If you imagine Planet Earth having a routine health check, the Living Planet (LPR) report would be its biennial diagnostic report. The study is a science based analysis of the state of the planet – the health of our forests, rivers and oceans, as well as the impact of humans.

Dr Chris Hails, Director, Network Relations, WWF International discussed the key findings of LPR 2012 on 16th June 2012 at the Botany Centre, Singapore Botanic Gardens.

Video link here

1. LIVING PLANET INDEX : The poor are bearing the brunt

The Living Planet Index (LPI) measures the changes in the state of the planet’s ecosystems by studying population trends of more than 2500 species. The LPI reflects the biodiversity of the earth.

The Global LPI, whose data is provided by the Zoological Society of London, showed a 28% decrease during the time period of 1970 to 2008, while in tropical countries, the decline was to the tune of 60%. This reflects the rapid destruction of natural habitats in the last 30 years.

The LPI in temperate countries increased by 31% over the same period, which could be a result of environmental conservation.  As Dr Hails pointed out, most of the biodiversity in temperate areas declined during and after the industrial revolution – big historical losses which are not reflected in the time period under study.

The global terrestrial, freshwater and marine indices all declined, with the freshwater index declining by 37%. The tropical freshwater index’s decline by 70% is most alarming.

The biodiversity trends of high, middle and low income countries also reflect disparities. The index shows a 7% increase in high income countries, a 31% decrease in middle income countries and a 60% decline in low-income countries, showing that poorer nations are rapidly losing their biodiversity. It is the poor who are most dependent on nature directly for their livelihoods and sustenance.

 2. ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT: The rich are overconsuming

The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of land area per person, needed to produce renewable resources, including the area of vegetation required to reabsorb the carbon being emitted into the atmosphere. In 2008, humanity’s ecological footprint was 18.2 billion global hectares (gha) or 2.7 gha per person

This is compared with Biocapacity or the area of land actually available to produce renewable resources and absorb carbon emissions. The earth’s biocapacity in 2008 was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha. 

This difference between the ecological footprint and biocapacity represents an ecological overshoot. It takes 1.5 years to regenerate the renewable resources required to sustain the current human population. Another way of expressing the same is that we’re using the resources of 1.5 planets to keep us ticking. Instead of living off our natural capital, we’re living off the interest.

There are huge footprint disparities amongst nations. Higher income, more developed countries have in general a higher footprint than poorer, less developed countries. The top 10 countries with the largest Ecological Footprint per person are Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Denmark, the United States, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and Ireland.

Singapore ranks 12th in its Ecological Footprint, which would require 3 planets to sustain this level of consumption.

If you click on the filter of “carbon” on the interactive graph above, Singapore ranks 5th in the world in its carbon footprint, and the highest amongst Asia-Pacific countries.

According to BBC News, “ It’s a view that doesn’t sit well with the government because the report attributes emissions to the country where carbon is consumed, instead of where it is produced.

The WWF explains that if a car is made in Japan but exported to Singapore, its carbon emissions are counted under Singapore not Japan.”

Dr Hails also highlighted that China and India are likely to experience the greatest increase in footprint by 2015, equal to 37% of the world’s total.

3. PRESCRIPTION FOR THE PLANET- Business as Usual is not a choice

As Jim P. Leape, Director General, WWF International said recently, “We are living as if we have an extra planet at our disposal. We are using 50 per cent more resources than the Earth can provide, and unless we change course that number will grow very fast – by 2030, even two planets will not be enough.

“But we do have a choice. We can create a prosperous future that provides food, water and energy for the 9 or perhaps 10 billion people who will be sharing the planet in 2050.”

Source: The Living Planet Report 2012

Dr Hails highlighted a few solutions especially certifications that are improving the sustainable use of resources.  These encompass:

1. The Forest Stewardship Council certification for sustainable timber and products such as furniture and paper, which do not overexploit forests.

2. The Marine Stewardship Council certification which helps consumers identify fish which are endangered.  80% of the world fish stocks are overexploited, according to FAO which predicts that the stock of fish species for food is expected to collapse by 2048.   Singapore in particular can take action to limit its impact on the ‘coral triangle’, a biodiverse but threatened tropical fisheries zone, by encouraging sustainable fish consumption, as Dr Hails mentions in the video.  WWF’s Sustainable Seafood Guide is available for download here.

3. The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, which is working on sustainable palm oil to protect tropical rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia.  As Michelle Desilets pointed out in an earlier interview with EWTT, the RSPO has its loopholes, but as ‘the only game in town’ , the process needs to be strengthened and made more robust.

To read the full Living Planet Report 2012, please click this link. 

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

One of the so-called “successes” of the COP16 Climate Summit at Cancun, Mexico last year was the proposed $30 billion annual payment from developed countries to developing one from 2010 to 2012 which will be upped to US $100 billion annually by 2020 – a flow that is meant for mitigation and adaptation of climate change.

Absolute figures mean very little, so let’s put this in context.

The US financial bailout which at the outset cost US $700 billion, kept adding up to what is estimated to be a commitment of US $12.2 trillion. Remember the alacrity with which this money was taken out of thin air?  Well, not exactly thin air, but from taxpayer’s pockets.

And not to forget – world military spending is 2.6% of GDP reaching US 1.6 trillion in 2010.  The US $100 billion promised to developing countries is only about 8% of total global military spending and very inadequate.  The developed world actually spends far higher on military – the US for example, military expenditure is 20% of its GDP!

According to The World’s People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth which was held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 19-22 2010 as an alternative to the Copenhagen Summit held in December 2009:

“Developed country parties must commit at least 6% of their annual GDP for climate finance in developing countries. The viability of mobilising this amount of finance is evident – developed countries spend an equivalent amount each year on national defence. In addition, developed countries have mobilised trillions of dollars (equivalent to five times the 6% GDP proposed) to bail out failed banks and speculators. This is a question of political will, and the priority given to effectively combating climate change and protecting Mother Earth.”

How much will it cost to avert climate change?

Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the famous report “The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change” estimates the cost of tackling climate change to be about 2% of GDP annually.  A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation tells us that with a global GDP of about US $58 trillion, it would take about US 1 to US 1.5  trillion a year at current prices for the world every year to deal with climate change. The world’s investment in renewables is only about US$ 243 billion in 2010.

