“INNOVATION AFRICA”

The volume (405 pages) was edited by Pascal C.Sanginga, Ann Walter-Bayer, Susan Kaaria, Jemimah Njuki, and Chesha Wetlasinha.

Earthscan, is a publishing house for a sustainable future, based in Dunstan House, 14a St. Cross st., London EC1N 8XA, UK - with a branch at 22883 Quicksilver Derive, Sterling, VA, USA.

www.earthscan.co.uk

The project, meeting and book, were sponsored jointly by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under the roof of the “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). The goal is tp promote African agricultural development through capacity-building, research and pilot testing of interventions.

At the Kampala meeting participated 140 practitioners and the best 24 articles appear in the 5 parts of this volume.

The conclusions led to five observations,  and I will mention here just the fifth - that says that real innovation emerges by encouraging creativity, and that is not achieved by over-engineering a multiple level of bureaucracy that poses the risk of stifling real discovery. So, it is better to create enabling conditions and incentive structures that encourage information exchange, cooperation and policy changes that unleash bottom-up or lateral innovation.

The first article is of 26 pages on “Conceptual and Methodological Developments in Innovation,” presented by Niels Roeling.

I found interesting his use of “innovation” as a noun - denoting a technology or even a product i.e. hybrid maize. Then he talks about the “diffusion curve” of introducing this innovation for gain by the users. That was the way the subject was taught in the American Mid-West. Eventually he mentions that his thinking was affected by the observation from Landcare in Australia, that “erosion, salination, desiccation and other environmental problems” resulted from the introduction of European farming practices to a continent to which they were not suited. Thus we reach out to grassroots innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the book presents many ways of organizing this sort of development of agricultural knowledge and information systems.

The book ends up presenting many conceptual and methodological developments in promoting innovation by showcasing on-the-ground experiences in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Malawi, South Africa, Nigeria.

The volume mentions the changes in global agriculture, the use of biofuels, the increase in meat consumption, droughts and extreme weather caused by climate change, and the resulting increase in the price of food, and asks if those events will make African smallholders competitive in African urban markets. The author is nevertheless not over optimistic. It is the global “treadmill” that prevents African farmers from contributing to global food security and African countries from gaining food sovereignty. The imports of food haveinterfered with the marketting of the local produce beyond the subsistence level.

SANERI Awarded Southern Africa Regional Secretariat for REEEP

Johannesburg, October 20, 2008.

The South African National Energy Research Institute (SANERI) has been awarded the rights to host the Southern African Regional Secretariat for the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). REEEP was formed in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg as a multilateral partnership, to promote the uptake of renewable energy and energy efficiency, particularly in developing countries and economies in transition. REEEP currently consists of over 260 partners of which 40 are governments.

REEEP has successfully supported over 80 policy, regulatory, business and finance initiatives in developing countries. In Southern Africa, projects have been developed in Zambia, Lesotho, Mozambique and South Africa. REEEP facilitates market conditions in developing countries in order to accelerate deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency through introduction of suitable policies and measures as well as business models and finance facilities.

Regional priorities will be developed by a Regional Steering Committee guided by SANERI for the selection of projects for funding. REEEP’s International Secretariat in Vienna and its Governing Bodies, are responsible for project approval. For the coming year, REEEP will disburse over € 4 million to more than 35 projects across the developing world.

SANERI will take a leadership role in the development of a framework for projects in the region. Regional workshops and an electronic information platform called REEGLE ( http://www.reegle.info )  will contribute to sharing of information and development of regional priorities. The Southern Africa Regional Secretariat will also be responsible for coordinating regional inputs into the strategic direction of REEEP’s international programme of work.

Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, REEEP’s International Director, expressed her support for SANERI: “I am delighted that we are forging a partnership with a national entity of such caliber as SANERI, which has established itself as a major player in the energy R&D sector in South Africa. Moving our Regional Secretariat from Cape Town to Johannesburg will allow REEEP to enhance its significant role in the drive towards global greenhouse gas reduction while supporting the Southern Africa region in its path to sustainable economic development.”

SANERI takes over this responsibility from Agama Energy, an energy consultancy based in Cape Town. The CEO of SANERI, Mr. Kadri Nassiep indicated the significance of this award to the region: “Becoming part of an international partnership that is accelerating the transition to a lower carbon future means taking responsibility for local measures that will build more supportive mechanisms for renewable energy and energy efficiency. SANERI is a key funder of energy R&D in South Africa, and the spin-off benefits of these projects will find their way into the region. It is therefore vital that a strong linkage is developed between technology-driven R&D and policy and regulatory studies that work together to facilitate implementation.”

