An Observer investigation reveals how rich countries faced by a global food shortage now farm an area double the size of the UK to guarantee supplies for their citizens• Read the expert's view
John Vidal, Juba, Sudan
The Observer, Sunday 7 March 2010
We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia's largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 20 hectares – the size of 20 football pitches.
The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 500m rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tonnes of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with more than 13 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world's most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.
The 1,000 hectares of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2bn acquiring and developing 500,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.
But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.
An Observer investigation estimates that up to 50m hectares of land – an area more than double the size of the UK – has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.
The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union's insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.
In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of "land grabbing".
The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: "All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.
"The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.
"All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry."
It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.
Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world's cheapest land.
Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per hectare.
Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East's largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .
Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1bn buying land and growing 7m tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa's land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.
Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.
Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 2.8m hectares of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 1.2m hectares deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country's arable land.
Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. "European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 3.9m hectares in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities," said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 17.5m hectares, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.
"The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase," he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.
Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.
Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 700,000 hectares of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 750,000 hectares and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 42,000-hectare deal in Nile province.
The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. "We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on," said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. "A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile."
In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 800,000 hectares in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of "grabbing" communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.
Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. "Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap," he said.
"Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames," said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50m on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. "Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally," she said.
But many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as "new colonialism", driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.
We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 500 hectares of land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (75p) per hectare per year – less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.
"The land and labour is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone – Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians – is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years' crop yield," he said.
Oromia is one of the centres of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies' association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 1m hectares, Djibouti 10,000 hectares, Saudi Arabia 100,000 hectares, and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.
"This is the new, 21st-century colonisation. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak," he said.
The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesman said: "Ethiopia has 74m hectares of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use – mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage – 3 to 4% – is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water."
The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. "If land in Africa hasn't been planted, it's probably for a reason. Maybe it's used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users."
Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.
"We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline," she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. "I would avoid the blanket term 'land-grabbing'. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development."
Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.
Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. "We would like to, but the deal is made by central government," said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.
Monday, 8 March 2010
Deal could be struck to protect bluefin tuna and African elephant
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Two of the world’s most iconic endangered species, the bluefin tuna and African elephant, could be protected under a backroom deal being negotiated between Europe and Africa.
New rules restricting international trade in endangered species will be debated at a meeting of 175 countries beginning next week in Doha, Qatar. Europe wants to protect dwindling stocks of bluefin tuna and most African states want to prevent the sale of stockpiles of ivory to Japan and China.
The proposals will need a two-thirds majority to be approved at the conference on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), from March 13 to 25. Delegates will be trying to secure enough votes to overcome opposition from nations that either profit from the trade in the species or import them.
Japan consumes three quarters of the world’s bluefin tuna and a single fish can sell for as much as $110,000 (£72,600) at Tokyo’s fish market. Stocks of bluefin have fallen by 80 per cent in the past 30 years and wildlife groups and many nations, including Britain, believe the remaining populations are close to collapsing.
The African elephant is already protected under trade rules but black market prices of $1,200 (£790) a kilo (2.2lb) are fuelling an increase in poaching. The elephant population in the Zakouma National Park in Chad has fallen from 3,885 in 2006 to 617 in 2009 because of poaching.
A coalition of 23 African states has written to Britain and other EU members asking for their help in blocking a proposal from Tanzania and Zambia to sell 110 tonnes of ivory. Some of the 23 states sold ivory in 2008 but are unable to sell any more. A loophole in international rules could permit Tanzania and Zambia to make a one-off sale.
Britain believes that selling the stockpiled ivory would fuel demand in the Far East and lead to more poaching. Other EU states are considering supporting the sale because it could raise money for conservation in Tanzania and Zambia.
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, hints that the African nations would support the EU’s proposal for a ban on trade in bluefin tuna in return for the 27 EU members voting against the ivory sale.
The letter requests a meeting on the sidelines of the Doha meeting so that the African countries can “learn of the issues that may be of a high priority for you at the conference”.
It also contains a veiled threat that the 23 African countries would block proposals for protecting other endangered species unless the EU supports their position on the ivory sale.
It says a “successful conservation outcome” for ivory would “allow Cites to address other issues and other species”.
Tigers, polar bears and sharks are the other high-profile species on which the EU and the US are seeking to tighten the trade rules at Doha.
