All links on this page (except the back-to-index link) take you offsite,
so you may want to bookmark this page to make it easy for you to come back.

 

ZAMBIA 'FURIOUS' OVER GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD
Some 14 million people face famine across the region

By Martin Plaut, BBC, London

ZAMBIA (11/07/2002)-- The Zambian Government has summoned aid officials working in a refugee camp to ask them why they have been distributing genetically modified (GM) maize, despite a government ban.

A senior government official held what is described as a "furious meeting" with aid agency staff at the Makeba refugee camp in North-Western province.

Aid workers say they have nothing to replace the GM maize, which is currently feeding 125,000 refugees in five camps, and fear that riots will break out if they attempt to remove it.

The World Food Programme (WFP), which provides the food, says that the Government of Zambia has allowed it to mill and distribute the maize already stocked in the refugee camps.

The WFP says it has received no written instructions to cease these activities.

Ban

The Zambian Government decided last week to reject donations of GM food for nearly three million of its people hit by drought and famine.

The decision was made on the basis of a scientific report on the implications of using GM food on the health and economic welfare of the country.

The report was drawn up after Zambian officials visited the United States, South Africa, Britain and Belgium.

It warned that the safety of GM foods was not conclusive.

As a result it recommended that Zambia turn down the donation of US grain, which contains GM seed.

But now that the report has become public, questions have been raised about the basis of its conclusions.

Dangerous?

The safety aspect is perhaps the most puzzling.

The report states, correctly, that one form of GM maize called "Starlink" has not been authorised for human use by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

But US sources contacted by the BBC deny emphatically that there was any Starlink maize in the food sent to Zambia.

Then there is a query about the amount of GM food donated to Zambia.

The report says that 50,000 tons of GM food was brought into the country by the WFP.

But the WFP says this figure is incorrect, and the amount is far smaller.

The Zambian opposition has questioned why the US donation was turned down.

See the original article with photos and a related poll at BBC News.

 

WILDFIRES BLAMED FOR GREENHOUSE GAS RISE
Billions of tons of carbon is released by wildfires

From BBC News: Science/Nature

(11/07/2002)--New research has shown that the forest fires which ravaged South East Asia five years ago caused a massive increase in levels of the greenhouse gases which cause global warming.

Scientists from Indonesia and Europe believe that 2.6 million tons of carbon entered the atmosphere after the fires in Indonesia - contributing to the biggest annual increase in carbon emissions since records began.

Almost a million hectares of forest were destroyed in the fires, mainly in Borneo and Sumatra, which produced a choking smog across much of southeast Asia.

It's thought they were sparked off by loggers, industrialists and farmers after the failure of seasonal rains created ideal conditions for a blaze.

Land clearance blamed

The scientists, whose research is published in Nature, also found that most of the carbon did not come from burnt trees but from smouldering deposits of peat.

Tropical peatlands store huge amounts of carbon which, the scientists say, could be released by forest fires in the future.

"Carbon dioxide is known to be responsible for the global warming of the atmosphere of the earth," said the head of the team of scientists, Dr Susan Page, from the University of Leicester in the UK.

"Recurrent fires have, therefore, the threatening potential of making a very significant contribution to this warming."

Carbon produced by the fires accounted for 13%-40% of that year's total worldwide emissions - produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.

The scientists warned that the continued use of fire as a means of clearing land would lead to higher emissions of carbon dioxide unless policies are changed.

The Indonesian fires five years ago were set off when timber and plantation companies tried to clear land.

The fires then spread due to a prolonged drought blamed on the El Nino weather phenomenon.

El Nino is a swell of warm water in the Pacific Ocean that affects global weather patterns.

Dr Page's team worked in the Central Kalimantan province of Borneo, where 8,000 square kilometres of swamp forest was scorched.

They used satellite data to estimate the amount of carbon released by the wildfires.

In total, the fires covered about 60,000 square kilometres of Indonesia's peat swamp overall - an area twice the size of Belgium.

That makes up around one-third of the archipelago's total peat swamp.

See the original article with photos and a box of global warming story links at BBC News: Science/Nature.

 

PINE STREET INN CUTS DAYTIME SERVICES
Drop in aid cited by shelter officials

By David Abel, Boston Globe staff

(11/05/2002)-- Faced with steep budget cuts, a reduced staff and unprecedented demand for its services, the Pine Street Inn has cut its daytime hours, ending lunch service and closing its lounge to the homeless.

The shelter will maintain its night beds, counseling services, and job-training programs, officials said, and continue to give refuge to the most vulnerable during the day. But unless the weather is inclement, they said, their staff of nearly 400 has been spread too thin to serve the number of people who, in previous years, spent winter days there.

