee DD/ Cheque drawn in the favour of “ Isha Outreach” to Project GreenHands ,  Isha Yoga Center,  Velliangiri Foothills,  Semmedu post,  Coimbatore – 641114.

6. How much is the minimum donation?

One Sapling: Indian Rupees 50/- (about 1 Dollar)

 7. After I donate, what is the next step? How do I know what is happening and when the sapling planted?

Once you make a donation, you will get an email with tree certificate indicating the total number of trees planted by you. A tree tracking code will be specified on the certificate. Using this code you can track your tree starting Jan 1st 2013, on projectgreenhands.org/track

8. Why this time gap – why can’t I track the tree immediately?

The planting season begins in the month of September and trees can be planted till December. After the plantation is done, a survey will be carried out by PGH to confirm where the saplings have been planted. After which each donor will be assigned a tree from PGH’s database.

9. If I donate at separate occasions, will I get different certificates? Can I have it in the name of someone other than me?

Yes, you will get a different tree certificate each time you make a donation. If you want the certificate in someone else’s name, please fill in their particulars in the Donor details.

10. Are there any centers/stalls where something is set up for this campaign? If so, where?

No, the donation can be done only Online or a DD/ Cheque needs to be sent to PGH directly.

11. As someone who has donated and is interested in this campaign, how can I help? What can I do?

1. Many people may get inspired just by seeing your enthusiasm for the project. Spreading the word is the most important help you can do to us. You can take the message to all your friends and relatives by send them emails and videos, sharing on facebook, twitter and other social media.
2. Create your own campaign page on the Give Isha site and get all your colleagues and friends to join you.
3. You could also like the PGH Facebook page

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Share/Save

Michelle Desilets

Michelle Desilets is Founder and Executive Director of Orangutan Land Trust, a UK-based NGO which supports sustainable solutions for the long-term survival of the orangutan in the wild.  She is also Founder of Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation UK, and Member of the Board of Borneo Orangutan Survival Germany, which supports the largest primate rescue and protection project in the world.

She was in Singapore recently when she talked to us about the threats to orangutans, especially from the palm oil industry. Orangutan Land Trust is a key player in the campaign for sustainable palm oil, and Desilets shares some of the nuances in the debate about sustainable palm oil, the challenges in the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) process, and what would be more effective to save the rainforests – boycotting palm oil, or more direct action through petitions which influence industry and government behaviour.

Watch the interview with Michelle Desilets here:

Video link here

Desilets aim to secure at least 1 million hectares of rainforest for the continued and long term survival of the orangutan. Support Orangutan Land Trust’s efforts here

Please support the campaign to save Tripa Peat Swamps.

Join the Facebook page : Save the Tripa Peat Swamps, and sign petitions via Avaaz, Change.org or Care2

ABOUT THE INTERVIEWER:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: The fight for Borneo’s soul

EWTT: Nestle buckles to Greenpeace pressure on unsustainable palm oil

EWTT: How to find Hidden Palm Oil in Supermarkets

EWTT: Engaging local communities in S.E.Asian Peat Swamp Regeneratio

Share/Save

Aedes aegypti

By Bhavani Prakash

In Dec 2010, 6000 genetically modified (GM) Aedes aegypti sterile male mosquitoes were released in the unhabited forests of Betong, Malaysia, according to the statement by the government run Institute of Medical Research (IMR).  

The GM mosquitoes were developed by the UK biotech company, Oxitec. The purported aim of the company is to work with governments around the world to combat dengue disease caused by the Aedes mosquito. It had already “released 3 million GM male mosquitoes as part of an open release field experiment in the Caymen Islands in 2010,” according to the press release by UK’s Gene Watch entitled, “Oxitec’s genetically-modified mosquitoes: in the public interest?”

The mosquitoes released in Malaysia were genetically engineered in such a way that when they mate with females in the wild, the resulting mosquito larvae die young (although this will only happen in the absence of the antibiotic tetracycline).  Oxitec claims that this will drastically reduce the population of disease causing mosquitoes. However not everybody is of the same view with many scientists arguing that this practice is fundamentally flawed.

Prior to the experiment, Malaysia’s Third World Network (TWN) had already raised concerns and submitted their objections about genetically modified or engineered (GE) mosquitoes. They sought answers to the following concerns:

 1) Could female mosquitoes be accidentally released?

TWN’s concern was about the possibility of an accidental release of female GE mosquitoes that could in turn raise further concerns, as females act as vectors for diseases such as dengue and chikungunya. Their argument was that the sex selection process prior to release may not be fully accurate or effective. They claimed that the available information does not indicate whether the reliability and efficiency of the sex selection process can be guaranteed.

 2) Could GE mosquitoes and GE larvae survive and persist in the environment?

Oxitec mentions that mosquito larvae that are produced after the GE males mate with females will only die if they do not encounter tetracycline in the environment. TWN’s concern is that since Tetracycline is a fairly common antibiotic used in animal husbandry, there is a possibility of the larvae surviving. TWN claims that the available information provided does not indicate whether the use, presence and persistence of tetracycline in the environment at the proposed release sites have been assessed.

In addition, TWN is also concerned that about the possibility that the conditional lethality trait may not be 100 percent effective, meaning some of the GE larvae produced will not die.

All this implies that it is reasonable to expect at least some GE mosquitoes to persist beyond the first generation in the environment. While the number may be small, a proportion of these would be female, and thus capable of transmitting disease. TWN is concerned that there is a risk of an increase in the disease burden of the communities at the inhabited release sites.

3) Could there be a surge of other disease-transmitting mosquito species if Aedes aegypti populations are suppressed?

Aedes aegypti is not native to Malaysia, but is an introduced, invasive species. Nonetheless, it has become part of Malaysia’s complex ecological ecosystem. It would be important to consider the implications on other species that interact with Aedes aegypti in the receiving environment.

Aedes albopictus is an indigenous species of mosquito to Malaysia, which also transmits dengue, as well as chikungunya. If the GE Aedes aegypti mosquitoes successfully achieve their aim of suppressing wild populations, there could be a surge in Aedes albopictus, with potential increase in incidences of chikungunya and possibly also dengue.

There may also be other ecological implications of long-term suppression of Aedes aegypti populations. This could include effects on food webs and ecological functioning or impacts on the abundance of other species that feed on mosquitoes. The available information provided does not indicate whether there are baseline ecological data on mosquito and other ecology in the proposed release sites that could inform the assessment.

 4) Could there be gene flow and effects on non-target organisms?

 While the available information suggests that gene flow through mating of closely related species (Aedes albopictus) will not produce fertile offspring, the possibility of gene flow between different Aedes aegypti populations and perhaps other mosquito species cannot be absolutely discounted.

This possibility may vary depending on the genetic elements used in the specific modification, which may to a greater or lesser extent be genetically unstable, especially under field conditions. If horizontal gene flow happens, non-target species may be adversely affected by sterility-inducing genetic elements, increasing the risk of ecological harm.

5) Are the monitoring and control measures proposed adequate?

While the applicant has proposed control measures to prevent the GE mosquitoes from persisting in the environment, the monitoring of these mosquitoes is dependent on the adequate functioning of the fluorescence marker gene. Because genetic expression can vary, the production of the fluorescent marker may be diminished and some GE mosquitoes may not be identifiable by fluorescence. If this happens, the GE mosquitoes may persist in the environment without our knowledge.

Furthermore, given the possibility that some GE mosquitoes could persist beyond the first generation in the environment (see point 2), the proposed period of one month for application of the control measures may not be long enough.

Therefore, an assessment must also be made as to whether the monitoring plan as proposed by the applicant is adequate and whether complete removal of GE mosquitoes and larvae from the field release sites is possible.

 6) Has the prior informed consent of local communities at the release sites been obtained?

As the experiments are also proposed for inhabited sites, local communities living in these areas have the right to be specifically informed, consulted and their consent obtained before any field release occurs. This is especially given the possibility of the risks as highlighted, particularly in relation to disease transmission.

 7) Is there sufficient risk assessment and regulatory experience?

The only reported environmental release of GE insects to date has been in the United States, of a transgenic pink bollworm, an agricultural pest that is not involved in intimate contact with humans or disease transmission as Aedes aegypti is. There may have already been field experiments with GE mosquitoes, but little information is available; however, this proposed release would be certainly be one of the first such releases in the world.

