Humping climate change and equity! Can camels carry the burden of future milk supplies under climate change?

Humping climate change and equity! Humping biofuels! Humping Margaret Thatcher's trademark milk-snatching!

There are no doubt many silver bullets to this emerging problem. But, can camels carry the burden of future milk supplies under climate change?

The impact of climate change in East Africa is well-documented:

• Climate change will make many areas of Africa more arid


• Pastoralists will be hardest hit as some areas that are currently dry but are used as rangeland owing to the existence of ephemeral water courses – that will begin to run dry more frequently


• Many people [particularly the poorest] throughout Africa rely on milk protein supplied from pastoral herds as cheap, constant inputs into their diet


• Pastoral herds are being squeezed as:
  *** Land use changes are dis-favouring pastoralism, reducing total herd sizes and hence reducing local supply, encouraging imports and increasing the price of milk protein
  *** Climate change reduces availability of forage, water and land – further reducing supply.
  *** Demand for milk rises as the urban-pull demands of richer people out-compete the rural poor’s demands
  *** South African imports of cheap animal feed are drying up as the maize is being diverted for biofuels - increasing the cost of production
  
  BUT … there are positive signs:
  
• Higher prices of milk and meat might favour pastoralists, increasing investment [political and financial] in ensuring their livelihoods persist.


• Camel milk as a substitute is increasingly viable as consumer acceptability increases and camels are better adapted than livestock/ zebu to more arid conditions.
  
  Camels and milk, some facts:
  
• There are over 20 million camels


• Over 5 million tonnes of camel milk produced each year – most is used to suckle young camels


• Camels are the most efficient domestic animal for converting vegetative matter into work, milk and meat in desert areas


• Camels can provide long, steady supply of milk in the driest of times.


• During very dry periods, the water content of camel milk increases.


• Camel milk has three times the Vitamin C content of cow’s milk, as well as being low cholesterol, low sugar, high in minerals.


• Of course, in some countries it is famed as an aphrodisiac [e.g. Ethiopia]


• Estimated market by UN FAO for camel milk is 200 million people.


• Mauritania already exports camel milk to Europe and throughout Africa.


• Market innovations include camel cheese [Camelbert] and ice cream.


• Camelicious – a date flavoured camel milk in UAE

In East Africa, demand is mainly from urbanised Somalis. But it is the product of informal supply chains, and the hygiene standards are uncertain. The Kenyan Camel Association [kca@wananchi.com] is trying to develop a market linking urban consumers with rural pastoral communities – through ILRI.

Currently, Vital is marketing camel milk as 500ml milk – KSch 99/-; yoghurt – KSch 129/-; susa or sour milk – KSch 89/-; ice cream termed Cold Hump in flavours [Macadamia Nut, pineapple and coconut, cinammon and cardamom, banana and chocolate].

Importantly, we should expect many more stories like this to begin emerging - evidencing not only climate change through the markets but also hinting at mankind's inherent resolute capacity for adaptation in the face of rising risks. threats and opportunities.

Thatcher the milk snatcher is back: Biofuels snatch milk from poor Africans

Biofuels are fuelling a milk crisis for poor protein-needy people throughout East Africa - all because of climate change.

With rising milk prices thanks to lower milk supply from pastoral grass-fed herds, owing to a cut in cheap animal feed imports from South Africa. A clear case of shockingly imbalanced climate change and equity. Where are the NGOs screaming for sustainable development and equity?

Some facts on the current milk crisis - are biofuels the new Margaret Thatcher of world economies - snatching milk from poor children?

• Kenya produces 3.078 billion litres of milk annually, of which only 200 million litres are processed into various value added products. Most is consumed by the rural people - the most marginalised in East Africa.
• More raw milk than processed milk is consumed not only in the rural areas but also in the urban centres, including Nairobi, Kenya's capital city where 80 per cent of all milk consumption is unprocessed.
• Milk provides a conduit to livelihoods options, such as access to capital:
  *** Under an arrangement with the big processors, farmers and milk co-operative societies can now get up to Sh500,000 loans repayable through deductions from milk earnings.
  *** Growth in this sector is catching the attention of financiers who are enticing farmers with a raft of incentives to take loans for improvement of their farms.
• And demand is increasing from Kenyans: Central Bank of Kenya says total milk processed increased from 143.5 million litres to 362 million litres, representing an overall increase of 152 per cent in past four years.
• Prices for milk sold into supply chains are up by 25% in 2007.
• Milk processing factories have been working work below capacity by 30-40 per cent.
• Concern is rising about over-reliance on fickle natural pasture or a rain fed system - which is itself being changed through climate change impacts - paradoxically owing to the poor environmental consequences of developed country economic development.
• Biofuel production in South Africa [using maize, corn] is diverting supply to cheap necessary animal feeds.
• Prices of animal feedstuffs are up 50% in 2007. "We can no longer get yellow maize imports from South Africa. Some of these crops are being diverted for the production of bio fuels," said Joseph Ngera, a farmers' representative from Nakuru.
• Plus, cheap imports are flooding in: "Our exports are curtailed by high duty (229 per cent) while we charge only 60 per cent duty for highly subsidised dairy produce from neighbouring countries," said Mr Muhika Mutahi, the chairman of the Kenya National Dairy Producers Association (Kendapo).