SANERI takes over responsibilities in October 2008.

For further information on this and related REEEP activities visit the REEP and REEGLE websites www.reeep.org and www.reegle.info. To contact the new secretariat in Johannesburg please email Ms Amanda Luxande at amandal@saneri.org.za

Agata Gago
Media Relations
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
International Secretariat
Wagramerstrasse 5
1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +48 503 180 791
http://www.reeep.org

Florian Bauer
REEGLE Product Manager

Tel:    + 43 1 26026 3714
Fax:    + 43 1 21346 3714
Mobile: + 43 664 418 21 06
 florian.bauer at reeep.org

Internet: www.reeep.org and www.reegle.info

SOUTH AFRICA – Musical Stars to Stage Concert Against Human Trafficking - South African musical stars will be taking to the stage in Newtown, Johannesburg to play their part in raising awareness of human trafficking on Saturday 11 October 2008.

The Human Trafficking Awareness Concert will be a free open-air event rounding up a series of activities as part of the country’s annual Human Trafficking Awareness Week, which kicked off on 5 October.       Thrilling performances are expected from artists such as MXO, Peggy, Sliq Angel, Wax and Ras, while top DJs such as Naked and Hudson will spin the decks for the audience.

The week-long event this year has seen the participation of civil society, religious bodies, government departments and international organizations engaging in several activities such as workshops, media campaigns and exhibitions to raise awareness of the crime nationwide.

METRO FM, South Africa’s largest urban radio station, has been instrumental in the Week, partnering with IOM to produce and air Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that encourage people to find out more about human trafficking and report suspected cases on IOM’s toll-free helpline: 0800 555 999.

“Children and women are the most vulnerable to this heinous crime” says Metro FM Station Manager, Matona Sakupwanya. “METRO FM has partnered with the IOM in order to demystify human trafficking and enable our listeners to understand the problem, decrease their vulnerability, and prevent it from spreading.”

“Human trafficking is a problem that cannot be looked at in isolation. This week demonstrates what can be achieved when government, civil society, international organizations and the commercial sector work together towards the achievement of a common goal,” explains Malebo Kotu-Rammopo, of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), one of the key contributors to the Week.

“By continuing to raise awareness of human trafficking through events such as these, we hope that other sectors of the South African community will come forward to lend their support. The more involvement there is in countering human trafficking, the more we are likely to succeed,” says IOM’s Regional Representative for Southern Africa, Hans-Petter Boe.

In June 2007, South Africa’s Human Trafficking Awareness Week was named a “BEST GLOBAL PRACTICE TO COMBAT TRAFFICKING” by the US Department of State in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report.

For more information: Contact Nde Ndifonka at IOM Pretoria on  nndifonka at iom.int or +27 71 689 9966 METRO FM:  matona at metrofm.co.za, 011 714 3485 NPA -  tip-pcu at npa.gov.za, 012 8456153

Sugarcane ethanol: a sweet solution for Europe’s fuel addiction?

Corporate Europe Observatory ?? {we would like to know what Observatory and What Corporations it Represents}

Brazil’s agribusiness is lobbying to make the case, but people and the environment are paying the price.

{This last  title is correct - Brazil agribusiness does lobby in Europe for opening the door to exports of ethanol for the octane-boosting market as an additive to gasoline. The subject must be understood in this context. As we were involved in this for 30 years, we learned to smell rat when articles do not present the full truth. Sorry Roberto Savio, we like you, but this time you represent the wrong cause. We rather smell here petroleum and not cachaca. Our comments will be presented in this type of paratheses - Pincas Jawetz - of www.SustainabiliTank.info}
In spite of overwhelming criticism of agrofuels as a ’solution’ to climate change, sugarcane ethanol is often seen as the one more positive exception. The Brazilian government is lobbying hard in Brussels in favour of high EU agrofuel targets and for better market access for sugarcane ethanol.

However, sugarcane is far from a sustainable source of energy. {this per coment in the article - that we regard as not even a half backed truth.}

Certification initiatives such as the ‘Better Sugarcane Initiative’ are top down approaches that lack support from small producers or affected communities. {??}

***

In July, responding to high profile concerns, the European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted in favour of cutting the proposed 10% target down to 4% by 2015. Many calls are now going out to the Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) Committee to drop the proposed 10% agrofuel target in their upcoming vote on the issue on 11 September.

