Malaysian Chief Minister orders probe into theft of turtle eggs

Martin Carvalho, The Star 31 May 08;

MALACCA: State Fisheries Department has been directed to investigate the theft of almost 4,000 eggs of the critically endangered Hawksbill turtle from nesting grounds recently.

Chief minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam said he wanted answers as to how the eggs from about 30 turtle nests along the Kuala Sungai Baru and Linggi coastline near here could be stolen over the past month.

“I will ask the Exco member in charge of agriculture and rural development and fisheries department to look into the matter,” he said after officiating the Malacca Joint Youth Council office in Ayer Keroh.

He said investigations would also determine if eggs were being sold to individuals or to a business.

It was learnt that the state Fisheries Department had roped in the help of several Rela personnel since Tuesday to carry out night patrols along the coast near the Padang Kamunting Turtle Hatchery in Pengkalan Balak.

There are concerns that the thefts will increase during the nesting period between May to September as it is believed that the eggs are being sold illegally at about RM2.50 each.

It is illegal to collect turtles eggs without permit from the fisheries department and a those found guilty under the Fisheries Act 1985 can face a fine of up to RM1,000 per egg.

Malacca has the largest number of Hawksbill turtle landings in Malaysia, surpassing Terengganu and Sabah. There are currently 23 turtle landing sites along the coast of Malacca.

Based on records, a total of 297 turtle landings with 36,101 eggs were recorded in 1996. The numbers rose to an all time high of 390 landings with 45,345 eggs in 2007.

Malaysians patrol turtle sites after 4,000 eggs stolen: report
AFP 1 Jun 08;

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) — Malaysian authorities are carrying out night patrols near endangered Hawksbill turtle nesting sites after 4,000 eggs were stolen, according to reports Sunday.

State fisheries officials have begun the patrols near the turtle hatcheries in southern Malacca state amid fears of more thefts during the nesting period between May and September, the Star daily reported.

Chief Minister Mohammad Ali Rustam said he would investigate how the eggs, worth 10,000 ringgit (3,089 dollars), could have been stolen over a month-long period from 30 turtle nesting sites along the coastline, it added.

"I will ask the (State council) member in charge of agriculture and rural development and fisheries department to look into the matter," he told the paper.

Malacca has the largest number of Hawksbill turtle landings in Malaysia.

It is illegal to collect turtle eggs without a permit from the fisheries department, with offenders facing a fine of 1,000 ringgit (309 dollars), but turtle eggs are still being sold, the Star reported.

The World Conservation Union lists the Hawksbill turtle as critically endangered. A surge in demand for exotic turtles and eggs in Southeast Asia has been blamed for fuelling the rampant illegal trade.

Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 31 May 08

Sentosa Resorts World to shark's fins "no, but..."
on the wildfilms blog

Private Lives Reviewed
on the Raffles Museum News blog

Sightings of Himalayan Griffon in Singapore
on the bird ecology blog

Courtship of the Blue-eared Barbet
on the bird ecology blog

Read more!

Is saving our reefs... A LOST CAUSE?

With 88% of region's coral reefs under threat, greater effort must be made to protect them
Chou Loke Ming, Straits Times 31 May 08;

Reefs of islands used by the Singapore military in live-firing exercises are among some of the healthier ones in the country.

MENTION 'coral reef' and the aquamarine expanses of Australia's Great Barrier Reef come to mind.

Less known is that one-third of the world's coral reefs are in South-east Asia, concentrated in seas covering a mere 2.5per cent of the earth's ocean surface.

All groups of reef plants and animals are present, in a wealth of bio-diversity seen nowhere else, which reinforces the region's status as the global centre of coral reefs.

But the great natural heritage of the region has been badly hit by economic development.

While damage has been ramped up since the boom of the 1970s, the regional alarm bell was sounded for the first time in 1993.

Of 49 reefs monitored in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, experts found less than one-fifth in good condition, based on live coral cover.

The assessment was the first based on monitoring of coral reefs, a capacity developed through the Asean-Australia Living Coastal Resources Project. It was estimated that degraded reefs had risen by 70 per cent in the preceding 50 years.

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network of the International Coral Reef Initiative established an informal network of reef scientists in 1998, making regional assessments possible every two years.

It found that 88 per cent of what remains of South-east Asian reefs are under threat by human activities.

Human impact on coral reefs is varied, including coastal development, marine pollution, overfishing and destructive fishing. During the 1960s and 1970s, coastal development and pollution caused extensive loss and degradation.

By the 1980s, destructive fishing (mainly blast-fishing using explosives) became rampant, destroying large tracts of reefs, including those in remote areas that were once thought of as 'safe'.

Techniques soon evolved into another form of destructive fishing - poison fishing, where fish hiding in reef crevices are stunned by a cyanide solution squirted into the tight confines. The poison silently kills corals and smaller reef organisms that form the reef's ecological fabric.

As the world's appetite for fish increases amid the collapse of international stocks, destructive fishing practices are on the rise, making sustainable use of reef resources seem an almost impossible mission.

Protecting our reefs

ONE of the most common ways to safeguard reefs is to establish Marine Protected Areas. But while the figures sound good on paper - more than 430 areas have been declared - the truth is that they comprise only 8per cent of the region's reefs.

What is worse, only 10 per cent of protected areas are effectively managed by surveillance, for example, to ensure there is no illegal fishing.

Because our reefs are an important food and climate regulation source, their destruction means a loss of what was once considered an infinite food supply, as well as ecological services such as coastal protection, carbon fixation to use up global-warming gases and environmental quality regulation.

Reefs provide for free, services which would cost millions of dollars annually to run. As they degrade, human engineering is necessary to replace some of the lost services.

An example is the construction of sea walls for coastal protection. During the 2004 Asian tsunami, reefs in good condition gave better coastal protection from the force of the tidal waves than damaged ones.

The demise of reefs also means a significant decline of food supplies critical to coastal communities.

Then, there are the recreational benefits. Divers are always in search of pristine reefs and a well-protected reef attracts considerable tourist dollars. A healthy and well-managed reef is worth a lot of money. In fact, the annual economic gain from healthy reefs is estimated at $500,000 per square kilometre. Why then, are reefs constantly under threat?

One can only attribute it to ignorance or opportunistic short-term plundering. Long-term sustainable use is something myopic management fails to recognise because benefits are to be shared with future generations. To them, long-term sustainability is irrelevant to their limited term of governance.

Amid this dismal outlook, is there any hope of saving South-east Asia's reefs?

There are a few cases of effective management, which can and should be replicated to reverse the reef-degradation trend.

One of the best-known cases of a coastal community transforming a degraded reef that had been severely damaged by blast-fishing and overfishing to one that supports sustainable fisheries is that of Apo Island in the Philippines.

The 800 inhabitants of this small island realised in 1982 they had damaged the surrounding reef by overfishing. On the advice of reef scientists, the villagers stopped destructive fishing and set aside a quarter of the reef as a marine sanctuary.

The sanctuary is a protected zone operating as a 'no-take' area.

No one is allowed to fish or extract anything from this zone and even scientific investigations are limited to non-destructive methods.

The sanctuary replenishes the remaining reef, so much so that the entire community has been able to fish at a sustainable level since.

The reef now supports 650 reef fish species and 400 coral species. It now attracts coastal tourists and generates additional income.

The success of this community-organised sanctuary demonstrates the effective role of local communities.

In the Philippines, community-based management is now widely implemented, with mayors of some local districts supporting moves to galvanise the community to halt reef destruction.

Transferring this management capacity across countries is the next step in the battle.

The small village of Blongko, in Indonesia's North Sulawesi, has a 1,200-strong population largely dependent on fishing.

It learnt from the Apo Island marine sanctuary, and went on to establish the community-managed Blongko marine sanctuary 10 years ago.

Other forms of reef management have emerged in the region.

Resort operators with buildings close to good reefs, for example, acknowledge the importance of maintaining reef health as the beautiful corals and fish attract guests.

Some operators even provide resources to cash-strapped government agencies and help pay for boats and fuel for surveillance.

Unintentional protection

UNINTENDED reef management is seen in areas that prohibit visitor access because of security concerns or private-lease arrangements.

Reefs of islands used by the Singapore military in live-firing exercises are among some of the healthier ones in the country.

In Sattaheep, south of Pattaya, Thailand, the reefs are in excellent condition as they lie within a naval base that is off-limits to the public.

A good example of effective management in a region where enforcement is, for the most part, weak or symbolic is the strong protection given to reefs surrounding small islands that attract swiftlets to nest.

The birds roost in caves of these islands and their nests are harvested to produce bird's nest which can fetch up to $5,000 per kilo.

In the Gulf of Thailand, operators paying to harvest the nests take measures to ensure no one goes near the island. Some even hire guards armed with machine guns.

As no one ventures near the islands, the reefs are completely protected and in the best of health.

These different modes of reef protection show that positive action can be taken to prevent the habitat going to waste.

At national levels, more committed policies are needed to conserve reef resources.

Management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas needs strengthening and review to target larger areas of coral reefs as only 8 per cent of the region's reefs lie within them.

But, as the success stories have shown, the picture is not totally dismal, and much can be done to save our watery treasure troves.

The writer is a professor at the National University of Singapore's Department of Biological Sciences, and has been involved with coral reef management research throughout South-east Asia. He has been a member of the scientific and technical advisory committee of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network since its formation in 1996, serving as chairman from 2003 to 2005.

Read more!

Efforts to remove artificial tire reef in the US ends for season

Brian Skoloff, Associated Press Jacksonville.com 30 May 08

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - An effort to remove some 700,000 old tires from the ocean floor about a mile offshore of Fort Lauderdale has ended for the season.