Kenya: Milk Output Up Despite Unreliable Weather by Zeddy Sambu from Business Daily (Nairobi), 11 October 2007. Article here.

Manmohan Singh, Indian Prime Minister on CLIMATE CHANGE AND EQUITY

India’s Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh inaugurated the Fortune Global Forum in New Delhi on 29/10/07. He drew analogies between international trade in goods and services and climate change issues.

"What the world needs today is a new concord between private enterprise and public welfare. How do we maintain the required incentive mechanisms that encourage private initiative and enterprise, while at the same time ensure that public welfare is also enhanced? This dilemma poses itself most obviously in the field of health care. The policies we require to incentivise new R&D must be balanced against the need to ensure availability of medicines at affordable prices to the world's people.

There are similar trade-offs we need to reflect on when we consider the problem of climate change, global warming, ecological degradation and environment policies. The developing world will continue to see per capita consumption of CO2 emissions rising in the foreseeable future. This will exert pressure on global resources. How do we balance the aspirations of the world's poor against our shared concern about the sustainability of the growth process?

Let me assure you that we in India are deeply and sincerely committed to the protection of our environment because we all share a single global environment. The Indian approach to climate change and global warming derives from the ancient Hindu saying - vasudhaiva kutumbakam - "the whole universe is one family".

As I had said at the G8 Summit some months ago in Germany, India accepts its global responsibilities. We are willing to accept the obligation that our per capita emissions of CO2 will never exceed the per capita emissions of developed countries. If developed countries succeed in reducing their per capita emissions, this would exert pressure and will be a source of incentive for all of us as well.

Whether it is on trade policy or on climate change, or indeed on any other international obligation, India has always worked with the global community. Moreover, India has never reneged on its international commitments. India has been a reliable partner, a responsible global citizen. India respects the rule of law in international relations. India is, therefore, a predictable partner. This is what makes India an attractive destination for investors like you. "

Mugabe on FaceCrook, from South Africa's Independent on Sunday

Feed miles: airfreighted food increases FOR ANIMALS!

Almost a third more food was flown into Britain last year than in 2005, embarrassing the Government which has promised to slash the pollution and congestion from "food miles".

HOWEVER, it also shows that fresh produce imported is a fraction of airfreighted foods - it is mostly for the MADE IN THE UK beef and pork that we all buy thinking it will reduce our carbon footprint. Whereas in fact,imports from rainforest-denuding countries are rising as our British-grown meat apetites are soaring!

DEFRA report Air-freight rose 31 per cent in the year to 2006, which published the figures on its website without a press notice yesterday, a day after the Soil Association decided not to implement a full ban on air-freighted food.

It looks like the Soil Association will need to stop certifying all animal-fed meat from the UK that canno show its footprint does not include rainforest destruction and/or shipping miles!

The importation of animal feed from Brazil and the US was blamed by Defra for the steep rise, which means that air miles have more than quadrupled - a rise of 379 per cent - since 1992.
Full article available here.

Climate change and equity: Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

Article on the BBC neatly sums up the recent comments by Jean Zigler on how biofuels have been seized on by NGOs, lobbyists and climate change apologists as a way forward - without considering the economic implications of such a position. One day, all NGOs will employ economists [height for once being unimportant], and they will listen to them ...

Some NGOs already have clever economists in their midst, but far too few! - here is Annie Dufey's work and a publication from ODI that lays out the links and hence the risks from meddling with core livelihood-supporting functions of the economies of developing countries.

Tourism, sustainable development and equity: Developing countries say "your carbon emissions are on us!"

