GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SOYBEAN CULTIVATION IN ARGENTINA:

GREEN SOLUTION OR GREEN PROBLEM?

 Why it is difficult to answer

 

by: Stella Semino - November 2005

 

1. Introduction

 

In Argentina the soybean cultivation presents a paradox, in which the government and the industry define the soybean productive system as part the solution to mitigate the effects of the Green House Gas Emissions (GHGE), while researchers, agronomists and environmentalists see the plantations as part of the global warming problem.

 

This written assignment aims to confront the two arguments in relation to the Kyoto Protocol provisions and, by doing so, to describe how the economic circumstances and market interests affect the assessment of the GHGE from the soybean cultivation in Argentina, my country.

The case study will highlight the different positions regarding the near-ignored CO2 equivalent emissions to the atmosphere from 15 million of hectares cultivated with soybean, as reported by the Argentina’s second national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Dec 2004). [1] In the report, the experts ask, among other points, for conclusive information on the GHGE from agricultural residues produced as result of the non till cultivation system.

 

In order to understand the government’s near to indifferent reaction to the report giving the total value of natural emissions produced by the soybean plants, I will comment on the economic relevance of the soybean exports, and the opportunity presented to the establishment by the “Clean trade mechanism” (CDM) under the Kyoto convention.

 

To oppose the government’s position, I will briefly discuss the existing findings concerning GHGE produced by soybean in Argentina and, further, the need for conclusive research on the less well documented emissions from soybean waste, nitrogen fertilization and the use of deforested lands. Some of these points were already raised by the experts in charge of the compilation of the national inventory for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2004.

 

The case will be developed taking into account the government’s GHGE mitigation targets and the various assessments developed with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. This fact will allow us to recognise the Global Warming problem enclosure, from a country which is not an important CO2 polluter, but which could profit from the trading of emissions. The theory of ecological modernisation will be also briefly mentioned as a means to adapt an environmentally perceived problem into regulation, which has to adjust to the current political and economic circumstances of the country.

 

2. Argentina and the Kyoto Protocol

How the Argentinean Government defines and closes the problem

 

Under the Kyoto agreement, the Republic of Argentina is not subject to GHGE reduction targets as the industrialised nations are, but the country, as signatory of the United Nation Framework Convention on climate change[2], adopted a number of legal tools allowing it to implement the international regime in different activities.

 

To implement the objectives signed in the Kyoto protocol, the government created in 1993 a “Climate Change Unit” within the Environment Secretariat (ES), whose duties are:

   The elaboration and periodical updating of GHGE National inventories.

   The formulation and implementation of national programs to mitigate and to facilitate the adaptation to climate change.

   The promotion and maintenance of carbon sink sources (territorial, coastal and marine). [3]

 

The Global Environment Facility has been granted this year to the Argentinean government with 1.140.000 US$.[4] The Environment Secretariat allocated the funds to Fundacion Bariloche, a prestigious environmental NGO created in 1963, in charge of the development of the GHGE assessment and mitigation programmes.

 

The GEF funded programme objectives described below help us to identify the tools which the Government will use to produce policies to mitigate the GHGE within its territory and with this, the processes by which it defines the global warming problem.

 

The GEF program has four objectives:

·    The production of a Green House Gases inventory to be presented at the UN Conference on Climatic Change. The study will take statistics starting from the year 2000.

·    The assessment of the country’s vulnerability to climate change.

·    The effect climatic change on the agricultural production in the Pampas region, in the centre of the country, which has recently experienced floods and drought.

·    Formulation of a Mitigation National Program, which includes the reduction of GHGE to the atmosphere. The experts are asked to recommend policy actions to neutralize the damages produced in the atmosphere by carbon dioxide and the methane originating emissions due to enteric fermentation by cattle.

·    Measures to create public awareness about global warming, the impact of the changes of the climate in the population.

