I might lose my job. The connection between the state of the global environment and socio-economic development, which this newsletter has put forward for the last five years, now seems to have become mainstream. Recently these issues have got more publicity than ever. Most of the reporting has dealt with climate change. Why then?
   Al Gore’s movie “An inconvenient truth” is one reason. The recent UN climate talks in Nairobi another. But, as it seems, ultimately money talks… The somewhat apocalyptic report by Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist at the World Bank, could well have been the turning point in combating global warming. It shows that the economic costs of climate change could be worse than the two world wars and the great depression put together, shrinking the global economy by twenty per cent. But if drastic measures are taken now, the cost could be as little as one per cent.
   The interesting thing is that Stern’s report contained rather little that was scientifically new. The new thing is that this time the analysis comes from a hard-headed economist rather than an atmospheric scientist, and this might be enough to persuade the doubters – although many claim his scenarios are a bit exaggerated.
   And this is not the only recent example of environmental investments that can pay off. According to the 2006 Human Development Report from United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, the economic return in saved time, increased productivity and reduced health costs would be US$8 for each US$1 invested in achieving The Millennium Development Goal’s target for water and sanitation. Likewise, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reports released last year highlight the critical, yet often ignored, need to invest in the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services in striving for poverty alleviation and sustainable development.
   These reports might be seen as the final pieces in the jigsaw in the case for action to invest in the environment. We have said it before in this newsletter: it is much easier, and cheaper, to pollute than cleaning up the mess afterwards. Ecosystems do seldom respond linearly and increasing pollution often causes unexpected collapse of important functions when thresholds are reached. Following the image of the straw that broke the camel’s back, there is concern that we are approaching a critical threshold where further emissions of greenhouse gases and reductions in biological diversity will cause dramatic and unpredictable changes in the vital services provided to human society by natural ecosystems. Hence, many types of environmental degradation are essentially irreversible, meaning that they persist also after the environmental pressure has been removed.
   These ecological insights and the connection to the global economy show us clearly that it makes good economic sense to make environmental investments. And we’d better start now, because the environment can’t wait. If this insight really would become mainstream I can’t wait to lose my job!
Merry X-mas and a Happy New Year!

This night-time map constructed by NASA shows the increasingly urban nature of the planet. More than half of the world’s population now live in cities.

Two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities within 50 years. Already today a third of the world’s urban population dwell in the slums. The fate of the planet depends more and more on the future of cities.

At the eve of New Year 2007 we are facing a historic urban transition – for the first time in history the world’s urban population is exceeding the rural population. This is a rapid transformation considering that in 1950 only one-third of the world’s population lived in cities. The absolute majority, up to 95 per cent, of future urban growth will occur in cities in the developing world.
   Although cities are centers for economic growth and culture the accelerating global urbanisation also implies huge challenges, since the regions predicted to account for the greater part of the growth are also the regions least equipped to deal with this rapid urbanization.

The growing slums
The pace of urbanization continues to accelerate. The number of cities in the world with populations exceeding one million increased from 17 in 1900 to 388 in 2000. Most of the world’s megacities with over 10 million inhabitants are in the developing world. An increasingly urban planet is really not in itself good or bad. The key issue is rather how this predicted growth can take place in best possible way. How can we avoid problems such as air and water pollution, loss of farmland, and isolation from nature? How do we make urbanization more sustainable?
   The recent UN-HABITAT’s State of the World’s Cities 2006/7 report shows that contrary to what is often assumed, urban dwellers are healthier, more literate and prosperous than people in rural areas. The report argues that many cities, especially in the developing world consist of two extremes: 1) areas representing all the benefits of urban life and 2) slums and squatter settlements, and they often develop side-by-side. Whereas the first in general represents a better quality of life, urban slums often affects life quality in terms of lower life expectancy, nutrition levels, and chances of employment than in rural areas.
Currently, nearly one billion people are estimated to live in urban slums where a lack of sanitation, clean water, and poor air quality are increasing and causing health problems and the risk of disease, in particular, for women and children. For example, in many Sub-Saharan African cities, children living in slums are more likely to die from both respiratory illness and water-born disease and women living in slums are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than their rural counterparts.
The attraction of a city can be illustrated by using two metaphors: the city as a magnet, a cultural and economic hub providing e.g. job opportunities and a diversity of life styles. On the other hand, we could also see it as a bag net for people forced to abandon rural areas due to various social- ecological tensions. This tension can often be a result of altered environmental conditions due to both local and outside drivers. For example, depletion of water tables or salinisation of soils can result in land abandonment or international trading agreements might affect the livelihood as cheap imported commodities from international markets out compete the national agricultural products.
   The hope to find a better life does not necessary need to be achieved. This might result in a bigger and more complicated step to move back to the rural area than it was coming to the city since you often leave the means of livelihood, perhaps including the soil.

