Japanese Academic lobbies for more sustainable practices for Japan

Image via Wikipedia

Lessons learned at Australia’s national parks are expected to help a leading Japanese academic lobby for more sustainable practices in his home country.

Chuo University Professor Masahiro Yabuta is learning about sustainable management and education while working alongside colleagues at The University of Queensland’s School of Tourism.

Professor Yabuta will be at the school until March next year, with plans to visit important natural sites such as the Great Barrier Reef, Uluru and Kakadu National Park.

He has been researching the management and education systems of natural and cultural heritage sites with Head of School Roy Ballantyne, senior lecturer Dr Noel Scott and senior research fellow Dr Sally Driml.

“I have come to learn about management systems in Australia because they are first-class here. I have many things to learn,” Professor Yabuta said.

“It is important to keep tourism sustainable. A balance and commitment from government, industry and the community is important.”

Communities and businesses wanted to make money from tourist sites, but it should not come at the destruction of the natural sites the visitors came to see, Professor Yabuta said.

“Rapid development of a tourism industry could cause problems. There needs to be protection of the environmental tourism site. There must be support from government to ensure this.”

Professor Yabuta said he was also keen to find out just who the average eco-tourist was, so promotion and education programs could be specifically tailored.

“Everybody wants to be an eco-tourist now. Eco-tourism is a very fancy and popular word. It has a feel-good factor for everybody. People think going green is good for them. But when an economy driven
by eco-tourism and going green come together, it can be difficult to get a balance.”

Professor Yabuta said recent research showed only about 10 per cent of people tended to consistently behave in an eco-friendly way – even when going on holidays.

“In most other instances, people sometimes behave as eco-tourists and sometimes they don’t. They might have a low-flow tap but not drive an economical car. They might not save on power consumption but they do like nature.”

Eco-tourism was one way to help people see the importance of being green and ensuring they did not cause destruction at sites such as national parks.

“It is all about education. It is life-long education. They need to understand protection of nature by each person is important for sustainable tourism and keeping national parks for future generations.”

Professor Yabuta hopes to use what he has learned at the School of Tourism to help design government policies in Japan aimed at ensuring a balance between tourism development and environmental protection.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tiger safaris: Tourism must be better managed (telegraph.co.uk)
• Surf’s Up for Sea-Faring Crocodiles (cbsnews.com)
• Australia asks tourists to only use eco-certified tour companies (ecoadventuretravel.wordpress.com)

Farmers plant trees to fight deforestation

Image via Wikipedia

Note:  We have our Brazil Contest, where you can win a framed photograph from National Geographic Photographer Peter Guttman, going on until December 15, 2009.  Just leave a comment to be eligible.  Details at http://ecoadventuretravel.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/its-here-the-brazil-contest/. (~Robert)

The Washington Post had a wonderful article about changes in Brazil to help protect the environment.  I thought it would be interesting for the readers here:

For nearly 20 years, Luiz Alberto Bortolini cleared trees and planted soybeans as fast as he could, one of many pioneers who turned this barren outpost into prosperous farmland.

Now, he and hundreds of other successful farmers are replanting trees as part of an ambitious initiative to reduce deforestation. Their goal — to set aside one-third of their farms for native vegetation — is revolutionary in a region long resistant to environmental controls.

“It had to happen, as soon as possible,” said Bortolini, 50, who now has a 6,200-acre farm. “This is in the farmers’ interests because the farmer is the one most dependent on the environment.”

The initiative, driven by the market and by new pressure from regulators, comes as the government considers proposals to dramatically reduce the rainforest destruction that has made Brazil a leading producer of greenhouse gases. Earlier this month, Brazil said it would cut emissions by up to 38.9 percent from projected 2020 levels, a pledge designed to encourage other countries to take major steps at next month’s global warming summit in Copenhagen.

“I think what they are moving towards is essentially a no-deforestation position by 2030,” said David Cleary, who oversees conservation strategies in Latin America for the Nature Conservancy, an international conservation organization. “It’s way, way beyond any commitment that Brazil has made in deforestation before.”

Already, deforestation has fallen by half in Brazil since 2006, as the threat of sanctions against ranchers and better enforcement of environmental regulations curbed the fires and chain saws used to raze trees across the world’s biggest rainforest.

Still, a swath of forest the size of Connecticut was destroyed last year. Environmentalists also worry about road-paving projects in the Amazon and about the construction of hydroelectric dams in the wilds. Meanwhile, a group of lawmakers is lobbying to loosen the country’s forest code, an environmental-protection law that requires farmers in the Amazon to set aside 80 percent of their land for native species.

“This is a good illustration of the stark contradictions at play within Brazil’s business-friendly and conservation-minded policy circles,” said Christian Poirier, Brazil program coordinator for Amazon Watch. Nascent projects such as the town of Lucas’s initiative, he said, are “threatened by forces that seek to dilute the code and by extension dilute Brazil’s commitments to reduce emissions going into Copenhagen.”

But there are communities in Brazil where farmers and ranchers are working with environmentalists to implement projects balancing development with environmental conservation.