The well-intentioned attempt in 1972 to create what was touted as the world's largest artificial reef made of tires became an ecological disaster.

Little sea life formed on them. Some of the bundles bound together with nylon and steel also broke loose and have been scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields.

Thousands have also wedged up against the nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.

In a joint effort between the U.S. Army, Florida and Broward County, officials have been trying to clean up the mess. Army divers, using the project as a training exercise, have been retrieving the tires since April.

They concluded for the year on May 24 after bringing up about 43,900 tires in 26 days of diving, said Pat Quinn, a Broward County marine biologist.

Weather and sea conditions kept them from diving more often.

About 10,000 tires were brought up last year during the initial pilot phase of the project.

"This year they were really able to increase productivity," Quinn said Friday.

The entire project was initially expected to run through 2010, but plans may be altered depending on the Army's availability to continue participation and how much more productive they can be in coming years. If Broward County had to hire commercial crews, the project could cost millions.

Quinn said he expected the Army to return for several months again next year and hoped to nearly double the amount of tires retrieved.

The state spent roughly $140,000 on the project this year, including transporting the tires to a facility in Georgia where they will be shredded and burned as fuel at a paper mill, Quinn said.

The county plans an underwater assessment this summer to determine which tires should come up next.

"A lot of these tires are half buried in the sand, so there's much less chance of them coming loose and hurting the reef," Quinn said.

Read more!

10 things to eat before they die

Today Online 31 May 08;

ONE of the most publicised meals last year was a gala dinner in England called Ten Things to Eat Before You Die. It was a fantastical finale to the country’s annual Eat! culinary festival that comprised an indulgent five-course £85 ($229) menu.

On the list were foods from around the globe such as beluga caviar and Japanese wagyu along with lesser-known treats — Lindisfarne oysters harvested from oyster beds that used to belong to English monks and acorn-fed Iberico ham from Spain, for instance.

The meal drew flak for being, as The Times described it, “faintly revolting to hear about — like reading Seneca or some other mullet-obsessed Roman rhapsodising about the rainbow of colours an expiring red mullet turns when its death throes are viewed through the sides of a glass bowl”.

This year’s festival, which ended last Thursday, was also capped with a lavish, similarly-priced dinner. There was, however, one big difference: Its theme was Ten Things to Eat Before They Die.

Festival director Simon Preston was quoted by The Guardian and The Journal as saying: “(The previous year’s event) was all the usual stuff and people loved it, but we wanted a bit more food for thought this year. We are ... highlighting major international issues such as those of fair trade and sustainability.”

The recent, more politically-correct meal — organised together with Slow Food’s Ark of Taste, a global movement that aims to save near-extinct foods — made a plea for 18 speciality producers, from Afghanistan to the Guatemalan highlands, who are struggling to stay in business.

Among other items, it featured golden lentils from France, wild Ballobar capers from Spain, jams from Romania and Formby asparagus from England. Mullet bortaga, a type of dried caviar, was also selected from a list of hundreds of candidates, but the only people who produce it — Mauritanian nomads — did not respond in time.

The idea was to generate awareness of these delicacies, all of which suffer from under-consumption, before they vanish from the planet. The event organisers, reported The Guardian, also hope to make some of these great foods known to foodies so that high-end retailers may pick them up, thus allowing the small producers to make a living selling their delicacies.

Items such as the English asparagus, for example, used to be widely served aboard transatlantic liners as it can keep for up to a year when frozen. But since precious few such ocean journeys are made these days, it is now grown only over 1.6 hectares. And the previously-popular Spanish capers haven’t been harvested for commercial purposes since the 1980s after other varieties began to be grown in Andalusia and North Africa. Now, they can’t get sold outside of the local villages.

Because there are many other cheaper brands available, these foods (that are far more labour-intensive to produce) rely on the top end of the market to keep them going. Said Preston: “We face an increasingly homogenised, globalised world of food. This is a way to help these admirable producers and show that their food genuinely does taste different, and better. We need people who love food to eat these products out of the endangered zone.”

According to The Guardian, the sold-out dinner also highlighted “subtle ways in which local producers have used their surroundings to produce distinctive food”.

The Romanian jams, for instance, are produced in the historical region of Transylvania with berries and fruit that grow around seven villages founded by 13th-century Saxon immigrants. They are hand-made by Romanian women to supplement low farming incomes.

The mullet caviar that didn’t make it to the menu is made by the Imraguen nomads of Mauritania’s Banc d’Arguin National Park by salting, rinsing and pressing mullet eggs between boards after the fish have been steered towards their nets by schools of dolphins. The nomads are the only people permitted to fish in the park, a Unesco World Heritage site, because they use motorless boats.

It is these producers, said Ark of Taste’s Suzanne Wynn, who are really “doing something properly ... and it upsets me to see that nobody cares”.

“I hope the dinner will make people see that what we have needs protecting,” she said. “There are all sorts of varieties of fruit and vegetables, for example, that are disappearing. Some of them don’t matter in that they don’t taste any different from other varieties, but some things are worth preserving.

“That’s the message we want to get out if we are to stop things from dying apace.”

What was on the menu (credit the Guardian):

From the United Kingdom –

- Lancashire asparagus: The Formby crop is down to a few farmers after the loss of the transatlantic liner market.

- Herdwick mutton: Staunchly produced since Beatrix Potter’s day but confined to the Lake District.

- Raw milk cow’s cheese: Traditional process reintroduced by Irish artisan producers in the 1970s to international acclaim but a small market.

- Perry pear juice: Unsuited to mass production and now limited to Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire.

From Spain –

- Ballobar capers: Introduced to the Aragon region of Spain by the Moors but long since gone wild. Costly to harvest and outpriced by Andalusian and Moroccan rivals.

From Guatemala –

- Huehuetenango highland coffee: Needs forest shade and laborious depulping and bean-raking for its famed flavour.

From Afghanistan –

- Herat raisins: Known since the fourth century AD but the 120 varieties are struggling against Afghanistan’s disruption and more lucrative crops such as poppies.

From Romania –

- Saxon village preserves: Based on berries and other fruits from Transylvania, made by Romanian women to supplement low farming incomes.

From France –

- Saint Flour golden lentils: Thin skins absorb sauces well but livestock has taken over much of the French land used in its early-20th-century heyday.

Read more!

Which foods do chefs in Singapore feel may eventually disappear?

Today Online 31 May 08;

Matsutake mushrooms: This prized variety is grown only in Japan and a handful of other places around the world. Harvesting is difficult as the mushrooms grow under trees and are usually concealed under fallen leaves, which explains their high price — up to $2,725 per kg. Said master chef of Keyaki at Pan Pacific Singapore, Hiroshi Ishii: “Matsutake mushrooms will one day become scarce because these are grown in the wild and can’t be farmed.”

Popular seafood such as cod, tuna, swordfish, king crab and caviar: Excessive fishing, especially of the larger predator fish, has a dramatic impact on these items. It also affects the predator-to-prey ratio, thus leading to an imbalanced ecosystem — more smaller fish are left to devour the ocean’s algae, which in turn affects oxygen levels in the sea and creates “dead zones” where fishing is no longer productive. Chef de cuisine of The Cliff, Shawn Armstrong, said: “Although it is not apparent to the majority just yet, wild fish and seafood on the whole are slowly becoming extinct. To counteract this, stricter worldwide catch limits should be enforced, and the number of farmed fish should be increased. We should also create more awareness to protect the lesser-known vanishing species.”

Pig’s organ soup: This traditionalChinese broth is made with pig’s intestines, stomach and blood, and also contains pork slices, salted vegetables and Chinese lettuce. Its popularity has waned in recent years because people are becoming increasingly health-conscious. Explained head chef of Fairmont Singapore’s Plaza Market Café, Eddie Goh: “This simple dish was once a local favourite but is frowned upon these days because it is heavily laden with high-cholesterol ingredients. Both young and old diners are now more aware of healthydietary requirements.”

Home-made double-boiled soup: This type of herbal soup is thought to be a restorative tonic that can either take away or add “heatiness” to one’s body depending on the variety made. Preparation is labour-intensive as the broth has to be cooked over a slow fire for hours. Said executive chef of Mandarin Oriental Singapore, Eric Teo: “The recipes for these soups are usually passed down from generation to generation. But because of the availability of convenient food and the extensive amount of effort and time required to prepare them, people are not picking up the skills from their parents or grandparents any more. Other foods that require a lot of preparation — such as sea cucumber, fish maw and shark’s fin — will also be less available in future, as the preparation methods would be lost and not many people would know how to clean them the proper way, for example.”

Manchu Han Imperial Feast: One of the grandest menus in Chinese history, this consists of at least 108 dishes from the Qing and Han dynasties and is served over three days. It is extremely rare today and, if offered, is one of the most expensive meals in Chinese cuisine. Where items such as bear claw with sturgeon and live monkey brains were served previously, substitute ingredients are now used as many of the traditional items are endangered species. Master chef of Pan Pacific Singapore’s Hai Tien Lo, Lai Tong Ping, said: “The meal is becoming lost through thegenerations.”

Read more!

Rising prices could spark war over food: PM Lee

Multilateral efforts needed to avert global crisis: PM Lee
Zakir Hussain, Straits Times 31 May 08;

COUNTRIES need to work together to tackle the problem of rising food prices, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

The issue has 'serious security implications', and could spark wars and failed states.

If a serious problem is to be averted, countries must improve productivity in farming.

