IHDP
UPDATE
N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E I N T E R N AT I O N A L H U M A N D I M E N S I O N S P R O G R A M M E O N G LO B A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C H A N G E
01/2005
ISSN 1727-155X
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, GLOBALIZATION, AND FOOD SYSTEMS
FO CUS: FOOD SYSTEMS AND GLOBALIZATION
C
Photo by Hallie Eakin
K AREN O’B RIEN AND R OBIN L EICHENKO
➤ Food systems are undergoing dramatic transformations as the result of both globalization and global environmental change. Global environmental change is altering the physical and socioeconomic conditions that underpin terrestrial and marine food systems. At the same time, globalization is transforming the production and storage of food, the movement and trade of food, access to and consumption of food, and the quality and safety of food. Both processes are having direct effects on agricultural production, livelihoods, and the viability of rural, agricultural economies. More important, both processes are occurring together and interacting to create dynamic conditions that influence vulnerability to both rapid and gradual environmental changes. Furthermore, many facets of globalization may be accelerating rather than reducing environmental changes. Global environmental change affects food systems through the loss of productive farmland, depletion of traditional seed stocks, loss of biodiversity, and changing climate conditions, including increasing frequency of extreme climatic events such as droughts and floods. Globalization-related changes include liberalization of trade in agriculture products, reduction of domestic subsidies and supports for agricultural production, expansion of the role of multinational corporations and supermarkets in food production and distribution, shifts toward urban and industrial land uses, and the growing influence of consumer movements in matters such as use of GMO technologies. Together, the two processes create substantial challenges for environmental and economic sustainability. From a research perspective, it is important to recognize and assess the interactions between global environmental change and globalization, including how ➤
continued on page 2
O N T E N T S
1
Global Environmental Change, Globalization, and Food Systems | Karen O’Brien & Robin Leichenko
2
Editorial
4
Subsistence Maize Production and Maize Liberalization in Mexico | Hallie Eakin & Kirsten Appendini
6
Globalization and Food Systems: A Holistic Perspective | Mahendra M. Shah
8
Food Production and Land-Use Change from the Andes to the Amazon Region: The Case of Settlements in Bolivia | Carlos A. Ruiz-Garvia
9
Responding to Environmental Threats and Food Insecurity in Lake Victoria Basin, Western Kenya: Local and Regional Initiatives | Marie Rarieya
11
Free Trade, Rural Livelihoods and Sustainable Development: Comparative Study of Corn Production under NAFTA in Mexico and Rice Production in Vietnam under the New Trade Liberalization | Thanh Vo
12
Vulnerability to Natural Disasters in Rural Mexico and Emigration | Sergio O. Saldaña-Zorilla
14
From Generic Indices to Adaptive Agents: Shifting Foci in Assessing Vulnerability to the Combined Impacts of Climate Change and Globalization | Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik & Mark Rounsevell
16
Climate Change Mitigation Policies with Focus on Land-Use in Transition Countries | Livia Bizikova
17
Global Environmental Change Institute on Globalization and Food Systems: A Report on the Workshop and Science-Policy Forum | Valerie Schulz & Maarit Thiem
18
Sustainability Foresight: Methods for Reflexive Governance in the Transformation of Utility Systems | Jan-Peter Voss
21
National Committees: IHDP Gets a Strong Foothold in China
21
In Brief
23
Meeting Calendar, Publications
W W W. I H D P. O R G I H D P U p d a t e i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l H u m a n D i m e n s i o n s P r o g r a m m e o n G l o b a l E n v i r o m e n t a l C h a n g e ( I H D P ) , Wa l t e r - F l e x - S t r. 3 , 5 3 1 1 3 B o n n , G e r m a n y, V. i . S . d. P. : U l a L ö w
Food Systems and Globalization
T R A D E L I B E R A L I Z AT I O N A N D G LO B A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C H A N G E
EDITORIAL The ‘double exposure’ to environmental degradation and trade liberalization has put immense stress on farmers and fishers in developing countries. They belong to the large segment of ‘losers’ in the game of globalization (as the World Bank points out, inequality has risen in these past decades). The crushing interplay of rich countries’ market protection, poor countries’ debt, no access to fair credits and financial means, lack of transparency and inclusiveness, lack of know-how is only topped by the land degradation itself. Poor land quality compromises farm incomes and results in ongoing poverty and a lack of resources to invest in increasing land and labour productivity, condemning farmers to repeat the cycle, often worsening degradation. Most of the authors of this UPDATE – mainly young researchers who participated in the IHDW Workshop and Science Policy Forum on Globalization and Food Systems in Costa Rica last fall – concentrate on the food and land situation in the South. The introductory article by K. O’Brien and R. Leichenko clearly depicts that changes in both globalization and global environmental change can lead to even greater inequities. The study by H. Eakin and K. Appendini reveals the importance of subsistence maize production in Mexico and also the common sense of smallholder farmers in their responses to agro-economic changes and trends. M. Shah’s article takes a wide and forward-looking perspective, also taking into account matters of health, biotechnology and regulation. C. Ruiz-Garvia points out the case of smallholder farming in Bolivia and its severe consequences for the quality of the land. M. Rarieya writes about severe land degradation in the Lake Victoria Basin and presents institutional responses while Thanh Vo offers a comparative study of corn and rice production, in Mexico and Vietnam respectively. S. Saldana-Zorilla investigates the interrelationship between vulnerability of Mexican farmers to natural disasters and their readiness to migrate to the North. L. AcostaMichlik and M. Rounsevell take a closer look at the assessment of vulnerability and present multiagentbased models. Finally, L. Bizikova gives a brief insight into possible climate change mitigation policies with focus on land-use transitions in Eastern Europe. U LA L ÖW, E DITOR
2 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
together they influence vulnerability and resilience. Moreover, it is important to identify the synergisms between global environmental change and globalization, i.e., cases when the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual impacts. From a policy perspective, it is essential to acknowledge the contradictions that may result from efforts to address globalization and global environmental change independently, and to identify the pathways that lead to greater food security. DOUBLE EXPOSURE FRAMEWORK
A “double exposure” framework can be used to analyze the interactions between global environmental change and globalization, and their implications for food systems (O’Brien and Leichenko 2000; Leichenko and O’Brien, forthcoming). The framework is based on the understanding that both processes create uneven outcomes (i.e., winners and losers) that contribute to growing inequities. These outcomes are to a large extent influenced by: 1) differential exposure to shocks and more gradual transformations; and 2) differential capacities to respond to these changes. Both exposure and response capacities are functions of the “contextual environment,” i.e., the biophysical, socio-economic, technological, and institutional characteristics of a region, community, household, or social group. Whether positive or negative, the outcomes of ongoing processes of global environmental change and globalization will alter the contextual environment, influencing both exposure and responses to future changes. The interacting processes thus have important implications for sustainability. The double exposure framework emphasizes the co-occurrence of both shocks and structural transformations related to the two processes, and identifies the pathways and dynamics of interaction. Below, we discuss two examples of globalization-related changes that are likely to interact with global environmental change to influence present and future food systems. TRADE LIBERALIZATION
The liberalization of agricultural trade is considered one of the most far-reaching manifestations of globalization. Proponents of trade liberalization argue that reducing agricultural supports (price supports, input subsidies, import tariffs, and export subsidies) will lead to significant economic gains. Potential benefits include larger agricultural markets, leading to efficient exchanges and lower food prices for some consumers, as well as new opportunities for some producers. Rural producers, particularly in developing countries, are expected to gain from trade liberalization. It is, however, usually acknowledged that the benefits are likely to be unevenly distributed, both across and within regions (OECD 1997). This last point is not trivial. Critics of trade liberalization argue that it can undermine production for small-scale farmers in both developed and developing countries alike, particularly those with limited access to markets, credit, inputs, and water. In fact, trade liberalization may force many farmers out of agriculture altogether, which can have negative effects on both livelihoods and security. It is often stressed that trade liberalization is occurring across a highly uneven “playing field,” governed by the rules of the powerful countries and producers, who still provide or rely on enormous subsidies to their own farming sectors.
Food Systems and Globalization
T R A D E L I B E R A L I Z AT I O N A N D G LO B A L E N V I R O N M E N TA L C H A N G E
Three potential pathways of interaction can be identified in relation to global environmental change and trade liberalization (Leichenko and O’Brien 2005). First, the outcomes from the two processes may be similarly negative for some regions or farmers. For example, many of the same farmers in India that face import competition and eroding prices for their traditional, rainfed crops are likely to experience agricultural production declines as the climate changes (O’Brien et al. 2004). Acting synergistically, the two processes may undermine livelihoods and accelerate regional or urban migration. Second, interactions between global environmental change and trade liberalization can occur when one process alters the contextual environment and makes it more (or less) difficult to respond to any shock or transformation linked to the other process. For example, the removal of input subsidies may lead to the deterioration of technological conditions for some farmers by limiting their ability to access fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, or draft power. In turn, these changes may make it difficult to respond to droughts, floods, or climate- related pest outbreaks. Alternatively, long-term changes in rainfall can alter biophysical conditions such as water availability, making it impossible for some regions or farmers to respond to changing terms of trade via the production of water-intensive horticultural crops. A third type of interaction occurs when the outcome of one process feeds back to drive the other process. Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gases, and changes in agriculture linked to trade liberalization may promote intensification of livestock production, which uses more inorganic fertilizer (N2O) and manure than extensive production systems (OECD 1997). Similarly, liberalized markets in grains can lead to the rapid conversion of forested lands to agriculture, which may contribute to a loss of biodiversity. This type of interaction can be seen in the case of soybean production in the Amazon region of Brazil (Fearnside 2001). CONSUMER PREFERENCES
The globalization of consumer preferences for food is another change that is taking place alongside global environmental change. While the spread of fast foods is often considered synonymous with globalization, there has also been an expansion of Asian, African, Latin American, and other international cuisines into national food cultures. An increasingly global market for foods means that a vast network of producers, suppliers, vendors, and consumers can be exposed to shocks and transformations linked to changing consumer preferences. Shocks can include product scares, such as a concern over the health risks of eating certain foods (e.g., beef or farmed salmon). This can trigger rapid changes in demand, which in turn can lead to financial devastation for some. More gradual transformations may include changes in preferences linked to ‘fad’ diets, health concerns, and cultural factors. Over time, this may raise demand for some products, while destroying demand for others. For example, efforts to reduce or eliminate hydrogenated vegetable oils to decrease coronary disease can have large effects on the oilseed sector, favoring some types of oils (high oleic types of sunflower seeds) over others (e.g., palm or soy). Changing consumer preferences can interact with global environmental change through at least two pathways. First, a shock linked to a dramatic change in consumer preferences can
have serious economic consequences for individual producers, communities or nations that are dependent on that particular commodity. If market-related shocks coincide with environmental shocks (e.g., a coastal storm that destroys production or transport infrastructure), then the resulting “double exposure” may overwhelm the capacity to recover and respond to changing market preferences. This alters the contextual environment, undermining the ability to mitigate or respond to future shocks and transformations. Second, an expanding global market for a food product may lead to dramatic changes in land-use which is considered an important driver of global environmental change. Shrimp farming in Thailand, for example, has increased dramatically over the past two decades in response to increased global demand. However, an explosion of shrimp farms has led to a dramatic loss of protective mangroves and wetlands, which serve as breeding grounds for many commercial seafood species. Shrimp ponds also contribute to declining soil fertility and salinization, making it difficult to resume rice cultivation when the ponds become unproductive and are abandoned. Other changes associated with globalization will interact with global environmental change to influence food systems. The privatization of water and marketing institutions, the development and enforcement of trade-related intellectual property rights, the loss of indigenous languages and knowledge, and other changes will make it more difficult for some to respond to environmental shocks and transformations. NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND EMERGING ISSUES FOR RESEARCH