That same ITRE Committee however voted on 1st September to significantly dilute proposals for fuel efficiency standards for cars. Car manufacturers will be able to use agrofuels as a ‘get out clause’ to avoid having to abide by standards. This shows clearly that agrofuels are being promoted in the EU largely to make up for the lack of real measures to reduce emissions from cars and fuels, or to change the transport model. EU decision makers have turned agrofuels into an escape route for the car and the oil industry, who will have to invest less in more efficient cars, or in a clean-up of oil operations.

{yes, but these arguments have nothing to do with the Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol and its use as an octane boosting additive to gasoline. The last comment is related to the fact that in a replacement of 10% low octane gasoline part of the total gasoline pool, one increases the octane value of the gasoline by 3 points. Had one prepared the octane boosting component of that gasoline from petroleum alone, that would have required higher petroleum crude inputs - and there is here a factor equal to 1.6 in favor of the ethanol. So, by replacing 10% of that gasoline one saved X1.6 in terms of crude. If ones target is to displace fossil fuels, we have here a built in X1.6 factor when the ethanol is used this way. Now, folks from that “Corporate Observatory” - please go back to your drawing boards and ask Mr. Savio to retract your diatribe, so he is not accused for your lack of sincerity. You must figure that the achievements of the renewable energy biofuel are in their use - and that must be a “cradle-to-grave” analysis if you want to convey your ideas about efficiency of fossil fuel replacements.}

***

Brazil’s push for EU target:

Brazil is the world’s largest producer of sugarcane and its government has been at the forefront in pushing sugarcane onto the agrofuel agenda. Backed by the sugarcane industry, Brazil is keen to see the EU introduce higher targets for agrofuels. It claims that Europe can fuel its cars on ethanol made from sugarcane, reducing greenhouse gas emissions without affecting food prices; and without deforestation or damage in rural communities.

The Brazilian government is keen to see EU tariff barriers for ethanol swept aside, and is pushing for this in WTO negotiations, in order to allow ethanol from sugarcane to become a competitive alternative to gasoline. Brazil is also expected to push for EU and US tariff reductions on ethanol from sugarcane at the International Biofuels Forum scheduled to take place in Sao Paulo in November.

Since these attempts to slash tariff barriers have failed so far, Brazil has turned to bilateral accords of various kinds with EU member states like the Netherlands and Germany. And in January this year, the Swedish government applied for EU approval to import Brazilian ethanol at a lower tariff rate than the present tariff.[1]

Ethanol from sugarcane is presented as a climate-friendly source of fuel - but the indirect effects of expanding sugarcane plantations in Brazil are overlooked. And what are the other impacts of this monoculture crop? Can sustainability standards really address the fundamental problems, and are current initiatives in this respect mainly serving business, or communities?  {I cannot check that reference, but it is clear to us that if it has any relevance it belongs to next section and not to this one.}

***

The dark side of sugarcane:

Sugarcane is grown as a monocrop, predominantly in southern and central Brazil as well as in parts of Asia and Africa. It relies on heavy quantities of inputs, particularly fertilizer. Harvesting is often done by hand, and working conditions are notoriously harsh.

A number of studies in Brazil have shown that demand for land for sugarcane is leading to the conversion of grasslands and wooded savannah for crops, releasing stored carbon dioxide, and displacing previous users like cattle farmers who move into tropical forests.

One recent study has estimated that, if of the effect of land conversion was taken into account, it would take sugar cane ethanol sourced from previously wooded Cerrado lands in Central Brazil 17 years to repay its climate debt - that means that for those 17 years, the level of greenhouse gases emitted because of land conversion will be higher than the emissions from burning fossil fuels. Given the rate at which sugarcane depletes the soil, there is no guarantee that converted land will still be supporting sugarcane in 17 years time - this carbon debt may in fact never be paid.[2]

Sugarcane also has devastating effects on biodiversity - with the Cerrado savannah of Central Brazil, where sugarcane is grown, being one of the world’s most biodiverse and also most threatened habitats. Sugarcane expansion is also affecting Brazil’s Atlantic Forest, and indirectly the Amazon, as cattle farmers move into the forest in the search for new pasture.