Agencies like the World Bank and Food and Agriculture Organisation should promote research to increase yields, and agricultural trade must be kept 'free and fair', he said.

'Only then will farmers everywhere have the right market signals and incentives to produce more food to meet increased demand.'

Mr Lee's remarks, made in a keynote speech at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue on security issues, come at a time when humanitarian officials and other experts warn that rising food prices could destabilise governments.

The issue is set to be discussed at sessions today and tomorrow.

Global food prices have risen by half over the past year.

Mr Lee specifically cautioned food-producing countries against pursuing greater self-sufficiency and trying to keep food production within their own borders.

Such actions 'will cause greater international tensions', he said, as they will make prices more unstable.

'Food importers will scramble to secure their own needs and poor countries will suffer, not just greater privation but famine and starvation.'

Human ingenuity had deferred mathematician Thomas Malthus' forecast 200 years ago that population growth would outpace food production, but such a scenario could happen in the future, he said.

The world's population is steadily growing and hundreds of millions of Asians are becoming more affluent and consuming more and better food, 'crowding out billions who are still poor', Mr Lee noted.

And where food supply is concerned, 'misconceived green policies to subsidise biofuels are encouraging farmers to grow fuel instead of food'.

Climate change - a security threat Mr Lee highlighted at last year's dialogue - will also see more extreme weather, reducing the supply of fresh water and fertile land, he added.

And while better harvests may moderate prices next year, he felt tighter supplies and higher prices will be a long-term reality.

Poor countries will be hardest hit by food shortages, and hunger and famine could lead to social upheaval and strife.

'We are already experiencing a small foretaste of this today,' Mr Lee said, citing riots and unrest in several developing countries.

'In vulnerable areas like Darfur and Bangladesh, large numbers of people are moving across borders, often illegally, in search of food and water. Even without a food crisis, we have seen vicious xenophobic attacks in South Africa against immigrants fleeing unstable regimes and desperate poverty,' he said.

'In the event of a global food crisis, all this will play out on a much bigger scale across the globe.'

Read more!

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife

Marlowe Hood, Yahoo News 30 May 08;

UN talks on Friday yielded a package of measures aimed at staving off what scientists fear is a mass extinction of Earth's species and blocking irreparable damage to the ecosystems on which human life depends.

After a 12-day conference, 191 nations attending the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to set up the first-ever deep-sea nature preserve and expand reserves on land to an area that, if combined, would be nearly twice the size of Germany.

In another first, a long-stymied effort to compensate developing nations for "genetic resources" extracted to make drugs and cosmetics also gained traction.

German Environment minister Sigmar Gabriel hailed progress on this so-called access and benefits-sharing regime as a "real success."

Other measures passed included a de-facto ban on sowing oceans with chemicals, an experimental process championed by some nations -- notably Australia -- as a potential carbon-reducing solution to global warming.

And the conference also took the first steps toward setting global standards for developing biofuels, a renewable energy that has been accused of accelerating deforestation and widening hunger as farmers swap food crops for fuel crops.

Green groups were critical, though. They slammed the outcome as badly failing the UN Millennium Development Goal which sets 2010 as the deadline to "substantially reduce" biodiversity loss.

The bloc of 77 developing countries and China approved the consensus package but issued a warning.

A major reduction of biodiversity loss by 2010 "is unlikely at the current rates," they said. "Let history not say about our age that we were rich in resources but poor in will."

They also called for benefit-sharing from genetic resources to be given legal teeth. This was an issue that divided the industrialised north and the developing south.

Gabriel acknowledged that Bonn meeting "achieved less than we should have, given the dimension of the problems."

But, he argued, "achieving unanimity among 191 states is difficult."

The conference agreed on criteria for marine protected areas in the high seas and deep-sea habitats.

On land, tens of millions of hectares (acres) are to be earmarked for nature preserves, under initiatives unveiled Indonesia, Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Bosnia.

Another hotly contested issue -- how to describe the link between climate change and biodiversity -- ended with a vague statement which said efforts to reduce and adapt to global warming should avoid potentially negative impacts on biodiversity.

Scientists say that species are becoming extinct at a dizzying rate -- between 100 and 1,000 times the natural pace of extinction.

One in four mammals, one bird in eight, one third of all amphibians and 70 percent of plants are under threat.

The Biodiversity Convention is an offspring of the 1992 Earth Summit, but it has long played the frustrating role of junior partner to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio's other landmark treaty.

The Bonn meeting was framed as an attempt to catapult Earth's other environmental crisis to greater prominence.

In attempt to show the dollar value of natural resources, development economist Pavan Sukhdev estimated that the lost benefits of biodiversity and ecosystems cost as much as 3.1 trillion dollars a year, or six percent of the planet's gross national product.

Another initiative at the conference was to set up an independent panel of scientists to deliver regular assessments on the state biodiversity, modelled on the lines of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged 500 million euros (785 million dollars) in funding for biodiversity work before 2013, and an equal amount annually thereafter. But other major economies are yet to follow suit.

U.N. meeting agrees steps to save wildlife
Reuters 30 May 08;

(Reuters) - Nearly 200 governments have agreed steps to help save animal and plant life from threats including pollution and climate change, ending a 12-day U.N. meeting on biological diversity.

The conference agreed:

OCEAN FERTILISATION

- a moratorium on projects to tackle climate change by adding nutrients to the seas to spur growth of carbon-absorbing algae, according to host Germany.

GENETIC RESOURCES

- a roadmap for working out by 2010 new rules, with legally binding elements, on access to natural resources and sharing their benefits. Firms want to tap genetic resources, for example for medicines, but some local people accuse them of "biopiracy" and want a greater share of the rewards.

PROTECTED AREAS

- a framework for a global network of areas to protect wildlife which gives instructions to governments and donors to mobilize resources for the zones. New protected areas were announced in the Balkans and in the Caribbean.

Germany launched "Lifeweb", a plan to extend the world's protected areas by getting industrialized countries to donate cash to help developing countries meet the costs. It also pledged 500 million euros ($773.9 million) to 2012 plus 500 million euros a year after that to help save forests. Norway matched that.

MARINE AREAS

- to set criteria for the creation of marine protected areas. While 12 percent of the world's land area is set aside for wildlife, only about 0.5 percent of the oceans are designated.

FORESTS

- to designate 10 percent of all existing forest ecosystems as protected areas and nations also called for a clampdown on illegal logging. Experts say 20 percent of world greenhouse gases come from forest destruction.

BIOFUELS

- to adopt a work programme to assess the impact of biofuels on biodiversity by 2010. Such fuels can threaten biodiversity, for instance if forests are cleared or wetlands drained to grow crops for fuel.

(Compiled by Madeline Chambers; Editing by Jon Boyle)

Progress at UN biodiversity forum
Reuters 30 May 08;

Nearly 200 countries have agreed on measures to protect the world's most threatened wildlife.

At a Bonn conference they pledged to set up a deep-sea nature reserve and increase by tens of millions of hectares the area of land protected.

The Convention on Biological Diversity meeting also agreed to prepare a firm position on the benefits and drawbacks of biofuels by the next forum in 2010.

But environmentalists said the outcome of the UN forum was unsatisfactory.

They said progress was too slow compared to the threat to the world's species.

'Real progress'

Some 5,000 delegates from 191 countries attended the 12-day conference in the former German capital.

They agreed to set up the deep-sea nature preserve, expand reserve land to an area that - if combined - would be almost twice the size of Germany.

Other agreed steps included a ban on experiments to boost plankton growth to reverse climate change, because of the potential risks to other animals.

The delegates also pledged to set global standards for developing biofuels, a renewable energy that has been blamed for deforestation.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Berlin would commit 500 million euros (£392m) in funding for biodiversity work over the next for years, and another 500m euros each year after that.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel admitted later that he had not expected "real progress to be made on so many points".

But environmentalists said the progress achieved at the conference was still failing the UN Millennium Development Goal, which aims to "substantially reduce" biodiversity loss by 2010.

Scientists have warned that many species are becoming extinct at a rapid rate.

UN biodiversity conference ends with package to protect wildlife
Channel NewsAsia 31 May 08;

BONN, Germany - UN talks on Friday yielded a package of measures aimed at staving off what scientists fear is a mass extinction of Earth's species and blocking irreparable damage to the ecosystems on which human life depends.

After a 12-day conference, 191 nations attending the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to set up the first-ever deep-sea nature preserve and expand reserves on land to an area that, if combined, would be nearly twice the size of Germany.

In another first, a long-stymied effort to compensate developing nations for "genetic resources" extracted to make drugs and cosmetics also gained traction.

German Environment minister Sigmar Gabriel hailed progress on this so-called access and benefits-sharing regime as a "real success."

Other measures passed included a de-facto ban on sowing oceans with chemicals, an experimental process championed by some nations -- notably Australia -- as a potential carbon-reducing solution to global warming.

And the conference also took the first steps toward setting global standards for developing biofuels, a renewable energy that has been accused of accelerating deforestation and widening hunger as farmers swap food crops for fuel crops.

Green groups were critical, though. They slammed the outcome as badly failing the UN Millennium Development Goal which sets 2010 as the deadline to "substantially reduce" biodiversity loss.

The bloc of 77 developing countries and China approved the consensus package but issued a warning.

A major reduction of biodiversity loss by 2010 "is unlikely at the current rates," they said. "Let history not say about our age that we were rich in resources but poor in will."

They also called for benefit-sharing from genetic resources to be given legal teeth. This was an issue that divided the industrialised north and the developing south.

Gabriel acknowledged that Bonn meeting "achieved less than we should have, given the dimension of the problems."