''We have made some very difficult choices, but this is a reality of a 30 percent cut in state funding,'' said Lyndia Downie, president of Pine Street Inn. ''There's no question that this year is going to be a difficult one. We're worried, but we're doing our best to coordinate with other shelters.''

Pine Street's reduced daytime services come just as one of the city's other primary day shelters, Woods-Mullen in the South End, has also closed its doors during the day. Together, the moves will leave hundreds of homeless people either on the streets or searching for shelter elsewhere during winter days.

''In all my 25 years of doing this work, I'm more fearful than ever before,'' said Richard Weintraub, who as director of homeless services for the Boston Public Health Commission oversees the Woods-Mullen shelter.

''I've never seen such a mismatch in the lack of resources and the growing numbers of people coming to our doors,'' added Weintraub, who noted Boston is facing record levels of homelessness. ''If people die, is that when they're going to get the message we're not crying wolf?''

The change at Pine Street puts more pressure on St. Francis House, the largest day shelter in the city. With about 600 people coming to the downtown shelter every day now - and the numbers steadily rising in recent weeks - officials at St. Francis have had to extend the shelter's lunch hours to accommodate the growing lines. They've even asked their volunteers to work longer hours.

The increased demand has also strained St. Francis' pantry. It's not unusual, officials said, for the kitchen staff to run out of food before meals end, forcing workers to scrounge for any food available. And with more clients and fewer staff, workers sometimes struggle to keep the peace among the homeless guests.

''The agitation level has definitely increased,'' said Karen LaFrazia, the shelter's deputy director. ''With the longer waits, there's more verbal sparring and exasperation. People are walking out. Many are just physically and emotionally exhausted.''

One homeless man, Anthony Lee, has prepared a document he hopes will lead to a class-action lawsuit against the Pine Street Inn. Lee says he was sent outside on the first snow day of the year last month.

In the document, he accuses the shelter of illegally withholding federal dollars, cash donations, and food. He also claims Pine Street is subjecting the homeless to ''adverse weather conditions, putting their very lives and health in danger,'' despite its duty to provide emergency shelter.

Pine Street officials reject those contentions and note they have spent $1.3 million of $13.6 million in reserves this year to maintain operations, including serving more than a half-million free meals annually and housing and training some 8,000 Bostonians a year. Officials did not say how much they were saving by closing some of their day programs.

Dipping much further into their reserves - especially at a time when future budget cuts are possible - could jeopardize their ability to provide services in the future, they said. Still, officials said, they plan to spend an undetermined amount to remain open when the weather drops below freezing.

''We're trying to maintain each of our major efforts,'' said Shepley Metcalf, a Pine Street spokeswoman, noting the shelter provides beds for hundreds of men and women every night.

For Mark Kennedy, one of a few dozen homeless men milling about the small park in front of the Pine Street Inn, the shelter could be doing more. ''It's freezing out here,'' said Kennedy, layered in several hooded sweatshirts on Friday. ''Is it fair that we sit out here?''

David Abel can be reached at dabel@globe.com.

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 11/5/2002.

 

OWNING UP: POVERTY, ASSETS, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM
New book shifts focus from income to net worth

From Brookings Press, a book by Michelle Miller-Adams

(10/14/2002)--Despite the recent success of welfare reform in moving people off public assistance and into jobs, most of America's working poor are still unable to accumulate even the most minimal of assets. Even when they are getting by, they lack many of the resources--tangible and intangible--that provide middle-class Americans with a sense of security, stability, and a stake in the future. In Owning Up, Michelle Miller-Adams demonstrates how asset-building programs, used in combination with traditional income-based support, can be an effective means for helping millions of American out of poverty.

Miller-Adams expands the traditional concept of assets to encompass a range of tools, experiences, resources, and support systems that are necessary if asset building is to serve as an effective anti-poverty strategy. She identifies four types of assets that can represent sources of wealth for low-income individuals and communities: economic human social, and natural assets. Economic assets include equity, retirement savings, and other financial holdings. Human assets include education, knowledge, skills, and talents. Included among social assets are the networks of trust and reciprocity that bind communities together. Natural assets include the land, water, air and other natural resources we depend on for survival.

Owning Up also examines five organizations at the forefront of building assets for the poor. Their stories are told through the eyes of individuals whose lives they have helped transform. These organizations have all developed effective strategies for building assets, and Miller-Adams identifies them as models to be emulated elsewhere.

