Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

The verdant countryside of Costa Rica

It was never my intention to be an environmentalist.

Not that I felt that there was anything wrong with being one; I just wasn’t expecting it. Sure, I had contributed some to the Nature Conservancy because I was hiking regularly on their lands, but with raising kids and trying to pay bills, it seemed that my efforts would have to be limited to just giving some money here and there to environmental causes.

I’ve always been interested in nature. Few things are more enjoyable to me than long distance hiking, especially in new and novel areas. At one time in my life, I wanted to be a marine biologist or a forest ranger, and I think that was because I wanted to be outside rather than have a desk job. Besides, I was born on a 300-acre farm and never really got very far away from that experience. A woodcarver since age eight, I have also been interested in wood for a long time. When I was a teenager, I had a part-time job in a lumberyard and found all the different properties of wood fascinating.

Fred Morgan in front of a massive Ojoche tree

Caring about the environment, occasionally contributing to environmental causes, this description could probably apply to thousands of people, if not millions. How in the world did we get involved in reforestation? And how did we manage to pay for it?

The Dream:

For years – in fact most of our married life – my wife, Amy, and I had a plan of living in a Latin American country someday to start a business that would help the people there as Amy perfected her Spanish, a language she loves. Once we decided that Costa Rica was it, I started to research into what it takes to live there. I knew that Costa Rica grants residency to people if they have a retirement pension (or Social Security), but that does not apply to Amy and me, since we are nowhere near that age (though it keeps creeping closer when we are not looking!).

We learned that one of the ways to obtain residency is to be involved in reforestation. Costa Rica has suffered very rapid deforestation over the last 50 years; in fact more than 70% of the country is currently deforested. This is causing serious problems with mudslides, floods, and believe it or not, lack of water during the dry season. Because of that, the Costa Rican government is trying to encourage reforestation with tax benefits, information, and residency.

Costa Rica encourages reforestation with tax benefits, information & residency

Of all the different ways of qualifying for residency in Costa Rica, reforestation appealed to me most, and as I researched it, it appealed even more. Since I work in a technological field, I prefer to invest in something besides technology. If I were to lose my job because of a downturn in technology, I don’t want to lose my retirement fund as well. So, growing trees seemed like a good approach to retirement planning for me. I also liked the idea that it would help the environment. We decided on a combination of replacing pastureland with a tree plantation along with protecting and expanding existing rainforest.

If we had not met Hector Ramirez and his wife, Christina, I rather doubt that we would have gone through with it as a do-it-yourself project. The difficulty is that reforestation is not just sticking trees into the ground. For the first 3 years, there is a lot of work. Also, doing business in another country is challenging. As the saying goes, you aren’t in Kansas anymore. Hector was born and raised in Costa Rica in the very area where we wanted to establish our plantation. We had been trying to work through agents to find land in that area, and they could find nothing for months. Hector found us more than we could even see in a matter of a few weeks.

Amy Morgan inspects property on horseback

Finding the Land:

Hector, Amy, and I flew down to Costa Rica together to look at fincas. What a week! We stayed with friends of Hector and ate at their soda (roadside cafe) every day. During the day, we would visit farms (fincas), and every evening Hector would go out and line up the farms to go see the next day. We rode horses around most of the fincas, which was quite an experience, since neither Amy nor I would be considered horse people by any stretch of the imagination. We eventually picked a very nice finca that was a working dairy farm and well-maintained.

Hector & Christina Ramirez Partners in Reforestation

After spending a week in Costa Rica, it became clear that we needed Hector long-term, so we made him an offer he couldn’t refuse – or we hoped that he wouldn’t. He accepted our offer to be a partner in the business. We all figure that Hector is the one really important person. The rest of us are support staff for him. The other very important person is Antonio, our forestry engineer, who has 20-plus years in Costa Rica growing trees. Hector and Antonio make all of the important decisions – all I get to decide is how many trees we are going to plant each year and what species. We started out with four: teak, mahogany (caoba), Spanish cedar, and sura.

A 20 year old Spanish Cedar Tree

Of course, these species were chosen with Antonio’s agreement. This is working very well; in fact, the plantation is growing excellently, probably because they are doing it and not me. Of course, Hector loves it when I show up. He figures using me for a mule saves wear and tear on the animals.

Well, buying the land and a truck pretty much wiped out our reserves. We did not have enough to pay Hector what he was worth, although that’s not a lot of money in Costa Rica. So Hector explained to us that since we owned land, we could make money. We had bought 67 hectares (about 164 acres), and since we were only planning on planting 5 hectares the first year, most of it was going to be fallow, which means it would soon be jungle if we didn’t prevent it. I like letting the land go back to jungle, but I cannot afford to let all of it do that, unfortunately. Our land, like me, has to earn a living.

The Agro-Forestry Formula:

Hector suggested that we continue to graze cattle in the places where we were not planting yet. This would provide income for Hector and his family and reduce the amount we needed to pay him. After Hector brought this up, I did what I always do, delved into researching it, both on the Internet and with Antonio, our forestry engineer. Agroforestry, the management of land by growing trees in combination with pasture and food crops, would work very well for us.