 

The objectives to be executed with the GEF funds focus on the assessment of the effects of global warming, including the compilation of the ICPP inventory and the formulation of a National Program address to mitigate the emissions. The mitigation strategy of emissions proposed by Argentina and accepted by the GEF for funding targeted the transport sector and the promotion of renewable energy, with a specific mention to bio-fuels. The only specifically agricultural mitigation measure in the proposal concerned the mitigation of enteric methane emissions from cattle. Argentina is also proposing an assessment of the opportunities for carbon sequestration trade. [5]

 

Argentinean foreign office Junior Minister, Dr Estrada Oyuela commented that, as part of the possible mitigation measures, new types of cattle diet could be tested, in order to produce less methane.[6]

 

The lack of concern from the Government about the GHGE from agricultural activities it is also reflected in other ministerial declarations. Estrada Oyuela noted that CO2 equivalent gases discharged to the atmosphere in the year 2000 were around 292 million tons, less than the 7 billion tons the US was emitting. The minister highlighted that the emissions from agricultural activities were only 46% of the country’s total and that only 25% was coming from the soybean cultivation.[7]

 

The above statements show that the government is not concerned about the GHGE in general and do not acknowledge the recommendation from the 2nd communication, mentioned in the introduction, on agriculture about conclusive research on the soybean residues. According to the government, the problem to be mitigated in agriculture is merely the methane from cattle.

 

The policy makers are interested to know the effects of global warming on cultivations rather than the converse, and this is reflected in the GEF funded programme. The adjustments related to reduction of GHGE in Argentina, focus on the CO2 emissions from transport and electricity. The GHGE from the soybean cultivation is not a matter for discussion.

 

3. Soybean cultivation could be an important contributor to the global warming

 

The point I want to stress in this assignment is that it is important to include in the national assessments on the GHGE on agriculture under the soybean category the impacts from agricultural residues, the newly reported nitrogen (N) fertilisation on the plantations, the land use changes ( the conversion of forest and grasslands to soybean productive fields in Argentina has been massive) In addition this land conversion was and still is accompanied by biomass burning, therefore also the measurement the GHGE from this activity has to be add to the list. [8] Below I am explaining the reasons on the need of a more comprehensive assessment.

 

3.1 Crop residues

The most important recommendation of the 2nd National Communication on GHGE from agricultural activities mentioned above was that there does not exist conclusive information about the influence on the GHGE from the crop residues of 15 million hectares, where the no tillage method of cultivation is applied. The ICPP guideline recommends take into account in the inventories the GHGE from the cultivation waste and use of deforested lands.[9] The recommendation applies for the soybean, as the Argentinean experts were pointing out in 2004, more conclusive assessment it was/is needed. Soybean is largely produced by the no till system of cultivation, the waste from the harvest it is left on the soil and this is the type of scenario were important N2O emissions are produced.

 

3.2 Fertilisation with Nitrogen

According to the National Inventory experts presenting the conclusions, the soybean cultivation is the largest GHG emitter within the agricultural activities as result of natural process of nitrification and de-nitrification.[10] These observations were made from the analysis of empirical data and not field observations. Such work could allow the investigators to identify that (surprisingly to many) nitrogen is use to fertilise soybean crops and to measure the environmental reactions to natural and artificial nitrification and de nitrification processes.

 

 

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005

Surface

cultivated

6.002.155

6.669.500

7.176.250

8.400.000

8.790.500

10.664.330

11.639.240

12.606.845

14.509.606

14.400.000

Surface harvested

5.913.415

6.393.780

6.954.120

8.180.000

8.637.503

10.400.193

11.405.247

12.419.995

14.304.539

14.037.246

Production in tons

12.448.200

11.004.890

18.732.172

20.000.000

20.135.800

26.880.852

30.000.000

34.818.552

31.576.751

38.300.000

Kg per ht

2.105

1.721

2.693

2.444

2.331

2.584

2.630

2.803

2.210

2.730

 

Table 1 Source: Argentinean Agricultural Ministry.[11]

 

The above table shows the increase of the soy cultivation since 1996. We can observe the increase of the production per hectare across the country. In certain provinces, like Buenos Aires, the increase in the production per hectare went from 1996 with 1858 kg to 3077 kg in 2005. Several agronomists say the increase is due to the use of nitrogen fertilisers. This fact sounds bizarre, given that pulses (including soy) have been used traditionally to enrich the soil with nitrogen. The situation however is that the natural nutrients have been lost due to the high use of agrochemicals and intensive cultivation. In 2001 FAO, reported that the proportion of soybean farmers in the Pampas region who were using fertilizers increased from 6% in 1995-97 to 18% in 1999-2000. The fertilisers used on the soybean are diammonium phosphate (DAP), urea and potassium (K).[12]  The trend is apparently an increased use of nitrogen fertilisers at the beginning of the cultivation.[13]

 