The experiment drew flak from several organizations in Malaysia. Following the news of the release of the GM mosquitoes in Malaysia in December 2010, a coalition comprising of 21 NGOs demanded that the government disclose full details of the trial release and its results and to identify the existence of any adverse effects. They also “criticized the government for “silently” conducting the experiment despite making a public announcement that the trial had been postponed pending public consultation.”

Following the experiment, the MP of Sungai Siput, Dr D Jeyakumar, who is also a respiratory physician called the using of laboratory mosquitoes to fight dengue “a catastrophic mistake” in this article by Free Malaysia Today.  Some of the points he raised were:

• the release of large numbers of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes into the environment could cause the transformation of the mosquitoes  or even some other insects in some unanticipated manner that might be difficult to control.
• the process of producing the male GM mosquitoes was not foolproof and that  3% to 4% of them would be female which could copy the role of the wild female Aedes to spread dengue. (This is also raised in Consumer Association of Penang’s Memorandum dated Dec 20, 2010 titled, ” Malaysia’s Planned Release of Aedes Mosquito: ethical, legal and human rights concern)
• the means of biological suppression cannot completely eliminate the species from the environment and the government would have to go on purchasing, releasing and killing the GM mosquitoes. “We would need billions of these transgenic mosquitoes for an average sized city. Wouldn’t it be more logical and productive if that same sum were spent in improving the drains and sewerage systems in our urban areas?”

On January 12 2012 , civil society groups  Friends of the Earth U.S., GeneWatch UK and Third World Network in a joint press release titled, “Genetically modified mosquitoes survival rate concealed,”  revealed a confidential internal document by Oxitec that showed that genetically modified mosquitoes described by the company “as “sterile” are in fact not sterile and their offspring have a 15 percent survival rate in the presence of the common antibiotic tetracycline.

The antibiotic tetracycline is widely used in agriculture and is present in sewage as well as in industrially farmed meat. Mosquitoes that carry dengue fever are known to breed in environments contaminated with sewage where they are likely to encounter widespread tetracycline contamination.

Even in the absence of tetracycline contamination, the GM mosquitoes are known to survive in the laboratory at rates of around 3 percent. In the field, this would translate into large numbers of survivors, given that continual releases of millions of GM mosquitoes would be needed to sustain the goals of population suppression.”

In January 2012, the US delayed the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes, according to FOE’s press release. Eric Hoffman, FOE’s biotechnology policy campaigner said:

“This delay is welcome and prudent given the risks that genetically engineered mosquitoes pose. Introducing genetically engineered mosquitoes into the environment could destabilize ecosystems, harm human health and scare away tourists, endangering the Florida Keys economy. These potential impacts must be evaluated through a serious and thorough environmental impacts review process. We are confident that any truly impartial, science-based review will lead to the cancellation of this risky experiment.”

It is to be expected that Oxitec will endeavour to rope in more nations into this experiment with GM mosquitoes. The issue is of particular concern to the public in neighbouring countries such as Singapore, and the rest of tropical Asia where there is a prevalence of dengue. Many questions are raised from the way the experiment was conducted in Malaysia and Cayman Islands. Has the public been involved and sufficiently consulted in the process? Aren’t there other non-invasive ways to attack the dengue issue, rather than doing an irreversible experiment with nature, especially when there are several unanswered concerns?

*****************************************************************************************

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube

*****************************************************************************************

Further links you may be interested in: 

Friends of the Earth U.S., GeneWatch UK and Third World Network’s Joint Press Release: “Genetically modified mosquitoes survival rate concealed,

Consumer Association of Penang’s Memorandum dated Dec 20, 2010 titled, “ Malaysia’s Planned Release of Aedes Mosquito: ethical, legal and human rights concern

UK’s Gene Watch :”Oxitec’s genetically-modified mosquitoes: in the public interest?”

Free Malaysia Today: GM mosquitoes Horror story in the making?

On GM Food: 

EWTT:  China suspends commercialisation of genetically engineered rice and wheat

EWTT:  Better labelling of GM Food in Singapore essential

EWTT: Lim Li Ching: GMO Free

EWTT:  India’s GM Bill: Anti-people, Anti-nature

EWTT: Go GM Free in Australia

EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

Share/Save

With palm oil companies slashing vast swathes of forest, the Dayaks of West Kalimantan are desperately struggling to save their ancestral lands and way of life

Houses and Mountains. Photo courtesy: Ben Sutherland

On the porch of a wooden house deep in West Kalimantan, a shirtless man sits, staring out at endless rows of palm oil trees surrounding his home like a besieging army. Pak Kabul does not know his exact age, only that he was born in the 1950s. Neither does he know what the future holds – except that life took a turn for the worse when a palm oil company took over the bulk of land nearby. The company chased nearly everyone off their land; only he refused to budge, he said. These days, he and his wife, together with some chickens and pigs, live a lonely existence in the middle of a sprawling plantation about an hour by road from the nearest town, Sintang, 420 km west of Pontianak city.

They eke out a living tapping rubber, earning about 360,000 rupiah (S$51) each month. Their son teaches at a nearby village and visits sometimes. Javanese immigrants brought in to work on the plantation live nearby, but Pak Kabul does not interact with them.

Borneo rain forest. Photo courtesy: Ben Sutherland

He remembers better times when the land was still forested and the villagers could live off its bounty. “When we had the forest, nobody came to hurt us,” he said with quiet resignation. “I have no more hope; I can only hope my son will be good.” According to him, the only benefit reaped from the palm oil company is the road built through the estate.

It was this road on which we were travelling, en route to a village three hours from Sintang, that we spotted Pak Kabul and decided on impulse to stop and talk to him – and heard yet another account of the Dayak indigenous people’s struggle with palm oil companies.

Our group comprised more than 20 people from countries like Australia, the Netherlands, the United States and Indonesia. Led by Dutch-born Indonesian conservationist Willie Smits, 15 young people dubbed the EcoWarriors – of whom I was one – were in West Kalimantan for a project to combat deforestation and illegal wildlife trade in partnership with local communities. Our efforts are to be made into a documentary by Australian director Cathy Henkel.

We were in West Kalimantan for 20 days in September, the first leg of a 100-day project. Accompanied by some Dayaks who have banded together to raise awareness of unlawful land grabs, we visited remote villages in the Serawai and Ambalau – the only two of Sintang’s 14 sub-districts that have resisted the palm oil companies. 

But for how much longer? Already, the locals speak of their livelihoods and communities being threatened by the relentless expansion plans of these companies.

The Dayaks love a good celebration, and we were welcomed warmly with traditional dances, rituals and generous amounts of a rice wine called tuak. Behind the smiles, however, lay deep anxiety for their future. The issue is not simply about the local communities depending on ancestral lands and forests to live, but about deforestation and wildlife habitat destruction – a struggle for Borneo’s soul.

‘TO THE LAST DROP OF BLOOD’

The third-largest island in the world, made up of Malaysia’s Sabah and Sarawak states, Brunei and Indonesia’s Kalimantan region, Borneo is known for its lush rainforests and stunning biodiversity. But since the 1980s and 1990s, large tracts of forests have been cleared for pulp and timber.

Deforestation in Borneo Image Courtesy: Maps.grida.no

In the past 15 years or so, palm oil companies have moved in; according to a 2009 report commissioned by Amsterdam University’s law faculty, the plantations occupied 3.2 million hectares of land in 2006, with another 2.8 million hectares cleared.

A July report by independent monitors Forest Watch Indonesia estimated that between 2000 and 2009, 1.5 million hectares of forest – an area 21 times the size of Singapore – were destroyed each year, a third of it in Kalimantan.

The villages we visited faced the very real danger of losing land that has been passed down for generations. Nearly every adult villager had a tale to tell – of suspicious tactics by palm oil company staff to survey the land, the bribery of select villagers to create rifts within the community, or the abuse of villagers who vocally opposed the companies. In Duan village in Ambalau, a sacred burial ground is part of the land being eyed by a palm oil company. Duan practises shifting agriculture, moving to a different spot every eight years to allow land to lie fallow. This allows the companies a chance to pounce on seemingly unoccupied territory.

