Russia | Agriculture Information

Wildfires – A Growing Natural Hazard.

July 19, 2016 / como / 0 Comments

Wildfire/forest fire, whenever its raging, spreads fast and furious, covering vast areas extensively. With the exception of Antarctica, wildfires occur on every continent, causing extensive damage, to both property and human life. Even though some wildfires burn in remote forested areas, they are still liable of causing extensive destruction to homes and property in adjoining rural areas. The ensuing haze pollution of acrid smoke and poisonous smog can escalate into regional cross border issues with wider implications. That its becoming a growing natural hazard in most regions is already acknowledged. Wildfire spreads quickly, consuming almost everything in its path, destroying at times, thousands of acres of surrounding land. Once ignited, wildfires spread at a speed up to 14.29 miles per hour (23 kph). In the United States, wildfires destroy on average, 5 million acres every year. (i)

In August 2010, wildfires which raged during summer in Russia caused an estimated damage of US$ 400 million. The fires which covered 22 Russian regions left 3,500 people homeless. Emergency evacuations at one stage reached 7,000 people per day. In the midst of the fast-spreading wildfires, rescuers managed to save 4,000 residential areas from fires. At its height, acrid smoke from forest and peat bog fires blanketed Moscow with a poisonous smog contributing to a higher death rate in the city. Carbon monoxide concentration at one stage was more than five times the normal level. The smog grounded planes in airports and nearly doubled the number of recorded deaths. When it was raging in mid-August 2010, there were 16 wildfires burning outside Moscow. The 2010 summer, the hottest in Russia in over 130 years with its heatwave reflected the global climates increased volatility. Wildfires which compounded the drought in Russia destroyed almost a third of its wheat crop, prompting the authorities to ban wheat exports. (ii)

The 1997 forest fires which burned out of control in forest, plantations, and scrublands in Sumatra and Kalimantan (Indonesia) destroyed almost 1 million hectares. The illegal practice of open burning to clear timber and plantation areas aggravated an unusually dry period in the region caused by a severe El Nino event. The resulting smog spread to cities in Indonesia, Malaysia Singapore, and Philippines affecting up to 70 million people.

Mixed with pollution in cities, smoke from the forest fires produced deadly smog, referred to in Asia as the haze. Over 40,000 people were hospitalized due to the haze which claimed the lives of 19 people in Indonesia. Experts warned that the 1997 haze could be instrumental to 20% of all deaths in the region. Air pollutant Index (API) in parts of Indonesia, and Malaysia reached levels of pollution deemed extremely dangerous to human health. Environmentalists have been quick to decry authorities over failure to control illegal burning, andthe callous destruction of forests. The forest fire disasters highlighted the poorly regulated logging industry and the susceptibility of logged forest to fire, consequent to the forest floor being dried-up in the absence of a forest canopy.

In the nature of things, even some disasters got forgotten. The east Kalimantan forest fire of 1982-83 burnt approximately 33,000 km of forest (the size of Belgium). Hazards beget disasters, and in the case of wildfires, the fires themselves will contribute significantly to global climate change effects through the massive emission of carbon monoxide. Dire expectations of another round of El Nino dry weather phenomenon in 2010 once again raised concerns whether Indonesias infamous forest fires will envelope its neighbors in smoke. The major forest fires in 1997-98 already led to the formulation of the Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution in 2002. Satellite imaging to date revealed a massive decrease in forest fires hotspots, 401 hotspots in Riau (January-April 2010) compared to the same period last year (4,681 hotspots). (iii)

Indonesia has affirmed its commitment to reduce by 20% of forest fires hotspots per year to slash the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. Indonesias 1997 massive forest fires put her as the worlds third largest CO2 emitter. Unlike most of the major natural disasters which are primarily domestic, forest fires have the additional dimension of creating cross-border issues. The Indonesian forest fires of 1997-8 was the most damaging in recorded history, where more than 9 million hectares of land were burnt, the majority ( 6.5 million) comprised forested areas. Damages were estimated to be more than USD 9 billion. An estimated 1-2 billion tonnes of CO2 were released by the forest fires. The dry seasons of 2006 and 2007 saw similar problems escalating in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand.

With 60% of the worlds tropical peatlands found in South-east Asia (estimated to be 24 million hectares) itsinevitable that ASEAN placed management of transboundaryhaze pollution as one of its priorities. Fires in peat soils comprise a major contributor to transboundary haze pollution. Seventy percent of South-East Asias peatlands are in Indonesia. There has been substantial progress in joint mitigation efforts against transboundary haze pollution under ASEANs Regional Haze Action Plan (RHAP).

When forest fires become transboundary environmental disaster, neighbouring countries get badly affected by the smoke, haze, and the ensuing poisonous smog. The experience of South-east Asian countries during the dry seasons in 1991, 1994, and 1997, with millions across the region affected was indicative of the severity and extent of the resulting smoke haze pollution. The impact of this particular environmental disaster was enormous, its extent yet to be fully determined. It left scars across various economic sectors including air, water and land transport, shipping, construction, tourism, forestry and agriculture. The long-term health effects on the people of the countries affected nevertheless remained unanswered. A framework for sustainable management of peatlands for the period 2006-2020 has been established by ASEAN, with its principal strategies aimed at reducing incidences of forest fires and associated haze.