3.3 Land use changes and the burning of biomass

The spreading of the agricultural lands is occurring in Argentina; since the 1950s 100.000 Sq km has been gained to the agricultural borders and over the degraded forests and pastures.[14] Part of the reason for the most recent expansion is the high profitability of soy; this has been and it is an stimulus for trespassing the natural agricultural borders. Argentinean scientists informed in September 2005 that the trend to burn degraded forest and pastures for soy and cattle production is alarming across the whole of South America. Due to the scope of this assignment and the difficulty to access to conclusive data, I am limiting my comment on the need to measure the emissions on land use changes to the remarks made recently by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:

 

“The North American countries are emitting around 5000 million tons per year of carbon dioxide (CO2) gasses from industrial activities. In South America, the change of use of land and the burning of biomass, to develop agricultural production in bulk releases to the atmosphere 1700 million tons of CO2 equivalent gasses”.[15]

 

This deforestation trend was also expressed by UNEP's Argentina GEO 2004 report when mentions that half of the Argentinean forest areas could be lost if the expansion of the GM soy continues as predicted. [16]

 

All the aspects pointed above are issues of concern for some specialists and well informed environmentalists, who are working on global warming issues but it is difficult to share this preoccupation with other sectors of society as will be read below.

 

4. Soybean as the solution

CARBON TRADE

“The idea behind carbon trading is quite similar to the trading of securities or commodities in a market-place. Carbon would be given an economic value, allowing people, companies or nations to trade it. If a nation bought carbon, it would be buying the rights to burn it, and a nation selling carbon would be giving up its rights to burn it. The value of the carbon would be based on the ability of the country owning the carbon to store it or to prevent it from being released into the atmosphere. (The better you are at storing it, the more you can charge for it.)”

 

From INVESTOPEDIA.COM[17]

 

The last resolution, adopted by the Argentinean government on line with the Clean Development Mechanism, defined in the article 12 of the Kyoto convention, is the creation of a National Carbon Fund. (FAC).[18] The FAC office is accountable to the Climate Change Unit of the Environment Secretariat.

 

Internationally, the carbon trade it is managed by the World Bank and the European Carbon Fund.[19]

 

Currently the FAC is inviting different sectors to present proposals to different sectors among the agricultural. The Bank Biesel, which is based in Argentina and has a service for clients searching for clean projects investors, is saying similarly to other international investors, that carbon funds could reach in 2008 a trading volume of $60 billion to $250 billion.[20]

 

In a recent article A. Guadani, the Argentinean representative for the World Bank, praised the carbon certification programme and mentioned when talking about possible green projects for investment, that of biomass extracted from agricultural residues and cattle dung residues were better sources than biomass from sugar cane and traditional cereals[21]. With this comment, the World Bank’s Argentinean representative is supporting the production of biodiesel from soybean residues against bio-ethanol produced with sugar cane (this last the favourite Brazilian Bio-fuel) .

The World Bank has been questioned in the past regarding its performance in selecting the projects for Carbon Trade Investment. The critics of Carbon Trade involvement of the international institution say that the Bank was investing in the past in some locally damaging projects. The examples, for this argument, are the investments in eucalyptus plantations in Brazil, production of FaL-G brick made with from fly ash, putting at a great risk of exposure the people handling the material in India, and the toxic Bisasar dump in Durban, South Africa. [22] This comment, and Guadani’s remarks, strengthen my opinion that the World Bank’s involvement in the investment in Argentina with the carbon trade is no guarantee of environmental fairness.

 

This year the Environment Secretariat met with the soybean business representatives to talk about climate change and the opportunities the carbon trade. In that opportunity, the ES invited the audience to present projects to the FAC related to the development of bio diesel made with soybean biomass. In that meeting also become clear that the industry and govern­ment have as objective to convince the managers of the carbon trade scheme to accept the soybean fields as for CO2 sink. During the meeting the director of the ES Climate Change Unit say “this proposal (soybean fields as CO2 sink) did not have until now international partners of weight, but that the government will try to reopen the debate again because it is a matter of interest for the country which is a world-wide leader in no tillage methods for the soybean production”.[23]

 

The Kyoto protocol refers to carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector only under the re-forestation of former agricultural lands. The debate as to which type of sink should be included, beyond those listed in this international convention, is intensive.[24]

Schewarse, who describes comprehensible the talks on carbon storage on agricultural lands, suggest that sink projects could provide environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation (Schewarse in Schneider S, et al. 2002: 319/335). As it has been pointed above, this it is not the case with the Genetically Modified Soybean mono crops in Argentina.