In considering the linkages between globalization and global environmental change, it must be emphasized that the changes such as those associated with trade liberalization and globalization of consumer preferences may also create opportunities that can interact positively with global environmental change. A growing demand for oilseeds low in transfatty acids, for example, could lead to the integration of sunflowers into existing crop rotations. Sunflowers can tolerate drier conditions better than many other crops, and they have a shorter growing season, so they can be planted later or harvested earlier. An increasing global demand for organic foods could likewise result in benefits for water and soil quality. The interactions between globalization and global environmental change pose new challenges because many of those who are most vulnerable to one type of change are not surprisingly vulnerable to other types of change (O’Brien et al. 2004). Vulnerability, in fact, may be exacerbated through synergistic effects of globalization. Differential outcomes from either process can lead to greater inequities, which manifest as changes in the contextual environment. The contextual environment in turn influences exposure to shocks and more gradual transformations, as well as response capacity. Through these dynamic interactions, inequalities may increase, as winners from one process may also benefit from another, while losers are doubly harmed. Furthermore, independent responses to the two processes can create contradictions that reinforce inequalities and undermine, rather than enhance, human security. For example, global supermarket chains and fast food restaurant chains are exerting increased power over the types and conditions under which IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 3
Food Systems and Globalization MAIZE PRODUCTION IN MEXICO
agricultural products are purchased and sold. Although these chains introduce many exotic crops to consumers, they also dictate the standards for these crops, favoring consistency and homogeneity over diversity. The benefits of specialization under globalization contradict the need for diversification to respond to changing environmental conditions. What can the human dimensions of global environmental change community contribute to this emerging area of research? First, it can ask and answer some critical questions about the identification of the driving forces behind global environmental change and how they are influenced by globalization. Second, it can address how vulnerability and resilience to global environmental change are generated and reinforced by processes linked to globalization. Finally, it can clarify some of the policy implications of treating these two interacting processes as separate and discrete issues, versus acknowledging
the interlinkages. In short, the research must acknowledge that global environmental change is taking place in the context of globalization, and that food systems are being transformed by both processes together. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm K AREN O'B RIEN is a Senior Research Fellow with CICERO, the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; karen.obrien@cicero.uio.no; www.cicero.uio.no R OBIN M. L EICHENKO , is Associate Professor at the Department of Geography, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA; rleichen@rci.rutgers.edu; http://geography.rutgers.edu/
SUBSISTENCE MAIZE PRODUCTION AND MAIZE LIBERALIZATION IN MEXICO B Y H ALLIE E AKIN AND K IRSTEN A PPENDINI ➤ The homogenization of consumer tastes and the consolidation of global food markets have had a profound impact on Mexico’s agricultural sector and on maize production in particular. Although today´s agriculture contributes only 4% to Mexico’s Gross Domestic Product (down from nearly 8% a decade ago), nearly one fifth of the population is involved in agricultural activities. Maize, the principle ingredient of tortillas – the basic staple of Mexican cuisine – has been traditionally a smallholder crop, planted by an estimated 3 million farmers (in 1991) on over one-third of the country’s agricultural land. Forty percent of these farmers are subsistence maize producers (Nadal 2000). Over the last thirty years, and in a particularly accelerated manner since the mid-1980s, Mexico has undertaken an aggressive liberalization program in relation to agricultural prices and inputs and the intervention of the public sector in agricultural markets, commercial infrastructure and agricultural services has been substantially reduced (Appendini 1992 (2001)). Mexico signed the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade in 1986 and since then, has entered into a number of multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements, the most controversial being the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and United States, which Mexico signed in 1994. Mexican agricultural policy is now oriented towards the promotion of those products and industrial activities for which the country is considered to have a comparative advantage. Maize is not one of those products. Since NAFTA entered into force, the total value of maize imports increased by nearly 200% (comparing the average import value of 1993-1995 with that of 2002-2004). The price of maize, meanwhile, has declined in real terms by 46%. In increasing recognition that maize farmers will not be able to compete internationally, agriculture officials at both the federal and state level are 4 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
encouraging farmers to switch from maize to alternative commercial crops or economic activities through a national policy of “crop conversion.” Should smallholder farmers not be capable of transforming their family farms into independent small enterprises, the alternatives are few. For some, opportunities may exist in new contract farming arrangements with established agribusinesses; for many others migration is increasingly part of survival strategies. Recent empirical work in central Mexico illustrates that despite the odds, maize continues to play an important role in rural economies and subsistence patterns, although the future role of maize produced in smallholder communities remains uncertain. Research in three agricultural communities (ejidos) was conducted as part of a broader study on rural vulnerability, financed in part by the National Science Foundation (Eakin 2002). Among the 82 landholders surveyed in the three communities in the states of Tlaxcala and Puebla, a diversity of livelihood strategies were reported, ranging from those households who derived most of their income from non-farm sources, to those households who were producing irrigated vegetables for regional markets, to those who were primarily dependent on subsistence maize production. Surprisingly, households tended to dedicate the same absolute area to maize (an average of 3 ha in rainfed areas and 2 ha under irrigation) regardless of the livelihood strategy pursued. This land area was typically enough land to provide a household of five with maize for a year, weather permitting. For the households with the smallest land area (2 to 4 ha), maize tended to represent over 90% of their planted area and thus was planted to the exclusion of alternative crops. These smaller landholders also tended to be those households most isolated from urban areas, and thus perhaps more dependent on their own production. For those households with larger rainfed landholdings, maize represented anywhere from 35% to 50% of their planted area,
Food Systems and Globalization MAIZE PRODUCTION IN MEXICO
those households without access to land reported depending with the remaining land dedicated to forage or vegetable completely on purchased maize to meet their food requirecrops. ments. Yet the data collected on household outlays for maize Interestingly, farmers with irrigation planted maize on as production also revealed that when all costs are considered, much as 50% of their irrigated land, despite the high opportumaize is typically produced at a net loss to households. The nity costs of using land irrigated with pumped well water for a cost of labor (particularly in crop with limited market cases where the men have value. Although vegetable Mexican Maize Imports migrated from the housefarming has grown rapidly in 1,200 hold) and inputs requires Mexico as agricultural markets households to subsidize their have opened, the high volatili1,000 production through their ty in vegetable prices makes 800 non-farm activities. vegetable production a risky In the village surveyed in activity. As one farmer report600 the state of México, most ed, “Maize is what gives us 400 households had access to land security. We produce vegetaand they produced 97% of bles only to get ahead” (Eakin 200 the grain they consumed; 2003). 0 only 10% of the households Even for the households 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 bought maize. A decade ago, not involved in irrigated vegfarmers based their livelietable production, maize repSource: Fox Quesada, V. (2004). Cuarto Informe del hoods on the commercializaresented a form of livelihood Gobierno. Mexico, D.F., Presidencia de la Republica. tion of maize and sold to insurance. Although the cloCONASUPO, but today only sure of the parastatal grain 8% of households have a net income from maize. In the other marketing board, CONASUPO in 1998 had left farmers withvillage studies, none of the households had a net income from out a guaranteed market for their maize harvests, the producmaize. tion of maize as a subsistence crop provided the households In general, the landholders in the communities belonged to with a form of insurance against possible livelihood failures in older age cohorts, suggesting that the persistence of maize proalternative activities such as work as agricultural laborers or in duction may also be related to the traditional practices of the masonry. For those households with members venturing into older rural population. It is difficult to say what the next gennon-farm employment in the assembly plants (maquilas), eration’s food strategies will be once they inherit the land. For which have become an increasingly common feature in rural example, most of the households surveyed made their tortillas areas, maize acted essentially as a subsidy for factory wages from corn, rather than buying ready tortillas from special (just as non-farm wages were serving to cover household food shops (tortillerías), whether or not they grew their own corn. expenses when harvests fail) (Eakin 2002). They associated the tortillas they made from grain to be of The importance of maize in household livelihood security higher quality than the tortillas ready-made in the tortillerías. was also evident in the land use decisions of those households It remains to be seen whether this preference will be transwith fields located in diverse micro-climates. These houseferred to the next generation, particularly in light of the holds preferentially planted maize in those fields considered to increasing proletarianization of rural women. be most protected from frosts, a hazard that is particularly freAnother case study carried out in the Sierra Júarez, Oaxaca, quent in Tlaxcala. They planted alternative grains (oats, barley showed that highland forest communities with a long history or wheat) for either forage or direct commercialization on of migration also have a preference for growing local maize their more frost-exposed fields (Eakin 2002). varieties (criollos) for food consumption (tortillas). HouseThe continued importance of maize in rural livelihood holds produced at least 75% of the maize they consumed. Even strategies was also confirmed in a broad study conducted in though white non-criollo maize can be purchased locally with four communities in three other states in central Mexico – the little price differentiation of the cash cost of growing maize, states of Mexico, Querétaro and Morelos (Appendini, Cortés households prefer to invest the effort put into growing their and Díaz 2004). This study revealed that the persistence of own plots rather than buying maize in order to obtain the maize as a subsistence crop was closely related to farmers’ prefmaize they consider of a better quality (Appendini, Gracia erences to consume higher quality maize. Although not all the Barrios, and de la Tejera 2003). households surveyed in this study were landholders (as in the case studies in Puebla and Tlaxcala) the communities had CONCLUSIONS been formed as ejidos, or agrarian communities and thus agriculture was the original basis of their organization. All of the Together, these case studies illustrate that the responses of communities surveyed were located close to urban areas and smallholder farmers to these institutional changes and sectoral commercial centers, allowing access to non-farm employment trends have been complex. On the one hand, trade trends and and food markets, as well as facilitating out-migration. sectoral reforms are providing a disincentive for continued The study found that all those households with land tended maize production by smallholders. The lack of a differentiated to plant their land in maize, regardless of the alternative ecoprice for locally-grown white maize, perceived to be of higher nomic activities in which the households were involved. Only quality by rural consumers compared to imported maize, IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 5
Food Systems and Globalization A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE
serves as an obstacle to the commercialization of this maize. Despite the discouraging economic context for maize production, our case studies illustrate that maize continues to play an important role in rural livelihoods. In part, this appears to be a function of strong consumer preferences for self-produced maize from locally-developed varieties produced, as articulated in the relatively high cost of maize production relative to its value in consumer markets. It also is related to the lack of viable alternative crops that can provide households with limited landholdings sufficient income to provide the equivalent subsistence value and quality of home-grown maize. Rural livelihood strategies are also becoming increasingly diversified in Mexico and maize appears to be playing a role in that diversification. Non-farm income not only subsidizes subsistence maize production, but the availability of homegrown maize also in some ways subsidizes low rural non-farm wages. For some households, maize is serving as a fall-back strategy as households experiment with new or unstable alternative sources of income.
