In Brasil, 1 percent of the population owns 49 percent of land. Source (Financial Times, 0 April 2010)
In Britain, 0.3 percent of the population owns 69 percent of land. Source (Financial Times, 0 April 2010)
Globally, more people now live in cities and towns than in rural areas
Africa is now the World’s fastest urbanizing region and by 2050, 55% of Africans will be living in urban areas (from 38% in 2000)
Over 90% of new urban development in Africa is taking the form of slums
About 70% of urban population in Africa presently live in slums, and yet occupy less than 10% of urban and peri-urban lands
Research shows that in Africa about 60% of GDP is created in cities and towns
Formal land registration and administration have been unable to cope with rapid urban growth and as a result, between 50-70 percent of urban land in Africa is delivered through informal practices
In Zimbabwe, on 19 May 2005, with little or no warning, the Government embarked on an Operation to 'clean-up' its cities. It was a 'crash' operation known as Operation Murambatsvina and affected over 700,000 people.
In Ghana, some 800 people also had their homes destroyed in Legion Village, Accra, in May 2006, while approximately 30,000 people in the Agbogbloshie community of Accra have been threatened with forced eviction since 2002.
In Kenya, at least 20,000 people have been forcibly evicted from neighbourhoods in or around Nairobi since 2000.
In Equatorial Guinea, at least 650 families have been forcibly evicted from their homes since 2004, when the government embarked on a programme of urban regeneration in Malabo and Bata.
In Luanda, the capital of Angola, at least 6,000 families have been forcibly evicted and have had their homes demolished since 2001.
In Sudan, more than 12,000 people were forcibly evicted from Darusalaam camp in August 2006.
58 per cent of all households in South Africa are living without security of tenure.
In Nigeria, some 2 million people have been forcibly evicted from their homes and many thousands have been made homeless since 2000.
More than 3 million Africans have been forcibly evicted from their homes since 2000.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the 1998 Regularization of Tenure Act established a Certificate of Comfort that can be used to confer security of tenure to squatters as the first step in a process designed to give them full legal title.
Some 25,000 evictions are carried out annually in New York City alone.
In Atlanta, some 30,000 people were forcibly evicted prior to the 1996 Olympic Games, while the oldest public housing project, Techwood Homes, was deliberately de-tenanted because it stood in the way of a 'sanitized corridor' running through to CNN headquarters and the city centre.
Between 40 and 70 per cent of the population of Brazil’s main cities are living in irregular settlements.
Some 720,000 people were forcibly evicted in Seoul and Inchon, Republic of South Korea, prior to the 1988 Olympic Games.
The number of people forcibly evicted to give way to dams in India alone since 1950 has been estimated at 50 million.
The economic boom in China has significantly reduced security of tenure. Rapid urban growth is a major cause of forced evictions. 1.7 million people have reportedly been evicted in Beijing (China) in the run-up to the 2008 Olympic Games.
Everyone who returned to Phnom Penh, Cambodia, after the collapse of the Khmer Rouge regime was a squatter.
In Sri Lanka, large numbers of those displaced by the tsunami in late 2004 are still prevented from returning to their original homes and lands.
The Government of Myanmar forcibly evicted more than 1 million residents of Yangon, Rangoon.
An restitution programme in Kosovo has provided legal clarity regarding tenure and property rights to 29,000 disputed residential properties in the province since 2000.
Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/06 08:08 GMTPayment for environmental services (PES) can be seen as a way of creating markets where they do not exist and therefore cause environmental externalities that are so severe that they require action. Identification of appropriate payment levels that create sufficient incentives to sustain environmental services as well as identification of a source of payment that can be sustained is required.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
ROSEMARY WACHIRA
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/06 11:24 GMTPayment of environmental services is never sustainable since the purpose of works carried out tends to be at variance with the environmental protection . The idea of rewards is much preferred to payments.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Dr. Mohammed Abdur Razzak
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/07 10:42 GMTResearch shows that environmental services have short and long run impacts. PES must consider projects relating to preventing long term environmental effects.
Environmental protection and conservation projects are also to be financed on a priority basis.
Environmental protection agency , quality, standard and monitoring programs can be financed from PES.