Also Schewarse confirms that “A concern that has received less attention is the connection between the conservation tillage, one of the main practices suggested for increasing soil carbon, and genetically modified (GM) crops”. The Biotech industry is behind arguments as the one presented by a British consultancy firm in October 2005, which argues that since 1996 the Genetically Modified Crops across the Globe have been helping to reduce global warming. [25] According to PG Limited, this was thanks the reduction in the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Again, this is not the case in Argentina where, has been proved, the use of agrochemicals increased. [26]

5. Soybean cultivation and its economic importance in Argentina

To explain the reasons for the government lack of interest to measure and asses in the effects of the GHGE from soybean in order to produce, if needed, mitigation policies, It is necessary to describe briefly the economical importance the soybean production has for the country.

Currently Argentina is the world’s No. 3 Soya producer. In 2003-04, the surface cultivated with soybean was 14.235.000 m ht. In 2003 7.183 million US$ came to the country from soybean productive complex (soybeans, soy oil and soybean flour and pellets). Argentina’s principal markets for export are China, Thailand, Egypt and the European Union. China is Argentina’s main client, absorbing 75% of the total sales. [27]

The government taxation over the above it is of 20%, and this constitutes the main income from levies on the country’s exports, furthermore soy exports are helping to maintain the stability of the local currency against the US$.[28]

These facts should be put in context with the Argentina’s well know economic collapse, at the end of 2001. The reason behind that crisis was the impossibility of meeting debt payments with the public and private lenders. With very limited industrial capacity, the only way for Argentina to go out from the financial default, which inhibited further foreign investment in the country, was to rely on the export of commodities as the one of the soybean complex.

Soybean exports are the driving force of the Argentinean economy. To illustrate what the export of the soybean represents for the economy, we have to refer to the countries balances in 2003.

In that year, a quarter of the debt services with the International Organisations were paid with the income from Soybean exports. At the end of 2003, Soya oils and seed exports represented 28% of the total value of Argentina’s exports and provided the treasury with 50% of the tax income from agricultural exports.

It is calculated that by the end of 2003, Argentina’s sovereign debt was about 179 billion US$. In September 2003, Argentina agreed with the International Monetary Fund to pay with 3% in excess of its gross domestic product (which works out at around 4.2 billion US$) per year during the next three years. 40% of the committed amount was coming from the export from the Soybean exports complex.[29]

Taking the economic considerations highlighted above, the soybean cultivation in Argentina can be understood not just as a good opportunity for the private sector, but also as convenient for the government’s process of dealing with the country’s creditors.

Argentina’s economical constrains with its debts makes difficult the political agenda setting of a number of important environmental concerns expressed by scientists, civil society groups and few politicians on the nature and way the genetically modified soybean cultivation (99% of the production it is genetically modified) is affecting the wellbeing of the Nation.

These concerns are from the high use of agrochemicals, deforestation, rural exodus, soil degradation, water pollution among the most important concerns.[30]

 

6. Discussion

 

Hajer’s method to link discourse and regulation helps us to put into perspective the importance the Argentinean government is giving to the global warming problem. (Hajer M, 1995: 93) I identify three basic ideas occupying the debate:

·       Argentina’s emissions are minimal if compared with the ones release by the United States, and other developed countries.

·       Argentina’s mitigation measures are convenient because will help to face climate change and at the same time through sustainable behaviour, will allow the developed countries to invest in the Carbon Trade Scheme.

·       Soybean cultivation is and will be supported by the government as part of the green portfolio to be offer to Carbon bonds investors.

The recommendations made in December 2004 by the Argentinean GHGE inventory experts in agriculture about the need for more conclusive measurements of the emissions from crop residues has not been addressed by the government until now. This is reflected the deliberate non acknowledgement from senior government officers manifested by the non allocation of funds from the GEF to assess the problem.

The process effectiveness mentioned by (Young O, 1995: 147) could be easily tested by those who would like to learn if Argentina comply with the Kyoto regime. The expert recommendation to more conclusive research on the soy waste emissions has been heard and not challenged, and apparently forgotten.

 

The inadequacy in the definition of the global warming problem, which will be discussed below, makes Argentina look as a country without need to asses its own liabilities and, thereby, an opportunity for carbon investments from polluter countries.