When we visited, the traditional village high priest opened the vault where the bones are kept for us – a rare privilege and sign of trust that our group will tell their story of struggle and desperation when we return to our home countries. He grew increasingly distressed as he told us of seven generations of high priests who have watched over the grounds.

Should the palm oil companies try to take the land, it would be a “fight to the last drop of blood”, he said.

The locals also told of a villager, Joseph Obeng, who was framed by the palm oil company into accepting timber, then reported to the police for unlawful possession of it and thrown into jail.

TAKING BACK THEIR LAND

Over 300km from Duan, the three villages of Lansat Baru, Lansat Lama and Belenyut Sibau have found 80 hectares of their land bulldozed by a palm oil company. The company had also planted saplings on the land and driven their truck in – all without having obtained the necessary permits or completing negotiations with the community, villagers claimed.

Enraged, they confiscated the keys of the truck in September. Hearing of the Eco Warriors’ presence in a longhouse three hours away, the villagers travelled the bumpy, muddy roads to tell us of their plight.

The next morning, some of us drove to the disputed site. We spoke to the village leaders, and watched as they performed a traditional Dayak ceremony to stake their claim on the land, and uprooted several saplings. “Nobody has agreed to this and the palm oil company just steals and rapes our land,” said a leader, Mr Yohanes Aliam.

The palm oil company retaliated – it made a police report and the following morning, another leader in the group, Mr Yunosno, was arrested and taken to the police station. Several of the Serawai-Ambalau action group bailed him out after nearly a day.

Mr Yunosno maintained that the villages had not been properly compensated for their land. But in a report by the news site Kalimantan-News.com, a company representative was quoted as saying the company had followed proper procedure.

THE WEIGHTED DICE

The villages’ struggle to hold on to their land comes about because of lax enforcement and corruption, and overlapping laws and claims for the land. Palm oil companies are supposed to go through a multi-step licensing process – securing location permits, plantation business permits, forest area release and, finally, business use permits – before clearing the land. 

But this is seldom the case, going by what we observed as well as findings of the Amsterdam University report.

According to the Dayaks and Dr Smits, even if the palm oil companies present required legal documents such as environmental impact assessments of the land (known as Amdal), or papers that show the majority of villagers are pro-palm oil, their authenticity could be questionable.

A 2009 investigative report done by several non-governmental organisations found that despite “constitutional and human rights provisions which recognise customary rights in land, most local communities and indigenous peoples in Indonesia lack secure land titles”. Community representatives surveyed in the report were also under the impression that they were temporarily relinquishing their land to the companies – suggesting “community leaders had not received adequate information about the law prior to entering negotiations”.

The report also said that locals who sign away their land do so in hopes of receiving jobs and income. But according to Dr Smits, this is not the case. The locals end up being deeply indebted to the palm oil companies. They are paid about 600,000 rupiah for one hectare of land, and have to borrow the equivalent of thousand of dollars to buy seedlings and fertilisers from the company.

As palm oil trees take seven years to mature, a downward spiral of debt results, eventually leading the locals to lose even the 20 per cent of land allocated to them in a typical agreement with palm oil companies.

GLIMMER OF HOPE?

Having heard so many accounts of injustice and desperation, we searched for a glimmer of hope during our 20 days in Borneo – and found one in the village of Tembak, just after our encounter with Pak Kabul.

The village faced off with a major timber company in 1996 and won; its reply to palm oil is also an emphatic “no”. As a result, roads to Tembak are undeveloped, almost impassable after heavy rains. But the 650 villagers remain united and fiercely protective of their forests, and have developed a system of turbines to generate electricity from a nearby river. They have offered us land for release of any orangutans we rescue and rehabilitate.

If other villages, through dogged struggle and maybe some help from the rest of the world, see an outcome similar to Tembak’s, the future of their children would look brighter. Such victories would also be salve for Borneo’s soul.

To find out more about the Eco Warriors’ project, visit their website here.

*********************************************************************************

Neo Chai Chin is a journalist with Today Online where this article appeared originally. It has been reproduced with permission. 

*********************************************************************************

DeforestACTION Live Event – March 28!

On March 28^th 2012, join Dr. Willie Smits for an exciting online collaborative learning event! Be prepared to be taken deep into the heart the Borneo jungle to connect with orang-utans. Hear from Dr. Willie Smits and the Eco Warriors about the work they are doing with the Masarang Foundation, and speak with other schools around the world taking action to stop deforestation. Register for the event here.

Share/Save

LOROT SALEM, a young Kenyan poet shares with us his deep agony and anguish through the following poem that he has written today on his website, Echoes of the Hills. You may recall his beautiful poem on Wangari Maathai that he graciously allowed us to publish in this space last year.

Let us join him in his prayers to Tororot (which means God in Pokot language) that the fires are quelled quickly. 

My Mt. Kenya is up in Flames Tororot

by Lorot Salem

My Mt. Kenya is up in flames,Tororot,
The forest is being consumed–
the loss in billions, the pain immediate

My Mt. Kenya is up in flames, Tororot,
All my indigenous trees, the species, the ecosystem
All of them reduced to ashes

My Mt. Kenya is up in flames, Tororot,
Courageous souls have stepped up
Yet, the leaping flames are vengeful

I am here, watching the news

Watching good souls putting out the fire with tree branches

But the flames are also burning up my heart

I don’t know what I would tell my children
Of how we lost Mt. Kenya
How will I say the fire consumed it for seven days?
I would look at space with pained expression
And say, “Son, Mt. Kenya burnt before me
That is how we lost her back in the year 2012″

Even before then, Tororot,
Just one wish: Please rain on Mt. Kenya
Please make life grow again
Even if some losses we might never regain.

 

Further links you may be interested in:

It is a sad happening. For more than seven days now, fire has been consuming Mt. Kenya destroying billions-worth of trees and life. This is a serious tragedy.

This is how the disaster has been reported.

Citizen News: Fire in Mt. Kenya

The Star Newspaper: Choppers join in Mt Kenya forest fire fight

The Standard Newspaper:Sh8 billion bamboo lost in Mt Kenya forest fire

Share/Save

Singapore has urban forests with trees that provide refreshing shade for its citizens. Beginning in the 1960s, the country’s modern founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, had the foresight to promote tree-planting as a means to transform Singapore into a tropical garden city-state.  Anyone who comes here today is impressed by the millions of mature trees and the large number of green spaces that make Singapore a very special place to live and work.

Examples of the honor given to its famous Tembusu tree on Singapore’s currency and postage

In this Eco Walk the Talk article, specifically, we wish to draw our readers’ attention to some key scientific aspects of tree shade that highlight its oft-overlooked importance to urban living. While the current state of this science is still limited and not yet definitive, we hope what we are able to present here will help you understand and appreciate the variety of benefits that city-dwellers receive from shade trees.

Environmentalist Jenny Indian observes that, “We seriously underestimate the impact of [tree] shade – it cools, calms and softens the light, makes hostile spaces useable, and allows us to embrace the outdoors.”  She suggests that we should “think about the absolute beauty of filtered light – light filtered through leaves or tracery is wonderful.  Areas of uniform lighting create dull, uninteresting spaces with direct light casting strong shadows, resulting in harsh images with strong contrasts.”

An under-appreciated human influence factor of shade trees is thе shadow pattern cast upon thе ground, sidewalks, οr thе walls οf уουr residence bу different tree foliage types.  We encourage уου to begin to consciously note these subtle, yet mood-altering differences between trees. The Rain Tree (Samanea saman) аnd the Senegal Mahogany (Khaya senegalensis)  tree аrе instructive examples οf common Singapore trees thаt cast іntеrеѕtіnɡ shadows. Aѕ уου grow in your awareness of the shade trees in your local environment, we think уου wіll discover thаt уου actually derive deep aesthetic satisfaction frοm seeing thеse patterns.

Leaf patterns cast on the walkway by sunlight

Some benefits of tree shade are less obvious than others. For example, you might be unaware that tree shade increases the life of tarmac road surfaces—which can get as hot as 130 degrees Fahrenheit in full sun. Research has shown that more tree shade means extended pavement life and lower road reconstruction costs. Just 20% tree shade falling upon on a tarmac road surface was shown to reduce pavement surface deterioration by 11%, which constituted a 30% resurfacing cost-savings over 30 years!

