The global aviation industry is responsible for 12% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from transport. Conventional aviation fuel is derived from either oil, coal, or gas, all of which are major culprits of global warming. To honour their sustainability commitments, an increasing number of airlines are transitioning to Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) to reduce their carbon footprint. Accelerating the uptake of SAF requires a combination of structural upgrades as well as supportive fiscal and policy measures. 

—

Considering the hundreds of thousands of planes that take the sky each day, it might be surprising to many that the global aviation industry is responsible for “only” 12% of the total CO2 emissions generated by the transport sector. However, the aviation industry is projected to experience significant growth, with experts estimating annual passengers to rise to 6.9 billion by 2035. 

As more people migrate to cities for economic opportunities, the demand for air travel will only increase. Recognising this, the aviation sector has already committed to halving CO2 emission levels by 2050 relative to 2005 levels, during a pledge made in 2019. 

At COP26 in Glasgow, the aviation industry also pledged to “advance ambitious actions to reduce aviation CO2 emissions at a rate consistent with efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C.” Developing and scaling Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is a key step that can help the aviation sector to reduce their emissions.

What Is Sustainable Aviation Fuel?

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is an alternative fuel source derived from a variety of feedstocks, and it differs from traditional jet fuel because it does not use sources such as oil, coal or gas. SAF feedstock sources range from cooking oils and municipal waste to food scraps and energy crops. 

The aviation industry specifically chose to use the phrase “sustainable” aviation fuel to highlight its commitment to sourcing feedstock sustainably as there have been instances where the cultivation of feedstock for biofuel has adversely affected the environment. For example, deforestation and land use change have occurred in certain areas to create more land to cultivate energy crops for biofuel production. 

Secondly, the term “biofuel” is not used because there are some types of SAF that may be derived from non-biological sources. For instance, SAF can be derived from the “power to liquid” process; this process aims to recover the byproducts of manufacturing and turn them into fuel. One example is turning waste gases from steel manufacturing into an input for SAF. 

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), “alternative fuels” is defined as “any fuel that has the potential to generate lower carbon emissions than conventional kerosene on a life cycle basis.” ICAO also uses the term “sustainable aviation fuel.”

What Are the Benefits of SAF? 

SAF has the potential to reduce up to 80% of lifecycle emissions – which accounts for the emissions made during the entire production of SAF – compared to traditional fossil fuels. What’s more, depending on the feedstock, using SAF can provide further environmental and economic benefits. Using municipal waste as feedstock is an example of circular economy principles in practice. By deriving SAF from waste, it reduces the amount of waste left to decompose in landfills while also reducing the additional CO2 emissions that will be emitted during the decomposition process. 

When energy crops such as camelina are used, farmers can also experience added economic benefits. Since camelina is a rotational crop that can rotate with crops such as wheat, it can create a new income source for farmers. This also reduces mono cropping, which is known to affect soil health and lead to increased pest infestations.

Thirdly, using SAF will stabilise the cost of aviation fuel by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Compared to fossil fuels, which are limited by supply and geographical location, SAF can be derived from multiple sources. As more SAF feedstock suppliers come into the market, the price of SAF is expected to stabilise, offering airlines a more sustainable fuel source less affected by price fluctuations. 

You might also like: Decarbonising Aviation: The Future of Electric Aviation and Sustainable Aviation Fuel

Is SAF Safe to Use in All Aviation Fleets? 

All SAF blends must be certified under ASTM D1655, the same standard used for traditional jet fuel. If SAFs are verified under this standard, no further modifications need to be made for it to be adapted aircrafts parts. Currently, SAF can only be used in blended form. Blend ratios vary depending on feedstock, but the maximum allowed blend of SAF is 50%. 

Earlier this year however, a team of aerospace specialists launched the world’s first in–flight emissions study using 100% SAF, showing positive advancements in the use of 100% SAF in aircrafts in the future.  

What Is the Current Uptake and Usage of SAFs?