The problem in growing just trees is that it requires tying up a considerable amount of capital. The reason farmers do not normally plant trees is that it is impossible for them to not have their land constantly produce revenue. Agroforestry is an attempt to compromise between the need to produce a cash crop each year and the need to grow trees for the future.

In addition to grazing cattle, when we plant trees, we plant a crop of tiquisque between them. This provides several benefits. One, the tiquisque protects the soil so that bare ground doesn’t wash away in the rains. Two, the trees are weeded and fertilized for free, since Hector works with another person to plant the tubers, and the other person maintains and weeds them. After the tiquisque was harvested, the trees are big enough not to need weeding any more. Three, the harvest provides additional money for Hector and his family. I figure with all the money Hector is making doing agroforestry, he will soon be lending me money!

The Tiquisque plant protects soil from erosion, crowds out weeds, and provides an edible tuber

Another interesting development has occurred. Because we are a bit obsessed about this adventure of ours, it kept coming up in our conversations. (I swear everyone who knows us knows about our tree plantation – they are very tolerant.) Well, some of our friends asked to be part of it. We got very excited about being able to save a whole lot more rainforest than we could on our own. We had purchased four times as much land as we needed for our own retirement. I did a lot of study and research and found out that a common practice is to sell trees instead of shares. Instead of owning part of a plantation, you own only the trees. The advantage for the tree owners, of course, is that they invest in trees without having to go through the pain of owning land in a foreign country and becoming knowledgeable in growing trees. They can also piggyback on our experiences: We try growing each species for ourselves before we sell it to anyone else.

Financing Agro-Forestry:

We had several friends who didn’t realize they had money on hand to invest it trees—in their IRAs! We had made contact with a company that specializes in administering self-directed IRAs and other self-directed retirement accounts. They helped us streamline the process for people to own trees in their IRAs, so even more people got involved in our reforestation effort.

In July 2003, we decided to switch from only offering to grow trees for family and friends to offering our services to the general public. We hesitated (for about a second) because of all the work involved, but our desire to preserve more of the environment in the area as well as provide more jobs for the locals won out. This has been much more successful than we imagined. We sold out of the available trees from the July 2003 planting in about 5 months, and we weren’t even trying. Because of that, we are planning to plant triple in 2004 what we did last year, and already things are looking like we may have to bump that up considerably and maybe even buy more land for next year’s planting. We are happy about this, not because we will get rich off it (we will not) but because it helps preserve so much of Costa Rica. Generally speaking, 40 to 60 percent of the land we own is allowed to remain virgin rainforest or revert to jungle. So, the more trees we plant, the more biological corridors we are creating. This allows the wild animals to pass through from one feeding area to another and to proliferate.

Allowing corridors of land to revert to jungle helps wildlife safely pass between feeding areas

We structured the tree purchases so that we would have enough money to take care of the trees, but our profit comes when the trees are harvested. We will receive 6% of the proceeds from the sale of the wood. We did this so that tree owners would know that we are highly motivated to take care of the trees for the full 25 years until the last ones are harvested. Also, they can come visit any time they want and check out their investment as well. We love to show people around the place.

The average tree owner is a person who is concerned about the environment, often has traveled outside of the United States (and sometimes has immigrated to the USA from a Latin American country), and is either saving for their children’s education or for their retirement. A sizeable percentage also are people like us who want their residency in Costa Rica and feel that this is a great way to get it, help the environment, and invest for their future all at the same time.

Conventional methods of timber harvesting can needlessly damage the surrounding land

Since Hector and Antonio have the current plantation so well in hand, what are Amy and I doing? Currently we are exploring a value-added direction. Instead of just growing trees, we want to make sure that the trees we grow are efficiently used. Usually during the harvest of a tree, a large percentage of the wood is thrown away, because the big sawmills only want a certain kind of wood. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to find wood with an interesting grain pattern? It is because the sawmills don’t like to handle it, since it is hard to saw. To make matters worse, the normal method of harvesting trees tears up the land, because the logs are dragged to a tractor-trailer and then the tractor-trailer is dragged out of the forest. This leaves big scars on the land that cause erosion if not fixed. We are already researching how to harvest trees with the least amount of damage to the land.

Promoting Sustainable Forestry:

It is interesting that, although cutting down rainforest is a bad thing, cutting down plantation trees for furniture is a very good thing, because it ties up the carbon for years and years. This is very important in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is also a very good thing because it returns a profit to those who have invested in reforestation, encouraging others to do it as well.

Finca Leola is building a network of furniture makers who use sustainably harvested wood

Recently we went on a furniture research trip to see the design and quality of the furniture being made in Costa Rica. Some was rustic or not well-made, but some was excellent, beautifully designed and made as well as any furniture we had ever seen and very reasonably priced. For example, a large, oblong dining room table and six chairs was priced at about $1,000.00 US. This was about 25% to 30% of what I would expect it to go for in the USA. The problem is, of course, that you have no idea where the wood comes from and may be contributing to the destruction of the rainforest by buying it. We are currently making plans to develop a network of furniture builders who will create furniture from our wood that we will help them sell, so that people can help by buying tropical hardwood furniture instead of hurting.