It is also clear that maize production is a direct function of having access to land, and increasingly landholders in rural areas are aging. The role maize will play in the next generation’s livelihood strategies is an open question, and will be influenced by demographic changes associated with migration, the role of women in the evolving wage labor market as well as trends in the availability of urban and peri-urban employment. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm
H ALLIE E AKIN is Researcher at the Centro de Ciencias de la Atmósfera, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City; www.atmosfera.uman.mx K IRSTEN A PPENDINI is Professor and Researcher at the El Colegio de México, Mexico City; www.colmex.mx/centros/cee
GLOBALIZATION AND FOOD SYSTEMS A Holistic Perspective B Y M AHENDRA M. S HAH ➤ The time was New Year’s Eve midnight and the new millennium had arrived. The place could have been almost anywhere rural in the world. Three generations of a family sat in front of a small television screen, surrounded by neighbors in the room and at the windows. Over the past few months since the arrival of electricity and television in this village, this family audience had often marveled at the wealth and well-being of the rich in distant countries. And there were days when they had been deeply concerned by extremes of human suffering reported from around the world and the images of pollution and destruction of nature. They had often dreamt about what it would be like to be recognized as citizens of the world, with a voice to influence the future. Tonight the global TV broadcast, with coverage from the capitals of the rich countries, was about dazzling fireworks displays, well-dressed and well-fed partygoers, drinking and dancing to the sounds of electronic music in enchanting banquet halls. The crowd was happy, with little worry as the future was certain to be one of prosperity. But this night, for the world’s one billion poor people around the world it was a different story. Many of them undoubtedly contemplated how, in the new millennium, they could escape from the everyday struggles of poverty, hunger and diseases. Food is recognized as a fundamental human right and this means assuring that everyone in the world is food secure. This is not just a matter of commitments by governments but its realization is equally an international responsibility. At the global level there is enough food to meet everyone’s need, and yet some 840 million people are chronically undernourished. In 1974, the world’s political leaders had set the goal of eradicating hunger within a decade. A quarter of a century later, the Millennium Summit in 2000 endorsed the goal of reducing 6 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
hunger by half by 2015. Beyond the overarching and persistent problem of hunger, the world is now faced with an emerging problem of obesity, already affecting some one billion people, which will have serious health consequences. The next world food crisis will no doubt be one of human health, be it too little food or too much unhealthy food. During the closing decades of the 20th century globalization gathered pace, catalyzed by a new era of world-wide knowledge sharing at the touch of a button. Globalization deepens interrelationships and interdependency of the whole world. However it needs to be conceptualized and implemented in an equitable, effective, and efficient manner. There can be no progress unless all dimensions of human development, social, economic, technological, and environmental are at the core of globalization processes, built on transparency, participation, and consensus. SOCIAL GLOBALIZATION
The driving forces of changes in food consumption include demographic changes, urbanization, growing incomes, and changing consumer preferences, international food marketing campaigns, and trade. The increasing global role and influences of transnational food corporations – as producers, processors, distributors and retailers – are resulting in significant changes in food consumption patterns, including marketing of more and more processed foods, often with unhealthy levels of fat, salt and sugar contents. Consumers are increasingly separated from the food production systems. They need the knowledge and education to make informed food choices. This includes ethical, moral, and welfare, as well as economic, environmental, and food safety considerations. The 21st century will see major socio-demographic changes. World population will grow from 6 billion in 2000 to 9 billion in
Food Systems and Globalization A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE
IIASA 2005
The ongoing trade liberalization, the globalization of food 2050; the elderly population, 60 years and over will increase systems, and the lack of progress in WTO agricultural negotiafrom 600 million to 2 billion; the share of the world’s dwellers tions is contributing to widening disparities. Many producers in will rise from 40% to 60%; human capital, those with tertiary developing countries education and above, cannot compete against in the developing the large subsidy countries has the induced production and potential to increase exports of many develfrom 35% in 2000 to oped countries. Agriculover 70% in 2050 of tural subsidies amountthe world total. Such ing to some $ 1 billion demographic changes per day in the OECD will have a substantial countries, distort marimpact on cultures, ket forces by diverting religion, languages as resources from their well as on equity and most productive utilizaeconomic growth, tion. These subsidies labour force, savings lead to overproduction and investments, social and exports that result security, health care, in debilitating developenvironment and nating country terms of ural resources, educaFood security, food markets, food production and trade. At the same time tion, science and techconsumption – all are being impacted on by globalization. excessive reliance on nology, and knowlglobal markets entails edge. dangers for poor countries, especially as they tend to be price The processes of democratization, development of effective takers and concentrate on a few exportable food commodities. regulatory institutions, and governance and regulatory mechanisms at national and international levels need to be at the core TECHNOLOGICAL GLOBALIZATION of globalization. This is especially critical at a time when the power and influence of transnational corporations, often headIn the 21st century knowledge, both scientific and tradiquartered in the developed countries, is rising rapidly. tional, is required to manage and resolve the challenges of globalization in support of human well-being and developECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION ment. The most critical aspect relates to overcoming the wide scientific and technological divide. For example, there are The results of two decades of economic globalization are 2,700 scientific researchers per million population in the Unitmixed. There has been an increase in inequities between rich ed States compared to fewer than 70 in Africa. Over half the and poor nations and between the rich and the poor within population of Western Europe has access to the World Wide countries. The per capita GNP gap between developed and Web in contrast to less then 1% in Africa and Asia. The developing countries increased from being 40 fold in the early increasing privatization and patenting of science and technol1980s to over 70 fold at present. Today one sixth of the world’s ogy will further widen these gaps. population receives some 80% of the global income, while half Globalization must ensure the mobilization of world-wide the world’s population lives in poverty on less then $2 per day. agricultural science and technology in support of healthy food Of 192 independent nation states in the world, over a third consumption and sustainable production systems and effechave a GNP of less than $ 10 billion in comparison to some tive national and international policy reforms for fairer trade 500 transnational corporations, each with a turn over of over regimes. The international agricultural research system is $10 billion. The 1990s financial meltdowns in a number of important for new science-based agricultural research and countries resulted in serious economic and social consetechnology that not only requires a long time horizon, but is quences, particularly in countries that lacked social safety nets also highly capital and knowledge intensive. The biggest risk of and measures to deal with short term impacts, especially on modern biotechnology for developing countries is that techthe poor. nological development may bypass poor farmers. The rapidly Globalization is not just about income and income increasing privatization and patenting of agricultural research inequality. It has to consider all aspects of human well-being. is of concern as its profit priority is unlikely to focus on the The Millennium Development Goals, WTO reforms, and resoneeds and crops of the poor. Without a stronger public sector lutions of debt burdens all have to be integrated into globalizarole, a form of scientific apartheid may develop, in which cuttion policies and processes that contribute to the pressing ting edge science becomes oriented exclusively toward indusissues of eradicating hunger, poverty, and ensuring environtrial countries and large-scale farming. mental sustainability. While such issues are recognized, there is a lack of commitment and means in the context of a global ENVIRONMENTAL GLOBALIZATION partnership for development. An intra-national consensus driven by collective decision-making is essential in a world of Nature’s environment comprises of a web of interdependent interdependencies and interrelationships. ecosystems and biological diversity that, in combination, create IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 7
Food Systems and Globalization
A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE/LAND-CHANGE IN THE BOLIVIAN ANDES
enabling conditions for the provision of nutritious food, clean water, fresh air, and an aesthetic environment. Scientific evidence has highlighted that waste and pollution from excessive consumption has contributed to loss of ozone layer, climate change, air and water contamination, land degradation, water stress, disappearing forests, loss of biodiversity, depletion of mineral resources, and spread of epidemic diseases . Food systems are by far the largest users of land and water resources and they have the greatest impact on the sustainability of ecosystems and their provision services. The environmental consequences of poor agricultural practices are eroding the long-term food production capacities in many areas. A lot of these changes will have an impact at regional and global levels and should be of concern to all countries. Many environmental issues have been on the international negotiations agenda and have resulted in over 300 separate agreements, all of which need to be integrated within a common global agenda since many of these agreements are interrelated. Individual nation states cannot confront risks without cooperating across borders, particularly with regard to global environmental change. Global environmental change will have significant impacts on food systems. A WSSD 2002 report by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis highlighted that, while a number of developed countries in the temperate zones will substantially gain agricultural production potential due to higher temperatures and improved precipitation, many devel-
oping countries will suffer significant losses. The food situation in the least developed countries is critical, especially in sub Saharan Africa. The international climate change negotiations need to move beyond the Kyoto protocol and incorporate climate change adaptation issues relevant to food systems. The central issue here is one of fairness and justice as most developing countries have thus far contributed little to the causes of climate change and yet many of them will bear the brunt of the negative impacts. Globalization is meant to be in the interest of the global community and principles such as “polluter pays” and “precautionary principle” need to be heeded. CONCLUSION
The challenge of food systems and globalization in the 21st century will require comprehensive social, economic, technological, and environmental evaluations and knowledge at the local, national, and international level to design national and international policies that enable farmers to produce food sustainably and that empower consumers to make choices regarding food that is affordable, nutritious, healthy, and safe. Without a consensus driven globalization, progress towards a food secure world will be thwarted. M AHENDRA M. S HAH is a Senior Scientist and Coordinator of UN Relations with the Land Use Change Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; shah@iiasa.ac.at; www.iiasa.ac.at.
FOOD PRODUCTION AND LAND-USE CHANGE FROM THE ANDES TO THE AMAZON REGION The Case of Settlements in Bolivia B Y C ARLOS A. RUIZ -G ARVIA ➤ The Andes region is being depleted at an alarming rate. Significant contributors to this trend are unsustainable agriculture practices, overgrazing and overexploitation of woody vegetation for energy purposes that have been obliged to push the environment beyond its limits. According to FAO, the combination of a mountainous landscape and population pressure on the land is the cause of the chronic erosion found in the Andes. Along the whole length of the Andean depression, the frontiers of colonization have been pushed further and further back in the space of a few years, with a proportionate increase in the forms of erosion and in the amount of abandoned land. The distress on the Andes keeps forcing more people down to the Amazon Basin, but often the land can only sustain them very briefly. According to the Institute for National Statistics INE in Bolivia, 70 families are moving from the Andes to the Amazon Basin every day. In the transitional areas between Andes and Amazon, on cloud mountainous forest, migrants are normally clearing the forest. It is sometimes so steep that people need to use lianas and twining plants to pull themselves up. First, the migrants cut down the forest and then burn it during the dry season for 8 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
coca plantations or corn fields that grow in the middle of the rapidly disappearing forests. Coca fields are produced for a few years before soil nutrients are washed away and only high input agriculture is then suitable. Long periods of fallow would allow recovering nutrient and ecosystem quality depending on the resilience of these ecosystems to overcome such disturbances. Recent settlements associated with crop cultivation have spilled into protected national parks and biological reserves. Consequently, some of the most important ecosystems in the upper Amazon Basin have been destroyed. NGOs working in Santa Cruz, reported that if these vulnerable regions are not adequately protected, the present forest reserves will be consumed in less than 40 years. In the Bolivian lowlands (southern Amazonia) the rain forest is destroyed by slash-and-burn farming. During this process, under current circumstances forest fires may occur producing rise of temperatures of soils up to 600 ºC until phosphorous volatizes and becomes a limiting factor for vegetation. Millions of hectares are burnt in Bolivia every year due to slash-and-burn farming. The yields of these vast areas will decline until farming has become uneconomical and the land
Food Systems and Globalization BOLIVIAN ANDES/LAKE VICTORIA BASIN
soils, with little rainfall. Throughout this range quinoa exhibits a tremendous amount of genetic variation, corre-
Photo by Carlos A. Ruiz-Garvia
is abandoned to regrowth of secondary vegetation as marginal lands. In the case of the severely disturbed Amazon, after the abandonment of low economic agriculture fields, secondary forest plays a vital role in the maintenance and recovery of land quality. Investigations carried out at University of Goettingen (Germany) in Brazil and Mexico demonstrated that secondary forests and fallows are also important for the community for firewood and non-timber forestry products (NTFPs) and therefore for rural income. It is of course not an easy task to suggest improvements on land use management. We should first try to identify key solutions to provide more economic and environmental alternatives to peasants in the Amazon and Andes regions, including new innovative solutions to provide the technologies they need. We should try to bring back knowledge from the ancient Inca culture which demonstrates a more sustained agriculture than is the case now. In Inca times the population of Bolivia was greater than today and growing enough food was certainly a problem. Most families farmed fields at several different levels on the mountain slopes. The Incas set about carving up mountains into terraced farmlands. They were so successful in turning steep mountainsides into terraced farms that, at the height of 1500m, there was more land in cultivation in the Andean highlands than there is today. The Incas cultivated corn and potatoes, and raised llama and alpaca for food and for labour. At the top they grew potatoes and crops which could withstand the cold. On the middle levels they grew beans and maize, the main food crop. At the bottom they grew fruits and peppers. So with careful management they could harvest crops from all the climate zones of their empire. An improvement of crops and selected trees species seems necessary to keep nutrient cycles at an optimal level. There is a need to open new market opportunities for more efficient, resistant and native crops. Chenopodium Quinua for example, known as quinoa, was a staple food crop of the Aztecs, and is grown today by some Andean peasants. According to IBTA*Bolivia, quinoa’s most remarkable feature is its resilience. It survives and produces in areas where other crops fail. Quinoa fed an empire while being grown on rocky, alkaline, and saline