Urban nature
Although half the human population lives in urban areas cities only account for less than 3 % of the Earth’s land surface. Nevertheless, city life consume the majority of the Earth’s natural resources and produce about 80 % of the greenhouse gases in the world. Moreover, estimates show that a city may need ecosystems (ecological footprint) of up to 1000 times the city area, both as resource input and for assimilating waste products. Consequently, ecosystems both inside and outside city boundaries are critical to the health, economy and quality of life of people who live in cities. Ecosystem services needed include uptake of carbon dioxide, mitigation of local pollution and noise, social meeting places, recreational activities and creation of biological networks. It is not only adjacent forests, agriculture, and nature reserves that provide such ecosystem courses and other urban green spaces can play an important role.
   Moreover, it is estimated that about 15-20 per cent of total global food production is produced in towns. Such urban farming continues to grow in many developing countries. Although the potential contribution urban agriculture is large it will not be sufficient to meet all the needs of the city metabolism. So, the idea of cities as isolated self support units is definitely wrong, as illustrated by the ecological footprint concept.
   Urbanization is, however, not inherently bad for ecosystems. In contrast, many urban ecosystems exhibit higher species diversity than rural monocultures and can provide a whole range of services such as recreation opportunity and improvement of water- and air quality. Another potentially positive aspect of the concentration of people in cities is that water and energy supply as well as sewage treatment can become more effective compared to if the population was scattered over a larger land surface.
Whereas the mega-cities of the South continue to grow, shrinkage of cities is now reported from several parts of the world. This phenomenon has resulted in a concept called “creative shrinkage” where unused lots can be transformed to park land and other environmental improvements can be carried out.

Meeting the challenges
Many claim that “urbanization of poverty” has been neglected by Western aid agencies, which have focused on rural areas and the victims of floods, droughts and conflicts. This is alarming as the growing slums with their young, unemployed and disaffected populations make many developing countries’ cities a powder keg of potential instability and discontent.
So, how do we meet these challenges? Can there be a sustainable Lagos in the future, and a bright future for Dhaka and Mexico City? The great weblog “World Changing” says we need to “assemble toolboxes which each city can use according to its own genius and inspiration, and to network the planet’s urban innovators together so that they can quickly, easily, and constantly compare work and share ideas”.
   Some of the tools are close at hand, they continue, and mention things like: using composting toilets to turn waste back into soil and fuel; planting roof gardens and street trees; creating hillside orchards with fruit and nut trees to provide food, clean the air and check erosion; building new homes to take advantage of passive heating and cooling.
They also tell the story of a group of young architects in Malaysia who designed a home with flexible solar panels which open as the day warms to bring shade and generate electricity, and then fold back up as the evening cools. Another positive example mentioned is from Goa, India.
   Finally, World Changing concludes that the new bright urban future “may be nearly unfathomable to us in the old-fashioned North”. It might “smell of curry and plantains, soy sauce and chipolte, and sound more like Moroccan rap and Mongol pop than Mozart”.

Planet of slums
In many of the developing world’s mega cities urban sprawl is manifested as extensive settlements in the urban periphery where the poor live in a highly polluted environment due to the lack of running water, trash pickup, electricity or paved roads. According to the united nations, more than one billion people now live in the slums of the cities of the South. But sometimes the problem can be the opposite: the inner city area is left out of urban development and inhabited by poor people, living under conditions far from ideal.
   In the developed parts of the world sprawl is taking another kind of serious toll as the poorly planned urban development increases traffic, pollutes air and water, and destroys agricultural land, parks, and open space. It also implies huge costs in terms of longer water and sewer systems, schools, and increased police and fire protection. As a result, sprawling cities impacts directly on the quality of life of people living both in and around cities.
   The solution? Many researchers around the world currently work to solve the problems associated with urban sprawl. Among the many solutions suggested are: protecting parks and open spaces; promoting public transportation; reversing government programs and tax policies that help create sprawl; revitalizing already developed areas; and preventing new development in floodplains, coastal areas and other disaster- prone areas.

According to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options, livestock production is responsible for more climate change gases than all the motor vehicles in the world.

“Despite setbacks, the race against hunger can be won”, says FAO in their recent report on global food insecurity. It clearly illustrates the somewhat contrasting situations when looking through regional developments to reduce hunger and malnutrition across the world.

This year’s Human Development Report calls for 20 litres of clean water a day for all as a human right. It also concludes that the global water crisis is a silent emergency experienced mostly by the poor and tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and the political power to end it.

Half what rich countries spend on mineral water
Each year almost 2 million children die from diarrhoea that could be prevented with access to clean water and sufficient sanitation. Moreover, 443 million school days are lost as a consequence of water-related illnesses and almost 50 percent of all people in developing countries are suffering from health problems caused by a lack of water and sanitation. Altogether, this crisis in water and sanitation is holding back poverty reduction and economic growth in some of the world’s poorest countries.
– Like hunger, it is a silent emergency experienced by the poor and tolerated by those with the resources, the technology and the political power to end it, says the authors of the report.
   This needs to change, stress the authors. So, what would it cost to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 on access to water and sanitation? About $10 billion a year, says the report. It might seem a large sum, but it actually represents less than five days’ global military spending and less than half what rich countries spend each year on mineral water. The benefits for Sub-Saharan Africa would represent 60 percent of its 2003 aid flows. Hence, the question is not whether the world can afford solve the global water crisis, but rather if the world can afford not to make the investments.
    During the Swedish launch of the report in Stockholm recently, Sweden’s Ministry for the Environment, Andreas Carlgren, agreed:
– It will be enormously cost-effective to invest in the water sector and it reminds me of what we now see when it comes to the climate issue.
   One thing that is, however, not put forward enough in the report is the increased need for water in agriculture in the future. Production of food for feeding the growing human population is highly water-consuming. It takes more than 500 litres of water to produce enough flour for one loaf of bread and up to 7000 litres of water to produce 100 grams of beef in developed countries. At the same time, urbanisation and increasing wealth are changing food preferences with significant increases in the demand for water-intensive commodities like meat and dairy products. This involves large-scale groundwater overexploitation and widespread river depletion, which pose a major threat to biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems. The resulting environmental degradation and loss of production potential caused by water pollution from agricultural chemicals, water logging and salinisation is of course of major importance for human development, especially in the world’s poor regions.