Britain is seeking a ban on so-called “tiger farms”, where the animals are intensively bred in captivity. The concern is that the existence of the farms in China, Vietnam and Thailand is encouraging demand for tiger to be used in medicines. This in turn results in poaching, threatening the dwindling wild tiger population.
The US is calling for polar bears to be listed on appendix I of at the convention, which would ban all international trade in the animals except for conservation purposes. While Britain supports the US proposal, other EU members believe a trade ban would anger indigenous communities in the Arctic that depend on the trade in polar bear skins and trophies. These communities currently co-operate with conservation programmes.
The EU has proposed that porbeagle sharks and the spiny dogfish (rock salmon) are listed on appendix II. Species in this category can still be traded but permits must be obtained.
The EU will vote as a bloc on each of the proposals after using qualified majority voting to agree its position.
Some European countries that profit from the bluefin tuna trade, including Spain, France, Italy and Malta, want small-scale fishing to be exempt from the proposed ban. Britain opposes this because it would allow up to 40 per cent of the trade to continue, only delaying the collapse of tuna stocks.
Two of the world’s most iconic endangered species, the bluefin tuna and African elephant, could be protected under a backroom deal being negotiated between Europe and Africa.
New rules restricting international trade in endangered species will be debated at a meeting of 175 countries beginning next week in Doha, Qatar. Europe wants to protect dwindling stocks of bluefin tuna and most African states want to prevent the sale of stockpiles of ivory to Japan and China.
The proposals will need a two-thirds majority to be approved at the conference on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), from March 13 to 25. Delegates will be trying to secure enough votes to overcome opposition from nations that either profit from the trade in the species or import them.
Japan consumes three quarters of the world’s bluefin tuna and a single fish can sell for as much as $110,000 (£72,600) at Tokyo’s fish market. Stocks of bluefin have fallen by 80 per cent in the past 30 years and wildlife groups and many nations, including Britain, believe the remaining populations are close to collapsing.
The African elephant is already protected under trade rules but black market prices of $1,200 (£790) a kilo (2.2lb) are fuelling an increase in poaching. The elephant population in the Zakouma National Park in Chad has fallen from 3,885 in 2006 to 617 in 2009 because of poaching.
A coalition of 23 African states has written to Britain and other EU members asking for their help in blocking a proposal from Tanzania and Zambia to sell 110 tonnes of ivory. Some of the 23 states sold ivory in 2008 but are unable to sell any more. A loophole in international rules could permit Tanzania and Zambia to make a one-off sale.
Britain believes that selling the stockpiled ivory would fuel demand in the Far East and lead to more poaching. Other EU states are considering supporting the sale because it could raise money for conservation in Tanzania and Zambia.
The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, hints that the African nations would support the EU’s proposal for a ban on trade in bluefin tuna in return for the 27 EU members voting against the ivory sale.
The letter requests a meeting on the sidelines of the Doha meeting so that the African countries can “learn of the issues that may be of a high priority for you at the conference”.
It also contains a veiled threat that the 23 African countries would block proposals for protecting other endangered species unless the EU supports their position on the ivory sale.
It says a “successful conservation outcome” for ivory would “allow Cites to address other issues and other species”.
Tigers, polar bears and sharks are the other high-profile species on which the EU and the US are seeking to tighten the trade rules at Doha.
Britain is seeking a ban on so-called “tiger farms”, where the animals are intensively bred in captivity. The concern is that the existence of the farms in China, Vietnam and Thailand is encouraging demand for tiger to be used in medicines. This in turn results in poaching, threatening the dwindling wild tiger population.
The US is calling for polar bears to be listed on appendix I of at the convention, which would ban all international trade in the animals except for conservation purposes. While Britain supports the US proposal, other EU members believe a trade ban would anger indigenous communities in the Arctic that depend on the trade in polar bear skins and trophies. These communities currently co-operate with conservation programmes.
The EU has proposed that porbeagle sharks and the spiny dogfish (rock salmon) are listed on appendix II. Species in this category can still be traded but permits must be obtained.
The EU will vote as a bloc on each of the proposals after using qualified majority voting to agree its position.
Some European countries that profit from the bluefin tuna trade, including Spain, France, Italy and Malta, want small-scale fishing to be exempt from the proposed ban. Britain opposes this because it would allow up to 40 per cent of the trade to continue, only delaying the collapse of tuna stocks.
