Some 1.6 billion people lack access to electricity and over 2 billion rely on biomass for their cooking and heating needs. Across the developing world there are encouraging examples of small-scale initiatives developing and transforming bioenergy resources into cleaner and more convenient forms of energy. How can they be scaled up?
A report from Practical Action Consulting, in the UK, explores lessons learned from the latest approaches to community bioenergy use. The research was undertaken for the Food and Agriculture Organization and the UK Deparmtnet for International Development’s Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security Project.
The 15 studies – from initiatives in 12 countries – examine the use of bioresources – naturally growing plants which are not cultivated; bioresidues from existing agricultural, forestry or industrial activities, and biofuels – purpose-grown energy crops. All the projects emphasise local consumption of the end energy product or service.
The study shows the vital role of bioenergy in fulfilling basic household energy needs and how its availability and low cost makes it vital to poor people. However, unmanaged felling of forests for firewood burned in unimproved stoves, or charcoal produced in unimproved kilns worsens environmental and health problems.
In techniques now under development fuel may go through several forms via solid, liquid and gas for processing or transportation before being converted into useful energy in the form of heat, electricity or mechanical power. Liquid biofuels are becoming increasingly significant as they have clear advantages in terms of flexibility and energy density. However, fluctuating oil prices affect economic feasibility.
The report shows the great potential of oil-bearing plants such as jatropha. In a Malian initiative families are switching from growing cotton to jatropha. They then sell the oil to a private electricity generator. In Thailand co-operative members are learning how to produce, process and market jatropha products. In Guatemala techniques of producing biodiesel, cosmetics and fertilisers are being transferred from a private operator to cooperatives. In India a project has shown how to use jatropha oil in conventional diesel engines.
Other case studies describe how:
In Senegal briquettes are being made from low value charcoal dust and from typha australis, an invasive riverine species.
In Tanzania traditionally only four percent of the sisal plant is used: a company is now converting the residue to biogas, and on to electricity.
In Ethiopia bioethanol-powered stoves could replace kerosene, charcoal and fuelwood.
In the Indian state of Orissa manually-operated machines are turning under-utilised seeds into biodiesel, fertilisers and cattle/poultry feed.
In Vietnam families are using biogas digesters to generate energy from pig and cattle waste, also producing a fertilising slurry which is boosting vegetable cultivation.
Determining the sustainability of such interventions requires mapping techniques to identify the main market actors, providers of crucial supporting services and the kind of policies needed to create an enabling environment. The authors outline recommendations for further work to understand opportunities of small scale bioenergy initiatives at the local level:
develop and share sustainability criteria develop more detailed economic analysis for a selection of cases understand better the incentives and market constraints farmers and other rural people face in adopting improved bioenergy technologies and practices improve understanding of the impact of successful interventions from an equity and gender perspective.
Source(s):“Small-Scale Bioenergy Initiatives: Brief description and preliminary lessons on livelihood impacts from case studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. Final Report Prepared for Pisces and FAO by Practical Action Consulting, January 2009 (PDF) Full document.
Funded by: Food and Agriculture Organization
id21 Research Highlight: 30 April 2009
Further Information:Steven HuntPractical Action ConsultingSchumacher Centre for Technology and DevelopmentBourton-on-DunsmoreRugby CV23 9QZ, UK
Tel: +44 1926 634403Fax: +44 1926 634405Contact the contributor: steven.hunt@practicalaction.org.uk
Practical Action Consulting, UK
Olivier DuboisClimate Change and Bioenergy UnitFood and Agriculture Organization (FAO)Viale delle Terme di Caracalla00153 Rome, Italy
Fax: +39 06 57053369Contact the contributor: olivier.dubois@fao.org
Food and Agriculture Organization
Policy Innovation Systems for Clean Energy Security (PISCES) ProjectResearch Programme Consortium Lead InstitutionAfrican Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)Gigiri Court, off United Nations CrescentP.O.Box 45917 - 00100Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 7126889/90/94/95Fax: +254 20 2339093Contact the contributor: info@pisces.or.ke
Resource : http://www.id21.org/zinter/id21zinter.exe?a=0&i=r6sh1g1&u=4a47912d
dimanche 28 juin 2009
Understanding severe and persistent poverty in rural Bangladesh
Bangladesh made important advances in poverty reduction during the 1990s. In the same decade, however, inequality rose and many of the country’s poorest people stayed trapped in poverty. In rural areas, what factors contribute to severe and persistent poverty?
