Jiffy introduces ’no frills’ choice for mobile vendors

first_imgJiffy Trucks has unveiled a new mobile catering van for 2010. The Panino has been designed to appeal to new entrants and smaller businesses in mobile retail catering.The firm says that with the right vehicle and training, food and drink businesses can achieve a highly profitable operation. It features the core essentials required by mobile hot and cold food vendors, but is a “no-frills choice for businesses seeking operational essentials and excellent customer service support”.There are new design features incorporated into the Panino, which maximise space and accessibility for efficient operation. For example, the warming cabinet and chiller cabinet both benefit from new double-glazed units.Price: £22,995 + VATwww.jiffytrucks.co.uklast_img read more

New bill aims to cut protection of 1M hectares of Brazilian rainforest

first_imgState legislators presented the proposal early last month to President Michel Temer’s Chief of Staff, which included changes to five protected areas in the southern state of Amazonas.When presenting the proposal, the legislators argued that the “protected” classification undermines the legal security of rural producers and economic investments that have already been made in the region.Conservation groups worry that, if approved, the bid would put more than a million hectares of rainforest at risk to deforestation.When surveying documents filed with Brazil’s National Department of Mineral Production, WWF reportedly uncovered a link between the proposed bill and applications for prospecting and mining in southern Amazonas. A proposal under review by the Brazilian government aims to shrink four protected areas in the Amazon and eliminate another area entirely, Greenpeace says. If approved, the bid would put more than a million hectares of rainforest at risk to deforestation.“Removing protection from these areas will lead to more deforestation,” Cristiane Mazzetti, a campaigner with Greenpeace Brazil, told Mongabay. “This moves us in the opposite direction of where we need to go now that deforestation rates are once again out of control.”Indeed, 2016 marked the highest rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon since 2008, contrasting the country’s much-heralded efforts to curtail forest loss just a few years back.State legislators presented the proposal early last month to President Michel Temer’s Chief of Staff, which included changes to five protected areas in the southern state of Amazonas. Among them is the complete removal of the Campos de Manicoré Environmental Conservation Area and a 40 percent reduction in the area of four other reserves: Acari National Park, Manicoré Biological Reserve, and Aripuanã and Urupadi National Forests. If ratified on the senate floor, the proposed bill would shrink protected Amazon forest by more than a million hectares – an area well over the size of Delaware.The bid comes less than a year after the five areas were officially gazetted by former president Dilma Rousseff under a program called “Terra Legal,” the non-profit Observatorio do Clima reports. By legalizing use of vacant public land, Terra Legal aims to reduce illegal occupation and land-grabbing – two common drivers of deforestation in Amazonas. Protected areas, also known as “conservation units,” are but one of many classifications under the program, which include urban expansion, settlements, and indigenous lands.An upwards look into the Brazilian rainforests’s canopy. Photo by Rhett A. ButlerBut there’s a flip-side to protection, Amazonas state legislators say. When presenting the proposal, the legislators argued that the “protected” classification undermines the legal security of rural producers and economic investments that have already been made in the region.“The conservation units are hampering the expansion of economic activities, Senator Omar Aziz said, according to a translated press release from the Ministry of the Environment. “And its creation created very serious legal insecurity throughout the southern state.”In a comment on Facebook, Deputy Átila Lins, an official who spearheaded the effort, added that populations are “on the verge of being withdrawn” from the protected areas and indicated that “large investments” have been made in the region. Those investments would be lost, he said.But exactly which “populations” and what “investments” are impacted aren’t clear from the legislators’ rhetoric – or from the 20-page proposal itself.In search of answers that might reveal the underlying motivations to reduce the protected areas, environmental groups did their own research – albeit unconventional.Greenpeace took to the skies. Aboard a small plane cruising over the five protected areas, Greenpeace looked for signs of human occupation and economic activities that might validate the legislators’ claims.“They said that investments were already made in those protected areas, producers would be impacted, and people would have to be removed, so we decided to fly over those areas to see if what the legislators was claiming was true,” Mazzetti said.They saw few signs of occupation. What they saw plenty of was forest – large, intact tracts of jungle, for which the state is famous.