Energy consultant 'influenced climate evidence'
Ben Webster
A leading scientific institute allowed its evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into climate science to be influenced anonymously by an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion.
It emerged last night that the Institute of Physics’ (IOP) written submission to the Select Committee on Science and Technology had been influenced by Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services. Crestport provides “consultancy and management support services” to energy companies and has worked with Shell and British Gas.
In an article in the newsletter of the IOP south central branch in April 2008, Mr Gill wrote: “If you do not ‘believe’ in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. For many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant.”
In November, Mr Gill commented on The Times Higher Education website: “Poor old CRU [the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia] have been seriously hacked. The emails and other files are all over the internet and include how to hide atmospheric cooling.”
The Institute initially refused to name any of the members who had contributed to the submission and said only that they had given an honest and independent assessment.
After being asked by The Times if Mr Gill had contributed to the submission, the institute admitted that he had but said he was one of several contributors.
The Institute has published a clarification to its submission in which it says that it does not doubt the basic science that human activities are causing global warming.
Some members of the Institute are understood to be considering resigning in protest over its submission.
A leading scientific institute allowed its evidence to a parliamentary inquiry into climate science to be influenced anonymously by an energy industry consultant who argues that global warming is a religion.
It emerged last night that the Institute of Physics’ (IOP) written submission to the Select Committee on Science and Technology had been influenced by Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services. Crestport provides “consultancy and management support services” to energy companies and has worked with Shell and British Gas.
In an article in the newsletter of the IOP south central branch in April 2008, Mr Gill wrote: “If you do not ‘believe’ in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. For many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant.”
In November, Mr Gill commented on The Times Higher Education website: “Poor old CRU [the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia] have been seriously hacked. The emails and other files are all over the internet and include how to hide atmospheric cooling.”
The Institute initially refused to name any of the members who had contributed to the submission and said only that they had given an honest and independent assessment.
After being asked by The Times if Mr Gill had contributed to the submission, the institute admitted that he had but said he was one of several contributors.
The Institute has published a clarification to its submission in which it says that it does not doubt the basic science that human activities are causing global warming.
Some members of the Institute are understood to be considering resigning in protest over its submission.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Budget 2010 puts Money where Mouth Is for Solar Energy
By Ameet Shah and Sourabh Sen
The 2010-11 budget is great news for renewable energy, and in particular solar energy, in India. In November of last year, the Government of India took a major stride forward in driving sustainable development with the announcement of the National Solar Mission targeting 20,000MW of installed solar power by 2022. But the fact that they’ve now included it in the budget is a critical step.
While the NSM set the vision for solar in India, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission’s tariff order laid out the details. These guidelines further strengthened the case for investing in the Indian solar sector by setting preferential feed-in-tariffs and declaring long term (25 year) power purchase agreements.
However, despite these important declarations, one of the common responses we continued to get from international investors when discussing the Indian solar sector is “Show me the money.” These groups want to see program funding before they commit capital. Well, now we can show it to them; in support of the NSM, the budget for the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (the administrating entity) has been increased by 61 percent from Rs. 620 crore in 2009-10 to Rs. 1,000 crore in 2010-11.
In a previous post, we stated that the greatest promise of renewable energy lies in electrifying the masses. We’re very pleased to see the government explicitly recognize this promise with the Rs. 500 crore allocation to set up solar and small scale hydro projects in the Ladakh region of Jammu & Kashmir. To ensure India’s future growth is inclusive and sustainable, the government will also need to dedicate similar funding to additional locations such as Bihar and the Northeast with low rates of electrifications.
Lastly, the budget creates a framework which could, if executed well, will see significant national gains. Concessional customs duties on solar equipment can facilitate technology transfer. This will allow India’s developers, manufacturers and scientists to collaborate with their colleagues abroad in learning about the latest solar technologies and how they perform in the Indian environment. By creating a friendly import environment and establishing a Clean Energy Fund to support R&D efforts, the budget lays the foundation for a global innovation hub.
Going forward, it will be very important for the Government to facilitate NSM administration and project execution. Future budgets must also support the NSM as India’s solar capacity ramps up to 1,000MW and beyond. But for now, the ball is in the private sector’s court to make it happen.
Ameet Shah and Sourabh Sen are Co-Chairmen and Directors at Astonfield based in New York with offices in New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata.