Stern also went on to point out that taking no action is a foolhardy choice – one that could cost the world a startling 5% to 20% of GDP.

If the US $100 billion annual payment to developing countries is a pittance (and there’s no mention of whether this will be inflation-adjusted), there’s further concern that this may trickle down to even less, given that most of these countries to whom the funds are being directed, have very poor governance systems. In other words, they have high levels of corruption.  

Transparency International(TI), the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption, highlights this concern in their latest report entitled The Global Corruption Report: Climate Change as summarised in the following video:

Video link here

According to their Press Release:

As governments prepare to spend up to US$100 billion annually by 2020 to limit climate change and prepare for its impact, Transparency International (TI) warns of the corruption risks of climate finance flowing through new, untested channels and recommends strengthening governance systems to tackle them.

The Global Corruption Report: Climate Change sets out practical guidelines to prevent corruption undermining climate change measures and calls on governments, international organisations, businesses and civil society to ensure good governance in climate policy.

“The urgent need to respond to climate change needs to be enhanced by transparency and accountability. Oversight must be built into all climate-related initiatives from the start,” said Huguette Labelle, chair of Transparency International. “Good governance now will help ensure the success of the impact of climate change policy and funding.”

“Bangladesh is at the frontline in the battle to combat climate change. How Bangladesh manages climate governance and ensures transparency and accountability in the use of climate change funds can provide lessons for governments and civil society around the world. The recommendations in the report come at a critical time,” says Iftekhar Zaman, executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh.

Under global climate agreements, substantial new funding from governments and multilateral agencies will be made available to finance mitigation of climate change, such as renewable energy projects like wind farms or solar power plants, and adaptation to it, such as constructions of sea walls, irrigations systems and disaster-ready housing.

None of the 20 countries expected to be most affected by climate change – where much of this money will be spent – scores higher than 3.6 on the TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index, in which 0 indicates perception of extremely corrupt and 10 is very clean. Governments must ensure transparent oversight of how climate change funds are spent, which can be enhanced by civil society monitoring.

The report combines analysis from more than 50 leading climate change experts from 20 countries tackling a wide range of issues including:

• the politics of climate change and accountability of funding institutions
• the role of the private sector
• the integrity of carbon markets
• the response to climate change impacts in developing countries (climate-proofing infrastructure, preparing for climate migration and improving disaster management)
• Forestry governance
• Public participation and transparent oversight

The report recommends greater public participation, access to information and accountability to make climate governance more effective. This would limit the potential for conflicts of interest in decision-making and the negative effects that lobbying and special interests can play in setting climate policy.

The report warns of the risk of a green resource curse. New technologies needed to replace fossil fuels, such as solar panels, require different natural resources. It is important that the mining industry that exploits these resources is transparent and publicly discloses payments to governments so that citizens can ensure the proceeds are used for their benefits.

Similarly, governments that sell land for bio-fuel cultivation, estimated to be 10 per cent of transport fuels in many of the world’s leading economies by 2030, must allow for public participation and oversight so that local communities’ land rights are respected.

Keeping forests clean and green

US$28 billion of climate financing is expected to flow annually to countries with large tropical forests to discourage deforestation and preserve this form of natural carbon storage. Illegal logging, worth more than US$10 billion a year, is already fuelled by corruption of customs and land management authorities. The report highlights that some governments have already claimed credits for fictitious forest plantation projects.

Case studies from Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Columbia, Kenya, Philippines, Spain, and the United States illustrate the global dimension of the climate change challenges facing the planet.

“Corruption holds nothing sacred, not even our planet’s future. Failure to properly govern climate change measures now will not only lead to misallocated resources and fraudulent projects today, but also hurts future generations,” said Labelle.

Further links you may be interested in:

1. Transparency International website and Facebook page

2.SDUpdate:  How should we spend 100 billion USD per year sensibly? This article discusses other likely pitfalls in the disbursement of this funds.

3.Guardian UK: Does Cancun show climate leadership?

4.EWTT: Contraction & Convergence: An Urgent Global Imperative to tackle Climate Change

5.YouTube: Al Jazeera: Inside Story – Global Corruption

Video link here

Share/Save

Photo by Purvi Vyas

Our Guest writer Karthik Kumar specifically answered this in his post ” Organic Farming – Can It Feed the World?” quoting an extensive study done by the University of Michigan, USA and the presentations at the FAO Conference in 2007.

Earlier this year, the WorldWatch Institute arrived at similar conclusions in “The State of the World 2011: Innovations That Nourish the Planet” report, quoting several examples from their teams’ travels to Africa. They called for moving beyond the narrow paradigm of increasing yield through seeds (e.g., through genetically modified ones), moving beyond farms (by improving storage and transport) and moving beyond Africa (by looking at agro-forestry as a climate change solution).

Other articles we’ve posted in the recent past are the excellent ones by Grist.org called, “Debunking the stubborn myth than only industrial ag can feed the world” and The Ecologist’s article, “10 reasons why organic farming can feed the world”

We are certainly pleased to share another pathbreaking report by the UN called “Agro Ecology and the Right to Food” released in March 2011 which concludes that Ecological agriculture is the only way forward to feed the hungry of the world.

Olivier de Schutter Photo by wn com

As Olivier de Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur for Food says in the report and video below, that in the long run, it is not a question of ‘either’ large scale industrial agriculture ‘or’ smaller scale ecological farming – the transition has to be made, and is the only way forward for a sustainable future to ensure food security and to grapple with climate change.  It does not mean reverting to ‘subsistence’ agriculture, but using techniques such as agro-forestry and intercropping to increase yield and biodiversity, and scaling these up by teaching farmers.

Ecological agriculture is intricately linked to the “Right to Food” which goes beyond the right of every man, woman and child to be fed. “It is about being guaranteed the right to feed oneself, which requires not only that food is available (that the ratio of production to the population is sufficient), but also that it is accessible – i.e., that each household either has the means to produce its own food, or has sufficient purchasing power to buy the food it needs.”

According to the Press Release :

Eco-Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years, says new UN report

GENEVA – Small-scale farmers can double food production within 10 years in critical regions by using ecological methods, a new UN report shows. Based on an extensive review of the recent scientific literature, the study calls for a fundamental shift towards agroecology as a way to boost food production and improve the situation of the poorest.

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report. “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live –especially in unfavorable environments.”

Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

 Video link here

“Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation — and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.  Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.”

The report also points out that projects in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh recorded up to 92 % reduction in insecticide use for rice, leading to important savings for poor farmers. “Knowledge came to replace pesticides and fertilizers. This was a winning bet, and comparable results abound in other African, Asian and Latin American countries,” the independent expert notes.

“The approach is also gaining ground in developed countries such as United States, Germany or France,” he said. “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.“Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don’t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

The Special Rapporteur on the right to food also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations, which demonstrated a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members. “Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains.

“We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

“If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a doubling of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

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

Further links you may be interested in:

YouTube: Olivier De Schutter, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Speaking at the IIED and HIVOS Provocations Event in Stockholm in March 2011.

Video link here

Foreign Policy: Can the World Feed 10 Billion People? by Raj Patel

Non-GMO Report: Leading Scientist (Henn Herren) says acroecology is the only way to feed the world

EWTT: Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Living

EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva’s Sydney Peace Prize Lecture: Time to End War on Earth

EWTT: Vandana Shiva speaks at Right2Know March

Share/Save

Several decades have lapsed since the “Green Revolution” promoting large scale agriculture and intensive use of pesticides, yet nearly a billion people on the planet continue to starve.

With growing realisation about the toxic effects of fossil-fuel based inputs on top soil, water, workers’ health as well as the increasing opposition to technologies such as genetic modification of seeds, World Watch Institute’s latest report “State of the World 2011: Nourishing the Planet” comes as music to the ears.  Launched on 12th January 2011, the report advocates a shift to small scale agriculture as a sustainable path for food security and hunger alleviation.

The report is a result of the visit of Nourish the Planet‘s team to 25 countries of sub-Saharan Africa over a one year period, which draws from hundreds of case studies and face-to-face examples of working solutions. Founded in 1974 by economist and farmer Lester Brown, World Watch Institute has been releasing informative and indepth environmental reports every year.

Some of the main facts highlighted in the report:

* According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, 925 million people around the world go hungry everyday, 239 million of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa.

* Agriculture’s share of global development aid has dropped from more than 16% in 1980 to a mere 4% today. Much of that money fails to reach poor farmers of Africa.

* The prescriptions of the Green Revolution are not always appropriate or applicable to the 60% of the food-insecure who live in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, mostly on small farms. In sub-Saharan Africa only 4% of the cultivated land is equipped for irrigation.

*In sub-Saharan Africa, 75 percent of agricultural producers are women. Yet women also make up half of the population that is living on less than US$1.25 a day. The Millennium Development Goal to halve hunger by 2015 will not be met without a revolution in the way decision makers think about women—not just as agricultural producers, but as business people who need access to markets and financial services.

The report interestingly invites ‘farmers, scientists, donors, agribusiness executives, and the global community’ to consider three main paradigm shifts:

GO BEYOND SEEDS :

In a world dominated by a few varieties of crops, the focus is usually on new seeds including GM seeds to increase production. However, what works in the long term is nourishing and managing soil, indigenous crops and scarce water resources.

Innovations such as human powered pump and treadle pumps are effective local solutions, and so is intercropping with trees which reduces solar gain and heat intensity on the fields, while increasing crop yields. The focus needs to shift from single crop yields of large scale agriculture to biodiverse yields of small farms.

GO BEYOND FARMS:

The mindset has to move from ‘more production’ to preserving what has already been produced. A quarter to half of food harvested in poor countries is  contaminated or spoilt before reaching the table. Better silos and low cost methods such as plastic bags can help .

According to the report, “ Although reliable figures are lacking, official estimates suggest that post-harvest losses across Asia average around 13 percent. China lost 15 percent of its grain harvest—up to 11 percent of the nation’s rice—in 1993. In Vietnam, 10–25 percent of rice is normally lost, and in extreme conditions as much as 40–80 percent can be lost. In Brazil and Bangladesh, crop losses average 22 and 20 percent, respectfully. Despite the magnitude of this problem, only 5 percent of investments toward agricultural improvements are directed at reducing post-harvest loss. ‘

Another trend the report makes note of is the increasing urban populations. It mentions, ”In 2008, the share of people living in urban areas broke 50 percent for the first time, and UN projections place more than 65 percent of the global population in urban centers by 2050. As more people migrate from rural areas, hunger is moving to cities as well. In Africa, 14 million people migrate to cities each year, and worldwide some 800 million people depend on urban agriculture for their food needs. Urban agriculture is one of the key ways to promote security.

GO BEYOND AFRICA:

Agriculture and the global food system are major contributors to climate change mainly due to the intensive use of fossil fuel based inputs and factory farming of livestock. Livestock production is estimated to contribute 18 percent of global emissions of greenhouses gases, especially methane which is more potent than carbon dioxide. Large scale clearing of forests for agriculture causes about 17 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions and reduces their ability to absorb carbon. However, agriculture can become part of the solution. By intercropping farmlands in Africa with trees, 50 billion tonnes of carbon can be sequestered over the next 50 years, and that is a sizeable contribution equivalent to an entire year’s weight of global carbon emissions,  from a continent which contributes very little to the problem in the first place.

Here’s a short video about the study:

Conclusion : The report is optimistic and shows a pragmatic way forward to tackling a number of issues – climate change, food security, women’s welfare, poverty alleviation and self-reliance in the poorest of countries while highlighting several ground level innovations that work.

The document quotes sustainability researcher Jules Pretty as having surveyed in 1999, more than 286 projects in 57 developing countries.  She found that the average crop yield gain was 79 percent over previous production practices. Similar studies of sustainable rice intensification (SRI) plots in eight developing countries found that, on average, farmers increased yields 47 percent using mostly organic fertilizers and also saw a 40 percent water savings, a 23 percent reduction of input costs, and a 68 percent increase in income.

Organic farming can feed the world’s poor, while at the same time addressing fundamental issues of poverty and environmental degradation. The world needs to reorient itself towards small scale, locally adapted agriculture as a viable solution instead of large scale techno fixes that benefit a few.

A must read, State of the World 2011: Innovations that Nourish the Planet is available in summary version in the Google Document here and is available for purchase from the World Watch Institute website.

