Number of questions: [9]
 |
Posted on 07/04/2008 19:37:04 |
|
Is it true that because of keeping cattle, global warming is increasing? And in latinamerican countries, is it the number one cause of global warming as well as in more developed countries? Thanks...
|
|
Diego Yshizuka Dominguez (from Paraguay)
|
|
Hello Diego! Cattle certainly do contribute to global warming by producing methane gas. You could take a look at this article: http://www.tierramerica.net/2000/1126/acent.html, but here is the UN news report from 2006 that I think you are referring to - the source is a report from the FAO.
Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns
29 November 2006 – Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author.
“The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 per cent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 per cent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 per cent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year, the report notes. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 per cent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.
Livestock now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 per cent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 per cent of pastures considered degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops.
Beyond improving animal diets, proposed remedies to the multiple problems include soil conservation methods together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure; improving efficiency of irrigation systems; and introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 16:13:06 |
Among the population and development goals supported by
179 nations participating in the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population
and Development was universal access to health care –
including reproductive health/family planning services.
In 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reiterated the importance
of reproductive health including family planning to the achievement of MDGs, in particular the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger. Family planning contributes to the achievement of this first MDG in part through improving maternal health and its positive effects on reducing child mortality (MDGs 4&5) It also contributes to women’s empowerment (MDG 3) and through these and other pathways, including helping to harmonize natural resource availability with human resource needs - it also helps ensure environmental sustainability (MDG 7).
Through contributions to the above, family planning helps ensure the global community will be better prepared to cope with climate-related health challenges worldwide, the focus of this year’s World Health Day.
I would like to hear how UNEP considers family planning in this context.
Lynne Gaffikin, DrPH
Evaluation and Research Technologies for Health (EARTH) Inc
“The Millennium Development Goals, particularly
the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, cannot
be achieved if questions of population and reproductive
health are not squarely addressed. And that means
stronger efforts to promote women’s rights, and
greater investment in education and health, including
reproductive health and family planning.”
—United Nations Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan,
Message to the Fifth Asian and
Pacific Population Conference,
Bangkok, 16 December 2002
“Reproductive health services are not just desirable
in and of themselves—which they certainly are—but
are absolutely critical tools for alleviating poverty, and
in particular for achieving the Millennium Development
Goals, which are the overarching international framework
for trying to alleviate the suffering of the poorest people
in the world.”
—Jeffrey D. Sachs, Special Adviser to
the Secretary-General on the Millennium
Development Goals, at the launch of UNFPA’s
State of World Population 2002 report,
December 2002
Quote sources: http://www.unfpa.org/upload/lib_pub_file/212_filename_mdg-icpd-eng2.pdf
|
|
Lynne Gaffikin (from United States of America)
|
|
Hi Lynne, another great question and topical for sure. UNEP applauds the outcomes of the Cairo Conference which shifted the emphasis of population planning from reaching demographic targets to promoting human rights and sustainable development, changing the focus from numbers to people and placing women’s rights, empowerment and health at the centre of this effort. While UNEP doesn’t take a stand on family planning per se, or have any policies or mandates within its remit on family planning, UNEP certainly has a role to play in promoting gender equality with respect to environmental governance and in creating enabling “environmental” environments for the empowerment of women. We work with WHO and UNICEF on promoting environmental best practices – including through the development of indicators – in supporting governments to achieve their targets within the MDGs.
UNEP has embarked on an internal round of capacity building to bring on board the UN’s human-rights based programming and management in the way we implement our work. In 2007, a Senior Gender Advisor was appointed in UNEP to ensure that we keep on track. Implicit in UNEP’s slogan “environment for development” is a recognition that development is for all – not more so for some than others – and for the environment itself. Sustainable development cannot occur in the absence of environmental sustainability and provision of ecosystem services. We know from the recent GEO-4 report amongst others, that environmental change affects the most vulnerable members of society, limiting their development options; women and children fall into this category. As the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment reminds us, loss of services derived from ecosystems is a significant barrier to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty, hunger, and disease. So while UNEP is not at the frontline of the UN’s reproductive health efforts, it plays a supporting role in providing a sound scientific basis in assessing the state of the world’s environment, promoting sound environmental policies and their implementation, an ecosystems approach to the human health-environment nexus, and a human rights based approach to fulfilling our mandate.