Small-scale farming in the Bolivian Andes sponding to the wide variety of environments to which it has adapted. In the transitional and lowland’s ecosystems new initiatives are necessary to reduce pressure on rain forest by helping migrants and other peasants to stay on the land which they have already cultivated. This could be done by teaching migrants (former miners) how to build terraces, to rotate crops, as well as to recycle, compost and store crops. More investigation into agroforestry set ups are needed, so peasants can conserve forest and at the same time get an income from cash crops while they are producing timber. Ecosystem services and forest productivity may stimulate land users to convert low economic agriculture fields to forests, but the benefits and sustainability of conversion into forest are still not well documented and, more importantly, may be not well understood by land-use decision makers and politicians. CARLOS A. RUIZ-GARVIA is PhD Fellow at the Institute of Tropical Agronomy, Georg-August University of Goettingen, Germany; cruiz@gwdg.de; www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s198697 *
Instituto Boliviano de Tecnología Agropecuaria
RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS AND FOOD INSECURITY IN LAKE VICTORIA BASIN, WESTERN KENYA Local and Regional Initiatives B Y M ARIE R ARIEYA INTRODUCTION
➤ Lake Victoria (LV), the second largest fresh water lake in the world and Africa’s largest fresh water lake, is of great economic and environmental importance in the eastern and central region of Africa.1 The Lake covers an area of 184, 200 km2 of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, and supports one of the densest and poorest rural populations in the world. Approximately 28 million people live in the lake basin, primarily
relying on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. 2 Over the last 40-50 years, the lake and its basin has undergone enormous environmental changes linked to a number of interrelated problems such as demographic dynamics, poverty, land degradation, and declining agricultural productivity.3 Additionally, accelerated soil erosion and nutrient run off, urban and rural pollution, and atmospheric deposition continue to threaten sustainable use of the land resources.4 Since the 1960s, Lake Victoria has IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 9
Food Systems and Globalization
L AKE VICTORIA BASIN: REGIONAL INITIATIVES
that have worsened the situation. El Niño effects, particularly floods in the region, are becoming more frequent and severe, resulting in accelerated degradation of soils. According to Mungai and his colleagues, rainfall records and anecdotal reports indicate that floods have become more frequent than they were 30 to 40 years ago. Towards effective environmental sustainability, various strategies committed to redressing the environmental threats to the Lake basin have been initiated.11 In July 1999, a project entitled “Improved Land Management in the Lake Victoria Basin” was initiated by ICRAF (International Center for Research in Agroforestry) with support from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), and its collaborators in the region, the Kenya Forestry Institute (KEFRI), the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), and the Kenya Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) within the
Photo by: Marie Rarieya
experienced large increases in nutrient loads and high sediments inputs associated with human-induced activities and El Nino events.5 These environmental transformations are indicative of the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) continued threats driven in part by climate change and by vulnerability of the Lake basin inhabitants. The Western Kenyan part of the Lake Victoria Basin (LVB) contains one of the world’s largest concentrations of absolute poverty and high population densities, with densities of about 220 persons per kilometer across the region, Swallow and Wangila (2002) write. The region is characterized by declining agricultural production and food insecurity.6 Swallow and Wangila emphasize that the effects of poverty in the basin area are acute and have implications for the short as well as the long term initiatives to increase agricultural production. Given this background, the current challenge is how to achieve sustainability of the environment while enhancing sustainable agricultural development. This article focuses on two scales at which action is being taken to respond to the environmental threats and food insecurity in the LVB. First, the article describes a collaborative research project conducted by national and international research organizations at local level which reveals the extent of land degradation in Western Kenya and stresses the challenges of supporting the implementation of conservation knowledge and sustainable agricultural practices by smallholder farmers at farm and community levels. Second, the article describes a regional initiative involving Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda to coordinate environmental protection for the entire Lake Victoria Basin. LAND DEGRADATION STUDIES IN THE LVB, WESTERN KENYA
Land degradation is considered as one of the most serious environmental threats that require immediate attention in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the Lake Victoria Basin in particular.7 The major land degradation processes in the LVB include deforestation and soil erosion. Additionally, rapid population growth is putting pressure on land with intensive degradation is occurring, especially on hillsides. In the last 60 years, scholarship reveals that massive deforestation and conversion to smallholder agriculture have been identified as the major driving forces of land degradation which has led to reduction in soil fertility and increased soil erosion.8 The scholars underline that in many parts of the LVB, farmers are cultivating steep hillside areas that contribute to the problems of sedimentation of the major rivers and ultimately the Lake Basin. With loss of land cover, soil erosion is enhanced, which has an impact on soil physical properties such as texture and bulk density, significantly decreasing topsoil infiltration capacities.9 As a consequence, the Lake basin is experiencing rapid deterioration of the lake water quality due to accelerated soil erosion and nutrients, as well as the effluent discharges from towns and industries around.10 Problems with land degradation in the LVB are likely to be exacerbated in future due to global and regional climate changes arising from changes in rainfall patterns, floods, droughts, and changes in temperatures. Recent studies by Mungai et al., (2004) show that land degradation problems in the Lake basin are compounded by El Niño/La Niña events 10 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
Maize planted on delepted soil near Kusa, Victoria Lake Basin Region National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP).12 Key activities of this project include identification of natural resources and biodiversity knowledge gaps,13 formulation of institutions and policies to respond to these threats, identification of technological innovations to mitigate negative effects of environmental degradation, and recognition of the local communities as legitimate custodians of natural resource base (soils, vegetation and water). At the same time, ICRAF has been evaluating agroforestry technologies14 (biomass transfer, improved fallows and rotational woodlots) with emphasis on soil fertility management, as well as contributions to better land management for local and regional benefit.15 These technologies are being evaluated at a multiple-scale (plot, farm, catchment and river basin levels) for their acceptability, uptake and sustainability at community level. 16 Major findings from these studies reveal that agroforestry techniques can enhance farmers’ land productivity while reducing soil erosion, but their transfer and adoption by farmers has, to date, been limited.17 The research challenge we face is how to scale up these technologies to reach many farmers. According to current scholarship, visible impact of land and natural resources management outcome will only be possible if these technologies are circulated for adoption at both local and regional scales.18
Food Systems and Globalization
FOOD PRODUCTION IN MEXICO AND VIETNAM THE LAKE VICTORIA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT
At the regional level, the pressure to cope with environmental threats has led to the establishment of the Lake Victoria Environment Management Project (LVEMP), a project funded by the World Bank. The LVEMP was established in 1994 through the Tripartite Agreement signed on 5th August 1994 by the Republic of Kenya, the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of Uganda (Mungai et al., 2004). The LVEMP plans and implements eight basic components: soil and water conservation, catchment afforestation, biodiversity and genetic resources conservation, capacity building, water hyacinth control, water quality management, fisheries research and management, and wetland management.19 This regional model represents an articulation and local governments’ responses to the promotion of sustainable use of the natural resources of the Lake basin and its catchment. The model carries several implications for policy priorities and practices in support of food security and environmental protection regionally and more generally. This project helps local governments in East Africa to devise strategies to strengthen their efforts to respond to environmental threats and sustainable development. In Kenya, in particular, the government has established and implemented relevant national policies and programmes to respond to national environmental threats and sustainable development. Initiatives have been taken at the policy and
institutional levels.20 For example, the National Environment Authority (NEMA), established under the Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999, is an institution involved in various environmental management activities in the Lake basin region.21 NEMA is a principal instrument in coordinating and integrating environmental issues into a national development framework. Through NEMA, the government is committed to build the capacity of local communities to effectively participate in environment and natural resource management issues. CONCLUSION
In future years, the Lake Victoria Basin will be an important site of global climate change with massive consequences for an already vulnerable local population. It also promises to provide important models of initiatives to respond to environmental threats and food security at multiple scales. Through continued observation of the Lake basin, we are likely to learn about environmental impacts at local, regional and global levels, and the multiple levels of initiatives that are necessary in responding to climate change around the world. NOTES AND REFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm M ARIE R ARIEYA is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York; rariem@rpi.edu; www.rpi.edu
FREE TRADE, RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Comparative Study of Corn Production in Mexico under NAFTA and Rice Production in Vietnam under the New Trade Liberalization B Y T HANH VO BACKGROUND
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
➤ Rice and corn are the two main staple foods in Mexico and Vietnam, providing livelihoods for millions of households and occupying large scale natural resources (MARD 2001; UNEP 2003; Luu 2003; Nadal 2002; CEC 2004, de Janvry, Gordillo & Sadoulet 1997; Altieri 2002; Alvarez-Buylla 2003). Both are subject to these countries’ trade policies and their integration into regional economic systems. While Vietnam is on the verge of accession into the new trade regimes of the AFTA* and WTO, there has been very limited discussion of the potential impacts of these economic changes on the environmental and social systems (Oxfarm 2003; UNEP 2003; Jha V. 2001). It is therefore necessary to look for lessons from other existing trade regimes. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has strongly affected corn-based livelihoods in Mexico for almost one decade and has been the center of much research that may offer useful lessons for rice-based rural development in Vietnam under the coming new trade regimes.
In order to have comparable applications from the two different trade regimes on two different staple food production systems, we looked for a conceptual framework on relationships between free trade and rural development with a focus of household livelihood strategies. In this paper, I argue that free trade has cumulative impacts on rural sustainable development through social change processes which are the consequences of the interaction between rural household decision making and trade policies. Local rural societies have interacted strongly with natural resources and the environment through their daily activities and livelihoods activities. These strategies are the result of comprehensive decision making processes based on household assets, responses to institutional and structural changes of the socio-economic system, market and technologies constraints and opportunities, and cultural or social norms. We argue that under new trade regimes rural households may collectively create social change processes which will lead to large scale effects on social, economic, and environmental systems in rural areas. These changes will con-
*
ASEAN Free Trade Area
IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 11
Food Systems and Globalization F O O D P R O D U C T I O N / O U T - M I G R AT I O N
versely feed back to governmental policies (as illustrated in figure 1). THE FINDING
Under NAFTA, the Mexican government has eliminated many farmer support policies and lifted the tariff for imported corn rapidly. The premises of NAFTA were to reallocate labor from inefficient corn production system into more competitive and higher paid jobs and to reduce the exploitation of marginal land and natural resources. Following conventional trade theory, it also aimed at shifting corn production to other cash crops, i.e. horticulture (Nadal 2000).
Depending on assets (total land area ownership, labor etc.), technological conditions, accessibilities to credit and market, there are three main categories of corn producers in Mexico: large scale, intermediate and subsistence farmers. Each of these groups has had different livelihood strategy responses to the changes of NAFTA policies. These shifts in livelihood strategies have resulted in complex impacts on rural social, economic, and environmental systems. After 10 years under NAFTA, the results do not conform the predictions. Total land area for corn production and domestic corn yield have not decreased. More marginal land has been exploited and more deforestation has occurred (Nadal 2000). The “genetic pollution” controversy of indigenous corn varieties has created huge public outrages and has led to a political mandate to ban
imported genetically modified corn in Mexico (Wise; Salazar; Carlsen 2003; CEC 2004). While suffering from the fall of corn price due to cheap imported corn, farmers could not shift to other horticultural products because of the lack of technical skills, access to finance and stagnating international and domestic markets (Schwentesius & Gomex 2002; Nadal 2000). Coupled with changes of the land tenure system, NAFTA has accelerated migration which has had severe impacts on social cohesion and community management of natural resources and common properties (Nadal 2000). To overcome their vulnerability and to confront these unfavorable changes in policies and economic pressures on their livelihoods, rural farmers have reestablished and reorganized themselves into new institutional and organizational networks (Rodarte 2003). As Vietnam is entering new trade regimes, the lessons learnt from the reactions of corn-based livelihoods in Mexico under NAFTA should lead to implications for the Vietnamese Government’s policies towards the rural development of ricebased livelihoods, natural resource policies, and trade negotiation approaches in its own country. The Government of Vietnam (GoV) should be aware that large scale impacts from trade on rural socio-environmental systems would lead to significant changes in livelihoods strategies. GoV therefore should apply policies to protect and sustain rural livelihoods with AFTA, which requires comprehensive assessments and respect for the heterogeneity of production systems. The GoV should also have an appropriate understanding of the role of state owned enterprises, small local enterprises, and social organizations to make the right adjustments to both scale and timeline for supporting the transition of farmers. Policy considerations need to have a comprehensive view of how people make livelihood decisions, and may not solely follow predictions based on general economic efficiency analyses. This research has been supported by D R . JACK P ETER M ANNO at SUNY ESF. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm T HANH VO , Department of Science and Technology of Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. PhD Student in SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse NY, USA; thanhvodinh@yahoo.com; www.esf.edu
VULNERABILITY TO NATURAL DISASTERS IN RURAL MEXICO AND EMIGRATION B Y S ERGIO O. S ALDAÑA-Z ORRILLA INTRODUCTION
➤ The Mexican rural population is predominantly living in poverty and vulnerable to a number of stressors. Mexico is very prone to natural disasters, and global environmental change may be contributing to the losses from weather-related disasters. Although from a macro-economic perspective natu12 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
