Best of our wild blogs: 9 Jul 08


Sentosa with the Naked Hermit Crabs
amazing sightings and more on the adventures with the naked hermit crabs

Cyrene walk
A cool day out on our favourite reef on the wildfilms blog and what you can see if you really open your eyes on the can you sea me blog

Oriental Pied Hornbill breaking out of her nest
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Hantu intertidal clips
eel-egant hunter and hairy crab on the sgbeachbum blog

Northern exposures
a selection of the best sightings during the recent low tide trips on the colourful clouds blog


Read more!

Boom in CNG car sales seen in Singapore

Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia 8 Jul 08;

SINGAPORE: Companies selling cars fuelled by Compressed Natural Gas, or CNG, are seeing a boom in sales.

Rising petrol prices and the Green Tax Rebate are driving motorists to switch.

"Just six months ago we (sold) an average of 190 cars a month, of which only 20 to 30 per cent are CNG cars. Today we (sell) about 250 cars a month, out of which 70 per cent are CNG cars," said Valerie Tan, managing director of Pinnacle Motors.

Many customers have been lured by cheaper fuel bills and the Green Tax Rebate, which gives them a 40 per cent discount off the car's Open Market Value.

One such person is Melvin Toh, whose budget has been increased when he bought a new CNG car earlier this year.

The bachelor, who drives approximately 700 kilometres a week, rarely uses the boot, so the space taken up by the CNG tank is not a problem.

However, Toh, who lives in Toa Payoh, has to drive to Mandai Link every two to three days to fill up with CNG.

There are currently two CNG stations accessible to the public on mainland Singapore - one at Jalan Buroh in Jurong and the other in Mandai Link in the north. A third is operating on Jurong Island.

"Of course it is a bit inaccessible, but I still feel that because I want to reduce my transport costs it's still worth it," said Toh.

The Automobile Association of Singapore advises motorists to take into consideration the travelling time required to the three refuelling stations in Singapore, and the ease of refuelling in order to maximise their cost and fuel savings.

The association said it receives regular enquiries from its members about the installation of CNG technology. It will be holding a CNG Conversion Workshop on July 26, but due to strong demand, a second workshop will be added.

A third CNG refuelling station will be ready in Serangoon North by February 2009.

Sembcorp Gas, which runs the Jalan Buroh station in Jurong, said demand there has exceeded expectations. And the company is looking for other suitable locations.

Despite it being more inconvenient for CNG car owners to fuel up, significant savings have been found.

To fuel a 1.5 litre car to drive 200 kilometres, it will cost about S$11.50 using CNG, based on the current pump price at Jalan Buroh, compared to S$34.20 before discount if a 95 Octane petrol is used.

With a saving of S$22.70, the real question should be how much time and effort is one truly prepared to spend to go green?

-CNA/os


Read more!

Motorists at mercy of CNG suppliers

After the switch, a shock
Today Online 9 Jul 08;

NOW that petrol prices are so high, many motorists must be considering making the switch to cheaper and “greener” compressed natural gas (CNG). I have made the switch myself.

About two months ago I went to one of the refuelling stations at Mandai and found that the price of CNG was $1.28 per kg —20 cents more than prices posted at the refuelling station at Jurong island. At the time, the Mandai refuelling station was new and business was sparse.

What shocked me is that the same refuelling station is now charging $1.59 per kg, a 25-per-cent increase in just over 3 months.

Does the increase in international crude oil prices justify the increase in CNG prices? Why are CNG prices in Singapore also among the most expensive in the region?

Many motorists like us would also be interested to know why there is such a huge price difference between different refuelling stations.

Is there a regulating body in the Government that monitors prices? The Consumers Association of Singapore should look into the price hike as drivers here are at the mercy of CNG suppliers due to the limited number of refuelling stations.

The authorities should also consider building more CNG refuelling stations — as well as increasing the number of suppliers — as more motorists are switching to CNG.


Read more!

EDB’s first solar energy project kicks off

Chen Xin Yi, Today Online 9 Jul 08;

THE Economic Development Board has found its first participant for a programme encouraging building owners to tap energy from the sun — a development that will house Singapore’s largest solar installation to date.

Applied Materials, which makes equipment for the semiconductor and solar power industries, will incorporate solar energy into its new 32,000-sq-m manufacturing facility being built at Changi North Industrial Park.

Upon completion by late next year, the building’s solar panels will produce up to 350 kilowatts of energy.

While that is just below 5 per cent of the building’s total energy consumption needs, it is enough to power almost 90 HDB homes, said Mr Russell Tham, Applied’s general manager for South East Asia.

“Our state-of-the-art campus will showcase our commitment to the environment while bringing enhanced capabilities to our customers throughout Asia,” said Applied’s chief executive Mike Splinter.

Under EDB’s $20-million Solar Capability Scheme unveiled earlier this year, private-sector buildings can claim up to 40 per cent, or up to $1 million, of solar installation costs. EDB expects to see as many as 100 solar projects in the next two years.

Applied is investing up to US$70 million ($96 million) in its Changi facility, which will serve as a manufacturing hub for its semiconductor business in Asia and is expected to contribute up to 40 per cent of global revenue by 2010.