Mozambique, 21 OCTOBER 2007. On my 16-seater Beech 1900 from Vilanculos to Johannesburg, read the excellent Africa Geographic including a letter from Dave Martin from Eastern Cape, South Africa talking about an earlier article [unseen] on the sustainability of flying. He writes: "climate change is a result of the rich world's inability to live sustainably. However, the solution is not to condemn the developing world to even greater misery by reducing air travel. The rich need to decrease their emissions drastically ... while Africans are entitled to increase ours moderately as we pull ourselves out of poverty. I believe the way to attribute emissions from holiday travel is to accrue them to the destination country. One million foreign tourists fly to South Africa annually, each emitting around 2.3 tonnes of carbon - increasing the per capita load for South Africans by 0.051 tonnes annually. So to the rich world, we say "cancel your holidays in Europe, Australia and the US and come to the developing world ... your carbon emissions are on us!".

Sports, sustainable development and equity: Rugby, equitably letting the middle-income nation win

JOHANNESBURG, 20 October 2007. Thankfully South Africa won. You can see my videos of the celebrations in Melville on youtube. In addition, to Business Day proclaiming this “victory” to be a turning point for the nation [see “The End of Transformation” by Andile Mngxitama in Business Day], we also hear that:

• The South African Rugby took out insurance against the Springboks winning to avoid paying out the squad bonuses – the insurance has allegedly already paid out!
• Squad bonuses total ZAR 1.5 million per player
• Bonuses were higher in 1995 for the winning team
• Brian Habana is expected to earn millions in endorsements and other promotions and is expected to replace Jonah Lomu as the worldwide face of rugby
• The football team’s nickname will be changed from Bafana Bafana [translates as boys-boys] – probably [back to] the Springboks thanks to Thabo Mbeki’s intervention

But the country really wants to know HOW is the football team going to jump from 83rd in the world to lift the Football World Cup on homesoil in 2010!

Paris rail strikes: Is le greve carbon neutral?

I am in Paris for meetings today - hopeful to do some shopping until a combination of English luck in the rugby and a two-day rail strike conspired to mean i had to take an expensive early morning flight and spend 3 hours getting to the venue - normally one hour tops.

However, in parallel with London after July 2005, Paris's cyclists were out in force, many on the Vélib or "freedom bikes" [so many, that i found the Vélib rank empty with a queue of waiting Vélibistes]. It was choas, road rage, crashes [minor], motorbikes on the pavement. Reclaim the Streets indeed.

Yet, seriously, what is the rail strike's carbon footprint and is it pro-poor?

More people walked, cycled, stayed off work. But many took their cars - with horrendous queues. Plus, from a sustainable development viewpoint, many businesses suffer. The seminar I attended lost 50% of participants earlier this week - cancelled owing to the strike threat - and by 3pm on Friday, half the remaining left early for the airport, worried they would miss planes. Plus, taxis in Paris are not high-earners on "idle" mode - no Hackney Cabs in London these!

In general, it is the poorer paid workers who HAVE to go to their workplaces - who HAVE to travel. They work in jobs where "working from home" is not an option - where the internet plays no part.

In sum, the rail strike is not a boost for sustainable development, but it might be carbon neutral.

If only England will win tomorrow and usher in a new era for Paris and its transport system ...

CLIMATE CHANGE AND EQUITY: New report

"The right to development in a climate constrained world:The Greenhouse Development Rights framework". A report by Paul Baer and Tom Athanasiou of EcoEquity and Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm Environment Institute, with the support of Christian Aid and the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation.

Climate equity discussion at Gristmill

Gristmill has started a 'conversation' on climate change and equity - and someone has recommended this blog. Thanks.

The take-homes for the Tall Economist are that in the USA, national issues outjump all others. Danielle Dearne talks about poorer communities within the US being adversely affected by climate change. While I am sure this is true, every country has communities that are poor, marginalised and without opportunity. The impact of climate change on these communities is sketchy to say the least. Arguably, it is those in developing countries who will still bear the brunt.

ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL EQUITY: sustainable development in China

At the Chinese Communist Party's five-ennial general meeting, President Hu Jintao said "rapid economic growth remains the top priority", but acknowledged the need to pay greater attention to the environment and social welfare, adding "to realise social equity and justice is the Chinese communists’ consistent position”.

Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, the premier, have used the issue of sustainable development and increased welfare spending to distinguish themselves from the previous administration, which focused more on growth.

The other superpower elect, Hillary Clinton, sounds "fair miles" away from China's progressive position - “This administration has unilaterally pursued policies that are widely disliked and distrusted ... yet it does not have to be this way. The world still looks to the United States for leadership. American leadership is wanting, but it is still wanted.” Shaping her leadership agenda, she intends setting up an annual “E8” summit including India and China that would aim to tackle global warming and work towards energy security. She and her carbon-tonne-a-month compatriots should consider asking Hu Jintao and his 73 million party members to convene this meeting - at least their vision of sustainable development aims to shape a better world not simply point fingers at fast emerging economies.