Supermarkets to offer 'green energy makeovers'
Supermarkets and DIY chains will offer 'green energy makeovers' to home owners as part of Government plans to transform Britain's housing stock.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 02 Mar 2010
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will announce a package of measures today to make Britain's homes "greener and warmer".
A key element will be the Pay as You Save or PAYS scheme which provides "green home loans" of up to £10,000 through supermarkets, DIY chains or local authorities but allows the homeowner to pay back the cost over time as savings are made on energy bills. For example, a home owner can insulate the loft or have solar panels installed and pay the cost back without noticing because it will be taken from savings on the electricity bill.
The scheme has been designed to make green home improvement cheaper and easier in order to meet Government targets on cutting emissions. But critics say it remains inaccessible to poor people who really need to reduce fuel bills.
The Government is committed to cutting emissions from households by 29 per cent over the next ten years.
Mr Miliband said the "great British refurb" will enable people to access money for home improvements, without having to pay it back immediately.
"This new approach will allow people to pay for home improvements after they have had them installed rather than before. More people will be able to get the work they want done. That means less energy used which is good for the environment and lower bills which is good for families, particularly when we have cold weather like we did this winter," he said.
The "green home loans" are expected to be made available from banks or through the Government. Builders, supermarkets or even mass communication companies could take out the loans and then offer to do the work and recoup the cost plus interest from the savings made on energy bills.
Legislation will make it possible to link the loan to the house rather than the person, so even if people move house there is still an incentive to take up the scheme.
In future leading supermarket chains like the Co-operative and Tesco and DIY chains like B&Q are expected to offer complete packages insulating people's homes or installing renewable energy devices like solar panels or wind turbines. Once the Government scheme is in place home owners could have the option of paying back the money over a period of up to 25 years, either through payments on the energy bill or through the local authority.
Local authorities could also offer green makeovers and then take the money back over time with no interest.
But Dave Timms of Friends of the Earth said more needed to be done to ensure that vulnerable elderly people can take advantage of the scheme.
"PAYS is a useful addition to the policy framework and it will work for many many able-to-pay households and could be especially effective in homes that are relatively cheap to improve. But for people in fuel poverty, for the private-rented sector and people living in hard-to-treat homes. There are limitations that mean the Government has to come up with other mechanisms and standards to make sure nobody is left behind."
John Alker of the Green Building Council said the Government needed to do more to encourage greener homes such as offering rebates on council tax or a cut in stamp duty if the house is improved.
"A comprehensive and radical government strategy on green homes is frankly long overdue. However we wait and see whether this announcement can live up to that challenge. We may well need to see additional incentives to encourage people to take up this scheme." he said.
The Conservatives have already pledged to introduce a similar scheme to PAYS called the "new green deal" that will also work with supermarkets and DIY chains to offer green makeovers.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 02 Mar 2010
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, will announce a package of measures today to make Britain's homes "greener and warmer".
A key element will be the Pay as You Save or PAYS scheme which provides "green home loans" of up to £10,000 through supermarkets, DIY chains or local authorities but allows the homeowner to pay back the cost over time as savings are made on energy bills. For example, a home owner can insulate the loft or have solar panels installed and pay the cost back without noticing because it will be taken from savings on the electricity bill.
The scheme has been designed to make green home improvement cheaper and easier in order to meet Government targets on cutting emissions. But critics say it remains inaccessible to poor people who really need to reduce fuel bills.
The Government is committed to cutting emissions from households by 29 per cent over the next ten years.
Mr Miliband said the "great British refurb" will enable people to access money for home improvements, without having to pay it back immediately.
"This new approach will allow people to pay for home improvements after they have had them installed rather than before. More people will be able to get the work they want done. That means less energy used which is good for the environment and lower bills which is good for families, particularly when we have cold weather like we did this winter," he said.
The "green home loans" are expected to be made available from banks or through the Government. Builders, supermarkets or even mass communication companies could take out the loans and then offer to do the work and recoup the cost plus interest from the savings made on energy bills.
Legislation will make it possible to link the loan to the house rather than the person, so even if people move house there is still an incentive to take up the scheme.
In future leading supermarket chains like the Co-operative and Tesco and DIY chains like B&Q are expected to offer complete packages insulating people's homes or installing renewable energy devices like solar panels or wind turbines. Once the Government scheme is in place home owners could have the option of paying back the money over a period of up to 25 years, either through payments on the energy bill or through the local authority.