ral disasters do not cause serious negative consequences to the country as a whole, the agricultural sector is remarkably vulnerable (68% of the rural-poor workforce is employed in agriculture – INEGI 2003). During the period 1980-2000, 70% of total damages from weather-related events accrued to agriculture (Saldaña 2004). Though natural disasters are not the only factors contributing to poverty in Mexico, they are becoming
Food Systems and Globalization
M E X I CO: O U T - M I G R AT I O N F R O M R U R A L A R E A S
more socially and economically destructive as they drive small-scale farmers out of business, and possibly increase outmigration from rural areas. The purpose of this article is to highlight the relationship between natural disasters and outmigration from rural areas in Mexico. The discussion is based on the project “Reducing Economic Vulnerability from Natural Disasters and Trade Liberalization in Mexico’s Agricultural Sector”2, which utilized descriptive and econometric analyses, as well as stakeholder interviews. MIGRATION
Lack of stability in rural incomes due to damaged crops from natural disasters has led to more acute poverty conditions in the countryside, however poverty also increased in the cities because of rural-urban migration. A hypothesis of this study is that shocks from natural disasters contribute to migration to large cities in Mexico as well as to the USA. Given the decreasing capacity of Mexican urban economy to significantly provide new jobs during the past 30 years (Noriega 2003), migrants to Mexican cities tend to employ themselves in the informal economy. They enlarge the slums, which are often built on areas prone to disasters such as earthquakes and landslides (as in Mexico City), and to human-made disasters (San Juanico, State of Mexico). This migration then leads to a reallocation of poverty and vulnerability from rural to urban areas within Mexico, and to controversies between Mexico and the USA. ASSETS
Assets are a useful concept to understand impoverishment in poor rural households, which can be defined as the stock of wealth used to generate well-being (Vatsa & Krimgold 2000). This concept is important when considering the effects of natural disasters, which may decrease the capital assets of households and businesses. As families pursue strategies to maximize their assets, they are in a better position to enlarge their risk pool and reduce vulnerability. Increasingly, scholars argue that poverty is not only a lack of income or consumption, but also a lack of assets (Haveman and Wolff 2000, Oliver and Shapiro 1990, Sherraden 1991). Asset-poor households have insufficient resources to invest in their future or to sustain household members at a basic level during an economic disruption (Fisher and Weber 2004). NATURAL DISASTERS EXPOSURE
Losses from natural disasters impede households from accumulating assets, creating a vicious cycle of inefficient risk management strategies, low return, low consumption as well as low savings and investment (Vatsa & Krimgold 2000). In Mexico, weather-related disasters damaged over 24 million hectares of crops between 1980 and 2002 (Garcia and Parra, 2002), and only one-fifth of the crop damage was insured. Small-scale farmers usually cannot afford crop insurance, which may also not always be accessible. In addition, the Mexican government is becoming increasingly reluctant to compensate losses from these events. The central government is gradually withdrawing from its crop insurance support system and also from programs to enhance
agricultural productivity (Saldana 2002, Wodon and Velez 2000, Hernandez 1997). INCOME EXPECTATIONS
In a recent survey, undertaken in December 2004, selected rural communities in the state of Chiapas were analysed. One of the main finding is that those communities that were more recurrently damaged by natural disasters but had no formal financial mechanisms to respond tend to be more pessimistic with regard to their future incomes. These communities were even more pessimistic than those with lower assets, and there was a stronger presence of so-called “travel agencies” aimed at transporting migrants to Tijuana (3,500 km to the north) – the pass to cross the Mexican border to the USA. So, migration as a coping strategy seems to correspond more to expectations of future incomes rather than to poverty itself. These findings provide empirical evidence to some postulates from Todaro regarding migration. For Todaro (2000), migration is primarily an economic phenomenon, which for the individual migrant can be quite a rational decision despite the existence of urban unemployment. The Todaro model postulates that migration proceeds in response to rural-urban and national-international differences in expected income rather than actual earnings. The decision is taken in order to maximize expected gains in life and, for a given time period, the urban sector or jobs abroad are considered more convenient. ASYMMETRIES IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT USAGE
In surveyed communities, where exposure to natural disasters was similar or even higher than the above described but with relatively better financial mechanisms to respond, the wish to migrate is lower (as in Tapachula). Unlike very poor farmers3, the better organized and informed of the interviewed farmers4 made more use of current disaster management instruments, ranging from subsidized insurance schemes (like the so called Fondos), to mitigation works to reduce risk to natural disasters. It may be extremely simplistic to attribute these results to simple cause-effect relations between disasters and income uncertainty. Interviewed farmers were also asked about broader economic issues, like imports displacing their production, decreasing prices, facilities to export, among others. These interviews revealed that the most prone-to-migrate-areas are affected by a combination of vulnerability to disasters and negative trade conditions. CONCLUSIONS
Rural-urban migrant flows are constrained by the limited capacity of urban economies to absorb additional workforce. If one attempts to reduce poverty in urban areas, it may be better achieved through simultaneously reducing vulnerability in rural areas. Empirical evidence in the Mexican state of Chiapas shows that farmers more determined to emigrate are not the poorest, but their income expectations are more pessimistic. As vulnerability to disasters reduces farmers’ expectations of future agricultural incomes, it increases their wish to migrate. Asymmetries among farmers with regard to their options to minimize or avoid negative outcomes from disasters play a IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 13
Food Systems and Globalization VULNERABILIT Y AND MODELLING
crucial role in their coping capacity: while better-off farmers make use of crop insurance and mitigation investments to prevent disasters, worst-off farmers migrate. A long-term sustainable solution should go beyond a mere facilitation of better conditions for migrants, i.e. expanding urban services to newcomers or pressing for a migratory agreement between Mexico and the USA, but should also facilitate instruments to protect the assets of the more vulnerable rural population.
R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm S ERGIO O. S ALDAÑA -Z ORRILLA is Associated Researcher at the Risk, Modeling, and Society Project, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria; saldana@iiasa.ac.at; www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/RMS/index.html
FROM GENERIC INDICES TO ADAPTIVE AGENTS Shifting Foci in Assessing Vulnerability to the Combined Impacts of Climate Change and Globalization B Y L ILIBETH ACOSTA-M ICHLIK AND M ARK R OUNSEVELL ➤ While hazard scientists focus on climatic risks and economists focus on market risks, both types of risk have long been the concern of farmers. Vulnerability assessment is a conventional tool applied in natural hazards, food security and poverty science to identify adaptation needs, as well as opportunities that increase society’s capacity to adapt to climatic risks or economic shocks. These disciplines analyse the same agents – the people vulnerable to risks – yet empirical research in vulnerability that combines the impacts of climate change with globalization hardly exists. To contribute to this end, this article presents a novel framework for vulnerability assessment that considers both global processes and suggests an empirical tool that goes beyond the common practice of developing static vulnerability indices. Vulnerability lacks a commonly agreed conceptualization in the natural and social sciences. Building on the knowledge of other disciplines concerned with vulnerability science, the climate change community through the IPCC has defined vulnerability in terms of three interrelated elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Sensitivity is the “degree to which a system will respond to a given change in climate, including beneficial and harmful effects” [1], while exposure is the “degree to which a human group or ecosystem comes into contact with particular stresses” [2]. Adaptive capacity is broadly defined as “the ability or capacity of a system to modify or change its characteristics or behaviour so as to cope better with existing or anticipated external stresses” [3]. Many vulnerability studies in climate change focus on developing vulnerability indices by identifying relevant indicators for these elements [e.g., 3-8]. The credibility and validity of vulnerability indices depend not only on the choice of indicators but also on the underlying assumptions about their behaviour. Since “particular vulnerabilities are the conjuncture of economic, social and political structures” [9], more recent vulnerability literature on climate change has considered socio-economic indicators in assessing adaptive capacity. However, most authors assume that these indicators are “static” and so isolate them from the system (i.e. globalization) that influences their behaviour over time. On the other hand, economists increasingly apply vulnerability assessment to study the adverse impacts of globalization on a vulnerable population. Such studies mostly based their vulnerability research on poverty and inequality [e.g. 10-15]. “The fact that during the 14 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
[global] economic crisis, the poverty rate has changed relatively quickly over short periods of time shows that, in reality, the state of poverty is dynamic” [16]. The dynamics of poverty, and all the socio-economic and political indicators that define and influence it, motivated the application of the vulnerability concept in poverty science. However, although poverty experts recognized the possible impacts of environmental risks on a vulnerable population [17-18], they ignored environmental factors in the quantitative assessment of vulnerability to globalization. Only a few studies have linked climate change and globalization in an empirical way. O’Brien and Leichenko [19], for example, introduced the concept of double exposures and applied it to India [20]. The concept argues that the interaction of climate change and the process of economic globalization are likely to result in more complex sets of winners and losers, hence there is a need to assess differential impacts between regions, sectors, social groups and ecosystems. However, like many other vulnerability studies, the empirical application of double exposures was also indicator-based and thus failed to assess the differential vulnerability of local communities. While complementing the vulnerability indices with case studies, the latter only assessed spatial variability in vulnerability. However, vulnerability to the impacts of global processes such as climate change and globalization need to consider both spatial and temporal dynamics. To fill this research gap, we introduce the framework of “intervulnerability” which starts off where double exposures finished up. By the term intervulnerability we mean to emphasize the importance of considering the interaction of the impacts of global processes and the interconnection of global to local changes in assessing vulnerability. Intervulnerability is a framework to assist in merging the relevant socio-economic and biophysical attributes of an agent’s environment, and thus in assessing the differential vulnerability of local communities to interacting impacts of globalization and climate change. Figure 1 provides an example framework for the components that cause and stimulate an agent’s adaptive decisions. The socio-economic environment is influenced, on the one hand, by economic variables such as prices, costs, production, farm sizes, market infrastructure, policies; and on the other, by social attributes such as age, education, profession, gender, etc. Moreover, an important social
Food Systems and Globalization VULNERABILIT Y AND MODELLING
Source: Acosta-Michlik
fy and update his profile according to the outcome of these attribute is the social network which describes an agent’s relaactions. Agents undertake different cognitive strategies. Jager tionship with: the community, communal organizations, locaet al. [21] suggest four strategies which are based on various tion of the agent’s household and properties, distinct historical economic, social and behavioural theories – deliberation (or and cultural values, amongst others. The socio-economic maximization), repetition, comparison and imitation. These environment determines the capacity of agents to adapt to cognitive strategies were found to be appropriate for farmer both economic and climatic stresses. The biophysical environprofiles in the village ment in intervulof Amendoeira in nerability frames in Portugal [22]. Howdetail the natural ever, this may not be and physical factors the case in other case covering land use, study areas with difsoil properties, topferent socio-ecoographical features, nomic and biophysiwater resources, cal environments, so and climatic condithat alternative cogtion. A fragile physnitive strategies need ical environment is to be identified more sensitive to through social surclimatic stress. The vey. For example, socio-economic Ziervogel et. al. [23and biophysical 24] adopted specific environments, social behaviour and which comprise the cognitive strategies agent’s profile, vary for their case study not only in space, areas in Southern but also change Africa, Germany and through time. As a Figure 1. Intervulnerability framework to assess interacting Zimbabwe. The result, agents are impacts of global processes framework for interinherently heterovulnerability progeneous and reacvides new challenges in the empirical assessment of vulnerative. Each agent possesses intelligent and autonomous behavbility: amongst others, how to allow spatial and temporal links iour, but his individual profile shapes his level of intelligence to the changes in human and natural ecosystems, and how to and degree of autonomy. As such, the agent’s adaptive behavmodel reactive agents capable of adapting to these changes. iour to environmental stresses is contingent on his particular Multiagent-based models (MAB) are capable of addressprofile. For this reason, the core of vulnerability assessment ing both challenges because they “offer a high degree of flexought to be the agents that receive, perceive and process inforibility that allows researchers to account for heterogeneity mation from their environment, and not the information and interdependencies amongst agents and their environitself. In practice, information is extracted from the complex ment” [25]. A concept that originated in the computer scihuman and natural system and interpreted through the use of ences, multi-agent system tools have recently gained popusocio-economic and biophysical indicators. Indicator-based larity in geography for modelling land-use decisions and approaches thus limit analysis to generic information, which land-cover change [e.g., 26-29]. While inclined to accept the assumes a vulnerable population that is homogenous, and concept behind the tools, vulnerability experts as yet have neglects the vulnerable agents with cognitive abilities to adapt dedicated little time to explore the empirical application of to changes in their environment. Accordingly, although indiMAB models to vulnerability science. Amongst the very few cator-based approaches can inform policy about vulnerable ongoing efforts to explore the potential of these models to populations, they cannot suggest appropriate adaptation assess vulnerability to interacting impacts of climate change options for the most vulnerable people. and globalisation are: (1) work undertaken at the Université Shifting foci from generic indices to adaptive agents in Catholique de Louvain in Belgium within the EU-funded assessing vulnerability entails revision of the vulnerability VISTA project [30]; and (2) the START-sponsored pilot case concept, and application of a tool that accommodates both study of the Intervulnerability Assessment project conducted information on the environment and knowledge on the by the University of the Philippines at Los Baños [31]. The agent’s cognitive processes. The intervulnerability framework results of the models will be presented at the IHDP 6th Open suggests that an agent’s vulnerability to global economic and climate changes is a function not only of his exposure, sensitivMeeting on October 9-13, 2005 in Bonn, Germany. The novity and adaptive capacity, but also of his cognition (Figure 1). elty of such models lies in its ability to combine GIS-based Cognition is an important determinant of vulnerability biophysical maps with agent-based socioeconomic survey. because it allows the agents to receive and exchange informaBecause analysis is truly dynamic in space and time, they tion, to perceive and evaluate risks, to identify and weigh allow development of downscaled global scenarios and idenoptions, to make decisions and perform actions, and to moditification of appropriate local adaptation measures for the IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 15