The environment protection force must be subsidizedby PES as well.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Dan Sullivan
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/12 17:22 GMTI'm not quite sure what "payment for environmental services" means. However, payment for environmental *expoitation* makes perfect sense, no matter how severe one thinks the environmental crisis is.
Those who see the problem as severe will want higher payments, but the principle is the same. Natural resource "owners" did not create the resources, and one citizen has as much right to those resources as another. Those who enjoy the privilege of consuming resources owe payment to those who are denied that privilege, or to the government that represents everyone. The higher the payment, the slower the exploitation, but it is each community's call, not each each resource holder's call.
The same principle applies to the air and water. To the extent that ordinary uses of air and water (for breathing, drinking, recreation and, now, maintaining comfortable temperatures) are compromised by people who want to dump their pollutant's into the system, those who suffer have a right to charge the polluters.
How much they charge is up to them. If they charge very high fees, they could suffer economically, at least in the short term, unless they untax human productivity at the same time. If they charge very low fees, they will suffer in the long run through waste of valuable resources, and they will lose the revenue that could have offset their human-productivity taxes.
I'm for very high fees, but I'm also for decentralized democracy. I would therefore offer only advice and let the local governments make their own decisions.
-ds
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Joseph George Ray
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/12 18:18 GMTPayment for environmental services has certain problems.
First and most important issue is 'who pay to whom?' Because, environment is nobody's asset; the present generation has to protect the environment completely as they are just the 'trustees' and not 'owners' of the resources.
The concept of payment implies that the environment can be exploited unlimitedly if one has the 'resources to pay for' some how. If in the paid use, the resources are depleted by the present generation, what shall be there for the future generation to buy even if they are ready to pay? Again if some sections of the societies have nothing to pay, how can they make use of the environment, the genuine use of which is really their birthrights
The second issue is 'How to calculate the payment?' Price of environment resources and services are beyond the human concept of 'economic valuation'. Even if the 'economists' or 'environomists' decide certain economic value for a certain 'service' or 'resource', that will not be steady.
Therefore, what is required in environment issues is to educate people of the importance of 'environment resources or services' as something which all humans or the whole forms of life have equal rights and common interests so that no humans have the right to misuse or overuse them for any reason (paid or unpaid use)
What is important is that each shall use the 'services' in a learned and responsible way so that the services remain sustainable infinitely.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Stein Holden
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/12 19:16 GMTI agree that PES is not a simple tool to apply in many cases. It will therefore need further testing to a variety of situations. Still, I disagree that it is sufficient to just educate people and provide information - for them then to change their behaviour. Environmental taxes and subsidies, e.g. the Polluter-pays-principle, or "the dagrader of the the environment pays" for his damages and the one who is affected is compensated. This is in essence the same idea as for PES and is due to Pigou (Pigouvian taxes and subsidies). There may, however, be situations where this principle may not work. If the degrader is a poor farmer who deforests and farms steep hills to meet his subsistence needs,and he is taxed to pay for his damages he may be forced to deforest even more to meet his needs. What is then rather needed is a new incentive mechanism, like a payment for environmental services where is paid to conserve the forests in the hills and this may be compensated through REDD or some other mechanism to store carbon, prevent flooding in the lowlands, and save biodiversity.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Joseph George Ray
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/13 18:28 GMTI understand the meaning of 'polluter-pays principle' and also "the dagrader of the the environment pays" . What I wanted to convey is that these principles have only narrow or regional or temporary applications.
Of course, humans need temporary solutions to begin with; but 'think globally and act locally' or 'thinking of sustainable solutions and starting the process with temporary programmes' shall be the human strategy on the earth.
Only if there are sustainable global goals for every temporary or local programmes, such programmes will be really useful to humans in the long run. Because, the damages that humans already made to the global environment set up is quite huge and difficult to pay back.
Who will pay for the mercury contaminations of the oceans, the biocide residues of the environment, the uv-ray damage of biological systems due to ozone depletion, biodiversity erosion due to diverse programmes of human 'development' etc? Of course, the present generations have to pay irrespective of country, caste, language or religion! How is that possible without imposing self sacrifice on resource consumptions?