Sugarcane expansion is leading to land conflicts, as rural communities are forced off land to make way for the plantations. Small-scale farming has become unviable in the plantation areas and many small farmers feel they have no financial choice but to sell up.[3] Sugar plantations are displacing small farms, food crops and subsistence food systems - leading to food shortages and price rises.[4]

In a report by Maria Luisa Mendonca, farmer Gaudino Correia explains the problems with leasing out the land. “The contracts are for 12 years, and after that the sugarcane has destroyed everything. The mill uses heavy machines to prepare the land, and it causes soil erosion. They burn sugarcane, and the ashes spread throughout the region. I did not want to lease out my land, and now I’m surrounded by sugarcane. Here there is no more land for farming, and therefore food prices have risen a lot. My neighbours have stopped producing corn, beans, coffee, and milk, and leased out their lands. I still plant corn, beans, and produce milk, but for small producers the price did not increase, only for the middleman and for consumers.”[5]

Indigenous leaders say that their traditional lands are being taken for plantations, despite a programme to recognise indigenous territories.[6] The Fact Finding Mission of NGOs to Brazil, organised by the organisation FIAN in spring 2008, found that “..the process of expansion of sugar cane plantations has postponed the demarcation of indigenous lands in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul, further worsening the violations of the right to land and food of indigenous peoples, particularly the Guarani Kaiow, are subjected to.”[7]

Working conditions on the plantations are harsh, with poor accommodation and food, little health care and in some remote areas effective imprisonment. There are reports of workers dying because of overwork, of plantations using slave labour and child labour at harvest time.[8]

The heavy reliance on nitrogen fertilisers adds to sugarcane’s climate impacts and results in water pollution, leading to eutrophication of coastal waters and estuaries. Pesticides also increase the pollution, building up in rivers and streams. Sugarcane cultivation damages the soil, depleting the nutrients and leading to erosion.

Burning of sugarcane fields is widespread, causing damage to the soil, adding to greenhouse gas emissions as well as causing serious problems for the local population including respiratory diseases related to smoke and ash, fire risk, heat, air pollution.[9]

Furthermore, for every litre of ethanol, 10-13 litres of a residue called vinhoto or stillage are produced. At least 170 billion litres of stillage are deposited in Brazil’s sugar growing regions, contaminating rivers and groundwater.[10]

Certifying “Better” Sugarcane ethanol?

Given the problems associated with many sources of agrofuel, certification schemes have been put forward as a way of identifying “sustainable” sources of the fuel. A number of voluntary schemes have been developed by the private sector, sometimes in partnership with some NGOs.

Round tables on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and Responsible Soy (RTRS) are still being developed, while there are also proposals for a Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels. But such initiatives appear to provide little guarantee that the accredited feedstocks are in fact “sustainable”; they often lack involvement of affected communities or small scale producers.[11] By providing the new ’sustainable’ agrofuel market, as well as the traditional markets (that are often growing too) with green labels, they even facilitate and legitimise the overall monocrop expansion.

The so far little known “Better Sugar Cane initiative” (BSI) - a partnership of a number of producers, retailers, traders and investors, is less active and has a lower profile than the Round Tables. Founded in 2005 by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC), it appears to have made little progress in defining what constitutes “better sugarcane”.

[12] The push for agrofuels has nevertheless provided a new dynamic for the BSI. The Initiative has been put forward by some within the EU as a suitable platform for developing sustainability criteria for sugarcane. It has recently gained three new members from the energy sector, BP, Shell and Greenergy. Another recent member is UNICA, a lobby group that represents the interests of some major sugar cane producers and distributors.[13] As we will see, UNICA is currently undertaking strong lobbying efforts in Brussels to push for the 10% agrofuel target in the EU.

BSI was set up to develop baseline criteria for sourcing and producing sustainable sugar cane, although, like the other Round Tables, it is a voluntary scheme. As yet, however, it has not published any standards or any form of framework for monitoring the chain of custody. Nor do its staff appear to be particularly qualified in issues concerning sustainable agriculture.

BSI’s project manager, David Wilders, previously worked as an overseas representative for the South African Sugar Association (SASA), representing the interests of the South African sugar industry. The heads of two of the technical working groups in charge of formulating standards were consultants for SASA.

Most of BSI’s members come from industry and the steering committee is dominated by big companies including Cargill, Tate and Lyle, Coca Cola, British Sugar, and the oil giants Shell, and BP, alongside European and American NGO’s such as WWF and Ethical Sugar. No trade unions or rural community organisations from sugar-growing areas are involved. Ethical Sugar in the past claimed to be trying to engage with grassroots organisations, but with little sign of success.