But, he argued, "achieving unanimity among 191 states is difficult."

The conference agreed on criteria for marine protected areas in the high seas and deep-sea habitats.

On land, tens of millions of hectares (acres) are to be earmarked for nature preserves, under initiatives unveiled Indonesia, Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Bosnia.

Another hotly contested issue -- how to describe the link between climate change and biodiversity -- ended with a vague statement which said efforts to reduce and adapt to global warming should avoid potentially negative impacts on biodiversity.

Scientists say that species are becoming extinct at a dizzying rate -- between 100 and 1,000 times the natural pace of extinction.

One in four mammals, one bird in eight, one third of all amphibians and 70 percent of plants are under threat.

The Biodiversity Convention is an offspring of the 1992 Earth Summit, but it has long played the frustrating role of junior partner to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Rio's other landmark treaty.

The Bonn meeting was framed as an attempt to catapult Earth's other environmental crisis to greater prominence.

In attempt to show the dollar value of natural resources, development economist Pavan Sukhdev estimated that the lost benefits of biodiversity and ecosystems cost as much as 3.1 trillion dollars a year, or six percent of the planet's gross national product.

Another initiative at the conference was to set up an independent panel of scientists to deliver regular assessments on the state biodiversity, modelled on the lines of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

German Chancellor Angela Merkel pledged 500 million euros (785 million dollars) in funding for biodiversity work before 2013, and an equal amount annually thereafter. But other major economies are yet to follow suit.

- AFP /ls

Read more!

U.N. talks halt plans for oceans absorb CO2

Madeline Chambers, Reuters 30 May 08;

BONN, Germany (Reuters) - Nearly 200 countries agreed on Friday to a moratorium on projects to fight climate change by adding nutrients to the seas to spur growth of carbon-absorbing algae.

The surprise deal followed 12 days of haggling at the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity conference where Australia, Brazil and China had opposed until the last minute, halting the controversial plans for "ocean fertilization".

Opponents argue the little-tested process has unknown risks which could threaten marine life, for instance by making the oceans more acidic. Those in favor say it could be a new weapon to fight global warming.

German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, hosting the talks, announced the accord on the final day of the conference at which some 5,000 delegates from 191 countries tried to agree on ways of protecting animal and plant life on earth.

"It's a very strange idea that technology can solve everything. It's very risky and shows what humans are ready to do. I'm glad we came to a de facto moratorium," he told reporters.

During the conference, delegates and environmentalists have consistently said that human activity and greenhouse gas emissions are causing the most serious spate of extinctions since the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Three species vanish every hour, they say.

This has major economic consequences and has heightened worries about a recent surge in world food prices due to booming demand as experts say wild stocks are vital to the long-term sustainability of crops.

Gabriel said the conference had succeeded in putting the issue of biodiversity on the political agenda. But activists said progress was too slow.

SNAIL

"The U.N. Biodiversity summit inches forward like a snail while animals and plants are being wiped out at great speed," said Martin Kaiser, head of Greenpeace's delegation in Bonn.

The moratorium on ocean fertilization was one of the few areas where action was taken.

Delegates adopted a document which said they would refer to the London Convention for guidance on fertilization issues.

The London Convention, which oversees dumping at sea, says its official advice is not to start ocean fertilization but wait until scientists come up with better research on its impact.

Several companies are working on the idea and the U.S.'s Climos is looking at adding iron filings into the ocean to spur algae growth. Other possibilities include adding large amounts of nitrogen, an ingredient in many land-based fertilizers.

One risk is that because carbon dioxide slightly acidifies water, animals including oysters, crabs and lobsters may have difficulty in forming their protective shells. That may make them vulnerable to predators and disrupt the sea food chain.

"There seems to have been a recognition about the risks of geo-engineering and that this could set a dangerous precedent. Some delegates were horrified when they found out about this," Pat Mooney of environmental group ETC Group told Reuters.

(Editing by Matthew Jones)

Read more!

Ban decision could mean GM trees in the wild

Alice Klein, The Telegraph 30 May 08;

Campaigners have said they will fight a UN decision that could see plantations of genetically modified trees grown in the wild.

The 150 countries that are members of the Convention on Biological Diversity - the leading international agreement for ecological governance - refused to ban the controversial trees during their conference in Bonn, Germany.

The decision means that trees whose genetic traits have been manipulated to make them more suitable for the paper making and biofuel industries, can be grown in field trials with a view to being grown on a commercial scale.

Under the decision, members are allowed to ban the controversial trees in their own countries but with no international agreement, they would not be protected by contaminated pollen blown across national borders from neighboring countries.

The conference comes amid growing commercial pressure from the biotechnology industry which wants to grow GM trees in large-scale monocultures.

The amount of cellulose in trees can be increased to make them more suitable for paper and ethanol, which can be used as a biofuel. Simultaneously, the level of lignin - the substance that gives trees their rigidity - can be reduced.

And an insect-killing gene, taken from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, can be added to trees which produces toxins that are poisonous to insects.

But campaign groups are concerned these traits could kill insects living off the trees - such as butterflies, moths and potentially their predators - and make them vulnerable to wind damage.

Dr Ricarda Steinbrecher, a geneticist and co-founder of science watchdog Econexus, said the decision was a disappointing one for forests and ecosystems around the world. She said: "Trees are highly complex organisms and forests are highly complex ecosystems. Trees live a long time, their pollen can travel long distances - over 1000 kilometers - and their seeds are carried far by wind, water or animals.

"This means trees that, for example, are genetically modified to constantly produce their own insecticides would be putting this insecticide into the environment. While it might kill pests, it would also kill non-target organisms and beneficial organisms, such as predators of pests.

"Yet insects are a crucial component of the food chain within forests, thus impacting on bird populations and other animals. So if trees spread and live a long time, by the time you find a problem it would be too late and the impacts could already be quite significant; the potential impacts of GM trees could be many times that of GM crops.

"Many indigenous peoples are dependent on forests and their rich and complex ecosystems. If GM trees disrupt this ecosystem, it will affect their ability to make their livelihoods from the forests."

An umbrella group Stop GE Trees, comprised of 137 civil society organisations from 34 countries, criticised the decision.

Anne Petermann, a co-director of Stop GE Trees, said: "This paves the way for the commercialisation of GE trees with all of the irreversible and trans-boundary, social and ecological impacts that will be borne by the local communities and indigenous peoples in those regions where GE trees will be released. I think that is unconscionable."

The environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth said the decision was bad news as native forests could be contaminated with the altered genes from nearby GM trees.

The group's GM campaigner Clare Oxborrow said: "If GM trees contaminate wild tree populations the results could be devastating.

"GM trees pose unique risks because of the complex interaction between trees and their environments, their long life cycle and the potential for long distance pollination.

"This decision must put a stop to the commercial rush for GM trees and instead encourage countries to invest in sustainable solutions that protect forests and the communities that depend on them."

Countries that blocked a proposed moratorium banning GM trees included Brazil, Columbia, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. The European Commission is thought to be the driving force behind the EU's refusal to ban the trees.

Read more!

Japan finding itself in hot water: Impact of rising temperatures being felt in fisheries, agriculture and other industries

tmcnet 30 May 08;

(Japan Times Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) May 30--SADO, Niigata Pref. -- Kyuichi Sakano, head of Niigata's fixed shore net fishing association, sighed in dismay one day last December as his fishing boats came back yet again without any yellowtail.

"The business is very severe," said Sakano, who owns two stationary fishing nets off Sado Island.

In addition to the salaries of about 80 employees who work for him, Sakano needs to satisfy some 800 local investors. But because of poor catches, his association was unable to pay dividends in the business year that ended last July.

Sado, which lies off northern Niigata Prefecture in the Sea of Japan, is popular for "kanburi" yellowtail, a tasty variety caught in November and December, when the fish swim south to avoid colder currents.

But in the past two years, Sado has been suffering from low catches of yellowtail partly due to rising water temperatures in the area.

In the 2006 business year, Sado's fishermen brought in 95 tons of yellowtail between November and February and 107 tons during the same period in business 2007 -- way below the 467 tons caught in business 2003.

Despite growing awareness of global warming -- which figures to be the main topic at the Group of Eight summit this July at Toyako, Hokkaido -- its impact on daily life may still be elusive for many people.

But climate change appears to have begun affecting some sectors, especially in agriculture and fishing, and has been keenly felt by the people engaged in those industries.

According to the Meteorological Agency, the annual average water temperature in the Sea of Japan has risen 1.6 degrees over the past 100 years -- three times the global average increase of 0.5 degree.

Researchers agree it is almost impossible to prove climate change is the sole cause of the sudden decline in the yellowtail catch off Sado. They say a number of factors can change migratory patterns, including lack of food and temporary changes in sea currents.

But most agree that the higher seawater temperature has altered which species of fish are caught in the area.

In the past decade or so, increasing numbers of Spanish mackerel, which usually wander in the warmer East China Sea or the Seto Inland Sea, have been caught off Sado Island and other parts of the Sea of Japan.

"Seawater temperature changes in a cycle of 10 to 50 years in the Sea of Japan, which is a natural phenomenon," said Hideaki Kidokoro, a researcher at the Japan Sea National Fisheries Research Institute in Niigata. "Catches of sardine increase during a low-temperature cycle, while yellowtail increase in a high-temperature cycle."

But it is a worrisome possibility this cycle is being disrupted by global warming, which is largely deemed a man-made phenomenon, he said.

"We don't know whether this change of cycle will continue if the seawater temperature rises because of global warming," Kidokoro said. "The ecological system responds to surrounding conditions and we're not sure what will happen."