So long as poverty sustains in the world and a small section of the global society ignore the issue as if it is not going to affect the paying capacity of them at any point in the future, environment safety or economic safety would be a myth; the safety, which the 'people' who believe to have the paying capacity would be quite temporary.
Environmental issue is a spiritual issue and not just a material issue alone. Possessing any resource beyond our 'genuine need' is a 'criminal act' against humanity in the long run; because ultimately such possessions are going to affect the sustainability of the interrelated environmental system at large.
Therefore, all technological advancements shall be focused to reductions in global consumption rates, more of global cooperation on peace and poverty eradication and not the other way.
Humans have to begin a different kind of Environment education programme with a global environmental outlook to solve the crisis( actually there is no separate environment education programme; an educational programme that is perfect will be true envionment education).
I hope you may express your critical views on these ideas as well.
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/13 18:35 GMT
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/13 18:35 GMT
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/13 18:38 GMT
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Stein Holden
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/13 20:48 GMTThe problem with your "global solution" is that it can never become a global solution. Even if you develop this ideology very far you will not be able to convince all the people in the world to impose self-control as the only mechanism for caretaking of the environment. That is where the incentive mechanisms from economics help us to create a better balance between global goals and individual incentives. The individual who does damages today that will affect future generations negatively should be confronted with this cost today and that should make him change his behaviour in the right direction. The principle is clear and constant but care needs to be taken for its adjustment to get the wanted correction of behaviour. The global solution you talk about will also have to be adjusted to the local circumstances and to the point in time. The difference is that your system requires an extreme level of education of all individuals that is far too unrealistic.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Joseph George Ray
Re:Payment for environmental services - 2009/05/15 18:30 GMTRespected Prof. Stein Holden,
I appreciate your critical comments, but don't understand why did you say "Even if you develop this ideology very far you will not be able to convince all the people in the world to impose self-control as the only mechanism for caretaking of the environment". I did not mean 'self control the only means', but the major means to environmental issues including poverty affecting a major sections of the society.
You may kindly notice that, the ideolgy which I emphasized was not purely mine, but the essence of 'Gandhian thought" applied to environmental issues facing the world today.
I am not an economist; I am basically a student of Ecology; I find Gandhian theory of politics and economics are not just ideologies; but the theories of practical and sustainable solution to all the severe problems that world faces today - of slums, poverty and environmental issues.
I hope that you economists and developmental scientists are well aware of the principles of Gandhiji; who said
" Among the delusions which different periods have afflicted humanity, perhaps the greatest - certainly the least creditable - is modern economics based on the idea that an advantageous code of action may be determined irrespectively of the influence of social affection"
"The art of becoming 'rich' in the common sense is not only the art of accumulating much money for ourselves but also of contriving that our neighbours shall have less - the art of establishing the maximum inequality in our own favour"
"The rash and absurd assumption that such inequalities are necessarily advantageous lies at the root of most of the popular fallacies on the subject of economics"
"The real value of acquired wealth depends on the moral sign attached to it, just as sternly as that of a mathematical quantity depends on the algebraical sign attached to it"
"So the economist in calling his science the science of getting rich must attach some idea of limitation to its character; true economics is the economics of justice. People will be happy in so far as they learn to do justice and righteous. All else is not only vain but leads straight to destruction"
You may note that this year the world is celebrating the centenery of Gandhiji's book "Indian Home Rule", about which Tolstoy said " I have only one disagreement on the book, that its title shall not be 'Indian Home rule" but "World's Home Rule". The Cabridge Press has already republished the book and declared it as a world classic, worth reading.
You cannot say that Gandhian ideology never works; it worked and made India free without bloodshed; now it has to work in making humanity free from eco and economic catastrophe; If good economic scientists like you seriously study and apply the Gandhian principles as true solutions to serious crises of the world of today, I hope it will work.
My ecological convictions tells me that these priciples are true.
I shall be obliged to you if you critically comment on the prospects of 'Gandhian Thoughts' in the current land and environment crises of the world.
Sincerely Yours,
Dr Ray Mahathma Gandhi University Kottayam
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/15 18:33 GMT
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/16 15:56 GMT
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Joseph George Ray
revision - 2009/05/15 18:30 GMT
Post edited by: methikalamray, at: 2009/05/16 15:58 GMT
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.