The New Nation - Internet Edition

Jessica Hanson

That sneaking suspicion you get every time you arrive at the grocery checkout counter is right: food generally costs more than it did just 12 months ago. According to a recent statement presented to the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, the Consumer Price Index, a measure of average prices for household and consumer goods, is projected to rise from 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent by year's end. Prices are expected to remain high as global food production struggles to keep pace with the rising demand for commodities such as wheat and corn.

While governments and consumers decry the steady increase in food prices, groups like the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are taking a harder look at some of the factors contributing to this rise-including the role of climate change. Changing climatic conditions, in particular the decline in water availability, are forcing farmers to continually adapt their agricultural production. According to the FAO, climate change has both environmental and socioeconomic outcomes for agriculture: changes in the availability and quality of land, soil, and water resources, for example, are later reflected in crop performance, which causes prices to rise.

Climate change has been attributed to greater inconsistencies in agricultural conditions, ranging from more-erratic flood and drought cycles to longer growing seasons in typically colder climates. While the increase in Earth's temperature is making some places wetter, it is also drying out already arid farming regions close to the Equator. This year's Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report states that "increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes." The decline in production in the face of growing demand can drive up prices in markets that may lack the technology to fight environmental hazards to overall production.

Such has been the case in Australia, where the once-fruitful food-production regions of New South Wales have been subject to a severe drought for the last five years. There is evidence of shifting rainfall patterns in the region, and a growing number of Australians now view this as a repercussion of climate change. The crop failures, economic hardship in rural communities, and subsequent jump in food prices are forcing the country to reassess its approach to climate change and to consider increasing food imports, a move that would drive prices up further. Speaking on the issue last year, Mike Rann, the premier of South Australia, remarked, "what we're seeing with this drought is a frightening glimpse of the future with global warming."

By FAO estimates, the developing world will spend $52 billion between 2007 and 2008 on imports of wheat, corn, and other cereal crops. If current trends persist, these countries will also be worst affected by climate change's pressure on food production and pricing, while experiencing the effects of more varied and more severe environmental conditions.

Advances in technology make it unlikely that overall world food production will decline due to climate change, but agricultural capacity in large parts of Africa and Asia is expected to shift dramatically.

Climate-related changes in agricultural conditions will likely only increase developing countries' dependence on imported food, a pricey prospect considering rising global transportation costs. Meanwhile, as scientists continue to debate the connection between climate change and natural disasters, 2007 has been an active year for extreme weather. Latin America and the Caribbean have experienced multiple natural disasters in recent months, affecting key economic sectors including food and cash crop production.

From drought-ruined potato crops in Bolivia to the ravages of Hurricane Felix in Honduras and Guatemala, large-scale disasters often disrupt, if not destroy, food security, particularly for the poor. According to Ali Gurkan, head of the Food Outlook programme of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Any unforeseen flood or crisis can make prices rise very quickly. I do not think we should panic but we should be very careful about what may happen."

Consider the region of Tabasco, home to Mexico's largest cacao crop as well as sugarcane and banana production. Devastating flooding in recent weeks has severely disrupted agricultural output, causing more than US$700 million in damages, according to the Mexican Insurance Industry Association. Although the disaster has not had international consequences for food prices since the crops were mainly for domestic consumption, the region's ability to produce safe and nutritious food for the Mexican market has been greatly compromised.

An official with the Tabasco Economic Ministry went so far as to state that, "One hundred percent of all the crops and agricultural fields have been lost because of flooding," driving up prices nationwide and destroying the livelihoods of the one-third of Tabasco residents that work in ranching and agriculture.

This begs the question: how can Mexico and other developing nations protect domestic food security in the wake of disaster? In response to the Tabasco flooding, the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) has delivered 100 metric tons of ready-to-eat High Energy Biscuits (HEBs) to the affected area, and as of November 6, the U.S. Agency for International Development had pledged $300,000 in emergency relief. But more than short-term food aid is needed.

Disasters not only reduce short-term domestic food supplies, they pose a major risk to future production.

The Sri Lankan fishing industry, for example, is still struggling to recover from the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which affected 1,300 kilometers of coastline and damaged or destroyed 75 percent of the country's fishing fleet. A compromised fisheries sector continues to be a large challenge to re-establishing post-tsunami food security in Sri Lanka and other countries where the deadly waves hit. The FAO (with assistance from Italy) is helping Sri Lanka's agricultural, forestry, and fisheries sectors over the medium and long term by providing new equipment and assistance in improving labor standards. Between May 2005 and August 2007, this program was able to help 39,800 people reconstruct their livelihoods and improve the nation's food security.

In the wake of disaster, rebuilding food production and distribution to help people gain access to safe and nutritious food without fear of hunger or starvation is the essence of food security. It is a goal for which there are no easy answers, yet one that must be achieved.

This sentiment was recently reiterated by WFP Executive Director Josette Sheeran, who noted that, "we must help people protect themselves and their families. It's a large order but with the support of the international community we can do it-we must do it."

(This story was produced by Eye on Earth, a joint project of the Worldwatch Institute and the blue moon fund. View the complete archive of Eye on Earth stories, or contact Staff Writer Alana Herro at aherro [AT] worldwatch [DOT] org with your questions, comments, and story ideas.)

Shah Abdul Hannan

The government is doing its best to solve the problems of rehabilation of commumicatio, agrivculture ,housing and feeding programme for the next four months in the SIDR affected areas.Despite some problems of co-ordination the government deserves praise for its handling of the massive problem.The NGOs and some foreign governments have also helped .The government has also planned for more construction of shelters in the affected areas.