Research from the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, in the UK, examines poverty dynamics in rural Bangladesh. It presents findings from a survey of 64 villages carried out from April to July 2005. The survey explores participants’ perceptions of their poverty status and the reasons for any decline or improvement in their wellbeing.
Understanding how and why people – particularly those from the poorest groups – fall into, stay in and move out of poverty is important for designing strategies to improve their wellbeing.
The researchers examine the poverty impact of certain household characteristics including: household size, members’ ages, their level of schooling and employment status, their health status and access to healthcare, the household’s land and other assets, and access to credit, safe drinking water and sanitation.
The researchers also look at the impact of various shocks including: natural disasters such as floods, crop failure, heavy rains, tornados and river erosion, and other crises such as serious illness or the death of family member.
The researchers also examine the poverty impact of a range of other factors, including access to various government services (for example, roads, electricity and pensions) and attitudes to social and political issues (for example, girls’ education and corruption).
The research shows that people in rural areas do move into and out of poverty. It also shows that most people living in extreme poverty get trapped in that situation for generations.
Key findings of the research include:
Lack of assets, limited job opportunities, fewer earners in the family and limited access to credit are linked with households falling into severe and long-term poverty.
Shocks also impact on household poverty; the poorest households are most affected by illness and the death of a family member.
Community-level factors (for example, lack of access to services such as electricity) also impact on household poverty.
Employment and access to credit are important for climbing out of poverty.
Poor families have lower access to education and worse health status than non-poor families.
Arsenic contamination was found to affect 16 percent of tube-wells tested, making drinking water unsafe for many households.
The findings reveal the factors that keep some of the poorest people in rural Bangladesh trapped in poverty, often for generations. Designing effective interventions to help people move out of poverty will be essential.
The researchers conclude that:
unequal access to education, health, credit, infrastructure and other services should be addressed
policies to help households cope with crises (such as health insurance) should be introduced
policies designed to boost employment and incomes in rural areas are needed
government services in healthcare, social protection and agricultural extension need to be improved
arsenic contamination of groundwater should be rectified.
Source(s):‘Rural Poverty Dynamics 2005/2006: Evidence from 64-Village Census Plus’, Programme for Research on Chronic Poverty in Bangladesh (PRCPB) Working Paper No. 17, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies: Dhaka and Chronic Poverty Research Centre: Manchester, by Zulfiqar Ali, Sharifa Begum, Quazi Shahabuddin and Marium Khan, 2006 (PDF) Full document.Further details about this research project on the Research for Development Portal Full document.
Funded by: UK Department for International Development
id21 Research Highlight: 1 April 2009
Further Information:Zulfiqar Ali and Sharifa BegumBangladesh Institute of Development StudiesE-17, Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla NagarGPO Box 3854, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh
Tel: +880 2 9138662Fax: +880 2 8113023Contact the contributor: moni@sdnbd.org, sharifa@sdnbd.org
Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies
Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC)Institute for Development Policy and ManagementSchool of Environment and DevelopmentUniversity of ManchesterHumanities Bridgeford StreetManchester, M13 9PLUK.
Tel: +44 161 2752810Fax: +44 161 2738829Contact the contributor: p.reyes@odi.org.uk
Chronic Poverty Research Centre, IDPM, UK
Resource : http://www.id21.org/society/s5bza1g1.html
Research from the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies and the Chronic Poverty Research Centre, in the UK, examines poverty dynamics in rural Bangladesh. It presents findings from a survey of 64 villages carried out from April to July 2005. The survey explores participants’ perceptions of their poverty status and the reasons for any decline or improvement in their wellbeing.