Power with a price tag:

One reason for this limited involvement could be the considerable cost. Joining the BSI Steering Committee, and therefore having voting rights, costs US$25,000, and becoming a ‘Special Advisor’ is US$10,000. This is extraordinarily undemocratic and unheard of in any of the other Roundtables.

The only Brazilian stakeholder wealthy enough to get involved is UNICA. UNICA’s executive board members include Bioenergia, the Brazilian representative of Louis Dreyfus (a global commodity processing and trading company), and two powerful sugar conglomerates in Brazil, the Santa Elisa and Cosan groups.

It is in fact perhaps unlikely that grassroots organisations would chose to sit down with multinational like Cargill, currently vice chair of the steering committee. In 2007, 900 sugar cane workers and peasants lead a protest against Cargill’s CEVASA operations in Sao Paulo State, which they said were responsible for the death of 17 women working on the plantations, as well as having destroyed opportunities for subsistence farming in the rural communities.[14] Shell, another member of the steering committee, has a number of lawsuits pending in the US and the UK for its involvement in human rights and environmental violations in Argentina and Nigeria, including torture and murder.[15]

 { as we debunked the energy question above, we must also look at this seeming NGO proposed criticism that we smell rather comming from the economy sector that is reased by fossil carbon oil. Like decent NGOs we also think that corporations must be held accountable for their deeds, but we also think that people must get employment - so having a sugar-cane agriculture is important if you have a poor, unschooled population that must find employment. Checking into the working conditions - YES, cutting the employment from under their feet - NO.

Further, we talk here about sugar-cane in Brazil, not palm tres in Malaysia, so please stick to the point. We also do not talk here about Genetically Engineered plantations - the world has many problems - but the one and only problem the Brazilians came to Brussels to fight for - is their right to make money from displacing some of the reliance on fossil carbon  spewing petroleum fuels, with much more benevolent biologically recycled CO2 that its efficiency is calculated in cradle to grave arithmetics.}

***

GM ‘better’ sugarcane?

There is little clear indication of the BSI’s position on genetically modified sugarcane. GM sugar cane varieties are currently being tested in Brazil. [16] If the experience of the other Roundtables is anything to go by, industry is unlikely to accept the exclusion of GM crops from ’sustainable’ certification, regardless of environmental and social impacts of GM crops.

A number of BSI members, including BP, Shell, and Cargill are involved in collaborations or have investments in the biotech companies such as Monsanto, Du-pont, and Bayer [17] - while SASA has been linked to open field trials of GM sugar cane.[18]

***

Promoting sugarcane in Brussels:

The Brazilian government and the producers’ organisation UNICA have been actively lobbying in Brussels ahead of key votes on agrofuels.

UNICA hired the lobby consultancy firm Fleishman-Hillard in May 2008 to help push its call on the EU to stick to the original Commission proposal for a 10% agrofuel target by 2020. In a press release, the newly appointed UNICA representative in Brussels, Emmanuel Desplechin, declared that “Sugarcane ethanol, produced with environmental and social care, will quickly become a global energy commodity. Sugarcane production can boost economies in developing nations and contribute significantly in the search for solutions to the global challenges of energy security and climate change”.[19]

With Brazilian interests expanding into African countries (who have privileged access to the EU market), the Brazilian government has also mobilised African farmers and government representatives to help make their case to MEPs.

The Argentinean, Brazilian, Indonesian, Malawian, Malaysian, Mozambican and South African embassies to the EU sent a joint letter to members of the Environment Committee saying that the sustainability criteria “should not disproportionately penalise countries rich in biodiversity with unjustified, wide-ranging restrictions on the sustainable use of their territories”. Due to the ‘uncertainties’, the letter argues that the crucial issue of indirect land use change should be postponed to a ‘future stage’. Whereas the European Commission (EC) has always refused to include social impacts, most environmental impacts and indirect land use change in the Renewables Directive, these embassies claim in their letter that the EC has “convincingly demonstrated” that the 10% target can be “reached on a sustainable basis”.

One UNICA representative, who gave a presentation at a seminar on agrofuels in the European Parliament, despite not being on the panel, argued that sugarcane ethanol would mean a democratisation of production and access to energy, and denied that it contributed to deforestation and arguing that food production was continuing to increase alongside increasing production of sugarcane in Brazil.

Using full-page advertisements in the Brussels weekly paper European Voice ahead of key votes in July and in September, UNICA supported their claims that a 10% target would “help fight climate change” by arguing that sugarcane captured more carbon than pasture land - overlooking scientific evidence on the quantity of carbon dioxide stored and released from the soil, and not looking at indirect impacts.