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 12:04:17 |
|
How does international human rights law provide obligations for states to protect the environment and how or where may these obligations (if any) be enforced?
|
|
Tomas Solfaro (from Uzbekistan)
|
|
Hello Tomas, and thank you for your question. I am not an expert on international human rights law or the obligations that may be contained therein to protect the environment. From an environmental perspective, countries can agree to participate under Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and abide by the principles and goals of these MEAs however, ultimately, it is the government of the country who is responsible for enforcement. UN entities can assist countries to build institutional and expert capacity to do so, and assist countries to develop the necessary legislative frameworks and laws to better allow for a county to enforce agreements to which it has signed and ratified. UNEP works with the MEAs through its Division of Environmental Law and Conventions, and you may find more information about their activities by going to the UNEP website as follows: http://www.unep.org/dec/
For more information on international human rights from the perspecitve of the UN, may I suggest you contact the UN at: http://www.un.org/aboutun/mainbodies.htm and then click on Human Rights Council.
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 08:46:11 |
Dear Ms. Monika:
I am living in Pakistan and basically working for cleaner production and evaluation work carred out by different agencies. Your last sentence has attracted me: use the ecosystem approach for human health. As an expert and having vast experience could you provide some detials on it and also if you could send me other information related to the inviornmental issues for the developing countries. I hope your information would be helpful in coming days when our country will be serious in taking the subject of environment on the top level.
I would be grateful if you kindly send me details about your experience and how you feel it will go in the developing countries like Pakistan.
Thank you ahead of time,
Mosuf Ali
Phone: 92-21-634-9056
|
|
Mosuf Ali (from Pakistan)
|
|
Thank you for taking the time to send in a question Mosuf. The use of an ecosystems approach to human health is part of the outcomes of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (the MA) and its health synthesis report. You can view and download the entire report, or parts of it, at the following website: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
One of the best sources for finding out about the environmental issues in developing countries is to take a look at the UNEP Global Environment Outlook publication (GEO-4). It is available through the UNEP website at: http://www.unep.org/publications/. It contains chapters on the regional priorities from an environmental perspective as these do differ from region to region. At an individual country level, the environmental issues and priorities tend to be country specific and a good place to look for country-level environmental information is the UNDP website (www.undp.org) and then select the country you are interested in.
As today is World Health Day, you should take a look at the key resources and information provided on the World Health Organisation's website at: http://www.who.int/world-health-day/en/index.html It is very clear from the theme chosen by the WHO for World Health Day 2008 "Protecting Health from Climate Change" that there is an integral link between human health and the earth's climate and a need to develop innovative and progressive solutions and policies to minimise the impacts of a changing climate on people - in particular, the most vulnerable of societies around the world.
If you have a particular interest in the ecosystems approach at the community level, the Canadian IDRC is a leader in this field and their work is available at: http://www.idrc.ca/ecohealth/
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 07:58:09 |
|
It's a fairly self-evident correlate that affluence is key to both environmental and human health. What (if any) role will poverty alleviation play in formulating the agenda for the upcoming Ministerial?
|
|
Mick Wilson (from Kenya)
|
|
Dear Mick, thanks for your question! Affluence - both individual and at the nation-state level, does have a role in both environmental and human health but it may be of interest to note that some of the most affluent nations still have significant percentages of their population who live in poverty, have poor health and limited access to health services. You may wish to look at the following publication which draws an interesting societal consequence of poverty and lack of access to health services in America: The Cradle to Prison Pipeline: An American Health Crisis by Marian Wright Edelman, President of the American Child Defense Fund http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1955386
However, from a global poverty perspective, yes, poverty most certainly exacerbates both human and environmental health as the poor have fewer alternatives but to turn to the environment around them for their survival. The forthcoming Interministerial Conference on Health and Environment in Africa (jointly supported by WHO and UNEP) seeks to raise the awareness of the integral link between human health and healthy environments at the policy level, through the principles of an ecosystems approach. Recognising and valuing the vital services that ecosystems provide is one step in making the link between managing our environments - at an individual and collective level – and ensuring that the services we derive from healthy environments positively impacts our own health and well-being.