A mature tree can offer a canopy of 100,000 chlorophyll-laden leaves, each partially absorbing and filtering the light we experience beneath the tree when we occupy its shade.  Children often prefer to remain inside and inactive, rather than play outdoors when the mid-day sunlight is hot and glaring–making it uncomfortable for them to see things and raising their body temperature.  Researchers have found that tree-shaded environments increase the number of hours children typically spend playing outdoors, as well as the number of hours adults spend outdoors enjoying nature.

Sunlight is filtered by a shade tree leaf

Trees offer shade, shelter, habitat, beauty, and food–while requiring little more than sunlight, soil, water, and a place to grow. At present, 3.5 billion of the world’s people live in urban areas, and that number is growing rapidly. Cities with inadequate green spaces can seem to be overcrowded and oppressive places for humans to live.

Cities also form urban heat islands, while shade trees help to provide valuable indirect cooling that serves to partially mitigate these islands’ environmental impact. Unchecked, the heat island effect  can add up to 8% to a city’s energy consumption. It can also have a negative local effect upon a city’s weather.

Diagram of the urban high island concept

The kind of shade that trees provide differs from the shade of a human-made structure, such as a building. Not only do trees shield people and buildings against the intense direct rays of the sun, they also cool the surrounding air through the biological process of evapotranspiration. Both are important to people’s quality of life. About 45% of a tree’s shading effect comes from its trunk and branches that block solar radiation—the rest comes from its leaves.

Cooling derived from evapotranspiration can equal the cooling produced by a tree’s sun-blocking capacity. A mature tree with a 30-foot crown transpires approximately 40 gallons of water per day into the surrounding atmosphere. This leaf-based evapotranspiration is a heat-absorbing process which cools the surrounding air.

According to research from the US Department of Agriculture, “The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day” and “trees properly placed around buildings can reduce air conditioning needs by 30%.”

What kind of shade tree is planted, how far from a building it is planted, and the side of the building where it is planted all affect its cooling effect. Trees growing  on the west and east sides of a building, respectively, have been found to reduce the amount of electricity used for air conditioning the building the most.

Aerial photographic surveys of urban tree cover can be helpful in determining where the planting of trees can yield the greatest energy savings.  It is important that a tree canopy’s shadow intersect the targeted building’s surface—which illustrates how important the distance a tree is planted away from a building is to its cooling effects and the resultant energy savings.

From an energy conservation perspective, the ideal shade tree is said to be one that is 25- to 50-feet high, has comparatively dense foliage with a high canopy, and exhibits a spreading growth habit.

Cities are often notorious for their poor air quality. Shade trees can help to filter the air and mitigate smog. One research study showed that the air immediately under the canopy of a large urban shade tree was less polluted with noxious gases and particulates, and thus significantly more healthful than the air 100 feet away from the tree.

Trees have also been shown to be capable of stripping from 9%  to 13% of total suspended particulates from the air that passes over their boughs. Exhaust from internal combustion engines and smokestacks in big cities can be a major contributor to human allergies and respiratory illnesses. Particles of ash in the air along with the fumes from burning fuels can also cause serious harm to the human throat and lungs.  Thankfully, shade trees are natural air filters.

Way back in 1844, the New York City Board of Health recognized shade trees as “improvers of city air” and it highly recommended their planting.  Today’s research has shown that the trees are a city’s lungs metaphor is far more apt than simply figurative. One research study found that children who live on tree-lined trees suffer from asthma less often than children who live in treeless neighborhoods.

Trees are the lungs of the Earth

The year 2011 was declared the International Year of Forests by the United Nations. Today, the only forests that more than half of the world’s population experience are urban forests. The National University of Singapore has predicted that: “By 2050, Asia is likely to have over 60% of its population living in cities. Asia will also have the largest number of megacities (over 10 million people) this century. We contend that trees are the most important green infrastructure that a big city needs.”

Once shade trees are planted in a city, they need to be maintained and replaced over time. For example, the city of Paris, France, has ~95,000 street shade trees.  Each has one has an affixed radio frequency ID tag (RFID tag)  with Geographic Information System  (GIS) data so city foresters can keep track of each tree—as to its planting, watering, fertilizing, transplanting, pruning, phytosanitary condition, over-all health, felling management, stump and root removal, and replanting status.

RFID- tagged tree data collection

Shade trees are, indeed, a vital investment a city makes for its people and the quality of the environment in which they live. Singapore knows it is much wiser to be a little green dot than a little red dot!

*****************************************************************************************************

 About our Guest Writers:

DR. JAMES H. WANDERSEE — botanist, FLS, FAAAS–is the W.H. LeBlanc Alumni Association Professor of Biology Education in the College of Education at Louisiana State University and Chair of the Teaching Section of the Botanical Society of America. His website is EarthScholars.com

DR RENEE M. CLARY—geologist, FGS–is the Director of the Dunn-Seiler Geology Museum and Assistant Professor of Geoscience Education in the Department of Geosciences at Mississippi State University. Her website is EarthScholars.com

******************************************************************************************************

By the  authors James H. Wandersee & Renee M. Clary on EWTT:

1. How can I convince my friend to use the stairs?

2. Have You Thrown Something Away Today?

3. Plant Blindness: What research says

4. The Bridge Between Ecological Knowledge and Green Living

5. Teach Me About Soil

6. A Green Lesson from Mumbai about Food Packaging 

Share/Save

2011 is the International Year of Forests, and I thought it fitting to conclude the year with a final piece on some of the environmental effects of deforestation and subsequent land use that I observed and learnt about during my field trip a few months ago, to the area of Janda Baik, a small village in the state of Pahang. Janda Baik nestles among pristine rainforest hills about 30km from Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia.  The visit was part of a workshop organised by Wild Asia.

The ethereal mist wafting over the vast, dense rainforest hills of Janda Baik, the smell of fresh drizzle and the silhouette of a lone bird flying against the cloud covered sun made me close my eyes and capture this frame in my mind’s camera.  A moment like this is the memory that one wants to etch forever from a trip to a land that is far removed from one’s own.

In all fairness, Janda Baik isn’t all that far from Singapore, though in the hustle and bustle of manicured city living, it is easy to forget that Kuala Lumpur (KL) is all but 5 bus-ride hours away from here.  Janda Baik is only another hour away from KL.  But as an idyllic village that is quite different from this city state – in landscape, in population mix, in politics and culture, in its pressing issues; it is easy to forget proximity, and that perhaps the demands of the country of my residence and those of a greedily growing world may have some part to play at least, in Janda Baik’s and Malaysia’s complex problems.

Illegal vs Organic Farming

Illegal farm on the slopes of Janda Baik

My reverie and savouring of the beautiful distant hills came to an abrupt end as our local guide Zaini pointed to our immediate left. A steep slope had been razed off completely to make way for what he pronounced as an illegal farm.  He directed our eyes to the hilltop where bamboo poles had been haphazardly erected. The bamboo came from the forest too, and was fast disappearing in Zaini’s estimates.  From the top to the bottom of the hill which disappeared into the valley, there were vegetables growing amidst various structures and poles to support straggling vines.

There are many such illegal farms in Janda Baik, according to Zaini, a fact I haven’t been able to verify yet with official statistics, but if what he says is true, the consequences could be quite alarming. For one, it is quite obvious even to a casual observer how exposed the hills become to landslides without the strong, supportive roots of the trees. There can be little control over the amount and quality of fertilisers and pesticides used on illegal farms. The runoffs from these could flow quite easily and without much interruption down the hills into the streams and rivers.

Zaini as our guide

Zaini said he once asked to buy veggies from an illegal farmer who replied, “Oh, These vegetables are not for ‘eating’, they are for ‘sale.’   This is the implied level of synthetic chemicals used in such farms.  It’s hard to tell whether veggies like these come into Singapore, which depends on external countries including Malaysia for 98% of its food imports.  One also needs to explore and understand what kind of pesticide residue checks the official food agency in Singapore, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) follows, how supplier screening is done, and whether this can at all be exhaustive.