The advertisement also claimed that sugarcane production had no impact on the Amazon, despite the strong evidence that it is displacing other types of agriculture and cattle ranching into the Amazon basin. In addition, other agrofuel monocrops that Brazil could export to the EU, in order to meet this agrofuel target, are directly impacting the Amazon, in particular soy expansion. At the same time, sugarcane production is damaging other precious ecosystems, like the Cerrado and the Atlantic Forest - earlier this year Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc fined 24 sugar and ethanol mills in the North East of the country, declaring them an environmental “disaster of disasters” responsible for the loss of 85,000 hectares of Atlantic rain forest.[20]

The Brazilian sugarcane industry is taking various other steps to improve its image, like promoting a privately-run scheme encouraging small farmers to produce “sustainable” ethanol in the State of Sao Paulo - by reducing chemical use, harvesting mechanically and not using child labour. But the scheme, the first to have included small producers, will apply to just 50 suppliers and cover 3,500 hectares [21] - out of a total area of some 7.05 million hectares of sugarcane in Brazil, over half of which is used for ethanol.

***

Conclusions:

The Brazilian government and the Brazilian sugarcane industry have a lot to gain from the EU agrofuel market and they have spared little expense in promoting their case. But the reality of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil reveals a rather grim picture. Climate benefits are assumed often without taking into account indirect land use change.

EU targets will further promote sugarcane monoculture expansion. Sustainability criteria cannot address indirect impacts resulting from this expansion. However, certification schemes are now used to legitimise EU agrofuel targets. The “Better Sugar Initiative” promotes itself as a credible platform, but is in fact dominated by the interests of the sugar business and does not include small farmers, landless people and labour organisations.

The car and oil industry should not be given an escape route in the form of agrofuels. The European Parliament should not be seduced to support a 10% target by sweet promises of ’sustainable’ sugarcane ethanol.

{Politics aside, we agree with the last item in these conclusions - the fact that efficiency and conservation come ahead of the effort to provide fuel for the existing infrastructure. We also agree wholeheartedly that a change in lifestyles is required so we need less liquid fuels - period. But, when it comes to replacing 10% of the gasoline pool with ethanol, and this provides a 1.6 times higher replacement value then as presented by simple volumetric replacement calculations - this is a winner. we do not see how Roberto Savio gave his hand to this whynning diatribe.}

Notes {given by the original article - please look them up at your own peril}:

1. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/10165/a/96….
2. Land Clearing and Biofuel Carbon Debt, Joseph Fargione et al, Science, February 2008.
3. De-polluting Doubts, p.4, Lucia Ortiz, FoE Brazil.
4. Fact-Finding Mission Report on Impacts of the Agrofuels Expansion on the Enjoyment of Social Rights of Rural Workers, Indigenous Peoples and Peasants in Brazil, May 2008, www.fian.org.
5. Sugarcane plantations destroy the Cerrado in Brazil, Maria Luisa Mendon�a, Brasil de Fato, July 2 2008.
6. Fact Finding Mission Report.
7. Fact Finding Mission Report.
8. De-polluting Doubts; Fact Finding Mission report; Martinelli and Filoso .
9. Expansion of sugarcane ethanol production in Brazil: environmental and social challenges, Martinelli and Filoso, 2008; De-polluting Doubts.
10. Human Rights in Brazil 2007, A Report by the Network for Social Justice and Human Rights, MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “www.corporateeurope.org” claiming to be www.social.org.br/relatorioingles2007.pdf.
11. Paving the Way for Agrofuels, TNI 2007, www.tni.org.
12. www.bettersugarcane.org.
13. www.bettersugarcane.org
14. http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/inde….
15. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn….
16. http://www.financialexpress.com/news/GM-….
17. http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=488.
18. http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/portal/DO….
19. http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.asp….
20. Brazil Environment Minister Fines Cane Mills, Reuters 2 July 2008.
21. http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmen….