Finca Leola has evolved into much more than just a couple of families trying to help do something for the environment with their limited time and resources. Our Web site, www.fincaleola.com, has become a source of information on reforestation, and our lives are being enriched by all of the tree owners and others who contact us and stay connected with us throughout the year. We also spend considerable time giving free advice to people who own land in Costa Rica and want to grow their own trees, as well as to some other owners of reforestation projects. It has so far been the most fulfilling and enriching experience of our lives.

What I think is developing is Cooperative Reforestation. Instead of the idea of just planting trees and eventually harvesting them (our first plan) we have morphed into a collaboration of individuals and companies, all with a common thread of reforestation and improving the environment, but at the same time, having the plantations pay for themselves. We have created a website that dispenses information on reforestation and related topics, since our primary purpose is to encourage reforestation.

One of the most famous reforestation projects in Costa Rica is Hacienda Baru. Jack Ewing started 30 years ago to reclaim a portion of Dominical, Costa Rica. Not only has he successfully grown lumber for his own use, but he has created an ecotourism paradise. In this case, tourism is supporting the reforestation project, showing that often, the trees are worth considerably more alive than dead.

Another family has started CloudBridge, a private nature reserve. They have volunteers who come help replant the deforested areas and sell merchandise, and they accept donations to help fund the project.

We at Finca Leola encourage anyone who is interested in reforestation to drop us a line. We feel that much of the deforestation that has occurred is not because of greed but lack of knowledge. If we can, through our Web site and through offering to plant trees for others, help in reforesting a part of Costa Rica, we feel all of the hard work and money will have been well-spent.

Fred Morgan

President

Finca Leola S.A.

A modern organic farm in Rajasthan, India

In response to the $26 billion global market for organic foods,

Spice Board

the Indian Central Government set up a National Institute of Organic Farming in October 2003 in Ghaziabad, Madhya Pradesh. The purpose of this institute is to formulate rules, regulations and certification of organic farm products in conformity with international standards. The major organic products sold in the global markets include dried fruits and nuts, cocoa, spices, herbs, oil crops, and derived products. Non-food items include cotton, cut flowers, livestock and potted plants.

J.S. Mann, commissioner of Horticulture for the Union Agriculture Ministry, said, “The institute, set up as part of the national program for organic production, will have its offices across the country and is appointing certifying agencies for organic farm products for the domestic market.”

Most farms in India are organic but not certified

The certifying agencies thus far named by the Centre include the APEDA (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority), the Tea Board, the Spices Board, the Coconut Development Board and the Directorate of Cashew and Cocoa. They will be accountable for confirming that any product sold with the new “India Organic” logo is in accordance with international criteria, and will launch major awareness and marketing campaigns, in India and abroad.

Rajnath Singh, Additional Director-General of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR), in the LBS seminar on Organic Farming, said that currently the export of organic products is allowed only if “the produce is packed under a valid organic certification issued by a certifying agency accredited by a designated agency.”

Coconut Board

Organic farming has been identified as a major thrust area of the 10th plan of the central government. 1 billion rupees have been allocated to the aforementioned National Institute of Organic Farming alone for the 10th five-year plan, Mann said. And by the end of 2004, according to APEDA chairman K.S. Money, 15% of farm products will be organically grown & processed. A working group has been set up by the Planning Commission, and the Department of Commerce has established National Organic Standards.

Tea Board India

What’s all the rush? Money, of course. Statistics are predicting that the global market that was only $17 billion in the year 2000 may touch the $31 billion mark by 2005– and India’s current share is only 0.001 per cent. In a survey called Land Area under Organic Management (SOEL-survey), India comes in 75th place in the world, alongside Cameroon. Officially, only 0.03 per cent of its land is slated to be under Organic
Agriculture– yet, in the same survey, the number of organic farms is listed as 5660, catapulting it to 16th place in the global organic map. What does this mean? Basically, most of India’s organic farms are not officially considered (or certified as) organic.

“Organic by Default” – methods that worked for millennia suddenly require certification

Most of India’s farms are “organic by default.”
The irony and difficulty of the new governmental push for organic agriculture is that 65% of the country’s cropped area is “organic by default,” according to a study by Rabo India. By this somewhat degrading term they mean that small farmers, located mostly in the Eastern and North-Eastern regions of the country, have no choice except to farm without chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Though this is true in many cases, it is also true that a significant number of them have chosen to farm organically, as their forefathers have done for thousands of years.

Many have seen for themselves the effects of chemical farming – soil erosion and loss of soil nutrients, loss of nutrition in food, and human diseases resulting from the chemicals that inevitably seep into the water table, all the reasons for the urgent demand for organic foods and farming.

In 2002, according to Government statistics, from a total food production of over 200 million tonnes, the country produced only 14,000 tonnes of organic food products. India currently has only 1,426 certified organic farms.