Understanding how and why people – particularly those from the poorest groups – fall into, stay in and move out of poverty is important for designing strategies to improve their wellbeing.
The researchers examine the poverty impact of certain household characteristics including: household size, members’ ages, their level of schooling and employment status, their health status and access to healthcare, the household’s land and other assets, and access to credit, safe drinking water and sanitation.
The researchers also look at the impact of various shocks including: natural disasters such as floods, crop failure, heavy rains, tornados and river erosion, and other crises such as serious illness or the death of family member.
The researchers also examine the poverty impact of a range of other factors, including access to various government services (for example, roads, electricity and pensions) and attitudes to social and political issues (for example, girls’ education and corruption).
The research shows that people in rural areas do move into and out of poverty. It also shows that most people living in extreme poverty get trapped in that situation for generations.
Key findings of the research include:
Lack of assets, limited job opportunities, fewer earners in the family and limited access to credit are linked with households falling into severe and long-term poverty.
Shocks also impact on household poverty; the poorest households are most affected by illness and the death of a family member.
Community-level factors (for example, lack of access to services such as electricity) also impact on household poverty.
Employment and access to credit are important for climbing out of poverty.
Poor families have lower access to education and worse health status than non-poor families.
Arsenic contamination was found to affect 16 percent of tube-wells tested, making drinking water unsafe for many households.
The findings reveal the factors that keep some of the poorest people in rural Bangladesh trapped in poverty, often for generations. Designing effective interventions to help people move out of poverty will be essential.
The researchers conclude that:
unequal access to education, health, credit, infrastructure and other services should be addressed
policies to help households cope with crises (such as health insurance) should be introduced
policies designed to boost employment and incomes in rural areas are needed
government services in healthcare, social protection and agricultural extension need to be improved
arsenic contamination of groundwater should be rectified.
Source(s):‘Rural Poverty Dynamics 2005/2006: Evidence from 64-Village Census Plus’, Programme for Research on Chronic Poverty in Bangladesh (PRCPB) Working Paper No. 17, Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies: Dhaka and Chronic Poverty Research Centre: Manchester, by Zulfiqar Ali, Sharifa Begum, Quazi Shahabuddin and Marium Khan, 2006 (PDF) Full document.Further details about this research project on the Research for Development Portal Full document.
Funded by: UK Department for International Development
id21 Research Highlight: 1 April 2009
Further Information:Zulfiqar Ali and Sharifa BegumBangladesh Institute of Development StudiesE-17, Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla NagarGPO Box 3854, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh
Tel: +880 2 9138662Fax: +880 2 8113023Contact the contributor: moni@sdnbd.org, sharifa@sdnbd.org
Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies
Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC)Institute for Development Policy and ManagementSchool of Environment and DevelopmentUniversity of ManchesterHumanities Bridgeford StreetManchester, M13 9PLUK.
Tel: +44 161 2752810Fax: +44 161 2738829Contact the contributor: p.reyes@odi.org.uk
Chronic Poverty Research Centre, IDPM, UK
Resource : http://www.id21.org/society/s5bza1g1.html
Sustainable Beekeeping
Environmental sustainability demands that ecosystems are not damaged beyond their capacity to maintain their own biological processes, functions, biodiversity and natural productivity.
Sustainable beekeeping must first consider the place of honey bees within an ecosystem and their impact on its ecological services. The relationship between bees and people has become central to this understanding. People have the potential to disturb irretrievably the balance between bees and their environment, as the advent of exotic Varroa mites in many countries of the world has demonstrated.
At the heart of sustainable beekeeping is the welfare of honey bees: not just at the level of the individual colony or apiary, but at the level of the whole bee population of the region. Beekeepers have often focussed effort on their colony and apiary, ignoring their relationship with the wider bee populations of the locality or region. Meanwhile our social, economic and environmental activities and policies may be damaging the fundamental relationship between bees and the ecosystems on which they depend.
