Global sugar, regional water, and local people: eu sugar regime liberalisation, rural livelihoods, and the environment in the incomati river basin

South African Journal of Science

Volumn 105, Issue 1-2, 2009, Pages 49-53

  Lorentzen, Jo ^a  

^a HUMAN SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Environmental sustalnability; Rural livelihoods; Sugarcane cultivation; Trade liberalisation; Water regimes

Indexed keywords

CULTIVATION; EUROPEAN UNION; GLOBAL ECONOMY; POVERTY; RURAL POPULATION; SUGAR; TRADE LIBERALIZATION; WATER STRESS;

AFRICA; KOMATI BASIN; SOUTHERN AFRICA; SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA;

EID: 67149107326     PISSN: 00382353     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4102/sajs.v105i1/2.39     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Scholes RJ. and Biggs R. (2004). Ecosystem Services in Southern Africa: A Regional Assessment. Online at: www.millenniumassessment.org
2. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry) (1997). White paper on national water policy for South Africa. Pretoria.
3. Crafford ]., Hassan R., King N., Damon M., De Wit M., Bekker S.; Rapholo B. and Olbrich B. (2004). An analysis of the social, economic, and environmental direct and indirect costs and benefits of water use in irrigated agriculture and forestry: a case study of the Crocodile River Catchment, Mpumalanga Province. WRC Report No. 1048/1/04.
4. Farolfi S. and Perret S. (2002). Intersectoral competition for water in rural South Africa: analysing a case study through standard environmental economics approach. Paper presented at the XXXIX Convegno SIDEA, Firenze (12-14 September).
5. Crafford J., King N., Malubani T, Anderson H. and De Wit M. (2001). Water Resource Accounts for South Africa 1991-1998. CSIR, Environmentek, Pretoria.
6. Low Á. and Rebelo A., eds (1996). Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. DEAX Pretoria.
7. Vas A.C. and van der Zaag P (2003). Sharing the Incomati Waters: Cooperation and Competition in the Balance. In Technical Documents in Hydrology, PC-»P Series, no. 14. UNESCO, Paris.
8. Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture and Land Administration (2003). State of the Environment Report. Nelspruit.
9. Stork N.E. and Lyal C.H.C. (1993). Extinction or co-extinction rates? NATUAS 366,307.
10. Mclntosh A. and Vaughan A. (1995). State-centred commercial smallholder development: haves and have-nots in KaNgwane. Develop. South. Afr. 12.
11. Mitchell D. (2004). Sugar policies: opportunity for change. In World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, p. 3222. World Bank, Washington.
12. OJ (Official Journal of the European Union) (2006). Council Regulation (EC) No. 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the Common Organisation of the Markets in the Sugar Sector. Commission of the European Communities.
13. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2005). The European Sugar Sector: its importance and its future. Brussels.
14. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (2005). Sugar: the impact of reforms to sugar sector policies -a guide to contemporary analyses. Fao Trade Policy Technical Notes No. 6. Rome.
15. CIE (Centre for International Economics) (2002). Targets for OECD sugar market liberalisation. Paper prepared for Global Alliance for Sugar Trade Reform and Liberalisation (mimeo).
16. Elobeid A. and Begin J. (2006). Multilateral trade and agricultural policy reform in sugar markets.J.Agric. Econ. 57,23-^8.
17. Koo W.W (2003). Alternative United States and EU sugar trade liberalization policies and their implications. Rev. Agric. Econ. 24,336-352.
18. Wohlgenant M. (1999). Effects of trade liberalisation on the world sugar market. Prepared for the Sugar and Beverages Group. FAO, Rome.
19. Oosthuizen F.J. (1980). Trends in demand for sugar and in selected developed countries. D.Comm. thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
20. McDonald S. and Punt C. (2004). Trade liberalisation, efficiency, and South Africa's sugar industry. Working Paper 2004012. Department of Economics, University of Sheffield.
21. OECD (2007). Sugar Policy Reform in the European Union and in World Sugar Markets. OECD, Paris.
22. The CANESIM model is available online at: http://sasex.sasa.org. za/irricane/
23. Schulze R., Horan M. and Schmidt E. (2000). Hydrological complexities in assigning rainfed sugarcane a 'streamflow reduction activity'. Paper pre sented at the 74th Annual SASTA Congress, Durban, South Africa.
24. Young R.A. (2005). Determining the Economic Value of Water: Concepts and methods. RFF Press, Washington D.C.
25. Note, however, that the world sugar price increased substantially in the past few years. This is predominately due to the increase in oil prices and the concomitant diversion of Brazilian cane into ethanol production.
26. Statistics South Africa (1999). Rural Survey. Statistical release P0360. Pretoria.
27. Noble M., Babita M., Barnes H., Dibben C, Magasela W, Noble S., Ntshongwana P, Phillips H., Rama S., Roberts B., Wright G. and Zungu S. (2006a). The Provincial Indices of Multiple Deprivation for South Africa 2001. University of Oxford, Oxford.
28. Noble M., Babita M., Barnes H., Dibben C, Magasela W., Noble S., Ntshongwana P, Phillips R, Rama S., Roberts B., Wright G. and Zungu S. (2006b). 77K Provincial Indices of Multiple Deprivation for South Africa 2001: Techni cal Report. University of Oxford, Oxford.
29. Gillson I., Hewitt A. and Page S. (2005). forthcoming changes in the EU banana/sugar markets: a menu of options for an effective EU transitional package. ODI Report. Online at: www.odi.org.uk/iedg/projects/EU- bananasugarmarkets/ SUGARreportpdf