This statistical discrepancy reveals that the weak link in the organic/economic chain is certification. Under current government policy, it takes four years for a farm to be certified as organic. The cost of preparing the report is a flat fee of Rs. 5000, and the certificate itself costs another Rs. 5000. While these costs are bearable for the new industrial organic greenhouses, they are equal to or more than an entire year’s income for the average small farmer, if the costs of travel and inspection are included.

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

Organic fertilizer production

In the United States, an organic farm plan or organic handling plan must be submitted to a USDA – accredited private or state certification program. The plan must explain all current growing and handling methods, and any materials that will be used – in the present, and any future plans must be included as well. Records for the last five years must be presented. Land must be chemical-free for three years prior to harvest, so a
conventional farmer cannot receive the organic label for the transitional years. This will generally mean a decrease in income– crops may be less plentiful than with conventional fertilizers and pesticides, and yet the higher price for organic products won’t yet be possible. Many farmers cannot afford the transition, even if they want to.

Intl. Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements

One solution to the small farmer’s dilemma of how to both certify and survive is that of community certification. At the World Organic Congress, hosted last year by IFOAM (International Forum for Organic Agricultural Movements) in Victoria, Canada, the theme was “Cultivating Communities.” The idea of community certification of organic farms was the main topic of discussion, a concept increasingly popular among farming communities worldwide who have become fed up with accreditation agencies.

In community certification, communities, on a non-profit basis, take charge of the certification process themselves. They evaluate the farmer’s commitment to the stewardship of the soil, and examine from many angles whether the food is being grown in an environmentally sensitive way or not, rather than technical standards.

Directorate of Cashew & Cocoa

While community certification may be a viable solution on the local level, it is our opinion that, in the global marketplace, less than exact technical standards will never be enough for today’s consumer – and, in today’s largely poisoned environment, it shouldn’t be, either. Furthermore, such “soft” guidelines can easily backfire on the farmers themselves, as a system not based on facts must be by definition subject to local politics, bribery, favoritism, etc.

Certification to International Organic Standards will not be easy for India’s small farmers

India must find a way to keep the strict international organic standards intact if it wants to compete in the international market for organic foods– but is there a way to do it without leaving small farmers out in the cold? One obvious solution is for the government so eager to make India organic to subsidize these certification fees enough to make it a viable option for ordinary farmers, not just for neo-organic factory farms and greenhouses. Banks also could provide a more level playing field for small
farmers– currently, almost all bank loans are for pure crop farmers, that is, monoculturalists. While many of these big-business farmers use harmful chemicals and processes, small farmers fertilizing their soil with recycled organic wastes are usually ineligible for insurance, much less state subsidies.

In the Hindu newspaper’s annual environmental report, P.V. Satheesh, Director of the Deccan Development Society, writes, “It’s a sobering thought that the farmers producing the best and cleanest food must pay extra to certify, instead of inorganic foods being certified as potentially bad for our health.”

90% of pesticides used today are synthetic

It is amazing what many of us eat every day.

Thiamine mononitrate, disodium phosphate, tetrasodium purophosphate, dyes and countless other synthetic ingredients are hard to avoid when grocery shopping. We usually think that salvation from these artificial ingredients lies with the fruits and vegetables that line the produce isles, however even these natural products aren’t completely untainted by man-made concoctions.

A rivalry between farmers and insects, weeds or fungi has existed since the first agriculturalists endured the frustrations associated with these ravenous and destructive pests. Farmers have been plagued by insects that make an easy meal of their crops since the beginning. Aphids, locusts, beetles and caterpillars are just a few species that can devastate crops in just a matter of weeks. Fungi are also a great nuisance and can cause just as much, if not more, damage. Pesticides are now used by practically all farmers to control a variety of pest organisms. These pesticides end up on the produce that we purchase and many people are concerned about the risks associated with their ingestion.

The use of synthetic pesticides in the US began in the 1930s. Pesticides made it possible for farms to control pests in larger fields, and as the crops grew larger, farmers became more dependant on these synthetic pesticides. A few decades ago, DDT dominated the pesticide market. This synthetic pesticide was finally banned in the U.S in 1972 because it was found to cause extensive damage to the environment. In the U.S and other developed nations, pesticides have come a long way since the days of DDT and are no longer as hazardous.

USE OF NEUROTOXIC PESTICIDES IN CALIFORNIA

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Thanks to the development of new pesticides, the use of neurotoxic pesticides has decreased dramatically over the years. There are also alternatives to chemical pesticides, such as biological pesticides which are preferred by many environmentalists and consumers, or even no pesticide use at all.

Chemical pesticides currently dominate the world market and are used at a much larger scale than the alternative-organic pesticides. Pamela G. Marrone, Ph.D, chairman and founder of AgraQuest, a biotechnology company specializing in the development of safe and environmentally friendly pest management products, estimates that 26 billion dollars are spent on synthetic pesticides worldwide per year while only 300 million is spent on biological pesticides.