According to the March 2006 report of International POPs Elimination Project :

“Even though Persistent Organic Pollutants POPs-listed organochlorine instecticides is prohibited, a number of studies on rivers and sediments throughtout Malaysia have demonstrated that most of these compounds are present in the aquatic environment (Lee et al 2003). In most of these studies, the sources of contamination were not known. In a separate study to study the source of contamination, it was found that agricultural areas such as paddy and vegetable cultivation are the main sources of environmental contamination by most organochlorine insecticides in Malaysia. “

If fertiliser and pesticide use in Malaysia is rampant, it could have a serious effect on topsoil and water in the short and long term, apart from effects on workers and consumers.

Yousof's organic farm

In contrast, it was encouraging to see an organic farm in Janda Baik run by the young, 25 year old Yahya Bin Yusof, as a means of sustaining the adjoining orphanage for which he shoulders responsibility.  He took us to a shed with various types of enzymes being brewed out of the waste in the farm, and behind it was another one for organic compost.  Goat manure was also used to enrich the soil.  I never cease to marvel at farmers like Yusof who use organic and ecologically friendly methods to work and condition rainforests soils – which are notoriously clayey and deceptively poor in nutrition. The lush greenery of a rainforest depends on the efficiency of various parts of the ecosystem to recycle the biomass containing nutrients, with very little coming from the soil itself.  This is an oft forgotten reason for the soils of conventional agriculture in rainforest areas requiring a heavy dosage of chemicals.

Yusof’s farm sells about 60kg of produce every week, many of whom are regular customers in KL who are willing to pay the higher 10RM (RM = Ringitt, the Malaysian currency) per kilo for his organic produce as opposed to RM4 for conventional ones.  He admits that viability of the farm would have been difficult without corporate sponsorship for capital costs. This has been handy for putting up the sheds that cover the vegetables from the intensive and ruthless tropical sun and rain.  Only 3 farms unfortunately, of the several hundred legal ones (and not counting the illegal ones), have been labelled as organic by the certifying state government body.

The vanishing hills

The previous day Zaini’s French wife, Fred had shared her observations on local environmental issues with us, a pot-pourri of journalists attending the Responsible Journalism Workshop. Organised by Wild Asia, a Malaysian NGO, the workshop had reporters from Malaysia’s national newspaper The Star, a regional one The Selangor Times, a specialist magazine the Malaysian Tatler, citizen journalists from the group “komunitikini”, other freelance writers and myself, the odd one out from Singapore as a citizen journalist.

Going around Janda Baik had been our field trip to make sense of what we observed, in the overall context of how we as journalists could extend the scope, regularity and depth of environmental reporting in the region, while maintaining high standards of professionalism.

Fred sharing her concerns

Fred, who with Zaini runs a lodge spoke with noticeable anguish as someone who has lived in and breathed the air of Janda Baik for the last 9 years – in particular about the vanishing trees.  “The hill behind my guest house used to be a jungle, but with burning bit by bit, in 4 years it’s all gone” she lamented. “The wild animals like pangolin, otter and slow loris are rarely seen. Instead there are monkeys and wild boars which usually live in the interiors and don’t come near humans. They are emerging because their habitat and food are gone.  So too have the morning cheeps of various species of birds who have disappeared over time. “

As we went around Janda Baik we saw how the river had gone down in depth, from what used to be knee high a few years ago as Fred had mentioned, to merely ankle deep in the last few years.

Deforestation in Malaysia

Malaysia faces massive pressures of deforestation, a heavy and often irreversible price to pay for development. The Huffington Post reported that Malaysian rates of deforestation is three times larger than Asia combined.  Mongabay adds, “Analysis of figures from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) shows that Malaysia’s annual deforestation rate jumped almost 86 percent between the 1990-2000 period and 2000-2005.”

The foremost reason behind the massive rates of deforestation in Malaysia is due to palm oil plantation, visibly seen as one criss-crosses Malaysia by road, train or flight. It is estimated that 10% of goods in supermarkets all over the world have palm oil in some form or the other, with Indonesia and Malaysia being the biggest exporters of palm oil in the world.

A lesser reason, but significant nevertheless is the way rainforests like the one surrounding Janda Baik are being nibbled here and there, systematically due to encroachment, urban development and illegal agriculture.  There is a web of complexity underneath this, that one begins to get wind of when talking to people on the ground like Zaini and Fred – possible political influences, lack of governance, economic forces, unplanned development, apathy, lack of education and awareness.

Responsible Journalism

I look forward to learning from and sharing the works of my Malaysian journalist friends, who may be in a better position to unearth the statistics, and have the conversations needed with those in administration, industry and communities to press forth with many of the pointers from the trip that need to be investigated further.

Whether as professional or as citizen journalists, we all need to take to heart what Henry Anatole Grunwald, the late editor of TIME magazine once said, “Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.”

Jacqueline Ann Surin of The Nut Graph

Jacqueline Ann Surin, the experienced former editor with The Star and founder of a political website called The Nut Graph  guided us through much of the workshop. She passed around an inspiring book called Journalism.as.if.earth.mattered.” by Kunda Dixit.  It contained a beautiful poem by Joey Ayala, a Filipino ethnomusician and environmentalist who sings about the majestic and near extinct Philippine Eagle, which caught my attention.  I share it here as 2011, the International Year of Forests, draws to an end.

I wish to fly like the Eagle

And live in the heart of the forest.

But the trees are gone.

There is no place for a nest.

A nestless eagle has no reason to fly.

If you want to the see the Eagle,

Don’t look up at the sky.

He has shed his feathers and folded

Up his wing

Oh Eagle, my true King,

I wish to help you so thy Kingdom

May live again.

*******************************************************************************************************
About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk.  She writes and conducts talks and workshops on sustainability and can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Do follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

*******************************************************************************************************

Share/Save

Bada Bagh Farm

The Farm

The lane to Bada Bagh is muddy, accosted by trees, shrubs and sugarcane. The last thing you would expect to find there is a farm. And yet as you walk ahead Bada Bagh startles you with its sudden presence.

Welcome to Bada Bagh. Famed all over Karnataka (a state in southern India) for its flavourful mangoes, the land on which the farm stands today was given to Syed Ghani Khan’s family by the legendary Tipu Sultan himself, who ruled parts of modern Karnataka in the 18^th century.

The farm is now managed by Ghani Khan, a fourth generation descendant. The mangoes come from trees that have a 250 year old history. But there is another reason why Bada Bagh is popular today, thanks to Ghani Khan’s introduction and cultivation of 146 traditional rice varieties including rice strains of different combinations.

Ghani Khan

Journey to Organic Farming and the Search for Traditional seeds :

Ghani, the eldest among the four sons says that it is the quest for alternative seeds and farming practices that brought the family together. The once separated brothers are back and they owe much to the traditional rice strains.

Ghani, like many young farmers initially operated the farm adopting modern agricultural practices with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.  However, he witnessed rapid deterioration of his once fertile fields. A fellow farmer suggested alternative methods to rejuvenate the soil and with his help Ghani began experimenting with organic composts. The hybrid rice (the IR series) did not respond well to organic composts. This led him to search for a rice variety that would respond to his new cultivation methods.

This proved to be more difficult than he had imagined. Due to widespread hybrid cultivation the region had lost most of the traditional rice varieties. Traditional varieties of sturdy, drought resistant rice distinct to the region that he knew like Rajabhoga, Coimbatursanna, Kadibatha, Bangarusanna, Bangarukaddi and Doddibatha were now rarely being cultivated.

Ghani’s long search for traditional seeds finally bore fruit when he came across ‘Rathnachudi’- a fine variety of rice. He started experimenting with it with success. Motivated by this, he continued to cultivate the variety for about 6 years. Soon he decided to test other varieties of traditional seeds and his search yielded about six paddy varieties. All six varieties proved to be successful. The six became twenty six in the consecutive year and it more than doubled to seventy five in 2008. Today he has as many as 146 varieties.

Ghani says he owes a lot to Sahaja Samrudha (an organic farmers association) for their technical guidance and helping him with his efforts in collecting seeds from different regions. He now has a wide range of varieties from five different states of India. His diverse seed varieties include wetland, dryland, medicinal, aromatic, and irrigated rice.

