Climate Scientists Unlock Secrets of ‘Blue Carbon’

/by

Results from soil survey could bolster efforts to monitor and protect wetlands around the globe.

Author: Jeff Tollefson | Published: January 9, 2018

Tidal wetlands come in many forms, but they could be more alike below the surface than anyone realized. Whether it’s a mangrove forest in Florida, a freshwater swamp in Virginia or a saltwater marsh in Oregon, the amount of carbon locked in a soil sample from each of these coastal ecosystems is roughly the same.

That’s the surprising message from a new analysis of some 1,900 soil cores collected around the United States during the past few decades. “In terms of carbon stocks, all tidal wetlands are very, very similar,” says Lisamarie Windham-Myers, an ecologist with the US Geological Survey (USGS) in Menlo Park, California, who is leading a 3-year, US$1.5-million assessment of coastal carbon funded by NASA. “The variability that everybody expected just doesn’t exist.”

Her team presented its findings last month in New Orleans, Louisiana, at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union; the researchers plan to publish data from 1,500 soil cores online as early as this month, and hope to release information on the remaining 400 later this year.

The discovery could bolster efforts to assess and protect the world’s coastal wetlands. These ecosystems accumulate vast stocks of carbon that are released into the atmosphere when wetlands are destroyed. Development alters some 800,000 hectares of coastal wetlands around the world each year, sending roughly 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — double the carbon emissions of Spain in 2016.

Blue carbon

Over the past decade, scientists and policymakers have pushed to protect the carbon stored in coastal wetlands, known as blue carbon. The goal is to address climate change while protecting ecosystems that sustain fisheries, improve water quality and protect coastlines against storms. But raising money to support such efforts often requires determining precisely how much carbon these ecosystems hold, and how it accumulates over time.

Windham-Myers’s team reanalysed raw data from some 1,500 sediment cores collected over the past several decades, and 400 newer samples. The data showed a clear relationship: the density of soils decreased as the fraction of carbon in those soils increased, and vice versa. As a result, the amount of carbon in any given cubic metre of soil remained roughly the same, regardless of differences in vegetation, climate, topography or water chemistry across blue-carbon ecosystems.

KEEP READING ON NATURE COMMUNICATIONS

Fire Ecology’s Lessons for a More Resilient Future

/by

In the wake of California wildfire’s mass destruction, ecologists see radical hope in regeneration.

Author: Leilani Clark | Published: January 4, 2018

A few times a year, Edward Willie tends to the last remaining dogbane patch in Sonoma County. Situated on a three-acre preserve bordering Highway 101 in northern Santa Rosa, the patch is estimated to be centuries old and once spanned a five-mile radius. Neighboring tribes—mainly Pomo and Wapo—cultivated the fibrous, stalky native plants to make cordage for hunting and fishing nets and other tools.

In October, the Tubbs Fire burned hot and fast through the preserve on its way to hopping the six-lane highway, leaving behind a scorched landscape of Himalayan blackberry roots and the black skeletons of wild plum trees and coyote bush. Yet, for the most part, the dogbane survived. In some formerly vegetation-choked areas of the preserve, the spindly plants are all that remain.

“The dogbane needs fire—that’s what makes it grow tall and strong,” says Willie, a native Pomo, Walaeki, and Wintu teacher and a core organizer of the Buckeye Gathering, an annual nature-based, paleo-technology meeting in Northern California. Researchers have found that dogbane sproutsquickly after fire and can become more abundant. Burning actually stimulates new, straight growth.

Less than a mile away from the preserve, block after block of ruined homes, businesses, and cars stand as a reminder of the conflagration that wreaked havoc across three Northern California counties. Despite the scope of the tragedy, Willie sees regeneration and even radical hope in the region’s fire ecology.

“It’s a happy [dogbane] patch now,” he says, as he demonstrates how to peel the taut fibers from the plant’s stalk. “It’s filled with life. New sprouts are already coming up. It’s a California plant, a fire plant. It was made to survive this.”

There is no silver lining to a fire like those that struck Sonoma and Napa counties in October, or the still-burning Thomas Fire in Southern California, which has burned 281,900 acres to become the largest California wildfire in modern recorded history. But for people like Willie and Erik Ohlsen, an ecological designer and director of the Permaculture Skills Center in Sebastopol, the North Bay fires are a wake-up call, a chance to proactively address the way the plants and animals of Northern California, and most of the Golden State, have co-evolved with fire—and to rebuild these communities with fire in mind.

Others go further, saying that poor planning and land management practices turned a natural feature of chaparral landscapes into a catastrophic force, leaving in its wake $3 billion in estimated damages. The city of Santa Rosa alone has already blown through $5 million from their general fund to fight the fires and the massive recovery effort has just begun.

KEEP READING ON CIVIL EATS

Harvest Carbon from the Air

/by

Soil stewards can impact a changing climate by rebuilding soil to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

Author: Raylene Nickel | Published: December 22, 2017

Carbon is as precious as gold to plants. Working with water and sunlight, carbon makes plants grow. Plants assimilate carbon in the form of carbon dioxide, extracting it from the air to make roots, shoots, and leaves. With the help of soil microbes, the plants then transfer the carbon to the soil through roots and decomposing residue.

The stable storage of this carbon below ground not only builds soil organic matter and improves future crops but also, like a pressure valve, relieves the atmospheric carbon buildup.

CARBON BENEFITS

The benefits of this plant-driven harvesting of carbon from the air extend far beyond the farm and ranch gate.

“If we were able to increase the carbon in the soils of the world by sequestering 3.6 gigaton of carbon per year [1 gigaton equals 1 billion tons], we could offset or negate the additional effects of climate change that will be caused by future increases in carbon dioxide released by the fossil fuel use of a growing world population,” says Rattan Lal. Lal directs the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University.

“It is this assumption that was the basis of the 4 per Thousand program initiated at the Climate Summit in Paris in December 2015,” he says. “The strategy of this program is to sequester carbon in soils of the world at the rate of 0.4% per year in the top 16 inches of soil. Implementing such a program would require appropriate policies to encourage farmers to adopt the recommended management practices.

“Globally, the release of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use is 10 gigaton, and it goes up annually,” says Lal. “The U.S. accounts for about 18% to 20% of that amount. In the U.S., the per-capita rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere is going down but rising globally. Global warming has resulted from the increasing levels of carbon in the atmosphere. This is causing an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, and hurricanes.

“Estimates of the total potential of carbon sequestration in world soils vary widely, and this potential is finite in capacity and time,” says Lal. “Nonetheless, soil carbon sequestration buys us time over the next 20 to 50 years until the low-carbon or no-carbon alternatives to fossil fuel take effect.”

The capacity for soil to sequester carbon is finite, because it’s limited to the soil’s original capacity to store carbon. Agricultural use over time has caused soil to lose carbon. Restoring soils to their original states accounts for the global potential for carbon sequestration.

“The potential soil carbon sink capacity of managed ecosystems approximately equals the cumulative historic carbon loss estimated at 55 to 78 gigaton,” says Lal. “Some recent estimates indicate the historic loss as high as 130 gigaton. Restoring carbon stock in world soils by 130 gigaton would be equivalent to a drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide by about 65 parts per million. Such an achievement could happen in 50 to 100 years.”

KEEP READING ON SUCCESSFUL FARMING

Forest Gardening with Space and Place for Wild Elephants

/by

Date Published: January 11, 2018 | Author: Michael B. Commons

In my collaboration with Terra Genesis International, I have been given space and support to investigate what we may call “Regenerative Pathways” looking at real life examples of functional farming systems that we can identify as being on the “Regenerative Agriculture Pathway.”

While these farms/farming systems might be called “Regenerative Farms,” we see regeneration more as a long term process and continuum that we can evaluate through indicators such as soil health, water retention, biodiversity, community health and more.

Of particular interest for us is to look at farms/ systems that are producing “key economic crops” as so much of our land area is now dominated by “economic crops” and these crops’ link to larger trade systems. With such a link there is the possibility to develop collaborative relationships to support regenerative practices and systems between farmers, consumers and intermediaries.

My wife and I, for many years, have been active members of the Thai Wanakaset (Agroforestry and Self-Reliance) network, which has a number of farmer members who live at the edges of natural forest reserves with wild elephant populations. For most Thais in this situation, as well as farmers with whom I have spoken from Sri Lanka and Bhutan, this relationship and interaction is much more confrontational.

Generally, forest and wild areas are being reduced and transformed into farming monocultures, while the Thai wild elephant population is actually increasing seven percent a year, according to a recent Thai PBS article. 

From my own observations living in this area around the Eastern Forest of Thailand, most all of the small marginal wild areas that served many species of wildlife have been removed in the last decade (converted to farmland or other uses). Therefore, the elephants are increasingly going out of the preserves and national parks to farms for food.

From what I have learned talking with those who live in and around the elephants, these four-legged beings are incredibly intelligent and adept learners, so they have learned and adapted to eat many new foods, like pineapples, corn and rice. My colleagues have told me that elephants can choose to politely harvest from fields rather than to destroy them. Yet for most Thai farmers, they don’t accept any such sharing of their harvest. Thus, the greater focus has been on converting to crops that elephants don’t like to eat, or using measures to prevent their entry or scare them away.

Kanya shows banana trees next to her home that they have planted for the elephants. If the elephants are courageous to show themselves so close they can enjoy the banana stalks- which is what usually happens. Photo Credit: Michael B. Commons.

The Wanakaset members of Pawa subdistrict, Chantaburi, have taken a very different path. They have developed diverse forest garden systems that allow space and place for wild elephants. Their farm environments have many different plants that the elephants can eat without needing to take or destroy the family’s key crops. The stories these farmers tell are also quite amazing and inspiring. It seems that the elephants are completely aware of what the forest gardeners are doing and the lands they manage. They hold this coexistence in regard, coming regularly into these shared spaces and largely respecting the crops the humans ask to be left alone, while they enjoy other crops and places provided for them.

In my deeper vision of “Regeneration,” I believe we need to heal the divide between humans and non-humans, and that humans can be stewards of lush gardens that provide valuable yields for humans and food and habitat for other living beings. As elephants are such a key species with great power, including the power to destroy, that we can find examples of a peaceful, balanced co-existence, gives much hope.

Thus I decided to embark on a journey to learn more from my farmer colleague, Ms. Kanya Duchita, to understand and share with others.

Kanya Duchita and her parents are students of Pooyai Viboon and practitioners of “Wanakaset,” the philosophy and system of organic agroforestry and self-reliance that he taught. Wanakaset, like permaculture, is a design system that reflects the land, situation, needs, skills and interests of the people involved. The process should arrive at some form of an integrated forest garden system that meets the needs and interests of the farmer/gardeners who live in it and who guide its evolution. The land and climate of Pawa are favorable for wet tropical fruits (durian, mangosteen, langsat, rambutan) and rubber. Kanya’s family land sits very close to Khao Chamao National Park, a healthy forest with a large number of resident wild elephants.

Michael Commons (MC): “Kanya you once told me that you practice Wanakaset because you are a lazy person. Can you really be lazy and practice Wanakaset (forest gardening)?

Kanya Duchita (KD): “The work of Wanakaset is light work all of the time, compared to conventional farmers who need to work very hard in periods, having to rush to complete their work. As forest gardeners we just need to do some light work and observation all of the time.”   

“As we work a bit all of the time, you might say we are not lazy, and we can choose to do more management and get better yields and returns, but at the same time our trees take care of themselves. If we just leave them alone they will be fine and we will still be able to harvest from them.”

“We also have many diverse resources in our forest gardens during the whole year. Herbs such as bamboo grass (for heavy metal detoxification), Chamuang leaf (Garcinia cowa for heart disease and weight loss), we can harvest and process any time. That is, if we want to spend the time to harvest and process them. Even with fruits which are seasonal, we can sell fresh, but also process them for more value.”

A Mapram (Garcinia species) growing to the right of a productive rubber tree. This medicinal fruit tree came naturally once this rubber plantation was allowed to become a rubber forest. Photo Credit: Michael B. Commons.

MC: “As I see most tropical fruit orchards are integrated and have durian, mangosteen, langsat, and rambutan, how does your garden differ?”

KD: “As forest gardens we integrate more, like fiddle head ferns, pak wan pa (Melientha suavis) and different types of gingers and herbs that can live under the shade of these trees. We also plant pepper vines (black and long pepper) to directly climb up our trees. Most farmers would plant these separately, but we just let them grow up our trees and don’t provide any other care. This is methodology derived from laziness.”

“Most fruit gardeners don’t like to have other trees around their durian trees as it can make harvesting (catching) the durian difficult. But we have observed that with this mix the soil quality is better and holds moisture much longer—meaning in dry season we need to water much less than conventional farmers, and when tropical windstorms come through we don’t lose branches from our durian trees.”   

“Wild elephants are a big part of the reason we choose to practice forest gardening, if we only grow fruits (that we harvest and sell), then the elephants often come and eat this fruit and damage the trees. But in our very integrated system, we have many other trees with foods that elephants also enjoy to eat at the edges of our land, like bamboo and fishtail palms, which we do not mind at all if they eat. We have learned a lot from experience what is the best way to garden that can work for us and the elephants who are our neighbors and also come into our gardens.”

MC: “You grow rubber as well, which we normally see only as a monoculture, but you have it in a very integrated garden system, does this affect yields?”   

KD: “The yield (in rubber) per tree is not really different than in chemical plantations, but very different in terms of costs (much lower). In transitioning (to organic) we used manure for four or five years but since then did not need any fertilizer at all. Many older wild plants and trees came back after we stopped using herbicide. This includes wild vegetables, wild fruits, herbs and hardwoods. These produce valuable yields for us on top of the rubber. Now we are expanding our focus and cultivation of Mapram—a wild forest fruit related to mangosteen—which does very well in the shade of the rubber and is increasingly valued. (probably Garcinia hombroniana)”

“So in some cases we have allowed the forest to come back under our rubber plantations—now rubber forests—but we also have planted rubber along with other species in integration from the start: sator beans (Parkia speciosa), boon nak, jantana (wood used for incense), dipterocarpus and ginger species, in between the rows of rubbers. In this case the rubber production is good for the whole year except for a break in the driest months, and then we have other valuable yields, such as sator-tree beans. My older brother also harvests many seeds for propagation as seedling trees to sell. The rubber yield is as good as others obtain with no use at all of fertilizer (including organic fertilizers beyond the first years). This rubber forest is still organized in rows and easy to enter and harvest.”

A section of rubber integrated into a fruit and herb forest.  Photo Credit: Michael B. Commons.

MC: “How about native biodiversity and wildlife?”   

KD: “All three of our gardens have good edible mushrooms growing with them, mycorrhizal and termite mushrooms. There are many birds everywhere and of many different species. These birds also help us in propagation—they have seeded rattan and pak wan (a delicious edible perennial vegetable) all around and brought some unusual varieties to our garden from afar. We also have many squirrels who do eat and sometimes damage our fruits. While many other gardeners shoot squirrels, we just leave damaged and unattractive fruit for them on the trees.”

MC: “What about snakes as I have heard many rubber growers say that snakes are a threat harvesting in the very early morning?”

KD: “While snakes can be scary, I don’t really feel we have more snakes, and maybe even less problem as it seems they have their own space to live and be apart from humans (in our garden) and don’t bother us.”

With Kanya, we see three gardens types showing three different pathways to integration.

  1. Fruit forest, with rubber and herbs. This was their existing tropical fruit orchard—still with strong valuable productive fruit trees like durian. In some areas, they then added rubber trees into this mix as well bringing in and allowing many smaller herbs, vines and more to be under, on and around the trees. While there is ample space for access (and even to allow elephants through) the rubber is not at all in rows and the feel is like a mature forest.
  2. Rubber forest: Let the rubber plantation evolve into a rubber forest—allow herbs, wild fruits and trees to come back. This seems like the easiest path towards regeneration, allowing Mother Nature and her helpers to take to the task. It is clear from what Kanya explained that there are seed and root reserves under and around always, so just by stopping the use of herbicide and allowing the forest to come back, it will. Birds also clearly play a key role in propagation. Then the gardener just manages to allow and support what comes, and removes what is not convenient or of particular interest or ready to be harvested.  
  3. Strip intercropping: Plant rubber trees in rows (7-8 meters between rows—according to best practices such a distance is needed for good production in any case—being closer creates too much competition between the rubber trees and less yields) and in between plant a row of different forest and fruit trees that do well in a garden forest environment and provide yields that the farmer/gardener knows how to use. This seems like the best path if starting fresh, however; Kanya and her family have developed a lot of knowledge and experience both in what grows well together, and in the different uses of many different species of trees, fruits and herbs. While the Duchita family shares their knowledge freely and encourages other to practice forest gardening, even someone without such contacts and with little experience can try and plant different trees and herbs that are interesting and may do well, but then observe, learn and evolve (with) his/ her forest garden over time.

From an economic basis, this system wins on many levels: less cost, less work, no less yield in the key economic crops (rubber and tropical fruits), and far greater diversity of total yields. While there are many other indicators, just the peaceful co-existence of the wild elephants in these forest gardens is proof of their ecological success. Most farmers do not appear to be prepared to accept living in and around diverse forest systems with wildlife; adoption is quite low. However, the third method explained above could be easier to accept and adopt for someone who wants an organized and orderly system.

Another Wanakaset farmer who lives not too far away, Ms. Kamolpatara Kasikrom, explained to me more about elephant behavior.  She said that resident elephants are territorial and spread out to different areas to feed. For a given territory, about one to three elephants will manage and eat from it. It seems clear that the forest gardens are considered by the elephants to be part of their managed territory, whereas most all farms where humans try to keep elephants out are not part of their territory. The greatest damage from elephants can come when a large herd transmigrates. Resident elephants will protect their territories from such herds and the damage they can bring. No such protection is offered to an unfriendly parcel. While elephants are exceptionally intelligent beings, I believe this may touch to the very core of both our problem and the solution. Here we see that if we consider our land not to be exclusively ours, but also to belong to the many other lifeforms, and we manage it accordingly, these other beings will come to hold the same vision and practice, also working to manage the land for sustainable health and productivity.

***

About the author:

Michael B. Commons lives with his family in Chachoengsao, Thailand where they practice Wanakaset (forest gardening and self-reliance) and are active in the Wanaksaet Network. For over twelve years he has worked with Earth Net Foundation to support small-scale farmer groups and associated supporting organizations from South and Southeast Asia to develop organic and fair trade supply chains, regenerate ecological and community health, and build their resilience capacity. Two years ago he joined Terra Genesis International to use his skills to help link and assist concerned and innovative companies, their consumer networks and farmers’ groups to collaborate in developing regenerative pathways together.

Video: 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

/by

Published: April 24, 2018

Almost 50 years ago, fried chicken tycoon David Bamberger used his fortune to purchase 5,500 acres of overgrazed land in the Texas Hill Country. Planting grasses to soak in rains and fill hillside aquifers, Bamberger devoted the rest of his life to restoring the degraded landscape. Today, the land has been restored to its original habitat and boasts enormous biodiversity. Bamberger’s model of land stewardship is now being replicated across the region and he is considered to be a visionary in land management and water conservation.

WATCH MORE VIDEOS FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC HERE

Video: 50 Years Ago, This Was a Wasteland. He Changed Everything | Short Film Showcase

/by

Published: April 24, 2018

Almost 50 years ago, fried chicken tycoon David Bamberger used his fortune to purchase 5,500 acres of overgrazed land in the Texas Hill Country. Planting grasses to soak in rains and fill hillside aquifers, Bamberger devoted the rest of his life to restoring the degraded landscape. Today, the land has been restored to its original habitat and boasts enormous biodiversity. Bamberger’s model of land stewardship is now being replicated across the region and he is considered to be a visionary in land management and water conservation.

WATCH MORE VIDEOS FROM NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC HERE

In a Hard Year for Sustainability, Here Are Some of the Bright Spots for 2017

/by

Despite the U.S.’s Paris Accord exit and plenty of negatives for the environment there are reasons to hope.

Author: Mary Pols | Published: December 24, 2017

When it comes to protecting the planet and fighting to turn back the ticking clock on climate change, 2017 has not been pretty. In fact, if we listed everything that happened that will likely harm the environment, you’d get depressed. But around Maine in the course of this year, there were many positive actions and events in the world of sustainability.

This is not to downplay the impacts of the United States leaving the Paris Accord, the agreement by pretty much the entire rest of the globe to reduce emissions and fight climate change together. Or what it means to have a person like Scott Pruitt, a lawyer with an extensive history of suing the Environmental Protection Agency to halt federal regulations, heading an agency designed to protect the environment (it’s right there in the name).

But given the bad news rampant in 2017, we wanted to emphasize some tidings of good cheer on Christmas Eve.

OUT OF THE WOODS

It was a nail biter of a year for the new Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. In June, the new U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, charged by the Trump administration with reviewing 27 national monuments designated since 1996, toured the monument. Designated as a national monument in August 2016 by President Barack Obama after years of debate over its future, Katahdin Woods and Waters represents an 87,500-acre gift from the family of Roxanne Quimby, the co-founder of Burt’s Bees. It’s been controversial. Gov. Paul LePage dislikes it intensely; he once dismissed the region the monument is in as Maine’s “mosquito area.”

In August, leaks of a draft report suggested that Zinke would support the brand-new monument, but some speculated that he might push for logging beyond forest management. Earlier this month, with the release of Zinke’s final report, that speculation was put to rest: He supports the monument and no logging will be allowed.

KEEP READING ON THE PORTLAND PRESS HERALD

“Cuatro por 1000”: Preguntas Apremiantes

/by

Autor: Ronnie Cummins | Publicado: Octubre, 2017 

Pregunta Uno: ¿Qué es la Iniciativa “Cuatro por 1000: Suelos por la Seguridad Alimentaria y Clima” lanzada por el gobierno francés en la Cumbre Climática de París en diciembre de 2015?

Respuesta: “Cuatro por 1000: Suelos por la Seguridad Alimentaria y Clima” es un plan global y acuerdo para revertir el calentamiento global, la degradación del suelo, el deterioro de la salud pública y la pobreza rural al aumentar prácticas regenerativas de uso de suelo, agricultura y alimentación. La agricultura regenerativa y la restauración de ecosistemas a gran escala puede preservar cualitativamente y mejorar los suelos, pastizales, bosques y humedales; mientras se reduce y reabsorbe, a través de la fotosíntesis mejorada de las plantas, miles de millones de toneladas de carbono sobrante de la atmósfera durante los siguientes 25 años en nuestros suelos y biomasa. En términos más simples, 4/1000 hace un llamado a la comunidad global para bajar lo más que se pueda de CO2 de la atmósfera (y dejar de emitir otros gases de efecto invernadero) como actualmente lo estamos haciendo.

Pregunta Dos: ¿Cuántos países y regiones del mundo han firmado la iniciativa 4/1000?

Respuesta: Aproximadamente 40 países y regiones del mundo ya han firmado la iniciativa 4/1000, junto con cientos de organizaciones de base de la sociedad civil. Los proponentes de 4/1000 esperan que la mayoría de las naciones, regiones y ciudades firmarán la iniciativa antes de que ésta década termine, para cumplir con sus obligaciones INDC (Contribuciones Previstas y Determinadas a Nivel Nacional, por sus siglas en inglés) bajo el Acuerdo Climático de París. Algunos de los países que ya han firmado son: Francia, Alemania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Costa de Marfil, Dinamarca, Finlandia, Hungría, Irlanda, Japón, Marruecos, México, Nueva Zelanda, Polonia, Portugal y Uruguay.

Pregunta Tres: ¿La iniciativa 4/1000 propone que podemos revertir el calentamiento global y alimentar al mundo sin reducir de manera drástica las emisiones de combustible fósil?

Respuesta: No. Los proponentes de la iniciativa 4/1000 creen que necesitamos lograr tanto cero emisiones de combustibles fósiles como la absorción máxima de CO2 excedente de la atmósfera durante los siguientes 25 años.

Pregunta Cuatro: ¿Por qué esta iniciativa global se llama “Iniciativa Cuatro por 1000?

Respuesta: 4/1000 se refiere al porcentaje promedio de aumento del carbono en el suelo que necesitamos conseguir cada año durante los siguientes 25 años para estabilizar al clima y revertir el calentamiento global. Un aumento de 4/1000 en la cantidad de carbono almacenado en los suelos del mundo (actualmente 1.5-2.5 trillones de toneladas, dependiendo de a qué profundidad se mida el carbono) durante los siguientes 25 años, combinado con cero emisiones de combustibles fósiles, nos permitirá reabsorber suficiente carbono adicional (150-250 mil millones de toneladas, o 6 a 10 mil millones de toneladas al año) en nuestros suelos y bosques para regresar a la atmósfera al nivel pre-industrial (280 ppm de CO2) que necesitamos para estabilizar al clima, aumentar la fertilidad del suelo, mejorar la salud pública, asegurar la soberanía alimentaria, reducir el conflicto mundial y revertir el cambio climático.

Pregunta Cinco: ¿Es realmente posible alcanzar la meta de absorción de 4/1000 de carbono al reabsorber 6-10 mil millones de toneladas de carbono al año, y continuar haciendo esto durante los siguientes 25 años?

Respuesta: Sí, es posible con prácticas agrícolas, alimenticias, ganaderas y de uso de tierra (incluyendo la silvicultura) regenerativas a nivel global, reabsorber 6-10 mil millones de toneladas de carbono al año. Los 22 mil millones de acres de tierra agrícola, pastizales y bosques de la Tierra – aún en su actual estado actual degradado – ya están reabsorbiendo una red de 1.5 mil millones de toneladas de carbono anualmente; mientras que millones de agricultores y ganaderos orgánicos o en transición, a través del uso de mejores prácticas, ya están reabsorbiendo mucho más de 4/1000 por ciento adicional de carbono de suelo cada año, algunos casi 600 veces esta cantidad.

Pregunta Seis: ¿Cuál es el rol de los consumidores, agricultores y otros sectores al cambiar a un sistema regenerativo de alimentos, ganadería y uso de tierra?

Respuesta: Los alimentos, agricultura y uso de tierra regenerativos requerirán de una transformación radical en la consciencia y hábitos de compra entre una masa crítica de 3-4 mil millones de consumidores de alimentos y fibra en el Norte y el Sur global. Los consumidores globales deben dejar de gastar trillones de dólares en alimentos químicos, OGM, y provenientes de una agricultura industrial con uso intensivo de energía; carne, lácteos y pollos de granjas industriales; alimentos altamente procesados y empaquetados; y deben eliminar el desperdicio de alimentos.

Revertir el cambio climático y alimentar al mundo también requerirá de una transformación en las prácticas de producción liderada por una masa crítica de los 500 millones de agricultores familiares, 200 millones de pastores y 50 millones de grandes agricultores existentes en el mundo. Los métodos de la agricultura regenerativa incluyen: manejo holístico y pastoreo de ganado planeado rotacionalmente; labranza cero; evitar químicos y OGMs; uso de cultivos de cobertura; agro-reforestación; uso de composta, estiércol y biocarbono; y uso de plantas y perennes de raíces más profundas.

Comunidades forestales y pesqueras, propietarios de hogares, paisajistas y agricultores urbanos también juegan un papel importante. Existen aproximadamente mil millones de productores de alimentos y agricultores urbanos en áreas urbanas.

Pregunta Siete: ¿Los alimentos y la ganadería regenerativa son lo mismo que la agricultura orgánica, agroecológica o el pastoreo rotativo?

Respuesta: No. La mayoría de los practicantes de métodos orgánicos, agroecológicos y de pastoreo rotacional, certificados o no, pueden ser descritos como “potencialmente Regenerativos”, ya sea que una minoría de estos ya están en “transición a lo Regenerativo.” Existen un número de términos usados para describir prácticas agrícolas y ganaderas ecológicas incluyendo agroecología, agroreforestación, permacultura, biodinámica, manejo holístico o pastoreo, agricultura de conservación, orgánico y otros. Aunque todos estos sistemas agrícolas apoyan prácticas de conservación de suelo en cierto grado, la comida y ganado verdaderamente Regenerativos pone énfasis en maximizar la salud del suelo, la absorción de carbono y la biodiversidad como su foco central.

Pregunta Ocho: ¿Cuáles son las mayores fuerzas detrás del calentamiento global e inestabilidad climática? ¿Qué rol juegan la agricultura industrial, la ganadería industrial, las semillas OGM, el procesamiento de alimentos y su empaquetado, el desperdicio de alimentos y el consumismo en la emisión de gases de efecto invernadero y la degradación de la habilidad del suelo y bosques para reabsorber carbono y mejorar la biodiversidad?

Respuesta: Si miramos de cerca al proceso completo (generalmente llamado la “huella de carbono”) de la alimentación, ganadería y uso de tierra global, nuestro sistema actual de alimentación y fibra químicamente y OGM intensivo, industrial, globalizado, desperdiciador, y altamente procesado produce un alarmante 44-57% de todas las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, incluyendo CO2, metano y óxido nitroso. https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5100-la-soberania-alimentaria-5-pasos-para-enfriar-el-planeta-y-alimentar-a-su-gente.

 De esta cifra de 44-57%, la mayoría de las emisiones provienen de los 50 millones de granjeros y grandes granjas industriales con uso intensivo de químicos y OGMs, que controlan 75% de la tierra agrícola y producen 30% del alimento del mundo. Estos números contrastan ampliamente con las 500 millones de granjas de agricultores familiares y 200 millones de pequeños pastores que cultivan y pastorean animales en 25% de su tierra, y que a su vez producen el 70% del alimento del mundo.

En términos de categorías de alimentos y ganadería las emisiones de gas de efecto invernadero de la cifra de 44-57% se reparte de la siguiente manera:

  • uso directo de petróleo y gas en agricultura: 11-15%
  • deforestación 10-15%
  • transporte 5-6%
  • procesamiento y empacado 8-10%
  • congelado y venta por menudeo 2-4%
  • desperdicio 3-4%

Nunca llegaremos a cero emisiones de combustible fósil/gases de efecto invernadero (GEI), mucho menos a la capacidad de reabsorber una masa crítica de exceso de CO2 atmosférico, sin una transformación fundamental y completa de nuestro sistema alimenticio, agrícola y de uso de suelo completo.

Pregunta Nueve: ¿Cuál es la participación en el mercado actual de la alimentación y agricultura regenerativa contra la degenerativa?

Respuesta: Los consumidores globales que viven más allá del nivel de subsistencia mínimo (aproximadamente 50% de la población mundial), a diferencia de los aproximadamente tres mil millones o más que viven en el nivel de subsistencia, gastan actualmente $7.55 trillones de dólares en comida, gran parte de la cual es producida por las 50 millones de granjas grandes del mundo, que practican ganadería y agricultura degenerativa, en lugar de regenerativa.

Claro está que gran parte de los 700 millones de agricultores y pastores de subsistencia también usan químicos, pastorean a sus animales de manera inadecuada, debilitan la fertilidad del suelo, y destruyen humedales y bosques bajo las presiones de la pobreza y falta de acceso a buena tierra, asistencia técnica, financiamiento, mercados y otros recursos.

75% de todos los alimentos que se venden hoy en el Norte Global, son alimentos procesados, con bajo valor nutricional; mientras que casi la mitad de los alimentos producidos en total son ya sea desperdiciados o se sobreconsumen. Los costos ocultos de nuestro sistema de alimentación degenerativo y de agricultura son impactantes, con un estimado de $4.8 trillones en gastos anuales por daños sociales, de salud y ambientales. (ETC Group, ¿Quién alimentará al mundo? 2017)

Hay muy poca producción de alimentos y fibra hoy que pueda ser genuinamente descrita como 100% regenerativa. En términos de menos degenerativa o potencialmente en “transición a Regenerativa,” la comida orgánica certificada globalmente (o no certificada), alimentada a base de pastoreo y alimentos producidos sustentablemente es considerada menor a un trillón de dólares.

Pregunta Diez: ¿Qué importa más en términos de redirigir la alimentación, el pastoreo y el uso de suelos hacia un camino regenerativo: las políticas públicas o la demanda del mercado?

Respuesta: Ambas son esenciales. Hasta ahora, la demanda de mercado y la supervivencia de la agricultura tradicional y las prácticas de crianza de ganado están impulsando la regeneración y el potencial regenerativo de los alimentos, la agricultura y el uso de suelo. El apoyo hacia la producción orgánica y de pastoreo ha aumentado en varias regiones, especialmente en los Estados Unidos y Europa. En algunos países por ejemplo, la mayor parte de la producción de carne es 100 % de pastoreo (Australia y Uruguay, por ejemplo) y por lo tanto es al menos semi-regenerativa.

Desafortunadamente, la mayoría de los países del mundo da más de 600 mil millones de dólares anualmente a la agricultura industrial, los OGMs, las exportaciones globalizadas y las granjas industriales. Solamente un pequeño porcentaje de los subsidios gubernamentales se destina a lo orgánico, de libre pastoreo o lo que podría llamarse, prácticas de transición a lo regenerativo.

A largo plazo necesitaremos tanto la presión de los mercados como también miles de millones de dólares destinados a políticas y financiamiento público para que la gran mayoría de los 750 millones establecimientos agrícolas se muevan en una dirección regenerativa, de la misma manera necesitaremos llevar a cabo proyectos de restauración de ecosistemas, reforestación y preservación de humedales.

Pregunta Once: ¿Cómo pueden los consumidores conscientes y la actual minoría de campesinos regenerativos, agricultores y aquellos que hacen un apropiado uso de suelo lograr que se les una más gente?

Respuesta: Para lograr una transición que vaya del consumo y las prácticas de producción degenerativas hacia regenerativas, será necesario educar a los consumidores, agricultores y los gestores de suelo sobre los beneficios ambientales, sociales, económicos y climáticos de la alimentación, agricultura y uso de suelos regenerativos, combinados con asistencia técnica gratuita, capacitación e incentivos fiscales.

En cada zona, región y país deberán identificase las mejores prácticas y practicantes, y deberá dárselas a conocer. También necesitaremos establecer proyectos pilotos regenerativos, brindar educación de campesino a campesino y aumentar el financiamiento y las reformas de políticas públicas.

Pregunta Doce: ¿Cuántos campesinos, pastores, rancheros y gestores de suelo están llevando a cabo prácticas regenerativas o potencialmente regenerativas en lugar de degenerativas?

Respuesta: Existen 2.5 millones de granjas orgánicas certificadas en 120 países que pueden ser tipificadas como potencialmente regenerativas o en transición hacia lo regenerativo. Existen también unas 10-20 más que están cultivando de manera orgánica (aunque no están certificadas) y y proveen para sus familias y los mercados locales.

La organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura estimó que 25-50 millones de las 750 millones de las granjas están usando prácticas tradicionales y sustentables y podrían hacer la transición hacia prácticas regenerativas si contaran con la asistencia técnica y financiera suficiente.

Pregunta Trece: ¿Qué porcentaje de consumidores y agricultores deberán adoptar prácticas de consumo y producción regenerativas si queremos alcanzar las metas de la Iniciativa 4 por 1000?

Respuesta: Centrándonos en los 25-50 millones de agricultores “potencialmente regenerativos”, debemos lograr que estos productores sustentables transiten hacia un modo completamente o casi completamente regenerativo durante los próximos cinco años (2017-2022). A la vez, debemos lograr que otros 50 millones pasen de prácticas químicas o degenerativas a prácticas de transición o regenerativas (orgánicas, fueren o no certificadas, de pastoreo, agroecológicas, de permacultura). Luego tenemos que duplicar este ritmo entre 2022 y 2027, de manera que en 10 años tengamos 100 millones de productores regenerativas y otros 100 millones de productores en transición hacia lo regenerativo.

Para 2032 necesitamos acelerar este proceso para que la mayoría de los agricultores, pastores y gestores de suelo (aproximadamente unas 400 millones de granjas y ranchos) realicen prácticas regenerativas o casi regenerativas. Durante este mismo período, entre 2017 y 2032, deberemos lograr una rápida transición hacia energías 100 % renovables y cambiar la forma en que piensan y compran los consumidores.

Todo esto implica una gran presión de mercado sobre las corporaciones de alimentos y fibras, para que sus cadenas de suministro pasen de degenerativas a regenerativas e implica también cambios fundamentales en las políticas gubernamentales adoptadas por ciudades, regiones, estados, agencias internacionales e instituciones de financiamiento.

Pregunta Catorce: ¿Cuáles son los principales obstáculos para alcanzar la iniciativa 4 por 1000?

Respuesta: Los principales obstáculos para lograr las metas de la iniciativa 4/1000 son:

  • Falta de conocimiento público no solo de la Iniciativa 4/1000, sino también de las perspectivas de uso de suelo, agricultura regenerativa y captura de carbono en general.
  • Los gigantescos subsidios impositivos de la mayoría de los países controlados por corporaciones que usan prácticas degenerativas de alimentos, agricultura, y uso de suelo.
  • La falta de unidad y cooperación entre los movimientos ambientales, climáticos, de paz, democráticos, de justicia social, de salud natural y de alimentación tanto dentro como fuera de las fronteras de los países.
  • La falta de financiamiento y de políticas públicas que apoyen iniciativas regenerativas tales como 4/1000.

Todos estos impulsores de la degeneración están relacionados con el control corporativo de la economía nacional e internacional y la corrupción intrínseca en los procesos políticos.

Pregunta quince: ¿Cómo puedo convencer a mi organización, ciudad, país, o provincia para que sea parte de la Iniciativa Cuatro por 1000?

Respuesta: Necesitamos crear grupos estratégicos y coaliciones a nivel organización, local, municipal, estatal/provincial y nacional. En las mismas deben participar los movimientos agrícolas, ambientales, por la paz, la democracia, la salud natural, la alimentación, y la justicia. Sumado a esto, debemos accionar los movimientos de base y la educación para que los gobiernos a nivel nación, estado/provincia, municipal y local suscriban la Iniciativa 4/1000 y apoyen para que haya un cambio significativo en las dinámicas de presión de mercado y las políticas públicas.

Pregunta Diéciseis: ¿Dónde puedo encontrar más información sobre la alimentación, agricultura y uso de suelos regenerativos, para que pueda convertirme en un activista e imppulsor de la iniciativa?

Respuesta: Visite el sitio de Internet de Regeneration International. www.RegenerationInternational.org

Revise los recursos en línea de Bio4climate.org.

https://bio4climate.org/resources/compendium/

Pregunta Diecisiete: ¿Cómo puedo saber más acerca de la iniciativa 4/1000?

Respuesta: Visite el sitio de Internet 4/1000 de la iniciativa. https://4p1000.org/

Lea esta breve guía de políticas. https://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/climate/ClimatePolicyBrief4.pd

How You Can Help Fix the Global Water Crisis

/by

Humans may be depleting our water supply, but innovative methods say there’s a way to replenish it.

Author: Elaina Zachos | Published: December 27, 2017

The average American directly uses about 2,000 gallons of water each day. Your morning shower takes 17 gallons of water and growing the coffee beans for your cup of joe took upwards of 34 gallons. It takes 13 gallons of water to generate one gallon of gas, which adds up on your commute to work or school. The desktop computer you’ll sit at for a good portion of the day took about 7,300 gallons of water to make.

Before lunch, you’ve used up thousands of gallons of water. (Use this calculator to figure out your water footprint.)

Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project and former National Geographic Society Freshwater Fellow, demystifies humanity’s obsession with water in her new book Replenish. When National Geographic caught up with her in New Mexico, she explained how people are coming up with innovative ways to conserve water before we run dry.

The book begins in a Colorado canyon. Can you describe the scene?

The opening of the book describes a trip up through a canyon known as the Cache la Poudre. There had been a fire in this canyon the previous year, so you could see the blackened trees. I was heading to a family wedding, an outdoor wedding, and it looked like it was going to just start to pour at any minute. I was contemplating the sky. The wedding happened OK, but this was the beginning of a deluge that produced an enormous amount of flooding. Because the trees had been burned so recently, there was just a lot of erosion and a lot of tree trunks moving down through that canyon.

I opened the book with this story because I was there to see the canyon right before this happened but also to indicate that the combination of wildfires and flooding and drought is coming together. We’re moving into a very different period where the past is not going to be a very good guide for the future.

KEEP READING ON NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

Growing Value for Wool Growers

/by

An economic feasibility study and new business model

Author: Stephany Wilkes | Published: May 25, 2017

[pdf-embedder url=”https://regenerationinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Growing-Value-for-Wool-Growers.pdf” title=”Growing Value for Wool Growers”]
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE PDF