Local authorities could also offer green makeovers and then take the money back over time with no interest.
But Dave Timms of Friends of the Earth said more needed to be done to ensure that vulnerable elderly people can take advantage of the scheme.
"PAYS is a useful addition to the policy framework and it will work for many many able-to-pay households and could be especially effective in homes that are relatively cheap to improve. But for people in fuel poverty, for the private-rented sector and people living in hard-to-treat homes. There are limitations that mean the Government has to come up with other mechanisms and standards to make sure nobody is left behind."
John Alker of the Green Building Council said the Government needed to do more to encourage greener homes such as offering rebates on council tax or a cut in stamp duty if the house is improved.
"A comprehensive and radical government strategy on green homes is frankly long overdue. However we wait and see whether this announcement can live up to that challenge. We may well need to see additional incentives to encourage people to take up this scheme." he said.
The Conservatives have already pledged to introduce a similar scheme to PAYS called the "new green deal" that will also work with supermarkets and DIY chains to offer green makeovers.
Supermarkets to sell spirits in plastic bottles and milk in bags
Spirtis will come in plastic bottles and milk in bags as part of the latest consumer-led campaign to cut excess food packaging.
By Louise GrayPublished: 7:30AM GMT 04 Mar 2010
The major food retailers including Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer have all agreed to cut the carbon footprint of grocery packaging by 10 per cent over the next two years.
This will mean selling milk in bags, spirits in plastic bottles, meat in vacuum-packed plastic bags and loose fruit and vegetables. Even Easter eggs will come with less plastic packaging.
The agreement, that was driven by groups like the Women's Institute, will encourage retailers to provide facilities to recycle wrappings for bread and grapes as well as plastic bags.
To help consumers cut food waste, supermarkets will sell smaller portions such as half loaves of bread and suggest recipes for left overs.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that drew up the agreement, said it could save consumers £800 million over three years because of the reduction in the amount of food thrown away.
The commitments to tackle the environmental impact of grocery waste will also save the industry £200 million and cut greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes over the next three years.
Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, said the UK has to cut the amount of food and excess packaging sent to landfill.
"A fifth of household waste is packaging, and more than half of this comes from the groceries we buy. This packaging can be essential, but in many cases using less and smarter packaging can achieve the same result," he said.
:: Anti-litter campaigners have called on retailers and manufacturers to come up with more innovative designs for products and packaging to help cut levels of rubbish on England's streets.
The call is part of Keep Britain Tidy's manifesto for tackling litter and improving the quality of people's local environment.
Other proposed measures in the This Is Our Home document include making it easier to catch and fine motorists who throw litter from cars and a new "gold standard" awarded for the cleanest and best-managed towns and cities.
By Louise GrayPublished: 7:30AM GMT 04 Mar 2010
The major food retailers including Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks and Spencer have all agreed to cut the carbon footprint of grocery packaging by 10 per cent over the next two years.
This will mean selling milk in bags, spirits in plastic bottles, meat in vacuum-packed plastic bags and loose fruit and vegetables. Even Easter eggs will come with less plastic packaging.
The agreement, that was driven by groups like the Women's Institute, will encourage retailers to provide facilities to recycle wrappings for bread and grapes as well as plastic bags.
To help consumers cut food waste, supermarkets will sell smaller portions such as half loaves of bread and suggest recipes for left overs.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that drew up the agreement, said it could save consumers £800 million over three years because of the reduction in the amount of food thrown away.
The commitments to tackle the environmental impact of grocery waste will also save the industry £200 million and cut greenhouse gas emissions by three million tonnes over the next three years.
Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, said the UK has to cut the amount of food and excess packaging sent to landfill.
"A fifth of household waste is packaging, and more than half of this comes from the groceries we buy. This packaging can be essential, but in many cases using less and smarter packaging can achieve the same result," he said.
:: Anti-litter campaigners have called on retailers and manufacturers to come up with more innovative designs for products and packaging to help cut levels of rubbish on England's streets.
The call is part of Keep Britain Tidy's manifesto for tackling litter and improving the quality of people's local environment.
Other proposed measures in the This Is Our Home document include making it easier to catch and fine motorists who throw litter from cars and a new "gold standard" awarded for the cleanest and best-managed towns and cities.