His farm uses the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) method for irrigation. The SRI method saves a lot of water. The plot has been designed in a way that follows a combination a several principles, like alternate wetting and drying, increased spacing between plants, and transplanting the plants when they are young.

Paddy nearing Harvest

The Need To Preserve Traditional Rice varieties

The main drawback of hybrid seed varieties, says Ghani, is that they are sterile. The traditional seeds on the other hand have evolved over the years and have developed beneficial qualities like resistance to certain pests, and diseases. This makes them hardier and healthier than hybrids. Their  unique features are preserved and each rice variety has a distinct flavour, and come in many different colors, sizes, and shapes.

Ghani and other like minded farmers believe that because the traditional varieties have evolved through the combined process of natural selection and farmer selection, it is superior to hybrid varieties. Traditional crop varieties, from their experience, maintain biodiversity and perform better when exposed to erratic climate changes.  They cite the example that during floods and prolonged droughts the modern high yielding rice varieties and hybrids have shown drastically reduced performance. The farmer often suffers partial or total loss of crops.

Endorsing the farmers’ view Shanta Kumar, Coordinator of ‘Save our Rice’ campaign in Karnataka, says

“For thousands of years farmers have developed and nurtured crop genetic diversity. With their careful insight they select the plants and develop varieties with suitable traits and improve on the existing one. This system of selection and improving on the plant is what has led to an astounding diversity of landracres*, which still exists with some farmers. Though most of the rice diversity has been eroded, there are some farmers, who are working towards reviving and maintaining the rice diversity and Ghani is one among them”  

Prized collection of Paddy

Prized collections

Today Ghani maintains different paddy strains to keep alive the evolutionary processes and to ensure a continual supply of germplasm. He is skilled in the art of seed production and has over the years developed a fine ability to identify the best seeds. He has reserved a portion of his plot for maintaining a seed bank, to preserve them and prevent them from disappearing forever.

Mr. Krishna Prasad, of Sahaja Samrudha says “On-farm conservation of rice diversity is carried out only by farmers who are interested and willing to do so. It cannot be imposed on them. A farmer who conserves ‘inter’ and ‘intra’ species diversity needs to have an understanding as to how, what and why he does it. Organizations can only technically support and provide opportunities for the farmers in continuing their efforts at conserving crop diversity“. He further adds that on-farm conservation of crop diversity is important. This form of managing diversity of crops is easy to implement and links farmers’ economic concerns with conservation. Management for crop diversity can promote on-farm conservation of rice, and potentially other crops too, in a feasible and sustainable way.

Some of the traditional seed varieties in the Farm:

Rajabhog: A weed Suppresser.

Anandi: A high yielding variety.

Jeeriga samba: An aromatic, non lodging and good grain yielding variety.

Parimalasanna: A fine variety appropriate for making festoons.

Govindbhog: Considered to be sacred and used as an offering to God Krishna.  

Sagvad: Used for Poha (beaten rice).

 Maladi: A medicinal rice variety used in bone fracture treatment.

 Raj gudiyapa: A dry land medicinal rice variety used for weakness.

HMT: A farmer developed variety.

Kasubai: A scented variety.

 Other varieties include Chinnaponni, Kempudoddi, Halublu, Rajakayame, Rasakadam,Gamgadale, Burmablack, Kagisali, Ambimohar, Gamsale, Kottayane, Bilinellu, Gandhasale, NMS2, Rajmudi, Gowrisanna, Jeerigesanna, Bilidoddi, , Gambatha, Jeerigesale, Kalakali, Dharisal, Tulasiya, Sheerabathi, Thamadisala, Rathbath, Ratnachudi.”

Roping in other regional farmers 

Ghani’s concern for conservation of biodiversity has got many farmers interested in traditional varieties as a result of which his farm is drawing visitors from villages near and far. His experiment has enthralled scientists and officials, who have applauded his venture and there are talks of naming the farm as a Biodiversity Heritage Centre.

Recently Dr. Narayanagowda, Vice Chancellor, University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore visited his farm along with Rice Research station scientists. He praised Ghani for his endeavor and has undertaken the traditional varieties for a scientific characterisation.

India is presently facing a rice crisis due to erosion of its biodiversity and increase of monocropping in agriculture. Reliance on a narrow spectrum of cultivars grown in monoculture have increased pest problems and India being a mega diversity country has a plethora of traditional varieties which are nutritious and have been developed over centuries. The traditional strains are more resistant to drought and could be an answer to the climate change. So saving them is important lest we lose these forever.

*******************************************************************************************************

About the Guest Writer: 

Anitha Reddy is a freelance writer and has been documenting and publishing articles in the field of agriculture and biodiversity conservation for over a decade. She collaborated with NGOs and farmers to launch the  ’GM free Karnataka’ campaign to oppose the introduction of GM crops into the state.

She is at present working as a Communication Advisor for Sahaja Samrudha, Bangalore, an organic farmers association which has been carrying out research on the erosion of biodiversity.

She was given the ‘Asia Pacific Rice Journalist Award in 2009 by PAN AP and the International Federation of Environmental Journalists (IFED).

Photos by Mr. Krishna Prasad.

*******************************************************************************************************

* Landacres refers to the particular kinds of old seed strains and varieties that are farmer-selected in areas where local subsistence agriculture has long prevailed. Landraces are highly adapted to specific locales or groups. The term is usually applied to varieties of corn, squash, and beans that were domesticated by native farmers, and further modified by native and also immigrant farmers. Source: Dave’s Garden.com

Further links you may be interested in:

 EWTT: Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi: One Farmer’s Crusade to save Indigenous Seeds

EWTT: Can One Man and One Cow Save Our Planet: Seeding the Real Green Revolution

EWTT:  Organic Farming: Can It Feed the World?

EWTT: State of the World Report 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet

EWTT: Nero’s Guests and Farmer Suicides in India

EWTT: The Source Project

Youtube: System of Rice Intensification – Cambodia 

Share/Save

Lim Li Ching

Lim Li Ching, who is co-author of the book “GMO Free” works with the biosafety and sustainable agriculture programs at Third World Network (TWN),  an international NGO based in Malaysia. TWN covers developmental issues, policy advocacy work, climate change, WTO, Biosafety issues, to advance social justice with a pro-poor agenda. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Oakland Institute .

The book “GMO Free”, a compilation of the studies by the Independent Science Panel comprising prominent scientists in the field, summarises a vast amount of literature and extensive scientific evidence. As the subtitle states, the book, “Exposes the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply”.  Lim Li Ching spoke to us recently and shares her views on various aspects of the GM debate.

EWTT: How did you get interested in studying genetically modified foods and ecological agriculture?

LLC: While I was in school, I was inspired by a cousin who worked for Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) and was always a ‘green’. I did my first degree in Ecology, then worked with WWF Malaysia on marine conservation issues for several years. My focus then shifted to development issues e.g., poverty alleviation. I then did my MPhil in Development Studies. After graduating I lived in the UK for several years, where I worked for both the Third World Network (TWN) with their biosafety/GM programme and the Institute of Science in Society, one of TWN’s partner organizations.

EWTT: Tell us about the Independent Science Panel whose summary of findings is in your book.

LLC: The Independent Science Panel (ISP) was set up about 8 years ago, at the height of the GM debate in the UK, and chaired by Dr Mae Wan Ho, Director of The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). ISIS is an independent think tank with the aim of promoting science for public good, independent of commercial or other special interest.

The ISP brought together a team of scientists who had questions about GM safety, and they submitted dossiers and responses to regulators. Their study of existing literature and scientific evidence, basically confirmed concerns over the safety of GMOs, and also established the benefits of various forms of sustainable agriculture. They make a strong case for a worldwide ban on all environmental release of GM crops and to pave the way towards ecological farming methods.

EWTT: Can you elaborate on why the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ followed by US regulatory authorities, and some other countries is flawed and not universally adopted?

LLC: The concept of susbstantial equivalence is a regulatory one, which claims that a novel food (for example, GM foods) should be considered the same as and as safe as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food. However this concept has been heavily criticized as being unscientific and not well defined.