I suggest to the government to take care of some medium and long term issues relating to cyclones and hurricanes which I describe below-

I suggest to withdraw people from very small islands deep in the sea which have not become fit for human habitation. The land in such undeveloped soft land islands is not fit for building shelters which can withstand hurricane.These island should be restricted only for afforestations and people should not be allowed to settle there. The people there , may be about one hundred thousands , should be rehabilitated by the government in the coastal areas where a large part of land is government land .

They may be permitted to go there for fishing in the safe periods of June to mid-september and mid-december to March with permission from appropriate government agency that is land administration or forest authority.They must not be allowed to settle These islands are also not suitable for cattle farmingThis should be kept in viewt

I also suggest to undertake a twenty year long term interest free house finance program of standard size of three storey buildings so that at least ten such buildings come up in each village which can serve as additional shelters also for neighboring people.

The ground floor or Ist storey can save also poultry, goats, sheep if not big cattle.

We can minimize crop loss by crop planning , sowing crops which can be harvested before cylone seasons of April-May and before October-November.

I want to emphasize that Allah has made some areas storm prone and we know that these will come from time to time in these areas.These are not fixed natural laws like movement of earth and planets.The storms, rains, floods and earthquakes are variable natural laws, they come from time to time but time is not fixed.

If we live in historically well-known cyclone zones, without building shelters and in lands which are not fit for habitation, we are dishonoring natural laws made by Allah for some higher purposes.

The scientists also say that nothing in nature is without purpose. If we disobey Allah's law, we will be destroying ourselves by our own hands as Allah has said in the Quran " Do not throw your selves to destruction by your own hands or deeds"

The same rule applies for earthquake prone and flood prone areas and if appropriate measures are not taken, we should offend the law of Allah in a similar manner .This should not happen. We should remember this point apart from the fact that there is test for all of us in what happens. We hope every body will think over these points.

(The writer is a former secretary of the government)

Julio Godoy

Research into the use of algae to capture carbon dioxide from the air is changing the negative reputation of these organisms, often seen as a plague associated with agricultural fertiliser run-off.

Until very recently, the proliferation algae was interpreted as an undesirable consequence of the overuse of agro-chemicals, whose immediate results included skin irritation in humans and the death of aquatic fauna from lack of oxygen.

But their potential for absorbing one of the principal greenhouse gases -- which cause global climate change -- could be crucial for avoiding environmental catastrophes. Like terrestrial plants, the algae consume carbon during photosynthesis.

"We took algae from the ocean, we put it in plastic containers in greenhouses, where we fed it with carbon dioxide produced by conventional electric generators," explained Laurenz Thomsen, a bio-geologist from Jacobs University in the northern German city of Bremen.

"Exposed to solar light, the algae transform the carbon dioxide into biomass that can later be used as biodiesel, whose combustion doesn't emit greenhouse gases," he added.

The Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Project (GGMP) is coordinated by Thomsen, with cooperation from the Bremen polytechnic university, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Marine Research, and several companies, including the European electricity supplier E.ON. Thomsen has dubbed the small greenhouse "Algenreactor", set up at Jacobs University, where the algae transform carbon dioxide into organic fuel. The project is operating at the experimental phase, producing just a half-litre of biofuel. "The diesel that we refine here is absolutely organic. It satisfies the European standards. I'm confident that we will be able to move on to an industrial phase in the coming months," he added.

Fritz Henken-Mellier, director of the Farge thermoelectric plant just outside Bremen, agrees with that prediction. Some of the carbon dioxide emissions from this coal-fired generator were captured by GGMP.

"Surely we need to build a much bigger greenhouse, covering hundreds of square metres, so that the capture of carbon dioxide and the production of biofuel correspond to the scope of a commercial energy plant," he said in an interview for this report.

Henken-Mellier calculates that "the capture of just 10 percent of the gases emitted by the Farge plant means a reduction of 600 tonnes daily of carbon dioxide."

According to Thomsen, the area of a greenhouse capable of absorbing the carbon dioxide from a 350-megawatt electrical plant and transforming it into biofuel would have to be 25 square kilometres and would cost some 480 million dollars.

The sum is small compared to the cost of conventional crops to produce biofuel and reduce toxic gases at a scale similar to that of the "algae-based reactor." An equivalent planting of rapeseed, for example, could cost as much as 25 times more.

But Thomsen's project doesn't convince everyone. "Those calculations are very ingenuous," said Karl-Herrman Steinberg, director of one of Europe's leading algae producers, located in the northern German city of Kloetze.

"The costs of growing algae, the elimination of the water and distillation of the combustible oil are very high for this to be profitable on an industrial scale," said Steinberg.

Thomsen admits that the location of the greenhouses should be decided based on available sunshine. In northern Germany, with relatively few hours of sunlight, the model would not work. "The greenhouses would have to be built in the south and southeast of Europe," he said.

"We are already negotiating with German and foreign firms, from Brazil and India, which manage large algae crops," he added. The GGMP is not the only project of its kind. During the first global oil crisis, in the 1970s, U.S. scientists came up with a similar process for transforming algae into biofuel. But the attempt was abandoned in 1996, when low oil prices erased the incentives to study organic fuels.

Now, with the current energy and environmental crisis, the U.S. company GreenFuel, in the north-eastern state of Massachusetts, is planning a greenhouse to cover at least one square kilometre for 2009.

Isaac Berzin, of GreenFuel, says that to capture the carbon dioxide released by a 1,000 gigawatt generate would require an algae greenhouse between eight and 16 square km, which could produce more than 150 million litres of biodiesel and 190 million litres of ethanol.

(This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS-Inter Press Service and IFEJ-International Federation of Environmental Journalists.)