Obviously, chemicals that kill millions of insects in one sweep aren’t going to be good for people either. Synthetic pesticides such as organophosphate pesticides and organochlorine insecticides have been associated with everything from cancer to neurological disorders and lung irritations in humans. However, these symptoms are highly unlikely, if not impossible, to get from a healthy dose of fruits and vegetables. You are far more likely to get sick if you don’t eat the recommended 5-9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day. Pesticides have changed drastically over the years and have become much safer for both people and the environment but many consumers are still skeptical about the existence of a “safe pesticide”.

Mr. Rick Melnicoe, Director of the Western Integrated Pest Management Center and the UC Statewide Pesticide Coordinator, says that he really isn’t worried about pesticides on produce. He explains that “it is important to remember that it is the dose that makes the poison and that there is virtually no illness associated with modern pesticide residue on foods. Illnesses that DO occur are caused by misuse, exposure to concentrated levels by workers, and basic stupidity such as accidentally drinking the mixture.”

It is often argued that natural pesticides are less toxic than chemical pesticides but the truth is that both natural and synthetic pesticides can be poisonous and potentially harmful in large doses. Whether or not a substance poses a health risk depends on the amount ingested. For example, aspirin is poisonous in large doses, but a great remedy for a variety of ailments if taken responsibly.

Many of us don’t realize it, but we are exposed to pesticides everyday. They don’t just occur in farms. Buginfo.com, a great website describing various toxins and pest management techniques gives a startling list of common household items and foods containing pesticides that we absorb on a daily basis: “Paint, rubbing alcohol, drinking alcohol, salt, pepper, glue, chocolate, caffeine, medications, diet pills, toothpaste, sodas, disinfectants, cleansers, and soaps-ALL have toxic properties to them…”

Even items that we consider healthy, organic and completely natural, have toxic properties: “…plants and their parts-apples, almonds, oranges, celery and carrots-have toxic properties in them, if extracted, concentrated and ingested in large enough doses; these NATURAL materials would easily kill people.” Food items you would never imagine as dangerous can have some pretty frightening results when mishandled: “If you take carrot leaves, rub them on your skin and expose the area to sunlight, blisters will form,” says Marrone.

A variety of pesticides such as mineral oil, malathiaon, sulphur dimethylamine and many others are used to control fungi and insects on wheat, one of America’s largest crops. (Photo: Daniela Muhawi)

It is naive to think that we can avoid the ingestion of pesticides. In fact, we absorb so many pesticides on a daily basis that they have become a part of us. Melnicoe explains that “Chlorinated Hydrocarbons [which are synthetic pesticides such as methoxychlor, endosulfan and captan] accumulate in fatty tissue because it isn’t completely filtered out of our systems. All of us have small amounts of it in our tissue, but I’m not too worried about any negative effects. Healthy humans can detoxify the body over time and the levels are rarely high enough to do any real harm.”

It is a little disconcerting that the ingestion of toxic compounds is unavoidable. Toxicants are found in our walls, foods, drinks, gardens and apparently in our bodies. There is simply no escape. However modern synthetic pesticides have come a long way since the days they were first developed. They are now less toxic, more efficient and no longer kill all the organisms that they come into contact with but rather focus on a target species. Yet even with these advancements in synthetic pesticide development, biological (or natural) pesticides are still promoted by many environmentalists and consumers. “From a human health standpoint,” says Melnicoe, “biological pesticides are far less potent over the long term.” Most biopesticides are less toxic to people than synthetic pesticides and this is a great incentive for consumers to buy organic products. Marrone explains that “it has been shown that children who eat organic food have a significantly lower level of chemical pesticides in their blood.”

Organic foods have become extraordinarily popular amongst health and environmentally conscious individuals. Many shoppers buy organic fruits and vegetables thinking that they have grown under completely natural conditions. Danielle Slaughter is a regular customer at the Davis Food Co-op, which specializes in organic products. When asked why she preferred the slightly more expensive produce sold here over the fruits and vegetables at other grocery stores she said “When I can afford to buy organic I’ll buy that over the other produce sold at other stores. Organic produce is just healthier. I like the fact that it’s grown without pesticides and by local farmers. I like this store since it gives you the option between conventionally farmed and organic products.”

Contrary to popular belief, organic foods are NOT necessarily pesticide free. According to the USDA, “Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.” (http://www.ams.usda.gov) But pesticides are in fact used on organic foods. Pesticides are essential for farming quality products that consumers will buy! The pesticides used by organic farmers are considered natural biopesticides. Surprisingly enough, however, the USDA “makes no claims that organically produced food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food.” Some biopesticides, such as the fungicide sulphur, may even be more toxic or harmful than their synthetic counterparts.

Some farmers now use biopesticides rather than their chemical pesticides to grow the organic crops that have become so popular in recent years. The Environmental Protection Agency defines a biopesticide as “certain types of pesticides derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals.” They fall into three major classes.

THE THREE CLASSES OF BIOPESTICIDES:

Microbial pesticides:

These consist of microorganisms such as a fungus, virus or bacteria.

Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs):

These are pesticidal substances that plants produce from genetic material that has been added to the plant. For example, scientists can take the gene for the Bt pesticidal protein, and introduce the gene into the plant’s own genetic material. Then the plant instead of the Bt bacterium, manufactures the substance that destroys the pest. [This increases crop yields and reduces the amount of money spent on pesticides]

Biochemical Pesticides:

These are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanism…These include substances, such as insect sex pheromones, that interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps.

There is obviously a huge selection of biological pesticides to choose from and there are no less than a thousand chemical pesticides on the market. An exhaustive list of all organic and chemical pesticides can be found on the EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/a-z/index.htm

It is hard to determine whether a biological or chemical pesticide is the better choice when so many different varieties are available.

Marrone explains that there are many great attributes associated with organic pesticide use but that farmers are skeptical about natural pesticides. Marrone has had trouble convincing farmers of the benefits associated with organic farming saying that “farmers often refer to organic pesticides as ‘snake oil’ and they assume the biopesticide not to work.” Even though, many farmers are still skeptical of biopesticides, plant incorporated protectants (PIP’s) are becoming increasingly popular. According to the USDA, there was a 12% increase in the use of PIP’s from 2001 to 2002. This increase has nothing to do with the rising popularity of organic produce, though. Marrone says that “plant incorporated protectants are proteins genetically engineered into the plant- they are NOT allowed in organic agriculture. While the EPA categorizes them in the biopesticide division, most do not consider genetically engineered crops biopesticides.”

Ladybugs are natural predators of the pesky Aphid species (Photo: Daniela Muhawi)

There are many advantages to using biopesticides, from both an environmental and business aspect. Marrone encourages the use of biopesticides for a variety of important reasons: “Chemical residues are minimal [in biopesticides] and often non-existent. Any toxins that are present are usually from the soil where synthetic pesticides were sprayed in the past [when they had some horrendous environmental effects]. It is also easier to export products when using biological pesticides. Europe is especially very strict when it comes to importing produce that has been sprayed with synthetics. Resistance is a major concern when it comes to pesticides. When insects become resistant to a chemical, then the pesticide is rendered useless and farmers have to look elsewhere for a solution. Chemical pesticides have a single-site effect on a pest, if a pest mutates just once it can become resistant. Natural pesticides are more complex and it is much harder to develop resistance to a biopesticide.

The biodegradability of natural pesticides is another attribute that makes them so attractive. “They are safe for the environment,” continues Marrone, “they don’t pollute the air or water, and are safe to bees, ladybeetles and other beneficial insects. There is also a shorter re-entry period for fields sprayed with biopesticides: Workers can return to the field in four hours after the use of a biopesticide. Chemical biopesticides have a much longer reentry period-one to three days-during which nothing can be done in the field. The better environmental effects of organic farming are well known — no chemical pesticides to run off into the surface water or seep into the ground water and [the use of organic pesticides rather than the conventional pesticides results in] healthier soils with more microbial diversity. The downside for the farmers, however, is that fields need to sprayed more often when using biopesticides.

Learn Much More! Click & Buy Books (Amazon Affiliate)

Natural Insect Control by Warren Schultz

One of the most popular biopesticides is composed of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins. Bt proteins have been used in organic farms for over 50 years. Bt proteins are completely legitimate pesticides for use in organic farming since Bt is a natural bacterium found in soils. There are many different strains of Bt, each specific to different insects. For example, Bt israelensis targets mosquitoes, blackflies and midges while Bt kurstaki effects moths (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/synthetic_pesticide.html). This pesticide is very effective, but timing is key since it is the larvae that are affected and not the adults. Synthetics are a little easier to use since they generally kill the pests at any stage of their lives and can therefore be applied anytime. It is important to note though, that a biological pesticide is just as effective as the conventional version if properly used.

The use of pesticides-whether biological or synthetic- is a very controversial subject. One of the largest concerns is that of pest resistance. Once pests become resistant to a pesticide, they become an even greater threat. New synthetic pesticides are constantly being developed to overcome resistant insects or fungi. “Currently there are insects resistant to every synthetic chemical insecticide used.” (http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/pest_resistance.html)

Even though resistance to biological pesticides can occur, it is less common. “In the field, the diamondback moth is the only insect found to have developed resistance against Bt [However, about 14 other insect, such as the house mosquito, Tobacco Budworm and Colorado potato beetle, have shown resistance to Bt as well.] Farmers that use Bt are required by the EPA to take steps to prevent further resistance [such as crop rotations so pests don’t have the time to become resistant].”

Marrone is very enthusiastic about the potential market for biological pesticides but there are many misconceptions out there that damper the farmers’ and often the public’s view of natural pesticides. For example, many farmers assume biopesticides to be inefficient. However tests have shown many biopesticides to work just as well as conventional pesticides.