In warmer parts of Japan, higher seawater temperatures have damaged one of the nation's most popular diving spots.

Last summer, about 80 percent of the coral reefs in 30 monitored locations in Sekisei Lagoon off Okinawa's Ishigaki Island suffered from bleaching because of higher water temperatures.

"It was as if snow fell in the sea," said Hajime Hirosawa, an official at the Environment Ministry's International Coral Reef Research and Monitoring Center on Ishigaki.

In recent years, coral reefs around the world have been threatened by bleaching believed to have been caused by rising sea temperatures due to global warming and by a sharp increase in crown-of-thorns starfish, which eat coral.

The ideal sea temperature for a coral reef is 18 to 30 degrees, but the average temperature around Ishigaki rose to 32 last July and August.

One of the reasons, Hirosawa said, was that no typhoons hit the region until late summer.

Normally, the area is lashed by typhoons almost throughout the summer, reducing the sea's temperature by constantly causing surface and deeper waters, and ocean waters and shoreline waters, to mix.

"Global warming is not the only reason" causing coral bleaching, Hirosawa said. "But a higher seawater temperature adds stress to coral reefs."

Higher temperatures affect much more than marine life. In Kyushu, climate change could be causing the quality of rice to deteriorate.

Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 20.9 percent of the rice harvested in 200 select locations in Fukuoka Prefecture was classified as "first class," down sharply from an average of 64 percent between 1996 and 2002, according to data compiled by the agriculture ministry.

Typhoon damage was the primary cause, acknowledged Satoshi Morita, a senior researcher at the Chikugo branch of the National Agricultural Research Center for Kyushu Okinawa Region, but he argued that global warming has contributed to the decline in rice quality.

"What drew my attention is that the temperature was high even though there were more cloudy days than usual," Morita said. "This may be because of global warming."

According to data from the Meteorological Agency, Fukuoka's average temperature in August and September, when the rice ears up (when the grains start to appear) was 26.9 degrees between 2003 and 2007. That's 0.5 degree higher than what the average was for the same months between 1996 and 2002.

If the temperature is above 26.5 degrees when the rice plants ear up at the end of August through mid-September, the grains turn milky white, or less translucent than normal.

"Such rice, when cooked, will be mushy," which consumers do not like, Morita said. "Because these rice grains are softer, they easily crack during transport."

To fight this trend, rice farmers are instructed to delay planting by a week or two in June so that the rice will ear up after the weather cools in the fall.

The research center has also developed a new strain called Nikomaru, which is more resistant to high temperature. The Nagasaki and Oita prefectural governments are encouraging their farmers to plant Nikomaru.

Read more!

UK supermarkets warned over waste packaging

Josie Clarke, The Independent 29 May 08;

Leading supermarkets are making little progress in increasing their recyclable packaging, a report out today said.

Up to 38 per cent of packaging cannot be recycled, down just 2 per cent from the first report in October last year, the Local Government Association (LGA) warned.

Retailers still have "a lot further to go" if Britain is to hit recycling targets and avoid landfill tax and EU fines, the survey found.

Marks & Spencer and Lidl used the lowest percentage of packaging which could be recycled, at 62 per cent. M&S took the same title last year.

And Lidl was again the worst offender when it came to total volume of packaging used, with a basket of groceries using 813g, up from 799.5g last year.

M&S used the second-highest total amount of packaging at 807g for a basket, while Sainsbury's used the third-highest amount by weight at 746g.

Environment Minister Joan Ruddock said: "We announced higher recycling targets for the UK in February and we have an existing agreement with retailers to end the growth in packaging waste this year. I will continue to keep these targets under review.

"Producers' obligations have already increased packaging recovery from just 27 per cent in 1998 to 59 per cent last year."

A Defra spokesman added: "Individual local authorities have the responsibility to determine the recycling solutions that best suit their communities.

"Five local authorities will next year be undertaking pilot schemes to create incentives for recycling. We will evaluate the impact of those pilots before making a final decision on whether other local authorities can introduce similar schemes."

The findings were based on analysis of packaging used for a basket of 29 common grocery items bought from Asda, Lidl, M&S, Morrisons, Sainsbury's, Tesco, a local retailer and a market.

Asda's packaging weighed the least among the major supermarkets at 646g, 69 per cent of which was recyclable.

The local market used the least weighty packaging (617g) and the highest amount that could be recycled at 76 per cent.

Sainsbury's was the supermarket with the highest proportion of recyclable packaging, at 70 per cent.

Asda used 69 per cent recyclable packaging followed by Morrisons at 67 per cent and Tesco at 65 per cent.

LGA environment board chairman Cllr Paul Bettison said: "The days of the cling-film coconut must come to an end. We all have a responsibility to reduce the amount of waste being thrown into landfill, which is damaging the environment and contributing to climate change.

"Families will be pleased to see that more packaging in their shopping baskets can now be recycled. However, this survey shows there is still a lot further to go.

"Reducing packaging is vital if we are to avoid paying more landfill tax and EU fines, which could lead to cuts in frontline services and increases in council tax."

Recycling rates had increased to 33 per cent in England but this figure had to increase, the report said.

Councils pay £32 in tax for every tonne of rubbish that is sent to landfill, which will increase to £48 a tonne by 2010.

From 2010 councils also face EU fines of £150 for every tonne that is dumped, which could cost an estimated £200 million by 2013.

The LGA is calling on the Government to make retailers and producers responsible for paying for the collection of packaging as an incentive to cut back.

Cllr Bettison said: "Some packaging is often needed, particularly to prevent food becoming spoilt and then ending up in landfill sites. Many retailers are also taking some very positive environmental initiatives, such as Marks & Spencer agreeing to work with councils to part-fund a recycling plant in East London.

"The LGA is in very constructive discussions with some of the leading supermarkets, and we hope this dialogue will lead to further steps in the direction of reducing packaging.

"Many countries on the continent operate a system where retailers contribute towards household collection and recycling services. This acts as an incentive for them not to produce excessive packaging in the first place.

"Government urgently needs to change its approach so retailers are incentivised to minimise unnecessary packaging and support maximum recycling."

The research was carried out for the LGA by the British Market Research Bureau.

Researchers bought items representing a regular shopping basket from the eight retailers, then recorded the total weight of the products and total weight of packaging.

The component parts of the packaging were weighed separately to measure the proportion of recyclable material and of rubbish.

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Steve Webb said: "Consumers are told to sort and cut down on their household waste only to come back from the supermarket with mounds of unnecessary packaging which cannot be recycled.

"This survey shows how much further we still have to go to eliminate unnecessary waste and make sure that all packaging is recyclable.

"While markets and local stores are performing far better on reducing waste packaging, the supermarket giants are lagging behind.

"It is time that the supermarkets used their huge market power with their suppliers to demand dramatic improvements in cutting out unnecessary packaging and increasing the proportion that can be recycled."

Dr Helene Roberts, head of food packaging at Marks & Spencer, said: "We're really disappointed with the report, which does not reflect reality. From our independently audited data we know that 91 per cent of our food packaging is recyclable. By 2012 we want to reach 100 per cent.

"The LGA has chosen to only look at a skewed sample of 29 products out of our 5,500 lines, which are not representative. The real issue at the moment is the inconsistency in recycling facilities across the UK.

"We all have a part to play in tackling packaging - retailers, manufacturers, local and national government, as well as consumers. However, further improvements to recycling across the UK are limited by the current facilities provided by local authorities, which is why we've been working closely with the LGA, as referred to in the report, to help create a more consistent approach to recycling across the UK."

British Retail Consortium director general Stephen Robertson said: "This research only sampled 29 products out of the thousands retailers sell, yet it concluded retailers reduced packaging by 5 per cent in just seven months - a significant achievement.

"But the LGA is right to recognise packaging plays a key part in reducing waste by preventing food deteriorating and goods being damaged. The environmental cost of wasted food is much greater than the packaging used to stop that waste.

"The report takes a very simplistic view of environmental management as packaging cannot simply be defined as recyclable or not recyclable, because this differs from one area to another depending on the policies and facilities of each local authority.

"Stores are rewarding and encouraging recycling. They are offering a variety of recycling facilities where practical. The LGA's own figures show this approach is contributing to increasing recycling rates.

"Retailers are contributing millions of pounds a year to help support Government-approved recycling schemes. Retailers are giving local authorities £10 million to upgrade sites for collecting waste electricals and they pay £4.5 billion a year in business rates towards local authority funding.

"Rather than looking for new ways to tap retailers and, in turn, hard-pressed customers for extra cash, local authorities would make a more positive contribution by developing their recycling facilities and increasing and standardising the range of materials they will accept for recycling."

Read more!

Case against climate change discredited by study

Steve Connor, The Independent 29 May 08;

A difference in the way British and American ships measured the temperature of the ocean during the 1940s may explain why the world appeared to undergo a period of sudden cooling immediately after the Second World War.

Scientists believe they can now explain an anomaly in the global temperature record for the twentieth century, which has been used by climate change sceptics to undermine the link between rising temperatures and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The record for sea-surface temperatures shows a sudden fall after 1945, which appeared to go against the general trend for rising global average temperatures during the past century.

Sceptics have argued it supports the idea that rising temperatures have more to do with increased solar activity – sunspots – than increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide exacerbating the greenhouse effect.

However, an international team of scientists has investigated the raw data from the period. They found a sudden increase from 1945 onwards in the proportion of global measurements taken by British ships relative to American ships.