The profiled organizations include:
• Neighborhoods Incorporated of Battle Creek, Michigan. Its innovative strategies seek to increase home ownership and promote neighborhood revitalization in poor communities.
• The Watershed Research and Training Center. This local organization strengthens the natural resource-based economy by retraining workers and strengthening social ties.
• The Private Industry Partnership of Wildcat Service Corporation. Based in New York City, PIP trains former welfare recipients in New York City for entry-level white collar jobs.
• Iowa's Institute for Social and Economic Development. This microenterprise development organization is one of the largest U.S. based organizations training low-income entrepreneurs.
• The Corporation for Enterprise Development. CFED, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has been instrumental in showing that poor people can and will save if given the opportunities and incentives for doing so. They have helped put Individual Development Accounts on the national agenda.

Michelle Miller-Adams is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Kalamazoo College. She is the author of The World Bank: New Agendas in a Changing World (Routledge, 1999) and is a contributor to several edited volumes. She is also former vice president for programs at the Twentieth Century Fund (now the Century Foundation).

The book can be ordered from Brookings Press: Owning Up, where you can read the book's entire second chapter and hear an hour-long Web-radio interview with the author.

Excerpt from chapter two, "Coming Home"

Home ownership stands at the center of the American dream. Buying a home has long been a symbol of success, a sign of having made it into the middle class. Two-thirds of Americans own their homes and, among those who do not, a majority ranks home ownership as the highest priority.1 For most families, their home is their single largest in-vestment and an important source of security. Once a home is fully paid for, the owners can live in it rent-free or pass it on to their children. And, unlike rental costs that may increase each year, ownership makes housing expenses predictable. It also confers certain legal rights. Renters can be evicted from an apartment in ten days if they do not pay the rent. For homeowners, it takes between six and eighteen months for a foreclosure to work its way through the system. In this sense, homes act as a kind of insurance that gives those who are vulnerable a chance to get back on their feet.

Beyond these tangible benefits, home ownership confers tremendous psychological advantages. Most Americans say that owning a home helps them make a better life for their children and lends stability to a mar-riage. 2 Home ownership gives people freedom about such simple decisions as whether to plant a garden or own a pet. And homes represent an asset that can be borrowed against to finance an education, start a business, or cushion a family from economic crisis.

Like the other assets discussed in this book, home ownership is not distributed equally. Wealthier Americans are far more likely to own their homes than are low-income families. Home ownership rates for minori-ties, while rising, continue to lag behind those for whites. And families headed by single women are less likely than two-parent families to live in a house of their own.

The benefits of home ownership and the gaps in this area have led government agencies and private organizations to promote home owner-ship as a strategy for moving low-income families out of poverty. Unlike many policies designed to help the poor, this one has long enjoyed broad-based political support. Traditional antipoverty advocates welcome ini-tiatives that enable poor families to leave behind overpriced rental housing and improve their living conditions. Those who emphasize self-reliance and personal responsibility as the keys to ending poverty also see home ownership as a desirable strategy. Initiatives designed to increase home ownership among the poor have proliferated in recent years among such diverse entities as Fannie Mae, Bank of America, the NAACP, and the nonprofit Center for Community Self-Help.3

While the emphasis on creating new assets embodied in these approaches is welcome, it is not enough just to help people buy homes. Many homes already owned by low-income families are in areas where property values are declining. In such neighborhoods, it makes little sense for owners to improve their homes because the money invested is unlikely ever to be recouped. A downward spiral sets in, with homes sinking into disrepair and property values falling further. As neighborhoods deteriorate, low-income families find themselves holding assets that are actually declining in value. This dynamic has led to a growing recognition that for home ownership to benefit the poor, it must be linked to strategies for keeping neighborhoods healthy. The difficulty lies in achieving this.

One place to look for answers is in Battle Creek, Michigan. Here, a nonprofit organization called Neighborhoods Incorporated has helped revitalize some of the city’s most distressed areas by lending for home purchase and rehabilitation while strengthening the social capital of these same communities. Neighborhoods Incorporated’s unique approach re-quires home buyers to invest in their homes and neighborhoods. By work-ing street by street, not only to upgrade the physical quality of homes but also to build relationships among the people who live in them, Neighbor-hoods Incorporated has accomplished several goals. Property values have increased, providing many low-income homeowners with a new economic resource. Residents have organized to make their streets safer and cleaner, improving both the reality and perception of their neighborhoods. And the well-being of the larger community has increased as its stock of eco-nomic, human, and social assets has grown. These achievements are by no means comprehensive. With limited resources, Neighborhoods Incorpo-rated has been able to focus on just a few target neighborhoods, and even in these areas much remains to be done. But the organization’s efforts have resulted in positive change in the neighborhoods--and in the lives of their residents. The story of how this transformation came about offers lessons that can be included in other efforts to increase the assets of the poor through home ownership.