Governments Electric Dream
Written by: ECRA Bloggers
Under new proposals the government will offer £5,000 towards the cost of an electric car, create electric car cities and launch large-scale experiments with "ultra-green" vehicles.The scheme will see £30 million of investment in electric vehicle infrastructure for London, Milton Keynes and the North East.The three ‘Plugged-In Places’ will build over 11,000 vehicle recharging points in car parks, supermarkets, leisure and retail centres over the next three years.The proposals are part of a £250m strategy outlining a revolution in Britain's road transport network with the aim of cutting the UK's CO2 emisisons.Tranpsport minister Geoff Hoon said that decarbonising road transport had a big role in helping the UK meet its targets of reducing CO2 emissions by 26% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. "Something like 35% of all our carbon emissions are caused by domestic transport," he said. "Of that, 58% of the emissions are caused by motor cars."Car manufacturers are also a key part of the strategy with £100m available to car makers for research. "What we want to see is the UK firmly in the lead in the manufacturing sense because we want to ensure the incentives ... benefit, broadly, manufacturing in the UK," Hoon told the Guardian.In response to the announcement, Emma Gibson, Head of Transport at Greenpeace UK, said:"Providing help for people buying electric vehicles is exactly the kind of action that’s needed to cut carbon emissions and create green jobs. The simultaneous announcements from Mitsubishi and Siemens, investing in UK wind and tidal power, support the renewable generation needed to make these cars truly green. The much-vaunted low carbon economy finally seems to be coming together in the UK."
Under new proposals the government will offer £5,000 towards the cost of an electric car, create electric car cities and launch large-scale experiments with "ultra-green" vehicles.The scheme will see £30 million of investment in electric vehicle infrastructure for London, Milton Keynes and the North East.The three ‘Plugged-In Places’ will build over 11,000 vehicle recharging points in car parks, supermarkets, leisure and retail centres over the next three years.The proposals are part of a £250m strategy outlining a revolution in Britain's road transport network with the aim of cutting the UK's CO2 emisisons.Tranpsport minister Geoff Hoon said that decarbonising road transport had a big role in helping the UK meet its targets of reducing CO2 emissions by 26% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. "Something like 35% of all our carbon emissions are caused by domestic transport," he said. "Of that, 58% of the emissions are caused by motor cars."Car manufacturers are also a key part of the strategy with £100m available to car makers for research. "What we want to see is the UK firmly in the lead in the manufacturing sense because we want to ensure the incentives ... benefit, broadly, manufacturing in the UK," Hoon told the Guardian.In response to the announcement, Emma Gibson, Head of Transport at Greenpeace UK, said:"Providing help for people buying electric vehicles is exactly the kind of action that’s needed to cut carbon emissions and create green jobs. The simultaneous announcements from Mitsubishi and Siemens, investing in UK wind and tidal power, support the renewable generation needed to make these cars truly green. The much-vaunted low carbon economy finally seems to be coming together in the UK."
Institute of Physics forced to clarify submission to climate emails inquiry
Strongly worded submission to the parliamentary inquiry is being used to imply the institute questions the scientific evidence for climate change, statement says
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.00 GMT
The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet.
The institute's submission, to the science and technology select committee, said the emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) contained "worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field".
The submission has been used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the email affair, dubbed "climategate", shows the scientists did not behave properly and that the problem of global warming is exaggerated.
The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.
In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."
It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."
The statement appears to contradict sections of the original submission, which suggests the emails showed scientists had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that some key reconstructions of past temperature cannot be relied upon.
The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.
The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.
An institute spokesperson said the submission was "strongly supported" by three members of the board. "All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously."
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.00 GMT
The Institute of Physics has been forced to clarify its strongly worded submission to a parliamentary inquiry into climate change emails released onto the internet.
The institute's submission, to the science and technology select committee, said the emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) contained "worrying implications for the integrity of scientific research in this field".
The submission has been used by climate sceptics to bolster claims that the email affair, dubbed "climategate", shows the scientists did not behave properly and that the problem of global warming is exaggerated.
The committee held its only evidence session yesterday and interviewed witnesses including Phil Jones, the climate scientist at the centre of the media storm.
In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."
It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."
The statement appears to contradict sections of the original submission, which suggests the emails showed scientists had cherry-picked data to support conclusions and that some key reconstructions of past temperature cannot be relied upon.
The institute statement says its submission was approved by its science board, a formal committee of experts that oversees its policy work.