Food Systems and Globalization
EASTERN EUROPE: CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION
most vulnerable groups. Whether or not the measures would help the agents to adapt to climatic and economic risks could be estimated from the outcomes of their actions. For instance, outcomes can be expressed in terms of economic gain (e.g. increased income, crop marketability), diversification rate (e.g. type, size and frequency of land use change), community integration (e.g. in-/out-migration, network build-up), and management response (e.g. yield improvement, soil quality) (Figure 1). As agents perceive and respond to risks differently, these outcomes would vary amongst agents allowing the assessment of differential vulnerability in a community. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The VISTA Project is funded by the 5th Framework Programme of the European Commission and the pilot case study
of the Intervulnerability Project in the Philippines is sponsored by the Advanced Institute on Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change of the START (SysTem for Analysis, Research and Training). We would like to acknowledge the comments of Richard Klein, and the support of Anne van Doorn and Roberto Ranola for the case studies in Portugal and the Philippines. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm L ILIBETH ACOSTA-M ICHLIK is a Senior Researcher and M ARK R OUNSEVELL is Professor of Geography, both at the Département de Géologie et de Géographie, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; acosta@geog.ucl.ac.be; rounsevell@geog.ucl.ac.be; http://www.geo.ucl.ac.be/UNITES/GEOG/index.html
CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION POLICIES WITH FOCUS ON LAND-USE IN TRANSITION COUNTRIES B Y L IVIA B IZIKOVA ➤ The transition process to democracy and market economy in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries has opened questions and made us re-think our priorities in a way we did not expect. In my opinion, the last decade was also about defining new priorities and long-term goals based on incentives coming from outside as well as inside of these countries. During the transition process, countries quickly adopted short-term priorities but the long-term goals are missing. Climate change is one among many issues in the society, which requires short-term actions, but the long-term priorities framing these actions are equally important. The need for long-term goals is even more important when we are thinking about climate change mitigation measures involving land-use and land-cover change. Land-use change, agricultural and forestry activities, and more precisely, those increasing carbon sequestration, give rise to competition over the limited resources of land, which could be used for different purposes. For the defying and selection of the effective climate change mitigation policies, it is crucial to examine and understand the driving forces of the human-induced land-use change. There are a number of factors (i.e. social, economic, environmental, cultural, historical) that determine the land-use decisions at the level of individuals and at the national level, as well. Regional differences, which are not always following general trends, have to be considered. In the case of CEE countries, their driving forces are very often different from those obtained in highly aggregated levels. In general, very low attention is paid to climate change mitigation policies, mainly because emissions in transition countries are significantly lower than the level of their Kyoto commitment. Many CEE countries assume that they have achieved emission reduction through significant economic hardship, and that the reduction is real (Tich_ & Billharz, 2000). At the 16 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
same time, the sharply decreasing agricultural production (Lerman, 2001) in CEE countries with an increasing abandonment of land opens up a space for alternative land-use practices (Nijnik and Bizikova, 2005). Marginal land withdrawn from agricultural production could be used for implementing climate change mitigation options such as carbon sequestration (IPCC, 2001). Moreover, the land can be used for planting energy crops for renewable energy production – many successful examples from the different EU Member States are available. Currently, the level of energy produced from biomass is less than 1% in CEE countries (IEA, 2003). Since we are at the beginning of formulating new land-use policies in CEE countries, it is necessary to link regional development, agricultural and energy policies with the climate change mitigation aspect. Moreover, optimal carbon offset policies must link long-term carbon sequestration priorities with sectoral policies, and the involvement of key stakeholders at the national and regional level has to be considered. Through targeted campaigns and increased participation of key stakeholders and civil society in decision-making, climate considerations can be actively mainstreamed and integrated into sectoral reforms. This strategy will address local environmental problems associated with health risks, and help in saving energy costs as well we improving governance capacity (Nijnik and Bizikova, 2005). The identification of potential categories of benefits can increase cost-effectiveness. As it is emphasized in the European Programme for Climate Change (EC, 2003) effective measures should aim at win-win situations, which will be of benefit to rural development, the environment, and economic activity. L IVIA B IZIKOVA is a Researcher at the Institute for Forecasting, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; bizikilvi@yahoo.com; www.progeko.savba.sk
Food Systems and Globalization WORKSHOP AND SCIENCE-POLICY FORUM
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE INSTITUTE ON GLOBALIZATION AND FOOD SYSTEMS A Report on the Workshop and the Science-Policy Forum nary, international groups of the participants under the guidance of international experts. The scientific workshop was structured by different thematic and organizational components. Representatives of the four oldest IHDP core projects presented the theoretical frameworks and definitions designed to study the interwoven processes of food systems, globalization and global environmental change under the question of vulnerability (GECHS), industrial transformation (IT), land-use and land-cover change (LUCC) and institutions (IDGEC). The translations of theses frameworks into research projects were illustrated by case studies. Further, Barbara Huddleston from the ESSP joint project set up to study Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) in a multidisciplinary setting, enrolled the project’s theoretical framework and illuminated the difficulties groups of multi-disciplinary scientists face when they struggle to find common definitions. All of the speakers spent a minimum of three days with the workshop group and designed and guided group activities in the afternoon. A series of evening lectures followed by a wind down talk finalized the intensive daily program. Mahendra Shah (IIASA) and Sarah Cline (IFPRI) illuminated the global interweavement of local and regional processes in questions of sustainable development and water-food linkages. Furthermore, three participants presented their advanced case studies on vulnerability and local governance. A public lecture held in Spanish by Eduardo Viola on “Market, democracy and globalization” opened the seminar to the local scientific community. Lectures and discussions related to professional development, including issues of applying for external funding, proposal writing, presentations, and networking complemented the group activities towards the end of the workshop. José Maria Gutierrez from the International Foundation for Science (IFS) and Paul Filmer from the National Foundation for Science (NSF) gave valuable insights on the elements of successful proposal writing. Mr. Fernandez Gutierrez, Costa Rica’s Minister of Science and Technology, officially opened the Science-Policy Forum on the 5th of November in San José. In his opening address he pointed to the information flow gap between science and policy underlining the absence of collective decision making to current problems. The Science-Policy Forum was hosted by Photo by: G. Nedita
➤ In many ways the International Human Dimensions Workshop in 2004 broke new grounds for IHDP’s biennial capacity building event: For the first time the workshop was held in a developing country in cooperation with a strong regional partner: the Inter-American Institute for Global Change-Research. While IHDP signed responsible as main organizer of the science workshop, IAI brought in its expertise and regional contacts to lead the organization of the SciencePolicy Forum, which was held on the penultimate day of the Institute. Furthermore, a pool of local partners hosted and coorganized the two main components of the Institute. The workshop titled “IHDP-IAI 2004 Global Environmental Change Institute on Globalization and Food Systems: Scientific Workshop and Science-Policy Forum” took place from October 24 to November 6, 2004 in Nicoya, Costa Rica. The science workshop was hosted by the Centro Mesoamericano para el Desarollo Sostenible del Trópico Seco, CEMEDE, of the Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica in the dry tropical city of Nicoya. The cooperation with a regional partner and the implementation of a science-policy component also had consequences for the composition of the group of selected participants. For the first time, about 50% of the participants came from only one part of the World – Latin America – while the rest of the group consisted of participants from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe. Additionally, not only young scientists were encouraged to apply but – and this is again novel in IHDP’s history – also policy and decision makers holding the required scientific qualifications. On the basis of an international competition a final group made up of 25 participants, including 6 policy makers, from 22 countries was chosen. The scientific leadership responsibilities were shared by Karen O’Brien (CICERO, Norway, GECHS project), Eduardo Viola (University of Brasilia, Brasil) and Robin Leichenko (Rutgers University, USA). This team designed the theoretical framework of the workshop, which focused on intersecting and interacting processes of globalization and global environmental change, and the implications for food systems (for the theoretical framework see article of K. O’Brien and R. Leichenko in this UPDATE). The envisioned outcomes of the workshop were collaborative research proposals developed by multi-discipli-
IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 17
Transformation of Utility Systems REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE
the Development Observatory (OdD) of the Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR), the National Environmental Forum (NEF) of the National Center of Advanced Technology (CENAT) and the National Academy of Science of Costa Rica (NAS-CR). Furthermore two regional organizations were represented in the Organizing Committee of the Forum: the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) and the Comité Regional de Recurso Hidráulicos (CRRH) / Sistema de Integración Centroamericana (SICA). The forum’s objective was to communicate scientific insights on the interactions between processes of globalization and global environmental change, and the implications of these interactions for food systems and food security in Central America to policy makers of the regions. Furthermore, the forum stimulated a dialogue between scientists and policy makers on the following key questions: How should scientific results be communicated to policy? How can scientific information best be used for the planning process and the formulation of sound politics? Besides the group of the science workshop about 60 representatives from local governmental agencies, national and international organizations, embassies, rural and other associations, private companies, industries, universities, and research attended the forum. An official Forum Publication is planned to be available in English and Spanish in October 2005. This publication will include all keynote talks and a summary of the forum’s discussion, synthesis and recommendations.
In many aspects the concept of the Institute proofed to be very successful: seeds were laid for the establishment of a strong network of young scientists and policy makers analysing the processes of food systems, globalization and global environmental change. Some of the participants are now eager to participate in the scientific networks of the IHDP core projects. Communication within this group is facilitated through a list server that has been set up prior to the institute. The multi-disciplinary proposal groups formed during the institute elaborated some strong proposals and the majority is keen to apply for funding to realize their ideas. Finally, two reports will be put together, describing the workshop and the Science Policy Forum as well as their outputs, respectively. These reports will be available in October 2005. A homepage for the workshop has been established, and meanwhile provides information on the event: www.iaisummerinstitutes.iai.int. We gratefully acknowledge the sponsors of the workshop: Asia-Pacific Network (APN), CEMEDE, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Social Science Council (ISSC/UNESCO), Norwegian Research Council, START and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS). M AARIT T HIEM , International Science Project Coordinator, and VALERIE S CHULZ , Research Assistant, organized the IHDW 2004 on behalf of the IHDP Secretariat; thiem.ihdp@unibonn.de; schulz.ihdp@uni-bonn.de; www.ihdp.org
SUSTAINABILITY FORESIGHT Methods for Reflexive Governance in the Transformation of Utility Systems B Y JAN -P ETER VOß ➤ Utility systems for the provision of electricity, gas, water or telecommunication are at the interface of society and nature. They interconnect broader production and consumption patterns and are thus of central importance for sustainable development. Yet, they are particularly difficult to shape. Large technical systems are intertwined with patterns of market organization, administrative institutions, user routines and policy networks. Transformation is not a matter of planning and control but of co-evolution across such heterogeneous domains. The transformation of utility systems therefore, exemplifies the limits of conventional steering approaches to achieve sustainable development. Reflexive governance forms are needed which take into account the embedding of steering activities in dynamic system contexts, and which take up uncertainty, ambivalence and distributed influence as basic features for shaping sustainable development. Sustainability Foresight represents a methodical approach to make reflexive governance operational. It is currently being probed in German utility systems. Current transformations in utility systems in almost all industrialized and many developing countries have two major dimensions. One is structural change triggered by liberalization and privatization policies which have become widespread 18 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
in the 1990s. These have set off structural adaptations across the domains of technology, market organization, political institutions and cultural meaning (i.e.development of small scale generation technologies surges as market risks demand flexibility, companies engage in cooperation and mergers, industrial associations fall victim to increasing competition among members, regulatory institutions are gradually strengthened to guarantee non-discriminatory access to networks, freedom of the customer choice gains importance where public service was long a dominant value orientation) (Patterson 1999; Schneider 2001). The other dimension is represented by a widely recognized need to shift utility systems towards sustainability, and by respective measures for efficient resource use, climate protection, regulation of technological risks, empowerment of consumers etc. (Kemp 1996; van Vliet 2002; Elzen et al. 2004). Changes in both dimensions work together in softening up utility regimes that have been stable for decades (Hofman, Marquart 2001). The current situation of flux thus opens a window of opportunity for the establishment of sustainable patterns of utility provision. At the same time, however, new path-dependencies could emerge and inhibit sustainable change for the decades to come. These can, for example, arise from long-lasting (re-)investments in plants
Transformation of Utility Systems REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE
and facilities, from a dismantling of transmission networks in course of radical decentralization (which would then impede solar electricity import) or from vested interests which buildup around new utility structures as they become established. A topical question, therefore, is how emerging socio-technical configurations such as decentralized generation of electricity and drinking water, information technology based facility management services or new regulations of network infrastructure interact within broader transformation processes, how they can be assessed with respect to sustainability, and by which strategies they can be shaped.
for system analysis, goal formulation and strategy implementation (see Table 1). They generally imply an opening up of cognitive and institutional frameworks in order to work productively with indeterminacy and possibility of unintended effects. Recent governance innovations in various practice domains indeed reflect these requirements (Voß et al. 2005a).