Tesco DROP aeroplane stickers - citing sustainable development!

This great article is from Business Daily in Kenya by Zeddy Sambu entitled "Kenya: High Demand for Produce in European Market". It makes some key points which show that business is no longer going to accept "knee jerk reactions" to consumer actions - here to carbon emissions and climate change with a special focus on "food miles":

• Tesco has backpedaled on its earlier decision to warn its consumers on airfreighted produce citing research had proved that certain airfreighting foods are less harmful to the environment than those grown locally.


• Paul Monaghan, the head of ethics and sustainability for the Co-operative Group has also warned that aeroplane logos on airfreight goods in shops did not reflect the scientific reality.


• Tesco and Marks & Spencer (M&S) -Kenya's biggest buyers who had introduced the aeroplane symbol on imported produce - said there has been no impact on the sales.


• Air-freighting fresh produce from the whole of sub-Saharan Africa accounts for less than 0.1 per cent of Britain's carbon emissions.


• "As a measurement tool, these aeroplane symbols are fundamentally flawed, as they do not reflect the total energy used in production and processing, only the energy used for transport, " said Joseph Muchemi, Kenya's high commissioner to the UK, at a recent crisis meeting-to discuss the impact of 'Food Miles' and carbon labeling on exports of fresh produce from Kenya with the UK stores officials.

Click here for the full article.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND EQUITY: Africa's footprint is light and sustainable!

This graphically shows how Africa's carbon footprint is light and sustainable [source]. At 1.04 tonnes of carbon per capita per annum, it is below the global estimates for natural absorption.

How does this warp our sustainable development equation? How can we fit this thinking into our decisions over food miles?

We can buy more green beans and fewer tomatoes from the Netherlands for a start!

CLIMATE CHANGE AND EQUITY: Kyoto's forgotten billions

Our collective Kyoto hangover/ temporary memory loss over the recognition of global equity imperils us all.
Why have we forgotten that, in the context of emissions, equity is a core principle of the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol?
In relation to developing countries, the Convention agrees to a set of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, with the Parties agreeing that:

• the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) has originated in developed countries;
• per capita emissions in developing countries remain relatively low;
• the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
  

YET, this equity principle for emissions is not central to operations or discussions under the Convention. Compounding this is added inequality in vulnerability to climate change impacts, which are expected to hit the developing countries hardest.

Climate change: logical analysis illustrates illogical consumer response

A cool article in the Financial Times by Sarah Murray illustrates the complexities of the climate change problem and hence its "solutions":

• transportation is only a small part of the carbon footprint of food. Carbon emissions in agricultrual industry are generated by everything from farm equipment and vehicles to drying crops, keeping poultry in heated buildings and cultivating fresh produce in hot houses. Plus, inputs manufacturing [chemical fertilisers and animal feeds] also consumes energy.
• livestock, which occupy about 30 per cent of the planet's surface, generate more greenhouse gas emissions than transport
• less than half the nitrogen applied to crops in fertiliser is actually used, the rest leaches into soil and rivers

Yet, the response by industry shows how far we are from recognising and supporting sustainable development. "Nine companies - including Cadbury, Coca-Cola and Müller Dairy - joined the businesses that have signed up to use a carbon footprinting methodology being developed by the Carbon Trust in partnership with the UK's department for environment, food and rural affairs and BSI British Standards."

Carbon is one part of the global environmental footprint. What about social issues, and equality, gender, and equity of opportunities. We need our industries to be bolder. We need to jump back to logical approaches that generate win-wins.

We salute Paul Monaghan, Head of Ethics and Sustainability, The Co-operative Group who commented: "The development of a credible but practical product carbon footprinting standard is long overdue, and The Co-operative Food looks forward to playing a full part. We will be particularly interested to see how carbon reduction can be pursued whilst safeguarding the livelihoods of the world's poorest farmers and the role, if any, of good quality carbon offset".

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS OUR ONLY CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION METHODOLOGY

In order to address climate change, most commentators would be happy to agree that we will aim to maximise sustainable development. Yet, this is nice in theory. What does this mean in practice? Here is my simplified guide:

Sustainable Development = Environment + Markets + Society

This "equation" challenges us to ensure that we think logically, laterally and thoughtfully about each of our decisions. If this is all we achieve, it would be a huge step forward. In practice, we would stretch this definition to include monitoring for equity, gender, equitable opportunity, and other societal norms. Plus, global social justice must be maximised not just national social justice.