HDR 2006 recommendations: 1. Make water a human right: Everyone should have at least 20 litres of clean water per day and the poor should get it for free. 2. Draw up national strategies for water and sanitation: Governments should aim to spend a minimum of one percent GDP on water and sanitation 3. Increased international aid: to bring the MDG on water and sanitation into reach, aid flows will have to double.

Environmental sustainability enhances economic development, concludes a new report compiled by UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Sustainable seaweed farming
In the tropics, seaweed farming seems to be at a crossroad. At present, low seaweed prices imply bleak prospects for developing a viable livelihood option for the poor. On the other hand, if prices or productivity increase seaweed farming in many tropical coastal areas could be boosted. Such a development could, if left uncontrolled, entail large-scale environmental side-effects on sea grass beds and nearby coral reefs with implications for lucrative activities as fisheries and coastal tourism. Negative side-effects include altering of habitats, shading of important sea grasses and involuntary spreading of farmed algae that overgrow adjacent coral reefs.
   In a recent article, in the science journal Marine Ecology Progress Series, a group of Swedish researchers suggest a more long-term and holistic development of seaweed farming. This includes choosing species and methods better suited for each site; maintaining farming intensity within the carrying capacity of the local environment; acknowledging seaweed farming as an integrated component of the larger coastal zone; continuously assessing potential environmental effects; and striving for increased socio-economic sustainability. In this way, they write, “seaweed farming will come closer to becoming a truly sustainable form of aquaculture”.

Researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute have condensed today’s knowledge of causes and consequences of climate change into 50 colour maps and graphics. At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi last month the Atlas of Climate Change was launched.

The Atlas of Climate Change examines the possible impacts of climate change on our ability to feed the world’s people, avoid water shortages, conserve biodiversity, improve health, and preserve cities and cultural treasures. It also reviews historical contributions to greenhouse gas levels, progress in meeting the Kyoto commitments and local efforts to meet the challenge of climate change.
– Our new book is a significant contribution to the global dialogue on climate change, says Johan Rockström, Executive Director of Stockholm Environment Institute. He continues:
– This publication is the first comprehensive scientific work condensing the consensus knowledge of the evidence, causes and consequences of climate change. We believe that it can provide invaluable background information for decisions from governments and policy-makers across the globe.
The book is richly illustrated with more than 50 full colour maps and graphics and has the potential to become an essential resource for policy-makers, environmentalists, students and the broader public.

Tiny “labs-on-a-chip” could be a means to move sophisticated medical testing methods even to remote areas in the developing world.

Lab-on-a-chip technology allows medical tests – previously conducted on large pieces of laboratory equipment – to be performed on a credit card seized plate with fluid channels, known to scientists as “microfluidic capillaries”. In each channel fluids can be directed to certain areas of the chip where they can be tested for the presence of specific molecules from i.e. a blood sample to establish a patient’s health condition.
   One of the problems that global health programs face today is limited access to reliable tests for diagnosing patients since laboratories, especially in rural areas are often low standard. They lack resources and trained staff and suffer frequently from absence of running water and electricity, which hinders maintenance of most of the available laboratory equipment.
   Microfluidics could help to overcome those problems. The goal is to design them so that they are simple to use; cost-effective; giving fast results and that they are stable during transport and storage even under extreme conditions.

Easy and cheap to use
Once those tests are brought to perfection health care workers without a lot of training could collect samples and bring them back to the health center without having to use any high-tech equipment to keep them cool and clean. Processing happens immediately, so the sample will not degrade in the destructive heat present in so many developing-world settings and patients can get a diagnosis almost immediately.
   In a recent review in Nature Paul Yager and co-workers discuss the advantages of lab-on-a-chip technology for developing countries. They believe that these miniature labs can be improved to a point where they can perform assays at sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility levels comparable to those in a central laboratory. The greatest challenge will be to keep the costs low but they are convinced that this is possible and that, since funding is good, the first microfluidic systems designed for the developing countries will be introduced within the next 5 years.
   Even though this is very promising it is clear that science and technology alone are not going to magically solve all the problems of developing countries. Improving global health requires likewise coordinated efforts to better education, to include environmental aspects into the discussions and to provide sustained investments and political will.