 

There is not much known about the carbon cycle and the emissions, as proved several times. [31] I consider that opportunities to assess the extent of the emissions from the Argentinean monocultures, as the experts asked for, should be given priority, as it is very relevant for the body of knowledge of those managing the IPCC regime. As in 1985, acceleration of the process to define the global warming problem was by the production of Scientific consensus (Porter G, et al, 2000: 113), today it is needed a serious review on the emissions produced from mono/agricultures with the raise of earth temperatures, the agricultural residues, the use of former forest areas and the use of N fertilizers.

 

But how to make Argentina study what is going on in the fields, if there is not an admitted problem? On the contrary, the government met with the soybean agribusiness representatives in June 2005 where confirmed its compromise to find investors abroad for projects related to carbon sequestration and further promotion of biodiesel made with soybean. Also the World Bank, as demonstrated above, is praising the production of bio Diesel made with soybean residues.

The difficulty in finding an appropriate problem closure, as Hajer defines it (Hajer, M 1995:22 -23), is that there is no intention to determine scientifically whether the gasses released to the atmosphere are a serious problem which needs to be addressed, in line with the experts recommendations.

In contrast to other environmental cases, where the problem definition is caused by a tangible facts, global warming is an event difficult to be perceive by the lay person and more by impoverished societies as the Argentinean where the day to day worries are related to concrete survival problems. Green House Gasses mitigation measures and much less the GHGE from soybean fields are not at the top of the agenda in the public opinion debate and the same holds for most of the members of the political class.

This can be noticed by the little coverage the issue has in the national media, the activities of social and environmental organisations and in the political discourses.

In Argentina, the issue has been imported from the International Arena and as such, the definition of the problem (for convenience or for ignorance) has not been adjusted to the Argentinean reality. This fact is reflected in the objectives of the programme to be developed with the funding given by the Global Environmental Facility, where what is proposed to be assessed are the effects of global warming in the Argentinean territory, the mitigation of transport and methane emissions and the institutional capacity building to assess the opportunities from the carbon trade market.

 

As the problem has been formulated abroad, we should expect the requirements for more serious assessments also to come from abroad, and this is clearly not the ideal situation for a democratic country. Nevertheless, I can see that only the international regime could put pressure on the Argentinean state for appropriate the assessment of the emissions from the soy activity.

 

For instance, there is not much known about the carbon cycle and the emissions. New evidence has prove recently that the CO2 emissions could come from CO2 sinks as trees or soil. [32] In 1985 the acceleration of the process to define the global warming problem, was made by the production of scientific consensus, which was initiated and formalised in a meeting organised in Australia by the World Meteorological Organisation UNEP (Porter, G et al, 2000: 113).

 

The present challenge for the ICPP could be a serious review of the emissions produced by the industrial agriculture across the globe. This should be scrutinise the effects on the fields produced by the raise of earth temperatures, the agricultural residues, the cultivation of former forest areas and the use of N fertilizers. Ideally the calculations should be done crop by crop adding all the variables to each one of the commodities produced. In the presentation made by the ICPP experts in Argentina the calculations over fertilisation, use of deforested land, natural N2O emissions were show in separate. The result could be different if the soybean or any other crop is presented with the following additional information:

·   Quantity of GHGE produced by crop residues

·   Quantity of GHGE produced by N fertilisation

·   Quantity of GHGE produced by natural fertilisation

·   Quantity of GHGE produced by cultivation, e.g. harvesters, transport.

·   Quantity of GHGE produced from former forested and pastured fields.

I consider that opportunities to assess the extent of the emissions from the Argentinean monocultures, as the experts asked for, should be given priority and enough funding to develop independent research, as it is of paramount importance for the body of knowledge of those specialists advising the IPCC regime and for those wanting to produce concrete and honest policy changes independently of the markets interests.

 

The Kyoto regime it a good example to illustrate the how the ecological modernisation works in the international arena. Initiatives as the production of national inventories for the GHGE and the Clean Trade Mechanism are measures which are reflecting the conceptualization of an environmental matter in terms of policy making (Hajer M 1995: 100). The problem arises when ecological modernisation concepts are transferred for reproduction in impoverished southern countries. For instance, I find it inadequate for our case study, to compare the countries mentioned by Dryzek (Dryzek J 1997:138) as examples of the implementation of ecological modernisation theory.

 

I consider that Argentina is developing a devalued version of ecological modernisation principals. The theory says that ecological modernisation is a system approach which takes seriously the complex pathways by which production, resource depletion and pollution are interrelated. If the government is serious in these principals, a crop production as the one described in this assignment never could take place.