Is this equation fair? Does it make decisions so darn hard that we should rather take a simple course of action? Is it uncomfortable for too many people to take a logical approach to a complex problem? Are ‘tabloid’ solutions better because they are measurable if not actually helpful? Is it unhelpful because it cannot be “solved”?

To illustrate how poorly ‘sustainable development objectives’ are imbued in the climate change debate, let’s contrast emissions trading and food miles:

• emissions trading - Environmental and economic efficiency but require tweaking to ensure that poverty alleviation, and quality environmental mitigation are secured. An economist would see this as an attractive option. The political dimension would prove the trickiest to maximise.
• consumer-led campaigns - e.g. food miles - often fail on all three –
• environmental [local is not always best - thanks to imported animal feeds, hot-housing, road transport inefficiencies];
• economic [the complementarities between imported foods and domestic foods are so great – such as permanent shelf exposure – that solidarity is required not competition]
• social [recent research has shown that over one million livelihoods in rural sub-Saharan Africa alone rely on the UK’s consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. Indeed, supermarkets are talking about so-called “fair miles” increasingly as a principle for procurement]
  

Should a decision maker or campaigner or activist or celebrity chef be asked to demonstrate they have thought about these three interlinked elements and considered the global as well as the local?

I feel the equation itself is helpful if only to make us all think / realise/ remember that there is a global social contract, there is an overriding objective, and many of the simple solutions are not going to help us win this time.

Climate change requires flexible economies

We need to address the fundamental impact that climate change will have to our economies as well as to our environment. Identifying and filling so-called “missing markets” in developing countries becomes critical to ensuring that future climate-based shocks do not have an exponentially larger impact on future economic growth globally. Fortunately a suite of potential solutions exist, it is a case of relocating them from Canary Wharf to Bobo Dioulasso.

It is unequivocal that however shocks, risks or threats manifest, the benefits accrue disproportionately to the rich while the costs fall disproportionately to the poor. The poor in any society, particularly developing countries, tend to be those with a less buoyant ‘structure of opportunities’ facing them, and experience more “missing markets”. This is usually evident in poorer access to information, credit and other means of alternative production/ livelihoods.

Regardless of the underlying reason for climate change, it is a shock, risk and threat. Hence, we can expect it will impose costs disproportionately highly on the poorest people, and any benefits there might be will tend to accrue to the richer people.

But how should the developed world address these concerns? If we intend to secure sustainable development:

• Environmentally, we need to be clear about the causes of climate change and efficiently/ rationally address these.
• Socially and economically, we need to find ways to create a new pathway of development that insures the poorest from these shocks.

For the latter, building a stronger ‘structure of opportunities’ in rural areas of developing countries is a starting point and by:

• being creative with our development/ donor money and
• nudging the appropriate industries to provide services where the business case appears weak – credit, insurance, information flows

we stand a good chance of producing more flexible developing economies, more able to adapt to the scale of climate change shock.

Is 50% of climate change caused by local land use change?

Are we missing half of the climate change picture by focusing on carbon? Might it be easier and more economically efficient to limit activities that affect the local climate through better planning and judicious use of economic incentive mechanisms?

Last week, I was in hallowed company in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum meeting on 'climate change and tourism'. An excellent presentation from Shardal Agrawala of the OECD on the loss of snow from Alpine resorts showed declining trends eastwards - possibly indicating some local effects. Remembering the impact London has on Kent through its urban heat island, I canvassed the meterological experts there, asking what proportion of climate change in Europe [where temperatures have risen by 0.5% in the last century] is attributable to:

• global public goods/bads [i.e. greenhouse gases] and
• what is caused by local changes [i.e. urban sprawl, natural forest loss, pollution].

Resoundingly, the experts replied that around half is down to the global greenhouse effects and half to local land-use changes.

News to me. And I should think, news to the global debate over climate change mitigation. We can only wonder why this "fact" does not produce outrage among conservationists. Maybe my trust in these experts is misplaced - please let me know.

Significantly, such a "fact" necessitates a different sort of policy response - tax breaks/ incentives for natural forest restoration, green roofs, and urban trees; limits on city expansion; and research into how we can individually minimise our footprint [carbon, urban sprawl, etc] without rudely and wrongly telling others [often poorer people in developing countries] to limit their activities.

Is the science missing? Is the current answer more convenient? Is climate change actually a local phenomenon? Or is my head really in the clouds ...