Further links you may be interested in:

1. EWTT: Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi : One Farmer’s Crusade to Save Indigenous Seeds

2. EWTT: Soil Biodiversity – The Invisible Hero

2. Nourishing the Planet Blog , Facebook Page and Twitter Page

Other Videos by Nourish the Planet:

1. Seeding Food Security with Urban Farming Nourishing the Planet co-Project Director, Brian Halweil discussed how urban agriculture will play a critical role in improving urban food security and alleviating global hunger and poverty.

2. Compensating Farmers for Sequestering Carbon in Soils: Brian Halweil discusses how farmers can help to mitigate climate change through agroforestry and intercropping.

Share/Save

An Update on 9th September, 2010

Greenpeace India have now launched Version 2 of the Safe Food Guide to highlight the companies which guarantee that they do not use genetically modified content, and those who don’t give such guarantee.  A pocket guide has also been issued by them which show the brands in India that can be safely considered as GM free and those that cannot. According to them, “ While over 40 countries including Europe, Australia, New Zealand, China or Japan have opted for mandatory standards, the Indian Government is beating around the bush and not ensuring that labelling of foods containing GMOs is mandatory.”

According to the guide (Pg 5 of the fuller version), the most common ingredients that are found from large scale cultivation of GE crops such as corn, canola and soy are:

Corn:

• Corn flour, meal, oil, starch,gluten and syrup
• Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose and glucose
• Modified food starch*

Soy:

• Soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone
• Vegetable oil* and vegetable protein*
• Canola oil (also known as rapeseed oil)

* These could be derived from other sources.

The detailed Version 2 of the Safe Food Guide outlines the companies in the Green List (who have assured they use no GM ingredients) and the Red List (who have not given such an assurance) . It’s interesting to see the results are not very different from the first version, however a few additions are to be seen.

The companies on the Red List (irresponsible/irresponsive to calls on position on GMOs) of Ver 2 of the Guide are quite an eye opener, as most of their products are really well known and popular brands in the Indian marketplace, some of which are also exported overseas.

Amul India
Cargill India Private Limited
Godrej Hersheys or Godrej Beverages and Foods Limited
Surya Foods
Agro Tech Foods Limited
Bharti Enterprises

The companies on the Yellow List who have some inclination towards a long term position on GMOs are Cadbury India Limited, ITC Limited, Ruchi Soya Industries, L T Foods Limited,  Heinz India Private Limited, Bambino Agro Industries, Kohinoor Foods Limited

The companies on the Green List which are progressive and have a declared policy not to use GM ingredients now or in the future are Vippy Industries, KRBL Limited and Dabur India Limited.

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

It’s quite difficult to tell whether a vegetable, foodgrain or processed product that you’re eating has any Genetically Modified/Engineered Content (GM).  The first major attempt in India to compile a list of GM free food was made by Greenpeace which launched the SAFE FOOD GUIDE in 2009.  You may download the Guide here :

The guide is an important step in ensuring that consumers get transparent information, and can make intelligent food choices, especially as the labelling requirements on processed foods are lax in Asian countries like India.

The guide is an excellent read, and provides a good synopsis of the various field trials, and the environmental and health hazards of GM food.

It also outlines the brands which have GM content and those that are free. Of course, just because a brand is labelled free of GM content, doesn’t mean that those processed foods are necessarily healthy. Processed foods in general contain a lot of synthetic additives, and are not recommended for frequent consumption. They also consume a lot of resources in terms of production, packaging and distribution.

India Retailing provides a summary of the guide:

The issue is the use of Genetically Modified (GM) ingredients in foodstuffs. Greenpeace India today released its first ‘Safe food guide’, which has a ‘Red’ (avoid for now) and ‘Green’ (safe to use) recommendation.

The Green list comprises those companies that have assured Greenpeace they do not source GM ingredients. The Red list consists of companies that may have products containing GM ingredients.

Jai Krishna, sustainable agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace India, says, “The safety of GE crops as foodstuff for animals and humans is unknown and the testing regimes are inadequate. Studies on laboratory animals (rats) have pointed out potential health risks, including, abnormal growth of organs such as liver and kidney and many unpredictable effects. Therefore, this guide has an important role to inform consumers.”

There are no labellings regulations in India, according to Greenpeace. Currently, India does not allow the commercial cultivation of GM food crops, but there may be GM food ingredients in the food produced in India. Going by the 2008 figures given by Greenpeace, 56 GM crops are undergoing research in India. Of these, 41 comprise 169 varieties of cereals, oil seeds, cash crops, vegetables, fruit, pulses and spices. While a majority of these are in the laboratory stage, 11 food crops are undergoing various stages of field trial.

For international labels,  GMO Truth Alliance has released a guide which can be downloaded here:

Further links you may be interested in:

Reading Food Labels: Food Additives

Super Rice or Monster Rice? Why GM crops can’t feed the world This blog post also has several other links, including videos related to GM foods, and their impact on the environment and human health.

Please Note: Following a reader’s comment, we’ve updated the correct list of companies on 21st Jan 2011, as detailed in Version 2 of the guide

Share/Save

A new report in the US that highlights the link between environmental factors and cancer is of particular relevance to the rest of the world. What are these environmental factors? What actions can individuals take? What are the cancer rates in Asia and should such a study be done here?

The ”President’s Cancer Panel” specially appointed by the US President has published its 2008-2009 Annual Report entitled: Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, What We Can Do Now . It warned that environmental causes of cancer have been “grossly underestimated.” 

The panel was mandated under the US National Cancer Act of 1971, and its role is to “monitor the development and execution of the activities of the National Cancer Program, and shall report directly to the President.”

This is a particularly important report as it is the first significant study (and the first time the Panel has been specifically tasked) to look at environmental factors related to cancer.

The two member panel Dr. LaSalle D. Lefall, Jr., a professor of surgery at Howard University and Margaret Kripke, a professor at University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center urged the President  “to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

Here’s a short news feature on the report:

 
Where do environmental contaminants come from?

The panel has identified 6 major sources of environmental contaminants that have a bearing on cancer rates. It covers quite a wide range of factors:

1. Industry and Manufacturing : industrial byproducts and chemicals from mass manufacturing that are a part of the product or remain on the product as residues.

2. Agriculture: insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, solvents and fillers that leach into and contaminate soil and water. Chemicals are also found in residential (gardens) and commercial landscaping. In addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals are major contributors to water pollution.