 

In our case the economic pressure with the payment of the sovereign debt prioritise the trade of controversial commodities as the GM soybean and neglects the need of real assessment on the environmental effects of the cultivation in general. In parallel the World Bank and other Carbon Trade managers, as the voices of the environmentally concerned polluter countries, are helping Argentina to develop its investment portfolio with controversial products. As we saw by now, projects related to the development of biodiesel from GM soy are in preparation for the market soon. If the government succeeds with its lobbying of the International Carbon Traders, offers for investment in soybean carbon sequestration will appear too.

 

Therefore the Ecological Modernisation Theory, when applied to dependant countries like Argentina, is used just to improve appearances and to compile with international regimes.

 

In our case, the Clean Mechanism created by Kyoto favours the interest of the markets, which thus are influencing even the definition of the problem at national level, creating a vicious circle.

 

In her critical article on carbon trade, Bachram says that while millions of US$ have being invested in setting up carbon bonds schemes, no resources were allocated into its regulation (Bachram H, 2004:4). With the same argument, One might wonder, who is going to guarantee the reliability of the Argentinean portfolio? If from the World Bank the Argentinean representative is encouraging the projects related to the use the soybean cultivation waste, for the production of bio diesel and the government is committed with the promotion of the fields as carbon sink sites projects to sell in the international financial market.

In Argentina we say “hecha la ley hecha la trampa” the law is created, the loophole is created.

 

The Carbon Trade mechanism has been created and the opportunity to offer misleading green projects has been also been created. In the case of the GM soybean cultivation, I repeat, is not only the GHGE what concerns, but also the environmental and social negative impacts, already addressed in a large number of publications. If real carbon investment is achieved in this sector, as Bachram says (Bacharam 2004: 13) environmental injustice will perpetuate and aggravate.

 

 

7. Conclusion

The fact that the government is not highlighting the need for a comprehensive assessment on the direct and indirect emissions from the soybean cultivation could be understood as the type of variables Young described as “factors subject to conscious control or manipulation on the part of those responsible for designing and managing international regimes” (Young 1994: 153)

The ideal situation could be if the next inventory reports the soybean complex total amount of direct and indirect emissions from natural and artificial nitrogen fertilization plus the emissions from deforested lands and the gasses from the soybean residues in total, although very expensive necessary.

 

The measurements could give the opportunity to different national and international actors, if the GHGE levels are harmful, to put pressure on the government to evaluate honestly whether the 15 million ht are sustainable and from there to eliminate the possibility to offer for Carbon investment projects as GM soy for CO2 sequestration or GM soy biomass as source for renewable energy.

 

If the Argentinean government accepts the fact and adopts a policy which mitigates in general all the known causes of emissions from the soy activities (Nitrogen fertilisation, land change, crop residues emissions) the production will be seriously affected, and the country’s economy will suffer a great negative impact. If the policy makers continue business as usual, the long term risk will be even worse for the whole planet, but in the meantime Argentina will be able to profit not just of the income of the soybean cultivation but from the carbon trade emerging market.

 

Bibliography

Bachram Heidi (2004): Climate Fraud and carbon Colonialism: The New Trade in Greenhouse Gases. In Capitalism Nature Socialism volume 15 Number4, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group

Dryzek, John S (1997): The Politics of the Earth Environmental Discourses, Oxford University Press

Hajer, Maarten A, (1995):The Politics of Environmental Discourse, Clarendon Press, Oxford

Porter Gareth, et al. (2000): Global Environmental Politics, Westview press, Cambridge, MA

Schneider Stephen, et al.(2002): Climate Change Policy, Island Press, Washington

Young, Oran R (1994):International Governance. Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society” Cornell university Press, London



[1] Cambio climatico segunda comunicacion nacional : Soja: el cultivo que emite más Gases de Efecto Invernadero http://www.agro.uba.ar/siav/investigamos/gas.htm and http://www.fundacionbariloche.org.ar/presentaciones/Segundo%20taller/Agricultura%20-%20Agro.ppt

[2] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2913.php

 

[3] Unidad de cambio climatico, misiones y funciones/ Secretaria de medio ambiente y desarrollo sustentable de la republica Argentina

http://www.medioambiente.gov.ar/default.asp?IdArticulo=207

 

[4] Global Environment Facility/ Argentina proposal enabling activities leading to the 2nd national communication

http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Project_Proposals_for_Endorsem/Argentina_-_Enabling_Activities_to_UNFCCC.pdf

 

[5] Agricultural mitigation activities fall in two categories: reducing GHGE from agricultural activities and increasing the amount of carbon that is stored in vegetation and soils on agricultural lands (Schewarse in, Shneider, Rosencranz and Niles 2002: 307).