Even though biopesticides are quite effective, a large amount needs to be applied to the crop when compared to the conventional pesticides, which may reduce the appeal of the product to farmers. Marrone says “It takes about one lb of an undiluted biological agent (Bt) to cover an acre and only 1 gram of a synthetic agent which can give you the same results. This is not to say that one mixture is more toxic than another. Biological pesticides are often made up of living microbes and the one lb may be comprised of 1 gram of the actual beneficial microbe and the rest of the mixture is just waste and other by-products caused by fermentation so in actuality both are just as potent to the pest.” It is sometimes hard to differentiate between biopesticides and the more conventional synthetics since synthetic pesticides can also be made from natural toxins found in some plants and bacteria. Marrone explains that “natural chemicals found in plants, such as Pyrethrum in chrysanthemum flowers, are often extracted and concentrated to create the synthetic pyrethrum chemical that is found in the common household insecticide, ‘Raid’ [(Of coarse, the unmodified organic version-pyrethrum-is an organic pesticide)].”

The Lygus pest will decimate cotton but can be diverted away by planting smaller nearby crops it prefers

Yet another alternative to pesticide use is not to use any pesticides at all.
Dr. Pete Goodell, an advisor at the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, believes in this holistic approach to managing pests in certain crops such as cotton. He claims that “some pests can be manipulated to stay out of crops by providing them with a patchwork of a more favorable crop such as alfalfa.” Goodell has had success using this technique with cotton crops. “Alfalfa holds key pests, such as lygus [sucking insects that take the fruiting buds of off cotton], that prefer alfalfa over the neighboring cotton crop. The insects have no reason to leave the alfalfa and therefore don’t infest the cotton. Even when the alfalfa is cut and the insects are forced to migrate to the cotton fields, they leave the crop in favor of the alfalfa when it grows back. Insects can be manipulated to stay out of certain crops by simply providing them with a few strips of a buffer crop that will contain them.” Unfortunately, this technique is not effective enough for use in high quality crops such as produce which must live up to extremely high standards.

Insects aren’t always a problem. Some insect species are even a big help to the farming community. Some gardeners release beneficial insects, such as ladybeetles and parasitic wasps, to control certain pest species-usually aphids. Marrone says that “it is remarkable how effective these natural predators are in greenhouses; up to 80% of pest species can be consumed by these natural predators.” Unfortunately, species such as ladybeetles don’t stay in place in large outdoor crops and even if they did, the farmer would have to find a way to eliminate these insects before selling his produce at the market. Food quality is reduced by any insect, whether beneficial or not.

With less than 3% of the population in the United States producing cash crops, it is not hard to imagine how much one farmer can produce. The amount of land they have dedicated to their crop often seems endless and these farmers (and the consumer) have a lot to lose if their crops become infected by a pest species. In Melincoe’s words: “being a farmer is definitely NOT an easy job. Farmers need to be aware of the condition of their crops and often have little breathing room when threatened by a pest species-especially if the farmer has opted to use biological pesticides. It is all a matter of economics. They have to find season long control and it has to be cost effective. Farmers want to use the minimal amount of a pesticide with the most beneficial effects.”

Modern pesticides are much safer than the poisons used in the past, such as DDT. They are less toxic to the human consumer, more effective against specific pests and have little environmental effects. Both synthetic and biological pesticides are toxic to the pest. “However an important difference is that most biological pesticides are NOT considered toxic to humans, mammals and beneficials insects, birds and fish,” says Marrone.

When used responsibly, pesticides allow only 3% of the population to feed the rest without any adverse effects. New biological and conventional pesticides are constantly being developed-each one more effective and less toxic than the last. As the market for biological pesticides increases, we will also see more and more farmers use these biopesticides which are ultimately better for the environment. Until then, it is likely that farmers will use a combination of approaches that include both biopesticides and synthetic chemicals.

“nothing will keep me from this peach…” A satisfied shopper at the Davis Food Coop (Photo: Daniela Muhawi)

Consumers have grown to expect quality. We have become spoiled with pre-cleaned, precut and insect free produce that is readily available at any grocery store. Jarred fruits can be poured right into your pie crusts and gourmet Greek salads complete with cheese and tomatoes come in plastic cases ready to satisfy your appetite without even a second of preparation required by the hungry consumer. None of these products would exist without pesticides, preservatives or any of the other synthetic ingredients used to improve the quality of produce. We live a synthetic life.

It is impossible to revert to a pesticide free lifestyle but this isn’t necessarily bad news. The perfect pesticide still doesn’t exist, however new pesticides are continuously being created and eventually health and environmentally conscience individuals won’t have to feel guilty about eating produce farmed with the help of these mixtures. Right now there is a choice between synthetic and biological pesticides-usually combined for the best results. Each has its advantages, but both are toxic (they are used to kill pests after all) and can have negative environmental effects. Improving pesticides is a slow and cumbersome process but until the perfect pesticide exists, toxicologists and researchers in the field of agriculture advise consumers to simply eat a good balanced diet without letting the idea of pesticides ruin your appetite for fruits and vegetables. Slaughter has the right idea. When told that even organic fruits have been grown using pesticides-sometimes a mixture of both biopesticides and synthetic pesticides her response was a good one. “Really?,” she said while inspecting a peach, “there are pesticides on organics too? Oh well, nothing is going to keep me away from this peach.”

Today in the U.K. wind only generates 649 MW

The U.K. is particularly focused on offshore wind projects.