The first ever flight to exclusively use SAF took off in 2018. Since then, uptake has been modest when compared to total industry fuel demand. Two of the key reasons for the modest uptake are the limited supply of and accessibility to SAFs. SAF is only produced in small quantities due to limited feedstock and facilities, meaning its unit cost of production is higher than traditional fuels. The overall higher price of SAF is a significant barrier to more widespread usage across airlines. 

Secondly, many airports do not have the mechanisms in place to provide SAF to aircrafts. As of September 2017, only four global airports, including Oslo, Bergen, Stockholm and Los Angeles, can provide a consistent SAF supply. 

According to IATA (International Air Transport Association), the world consumes 278 billion litres of fuel for aviation. Based on their analysis, there can be a viable market for SAF even if as little as 1% of the world’s fuel uses SAF, i.e if 10% of the world’s aircrafts runs on a fuel that is a 10% SAF and 90% traditional fuel blend. 

How Can We Accelerate SAF Usage Across Aircrafts? 

Acceleration of SAF usage across global aircrafts requires both infrastructure development and policies that can support its uptake. 

Policy initiatives that can propel SAF usage include allocating sufficient feedstock for fuel production and financing processes to scale SAF production. A report about the availability of feedstock SAF production concluded that because feedstock is mainly diverted for use in other transportation sectors, there will be limited availability for SAF production absent strong policy support and investment. 

Other ways policymakers can support SAF adoption include allocating funding into feedstock research and development (R&D), and refining processes, providing incentives for airlines to use SAF and de–risking private and public investments in SAF.  

Investments in the infrastructure needed to make it more accessible are just as important. In July 2021, the European Union proposed a new regulation called ReFuel EU, aimed at levelling the playing field for SAF across EU countries. As part of the regulation, EU airports are required to provide the necessary infrastructure for the supply and blending of SAF. However, due to the global nature of flights, it is important for airports around the world to offer similar infrastructure in order for SAF to be commercially viable. 

Although the widespread adoption of SAF will help the aviation industry reduce emissions, advancements in aircraft design and operational efficiency are also key to reduce emissions. Aircrafts such as the Boeing 787 are already 80% more fuel efficient than aircrafts in the 1950s, reflecting the positive environmental advancements that have already occurred in the aviation industry. 

You might also like: 4 Sustainable Aviation Fuel Companies Leading the Way to Net-Zero Flying

The post All You Need to Know About Sustainable Aviation Fuel appeared first on Earth.Org.

Over the past decade, coffee farmers across various regions have reported steady declines in coffee yield due to a combination of extreme climatic events and unsustainable farming techniques. Climate change has led to unexpected weather events such as droughts and floods, as well as rising global temperatures, increasing risk factors for coffee farmers. Aggravating factors such as eroded soil, pollution and lack of biodiversity have further negatively impacted coffee yields. Aware of the need for adaptive strategies, many coffee farmers have turned to agroforestry, a practice of re-introducing trees into farming systems, to make their farms more resilient to climate change. 

— 

How Does Agroforestry Differ From Traditional Farming? 

Since the 1960s, most coffee plantations use a system of monoculture farming, where farmers only grow a single type of plantation – the coffee plant. Monoculture systems expose coffee plants and soil to UV radiation, high temperatures and heavy rain. By stripping away many varieties of flora and fauna to make space for coffee plants, monoculture farming also leads to a lack of diversity and displaces wildlife while increasing the incidence of pests. Soil degradation and pest control have driven farmers to resort to pesticides and synthetic fertilisers to maintain high and consistent yields.  

A monoculture farming system poses a striking contrast to a coffee plant’s natural environment. Coffee plants thrive in equatorial regions; the continuous rainfall in these regions allows for significant biodiversity and the maturation of coffee plants at a steady rate. There are four primary types of coffee beans, including Arabica (Coffee arabica), Robusta (Coffee caniphora), Liberica (Coffee liberica), and Excelsa (Coffee liberica var. dewevrei). Coffee Arabica, which accounts for 70% of global coffee production, originates from the forests of the biologically diverse Ethiopian highlands. In its natural environment, Arabica grows in highlands under tall, dense tree canopies and is generally less resilient to disease. Arabica plants thrive in cooler climates, with ideal temperatures  ranging from 15- 25 °C. 