3. Modern lifestyles: Exposures that come from modern conveniences such as air travel, dry cleaning, vehicular pollution, especially diesel particulate pollution (which are responsible for approximately 30 percent of cancer resulting from air pollution). Chemicals used for household pest control can become a component of carpet dust, posing a risk to children when they play on the floor. Exposure to low frequency electromagnetic energy from cell phones and other wireless technology, and electrical powerlines are also suspected factors.

4. Medical sources:  radiation from medical tests such as CT scans and potential of contamination from discarded pharmaceuticals.

5. Military sources: which have hazardous materials from abandoned military sites in the US.

6. Natural sources : some naturally occuring carcinogens like radon (breakdown of uranium deposits) and arsenic (in pesticides)

 The Panel points out that there is still a lot to be studied and learnt, to determine the full extent of environmental influences on cancer.

“At this time, we do not know how much environmental exposures influence cancer risk and related immune and endocrine dysfunction. Environmental contamination varies greatly by type and magnitude across the nation, and the lifetime effects of exposure to combinations of chemicals and other agents are largely unstudied.

Similarly, the cancer impact of exposures during key “windows of vulnerability” such as the prenatal period, early life, and puberty are not well understood. Nonetheless, while these diverse effects often are difficult to quantify with existing technologies and research methods, in a great many instances, we know enough to act.

What can individuals do?

The panel suggests these important steps for individuals to take to reduce their exposure to various environmental carcinogens:

1. Children are more susceptible to exposure to environmental carcinogens than adults. To the extent possible, parents and child care providers should choose foods, house and garden products, toys, medicines, and medical tests that will minimize the child’s exposure to toxics.

2. Remove shoes before entering the home and washing work clothes separately from the other family laundry in order to minimise chemicals from workplace.

3.  Filter home tap or well water to decrease exposure to numerous known or suspected carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

4. Store and carry water in stainless steel, glass, or BPA-free and phthalate free containers. Avoid microwaving food in plastic.

5. Reduce exposure to pesticides by choosing food grown without fertilisers or pesticides. Wash food properly to remove residues.

6. Avoid or minimize consumption of processed, charred, and well-done meats to reduce expose to carcinogenic hydrocarbons.

7. Consult the Household Products Database  for health and safety information on household products.

8. Properly dispose off pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, paints, and other materials to minimize drinking water and soil contamination. Choose products made from non-toxic and environmentally safe chemicals.

9. Reduce fertiliser and pesticide use for landscaping purposes to prevent contaminating drinking water.

10. Reduce electricity (read fossil fuel) consumption by turning off lights and devices when not in use. Using public transport, walking or riding a bike, or a fuel efficient car, reduces the amount of toxic pollutants in the air.

11. Check home radon levels. Conduct a home radon test in any home one is considering buying.

12. Reduce exposure to second hand tobacco smoke in your home, car, and public places. If you smoke, then seek help to quit.

13. Adults and children can avoid exposure to ultraviolet light by wearing protective clothing and sunscreen when outdoors. Avoid exposure when the sunlight is most intense.

14. Adults and children can reduce exposure to electromagnetic energy by wearing a headset when using a cell phone, texting instead of calling, and keeping the calls brief.

15. Reduce exposure when possible from medical sources, but asking if the test is necessary. In addition, to help limit cumulative medical radiation exposure consider creating a record of all imaging or nuclear medical tests received along with the estimated radiation dose of each test.

 
The report doesn’t dwell on other major factors related to cancer such as poor nutrition, obesity and lack of exercise. These of course, continue to be important factors for the prevention and cure of cancer.

 Though this report is meant for the US, it has important findings that are relevant for Asia. Historically, cancer rates in Asia and Africa have been low, however this situation is changing.

According to MSNBC,

 “Smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods — all linked to various cancers — will combine with larger populations and fewer deaths from infectious diseases to drive Asian cancer rates up 60 percent by 2020.”

The effect is already startling, with the Asia-Pacific making up about half of the world’s cancer deaths and logging 4.9 million new cases, or 45 percent, of the global toll in 2002.
China alone, with its booming economy and 1.3 billion people, is home to about one-fifth of the world’s new cases, compared to about 13 percent in the U.S. and 26 percent in Europe. Heart disease remains the top killer in China, but cancer is a close second.

www.wesrch.com/wiki1026

Rapid economic growth over the last two decades, has brought about environmental pollution in cities. It would be interesting to see a study correlating rise in cancer in Asia with several environmental factors, especially in the context of increased manufacturing activity and consumerism.

 Meanwhile, as the panel recommends, self-advocacy is a good policy. Become an active voice within the community.

 Individuals can influence in two ways:

 One is by influencing public policy supporting environmental cancer research and measures that will reduce suspected carcinogens and toxins.

 The other is by influencing industry by choosing non-toxic products, and communicating with manufacturers the need for safer products.

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

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: Book Review : Cancer Cured and Prevented Naturally

EWTT: Are all chemicals bad and all natural things good?

EWTT:  The China Study by Prof Colin Campbell  Link between diet and cancer

Share/Save

The Third Pole is thus known because it is the largest frozen area of fresh water outside the two polar regions.  Also called the Hindu Kush- Himalayan (HKH) region, it extends 3,500 km over all or part of eight countries from Afghanistan in the west to Myanmar in the east.

It is the source of ten large Asian river systems -– the Amu Darya, Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra (Yarlungtsanpo), Irrawaddy, Salween (Nu), Mekong (Lancang), Yangtse (Jinsha), Yellow River (Huanghe), and Tarim (Dayan).

Picture credit: http://www.icimod.org/?page=43

The river and river basins provide water to 1.3 billion people, or 20% of the world population. They also support livelihoods of over 210 million people in the region.

A new report on the importance of the Third Pole as a vital resource as well as a potential cause of crisis in Asia has just been released by ChinaDialogue.net. 

The Waters of the Third Pole: Sources of threat, sources of survival  is the joint effort of China Dialogue, University College London, King’s College London and the Australian National University.

The report highlights the various natural and man made stresses to this valuable ecosytem.

Natural stresses:

HKH region already faces several natural hazards such as seismic activity, glacial melting, extreme weather, windstorms, droughts, wildfires, and sea-level rise.  This affects the region’s glaciers, rivers, wetlands, grasslands and coasts.