The Guardian has been unable to find a member of the board that supports the submission. Two of the scientists listed as members said they had declined to comment on a draft submission prepared by the institute, because they were not climate experts and had not read the UEA emails. Others would not comment or did not respond to enquiries.
An institute spokesperson said the submission was "strongly supported" by three members of the board. "All members were invited to comment. Only a few did, all concerned approved [the submission] unanimously."
Fury as EU approves GM potato
Critics claim plant could spread antibiotic-resistant diseases to humans
By Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts
Thursday, 4 March 2010
The introduction of a genetically modified potato in Europe risks the development of human diseases that fail to respond to antibiotics, it was claimed last night.
German chemical giant BASF this week won approval from the European Commission for commercial growing of a starchy potato with a gene that could resist antibiotics – useful in the fight against illnesses such as tuberculosis.
Farms in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic may plant the potato for industrial use, with part of the tuber fed to cattle, according to BASF, which fought a 13-year battle to win approval for Amflora. But other EU member states, including Italy and Austria and anti-GM campaigners angrily attacked the move, claiming it could result in a health disaster.
During the regulatory tussle over the potato, the EU's pharmaceutical regulator had expressed concern about its potential to interfere with the efficacy of antibiotics on infections that develop multiple resistance to other antibiotics, a growing problem in human and veterinary medicine. Amflora contains a gene that produces an enzyme which generally confers resistance to several antibiotics, including kanamycin, neomycin, butirosin, and gentamicin.
The antibiotics could become "extremely important" to treat otherwise multi-resistant infections and tuberculosis, the European Medicines Authority (EMA) warned. Drug resistance is part of the explanation for the resurgence of TB, which infects eight million people worldwide every year.
"In the absence of an effective therapy, infectious Multiple Drug Resistant TB patients will continue to spread the disease, producing new infections with MDR-TB strains," an EMA spokesman said. "Until we introduce a new drug with demonstrated activity against MDR strains, this aspect of the TB epidemic could explode at an exponential level."
After member states become deadlocked on the potato's approval, the European Commission approved it for use in industries such as paper production, saying it would save energy, water and chemicals. Once the starch has been removed, the skins can be fed to animals, whose meat would not have to be labelled as GM.
The EC, whose decision was backed by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), said there was no good reason for withholding approval. Health and consumer policy commissioner John Dalli said: "Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies."
"Stringent" controls would ensure none of the tubers were left in the ground, ensuring altered genes did not escape into the environment. Opponents fear bacteria inside the guts of animals fed the GM potato – which can cause human diseases – may develop resistance to antibiotics.
Some member states were furious. "Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not allow the questioning of member states' sovereignty on this matter," said Italy's Agriculture Minister, Luca Zaia. Austria said it would ban cultivation of the potato within its borders, while France said it would ask an expert panel for further research.
Campaigners accused Brussels of failing to follow the precautionary principle. Friends of the Earth's Heike Moldenhauer said: "The commissioner whose job is to protect consumers has, in one of his first decisions, ignored public opinion and safety concerns to please the world's biggest chemical company."
Campaigners suspect Brussels is in favour of the widespread planting of GM crops despite opposition by some member states. Yesterday it also announced its intention to allow states more leeway in backing GM organisms.
By Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts
Thursday, 4 March 2010
The introduction of a genetically modified potato in Europe risks the development of human diseases that fail to respond to antibiotics, it was claimed last night.
German chemical giant BASF this week won approval from the European Commission for commercial growing of a starchy potato with a gene that could resist antibiotics – useful in the fight against illnesses such as tuberculosis.
Farms in Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic may plant the potato for industrial use, with part of the tuber fed to cattle, according to BASF, which fought a 13-year battle to win approval for Amflora. But other EU member states, including Italy and Austria and anti-GM campaigners angrily attacked the move, claiming it could result in a health disaster.
During the regulatory tussle over the potato, the EU's pharmaceutical regulator had expressed concern about its potential to interfere with the efficacy of antibiotics on infections that develop multiple resistance to other antibiotics, a growing problem in human and veterinary medicine. Amflora contains a gene that produces an enzyme which generally confers resistance to several antibiotics, including kanamycin, neomycin, butirosin, and gentamicin.