By depriving Coffee Arabica of its traditional shade systems and replacing it with intense, sun-exposed monoculture where it is more vulnerable to plant and disease, coffee farmers are adversely affecting the resilience of coffee plantations in the medium-long term. Intense monoculture practices which disregard the coffee plants’ natural environment has led to increased Co2 emissions, the loss of biodiversity and land degradation, by exposing top soil to wind and rain.

Agroforestry is a system which strategically integrates different types of trees within coffee farms,  creating a microclimate within the plantation. These microclimates promote increased biodiversity and soil enrichment, and they reduce erosion and water pollution, leading to increased carbon storage and lower temperatures. 

How Does Agroforestry Make Coffee Farms More Resilient to Change? 

Reintroducing trees or other woody perennials into monoculture coffee farms generates benefits for both the coffee plantations and the farmers. Agroforestry leads to increased biodiversity, increases water availability and restores soil health and productivity.  

As trees are introduced into the plantations, soil health is restored because a trees’ deep root network can retrieve nutrients from deeper levels of soil; the nitrogen fixation capabilities of trees also promotes soil fertility by adding nitrogen into the soil ecosystem. 

Structurally, the addition of trees recreates the canopy-like environment in which Coffee Arabica  naturally thrives. The shade provided by tree canopies act as windbreaks, protecting soil from erosion overexposure to changing weather conditions, while also lowering soil and air temperatures. The positive effects of shade tree additions to coffee plantations have been proven in various studies; for example, a study by the Wageningen University & Research found that by introducing 50% tree shade cover in certain Brazilian regions prone to unstable weather conditions, mean temperatures can be reduced and 75% of the area can be kept intact for coffee production. Further, by increasing ground cover and soil nutrient availability, agroforestry systems reduce water runoff and soil evaporation, making more water available for plant production in all soil layers. 

You might also like: How Does Cocoa Farming Cause Deforestation? 

How Does Agroforestry Make Coffee Farms More Resilient to Change? 

Globally, there are an estimated 25 million farmers who generate income through coffee farming. As coffee can only be cultivated once a year and yield is significantly impacted by climatic changes, coffee farmers are vulnerable to external factors such as price volatility and weather changes. By maximising conditions for coffee plantations, agroforestry provides for a better quality and higher crop yield, stabilising the farmers’ main source of income. Agroforestry also diversifies the income stream of coffee communities, who can harvest other crops or benefit from their secondary products to generate year-long income opportunities. Additionally, crops such as fruits and nuts can be used for personal consumption, providing an added benefit of food security. 

A case in point is Amazon’s Apuí Region Agroforestry Project (‘The Apui Project’) , which has implemented a system of agroforestry since 2012. The Institution of Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Amazon (Ideasam) gave each farmer funding to rehabilitate a hectare of coffee plantation; this included 10,000 seedlings from plants of Amazonian origins. Amongst the species were varieties of trees such as Jatobá and Mahogany; these species have bark that can be used for wood, oil, fruits and nuts that can be harvested to generate extra income.  

Apuí Coffee farmer Ronaldo de Moraes, explains how implementing agroforestry improved his  families’ livelihood, saying, “We used to harvest just a little and sell cheap — hardly earned anything…  Now, we sell at higher prices and things are a little better. We can buy what we need to care for our crops and buy things for our homes, like a refrigerator or a stove.”  

The benefit of the Apuí Project is reflected in the growth of the region’s average coffee yield,  which grew from 8 bags per hectare when the project began to 15 bags per hectare as of 2020. 

Despite the clear benefits of implementing an agroforestry system in conventional coffee farms, there are also many challenges to the successful transition to this system. Amongst the challenges are the lack of funding and educational resources to prepare farmers for the significant change in agricultural  practices, as well as the need to customise flora and fauna to each unique region.  

