Group items tagged

Search About CSDi CSDi is firmly committed to proven, results-based solutions to end suffering and poverty. Our goal is to spread these solutions across the globe through our in-depth field guides and interactive online workshops. Work with us and become the solution. We've trained development professionals... in 103 countries who have developed course projects... impacting over 100,000 people. ~ What our students are saying: I really appreciate the time you have taken to go through correcting assignments.... I am very confident that all your labours are producing lots of learning and stimulation for your students. MATT, IRELAND Facebook Like Box Upcoming Courses ¡Cursos Nuevos en Español! May 17 - July 11 101: From the Ground Up May 17 - July 11 341: Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change May 17 - July 11 Adaptación Basado en la Comunidad-CBA May 17 - July 11 Upcoming Online Development Courses May 2011 Community Based Adaptation: 300 Hands-On Field Activities Donate CSDi, a 501c3, relies on your generous donations for our work, training individuals to be the solution in communities across the globe. News Newsletter: March Newsletter: Project Sustainability: Put the Community in Charge. Field Project of the Month: Rainwater Harvesting: Mexico City Google Translate Translate This Website Powered by Google Tradutor iLearning Experience Student Testimonials International Partnerships Learning Environment Student Field Projects Example Assignment: Kenya Student Countries, Organizations, Project Challenges HANDS-ON FIELD ACTIVITIES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED ADAPTATION Module OL 340: Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change Posted by Tim Magee CSDi is pleased to present a compilation of Community Based Adaptation Field Activities-complete with links to source materials and technical information-compiled from case studies & from projects developed by CSDi field partners & online students. We encourage you to submit activities: Onl

Intellectual Property Rights And Concentration In Agricultural Biotechnology William Lesser Cornell University AgBioForum Fall98 v.1, n.2 The relationships between intellectual property rights (IPRs) and structural change are examined in this paper. Intellectual property rights are a complex, multifaceted area and one in which corporate strategies are poorly understood. Nevertheless, it is argued here that IPRs can affect firm entry, can make vertical integration in downstream industries more or less necessary, and can create financial incentives for downstream mergers and acquisitions. Hence, IPRs can have significant structural impacts. Key words: intellectual property rights; agrobiotechnology; industry structure; research and development (R&D) The later 1990s have been a tumultuous time for merger and acquisition activity among firms involved in agricultural biotechnology. By the end of the third quarter of 1998, Monsanto alone had been involved in 18 acquisitions and had itself agreed and then reneged on a merger with American Home Products. In addition, Monsanto completed overseas acquisitions worth a total of $7.3 billion over two years. Novartis was formed by the merging of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, while DuPont chose to enter the market through joint ventures; a total of 20 joint ventures valued at over $5 billion (Moore, 1998). These mergers have contributed greatly to a restructuring of the seed industry. Most notably, Monsanto controlled up to 40 percent of seed for the 1998 United States (U.S.) soybean crop and, if approved, full acquisition of Delta & Pine Land will give Monsanto ownership of at least 80 percent of the U.S. cotton seed industry (Kilman & Warren, 1998). This is not the only incidence of major acquisition activity, a previous one occurred about 20 years earlier. Butler and Marion (1985) list 27 mergers during the period 1978-80. The 1980 date is pivotal as it marks some strengthening amendments to the United States Plant Variety Prot

Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin About the Author Search CEE Home | CEE | 2nd edition | Tragedy of the Commons In 1974 the general public got a graphic illustration of the "tragedy of the commons" in satellite photos of the earth. Pictures of northern Africa showed an irregular dark patch 390 square miles in area. Ground-level investigation revealed a fenced area inside of which there was plenty of grass. Outside, the ground cover had been devastated. The explanation was simple. The fenced area was private property, subdivided into five portions. Each year the owners moved their animals to a new section. Fallow periods of four years gave the pastures time to recover from the grazing. The owners did this because they had an incentive to take care of their land. But no one owned the land outside the ranch. It was open to nomads and their herds. Though knowing nothing of Karl Marx, the herdsmen followed his famous advice of 1875: "To each according to his needs." Their needs were uncontrolled and grew with the increase in the number of animals. But supply was governed by nature and decreased drastically during the drought of the early 1970s. The herds exceeded the natural "carrying capacity" of their environment, soil was compacted and eroded, and "weedy" plants, unfit for cattle consumption, replaced good plants. Many cattle died, and so did humans. The rational explanation for such ruin was given more than 170 years ago. In 1832 William Forster Lloyd, a political economist at Oxford University, looking at the recurring devastation of common (i.e., not privately owned) pastures in England, asked: "Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?" Lloyd's answer assumed that each human exploiter of the common was guided by self-interest. At the point when the carrying capacity of the commons was fully reached, a herdsman might ask himsel

Encyclopedia of Environmental Health Pages 498-504 doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52272-6.00733-9 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.   Permissions & Reprints Carbon Sequestration and Agriculture     Purchase $ 31.50 S. Mandlebauma and J. Nriagua a School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Available online 23 February 2011. Abstract Recent increases in global temperature are correlated with carbon dioxide emitted from natural and anthropogenic sources, most importantly fossil fuel combustion and land use changes. Although technologies and policies are being proposed and tested to reduce emissions, modification of carbon sinks may provide an important mitigation option. Sinks of some global importance include terrestrial vegetation, oceans, rock weathering, soils, and artificially created dumpsters. Increasing carbon storage in soils through agriculture could be used as a short-term intervention. Many agricultural practices can increase the amount of organic carbon in soil. These include agronomic practices, water management practices, agroforestry, land cover change, and reduced or no-till practices. The effect of these practices on global warming needs to be considered, including the environmental conditions of various farms, the actual mitigation potential of soil sequestration, and the requirement of continuing no-till practices once implemented. This article elaborates on the concept that changing agricultural practices represents a possible climate change mitigation strategy by increasing the soil sequestration potential. This intervention is expected to result in increased crop production and a betterment of human health, especially in the developing countries. Author Keywords: Agriculture; Agronomic practices; Capacity; Carbon; Carbon cycle; Carbon dioxide; Climate change; Conservation; Health; Sequestration; Sink; Soil; Storage; Tilla