The scientists point out that the British measurements were taken by throwing canvas buckets over the side and hauling water up to the deck for temperatures to be measured by immersing a thermometer for several minutes, which would result in a slightly cooler record because of evaporation from the bucket.

The preferred American method was to take the temperature of the water sucked in by intake pipes to cool the ships' engines. Those records would be slightly warmer than the actual temperature of the sea because of the heat from the ship, the scientists said.

Taking into account the difference in the way of measuring sea-surface temperatures, and the sudden increase in the proportion of British ships taking the measurements after the war, the result was an artificial lowering of the global average temperature by about 0.2C, said Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

"It occurred in the period of the 1940s when the number of observations of sea-surface temperature were markedly fewer than either before or after that period and most of the measurements were made by British and American ships. This made the apparent anomaly more pronounced," Professor Jones said.

The study, published in the journal Nature, found that the global average temperatures in the late 1940s stayed roughly the same rather than falling. David Thompson of Colorado State University, the team's leader, said a drop was, in effect, an artefact rather than a real observation.

"I was surprised to see the drop so clearly in the filtered data, and working in partnership with others, realised it couldn't be natural," Dr Thompson said.

Although the initial drop was significant, it did not last. By the 1960s, many other nations began taking ship-borne measurements of ocean temperature, mini-mising the discrepancy.

Professor Jones said that the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide.

"This finding supports the sulphates argument, because it was bit hard to explain how they could cause the period of cooling from 1945, when industrial production was still relatively low," Professor Jones said.

A similar problem could be occurring now with the move from ship-borne measurements to those from unmanned buoys, which tend to produce slightly lower records. This could explain why global average temperatures in recent years have levelled off.

Read more!

GM food: Monster or saviour?

Jeremy Cooke, BBC News 30 May 08;

I have to confess, until now the whole debate about genetically-modified (GM) food has pretty much passed me by.

Most of my career has been spent as a foreign correspondent.

But last summer I returned to the UK to start a new job with the BBC. I now glory in the title Rural Affairs Correspondent.

A big part of my new brief is to report on farming. It is my (sometimes painful) duty to attend agriculture conferences and seminars. I also meet many farmers on their farms.

And over the months, time and time again the issue of GM has been raised.

I have been left in no doubt that many UK farmers - and others in the food production industry - think that GM is an important tool which can improve their efficiency, but which has been denied to them.

All of this, you could argue, counts for very little. Of course, farmers want to increase yields, or get the same yield using less land, lest sprays, less fertiliser.

And anyway, did not we as a nation make up our minds about GM almost a decade ago?

You remember: environmentalists successfully branded GM "Frankenstein Food" - they warned us of the dangers of contaminating our environment, and of unleashing powerful and unpredictable forces into the British countryside.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Lord Peter Melchett with the case against GM food

As a nation we came down on their side of the argument. Although there is no law against growing GM in the UK, the regulations mean it is a hostile environment for the agri-business brigade. And so it remains.

So why go back to the debate? Well, two reasons strike me immediately.

The first is that - unlike 10 years ago - we are now gripped in a global food crisis. Where there were once grain mountains there are now shortages.

The second thing that has changed is the fact that in other parts of the world GM is now being grown in massive amounts. It is reckoned that an area twice the size of Britain is now under GM crops.

And guess what? There have so far been no reports of the environmental or human health disasters which we were all warned about.

So with that in mind, I set out with a question: is it time to rethink GM?

AMERICA

Let us start in America.

While we in Europe have rejected growing GM crops, the United States has enthusiastically embraced the new technology.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Inside the world's biggest GM company

Thousands of hectares of land are now covered in GM crops. Most meals consumed in America's ultimate consumer society will have some GM content.

It is something that Americans, generally, do not even think about. Certainly, throughout the four years my family and I spent in New York we must have eaten hundreds of meals containing GM in blissful ignorance.

The main GM food crops are soya - which produces important protein - and maize. Both have been genetically modified to produce bigger yields or the same yield for the less input (less herbicide, insecticide, fertiliser).

And behind it all (or almost all of it) is the giant Monsanto corporation. A multibillion dollar world-wide outfit that dominates the world of GM.

As a journalist, getting access to what the green lobby regards as the "heart of darkness" is not easy.

But after some gentle negotiating we were welcomed to St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto's global headquarters.

Here, some of the leading scientists in the field are working on ways to improve crops and yields.

Chatting to the technicians you can tell they are a little bemused at being labelled the architects of "Frankenstein Foods". They say they simply want to make things more efficient for farmers - and so better for consumers.

The chief executive Hugh Grant, originally from Glasgow in Scotland, seems puzzled at the European distrust of GM technology.

"The scientific case is very clear. This does now get down to people saying 12 years have passed, now's the time to make some calls.

"Europe continues to wait, while countries like India aggressively move ahead, and British scientists fill their suitcases and come here to do this research because they can't do it at home," Mr Grant says.

Monsanto is happy to provide stats which say that at least 90% of the farmers they deal with are happy with their product.

But there is no ignoring the fact that Monsanto is a hugely controversial company.

In the US, I found that for some farmers the problem is not so much a distrust of GM technology, but rather the way, they say, it makes them fall under the complete control of the biotech giants.

On his farm in Missouri I met Roger Parry. An old school good ol' boy, complete with battered old pick-up truck and equally battered base ball hat.

He is one of the minority of US farmers resisting GM. He told me that the big business of biotech is making it tough for farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow. Almost all of the seed available is GM seed.

Read more!

Food prices to remain high over the next decade: UN

Business Times 31 May 08;

(PARIS) Food prices will remain high over the next decade even if they fall from current records, meaning millions more risk further hardship or hunger, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said in a report published on Thursday.

Beyond stating the immediate need for humanitarian aid, the international bodies suggested wider deployment of genetically modified crops and a rethink of biofuel programmes that guzzle grain which could otherwise feed people and livestock.

The report, issued ahead of a world food summit in Rome next week, said that food commodity prices were likely to recede from the peaks hit recently, but that they would remain higher in the decade ahead than the one gone by.

'It's time for action,' Jacques Diouf, head of the UN's FAO told a news conference in Paris, saying that he expected 40 leaders in Rome for a summit on what should be done immediately or in the future. 'There's an immediate need for humanitarian aid to avoid poor people going hungry,' added Angel Gurria, head of the OECD.

Beef and pork prices would probably stay around 20 per cent higher than in the last 10 years, while wheat, corn and skimmed milk powder would likely command 40-60 per cent more in the 10 years ahead, in nominal terms, the joint FAO/OECD report said.

The price of rice, an Asian staple expected to become more important also in Africa in the years ahead, would likely average 30 per cent more expensive in nominal terms in the coming decade than over the 1998-2007 period.

'In many low-income countries, food expenditures average over 50 per cent of income and the higher prices contained in this outlook (report) will push more people into undernourishment,' the report said. Millions of people's purchasing power across the globe would be hit, said the report.

The cost of many food commodities has doubled over the last couple of years, sparking widespread protests and even riots in some of the worst affected spots, such as Haiti. Many factors, including drought in big commodity-producing regions such as Australia, explained some of the acceleration in prices, as did growing demand from fast-developing countries such as China and India, the report said.

But it singled out the big drive to produce biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels, a push the US government is sponsoring heavily, and Europe as well. The benefits at environmental and economic level as well as in terms of energy security were 'at best modest and sometimes even negative', the report said. -- Reuters

Read more!

'Forget climate change, we should spend on nutrition'

Mark Henderson, The Times 31 May 08;

Malnutrition should be the world’s major priority for aid and development, a panel of eight leading economists, including five Nobel laureates, declared yesterday.

The provision of supplements of vitamin A and zinc to children in developing countries, to prevent avoidable deficiencies that affect hundreds of millions of children, is the most cost-effective way of making the world a better place, the Copenhagen Consensus initiative has found.

Three other strategies for improving diets in poor nations were also named among the top six of 30 challenges assessed by the project, which aims to prioritise solutions to the world’s many problems according to their costs and benefits.

Efforts to control global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, however, were rated at the bottom of the league table, as the economists considered the high costs of such action were not justified by the payoffs. Research into new low-carbon technologies, such as solar and nuclear fusion power, was ranked as more worthwhile, in 14th place.

The previous Copenhagen Consensus, held in 2004, also listed global warming as its lowest priority. The exercise was organised by Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish statistician who has long argued that though climate change is real, current approaches to fighting it offer poor value for money.

Dr Lomborg said: “This gives us the ultimate overview of how global decisions can best be made and how we can best spend money to do good in the world. Prioritising is hard. It’s much easier to say we want to do everything, but unfortunately we have limited resources. We don’t just focus on what’s fashionable, but also on what’s rational.”

The jury of economists chose to emphasise malnutrition, and micronutrient supplements in particular, because of the major effects that comparatively moderate financial investments could have.

Around 140 million children suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which can cause blindness, immune system problems and death, or zinc deficiency, which can stunt growth. Supplements of these nutrients, however, are both effective and extremely cheap – at 20 US cents per person per year for vitamin A and $1 for zinc.

For just $60m a year, it would be possible to provide capsules of both micronutrients to 80 per cent of undernourished children in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with benefits worth more than $1bn. “Each dollar does more than $17 worth of good,” Dr Lomborg said.

Douglass North, a Nobel prize-winning Professor of Economics at Washington University in St Louis, and a member of the expert panel, said: “It has immediate and important consequences for improving the wellbeing of poor people around the world - that’s why it should be our number one priority.”

Other important nutritional initiatives highlighted by the panel included fortifying food with iron, and salt with iodine, to prevent other avoidable deficiencies. Another highly-recommended solution, in fifth place, was breeding nutritionally enhanced crops, such as “Golden Rice”, a GM variety with added vitamin A.