Raging wildfire infernos in southern Australia last year (February 2009) left more than 160 people dead. The speed it took to spread quickly beyond characteristics of wildfire has been described as being closer to an aerial bombing. There had been early-warning signs way back. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned of increasing intensity and frequency of wildfires in Australia, resulting from steadily warming temperatures over the next several decades. The Australian governments own Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in its 2007 report outlined potential for severe warming scenarios on the extreme end of the spectrum by 2050.
Described as the driest inhabited continent on the planet, its inevitable that destructive wildfires getting common in Australia. Climate change is expected to worsen Australias extreme heat waves and droughts. Prolonged drought in Southwestern Australia has drastically decimated agriculture and also resulted in widespread water rationing.

Global warming will contribute to the impetus towards extreme weather conditions. As we observe the increasing frequency of wildfires/forest fires, whats the state of our environmental disaster preparedness? Has our disaster management capacity improved to a level whereby we are able to provide aggressive responses to such natural disasters? Our emergency preparedness should mitigate natural disasters from turning into human catastrophes. (iv)

References:-

(i) Science.howstuffworks.com How Wildfires Work. Kevin Bonsor
(ii) Guardian.co.uk Sunday 15 August 2010. Moscows deadly smog returns as wildfires continue to rage
(iii) The Jakarta Globe. Indonesia Feels Heat to Contain Seasonal Forest Fire Haze. Fidelis E Satriastanti | May 05, 2010
(iv) Time. Why Global Warming May Be Fueling Australias Fires. Bryan WalshMonday,

Is There A Chance Of Another Green Revolution Not Only In Agriculture But On Climate Change

December 11, 2015 / como / 0 Comments

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation global food prices have risen by an average of 83% overall in the last decade.

That’s just one statistic from this week’s crop of news reports on climate change, global warming and food production.

Here’s another: global greenhouse gas emissions since the 1850s would have been a third greater without the 1960s Green Revolution, according to the researchers in the US.

Neither of these findings is likely to bring much comfort to the millions of people currently struggling with the effects of this year’s unprecedented rainfall in Pakistan and China, which has displaced at least 20 million people in the two countries, flooded out of their homes, their work and all they own, including crops, seeds and livestock.

Nor will it be of comfort to the Russians, facing their hottest ever summer, with wild fires circling Moscow and risking the loss of at least a third, possibly more, of the country’s wheat crop – due for harvest in September and October but already triggering price speculation on the commodities markets because Russia is the world’s third largest supplier of wheat.

In addition 16 countries have recorded record temperatures this year (2010) and there are severe droughts, leading to starvation in Niger and parts of the Sahel region of Africa.

At the same time US researchers have also found that rice yields are declining in the six main Asian rice producing countries, which they ascribe to global warming and the resulting rise in night-time temperatures. Yields have dropped between 10% and 20% over the last 25 years in some places.

In the face of all this it is hard to tolerate the persistent wrangling between countries in the ongoing discussions ahead of the next meeting in Cancun, Mexico, due in November. Following the disappointing outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, it’s now being said that the talks have in fact gone backwards.

Even without the mounting evidence of the devastating effects of climate change on weather patterns, and by extension agricultural production, a vast increase in food production is going to be needed to supply the projected global population growth and make some inroads into the scandal that a billion people on the planet are malnourished if not starving.

So what happened in the last “green” revolution and what chance is there of another one?

The 1960s green revolution increased crop yields and cut hunger dramatically in places like South Asia and Latin America by putting more land into cultivation and by using higher yielding varieties of rice, maize and other crops. The result for India, for example, was transformation from a food importer in need of emergency help from time to time to a major food exporter.

Twice as much land as is currently used would have been needed to feed the growing global population at current levels, according to the US researchers. The green revolution used a combination of intensive farming techniques and chemical fertilisers as well as the higher-yield varieties to avoid that.

However, as we now know, there were longer term implications to this method of farming – in the effects of chemical fertilisers on the soil, the environment, insects, plants, animals and sometimes human health.

Lessons have been learned and at least the language has changed. The talk now is all about sustainable farming, natural, healthier foods and a new range of low-chem agricultural products, including biopesticides, biofungicides and yield enhancers, coming from the Biopesticides Researchers that do less harm to the land.

These low-chem products are only part of the mix. There is also the technique of genetic modification although there are many people who are very wary of the unknown pandora’s box this might open.

Changing diet patterns towards eating more meat as the BRIC countries become more prosperous and develop a larger, urban middle class are another factor. Meat production is generally regarded as an inefficient use of land and water, so persuading people to eat less of it, while it would have an effect on the emission of greenhouse gases, might be a tall order in some parts of the world.

Plainly there’s a limited amount of land available for agricultural expansion, not to mention the production of biofuels. Increasingly extreme weather won’t help.

In addition therefore reaching global agreement on efforts to curb emissions in a way that is accepted as fair by all countries is another key to achieving some kind of sense on global warming, climate change and food production. It’s to be hoped that the pessimistic predictions for Mexico in November prove not to be true, since all our futures depend on it.