Poverty alleviation can have the benefits of maintaining the availability of, and peoples' access to traditional sources of medicinal plants, essential nutrients and minerals in traditional as well as cultivated food sources (through healthy soil and clean water), freedom from toxic substances accumulating in soil and water, and peoples' ability to pay for conventional medicines. As an example, in developing countries, diarrhoeal disease alone amounts to an estimated 4.1 % of the total DALY global burden of disease and is responsible for the deaths of 1.8 million people every year (WHO, 2004). The WHO estimates that 88% of that burden is attributable to unsafe water supply, sanitation and hygiene and is mostly concentrated on children in developing countries. (For more statistics on burden of disease, see: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/bodestimates/en/index.html)
Investment in ensuring the integrity of ecosystem services as well as for infrastructure development that lifts the burden of disease off the most vulnerable enables people to participate in their own and their children's development more fully. With rapid urbanisation around the world, the demands for clean water, air and healthy food, and treatment of waste (household and industrial), will increasingly place a burden on the environment’s health - we cannot solve peoples' health problems without addressing the integrity of the environment and the services provided by ecosystems.
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 04:54:21 |
|
Some time back (2004) I started working on a research project into the regulatory mechanisms and Biosafety legislation in Tanzania where I was living and working. This was for an MSc degree but I grew disheartened when I approached a number of government institutions and found that there was generally a very rudimentary grasp of the principals and issues involved. I am interested to know what has happened in this regard since then. Has there been a significant inflow of GM seed into East Africa and if so have the yields improved? Have the controls worked or have there been problems?
|
|
Robert Sully (from Cambodia)
|
|
Dear Robert, an interesting topic and question for sure, but one which I do not have the data at hand to answer you regarding inflows of GM seed into East Africa, or yields or effect of controls. I would suggest that you keep an eye out for the soon to be published report on the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD, or the Ag Assessement) which I trust will address some of your interests on the impacts of GM technology in developing countries. http://www.agassessment.org/
Additionally, the Cartagena Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity specifically addresses the issue of biosafety as you are probably aware. There is a clearinghouse mechanisms which can be accessed at: http://bch.cbd.int/
|
|
Posted on 07/04/2008 03:38:43 |
|
Please give me some practical advice to protect myself from environment pollution such as air pollution, water pollution... Thanks.
|
|
Du Nguyen (from Viet Nam)
|
|
Hello Du Nguyen, the World Health Organisation in Ha Noi would be a better place to request practical advice on personal protection from pollution. May I suggest that you contact them at:
63 Tran Hung Dao, Ha Noi (84 4) 943 3734 Fax (84 4) 943 3740 Email: who@vtn.wpro.who.int
|
|
Posted on 06/04/2008 14:08:44 |
Hello Monika,
Am a community dev't worker in Southern Philippines, Mindanao Island. Would like to know if you have programs for Mindanao especially with protecting and maintaining forests. Thank you.
|
|
Richard Bercero (from Philippines)
|
|
Dear Richard, I am aware of a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project that was proposed for coastal and marine biodiversity conservation in Mindanao that may be of interest to you. The GEF website allows you to search for projects in your country and region. Try searching the database at: http://www.gefonline.org/home.cfm
Alternatively, you can contact the UNEP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok (http://www.roap.unep.org/) for very specific projects in your area. UNEP works with its sister agencies (UNDP, FAO, WHO, etc) of the UN in delivering support at the country level based on the priorities determined by individual countries, using the UNDAF (UN Development Assistance Framework). As UNEP is primarily a global, normative programme of the UN, we tend to work at the global assessement and policy level and less so on individual projects at the community level. Your UNDP country office in Indonesia would have this information on Indonesia's prioritites for UN assistance (http://www.undp.org/asia/), as well as specific projects carried out in Mindanao.
|
|
Posted on 06/04/2008 05:03:22 |
Hello!