CO-EVOLUTION AND REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE
Development of utility systems and related sustainability impacts are determined by the interaction of many heterogeneous facTable 1: Strategy requirements for reflexive governance tors such as market strategies of companies, consumer attitudes, public debate, political institutions, technical accidents, environmental indicators etc. SUSTAINABILITY FORESIGHT: ORGANIZING SOCIETAL SEARCH PROCESSES FOR (Hughes 1987; Norgaard 1994; Schneider, Werle 1998). These SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT factors follow their own contingent dynamics; at the same time they interact and influence each other. Transformation can therefore be understood as a co-evolutionary process: its Sustainability Foresight represents an operationalization overall dynamics result from intertwined feedback circles of these requirements into a concrete procedure for shaping rather than linear cause-effect relations (Geels 2002; Konrad et sectoral transformation processes. It is currently being al. 2004). Any steering actor, be it government officials or corprobed in the German utility system (for more information porate managers, is herself embedded in and part of these see www.mikrosysteme.org). The general approach is to dynamics (Rip 1998). Against this background the efficacy of organize future-oriented learning among actors who do simple steering approaches which assume predictability of systransformation in the field of production, consumption or tem dynamics, non-ambivalent goals and concentrated steerpolitical regulation. Starting point are their expectations ing powers is severely reduced. They entail unintended effects about the future which work as a “narrative infrastructure” which can grow out to new and more severe “second order that enables and restricts agency in the presence – for example problems” (cf. acid rain following high chimney policies by promising return on investment in particular technologies against local air pollution, or repercussions of the “green revoor threatening social protest against certain policies (van lution” in agriculture) (Beck 1994; Becker et al. 2001). This is Lente, Rip 1998; Deuten, Rip 2000). Sustainability Foresight because they do not practically acknowledge the specific feaexplicates, scrutinizes, assesses and evaluates partly implicit tures of steering for sustainable transformation (Voß, Kemp expectations about transformation dynamics and draws new 2005): implications for strategic action (Grin, Grunwald 2000). This • Transformation processes are complex, self-organizing is achieved by confronting particular actors’ perspectives on and comprise human action. They are not fully compretransformation with each other, thereby de-constructing hensible and predictable. Uncertainty and ignorance about them into the underlying assumptions, and re-constructing future system development and effects of interventions are them into a shared reflexive perspective which comprises the unavoidable. diversity of factors, possible meanings and values that under• Sustainability goals (based on criteria for long-term vialie transformation (Grunwald 2000). Such a perspective canbility of socio-ecological systems) cannot be unequivocally not be unequivocal but must comprise uncertainty and determined. Operationalizing sustainability requires a deliambivalence. A “reflexive vision” of sustainable paths of cate balance of multiple goals which are weighed differenttransformation thus includes several alternative future scenarly by actors. ios with specific sustainability assessments. These assessments • Capacities to influence transformation are distributed may include areas on which actors have diverging opinions. among many autonomous, yet interdependent actors. Such an outlook does not justify powerful measures to There is no central control, but transformation is an emerenforce particular innovations but requires careful experigent result of interaction. mentation with a portfolio of strategy options (Küppers If these features are unavoidable, how can transformation 1994; Weber 2005). Sustainability Foresight thus provides a processes be shaped for sustainable development? As a first procedure to frame societal search processes for sustainabilistep, requirements for reflexive governance can be derived ty. The particular steps are clustered in three phases (for an from scrutinizing particular problem features, which appear overview see Table 2). IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 19
Transformation of Utility Systems REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE
vation, regulation and development of alternatives, or monitoring and conflict resolution. A key characteristic of Sustainability Foresight is to link experiments for shaping particular innovation processes with a reflexive vision of future transformations. Societal learning takes place, as experimentation with specific innovations demonstrates new possibilities and impacts and leads into a revision of broader transformation scenarios and their assessment – which in turn alter the perception of critical innovation processes and call for a reorientation of strategic experiments (cf. Grin et al. 2000; Kemp, Rotmans 2001; Truffer et al. 2003).
Table 2: Overview on the Sustainability Foresight Process Phase I: Explorative scenarios The first phase comprises the identification of key factors of influence in the transformation process, the exploration of contingencies in their development and mutual interplay and the construction of four alternative scenarios of the future utility systems. The process is carried out as a series of scenario workshops with 20 participants who represent a diversity of perspectives from production, consumption and regulation in the problem domain (Ringland 1998: 195). Differences in actors’ conception of reality are made transparent, a range of possible future development paths is explored and technological, institutional and cultural innovation processes which may become decisive for alternative structures in the future are identified (for example “development of smart building applications”, “self-generation of utility services” or “network regulation”). Phase II: Discursive sustainability assessment The second phase comprises the elicitation of evaluation criteria which are applied by different stakeholder groups to assess the sustainability of utility systems, the determination of impacts of the alternative scenarios on these criteria by an interdisciplinary team of experts, and the discursive assessment of transformation paths with respect to opportunities and threats for sustainable development by stakeholders (Renn et al. 1993). The result of the assessment phase is a map of the “societal evaluation landscape” which includes threats and opportunities on which actors’ evaluations converge as well as developments on which evaluations diverge. In combination with Phase I these hint at critical innovation processes, which form starting points for differentiated shaping strategies. Phase III: Strategic experiments The third and last phase focuses on actions to shape critical innovation processes. Critical innovations of technological as well as institutional type are first analysed with respect to actor networks and context factors, which shape their further development. For each innovation process, micro-scenarios are constructed which are embedded in the macro-scenarios from Phase I. This serves to identify branching points, bottlenecks, thresholds or other process stages at which they are particularly mouldable (Rip, Schot 2001). These prospective innovation studies form the basis to develop strategic experiments with stakeholders. Depending on the evaluation of innovations as an opportunity, threat or potential area of conflict, experiments follow different orientations: either promotion of inno20 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS AND OUTLOOK
The probing of Sustainability Foresight in the German utility sector has gone half its way. The process started off with a review of discourses on the future of utility systems. This showed three dimensions along which actors’ expectations converge: (1) System structures are going to be more decentralized than today, (2) utility provision will show a stronger service orientation, with dissolving boundaries between supply and demand, and (3) organizational and technical linkages between electricity, gas, water and telecommunications will become more intensive. These dimensions opened up an exploration space in which alternative developments were investigated through scenario workshops in Phase I. Four resulting scenarios portrayed a more ambivalent picture than suggested by general discourse. Decentralization, for example, was differentiated into a technological and an organizational dimension. Across the four scenarios, plausible developments could be identified, which comprised various combinations, for example, technological decentralization combined with highly centralized forms of market organization. Stakeholders who participated in the process valued the opportunity to stand aside and collectively reflect on broader contexts of their daily work without being constrained by professional role requirements. So far, the method has proven robust for implementation. A final evaluation can only be given after completion of the process. Already now, however, Sustainability Foresight offers new perspectives to think about and experiment with reflexive governance arrangements by which intricate paradoxa of steering in context with co-evolutionary dynamics can be turned to a fruitful tool for the societal search for sustainable development. This is where some of the most fundamental challenges for the human dimensions of global environmental change can be found. The author would like to give credit to Bernhard Truffer, Kornelia Konrad and René Kemp who co-authored papers on which this article is based (Voß, Kemp 2005; Voß et al. 2005b). The research behind this article is enabled by grants under the Socio-ecological Research Programme at the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education. R EFERENCES to this article are included on the IHDP website at www.ihdp.org/updatefood05/references.htm J AN -P ETER VOß is Policy Analyst and Project Leader at the Öko-Institut – Institute for Applied Ecology, Berlin, Germany; j.voss@oeko.de; www.oeko.de; www.sustainable-transformation.net
National Committees/InBrief CHINA/NEWS
IHDP GETS A STRONG FOOTHOLD IN CHINA ➤ Upon approval of the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST) and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China (MOST), the Chinese National Committee for the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (CNCIHDP) was established on 30 August 2004 in Beijing. Chair of the CNC-IHDP is Dr. Liu Yanhua, Vice Minister of Science and Technology of China (MOST). Dr. Ge Qangsheng is the Secretary General of the CNC-IHDP. The Chinese National Committee for the IHDP is formed by 69 scientists, experts and scholars. Among them are 7 academicians from the China Association for Science and Technology and 2 academicians from the Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE). The establishment of CNC-IHDP reflects the strong interest in the human dimensions of global environmental change research in China, responding to an increasing concern on how to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation and develop sustainable pathways. The CNC-IHDP has set up working groups for all IHDP core research and ESSP joint projects, with a particular focus on: Urbanization and Health, Industrial Transformation, Human Security/Vulnerability, Land as well as Coastal Zones. A Chinese scientist, Xiaopei Yan from the Municipal Government of Shenzhen and of Zhongshan University, Guangzhou, has been invited to join the Scientific Steering Committee of the new IHDP core project Urbanization. Also, all of IHDP’s publications and documents are in the process of being translated into Chinese. The CNC-IHDP website is up and can be accessed both in Chinese and English: www.ihdp-cnc.cn. The CNC-IHDP, as a full member of IHDP, has expressed its strong interest to establish a dialogue between IHDP and
CNC-IHDP and to get actively involved in IHDP’s development by, for example, making Chinese research available to the international community. In order to get the ball rolling, a meeting was held in Beijing on 20 February 2005, between Barbara Göbel, Executive Director of the IHDP Secretariat, the Chair Liu Yanhua and the Secretary General Ge Qangsheng. Thomas Krafft, Scientific Secretary of the German National Committee on Global Change Research and Karen Seto from the Urbanization Scientific Steering Committee and the Health study group also participated in the meeting. The meeting comprised the cooperation and further Plan of Action between IHDP and CNC-IHDP, and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. Besides the contribution of the membership fee to the IHDP Secretariat, further immediate activities resulted from the meeting. This summer, CNC-IHDP will delegate two scholars to Bonn for assisting IHDP’s activities and enhancing the cooperation between CNC-IHDP and IHDP. Also, CNCIHDP will participate with a strong Chinese delegation in the 6th Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community, to take place in Bonn from 9 to 13 October 2005. Coleen Vogel, Chair of the IHDP Scientific Committee, has formally invited Liu Yanhua, Chair of the CNC-IHDP and Vice Minister of MOST, to give a keynote address at the 6th Open Meeting. Furthermore, CNC-IHDP has indicated a strong interest to host and support a regional IHDP Conference in China in 2006. At the last IHDP Scientific Committee Meeting which took place in Bonn, 21 – 23 March 2005, Chairs and leaders of the IHDP Core Projects welcomed this event and expressed their intention to make use of this conference to establish further links of cooperation with China.
IN BRIEF ➤➤➤ Workshop on the crosscutting theme “Vulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation” – Over the last couple of years IHDP has developed into a broad and widely recognized platform coordinating and fostering research on global environmental change. Therefore, the IHDP Scientific Committee found at its annual meeting in 2004 considered it a timely exercise to take stock and analyse in a number of fields what IHDP has achieved up to now. It was decided to engage in a mid-term review process of the programme's main contributions to key questions of global environmental change, thereby providing a solid base for further developments in this field of research. One component of this process is the analysis of the IHDP ‘cross-cutting theme’ on “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptation”. A number of SC members took the lead in organizing this process, which started off with a workshop on “Key Challenges for Human Dimensions Research” from 9-12 February 2005 at the Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA. Several presentations included contribution on the state-ofthe-art of research in the fields of ‘vulnerability’ (by Neil
Adger), 'adaptation' (by Barry Smit), and 'resilience' (by Lin Ostrom on behalf of Carl Folke). Other input explored the linkages between the three concepts and the structure of the research networks involved in each of them. The participants intensively discussed the implications of this work for the IHDP and the research on global environmental change in general. While one group began to work on a paper on some of the fundamental scientific challenges emerging from this field of research, another group explored the policy and practice arena and began to reflect on the science-practice process by means of case study analysis. The outcomes of these discussions will be presented at the 6th Open Meeting in Bonn, Germany, and submitted for publication in a special edition of the Journal “Global Environmental Change”. ➤➤➤ Modelling Workshop – The presentation of the new modelling components of IGBP (AIMES – Analysis, Integration and Modelling of the Earth System) and WCRP (COPES IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 21
In Brief NEWS
– Coordinated Observation and Prediction of the Earth System) at the IHDP Scientific Committee meeting in 2004 triggered a discussion on a distinctive IHDP agenda in the field of modelling. The IHDP set up a “task force” to help developing an innovative perspective and a strategy beneficial to the objectives of the core projects. In February 2005 the IHDP organized an exploratory workshop on “Modelling SocioEnvironmental Systems” in Tempe, AZ, USA. This workshop brought together a small group of renowned scholars for an intensive open discussion on the epistemological, conceptual and methodological challenges of modelling complex societyenvironment interactions. For example, current approaches to modelling were evaluated in the light of these challenges, in order to identify appropriate points of departure for IHDP contributions to this field. As one product from this workshop a joint journal paper is under preparation to set the stage for further developments and discussions. ➤➤➤ Vulnerability, Risk Assessment and Disaster Management – Among the recent activities promoted by the IHDP were a number of meetings to establish closer links between the scientific communities working on vulnerability and global change and those communities working on risk assessment and disaster management (including the work and approaches of agencies in development co-operation on disaster risk management and prevention). A meeting at the UNU-Research and Training Center for Environment and Human Security (Bonn, Germany) in January 2005 brought together a number of representatives from relevant organizations for an exchange of experience and information. An informal panel presentation and reception hosted by the UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA) and organized together with the IHDP Secretariat offered the opportunity to follow up on these initial talks. It focused on DEWA's Environment and Conflict Prevention Initiative and was held in Bonn in March 2005, back to back with the SC-IHDP Meeting. Other follow-up actions include workshops co-organized with UNEP as well as with the German Committee for Disaster Reduction (tentatively scheduled for June 2005). ➤➤➤ IHDP SC members Gilberto Gallopín and Carlo Jaeger have finished their terms in December 2004. We would like to thank them for their work and valuable inputs for IHDP! At the same time, we are welcoming three new SC members as of December 2004: Katrina Brown, Roberto Guimaraes and Gernot Klepper. Katrina Brown is Professor of Development Studies at the University of East Anglia. She specializes in environment and development issues, including environmental policy and decision-making, conservation and development. She is a researcher at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on 22 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
the Global Environment and co-manages the Programme on Environmental Decision-Making. She contributes to research in “Climate and Development” and has published numerous esearch articles in a wide range of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Roberto Guimarães is Chief of the Social Analysis and Policy Section of the UN Social Perspectives on Development Branch. He has been a key player in international summits and is well into the international development scene. He is author of close to 200 publications on political development and the formulation of social and environmental policies in Latin Roberto Guimarães America, where he has worked for the UN Economic Comission of Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and also for the Brazilian Government. One of his outstanding publications is The Ecopolitics of Development in the Third World (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991 and 1994). Gernot Klepper is Head of the Department “Environmental and Resource Economics” at the Kiel Institute for World Economics in Kiel, Germany. He is an economist with modeling expertise. His main research interests are environmental and resource allocation problems with a special focus on policy instruments and interdisciplinary model development. Gernot Klepper is also co-chair of the German National Committee on Global Change Research and a member of the High-level Network of Leading Economists to the Director of the Environment Directorate of the EU and the European Environment Agency. Recent publications include ‘Trading Hot Air: The Influence of Permit Allocation Rules, Market Power, and the U.S. Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol’ (2005, in Environmental Resource Economics).
➤ The IHDP UPDATE newsletter features the activities of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and its research community. ISSN 1727-155X UPDATE is published by the IHDP Secretariat Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany. EDITOR: Ula Löw, IHDP; loew.ihdp@uni-bonn.de LAYOUT AND PRINT: Köllen Druck+Verlag GmbH, Bonn+Berlin, Germany UPDATE is published four times per year. Sections of UPDATE may be reproduced with acknowledgement to IHDP. Please send a copy of any reproduced material to the IHDP Secretariat. This newsletter is produced using funds by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the United States National Science Foundation (NSF). The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the position of IHDP or its sponsoring organizations
Calendar/Publications NEW BOOKS
NEW BOOK The Causes and Progression of Desertification By Helmut Geist This book provides an examination into the causes and prospects of desertification through a systematic review of 132 sub-national case studies. It uses a meta-analytical model to determine whether proximate causes and underlying driving forces fall into any patterns, to identify mediating factors, feedbacks, cross-scalar dynamics and typical pathways. It shows a limited set of recurrent core variables in varying combinations to drive desertification. Most prominent root causes are climatic factors, institutions, national policies, population growth and remote economic influences that lead to local cropland expansion, overgrazing and infrastructure extension, associated with desertification as a potential but not necessary outcome. Some factors are geographically robust; most of them are region and time specific. Ashgate, UK 2005, 258 pp, ISBN 0-7546-4323-9, £47.50 Hardback
Climate Change in Contrasting River Basins – Adaptation Strategies for Water, Food and Environment By J.C.J.H. Aerts and P. Droogers (Eds.) Dealing with climate change is generally considered to be one of the greatest challenges for the coming decades. Changes in precipitation are likely to have a major impact on the hydrological cycle and subsequently on the environment and food production. However, until now clear guidance on how to respond to this challenge, particularly at the river basin level, has been lacking. This book has been developed from the ADAPT project, focusing on the development of regional adaptation strategies for water, food and the environment in river basins across the world. A generic methodology is presented and applied to seven case studies in contrasting geographical areas of the world: Mekong (SE Asia), Rhine (Western Europe), Sacramento (USA), Syr Darya (Central Asia), Volta (Ghana), Walawe (Sri Lanka) and Zayandeh (Iran). The book provides a unique contribution and will interest researchers in climatology, geography, ecology, agriculture, environmental studies and related disciplines. CABI, UK 2004, 264 pp, ISBN 0-85199-835-6 Special discount price £44.00 (US$80.00) (Normal price £55.00 / US$100.00) for UPDATE readers. To obtain your discount simply quote reference JBQ20 when placing your order by phone, fax, email or via the online bookshop: www.cabi-publishing.org/bookshop
System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability – Theory, Evidence and Policy By Boelie Elzen, Frank W. Geels and Ken Green (Eds.) How do system innovations or transitions (i.e. transport, energy) come about and how can they be influenced by different actors, in particular by governments? The authors identify the theories which can be used to conceptualize the dynamics of system innovations and discuss the weaknesses in these theories. They also look at the lessons which can be learned from historical examples of transitions, and highlight the instruments and policy tools which can be used to stimulate future system innovations towards sustainability. Marston, UK 2004, 336pp, ISBN 8437-683-3, £69.95 Hardback
MEETING CALENDAR ➤➤➤ 5–9 April – Denver, Colorado, USA 2005 Meeting of the Association of American Geographers www.aag.org/annualmeetings/index.cfm ➤➤➤ 7 April – Bern, Switzerland 6th Swiss Global Change Day www.proclim.ch/events/6thSGCD.html#objectives ➤➤➤ 19–20 April – Brussels, Belgium Third Annual Brussels Climate Change Conference – CEPS & EU Conferences Focus: Transport & Aviation ➤➤➤ 19–21 April – New York City, USA 16th Global Warming International Conference www.globalwarming.net/gw16-announcement.asp ➤➤➤ 24–29 April – Vienna, Austria European Geosciences Union – General Assembly 2005 www.copernicus.org/EGU/ga/egu05/index.htm ➤➤➤ 5–27 May – Nijmegen, The Netherlands 3rd International Symposium on Flood Defence www.isfd3.nl/ ➤➤➤ 23–27 May – New Orleans, USA The 2005 Joint Assembly of the American Geophysical Union www.agu.org/meetings/sm05/?content=program ➤➤➤ 7–8 June – Helsinki, Finland 11th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference www.tukkk.fi/tutu/conference2005/ ➤➤➤ 13–16 June – Honolulu, Hawaii 4th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Social Sciences www.hicsocial.org/ ➤➤➤ 21–23 June – Oslo, Norway International Workshop on Human Security and Climate Change www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/ ➤➤➤ 27–29 June – Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands Coasts and Coastal People – Scenarios of Change and Responses www.loicz.org IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005 | 23
Addresses
CONTACT ADDRESSES IHDP SECRETARIAT • IHDP Secretariat: Barbara Göbel, Executive Director Walter-Flex-Strasse 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-739050 Fax: +49-228-739054 ihdp@uni-bonn.de www.ihdp.org
IHDP CORE PROJECTS ➤ GECHS • Global Environmental Change and Human Security
c/o Maureen Woodrow Executive Officer GECHS International Project Office Dept. of Geography & Environmental Studies, Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada gechs@carleton.ca www.gechs.org
IDGEC • Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change ➤
c/o Heike Schröder, Executive Officer IDGEC International Project Office 4526 Bren Hall, Bren School of Env. Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA schroeder@bren.ucsb.edu IDGEC@bren.ucsb.edu http://fiesta.bren.edu/~idgec/
IT • Industrial Transformation ➤
c/o Anna J. Wieczorek, Executive Officer IT International Project Office Institute of Environmental Studies De Boelelaan 1087 1081 HV Amsterdam The Netherlands Anna.J.Wieczorek@ivm.vu.nl http://130.37.129.100/ivm/research/ ihdp-it/index.html
LOICZ • Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium lucc.ipo@geog.ucl.ac.be www.geo.ucl.ac.be/LUCC
JOINT ESSP PROJECTS ➤
LUCC • Land-Use and Land-Cover Change ➤
Centre for Research on Natural Resources and the Environment (CNM) CNM, Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden calle@system.ecology.su.se
GECAFS
• Global Environmental Change and Food Systems c/o John Ingram, Executive Officer GECAFS International Project Office, NERC-Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford OX 10 8BB, UK jsii@ceh.ac.uk www.gecafs.org
GCP • Global Carbon Project
➤
c/o Pep Canadell Executive Officer GCP International Project Office, CSIRO Canberra, Australia Pep.Canadell@csiro.au www.globalcarbonproject.org
GWSP • Global Water Systems Project
➤
c/o Eric Craswell, Executive Officer International Project Office GWSP Center for Development Research Walter-Flex-Str. 3 53113 Bonn, Germany Eric.Craswell@uni-bonn.de
IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (SC) Chair • Coleen Heather Vogel
➤
Dept. of Geography & Env. Studies University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg, South Africa vogelc@geoarc.wits.ac.za
• Roberto Guimarães United Nations Division for SocialPolicy and Development New York, NY, USA guimaraesr@un.org
• Gernot Klepper Kiel Institute of World Economics Kiel, Germany gklepper@ifw-kiel.de
• Tatiana Kluvankova-Oravska Institute for Forecasting Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava, Slovak Republic tatiana@progeko.savba.sk
• Sander van der Leeuw Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA vanderle@asu.edu
• Elinor Ostrom Center for the Study of Institutions, Population & Environmental Change Indiana University Bloomington, IN, USA ostrom@indiana.edu
• Xizhe Peng Institute of Population Research Fudan University Shanghai, P.R. China xzpeng@fudan.edu.cn
• Hebe Vessuri Department of Science Studies, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas, Venezuela hvessuri@ivic.ve
• Paul L.G. Vlek Vice Chair • Roberto Sánchez-Rodríguez
➤
UC-Mexus, University of California Riverside, CA, USA roberto.sanchez-rodriguez@ucr.edu
➤
c/o Hartwig Kremer and Martin Le Tissier LOICZ International Project Office P. O. Box 59, 1790 AB, Den Burg, Texel, Netherlands loicz@nioz.nl www.loicz.org
• Carl Folke
• Katrina Brown School of Development Studies University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK k.brown@uea.ac.uk
• Geoffrey Dabelko Environmental Change and Security Project (ECSP) Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington D.C., USA dabelkog@wwic.si.edu
c/o Helmut Geist, Executive Officer LUCC International Project Office University of Louvain Place L. Pasteur 3
24 | IHDP NEWSLETTER 1/2005
Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany p.vlek@uni-bonn.de
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS IHDP SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ➤ ICSU • Gordon McBean
Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada gmcbean@fes.engga.uwo.ca ➤
ISSC
• Lourdes Arizpe Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Cuernavaca, Mexico larzipe@correo.crim.unam.mx
➤ DIVERSITAS • Michel Loreau
École Normale Superieure Laboratoire d'Écologie Paris, France loreau@ens.fr
IGBP • Guy Brasseur ➤
Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology Hamburg, Germany brasseur@dkrz.de
START (alternating) • Sulochana Gadgil ➤
Indian Institute of Science & Oceanic Sciences Bangalore, India sulo@caos.iisc.ernet.in
• Graeme I. Pearman CSIRO Atmospheric Research Aspendale, Australia graeme.pearman@dar.csiro.au ➤ WCRP • Peter Lemke
Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany plemke@awi-bremerhaven.de ➤ GECHS • Michael Brklacich
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies Carleton University Ottawa, Canada mbrklac@ccs.carleton.ca
IDGEC • Oran R. Young ➤
Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA, USA young@bren.ucsb.edu ➤ IT • Frans Berkhout
Director, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands Frans.Berkhout@ivm.vu.nl
LOICZ • Liana Talaue McManus
➤
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA lmcmanus@rsmas.miami.edu ➤ LUCC • Eric Lambin
Dept. of Geography University of Louvain Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium lambin@geog.ucl.ac.be
Printed on 100% recycled paper