The antibiotics could become "extremely important" to treat otherwise multi-resistant infections and tuberculosis, the European Medicines Authority (EMA) warned. Drug resistance is part of the explanation for the resurgence of TB, which infects eight million people worldwide every year.
"In the absence of an effective therapy, infectious Multiple Drug Resistant TB patients will continue to spread the disease, producing new infections with MDR-TB strains," an EMA spokesman said. "Until we introduce a new drug with demonstrated activity against MDR strains, this aspect of the TB epidemic could explode at an exponential level."
After member states become deadlocked on the potato's approval, the European Commission approved it for use in industries such as paper production, saying it would save energy, water and chemicals. Once the starch has been removed, the skins can be fed to animals, whose meat would not have to be labelled as GM.
The EC, whose decision was backed by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa), said there was no good reason for withholding approval. Health and consumer policy commissioner John Dalli said: "Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies."
"Stringent" controls would ensure none of the tubers were left in the ground, ensuring altered genes did not escape into the environment. Opponents fear bacteria inside the guts of animals fed the GM potato – which can cause human diseases – may develop resistance to antibiotics.
Some member states were furious. "Not only are we against this decision, but we want to underscore that we will not allow the questioning of member states' sovereignty on this matter," said Italy's Agriculture Minister, Luca Zaia. Austria said it would ban cultivation of the potato within its borders, while France said it would ask an expert panel for further research.
Campaigners accused Brussels of failing to follow the precautionary principle. Friends of the Earth's Heike Moldenhauer said: "The commissioner whose job is to protect consumers has, in one of his first decisions, ignored public opinion and safety concerns to please the world's biggest chemical company."
Campaigners suspect Brussels is in favour of the widespread planting of GM crops despite opposition by some member states. Yesterday it also announced its intention to allow states more leeway in backing GM organisms.
Houses with low energy efficiency will lose value in government plans
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
Houses with low energy efficiency will lose value under government plans to intervene in the property market to help cut greenhouse gas emissions from homes by a third by 2020.
Estate agents will be given guidance telling them to take more notice of energy efficiency when deciding the value of homes. Ministers believe that homeowners are more likely to pay for efficiency measures such as solar panels and insulation if their investment clearly increases the property’s value.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said in a strategy document that it had asked the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for recommendations to ensure that a home’s energy performance was “better reflected” in its value. Council tax rebates of more than £100 a year will be offered to homeowners who improve insulation. Landlords will be barred from letting poorly insulated properties and will have to upgrade them to a minimum standard of energy efficiency.
Councils will be able to require energy companies to work with them to insulate social housing. Banks and shops will be encouraged to offer loans of £10,000 per home to householders who install solar panels, heat pumps and insulation. The repayments will be covered by savings in energy bills.
Legislation will allow the loans to be linked to the home rather than the owner, meaning that when the home is sold the new owner will inherit the debt. The National Association of Estate Agents said that such debts could make business more difficult.
John Healey, the Housing Minister, said that action was needed to reduce energy wastage in privately rented homes, which tended to be older and in poorer condition than owner-occupied homes. It is proposed to make the installation of loft and cavity wall insulation a condition of renting out a property.
Houses with low energy efficiency will lose value under government plans to intervene in the property market to help cut greenhouse gas emissions from homes by a third by 2020.
Estate agents will be given guidance telling them to take more notice of energy efficiency when deciding the value of homes. Ministers believe that homeowners are more likely to pay for efficiency measures such as solar panels and insulation if their investment clearly increases the property’s value.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said in a strategy document that it had asked the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for recommendations to ensure that a home’s energy performance was “better reflected” in its value. Council tax rebates of more than £100 a year will be offered to homeowners who improve insulation. Landlords will be barred from letting poorly insulated properties and will have to upgrade them to a minimum standard of energy efficiency.
Councils will be able to require energy companies to work with them to insulate social housing. Banks and shops will be encouraged to offer loans of £10,000 per home to householders who install solar panels, heat pumps and insulation. The repayments will be covered by savings in energy bills.
Legislation will allow the loans to be linked to the home rather than the owner, meaning that when the home is sold the new owner will inherit the debt. The National Association of Estate Agents said that such debts could make business more difficult.
John Healey, the Housing Minister, said that action was needed to reduce energy wastage in privately rented homes, which tended to be older and in poorer condition than owner-occupied homes. It is proposed to make the installation of loft and cavity wall insulation a condition of renting out a property.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