However, from the various studies and coffee farmers’ first-hand accounts, it is clear that agroforestry provides for a much more resilient, biodiverse system for coffee plantations, one that maximises the soil, the farmers’ livelihoods as well as the taste of coffee. 

The post Can Agroforestry Help Coffee Farms Become More Resilient to Climate Change? appeared first on Earth.Org.

As young climate activists congregate around the world to mobilise climate action, Hong Kong’s youth are also urging the local government to take more ambitious action to curb the climate crisis. Nominated by CarbonCare InnoLab, six Hong Kong youth delegates to COP26 have published a petition and shared their thoughts with Secretary for the Environment Wong kam-sing regarding the city’s climate change policies. The delegates share their experience at the recent COP26 in Glasgow, pointing out lessons Hong Kong can apply to accelerate the transition to net zero. 

—

The global climate crisis has seen youth from around the world mobilise movements, take part in school strikes, and advocate for ambitious actions to curb the ongoing climate crisis. Climate activists such as Greta Thunberg and Mitzi Jonelle Tan are taking it upon themselves to urge world business leaders and governments to limit global warming to 1.5C pre-industrial levels, believing “the power is in us, not the leaders.” 

In Hong Kong, the environment and climate have never been front and centre in the socio-economic agenda, but the city’s COP26 youth delegates are trying to change this. 

Nominated by CarbonCare InnoLab, Hermia Chan, Mark Cheung, Ryan Fung, Blaire Ho, Ho Wai-fun and Priscilla Lin attended COP26, the UN climate summit, in Glasgow earlier in November. They were joined by four more delegates representing other Hong Kong-based political organisations and nonprofits. 

Hong Kong Needs More Ambitious Climate Change Policies 

Earlier in October, the six youth delegates published a petition urging the Hong Kong government to take more ambitious climate change policies and actions. The document began with an overview of why the city needs more ambitious climate change policies and ended with the delegates’ five key demands. Among other factors, the key demands included a call for the government to declare a climate emergency, to reach net zero emissions by the 2040s or sooner, and to increase the proportion of renewable energy in the energy portfolio to 20% by 2030. 

Before their departure to Glasgow, the delegates spoke to Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam Sing. Wong was open to the delegate’s opinions and asked for their suggestions on how to achieve carbon neutrality before 2050.

“Wong shared what he was proud of about Hong Kong’s climate mitigation and adaptation activities so far… he emphasised Hong Kong’s climate adaptation expertise, explaining that our experts are advising other Asian cities on strategies such as how to mitigate the urban heat island effect,” said Chan, one of the aforementioned Hong Kong youth delegates. 

Although the delegates agree with the Environment Secretary that flooding is the most significant risk to Hong Kong citizens, they believe more action on other aspects of climate change policies should be taken. For instance, they would like to see more detailed plans and a concrete timeline regarding how the government will increase the availability of renewable energy and implement a carbon trading scheme. Chan adds, “The thing with climate change is that we don’t have time to waste. Do we have time to wait for the best model? Will the best model ever even exist?” 

You might also like: 6 Biggest Environmental Issues in Hong Kong in 2021

What Lessons Can Hong Kong Learn from COP26? 

Attending COP for the first time this year, the delegates did not have a specific agenda, intending only to observe and learn about climate initiatives that can be applied to Hong Kong. The delegates’ observer passes allowed them to sit in on panels happening in different ‘zones’, however, they expressed a desire to more actively participate and take part in negotiations. 

“Observer passes limit us to only being able to ‘observe’ and not actually submit questions during most events,” explained Chan. She also commented that because 

Hong Kong is not a ‘Party to the Convention’ at COP26, the city’s role at the summit was somewhat ambiguous. “The ambiguity made it difficult for us to apply for a ‘Party Badge’, which would mean more opportunities for more meaningful participation.” 