Such projects carry significantly higher risks than onshore ones. In addition, few offshore projects have been undertaken, and although countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and Denmark want to develop them, the U.K.’s proposals are the most ambitious.

The U.K.’s abundance of windy weather could deliver significant clean renewable power for the nation over the next decade. It would help put the country on track to meet the government’s target of 15% of electricity generation from renewable sources by 2015. Industry sources expect the U.K. to have the fourth-largest wind power capacity in the EU by 2010. These goals seem optimistic, however, given that total installed capacity was about 649 MW at the end of 2003, equivalent to only 0.5% of U.K. electricity. It is likely that an improved planning permission process would be required, along with a long-term, benign regulatory framework to deliver the government’s expected targets.

U.K. WIND SPEED MAP

The U.K. is the windiest country in the European Union

The year 2003 was the most successful to date for the U.K. wind industry, with 100 MW of additional installed capacity. This translates into a reduction of almost 256,000 tons of CO2 emissions.

The measures announced by the government by the end of 2003 are designed to boost further investors’ confidence in the U.K. wind sector. The measures are:

* Extension of the Registers of Scotland tenure to 2015 from 2010, and an increase in the actual renewable obligation to 15% from 10% of energy generated; and

* Extension of the limit for offshore construction to more than 12 nautical miles from the coast.

The Registers of Scotland (ROS) requires power suppliers to derive a specified proportion of the electricity they supply to their customers from renewable sources. This started at 3% in 2003, and rises gradually to 15% by 2015. The extension of the ROS to 2015 has provided greater certainty for investors. The average payback on a wind project generally extends beyond 10 years, and
so the ROS extension allows for project revenues to be generated over a longer period. This development is critical to reduce financiers’ concerns and attract investment as the sector enters a decisive stage of development. The ROS extension indicates the government’s general support, resulting from its pursuit of environmental targets.

Another positive development for the industry is the opportunity to build large wind farms further offshore than the previous 12-nautical-mile limit. This extension will enable projects to take advantage of better wind conditions further out to sea. This change is intended to encourage investors to build offshore farms.

Wind energy is stronger and more consistent offshore

In Standard & Poor’s opinion, however, offshore wind power generation is still developing, and construction, technological, and operational risks are high. The turbine technology for wind farms a long way from shore is not sufficiently tested, and the distance from the coast and poor weather conditions could prevent necessary repairs. Maintenance costs could also increase if there were a failure in the connection between the wind farm and the main grid, and construction and repair costs are likely to be high. All these factors would have a direct negative impact on turbine availability. Furthermore, the long-term maintenance needs of turbines in deep saltwater have not been gauged. The entry of new and
inexperienced offshore developers into the U.K. offshore sector may further increase risks.

The December 2003 “Round 2″ announcement, which followed the measures discussed above, identified 15 offshore developments that will be offered leases by the Crown Estate. If built, they will provide 5.4 gigawatts (GW)-7.2 GW of new wind capacity. Such installed capacity would:

* Generate enough power to run 4 million homes, or one in six U.K. households; and

* Require about 7 billion pounds ($12 billion) worth of investment.

These projects are to be constructed in the Thames Estuary; Greater Wash; and the North West.

The “Round 2″ announcement clearly demonstrates the government’s acknowledgment of the offshore sector’s importance to the renewable energy target. The announcement, like the measures taken in November 2003, was targeted to inspire investor sentiment.

The upbeat investor climate in late 2003 has been overshadowed in the first quarter of 2004 by the release of the MoD’s 2003 objection statistics, and recently released reports on the costs of generating electricity.

The release in February 2004 of the MoD’s 2003 wind farm development objection rates–48% of the pre-application wind farm proposals submitted, or 413 out of 861 proposals–may dampen investor confidence. The MoD’s objections result from concerns about radar interference.

Wind currently generates 1/2 of one-percent of the U.K.’s electrical production

Radar is susceptible to distortion owing to high-level signals reflected from reflective large objects, such as windmills that exceed the limits of the radar design.

The high objection rate is not the only MoD-related concern for the sector. The ministry’s response times to proposals are becoming increasingly lengthy. This is not conducive to gathering construction and operational momentum in the sector. The MoD response time of about six months is far slower than the targeted three weeks.

The MoD and civil aviation stakeholders’ approach may restrict wind project build rates in both the onshore and offshore subsectors. If unresolved, the issue will inhibit investment in the sector as a whole. A technical solution should, however, be identified. This issue has been dealt with in mature European wind markets, and coordination between the government and the MoD will help alleviate the latter’s concerns.

Recent renewable energy studies estimates that, over the medium term, the cheapest electricity will come from gas-fired power plants and nuclear stations, rather than onshore or offshore wind farms. The report findings conflict with current onshore wind power costs of 3.1p per kilowatt-hour (kWh) produced for the British Wind Institute. This figure is lower than recent figures on new-build nuclear generation, produced for the Department of Trade and Industry, of 3.7p per kWh. The publication of such contradictory reports may erode investor and developer confidence in the sector with regard to the price competitiveness of future wind farms.

About the Author:
Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.