In my environmental studies I have encountered an article by Lynn White Jr. that has fascinated me, "The Historical roots of Our Ecological Crisis" published by Science in 1967 (vol 155, pg1203-1207). It brings some interesting insights that offer a fresh perspective on managing environmental issues, by for example arguing that "More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one". He thus points for the need for a profound and urgent reconsideration of man's relation to nature whereby man embraces nature as inherently valuable and not only a commodity for his benefit (a mental framework that Western Christianity may arguably have helped establish), in order for us to reach any progress in dealing with environmental issues. Do you feel like the UNEP and you personally in your work believe that this sort of ideological leap must be undertaken before technological advances and scientific innovation can truly foster the changes they seek to achieve? Or are policies based mostly on the assumption that scientific progress and new more efficient technology will be key/sufficient to bring the needed changes?
Thanks for your time.
|
|
Philippe Brunet (from Canada)
|
|
Hello Philippe, and thanks for a very thought-provoking question! It’s at times refreshing to look back not so long ago at what has already been experienced and written about when we think that what we’re facing now happened just recently. White also writes in that 1967 Science article: “By 1285 London had a smog problem arising from the burning of soft coal, but our present combustion of fossil fuels threatens to change the chemistry of the globe's atmosphere as a whole, with consequences which we are only beginning to guess. With the population explosion, the carcinoma of planless urbanism, the now geological deposits of sewage and garbage, surely no creature other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order.” (page 1204)
Whether one agrees with his thesis that it can all be chalked up to a Western Christianity paradigm and will ultimately require an essentially religious remedy is debatable but the point he makes above – that no other creature other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order – is still, and I fear will remain valid for some time to come. Does UNEP, and you ask, do I personally, believe this sort of ideological leap is necessary before science and technology can truly foster desired change? Perhaps I would re-phrase your framing and agree that humanity does need to acknowledge both an individual and collective responsibility for how we interact with the rest of life on this planet and with the planet itself. As a species, we have indeed changed life on this planet and I believe therefore, that we will continue to do so. I would like to believe that we can create positive change on this planet in a more informed and directed approach this time around! As White points out, the burning of fossil fuels (as well as standing forests), fuelled, and continues to fuel, the industrial revolution. What is needed now as we continue with a more scientifically enlightened understanding of our own technological advances is an industrial evolution underpinned by innovation and humility.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” —Albert Einstein
And what of UNEP in this? I believe that the underpinning tenets of the UN Environment Programme as set out at the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 (the Stockholm Conference) and, by a decision of the UN General Assembly later that year (through GA General Assembly Resolution 2997 (XXII)) to form UNEP as an anchor institution for the global environment, are still sound. (for an interesting history, see: http://www.environmentalgovernance.org/history/publications/Ivanova_Moving_Forward.pdf ) While it may be argued that taking a human-centric view initially may play into the hands of White’s thesis, there is no doubt that the catalytic role that UNEP has played in moving the global environmental agenda forward has helped to reveal the profound role that we play in being the architects of many of the environmental problems we face. The work of the IPCC, of the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) reports and a plethora of key environmental assessment processes have made it clear that we cannot view ourselves as somehow separate from the environment around us, and the ecosystems of which we are an integral part.
On World Health Day (7 April), and its theme of Protecting Health from Climate Change (http://www.who.int/world-health-day/en/index.html) perhaps we need to be reminded that we do know what we’ve done (and are continuing to do) to this planet, and to the life on it, and approach the future boldly but with a bit more respect and humility than we have in the past.
“A three billion year old planet floating in the vast universe with mountains, seventy percent seas and oceans, fertile lands, immense forests, rivers and lakes, sea shores and deserts, this is where we humans have the privilege to live, the latest, most advanced newcomers in evolution. What an immense, incredible responsibility we have to be a right, positive element in the further evolution of that planet. That is the big question before us in the new century and millennium.” —Dr. Robert Muller
|
|