Hong Kong’s delegates took part in various youth events at COP26, including speaking at the ‘Asian Youth Dialogue on Carbon Neutrality’ event at Korea’s Pavilion. These panels were attended by youths as well as representatives from different countries and organisations, a platform that allowed youth delegates’ voices to be heard.  However, the delegates have reservations about whether their opinions would be taken seriously, or whether youth opportunities at COP26 is a form of ‘youthwashing’ or tokenism. 

“During some of the negotiations, some youths limited themselves to note taking although they have the right to voice their opinions. I’m not sure whether they chose to do this or were asked to take more passive roles,” Chan said. 

When asked what lessons Hong Kong can learn from countries and stakeholders at COP26, the delegates highlighted human rights considerations and green construction as two important factors.

Listening to Indigenous tribes speak about how some climate mitigation policies affected their rights, the delegates felt Hong Kong needs to put human rights at the forefront of climate policy. Similar to many other countries, Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050 focuses on how to decarbonise sectors through measures such as transitioning to electric vehicles and waste reduction, whereas the effects our environmental footprint have on other areas around the globe are rarely considered. The delegates believe that as a city that imports most of our goods, we should also consider how the production processes of these goods are adversely affecting the livelihoods of citizens in the producing countries.

Secondly, the delegates think the Norwegian city of Oslo’s green construction practices can be adapted to Hong Kong’s construction industry. Globally, building and construction are responsible for 39% of emissions. And in Hong Kong, construction sites are often considered a nuisance by citizens because of the noise and dust pollution it generates. 

Hong Kong may be able to take inspiration from Oslo’s zero emissions construction sites. Oslo’s first zero–emission construction site was pioneered in 2019. Powered by electricity, the machinery used on ‘Olav V’s gate’ emitted less noise and air pollution. Using electricity instead of fossil fuels saved 35,000 litres of diesel and 92,500 kg of carbon emissions. The Norwegian government also took a strategic move to incentivise the industry to switch to electric machinery by awarding public tenders for construction work to developers using zero emission machinery. While Hong Kong’s current policies focus on adapting existing buildings to make them greener, the delegates believe that “greening the buildings industry” should start from cleaning up the construction phase. 

Going forward, the delegates will continue to push for having their five demands met by the Hong Kong government. “We hope to continue our conversations with [Secretary] Wong and be able to share Hong Kong’s more ambitious climate change policies at next year’s COP”, Chan concludes. “We also hope to work on climate advocacy with more youths in Hong Kong. As we all deserve to be heard,“ Chan’s fellow delegate Blaire Ho added. 

Many climate activists and environmental organisations claim COP26 was a failure because governments failed to agree on important pledges, such as phasing out coal. Despite this, it is enlightening to hear the ambitions of Hong Kong’s youth’s delegates, who are determined to accelerate the city’s journey to carbon neutrality before 2050. 

You might also like: Transforming Climate Education in Hong Kong

The post Hong Kong COP26 Youth Delegates Call for More Ambitious Climate Change Policies appeared first on Earth.Org.

The common argument that soybean products are ‘unsustainable’ is a misconception because the majority of soy is used for livestock feed. However, commercial soy farming has undoubtedly taken a toll on the planet’s soils and biodiverse regions. Intergovernmental agreements such as Soy Moratoriums, or providing increased funding for alternative animal feed research are key steps that can be taken to curb soy’s significant environmental footprint. 

—

Plant–based alternative proteins have experienced exponential growth over the last few years. The global plant-based protein market is projected to grow from US$10.3 billion in 2020 to 15.6 billion by 2026. Many climate scientists and researchers, including a study by the University of Oxford, state that switching to a more plant–based diet is the best way to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

A key ingredient found in most plant–based proteins is soy, and it is found in brands such as Linda McCartney’s Meatless Farm and Omni Pork. Soy, also known as soya, is a type of legume native to East Asia. Soybeans are the mature seeds of the soybean plant. Once the seeds mature, they are harvested, bagged and taken to either storage or industrial facilities for processing. Known for its high protein content, soybean products have been a popular source of protein in Asia for centuries and is often consumed in the form of tofu, tempeh or soy milk.