Man made stresses:

There are a plethora of man-made stresses leading to unsustainable use of water, arising from dam constructions, diversion of rivers, floods, ground-water contamination, and water shortages.

The pressures are created by huge and rapidly growing populations. Urbanisation and globalisation lead to heavy demand on resources.

The policy responses and approaches are short-term, with governments trying to increase agricultural productivity and electricity generation, without adequate regard to the environmental consequences.

The number of people being displaced is rising. These environmental migrants or refugees number in millions, moving away due to larger dams, diversion projects, and degradation of farmland or fisheries.

A Common Ecosystem

There is little co-operation between countries and regions, with long standing disputes over decreasing water resources.

Due to the lack of a “systems” perspective and co-ordinated research, there is no understanding of the region as a whole as one common ecosystem, each element of which is interconnected and interdependent.

An example quoted by the report:

‘…large water management projects have created social, ecological, and economic problems, the repercussions of which cannot be immediately gauged. For instance, China has initiated massive infrastructural projects in Tibet, where many major Asian rivers originate. Industrialisation upstream in China has led to soil erosion, deforestation, and landslides, whose impacts are felt in the lower riparian states of Bangladesh and India. That these countries are part of a common ecosystem was made tragically clear by the flash floods that ravaged northeast India in 2000 caused by a landslide in Tibet.’

 
HKH region is already facing a crisis, affecting millions of people. The effects are likely to continue, increasing the likelihood of mass displacement and environmental migrantion, disease and conflict. Short term thinking of various governments and the lack of effective water management is constraining the preparedness for catastrophes.
 

Led Zeppelin once said “Then as it was, then again it will be, and though the course will change sometimes, rivers always reach the sea.”  For this to continue to hold true and to ensure the rivers can sustain present and future generations, a new kind of thinking, a shared understanding of the precious rivers of the Third Pole is the urgent order of the day.

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

Eco WALK the Talk summarises various environmental reports that may be technical or usually accessible to those in academia or research, to make the public more aware of important larger issues facing the environment. For various past report summaries, please click here. 

Reuters: Rivers a source of rising tensions

Share/Save

by Ria Tan

The report card on global biodiversity is out. And the results are not good. But there is still hope.

What is the Global Biodiversity Outlook?
It is a report based on scientific assessments, national reports submitted by governments and a study on future scenarios for biodiversity. It is produced by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and subject to an extensive independent scientific review process. The publication of this the third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) is one of the principal milestones of the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity.

What are some of the findings?
The report confirms that the world has failed to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. In particular, the report warns that losses may be irreversible if they reach “tipping points” such as:

• Dieback of large areas of the Amazon forest, due to climate change, deforestation and fires. Resulting in further global climate and regional rainfall changes and widespread species extinctions.
• Multiple collapses of coral reef ecosystems, due to a combination of ocean acidification, warmer water leading to bleaching, overfishing and nutrient pollution. Impacting hundreds of millions of species directly dependent on coral reefs.

How big is the problem?
Here’s some charts from the report to give a quick idea of the monumental size of the issues:

From Global Biodiversity Outlook 3: Executive summary (pdf)

Most indicators of the state of biodiversity show negative trends, with no significant reduction in the rate of decline.
There is no evidence of a slowing in the increase of pressures upon biodiversity, based on the trend shown by indicators of humanity’s ecological footprint, nitrogen deposition, alien species introductions, overexploited fish stocks and the impact of climate change on biodiversity.
The limited indicators of the benefits derived by humans from biodiversity also show negative trends.
In contrast, all indicators of the responses to address biodiversity loss are moving in a positive direction. More areas are being protected for biodiversity, more policies and laws are being introduced to avoid damage from invasive alien species, and more money is being spent in support of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its objectives.
The overall message from these indicators is that despite the many efforts taken around the world to conserve biodiversity and use it sustainably, responses so far have not been adequate to address the scale of biodiversity loss or reduce the pressures.

From “State of Biodiversity in Asia and the Pacific” (pdf)

Figure I. Threatened plant and animal species, Asia and the Pacific, 2008 (Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)
Figure II. Ratio of protected terrestrial areas to surface area, 1990–2008 (Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)
Figure III. Ratio of protected marine areas to territorial water, 1990–2008 (Statistics Division, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific)

Are there any solutions?
Among the key recommended approaches is for policymakers to give equal priority to biodiversity loss and climate change. The two challenges are linked and must be dealt with in close co-ordination, if the most severe impacts of each are to be avoided. Conserving biodiversity and ecosystems can help to store more carbon, reducing further build-up of greenhouse gases; and people will be better able to adapt to unavoidable climate change if ecosystems are more resilient.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme says:

“Many economies remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life-forms and their role in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the atmosphere,”

“Many countries are beginning to factor natural capital into some areas of economic and social life with important returns, but this needs rapid and sustained scaling-up.”

“Humanity has fabricated the illusion that somehow we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral to our contemporary world: the truth is we need it more than ever on a planet of six billion heading to over nine billion people by 2050.”

In outlining a possible new strategy for reducing biodiversity loss, the report includes addressing patterns of consumption, the impacts of increased trade and demographic change. Ending harmful subsidies would also be an important step.

The report and a new Strategic Plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity will be dealt with at the 2010 Nagoya Biodiversity Summit to be held in October. One of the key elements of this strategy is:

Communication, education and awareness-raising to ensure that as far as possible, everyone understands the value of biodiversity and what steps they can take to protect it, including through changes in personal consumption and behavior.

This article is by our Guest Writer  Ria Tan. Ria is an accomplished Nature Guide in Singapore and has diligently documented the precious biodiversity in and around the Singapore Islands.  She is co-author of “Chek Jawa Guidebook” on the 400 or so marine species of Chek Jawa, Pulau Ubin, an offshore island of Singapore.  She maintains a prolific blog for environment news at WildSingapore .  More about Ria here.   Contact her at hello@wildsingapore.com

Further links you may be interested in:

You CAN make a difference for our biodiversity!
Here’s more on what one person can do.

• More media reports on the Global Biodiversity Outlook report on wildsingapore news.
• The Global Biodiversity Outlook can be downloaded from the UNEP site.
• Global Biodiversity Outlook and our shores on wild shores of singapore. 
• UNEP: New Database Brings Together Vital Data on Biodiversity to Climate Change Covering 70,000 Islands

Share/Save

Photo Credit: Flickr - Crustmania

One of the most significant studies in “Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries” has been released by the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute  in conjuction with the National University of Singapore and Princeton University.