A less glamorous issue made sixth place on the list – the treatment of worm infestations that are a common cause of malnutrition and disease. “As one of the experts said: ‘We’d rather the kids were benefiting from nutrition, and not the worms,’” Dr Lomborg said.

The economists’ second-place priority was removing subsidies and tariffs that exclude developing countries from western markets, as is currently being proposed in the World Trade Organisation’s Doha round of negotiations. While this is not a spending matter as such, but instead requires political agreement, it was considered so critical to growth in developed countries that it deserved a high placing.

Nancy Stokey, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, said: “There was heated debate about whether Doha belonged to this list at all, because it is a matter of political will, not budgeting. But the potential benefits are so enormous, running maybe into trillions of dollars.”

“Models estimate the net benefits could be up to $3,000 billion, five sixths of which would benefit the developing world,” Dr Lomborg said.

Further high priorities included the extension of childhood vaccination, ranked fourth overall, and improvements to education, particularly for girls.

Efforts to control HIV with antiretroviral drugs, which was the top priority of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, finished lower down this time, in 19th place. This reflects improvements in the situation since 2004, such as the wider availability of cheap generic drugs following agreements with pharmaceutical companies.

The low priority given to mitigating climate change was criticised by environmentalists, who questioned the economic assumptions presented to the panel. They also argued that the case for containing emissions should not anyway be considered purely in terms of value per dollar spent.

Critics of Dr Lomborg’s position and the two Copenhagen verdicts, say he undervalues the impact of rising temperatures on biodiversity and ecology, which are hard to quantify in financial terms. Others say the economists’ calculations take too little account of the potential for catastrophic effects of global warming, and the threat posed by rising sea levels to whole societies, such as low-lying islands and countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands.

Dr Lomborg, however, said mitigation alone offered poor value for money. “Spending a dollar would get back less than one dollar of good,” he said.

Economists on the panel added that mitigation of climate change will mainly require policy decisions and fiscal instruments, such as carbon taxes, rather than direct investment of the sort they were considering for issues such as malnutrition. “Most of what we would do does not involve spending public money,” said Thomas Schelling, Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland, another Nobel laureate.

The Copenhagen recommendation on climate change stands in stark contrast to the conclusions of a group of 1,700 scientists, including six Nobel laureates, who yesterday issued an open letter calling on the US Government to implement carbon emission cuts.

The table has been drawn up after a week of deliberations, during which the panel has heard presentations on ten global challenges - terrorism; conflict; malnutrition and hunger; education; the role of women; air pollution; subsidies and trade barriers; disease; sanitation and water; and global warming.

In each case, three leading specialists in the field were asked to make the case for particular solutions and present evidence on their costs and benefits. The economists were then asked to judge all these against one another, to come up with a list of priorities.

About a quarter of the 44 solutions originally presented to the economists were dropped from the final list, as the panel considered there was insufficient evidence to assess them properly. These included all five of the solutions offered to international terrorism, and four of the five for preventing conflicts and civil wars.

Read more!

Burning food: why oil is the real villain in the food crisis

Food is now worth more as petrol than on the table, says Chris Goodall, and the unpalatable truth is that only a long and painful attack on oil consumption will reverse the spiral in food prices

Chris Goodall, The Guardian 30 May 08;

The rising cost of foods is widely being blamed on the use of grains for biofuels, and the case for the prosecution is simply made. About 100m tonnes of maize from this year's US crop will be diverted into ethanol refineries, an increase of a third on 2007's figure. This means one in 20 of all cereal grains produced in the world this year will end up in the petrol tank of US cars, the country that is most aggressively increasing the use of food for fuel.

As we are all increasingly aware, world demand for cereals has recently exceeded the available supply. The UN's food and agriculture organisation (FAO) estimates suggest that the world ran down its stocks of grains by about 50m tonnes during the past year. The 100m tonnes of maize to be used by US ethanol refineries in the next year is double last year's global grain shortfall. Without ethanol production, supply would exceed demand and price inflation might have been kept in check. The IMF largely agrees with this view, saying that growth in biofuels has caused 70% of the increase in maize prices over the last few years.

But the effect is not limited to maize. Price rises in one commodity inevitably spill over to other crops. Farmers switch from producing wheat and other grains as the price of corn rises, reducing the supply of other cereals. Similarly, increasingly expensive corn encourages food manufacturers to switch to other grains, and livestock producers to feed their animals with other foods. Soybeans, for example, are used for cattle feed when the price of corn goes up. The IMF thinks that 40% of the inflation in soybean costs is directly down to the expansion in biofuels around the world.

So can we confidently convict biofuels of the charge of causing a very large part of the spikes in food prices? Not quite. Few will dispute that biofuels have made the problem worse, but the roots of food price inflation are far deeper and even more worrying.

The first factor is one happily raised by the US ethanol industry. It points out that their refineries are using far less corn than is needed to meet the increasing demand from Chinese consumers for meat. One lobbying document points out that Chinese meat consumption per person has doubled in the last decade or so, rising almost to European levels. This increase has required an extra 200m tonnes of grain per year to feed the animals, twice what will be used in 2008 in US ethanol refineries. So rising demand from the growing middle classes in developing countries is driving prices up more than biofuels.

FAO data also indicates that more grain has gone to feed animals in the past 10 years, although their estimates are less alarming than those from the US ethanol industry. The FAO says the grain being used for animal feed has risen by about a 100m tonnes in the past 10 years, but this compares to an increase of only 70m tonnes in the amount directly consumed by people.

This leads on to a second, even more worrying issue that underlies food price inflation. Agricultural productivity is simply not growing fast enough. US government data shows global yields per hectare rose 2% a year between 1970 and 1990 and then fell to 1.1% over the succeeding period. Productivity enhancements over the next 10 years are expected to average less than 1% a year. Since world population growth is averaging somewhat over 1%, we are heading for global hunger, with biofuels only hastening the speed.

We can see this in production data from the FAO: the amount of available grain for every person in the world edged downwards last year. The world could try to compensate for faltering productivity growth by expanding the area given over to crops, but this runs the risk of increasing the rate of worldwide deforestation, already causing a fifth of global CO2 emissions.

Lastly, we must consider a thorny economic issue. Government legislation in the US and the European Union – as well as their large subsidies - may have created the ethanol industry, but the refineries can now stand on their own financial feet. With oil at $135 a barrel, it is very profitable to turn the starch in maize into motor fuel. Simply put, food is worth more as petrol than it is on the table, even if the subsidies are removed. The only way of stopping farmers selling their grain to the refineries would be to introduce an outright ban on adding ethanol to petrol.

The IMF may be correct that the rise of biofuels has caused much of the world's recent food price inflation. But now that we know how to make ethanol efficiently from foodstuffs, it is sky-high oil costs that are keeping up the price of agricultural commodities. For a sustained reduction in food prices, we need oil prices to fall to much lower levels. This would also reduce fertiliser and diesel expenses, helping to restrain the upward march in agricultural prices.

Biofuels advocates reply that by substituting for gasoline, corn ethanol helps to reduce oil consumption. Unfortunately, it is a very bad exchange. America's use of corn for ethanol absorbs 5% of the world's cereal crops but has replaced less than 1% of global oil use. The unpalatable truth is that only through a long, sustained and probably painful attack on oil consumption can the world hope to reverse the spiral in food prices.

• Chris Goodall is the publisher of www.carboncommentary.com. His book on technologies to address global warming will be published by Profile Books later in 2008

Read more!

Shocked! How the oil crisis has hit the world

Andy McSmith, Jerome Taylor and Nigel Morris, The Independent 31 May 08;

British pensioners who cannot afford to heat their homes. European hauliers and fishermen whose livelihoods are under threat. Palestinians forced to fill up their cars with olive oil. Americans asked to go down to a four-day week.

All around the world, in a multitude of ways, the soaring price of oil is hurting rich and poor alike. For the lucky ones, it is simply a matter of changing their lifestyle. But those most vulnerable to the price of oil have been driven on to the streets in angry protests, which raise a fundamental question: what can we do to survive in a world where a barrel of oil costs $127 (£64)?

Great Britain

The rise in the oil price could not come at a worse time for Gordon Brown. After a week that has seen hauliers blocking roads and air passengers facing higher surcharges, yesterday it was the impact on fuel bills that came to the fore. The Prime Minister's attempt to ease the pain felt by pensioners and low-income families from rising fuel bills was dismissed as a "sticking plaster to hold back a catastrophe". It consists mainly of advice on coping with the cost of heating rather than extra money.

The number of Britons in "fuel poverty" – 10 per cent of their income goes on energy – is thought to have reached four million. The average annual household bill for heat and light is now more than £1,000. The Government plans to reform data protection laws so that low-income families can be contacted directly by the companies and offered help. The aim is to ensure that the "social tariffs" get to the people that need them most.

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, said the energy suppliers had agreed to increase "social assistance" from £50m a year to £150m by 2011. The money will be used to switch consumers to lower tariffs and insulate homes.

Kate Jopling, the head of public affairs at the charity Help the Aged, described the measures as a "sticking plaster to hold back a catastrophe". She said: "While it is welcome news ... this initiative does not go nearly far enough to deal with the looming fuel poverty crisis."

The Government's announcement came at the end of the week in which Mr Brown saw a rerun of the political crisis he faced in his early years as Chancellor. Lorry drivers blockaded roads into London and in Wales to demand that a planned 2p rise in fuel tax be scrapped and that "essential users" should be granted a rebate. The only time between the 1997 and 2001 elections when the Labour government looked vulnerable was when Mr Brown suspended rises in fuel taxes after a similar blockade.