Similarly, the benefits of soy have also made it a popular option for livestock feed. The growth of commercial farms and demand for meat in the 20th century led directly to the explosive growth of soy in the mid 20th century, with the global production of soy today 13 times higher than it was in the 1960s. 

However, alongside the commercialisation of soybean products are studies that soy farming is linked to deforestation, loss of biodiversity and other environmentally damaging factors. This finding is used by opponents of plant–based protein, arguing that the use of soy in these products makes them unsustainable, and does not play a part in reducing carbon emissions as claimed by many experts and plant–based brands.

So How Sustainable Are Soybean Products? 

The argument that soybean products is unsustainable omits a critical statistic that more than 77% of global soy produced is used to feed livestock. A further 16% is used for biofuels, vegetable oils or other industrial purposes. Soy used directly in products for human consumption such as tofu, tempeh and milk only makes up 7% of global soy usage. 

Although the growth of the plant–based protein sector means soy used for human consumption will likely increase, research shows that from an emissions perspective, consuming 1kg of tofu still produces less emissions compared to consuming 1 kg of meat. Matt Turner, a spokesperson from The Vegan Society points out the inefficiency of consuming meat for calories, “Bear in mind that for every 100 calories fed to animals, we receive back only 12 calories by consuming their flesh and milk.”

However, the claim that soy cultivation adversely affects the environment still holds true. Below are the primary ways in which soy farming is adversely damaging the environment.

Deforestation 

The world’s two largest producers of soybean products are the US and Brazil. Since soy is a product that only offers one yield per life cycle, fulfilling increased soy demand means planting more soy, thus more land use. The total area of land used to cultivate soy takes up the combined area of the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany, making it the second largest driver of deforestation after cattle rearing.  

In 2006, an agreement, known as the ‘Amazon Soy Moratorium’, was made between the Brazilian Government, the soy industry, and civil society organisations. The moratorium banned traders from purchasing soybeans from Amazon’s deforested land and also provided that soy production in the Amazon can only occur on existing converted agricultural land. The moratorium successfully reduced the conversion of Amazon’s forest for soy production. 

At the same time, deforestation for soy farming remains prevalent in unregulated areas. In South America’s Cerrado Region, only 20% of land needs to be set aside for conservation, leaving the remaining 80% available to be legally deforested for soy farming. 

Increased Carbon Emissions

Soy’s contribution to carbon emissions can be traced to multiple activities, including deforestation, industrial processing and transportation. 

The conversion of natural landscapes to cultivate soy, also called ‘land use change’, is a major reason for increased carbon emissions in the world’s largest soy producing countries. For example, Bolivia’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are one of the highest in the world per capita equal, despite being one of the least economically developed countries in South America. 80% of Bolivia’s GHG emissions originate from deforestation.This is because clearing forests for soy cultivation releases CO2  and other GHG into the atmosphere. 

In addition to carbon emissions caused by deforestation, other parts of the soy life cycle also emit GHG. The use of industrial processing facilities and vehicle fleets to distribute soy globally all contribute to soy’s carbon footprint. 

You might also like: Adopting a Plant-Based Diet Would Reduce Agricultural Land Use by 3/4

Negative Impacts on Soil and Water  

Soy cultivation is often highly mechanised and requires intensive irrigation. Soy is also a crop that requires significant amounts of water; it is estimated that nearly 300 litres of water is required to produce 1 litre of soy milk.

The combined effect of such farming methods and natural resource consumption has had damaging effects on topsoil. This includes disrupting the soil’s natural ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, its functioning as an ecosystem, and its ability to reabsorb nutrients and water. Brazil loses an estimated 55 million tonnes of topsoil to soy cultivation every year. 

As with many commercialised crops, the use of pesticides and fertilisers during soy farming also contaminates rivers, lakes and estuaries, impacting wildlife and posing health risks to  rural communities who consume the water. 