They are driven by a new reality: buyers of agricultural products, from soybeans to meat, increasingly require producers to certify environmentally friendly practices. Lucas farmers, who sell to multinational giants such as Cargill and Bunge, were quick to understand.

“Farmers there, like farmers anywhere, are quite conservative — they are not environmental angels,” said Cleary of the Nature Conservancy. “But they move when they feel it’s in their interest to move.”

Among the first to take heed in Lucas was Marino Franz, who like many farmers here migrated north from Brazil’s more populous south.

He arrived in 1980 and scraped by as a field hand. Today, he has a 25,000-acre spread and owns a plant that refines soybeans into ethanol. He is also the mayor.

“I noticed the concerns European consumers had regarding the environment,” Franz said. “They were worried about soy imported from Brazil.”

Lucas officials reacted by joining with the Nature Conservancy to develop a proposal to bring farmers in line with forest code regulations, which were rarely observed here and elsewhere in Brazil.

In this region, once a mosaic of savannahs and forests, farmers have to set aside about 35 percent of their land for native vegetation. As an alternative, they can pay to protect unspoiled woodlands far from their state as compensation for past deforestation, an option several farmers said they prefer because of the challenges and costs of replanting trees.

Luciane Bertinatto Copetti, the town’s agriculture and environmental secretary, said authorities first mapped the region’s 670 farms using satellite imagery and then met with each property owner. Those farmers, she said, have collectively agreed to participate in the replanting effort, which began a few months ago.

That farmers would even consider such a proposal — which offers no financial assistance — until recently would have seemed preposterous in a state of hardy individualists.

Barely a generation ago, settlers came here to Mato Grosso, which literally means “thick brush,” encouraged by the government, which offered low-interest loans and cheap land. Many struggled, living in tents and toiling in oven-hot fields, far from railway lines and paved roads.

“When we arrived here, there were no laws so there were no instructions from government institutions,” said Bortolini, the farmer. “Each one did whatever he thought he could do.”

Today, Mato Grosso is an agricultural powerhouse, and Lucas is one of its most prosperous towns.

The population in town hovers above 50,000, twice what it was in 2000, and 485 businesses opened this year. In a way, Lucas could be mistaken for any American farm town — big, wide streets, mom-and-pop stores, new public schools and dealerships selling John Deere tractors.

Among the first farmers to start replanting was Darci Eichelt, 45, who took up here in 1986.

On a recent morning, he drove his pickup truck along a dirt road through green fields of soybeans. He stopped and walked to a clump of trees. A year ago, they were about three feet tall, he said. Now, some have reached 10 feet.

“Can you imagine all this in 10 years?” he said. “It’s going to be beautiful.”

 

<!–[if gte mso 10]>

Abbas:

At the website page located at: http://www.expertlawfirm.com/criminal_defense/burglary.html

Please replace the existing content at that site with the following:

Burglary Attorneys and Burglary Lawyers in Southern California

Robert Miller and Associates attorneys have experience in handling burglary cases in Southern California. If you or someone you know has been charged in Southern California with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, felony theft, or possession of burglary tools, we can help.

Under the law, California Penal Code section 459, burglary is committed when entering a building with the specific intent to steal something or commit a felony. All the State needs to prove is that you had the intent to steal something or commit a felony when entering a building. The prosecution does not have to prove

that you actually stole something or committed a felony.

For example, you could be found guilty of burglary for entering a building with the intent of vandalizing it. You could also be found guilty of burglary even if there was no evidence that you stole property if the State can prove you had the intent to steal something when you entered the building.

There are two types of burglary under California law:

• First degree burglary, which is always a felony and a strike; and
• Second degree burglary, which can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony and is not a strike.

First degree burglary happens when a burglary is alleged to have been committed in an inhabited dwelling (i.e. a home). The penalties for this crime, under the statute, can be probation, two years, four years or six years in state prison. (Note that when you are granted probation this means you could serve no time or get up to 365 days in county jail as a condition of your probation, along with other terms). If probation is denied then you are sent to state prison for a minimum of two years to a maximum of six years.

Moreover, residential burglary is always a ‘strike.’ When you have a strike, you must serve 85 percent of any jail or prison sentence. Strikes also have potentially immense ramifications if future felonies are committed. If another felony is committed by a person with one strike, he/she will serve no less than 80 percent of any jail or prison time and the potential prison sentence will be doubled. For example, if you have a prior residential burglary and then get another residential burglary, your maximum sentence doubles from six years to twelve years. If you have two strikes and commit any type of future felony you can spend the remainder of your life in prison (three strikes and you are out for the rest of your life!).

In sum, first degree burglary or residential burglary are serious criminal charges. Moreover, the District Attorney and the courts are very protective of homes, and will, in most cases, want actual incarceration,  when someone has been charged with burglarizing a home. Therefore, Miller and Associates criminal defense attorneys will always try to reduce the first degree burglary charge to the much less serious commercial or second degree burglary to avoid potential jail time in these types of cases.