One key issue is that US is the leading producer and developer of GM crops. They use the concept to basically take away the need for regulation of GMOs by saying that as they are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their conventional counterparts, they don’t need to come under the regulatory process. The reality however is that apart from US and a few other GM producers, many other countries think that GMOs are different and that they do carry specific risks, and because they move around due to international trade, there has to be some sort of international regulation.

EWTT: What are the international regulations concerning GMOs?

LLC: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which is under the Convention on Biological Diversity largely regulates the export and import of GMOs between countries, but it also sets the international minimum standards on biosafety, so many countries that are parties to the Protocol like Malaysia for example, have set up their own national laws on GMOs. The basis of laws related to the development, production and research of GMOs and the environmental release of GMOs is that ‘they are different from their conventional counterparts and carry potential risks’ and ‘you can’t just release these organisms into nature without any controls in place.’  They have to undergo an approvals process, for example, if a developer or producer of GMOs wants to export a GMO into a country, it would have to get the prior permission of the country concerned, which will do a risk assessment, and make a decision on whether to accept it or not.

The key here is that if you look at some of the international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for food safety assessments for foods containing GMOs, they look at ‘substantial equivalence’ as a starting point. Many countries who have regulations on biosafety say well, substantial equivalence is a starting point, and a comparative way of looking at things, and as we have years and years of experience with conventional foods, so we can question, ‘are there any differences and any particular differences that should be followed up?”

So while there is still a big debate on the safety of GMOs, to me it is settled as we have an international treaty that deals with it which clearly says that GMOs are different, they carry specific risks, and there is a need for regulation.

EWTT: What is the state of biosafety regulation in Asia?

LLC: Worldwide, there are currently 161 parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force in 2003. Singapore is not a party to the Protocol, although it does have some guidelines on the issue. Its attitude towards GMOs are more permissive as compared to other countries in the region.

Malaysia has ratified the Cartagena Protocol and a national law was passed in 2007 on biosafety. The crux, of course, lies in the implementation and enforcement of the law.

As a party to the Protocol, it sets up the process envisaged, so if for example, Monsanto wants to market its products, it has to go through an approvals process, and get the approval of the government. There is basically a risk assessment done through a committee which evaluates the dossiers. As an NGO, we used to sit on the GM advisory committee in Malaysia and we were able to access the technical dossiers and give our comments. The process could be improved and of course there are gaps, but in general at least we have a law that regulates GMOs.

Of course, we can always question whether this committee has the capacity, and have they given due consideration to other impartial opinions? But this is an issue that a lot of countries have had to grapple with, and it is not unique to Malaysia. The fact is that there is at least a law, and you can’t just send GM products to our country. There is some kind of regulatory process, and we have to assess them, and then take a decision of whether to import them.

Asia-Pacific countries which are a party to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety

Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

NOT a Party: Singapore, Australia, US  (though Australia has mandatory labelling of GM food)

Full list of nations which are parties to the protocol can be found here

“India is a party to the Protocol and has its own laws governing GMOs. It went through this regulatory process where it put on hold the introduction of Bt Brinjal.  Philippines is another party to the Protocol, however it is one country that is actively planting GM crops despite various NGO objections.   In China, they actually have public funds allocated for biosafety research, which many countries don’t have. They have commercialised GM cotton and GM trees, but there is a big debate in China about GM rice. There is concern, and this has taken a lot of time to go through the system as it is a staple food crop and they don’t want to get it wrong. So China has a slightly different situation, as there is public research and not just industry research, so even there is a lot of biotechnology development, there is a bit of a countervailing force.”  (Lim Li Ching)

EWTT: What do the various studies on safety of GMOs for human consumption say?

LLC: When we look at the health studies on GMOs, the recent papers by Domingo and Bordonaba (2011), and Seralini et al. (2011) show that the database on which to make a judgement on safety has been very small. At the same time, there has been a big push for these products leaving us with a situation where regulation is trying to play ‘catch up’, because GMOs are already out there in the environment and food supply chain of many countries whereas the safeguards are not yet in place.

One of the biggest lessons we can learn is that the changes or effects of GMOs we are talking about are likely to take a long time before they manifest. There have been a few studies that point to what we can call ‘early warnings’, that provide some results that need to be looked at in more detail, but you can see the trend that in most studies funded by the GM industry, scientists say, ‘no problem.’ On the other hand, most studies done by truly independent groups are saying, ‘there’s something we need to look at here’.

The problem is that every time a study like this raising doubts on GMOs is published, there’s a lot of backlash, and vilification of the scientists. There’s a lot of criticism and unwillingness to have an honest engagement to really look at the issue and say, ‘this is a problem.’ As scientists, we need to do more research and try and answer these questions, to look at all the things that are being raised now.

This is one issue that very much characterises the GM debate. Though there is still a big scientific debate going on about the concerns regarding GMOs, there is a big push by the industry to release them into the environment.

A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants
Jose L. Domingo, Jordi Gine Bordonaba
Environment International 37 (2011) 734–742
http://bit.ly/ge44Uu

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a notable concern on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods/plants, an important and complex area of research, which demands rigorous standards. Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption.

The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

………
Final remarks

In the same line of our previous papers (Domingo, 2000, 2007; Domingo-Roig and Gómez-Arnáiz, 2000), the main purpose of this review-article was to critically revise the published scientific literature on potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants. It was noticed that the total number of general references on GMOs in general, and GM foods/plants in particular, found in the databases PubMed and Scopus has considerably increased between our 2006 search (Domingo, 2007) and the current one. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure.

A relatively remarkable finding of the present review is that the published scientific literature between October 2006 (Domingo, 2007) and August 2010 (current review) on edible GM plants, concerns only to three products: corn/maize, soybeans, and rice, rice being comparatively the less abundant. We have not been able to find citations involving investigations on GM potatoes (except a review by Arvanitoyannis et al., 2008), peas, tomatoes, pepper, etc., after October 2006. A summary of experimental studies (October 2006–August 2010) concerning dietary administration of those products to various animal species is shown in Table 1. With respect to corn/maize, various studies have concluded that the transgenic varieties 1507 (MacKenzie et al., 2007), 59122 (Malley et al., 2007; Juberg et al., 2009; He et al., 2008),1507×59122 (Appenzeller et al., 2009a), 98140 (Appenzeller et al., 2009b; McNaughton et al., 2007), Y642 (He et al., 2009), and MON 88017 (Healy et al., 2008) were as safe as conventional quality protein maize. In contrast, Séralini’s group raised concern regarding some commercialized GM maize (NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863) (Séralini et al., 2007, 2009; de Vendômois et al., 2009).

Similarly, scientific controversy is also present in relation to the safety of GM soybeans. While it has been reported that 356043 (Sakamoto et al., 2007) and 305423 (Delaney et al., 2008) soybeans were as safe as conventional non-GM soybeans, some authors are still concerned by the safety of GM soybeans and recommend to investigate the long-term consequences of GM diets and the potential synergistic effects with other products and/or conditions (Malatesta et al., 2008a,b; Cisterna et al., 2008; Magaña-Gómez et al., 2008).

In the period here revised, October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GMfoods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magana-Gomez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al., 2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. A harsh response to that review was recently published in the same journal (Rickard, 2010). This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs, which remains completely open at all levels.

Finally, we would like to indicate that the review on allergenicity of GM plants has not been included herein. European legislation stipulates that GMOs have to be monitored to identify potential adverse environmental effects (Reuter et al., 2010). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published a Scientific Opinion regarding assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed (EFSA, 2010). Detailed information on this important issue is available here.

EWTT: One of the studies that pointed to a fundamental flaw in the GM technology itself was Arpad Putzai’s study that raised a lot of debate in the UK in the late 1990s? Do you think the GM technology is based on a flawed theory?

LLC: Though I’m not a geneticist, I can refer you to the work of my co-author Dr Mae Wan Ho who is one. Her book, “Living with the Fluid Genome” really looks at this in detail, and what we are discovering about gene expression. You are correct in saying, that the foundations of genetic engineering is based on One Gene = One Protein = One Trait, a central dogma which has actually been shown not to be true, because we know that one gene can produce many different proteins and many different traits. When scientists sequenced the human genome, they expected to find a lot more genes than they did, and then they realised through processes like alternative gene splicing, that scientists are getting more and more information that shows that this kind of linear thinking doesn’t hold true anymore.