Biodiversity Loss

Between 2001 to 2010, approximately four million hectares of forest were destroyed each year in South America, primarily for soy and beef production. Although deforestation in these regions are not solely for soy plantations, soy is undoubtedly one of the key reasons for deforestation. 

The Cerrado region in South America is one of the most biodiverse regions in the world and is home to 5% of the world’s animal and plant species, including 20 endangered and 12 critically endangered animal species. As of 2018, half of the Cerrado’s savanna and forest has been converted to agricultural land. 

This has the direct impact of displacing wildlife and destroying or polluting their food and habitats. Indirectly, damaging healthy soils has made the area more susceptible to forest fires, further threatening biodiversity.

4 Ways to Reduce the Environmental Footprint of Soy? 

Although soy will likely remain a major agricultural commodity, there are actions which the agricultural industry, governments and consumers can take to curb the adverse effects of soy farming.

1. Using Alternative Feed To Feed Livestock

Substituting soy with alternative feed for livestock can significantly reduce soy demand. In 2013, the FAO encouraged increased usage of insects as animal feed as it is a more sustainable option compared to soy. 

At the same time, substituting soy with other feed may face resistance in the livestock industry, as soy optimises the growth and fat composition of animals. A study comparing the use of soy and the use of other legumes (beans, peas, rape seed) as feed  found that since other legumes are less palatable for pigs, it will likely result in slower growth performance and leaner meat. This implies farmers cannot charge higher prices for meat. Increased funding in this area may be needed to develop alternatives that are more sustainable and not detrimental to livestock growth. 

2. Importing Only Sustainably Produced Soy 

Governments can choose to import only soy brands that are produced sustainably.  International organisations such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) or ProTerra Foundation offer soy that is sustainably sourced and farmed.

3. Purchasing Only Organic Soy Products

Consumers can mitigate soy’s environmental impact by purchasing from organic soy brands such as Tofoo, Tofurei and Taifun. Since organic products avoid fertilisers and pesticides, this reduces harm to wildlife and surrounding rural communities. 

4. Diversifying Plant Based Diets By Consuming Non Soy-products

Consumers can also opt for other types of legumes such as lentils, fava beans and chickpeas, which also have a very high protein content. Choosing non-soy plant-based products such as Seitan (made of wheat gluten) or Beyond Meat (made of pea and rice protein ) will also lessen the global demand for soy. 

The post Soybean Products and Its Environmental Impact appeared first on Earth.Org.

The waters in Namibia support one of the worlds’ ‘most productive fishing grounds’. Fed by the Benguela Current, the waters are rich with nutrients and microscopic organisms, creating an ideal environment for many marine species.  In 2000, the Namibian government enacted The Marine Resources Act (‘the Act’), which led to the transformation in the domestic fishing industry and creating new jobs and revenue streams. Here’s how the Act works and why it‘s been a success. 

—

In the 1960s, industrial fishers began arriving from distant water fishing nations. By 1990,  when Namibia achieved independence from South Africa, unregulated fishing had significantly lowered the fish population in the countries’ waters. The government sets a new  direction with the Namibian Constitution, devising regulations based on the constitution’s  guiding principle, which contributes towards the ‘sustainable use of ecological resources for the  benefit of current and future generations’. The Marine Resources Act (‘the Act’) was enacted in 2000, which takes a scientific evidence-based and rights-based approach to the regulation of Namibian marine resources.  

The Act led to a significant transformation in the domestic fishing industry, from stabilising fish stock and uplifting the economy by prioritising Namibian nationals to providing additional jobs and new revenue streams for the government. The Act has since been used as a model for developing sustainable fishing policies around the world, as well as winning the Food Security Leadership Policy Award 2010 and the World Future Council’s Silver Future Policy Award in 2012. 

What Are Some of The Marine Resources Act’s Key Features?  

Regulations On Fishing Quantity, Methods, Size and Location  

The Act strictly follows global science-based guidelines on the ‘total allowable catch’  (TACs) for each key commercial species of fish. The implementing body carefully monitors  fish stocks and will take action if stocks fall below a certain threshold. For example, in 2008,  Namibia placed a three-year moratorium on ‘Orange Roughy’, a highly valuable but slow growing deep sea fish species1.  