The aim of sustainable beekeeping should be the protection and maintenance of viable populations of indigenous bees. To do this we must first protect and maintain the bees' habitat, not just around the apiary, but in the wider region. Everyone, not just beekeepers, can participate in the broader activities of environmental protection. Principles of wildlife-friendly farming and gardening, protecting wild areas and native flora, and other activities carried out at individual, community and policy levels can all work to ensure that bees have sufficient nesting sites, forage and protection to survive and thrive.
Sustainable beekeeping also depends on the suitability of bees to their local environment. Beekeepers can contribute to the genetic fitness of bee populations by keeping only indigenous species and races of locally adapted bees. Historically, the importation of other species and races has led to a dilution of genetic fitness in wild bee populations as well as spreading disease.
Natural methods for the management of bees for sustainability will be determined by the ways the bees themselves want to live. Consequently, there may be some conflict between what the bees require and what the beekeeper requires. For example, the reproductive strategy of honey bees is to maximise their population by division, while humans may want to keep the colony whole to maximise their harvest. Methods of beekeeping should be appropriate to the local environment and local bees, and should always strive to maintain honey bee health. Beekeepers should have a positive effect on their bees and on the surrounding bee population. Thoughtless and uninformed beekeeping can have unintended negative consequences.
Resource: http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/portal/topic.php?id=40&p=96
Bees for Development
P O Box 105
Monmouth , NP 25 9AA , UK
Sustainable beekeeping must first consider the place of honey bees within an ecosystem and their impact on its ecological services. The relationship between bees and people has become central to this understanding. People have the potential to disturb irretrievably the balance between bees and their environment, as the advent of exotic Varroa mites in many countries of the world has demonstrated.
At the heart of sustainable beekeeping is the welfare of honey bees: not just at the level of the individual colony or apiary, but at the level of the whole bee population of the region. Beekeepers have often focussed effort on their colony and apiary, ignoring their relationship with the wider bee populations of the locality or region. Meanwhile our social, economic and environmental activities and policies may be damaging the fundamental relationship between bees and the ecosystems on which they depend.
The aim of sustainable beekeeping should be the protection and maintenance of viable populations of indigenous bees. To do this we must first protect and maintain the bees' habitat, not just around the apiary, but in the wider region. Everyone, not just beekeepers, can participate in the broader activities of environmental protection. Principles of wildlife-friendly farming and gardening, protecting wild areas and native flora, and other activities carried out at individual, community and policy levels can all work to ensure that bees have sufficient nesting sites, forage and protection to survive and thrive.
Sustainable beekeeping also depends on the suitability of bees to their local environment. Beekeepers can contribute to the genetic fitness of bee populations by keeping only indigenous species and races of locally adapted bees. Historically, the importation of other species and races has led to a dilution of genetic fitness in wild bee populations as well as spreading disease.
Natural methods for the management of bees for sustainability will be determined by the ways the bees themselves want to live. Consequently, there may be some conflict between what the bees require and what the beekeeper requires. For example, the reproductive strategy of honey bees is to maximise their population by division, while humans may want to keep the colony whole to maximise their harvest. Methods of beekeeping should be appropriate to the local environment and local bees, and should always strive to maintain honey bee health. Beekeepers should have a positive effect on their bees and on the surrounding bee population. Thoughtless and uninformed beekeeping can have unintended negative consequences.
Resource: http://www.beesfordevelopment.org/portal/topic.php?id=40&p=96
Bees for Development
P O Box 105
Monmouth , NP 25 9AA , UK
samedi 20 juin 2009
What is Sustainability ?
Sustainability
Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term improvements in wellbeing, which in turn depend on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.
Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and nonliving systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.
There is now abundant scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably. Returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits will require a major collective effort. Since the 1980s, human sustainability has implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganising living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles.