Source:  TNI http://www.tni.org

 http://www.other-net.info/index.php

From www.FT.com

Africa mourns loss of a leader unafraid to speak his mind

One Sunday in late June, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who died yesterday aged 59, was on the eve of the most momentous day of his career.He had been the first…
Aug 20 2008, By Tom Burgis, Financial Times
Zambian president dies in France

Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who was laid low by a stroke hours before he was…would like to inform the nation that our president, his Excellency Dr Levy Mwanawasa, died this morning at 10.30am at Percy Military Hospital,” Rupiah Banda…
Aug 19 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
Zambian leader’s health worsens

The health of Levy Mwanawasa, the ailing Zambian president who has been a sharp critic of Robert Mugabe, his Zimbabwean counterpart, has deteriorated, his deputy…
Aug 18 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
Zambian mystery

The fate of Levy Mwanawasa, Zambia’s president, was last night shrouded in confusion amid reports that he had died in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke…
Jul 04 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, Financial Times
Zambia refutes rumours of president’s death

Zambia on Thursday moved to end the confusion surrounding the fate of Levy Mwanawasa, dismissing reports that the president had died in a Paris hospital after suffering a stroke.”These are false and malicious rumours…
Jul 04 2008, By Tom Burgis in Johannesburg, FT.com site
International pressure on Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll.In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 24 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, Financial Times
International pressure to replace Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll.In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 24 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, Financial Times
Global pressure to replace Mugabe grows

…Mugabe if he claims victory in Friday’s poll. In some of the toughest words on Zimbabwe yet from an African leader, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president and current chairman of the Southern African Development Community, described the situation…
Jun 23 2008, By James Blitz, Tom Burgis and William Wallis, FT.com site
Africa must act to avoid being engulfed by Zimbabwe’s disaster

…President Paul Kagame is among the first to raise his head above the parapet, joining Botswana’s Ian Khama and Zambia’s Levy Mwanawasa in a growing band of African leaders who are prepared to condemn a tyrant. Not only has Robert Mugabe put southern…
Jun 25 2008, By Michael Holman and Greg Mills, FT.com site
Harare buffeted by winds of change blowing through region

…sea-change in the thinking of the 14- nation Southern African Development Community.Regional diplomats indicate that Levy Mwanawasa, Zambia’s president, and Ian Khama, Botswana’s new leader, are impatient with the region’s traditional reverence for…
May 01 2008, By Alec Russell in Cape Town, Financial Times

***

Africa mourns loss of a leader unafraid to speak his mind.

By Tom Burgis

Published: August 20 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 20 2008 03:00

One Sunday in late June, Levy Mwanawasa, the Zambian president who died yesterday aged 59, was on the eve of the most momentous day of his career.

He had been the first to break the longstanding deference of African rulers towards Robert Mugabe, condemning the abuses that had culminated in the Zimbabwean autocrat claiming victory in a discredited election. As early as March last year, Mwanawasa had referred to the “sinking Ti-tanic” that was Zimbabwe’s inflation-battered economy.

Now, as the serving chair of the southern African bloc, the retiring former lawyer would carry the hopes of many Zimbabweans into an African Union summit in Egypt at which Mr Mugabe would try to stare down his counterparts into legitimising his flawed triumph.

For a man most at ease in small gatherings, assiduously reading his briefing papers or escaping to the family farm for the planting season, the ordeal ahead was immense. Alphabetical seating by country was to have put him next to Mr Mugabe.

It proved too much. Always in poor health since the car crash 17 years earlier that left him with slurred speech, Mwanawasa suffered a stroke. Even as he was flown to the Paris hospital where he would die seven weeks later, the summit was welcoming Mr Mugabe back to the fold, thwarting the efforts of a handful of Mwanawasa’s like-minded peers.

The second son of 10 siblings, Mwanawasa was born in Mufulira, near the Congolese border, in 1948, 16 years before Zambia’s independence from Britain.

A crusading legal career established his public profile. When the one-party state of Kenneth Kaunda unravelled into elections in 1991, Frederick Chiluba, the victorious leader of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy, appointed Mwanawasa as vice-president.

In 2001, disillusioned with the pervasive corruption of the Chiluba regime, Mwanawasa turned on - and ousted - his mentor. Within weeks he had stripped his predecessor of immunity from prosecution. A London court later found that Mr Chiluba had salted away $46m (€31m, £25m) of public funds.

Mwanawasa’s anti-graft offensive won him the allegiance of international donors who flooded state coffers with aid. China came calling too, tempted by some of the world’s richest copper deposits. Economic growth rose from just over 3 per cent a year when he took office to 6 per cent last year.

Yet, as his critics point out, about seven in every 10 Zambians still live on less than $2 a day. “Wealth has trickled downwards but it has not trickled outwards to the rural areas,” said a European diplomat in Lusaka. “That challenge is only just beginning.”

It is not clear who will take up that challenge. Mwanawasa avoided anointing an heir. His death has thrown his party into turmoil as cabinet ministers who thought they had three more years to jockey for position face an election within three months. The discord may open a window for Michael Sata, the opposition leader who came second when Mwanawasa won a second term in 2006 and who has lambasted the government’s fiscal orthodoxy.