“What we saw was a few spots of human activity but the majority of the areas are still preserved,” Mazzetti said. “These lands are far from infrastructure.”Mazzetti argues instead that the proposal is about making these protected lands viable for economic expansion. And that argument is supported by new research by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).”That’s where research by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) comes in.By surveying documents filed with Brazil’s National Department of Mineral Production, WWF reportedly uncovered a link between the proposed bill and applications for prospecting and mining in southern Amazonas. In fact, most of the requests overlap precisely with the areas that may soon lose their protection status, WWF says.“We noticed that the majority of those exploitation requests are within the limits of the Conservation Units that the new bill wants to cut,” Mariana Ferreira, the science coordinator for WWF-Brazil, told the Thompson Reuters Foundation back in February.In Acari National Park alone, about 40 requests for prospecting or mining minerals have been filed – some of which have already been authorized, WWF writes.Tree cover loss data from the Brazilian government show the protected areas – shown here together – form a relatively undisturbed area surrounded by deforestation. Data from the University of Maryland indicate they are comprised mostly of intact forest landscapes, which are areas of original vegetation large and pristine enough to contain their native biodiversity levels.Global Forest Watch shows the protected areas also comprise many mining concessions.Environmental groups are concerned – 21 of them to be exact.“We understand that the maintenance of these protected areas as originally established is crucial for the conservation of regional biodiversity,” they wrote in a letter (translated here) to President Temer and several other senior officials, which 21 organizations signed, including The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International. “Removing the protection of one million hectares will contribute to the – already remarkable – deforestation in the Amazon.”The move could also “jeopardize” commitments under national and international accords, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, which entered into effect last November, they said. Indeed, research suggests that protected areas may store large carbon stocks, and deforestation already accounts for 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil.The bid might put international financing at risk as well, Mazzetti says.“It will affect the country’s international credibility and the investments that international financiers are promising to make,” she said. “Donors might start questioning how effective the money is that they’ve invested in Brazil.”Germany, one of the Brazilian Amazon’s biggest donors, invested over $100 million in the Protected Areas of the Amazon Program – the very initiative that helped put these five areas in place. Norway has also dished up substantial sums of money.Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment declined multiple requests for comment. But earlier this week, the Minister of the Environment Sarney Filho announced that a committee – including researchers from the Ministry, businessmen, and politicians – would be reviewing the proposal and visiting the protected areas in question. At a meeting in Brasilia, Filho expressed that he’s open to dialogue, but noted that there are “conflicting points” between the proposal and the Ministry’s official data.“It is fundamental to resolve doubts about the existence of settlements within these areas and other types of economic activities,” the minister said in a translated statement. “We have no prejudice against proposals, but in this case it is necessary to clarify the doubts that have been raised.”The minister also highlighted that these five areas protect a region facing heightened pressure from deforestation. From 2015 to 2016, forest loss in Amazonas increased by 54 percent, according to the National Institute for Space Research of Brazil – much of which was concentrated in the region where these areas lie, called the “Arc of Deforestation.”Filho’s statements come just weeks after the Ministry announced that a priority of 2017 is to expand Brazil’s protected area network, which currently includes 327 federal areas. But if the proposal becomes a bill, it will likely pass on the senate floor, Mazzetti says – rolling that number back to 326.“It’s very likely that if it goes to congress it will be passed – these projects usually get approved,” she said. “We know that congress has lots of representatives of the business lobby, and for them it’s important to open new areas.”But before it becomes a bill, environmental groups have more leverage, she adds.