Separately yesterday, Britain's Silverjet airline announced it had stopped flights after failing to get a $5m loan from Abu Dhabi-based investors, becoming the third London to New York business class-only carrier to run out of money.

Europe

Luxembourg's Finance Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, who chairs the commission of European Union finance ministers, issued a call to all EU governments yesterday to hold their nerve and avoid the temptation to use the tax system to relieve the misery of high oil prices. He reminded them that, when they met in Manchester in 2005, they agreed that such a move would encourage demand and send the wrong message to oil producers.

That is not what France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, wanted to hear yesterday, after a week of protests by French truckers and fishermen left several motorways blocked and ports paralysed. M. Sarkozy suggested capping fuel taxes if the oil price rose further.

In the Netherlands, the protests caused less inconvenience, but made more noise when, at 11.45am on Thursday, lorry drivers across the country simultaneously blew their horns in protest at diesel prices. In Bulgaria, lorry and bus drivers launched a joint protest.

The protest spread to the seas yesterday, as fishermen across Europe went on a one-day strike, blocking ports. The biggest demonstrations were in Spain and Portugal where 10,000 protesters converged on Madrid. Some handed out free fish to underline their point that, with the current cost of fuel, they are practically giving their catches away. Passers-by pushed and shoved to get their hands on the free hake.

Meanwhile, the Newcastle to Scandinavia ferry route is being cut by the Danish company DFDS Seaways, who said it was a loss-making service incapable of being turned around. The company blamed "dramatically increasing oil prices, over-capacity in the travel marketplace and the economic slowdown".

The United States

There are signs that the fuel crisis is persuading Americans to think about leaving the car in the garage. In March this year, the number of miles driven by American motorists was 11 billion fewer than in March 2007, according to the Transportation Department. That is the sharpest drop year on year that the department has ever recorded, and the first fall of any kind recorded in the month of March since 1979.

The US Energy Department projects that this year, domestic gas consumption will drop by 190,000 barrels a day and overall petroleum use by 330,000 barrels a day, the first annual fall since 1991. But those figures look less impressive when expressed as percentages. Eleven billion fewer miles is a drop of 4.3 per cent and 330,000 barrels is less than 1 per cent of the country's total daily consumption.

Even so, this is good news for the environment, since the US's greenhouse gas emissions fell by nine million tonnes in the first quarter of 2008. And insurance companies report a sharp drop in road accidents.

An increasing number of employers, anxious to keep their staff, are offering them the option of working longer but fewer days, to cut out journeys to work. There is a plan to offer public employees on New York's Long Island the opportunity to work four 10-hour days, instead of five eight-hour days – a move which, it is reckoned, would save more than 30 barrels of oil a day. When Kent State University, in Ohio, offered this opportunity to 94 security staff, 78 of them snapped it up.

But the changing travelling habits have created problems for America's bus and subway systems, which are having to cope with a sudden increase in passengers at the same time that they are paying more for fuel. In Eugene, Oregon, 16 per cent more people took the bus this month than in April, but the town's main bus company, Lane Transit District, is losing money and cannot afford to expand.

Airlines, which are struggling to break even, are reluctant to raise the price of tickets and are introducing fees for baggage handling instead. American Airlines has slapped a $16 fee on the first piece of baggage checked in by economy-class passengers. Other airlines have followed.

But Southwest Airlines, in California, is laughing, because it took a gamble at the start of the year and bought 70 per cent of the fuel it estimated it would need in a full year for a paltry $51 a barrel – two-fifths of the current price. It is probably the only US airline that will be able to make a profit without increasing charges.

In Northern California, one man thought he had found a way to profit from the crisis. He was spotted rummaging around in the garbage behind a Burger King, with a tube and a storage bin. When police caught up with him, they found that he had 2,500 gallons of used fryer grease stolen from various restaurants. Chip pan fat is worth more than four times what it was a few years ago, making that haul worth more than £3,000.

Outside Seattle, the owner of a pizza restaurant is thinking of installing a CCTV camera over its 50-gallon cooking-oil barrel to keep rustlers away. "Fryer grease has become gold," its owner, Nick Damianidis, told The New York Times. "And just over a year ago, I had to pay someone to take it away."

South America

With some of the most prominent oil producers operating outside of the Middle East and a preponderance of left-wing governments insulating their populations from fuel price increases with heavy subsidies, South America has so far managed better than most with the fuel crisis.

In fact soaring oil prices have bulked up budgets to record levels in countries such as Venezuela. Badly scarred by the oil crises of the 1970s, many Latin American nations have since diversified their energy mix by encouraging the use of biofuels. In Brazil, the world's largest ethanol producer, biofuels account for more than half of transport needs. But while biofuels have kept petrol prices down, food prices – particularly in Central American countries such as Mexico and Haiti – have shot up as vast tracts of arable land are switched from producing food to fuel.

Asia

Daily protests have erupted across Indonesia this week after the government removed subsidies on fuel, leading to an overnight price jump of 30 per cent. Despite being south-east Asia's largest oil producer, Indonesia has struggled to meet even domestic demand due to aging wells and declining investment. On Wednesday, Jakarta announced it would quit Opec because it was unhappy with the way the international oil cartel was dealing with the crisis. But Indonesia's poor have been left reeling by the removal of fuel subsidies and have taken to the streets.

Malaysia has told petrol stations to stop selling fuel to Singapore-registered cars. Singaporeans often take advantage of cheaper oil prices in Malaysia by driving over the border and filling up there. At the same time, airlines across the Asia-Pacific region are scrambling to cut flights and increase surcharges to boost their haemorrhaging cashflow.

This week Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific and Taiwan's China Airlines announced they were considering scaling back some long-haul routes whilst Korean Air said it would temporarily cut flights on 12 international routes over the summer. Much of the regional strain placed on Asia's oil reserves comes from China's near-insatiable consumption of energy. But in an indication of how the country is struggling to import enough fuel, at least three major Chinese cities brought in diesel rationing yesterday.

Africa

Africa is at the sharp end of the oil shock and the inter-related surge in food prices. With millions living on the tiny margin between subsistence and starvation, fuel costs can quickly become a matter of life and death. Governments already under pressure from food protests, and in some cases such as Mozambique violent riots, have now to contend with a new problem.

In South Africa, the government announced yesterday that petrol prices for next week alone would rise by 5 per cent. This brings the increase in petrol prices so far this year to 33 per cent, while the price of diesel, used extensively in farming and heavy industry, has leapt 49 per cent.

There are also growing fears that rapidly increasing fuel prices could have a knock-on effect for aid agencies in countries such as Ethiopia, which are struggling to pay for fuel. This week the Red Cross said in its annual report that rising oil and food costs would mean it now needs much more money than last year just to keep the same level of aid distribution. Africa remains the largest area of Red Cross spending, accounting for 45 per cent of the field budget in 2007.

Middle East

Not even the region with the world's largest oil reserves has escaped the pressures. As major importers beg major producers such as Saudi Arabia to release millions more barrels on to the world markets those Middle Eastern countries unlucky enough not to be sitting on lakes of black gold are facing growing resentment from their own populations over fuel prices.

In Egypt, petrol prices have risen by as much as 40 per cent in a year. Yemen has been rocked by riots in the south, which is home to only a fifth of its 22 million population but produces 80 per cent of the country's oil. Young men and separatists, angry that very little of the nation's oil wealth has trickled down to ordinary people in the south, have been protesting since April, raising concerns that Islamic militants could exploit the unrest in the notoriously fractious country.

In Gaza this week, where fuel shortages have long been a major source of seething discontent due to rationing by Israel and Hamas, Palestinians were forced to fill their cars with olive oil instead of diesel.

Iran is acutely vulnerable to rises in fuel prices because, despite being the world's second largest producer, it is still forced to import about 40 per cent of its petrol because of a lack of refining facilities. Protests last year over fuel prices brought in rationing, which is still in place in Tehran and other major Iranian cities.

Australasia

As Kevin Rudd's newly elected government tries to stem a wave of discontent over prices at the petrol pumps, the airline Qantas announced this week that it was intending to slash hundreds of jobs, freeze executive pay and shut down some domestic rural routes.

Its low-budget offshoot, Jetstar, announced it would cut the number of routes it flew by 5 per cent angering many of those living in Australia's vast interior who rely on the low budget airlines. In an indication of just how much pressure the world's airline operators are under, Qantas estimated that this year's fuel bill would be £500m more than last year. Petrol prices in Melbourne this week hit an all-time high of 164.9 cents [80p] a litre on Wednesday.

Arctic

With the threat of the world's oil reserves one day running out, energy-hungry nations are frantically looking towards the more inaccessible areas of the world for new sources. This week, the five main powers bordering the Arctic – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States – met in Greenland for a two-day summit to discuss their various claims of sovereignty over the Arctic Ocean seabed.

The summit was a bid to stop the Arctic becoming a flashpoint between the nations because of the natural resources it is thought to contain. Oil prospectors believe it could be home to a quarter of the world's undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves. In August, Russia upped the stakes by planting a flag under the North Pole. The five countries at the summit agreed to let the UN rule on conflicting territorial claims for the region's seabed.

Environmental campaigners, who were not allowed to attend the summit, are concerned that a new scramble for the Arctic has begun and are worried that future exploration could damage the area's sensitive ecosystems. They have called for a similar treaty to that which currently regulates the Antarctic, which bans all military activity and mineral exploitation.

Read more!