Furthermore, the Act sets guidelines on factors including the quantities of fish harvestable,  minimum fish size, time and location of harvesting as well as fishing methods. Fishing  methods known to be detrimental, including the use of driftnets, formation trawling and beam  trawling are banned. Certain marine areas are also designated as protected areas where there  is restricted or no access for commercial fishing purposes.  

The Act also sets a 70:30 wet to frozen fish stock requirement. According to Rob Walters,  Executive Secretary of the Namibian Hake Association, this meant that the majority of fish  had to be processed onshore, which encouraged job creation in the local economy. 

Regulation of Rights to Fish in Namibian Waters 

Another distinctive feature is the ‘rights-based’ approach taken by the Act. In contrast, most  fisheries around the world are heavily subsidised by local or national governments; the FAO  estimated that subsidies for fishing is as high as USD 35 billion globally, of which USD 20  billion contributes directly to overfishing. Instead of subsidising the fishing industry, the Namibian government ensures that locals hold the primary rights to their marine resources and that fishing companies with rights to fish within their waters are 51% beneficially held by  Namibians. 

The implementation of strict monitoring and surveillance systems are another factor that  helped stabilise fish stocks. On top of requiring two licenses (one for harvesting, one for  the vessel), systems are in place to ensure fishermen are observed both onboard and at the  ports. Additionally, the revised version of the Act requires all licensed vessels to have a  functioning vessel monitoring system that can be tracked by satellite.  

The Act is further supplemented by an initiative between Namibia, South Africa and Angola  under the Benguela Current Commission to promote sustainable management and protection  of Benguela Current’s large marine ecosystem. This type of regional cooperation to protect  marine reserves is rather novel and not seen in many other regions.  

You might also like: Overfishing, Conservation, Sustainability and Farmed Fish

How Did The Marine Resources Act Benefit The Namibian Economy?  

As a result of the Act, fish stock in Namibian waters have largely stabilised. By diverting the rights to marine resources back to Namibians and strictly regulating commercial exploitation,  it successfully boosted the national economy and led to improved food security.  

The Act provides for a direct source of income generation for the government through  various levies. ‘The Marine Resources levy’ imposes a levy on all species harvested for  research purposes while a ‘bycatch levy’ disincentivises bycatch by charging bycatch per tonne, which is set on a species basis. Additional revenue is also derived from vessel and  fishing rights licenses that must be obtained in order to harvest in Namibian waters.  

The fisheries sector now accounts for 8% of Namibia’s GDP and its contribution to state  revenue increased from ‘almost virtually nothing at independence to USD 15 million in  2000’.  

What Are Some Limitations Of The Marine Resources Act? 

Despite being used as a case study for sustainable fishing policies worldwide, there are still  some notable limitations. Firstly, Namibia’s situation is unique due to the country’s marine  resources having conventionally been exported and does not make up a large part of domestic  revenue. This is unlike many other countries where the population depends on small scale  fisheries for sustenance. This has enabled Namibia to take a top-down approach to controlling  its marine resources, a strategy that will be harder to implement in smaller scale fisheries.  

Moreover, the Art’s rights-based approach, although benefitting Namibians, has also led to a backlash. Since increasing Namibians now depend on fishing for employment, some have  asked for increased TAC quotas, claiming it will otherwise lead to unemployment. 

Namibia’s Marine Resources Act is definitely one worth studying due to its novel  rights-based approach and its policies’ strong adherence to scientific-evidence. However, as  with all other policies, there are still limitations to the Act. Sustaining Namibian fisheries in  the long term still requires continued adherence to the regulations as well as continuous  iterations of the Act according to the latest scientific evidence. 

Featured image by: Wikimedia Commons

The post Why Namibia’s Marine Resource Act Considered One of The Most Successful Fisheries Management Policy In The World appeared first on Earth.Org.