“If we apply pressure [now], I believe we can stop it,” she said. “Our plan is to try to stop this from the very beginning.” Popular in the CommunitySponsoredSponsoredOrangutan found tortured and decapitated prompts Indonesia probeEMGIES17 Jan, 2018We will never know the full extent of what this poor Orangutan went through before he died, the same must be done to this evil perpetrator(s) they don’t deserve the air that they breathe this has truly upset me and I wonder for the future for these wonderful creatures. So called ‘Mankind’ has a lot to answer for we are the only ones ruining this world I prefer animals to humans any day of the week.What makes community ecotourism succeed? In Madagascar, location, location, locationScissors1dOther countries should also learn and try to incorporateWhy you should care about the current wave of mass extinctions (commentary)Processor1 DecAfter all, there is no infinite anything in the whole galaxy!Infinite stupidity, right here on earth.The wildlife trade threatens people and animals alike (commentary)Anchor3dUnfortunately I feel The Chinese have no compassion for any living animal. They are a cruel country that as we knowneatbeverything that moves and do not humanily kill these poor animals and insects. They have no health and safety on their markets and they then contract these diseases. Maybe its karma maybe they should look at the way they live and stop using animals for all there so called remedies. DisgustingConservationists welcome China’s wildlife trade banThobolo27 JanChina has consistently been the worlds worst, “ Face of Evil “ in regards our planets flora and fauna survival. In some ways, this is nature trying to fight back. This ban is great, but the rest of the world just cannot allow it to be temporary, because history has demonstrated that once this coronavirus passes, they will in all likelihood, simply revert to been the planets worst Ecco Terrorists. Let’s simply not allow this to happen! How and why they have been able to degrade this planets iconic species, rape the planets rivers, oceans and forests, with apparent impunity, is just mind boggling! Please no more.Probing rural poachers in Africa: Why do they poach?Carrot3dOne day I feel like animals will be more scarce, and I agree with one of my friends, they said that poaching will take over the world, but I also hope notUpset about Amazon fires last year? Focus on deforestation this year (commentary)Bullhorn4dLies and more leisSponsoredSponsoredCoke is again the biggest culprit behind plastic waste in the PhilippinesGrapes7 NovOnce again the article blames companies for the actions of individuals. It is individuals that buy these products, it is individuals that dispose of them improperly. If we want to change it, we have to change, not just create bad guys to blame.Brazilian response to Bolsonaro policies and Amazon fires growsCar4 SepThank you for this excellent report. I feel overwhelmed by the ecocidal intent of the Bolsonaro government in the name of ‘developing’ their ‘God-given’ resources.U.S. allocates first of $30M in grants for forest conservation in SumatraPlanet4dcarrot hella thick ;)Melting Arctic sea ice may be altering winds, weather at equator: studyleftylarry30 JanThe Arctic sea ice seems to be recovering this winter as per the last 10-12 years, good news.Malaysia has the world’s highest deforestation rate, reveals Google forest mapBone27 Sep, 2018Who you’re trying to fool with selective data revelation?You can’t hide the truth if you show historical deforestation for all countries, especially in Europe from 1800s to this day. WorldBank has a good wholesome data on this.Mass tree planting along India’s Cauvery River has scientists worriedSurendra Nekkanti23 JanHi Mongabay. Good effort trying to be objective in this article. I would like to give a constructive feedback which could help in clearing things up.1. It is mentioned that planting trees in village common lands will have negative affects socially and ecologically. There is no need to even have to agree or disagree with it, because, you also mentioned the fact that Cauvery Calling aims to plant trees only in the private lands of the farmers. So, plantation in the common lands doesn’t come into the picture.2.I don’t see that the ecologists are totally against this project, but just they they have some concerns, mainly in terms of what species of trees will be planted. And because there was no direct communication between the ecologists and Isha Foundation, it was not possible for them to address the concerns. As you seem to have spoken with an Isha spokesperson, if you could connect the concerned parties, it would be great, because I see that the ecologists are genuinely interested in making sure things are done the right way.May we all come together and make things happen.Rare Amazon bush dogs caught on camera in BoliviaCarrot1 Feba very good iniciative to be fallowed by the ranchers all overSponsored Article published by Morgan Erickson-Daviscenter_img Environment, Forest Destruction, Forests, Habitat Destruction, Indigenous Peoples, Law, Mining, National Parks, Primary Forests, Protected Areas, Rainforests, Tropical Forests last_img read more