Second degree burglary is any burglary that does not take place in an inhabited dwelling place, commonly called commercial burglary. Commercial burglary usually takes place in businesses. You can be charged with commercial burglary when you have the specific intent to steal something from a store when you walk in the door. Typically, commercial burglaries will be charged as misdemeanors when the value of the property taken is less than $400.00. If the value is over $400.00, then the burglaries will be charged as felonies. So, you can be charged for misdemeanor commercial burglary when stealing something as little as a pack of gum. The maximum penalty for misdemeanor commercial burglary is one year in the county jail, although the penalties are often much less. If the value of the property is over $400.00, you will most likely be charged with a felony.  However, Miller and Associates can reduce the felony to a misdemeanor in some cases. The penalties for felony commercial burglary can be probation (up to one year in the county jail) or 16 months, two years or three years in prison. Since commercial burglary is not a strike people will be allowed to serve just 50 percent of any prison sentence.

The Key Issue for Burglary is Intent

Can the State prove that there was an intent to steal? If the State can’t prove intent to steal, then charges will most likely be dismissed or the defendant will be found not guilty at trial. If the State has problems with proving intent to steal, then the case can be dismissed or settled for reduced charges with potentially zero jail or prison time.

If intent to steal can be easily proven by the evidence, then there is still hope to avoid any actual jail time. The key factor in this case is to show remorse and to pay back Full Restitution to the victim(s). What was taken must be given back or paid for by the defendant in order to get a reduced punishment and hopefully reduced charges as well.

Other key factors to consider in these cases are whether the defendant has a prior criminal record for theft. If the defendant has a prior record for theft, especially burglaries, punishment will typically be more severe. If there is no prior record, then punishment can be greatly reduced. Miller and Associates gets probation for the vast majority of its clients; with probation comes the opportunity to have community service, home arrest, or work project as opposed to actual jail time.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for burglary, get professional representation from an experienced attorney immediately to protect your rights by contacting our firm.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation (guardian.co.uk)
• Massive blackout leaves Brazil on edge (nationalpost.com)
• Why Going Green – and the Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen – Matter Now More than Ever (takepart.com)
• By Degrees: Paying to Keep Trees Up in Brazil (nytimes.com)

Is Eco-Friendly Tourism even possible?

Image via Wikipedia

Reminder:  Our Blog Contest – win beautiful mounted photographs from Brazil – is ongoing until December 15th.  Leave a comment to have a chance to become a winner!

I found the following article in the London Guardian, and thought it would be interesting for my blog readers.  Lucy Siegle has a great point about defining what eco-tourism is, and whether or not it is even possible to become an eco-friendly tourist.  I think that the very nature of travel has always involved using resources, but the benefits of travel, and the benefits to the environment in having an eco-aware group in the world, outweighs the negatives, in my personal opinion.  Here’s the article:

When you see some of the holidays masquerading as ecotourism you’d be forgiven for thinking the term “greenwash” was invented for the tourism industry. Oh, it was. In fact this pejoratively used hybrid was coined in the 1980s by American environmentalist Jay Westervelt, who was incensed by the way hotels put signs up pleading with guests to reuse their towels thus “saving the environment” when they were doing nothing to promote recycling elsewhere and really, he suspected, just wanted to save on laundry bills.

Since then things have improved, but there are still lots of trips wearing a bogus “ecotourism” tag. These include swimming with captive dolphins (the feature documentary The Cove on the annual dolphin slaughter in Japan is a reminder of the truth behind their capture and trade) and hunting holidays with “sustainable” quotas – Tanzania has received criticism for the sale of ancestral lands to monopolies for under the market price, leaving local tribes high and dry.

But often holidaymakers mistake sustainable ideas – such as lower-impact transport – with ecotourism. Incidentally research by the Heidelberger Institute for Energy and Environmental Research comparing the pollutant parameters and ecological effects of different holiday transport found coach travel to use six times less energy than planes. But this still doesn’t make your coach trip ecotourism.

Making the distinction might sound like pedantry but it’s crucial. Ecotourism doesn’t have an enshrined legal definition, but bodies such as Nature Conservancy and the World Conservation Union agree on its parameters – that it is nature-based, educative towards the environment, managed sustainably and contributes to the protection of the natural site. Scale is also important. You should pick a project that is obviously small, manageable and which feeds directly back into the local economy.

But where do you go for the real thing? Responsible-travel.org has long provided a sane counterpoint to the die- hard green message that you must never again set foot anywhere on account of carbon emissions. Their take is that there is a trade off between the emissions caused by flying, so it’s the traveller’s responsibility to fly less, switching to one holiday that generates income for the local community. A typical Responsible Travel holiday includes an introduction to the Amazon rainforests, staying in a lodge in Peru built using native materials and owned by the Infierno community.

In her very good book Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Martha Honey argues that true ecotourism should involve a truthful conservation-led calculation as to how many tourists a habitat can sustain. Famously the Galapagos islands employ quotas, a move that flies in the face of the democratisation of spontaneous travel but might just save one of the world’s most vulnerable habitats.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Top 50 Ecotourism Blogs and Sites (travelanswerman.com)
• Let’s be more responsible and make travel greener (travel-rants.com)
• Joint Statement Marshals Forces to Greening Health Care (newswire.ca)