Do we need yet another indicator or study, one may ask, considering there are many alternative indices already: the City Development Index(CDI), Ecological Footprint(EF), Environmental Performance Index(EPI), Environmental Sustainability Index(ESI), Genuine Savings Index(GSI), Human Development Index(HDI), Living Planet Index(LPI), and the Well-Being Index(WI)?

The authors of this study, Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Xingli Giam and Navjot S.Sodhi seem to think so.  They have deliberately excluded indicators such as human health (e.g., EPI) or economics (e.g., GSI), populations size or quality of governance, as this lends greater clarity in determining the environmental impact of different nations, both in relative and absolute terms.

This clarity is essential because as  Corey Bradshaw, the Institute’s Director of Ecological Modelling and co-author of the report says, “The environmental crises currently gripping the planet are the corollary of excessive human consumption of natural resources. “There is considerable and mounting evidence that elevated degradation and loss of habitats and species are compromising ecosystems that sustain the quality of life for billions of people worldwide.”

The team used 7 indicators in the study which were:

• natural forest loss
• habitat conversion
• fisheries and other marine captures
• fertiliser use
• water pollution
• carbon emissions from land use
• species threat

The top 10 countries with the worst environmental impact in absolute terms are :

1. Brazil 2. USA 3. China 4. Indonesia 5. Japan 6. Mexico 7. India 8. Russia 9. Australia and 10. Peru.

The top 10 worst environmental performers according to the proportional environmental impact index (relative to resource availability) are below. It is interesting to see that 9 of the 10 countries are in Asia.

1. Singapore 2. Korea 3. Qatar 4. Kuwait  5. Japan 6.  Thailand 7. Bahrain 8. Malaysia 9. Philippines and 10. Netherlands

According to the authors, “We correlated rankings against three socio-economic variables (human population size, gross national income and governance quality) and found that total wealth was the most important explanatory variable – the richer a country, the greater its average environmental impact.

This has important implications for policy making, as it throws a popular theory called the Kuznets curve hypothesis out of the door. According to this theory, environmental degradation declines as a nation grows richer as they supposedly become more environmentally conscious and have better access to clean technology. 

As the authors conclude “Our results show that the global community not only has to encourage better environmental performance in less-developed countries, especially those in Asia, there is also a requirement to focus on the development of environmentally friendly practices in wealthier countries.”

The report can be accessed here.

Further links you may be interested in:Wild Shores of Singapore : Singapore No. 1 global eco-destroyer?

The Ecologist: The Damage caused by Singapore’s insatiable thirst for land

Asia Is Green:  Stop burying our head in the sand

Share/Save

The term “waste water” or “sick water” refers to water in which all kinds of waste, both dissolved and suspended have been thrown in : domestic effluents (black and grey water), effluents from industries and businesses, storm water, and agricultural effluents. 

UNEP has released a report on 22nd March 2010, for World Water Day entitled Sick Water which can be downloaded here. The objective is to highlight the global crisis in water quality and the efforts required to improve it.

Here is the introductory video to this report explaining the meaning of Waste Water and the issues surrounding it:

According to the Press Release:

Transforming wastewater from a major health and environmental hazard into a clean, safe and economically-attractive resource is emerging as a key challenge in the 21st century. 

It is a challenge that will continue to intensify as the world undergoes rapid urbanization, industrialization and increasing demand for meat and other foods unless decisive action is taken says a new United Nations report .

Urban populations are projected to nearly double in 40 years, from current 3.4 billion to over six billion people – but already most cities lack adequate wastewater management due to aging, absent or inadequate sewage infrastructure. 

Conversely, a recent report by the UNEP Green Economy Initiative underlined the economic benefits of investing in this resource. It argues that every dollar invested in safe water and sanitation has a pay back of $3 to $34 depending on the region and the technology deployed.

The new report, called Sick Water?, says some two million tons of waste, estimated to equal two or more billion tons of wastewater is being discharged daily into rivers and seas spreading disease to humans and damaging key ecosystems such as coral reefs and fisheries. 

Wastewater is a cocktail of fertilizer run-off and sewage disposal alongside animal, industrial, agricultural and other wastes. 

The report says that the sheer scale of dirty water means more people now die from contaminated and polluted water than from all forms of violence including wars. Dirty water is also a key factor in the rise of de-oxygenated dead zones that have been emerging in seas and oceans across the globe. 

Yet many of the substances that make wastewater a pollutant – for example nitrogen and phosphorus- can also be useful as fertilizers for agriculture. Wastewater can also generate gases to fuel small power stations or be used for cooking. 

The report notes that already some 10 per cent of the world’s population is being supplied with food grown using wastewater for irrigation and fertilizer and with better management and training of farmers this could be increased substantially. 

The report, launched to coincide with World Water Day, goes so far as to say that the concentration of nutrients in wastewater “could supply much of the nitrogen and much of the phosphorous and potassium normally required for crop production. Other valuable micro-nutrients and organic matter contained in the effluent would also provide benefits”.

 Some Solutions

The report underlines that reducing the volume and concentrations of wastewater will require multiple actions ranging from reducing run-off from livestock and croplands to better treatment of human wastes. 

Some solutions may involve water recycling systems and multi-million or multi-billion dollar water sewage treatment works: the report cites the success of those installed in the Bali coastal resort of Nusa Dua in Indonesia. 

Others may involve investing and re-investing in nature’s natural purification systems which include wetlands, mangroves and salt marshes. 

Studies in the Mississippi valley of the United States indicate that the value of a restored wetland may be as high as over $1,000 a hectare if its full range of services, from water filtration to recreational use, is factored in. 

Establishing markets and economic instruments for such services could offer the kind of financial incentives that favour conservation and restoration over draining wetlands for farmland. Other solutions can be small-scale: The report cites the coral coast of Fiji where it was estimated that up to 40 per cent of harmful nutrients being discharged into the marine environment were from pigs, which produce three times more concentrated nitrogen waste  than humans.

Sawdust beds which soak up the liquid run-off from pig pens have now been introduced, and soiled sawdust is shipped to nearby farms as fertilizer. Emissions to coastal waters have been cut and the farmers are pleased too. 