The human body has about 100,000 proteins. It was expected before that each protein would have a corresponding gene. However a report by the Human Genome Project
in 2000 only found about 30,000 genes in the human body – which is roughly the same as mice and not much more than a weed with 26,000 genes.

So when you have so many more proteins per gene, a gene can be found to express itself in many different ways, which is not a deterministic process as was once thought. Dr Mae Wan Ho also explains in her book how environmental factors affect gene expression, so when you slice a gene and insert it into another species, you cannot predetermine with full certainty how it is going to behave.”

EWTT: What are the concerns about horizontal and vertical gene transfer?

LLC: Horizontal gene transfer is gene trasfer between unrelated species and is more common among single-celled organisms such as bacteria. Unintended horizontal gene transfer of GM genes to bacteria is a potential biosafety concern. Some of these concerns are outlined in this publication, ‘Unintended Horizontal Transfer of Recombinant DNA’ by Kaare M. Nielsen and Daniele Daffonchio.

In addition, genetic engineering is forcing different species to share genes that they won’t normally share in nature, for example a moth gene in an apple or a fish gene in strawberries. As we have discussed before, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of such gene transfer, there is still a scientific debate going on, and there are papers which show there are concerns about the health impacts. The question is, whether regulation is sufficient, and that it actually calls for the application of the precautionary principle that we don’t release something into nature, unless we fully understand its implications.

Vertical gene transfer is gene transfer to progeny by sexual reproduction, e.g., pollen flow between the same or related plant species. In the case of GMOs, this could lead to ‘contamination’, whereby genes from GM crops are found in wild relatives, native species, or conventional crops. You may recall the story of Ignacio Capela, a scientist from the University of Berkley who came under very heavy attack by the biotech industry when he found that native species of corn in Mexico had got contaminated by GM corn.

Scientists are concerned about the impact on biodiversity. I can refer you to a paper entitled, ‘Vertical (Trans)gene Flow: Impliations for Crop Diversity and Wild Relatives’ by David Quist  which talks about vertical gene flow and why it’s an issue.

On the commercial side, there’s an issue because if GM genes contaminate non-GM crops, there will be a market rejection, particularly of organically grown crops, where organic standards exclude genetic engineering.

EWTT: How can the public engage in the GM debate?

LLC: Consumer awareness is very important for this whole issue. In Europe for example, the awareness about food safety is quite high – they’ve had the history of the BSE debate (mad cow disease).

Perhaps in Asia the awareness is not that high, though people are becoming increasingly conscious of where their food is coming from, and how it is produced. In the absence of GM labelling, buying organic with 3rd party certification which excludes GMOs, is one way of making the choice.

To learn more about organic labelling, look at the Certified Organic Labelling Guide by Organic.org, and GMO Free Guides that apply to certain countries.   Some of the countries with mandatory labelling of GMOs are EU, Australia, Japan and China. Voluntary labelling is followed by Canada and Hong Kong among others.

The public should be encouraged to find out more about the food they eat, because it affects us fundamentally, and the GM debate is situated within a bigger debate of how our food is produced globally, and how it impacts biodiversity and food security.

There’s a lot of attention these days on agriculture because of high food prices. People in international institutions and development circles are saying we need to invest in agriculture, given the history of not investing in agriculture, despite it being very important for developing countries where it affects a larger proportion of the population. The question is, can we change the way we produce food under the broad umbrella of industrial agriculture of which GM is a part? This has proven to be too resource and energy intensive in terms of chemicals and other inputs. There is also a concern about climate change because of the greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture.

Yes we have produced enough food to feed the poor so far, and of course, people are still hungry which is largely a political, distribution issue. In terms of quantity of food there is enough, but then it has come at a huge cost to the environment and also at a cost to the farmers.

So when people start thinking about where our food comes from, they should not take it for granted, and query the type of production system the world has, and the ones that are dominant of which GM is a subset.

Raising awareness is definitely important, and people are getting to know there are a lot of issues intertwined with this, such as animal welfare, consuming less meat due to climate change and biodiversity and so on. When you look at developing countries where agriculture is so important, so many things come into play such as trade rules, subsidies for agriculture, Official Development Assistance – these are big issues, and integral issues.

So yes, public awareness is critical for the future of the planet.

**********************************************************************************************************
About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk.com and an anti-GM advocate. She can be contacted at bhavani[at] ecowalkthetalk.com .  Join EWTT on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

**********************************************************************************************************

Further Links you may be interested in:

1. Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change through Ecological Agriculture by Lim Li Ching

2. Overhaul of Agricultural Systems Needed by Lim Li Ching

3. Co-Editor of Book “Biosafety First” Lim Li Ching

4. TWN’s Biosafety website

5. YouTube: Dr Mae Wan Ho video:Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 and Part 4

6. Video: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

7. EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

8. EWTT: Safe Food Guide: GMO Free Food

9. EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

10. EU and Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Pg 6) : GM Policy Status in Selected Countries

11. Study showing “Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products”

Photo Courtesy: Corn – EJFoodBlogspot.com

Share/Save

Dr Vandana Shiva needs little introduction as a prominent environmental, social justice and anti-GM activist.  In 2010, she received the Sydney Peace Prize and was named by Guardian UK in March 2011 as one of the top 100 women in the world.

In the following interview, she explains the work done at the organisation she founded in 1987 – Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm and Bija Vidyapeeth, the research and training arm. She reiterates that ecological farming is  pro-peace, pro- biodiversity, pro-culture and pro-livelihood for the poor.

Dr Vandana Shiva

She spoke to us recently during “Grandmother’s University” at Navdanya, Dehradun, India.  The three day course was intended to celebrate Traditional knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable livelihoods in an era of globalisation where these are coming under increasing pressure. Not only is this traditional knowledge disappearing, knowledge as a commons is being appropriated and patented by corporations to be sold for abnormal profit.

The participants of the course interacted with the Garhwali women of the Himalayan hills, who had travelled far to teach us some of their wisdom.

The wisdom of grandmothers is in Dr Shiva’s words, “our capacity to love, unconditionally. In our society of competition, of insecurity and fear, that steadiness of love and compassion is brought to the next generation. Just because they are grandmothers, they have a long view. It’s called sustainability in today’s jargon. It’s really a thinking about future generations – not just of me, myself, today.”

Dr Shiva answers here questions about the myth of GM, how to feed cities, the shadows of growth and development, and the role of civil society.

Video link here

The importance of saving seeds:

Seed list at Navdanya

We visited the seed bank within Navdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm, which distributes valuable traditional seeds to farmers.  By interacting with the co-ordinators of Navdanya – Rukmini who oversees about 100 villages in the Garhwal region (Uttarakhand district, N. India), and Jumana who works with farmers in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, which has the maximum number of suicides in the country due to the economic hardships caused by Bt Cotton; the importance of saving traditional seed varieties against the onslaught of hybrid and GM seeds became amply clear.

Preserving Biodiversity

Navdanya is now a network of seed keepers and organic producers across 16 states in India. It has helped set up 54 community seed banks across the country, and has trained half a million farmers in sustainable agriculture. It is also actively involved in reviving indigenous knowledge, creating awareness about the problems of GM foods and the rights of people against biopiracy in the face of globalisation and climate change.

Here’s a recording in part, of a session by Dr Vandana Shiva at Navdanya, where she clearly explains four kinds of seeds – open pollination, green revolution varieties, hybrid varieties and GM seeds. This distinction is fundamentally important to understand the arguments against genetic engineering.  She also describes how the cost of GM seeds and pesticide use soar astronomically, which are major factors behind the indebtedness and consequent suicide of farmers.   (Kindly excuse the poor lighting conditions in the room, which is more than made up by Dr Shiva’s articulate discourse)

Video link here

About the Writer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com. She is passionate about the role of individuals and communities in bringing about the much needed change we need to see in the world.  She was an economist in her previous avatar, and is now an environmental and social justice activist using social media as well as offline community participation in her advocacy of a greener, fairer and happier planet. She writes and conducts talks and workshops on sustainability and can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in: