THE WORLD AFTER 2020: MBendi South Africa

In August 2008 I wrote about Wangari on our blogs. I recently decided to expand on that thought process and refocus on her efforts in Africa.

A couple of years ago I attended a stirring speech given by Wangari Mathaai, then little-known Kenyan winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. At the time I thought that the reason she had been awarded the prize was simply because she had founded a women's movement in East Africa which had planted more than six million trees. After her speech, I was little the wiser. It was only when I read her wonderful biography, Unbowed, recently that I discovered the real reason for the prize.

As East Africa's first woman with a Ph D she had taken on a very male chauvinist, highly corrupt political establishment. First she had prevented a major park in the centre of Nairobi being used to build a privately owned office block and later she was instrumental in overturning the sale of a state forest to a developer of upmarket housing. In between she planted trees, uplifted women and fought both the bureaucracy and bad farming practices. For her sins, she was physically attacked, arbitrarily arrested, faced privations in prison, ridiculed in the press and parliament and ostracized. But she persevered and today Kenya is a much greener country than it might otherwise have been.

Her book is really in two parts, with the second part given over to her fights with the powers that be. In the early chapters she paints a beautiful picture of growing up in rural Kenya - the family home and village life but most of all growing crops and vegetables. One thinks of traditional African peasants as ignorant, but they understood the soil and the climate, the plants and the animals, the insects and the old fig trees that protected the springs of gushing water. In a very sensitive way, she also describes her father's life as a worker on the farm of a white settler at the time of the Mau Mau rebellion.

Both parts of Dr Mathaai's book have resonated with me recently as I have contrasted UN forecasts of the world's undernourished growing by 40 million people to 963 million people this year and prices of staple foods up 15% or more in just the last eight weeks with news reports of new agricultural projects being started in Africa. Just a couple of months ago there was the story about how South Korea's Daewoo had been allocated 1.3 million hectares of Madagascar, a chunk the size of a small European country, to grow food for the home country; last week it was a Wall Street banker who had signed a deal with a Sudanese warlord for 400,000 hectares of land alongside the Nile; and this week it was Lonrho taking over a block of 25,000 hectares of sparsely populated land in Angola.

For a couple of years now we have been reading of biofuels projects springing up in Mozambique especially, but also Tanzania. In Sierra Leone, Addax Petroleum, with the support of the national government, is to set up a 20,000 hectares sugar cane plantation together with an ethanol distillery/factory would produce more than 1,200,000 litres of ethanol per year and a 30 MW power plant that would be able to supplement Bumbuna. The project will employ 4,000 people. All across Africa, commercial farmers are growing sugar and tobacco, two of the biggest contributors to health problems worldwide.

As I read about all these projects - and with Dr Mathaai's words ringing in my ears - I find myself asking questions. Why was the land not already being used for agricultural production when Africa is so chronically short of food? Who really owns the land being used for the projects - the national government, the tribe or the individual families living on it? What is going to happen to the people currently living on the land? Will those given jobs really earn enough to live a better life than they enjoyed before? Will the country and community really be better off or is it the offshore investors who are the only beneficiaries? More than anything, I wonder whose pockets and offshore bank accounts are going to bulge even further as a result of these projects?

If all this sounds like just another African bad news story, let me end with a ray of hope. After years of drought and famine, the government of Malawi, against the wishes and so-called better judgment of the donor community, set up a scheme to distribute seeds and fertilizer at subsidized prices to small farmers. The result is that today Malawi produces more food than it consumes and earns foreign currency from exporting to the countries round about. What we really need is for Africans to use African land to fill African stomachs first, then foreign stomachs in exchange for filling the bank accounts of the local farmers who did all the hard work.

Incidentally, if you go searching the Internet for information on the African agricultural sector, you will find there is plenty of information on agricultural aid to the continent, but precious little about who produces how much of what. So our researchers have started pulling together all the pieces of this tricky jig-saw puzzle, starting with paulownia elongata, which you canread more about at www.paulownianow.org. We'll keep you posted as they update more of our pages. Some other useful links to further stimulate your thinking about where the world is going.Tags: reforestation, Africa, Wangari, Wangari Mathaai, Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel Prize, Africa, reforestation, fertilizer, biomass, paulownia

Powered by Qumana

Planting Trees Saves Cash, Research Confirms

Emily Sohn, Discovery News Tags: global warming, reforestation, environment, ecology, paulownia, agriculture

Jan. 22, 2009 -- Plant a tree: Save 25 bucks. Researchers in California have found that planting trees in strategic locations around your house can lower your summertime electricity bill by that much or more.

The concept is common sense: Extra shade reduces the need for air conditioning. But this is the first study to use actual utility bills to nail down the details of where trees should be placed to help people chip away at their environmental footprints -- and their budgets.

"Nobody says we're going to cure global warming just with urban trees," said lead researcher Geoffrey Donovan, an economist at the Portland Forestry Sciences Lab in Oregon. "But they're one of the nicer ways of doing it."

For the new study, Donovan and colleague Dave Butry, an economist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, looked at 460 single-family homes in one neighborhood of Sacramento, Calif.

Using Google Earth, the researchers looked down on each house from above. They measured the diameter of all tree crowns in three zones: 20, 40, and 60 feet away from the building, and in four directions: north, south, east and west.

Based on the distances of the trees from the buildings and the sizes of their crowns, they calculated where shadows would be cast at various times throughout the day.

The electric company provided copies of each home's electric bill, while the county gave data about factors that might affect electricity use, including house size, lot size, and whether the house had a pool. A computer model then controlled for these variables to see whether trees had an effect on summertime energy use above and beyond those factors.

The study, in press at the journal Energy and Buildings, found that people used about 5 percent less electricity (about $25 less) during the summer when they had trees within 40 feet of their home's south side or within 60 feet of its west side.

Late in the day, when temperatures are highest and people are more likely to turn on the A/C, trees cast longer shadows, which explains the bigger buffer zone on the house's west side.

These findings gave real-world support for the results of previous, more theoretical work.

Unexpectedly, when trees sat on a house's north side, electric bills went up. The result might be a statistical anomaly, Donovan said. But he speculated that blocked breezes or the need for more lighting could also explain the finding.

Over a 100-year period, the scientists calculated, planting a London pine tree on the west side of a Sacramento home could reduce the house's net carbon use by 30 percent -- half through sequestering by the tree and half through reduced electricity use. Financial savings will increase, Donovan added, as utility companies start charging more for electricity at peak times of day.

It's probably worth planting trees around your home, agreed Jim Simpson, a meteorologist at the Center for Urban Forest Research in Davis, Calif., despite the costs of buying trees and taking care of them. But the specifics of which trees to plant and where to plant them will likely differ in places that are colder, wetter, or otherwise different from the steaming valleys of California.

"In the Sacramento area, air conditioning is a fairly big thing, and we have mild winters," Simpson told Discovery News. "It would be a good idea to do this sort of study in other climate zones where heating is a bigger deal."

One of the fastest growing shade trees in the world is paulownia elongata which can grow an amazing sixteen feet a year offering shade and energy savings in as little as two years. For more information on paulownia you may refer to the web site www.paulownianow.org

Powered by Qumana