Definition
Although the definition of sustainable development (above), given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination." Where we are now, where we need to be going, and how we are to get there are all open to interpretation and will depend on the particular context under consideration. What can meaningfully be described as sustainable will depend on the scale of space and time that is appropriate to the item under consideration. For example, if time criteria have not been met, then assertions of sustainability are more like predictions than definitions. This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance. The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment. Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development."
Another representation showing economy and society bounded by the environment.
The dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars". These can be depicted as three overlapping circles (or ellipses), to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model initially improved the standing of environmental concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world. According to English environmentalist and author Jonathon Porritt, "The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part." For this reason a second diagram shows economy as a component of society, both bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. As the American World Bank ecological economist Herman Daly famously asked, "what use is a sawmill without a forest?" The concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability: "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems." The Earth Charter goes beyond defining what sustainability is, and seeks to establish the values and direction needed to achieve it: "We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations."
The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history.
From :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability
Sustainability, in a broad sense, is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term improvements in wellbeing, which in turn depend on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources.
Sustainability has become a wide-ranging term that can be applied to almost every facet of life on Earth, from a local to a global scale and over various time periods. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. Invisible chemical cycles redistribute water, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon through the world's living and nonliving systems, and have sustained life for millions of years. As the earth’s human population has increased, natural ecosystems have declined and changes in the balance of natural cycles has had a negative impact on both humans and other living systems.
There is now abundant scientific evidence that humanity is living unsustainably. Returning human use of natural resources to within sustainable limits will require a major collective effort. Since the 1980s, human sustainability has implied the integration of economic, social and environmental spheres to: “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Efforts to live more sustainably can take many forms from reorganising living conditions (e.g., ecovillages, eco-municipalities and sustainable cities), reappraising economic sectors (green building, sustainable agriculture), or work practices (sustainable architecture), using science to develop new technologies (green technologies, renewable energy), to adjustments in individual lifestyles.
Definition
Although the definition of sustainable development (above), given by the Brundtland Commission, is frequently quoted, it is not universally accepted and has undergone various interpretations. Definitions of sustainability may be expressed as statements of fact, intent, or value with sustainability treated as either a "journey" or "destination." Where we are now, where we need to be going, and how we are to get there are all open to interpretation and will depend on the particular context under consideration. What can meaningfully be described as sustainable will depend on the scale of space and time that is appropriate to the item under consideration. For example, if time criteria have not been met, then assertions of sustainability are more like predictions than definitions. This difficult mix has been described as a dialogue of values that defies consensual definition. Sustainability has been regarded as both an important but unfocused concept like "liberty" or "justice" and as a feel-good buzzword with little meaning or substance. The idea of sustainable development is sometimes viewed as an oxymoron because development inevitably depletes and degrades the environment. Consequently some definitions either avoid the word development and use the term sustainability exclusively, or emphasise the environmental component, as in "environmentally sustainable development."
Another representation showing economy and society bounded by the environment.
The dimensions of sustainability are often taken to be: environmental, social and economic, known as the "three pillars". These can be depicted as three overlapping circles (or ellipses), to show that they are not mutually exclusive and can be mutually reinforcing. While this model initially improved the standing of environmental concerns, it has since been criticised for not adequately showing that societies and economies are fundamentally reliant on the natural world. According to English environmentalist and author Jonathon Porritt, "The economy is, in the first instance, a subsystem of human society ... which is itself, in the second instance, a subsystem of the totality of life on Earth (the biosphere). And no subsystem can expand beyond the capacity of the total system of which it is a part." For this reason a second diagram shows economy as a component of society, both bounded by, and dependent upon, the environment. As the American World Bank ecological economist Herman Daly famously asked, "what use is a sawmill without a forest?" The concept of living within environmental constraints underpins the IUCN, UNEP and WWF definition of sustainability: "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems." The Earth Charter goes beyond defining what sustainability is, and seeks to establish the values and direction needed to achieve it: "We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations."
The next section traces the evolution of thinking about sustainability in human history.
From :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability
| provided by elogicwebsolutions.com |
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)