This is because the more comfortable sawdust beds seem to make the pigs happier and thus bigger, so farmers have more meat to sell.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said: “If the world is to thrive, let alone to survive on a planet of six billion people heading to over nine billion by 2050, we need to get collectively smarter and more intelligent about how we manage waste including wastewaters“.

 ”The facts and figures are stark – pollution from wastewater is quite literally killing people, indeed at least 1.8 million children die annually as a result of contaminated water. The impacts on the wider environment and in particular the marine environment are also sobering,” he added.

 ”But the report also points to the abundant Green Economy opportunities for turning a mounting challenge into an opportunity with multiple benefits. These include the savings from reduced fertilizer costs for farmers and, incentives for conserving ecological infrastructure such as wetlands alongside new business and employment opportunities in engineering and natural resource management,” Mr Steiner said. 

Mrs Anna Tibajuka, Executive Director of UN-Habitat, said: “Urban and industrial wastewater composed of sediment, nutrients, organic matter, trace metals and pesticides, among others, adversely affects the entire food chain and thus human health”.

 ”Many water and sanitation utilities, especially in developing countries, are forced to spend more financial resources in water treatment due to increased pollution. Excess nutrients and wastewater can also lead to uncontrolled growth of algae and aquatic plants such as water hyacinth which cause practical problems for marine transportation, fishing and at intakes for water, hydro power and irrigation schemes,” she added.

“It is my hope that activities taking place globally today will raise public awareness of the water quality challenges facing humanity, and the need to commit to concrete remedial actions at all levels,” said Mrs Tibajuka.

 Christian Nellemann, a lead author on the report, added: “Some estimates suggest that around 2 million tons of waste are spilled into sewage systems every day: this may be producing well over two billion tons of polluted water every single day, 365 days a year, right into our freshwaters and oceans”.

 The Rapid Response Assessment, entitled “Sick water? The central role of wastewater management in sustainable development“, has been compiled by a special taskforce consisting of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), and the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation (UNSGAB).

It has also involved experts from UN Water and UNEP’s GRID Arendal in Norway and was launched today at UNEP headquarters and at the World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro in support of this year’s World Water Day with the theme Clean Water for a Healthy World.

The report shows that the impact of poor wastewater management and degrading sewage systems is not only costing billions of dollars and degrading ecosystems, it is also challenging the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, sustainable development, jobs, labour productivity and the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

 Some Facts and Figures from the Report 

 
• At least 1.8 million children under five years-old die every year from water related disease, which is one child every 20 seconds.   
• It is estimated that close to 90 per cent of diarrhoea cases, killing some 2.2 million people every year, is caused by unsafe drinking water and poor hygiene.  
• Over 50 per cent of malnutrition cases globally are associated with diarrhoea or intestinal worm infections. Diarrhoeal diseases come second after respiratory infections in terms of labour productivity lost due to illness.   
• Over half the world’s hospitals beds are occupied with people suffering from illnesses linked with contaminated water. 
• Almost 900 million people currently lack access to safe drinking water, and an estimated 2.6 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa have the highest proportion, with around 221 million and 330 million respectively living without basic sanitation.   
• 90 per cent of the wastewater in developing countries discharged daily is untreated. 80% of all marine pollution is land based – most of it wastewater, damaging coral reefs and fishing grounds.  
• Each day each one of us uses – and discards – some 150-600 litres of water: 60-150 litres per person per day in developing countries to 500-800 litre per person per day in the industrialized world.  
• People in the industrialized world generate 5 times more wastewater per person than in developing countries – but treat over 90% of the wastewater compared to only a few percent in developing countries.  
• Improved wastewater management has resulted in significant environmental improvements in many European rivers, but dead zones in the oceans are still spreading worldwide. 
• Agriculture accounts for some 70-90% of all water consumed, mainly for irrigation. But large amounts also return to rivers in terms of run-off – near half of all organic matter in wastewater comes from agriculture.  
• Industrial wastes, pesticides from agriculture and tailings from mining also create serious health risks and threats to water resources, costing billions of dollars to monitor, much more to clean.   
• Use of bottled water is increasing, but it takes 3 litres of water to produce one litre of bottled water – and in the USA alone an additional 17 million barrels of oil. 
• Worldwide 200 000 million litres of water are produced every year, creating also an enormous waste problem from spent plastic bottles.  
• 20 million tons of phosphate is mined to fertilize crops, and there are concerns that natural phosphate may become scarcer over the coming decades.   
•  Nearly half of the agricultural phosphate applied is washed away and ends up rivers and oceans where it plays a part in triggering algae blooms that in turn damage ecosystems and fish stocks.  
• The area of dead zones – locations of reduced or absent oxygen levels – has now grown to cover 245,000 km2 of the marine environment including in North America; the Caribbean, Europe and Asia.   
• Wastewater also generates methane, a climate gas 21 times more powerful than C02. It is also generating nitrous oxide which is 310 times more powerful than C02.   
• It is estimated that wastewater-linked emissions of methane and nitrous oxide will rise by 25 per cent and 50 per cent respectively in just a decade.   
• Climate change may aggravate the problem with droughts concentrating wastewater pollution in rivers and lakes and increased flooding overwhelming ageing sewage infrastructure in cities and towns. 

 The report provides six major recommendations: 

• Countries should adopt a multisectoral approach, including ecosystem management, to cope with rising wastewater production 
• Countries must establish national plans from water source to ocean and create national to local strategies. Over 70% of the water is consumed by agriculture for irrigation. 
• Financing and investment are urgently needed and must address design, ecosystem restoration, construction, operation and maintenance of waste water infrastructure. Public management of the water supply and wastewater management have provided best results for broad public benefit, with private sector mainly beneficial in improving operation and maintenance 
• Communities and nations should plan for increasing incidents of extreme weather and rising urbanization in the future. 
•  For effective waste water management, social, cultural, environmental and economical aspects must be carefully considered 
• Education has a crucial role to play in water and wastewater management, helping to ensure water, nutrients and future opportunities for employment and development are not wasted  

Other links you may be interested in:

CNN Opinion: ‘We need to evolve a new attitude to our seas’ by Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary, UNEP

GoodMagazine Video called Water

Good infograph : Make the right choices to reduce your water footprint

Share/Save