Those who knew Mwanawasa, who had six children with his wife Maureen and two from a previous marriage, describe a man whose unspectacular oratory masked a deep conviction.

Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of Zimbabwe’s opposition, yesterday lamented the death of “a good friend and comrade”. He added: “Sadly, he has left us at this most trying time.”

Let the diplomatic Beijing Games begin… but which leaders are taking part?
The Independent - Thursday, 7 August 2008.

(Photo) Torchbearer Yao Ming of the Houston Rockets basketball team holds the torch as he runs through the Tiananmen Gate during the 2008 Beijing Olympics torch relay.

WHO’S COMING!

*George Bush

A quiet confirmation from the White House on Independence Day helped turn the tide for China. Mr Bush is believed to have accepted a personal invitation from his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, and Japan and Russia quickly followed suit. He said a snub would insult the people of China. Covering his bases, Mr Bush got his criticism of Beijing out of the way yesterday.

*Sonia Gandhi

When it came to its rival developing superpower, China did not send an invitation to either the Indian head of state Pratibha Patil or Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, inviting instead Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born head of India’s Congress Party and widow of the assassinated prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. She wasted little time in accepting.

*Nicolas Sarkozy

Unsurprisingly he has been the one to generate the most controversy. First flirted publicly with a boycott before thinking harder about the true cost of such a snub. Later realised that selling the Airbus and nuclear technology were greater priorities – whatever his human rights critics said. And he’s curried favour by shying away from meeting the Dalai Lama during the Games.

*Kevin Rudd

The Australian Prime Minister has told the Chinese some awkward truths in their own language. The former diplomat and Mandarin speaker called on Beijing to engage with the Dalai Lama in March and followed it up with a candid visit in April. He stopped short of boycotting the opener in a move which might have threatened trade links.

———————

Who’s not going:

*Gordon Brown

He is a realist over relations with China, having agreed fresh trade deals with Beijing this year, but he was unable to resist the temptation to hint at dissent and opted to stay away from the opening ceremony after the crackdown in Tibet. Mr Brown insists the two are not connected. For a politician in his parlous situation, he might regret opting for the closing ceremony instead.

*Angela Merkel

The most straightforward of Europe’s leaders on issues that China finds uncomfortable, she risked the ire of Beijing by welcoming the Dalai Lama to Berlin last year – something her predecessor Gerhard Schröder hadn’t dared to do. She has been equally blunt in pointing out that the Olympic opener clashes with her holiday, so she will not be attending.

*Stephen Harper

Canada’s prime minister appeared to be swimming with the mainstream when he confirmed in April that he would not attend the Bird’s Nest show. Looking around the G8 he had the Italians, Germans, Brits and, he thought, the US with him. A few months later the snub looks more costly and Canada’s trade minister has been forced to assure the public that it won’t hit exports.

*Hans Gert-Pöttering

The president of the European Parliament is the only leading political figure to formally boycott the ceremony. Without a trade portfolio to defend – or at least with others to do that job, he felt free to take a stand over China’s treatment of the Dalai Lama. It remains a moot point whether the invitation list ever included the German politician.

———————–

And who wasn’t welcome !!!!

*Robert Mugabe

The embattled Zimbabwean leader got his refusal in first, saying that talks to resolve the political crisis prevented him from going. However, Beijing had already made it clear in private that he was not wanted. While Mr Mugabe does not usually do as he is told, he was not willing to embarrass his Chinese backers, at a time when he needs them more than ever.

*Omar Al-Bashir

While he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, he has not been invited by Beijing. The Sudanese leader can count on Chinese support so long as he keeps the oil exports coming, but his is not a friendship Beijing wants to project. Darfur has been rivalled only by Tibet as a negative factor in China’s international image.

*Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The unpredictable Iranian leader was among the few leaders the rest regard as a pariah who was offered a seat at Beijing. He politely refused the invitation in May but said he might show up for the Paralympics. Despite Tehran’s insistence to the contrary, some sources insist that China had made an offer it wanted the man in Tehran to refuse.

*Kim Jong-Il

It’s hard to know whether the North Korean leader’s decision to stay at home has been greeted with greater relief in Beijing or Washington. A public encounter with Kim was not a prospect to thrill the White House – or his South Korean counterpart. Instead, his right-hand man Kim Yong Nam will be a “guest of honour”.