[6] Argentina mide impacto del cambio climático, Marcela Valente

 http://www.tierramerica.net/2004/0216/acentos2.shtml

 

[7] La cifras argentinas, lejos de las de países desarrollados, diario la CAPITAL. http://www.lacapital.com.ar/2004/12/08/general/noticia_156342.shtml

 

[8] http://www.fundacionbariloche.org.ar/presentaciones/Segundo%20taller/33

 

[9] CO2 emissions form forest and grassland conversion Work book 3 section 5-7.

 Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse Gasses Inventories

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/guidelin/ch5wb1.pdf

Nitrogen input from crop residues Work book 2 pp 21-23. Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse Gasses Inventories

 

[10] http://www.fundacionbariloche.org.ar/presentaciones/Segundo%20taller/33

[11] Secretaria de Agricultura Ganaderia y Pezca de la Nacion http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/

[12] Argentina use fertilizers by crop and region http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/007/y5210e/y5210e06.htm

[13] Personal communication

 

[14] El cambio Climático y su Mitigación Secretaria de medio ambiente y desarrollo sustentable

http://www.medioambiente.gov.ar/default.asp?IdArticulo=528

 

[15] Alarma por la quema de biomasa en el Norte http://www.conicet.gov.ar/diarios/2005/septiembre/067.php?imprimir=true

[16] GEO Argentina 2004 UNEP- quoted in http://www.varelaenred.com.ar/noticias_ecologia.htm

[17] Investopedia.com What is the Carbon trade http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/04/060404.asp

[18] Fondo Argentino de carbono http://www.foroba.org.ar/espanol/fac.htm

[19] Aspectos Legales del MDL mercado de carbono http://www.industria.gov.ar/uma/documentos/aspectos_legales_lucila_serra.pdf and European Carbon Fund http://www.europeancarbonfund.com/

[20] El Banco Bisel lanzaría un proyecto para promover los proyectos nacionales de “bonos verdes”

http://www.infocampo.com.ar/inicio/ArticuloVer.asp?ArticuloID=3873

Critics question World Bank's role as carbon trader, fossil-fuel funded http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/25/wysham

[21]Dar paso a las nuevas energías http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/rural/2005/09/10/r-02401.htm

[22] Emission creep Critics question World Bank's role as carbon trader, fossil-fuel funded http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/03/25/wysham

[23] Biocombustibles comercio de creditos de carbono La secretaría de Medio Ambiente facilitará la presentación de proyectos de biocombustibles.http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/rural/2005/06/25/r-00901.htm

 

 

[24] Kyoto protocol article 3.3

[25] GM crops: the global socio/economic impact and environmental impact/ the first nine years PG Economics Limited. http://www.greenbook.net/IndustryNews/PG_Economics.pdf

[26] Pengue W, 2001, The impact of soya expansion in Argentina, Seedling, Volume 18, Issue 3, June 2001, GRAIN Publications

[27] INDEC – Instituto Nacional de estadisticas y censo Ministerio de Economía y Producción. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentos. http://www.indec.mecon.ar/

 

[28] http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/cash/37-1921-2005-06-22.html

 

[29] Argentina gaeld og sojabonner, Af Stella Semino Global Okologi NR 3/4 11. Argan/ Pktober 2004 pp 34-36

 

[30] Argentina: A Case Study on the Impact of Genetically Engineered Soya
 by Joensen L ,  Semino S, Paul H   http://www.econexus.info/pdf/ENx-Argentina-GE-Soya-Report-2005.pdf

 

[31] Two recent studies made in France and UK, showed that due to the temperature increase ecosystems which currently absorb CO2 from the atmosphere may in future produce it, adding to the greenhouse effect.

See Warmer soils add to climate worry http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4224272.stm

and Heat wave makes plants warm planet http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm

 

 

 

 

[32] Two recent studies made in France and UK, showed that due to the temperature increase ecosystems which currently absorb CO2 from the atmosphere may in future produce it, adding to the greenhouse effect.

See Warmer soils add to climate worry http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4224272.stm

and Heat wave makes plants warm planet http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4269066.stm