The facility will consolidate Applied’s existing Singapore operations and see its headcount rise to about 700 people.

EDB chairman Lim Siong Guan, who officiated Applied’s groundbreakingceremony, said he hoped Singapore could in future collaborate with Applied ondeveloping solar technology here.


Read more!

More dengue cases cropping up in the west

5% of last year's cases from there - up from less than 1% five years ago
Jessica Jaganathan, Straits Times 9 Jul 08;

FIVE in 100, or 5per cent, of last year's more than 8,800 dengue fever cases were reported from western Singapore.

It is not the island's most dengue-infested zone but scientists have noticed a spike in the number of cases from five years ago, when less than 1 per cent of the country's cases - 0.6 per cent, to be exact - came from there.

A study of the rise in the number of dengue cases in certain areas - done by research scientists from the Environmental Health Institute of the National Environment Agency (NEA) - found a link between these rising numbers and the dengue-spreading Aedes aegypti mosquito population.

In 2003, 1.2 per cent of breeding sites in four areas in West Coast and Clementi were those of the Aedes aegypti. Last year, the figure leapt to nearly half - 48.8 per cent - of breeding sites.

The Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are also gaining a foothold in other newer estates, such as Buona Vista, Bukit Batok, Sengkang and Woodlands. They contributed to a quarter of dengue cases last year, compared to 8per cent in 2003.

The newer areas used to host mainly the Aedes albopictus. While it can also cause dengue, outbreaks are more associated with Aedes aegypti, which typically bites more than one person.

The Aedes aegypti is also an 'urbanised mosquito' which flourishes where there are people and man-made containers that hold water and become perfect breeding sites. The Aedes albopictus, however, fares better in forested areas.

The Aedes aegypti already has a foothold in the central and south-east areas of Singapore.

Dr Ng Lee Ching, who heads the Environmental Health Institute, said: 'The more urbanised the location, the easier it is for the Aedes aegypti to be established.'

Doctors in the island's west told The Straits Times that they are seeing more patients than a few years ago.

Dr Jacqueline Yam, a general practitioner in Jurong East, said the increase has come mainly from those working in the marine, shipping and construction industries, which are close by.

The west has hosted two large dengue clusters this year. Some 127 breeding sites were found in homes there and 120 households were fined.

In the 1970s, the Aedes aegypti was confined to the east. Its eggs - which, when dried, can last for half a year - could have been brought over when people moved homes. Also, because fewer dwellers in the west were exposed to dengue, fewer had immunity.

The NEA has stepped up its efforts to seek out and destroy breeding sites in five areas in the west. The work started earlier in the year as well, before hot weather set in.

A housewife in Jurong West, who wanted to be known only as Madam Wong, 53, now sprays insecticide in her house at least twice a week, after having fallen ill with dengue fever last month.

'I'm very worried that my family will get it, or I'll get bitten again - and I hear it's more serious the second time around,' said the former Hong Konger, who has lived here for 13 years.

There have been 2,761 cases of dengue in the first 25 weeks of the year, fewer than the 3,215 recorded during the same period last year.

But the weekly number of cases has stayed high, with 160 cases last week.

The situation is worst in Toa Payoh Lorong 1, with 42 cases reported.

The NEA urges that there be no let-up in vigilance, since this is the hottest period of the year, when the Aedes aegypti thrives.


Read more!

Maui divers fear effects of beach restoration

Advocates say replenishment needed to slow pace of erosion
Harry Eagar, The Maui News 5 Jul 08;

SPRECKELSVILLE - Donald Okuda has been diving off Maui's north shore since he was 13 years old - 64 years ago. Sand replenishment on beaches worries him.

Even if the sand is clean, "when you dredge over it, it buries the life underneath the sand. You get a chain reaction."

Norm Ham, also a diver, says the disturbance of the crustaceans that are food for fish affects the fish. That affects the octopus that make their homes in the shallow reefs off Kahului.

"It damages the reef; it's not a natural thing," says Ham, who has been diving since the '60s.

The Board of Land and Natural Resources has approved a beach replenishment project for shoreline properties along Stable Road, which is being treated as an experiment in using offshore sand instead of sand from inland dunes.

Some of the regulars at Kanaha Beach Park, like Ham, Okuda and Paul Hanada, are hoping for a chance to express their doubts before the Maui Planning Commission. Hanada wrote to land board Chairwoman Laura Thielen: "Please ask the local people who use this area on what they think and how they feel about this issue before making any decision."

The board approved a small-scale beach nourishment permit for the project June 27 (the day Hanada e-mailed his letter), and the Maui Planning Department supports it. Planning Director Jeff Hunt said Monday that he had not received an application from the Stable Road property owners yet.

When he does, it will be evaluated to see whether it is an exempt project, requires a minor special management area permit or a major SMA permit.

A major permit requires a public hearing at the commission. Even if the project is exempt, the director can send it to the commission for review "if it impacts coastal resources."

Hanada and Ham say if there is a hearing, they will be there to testify.

Thorne Abbott, the planner who reviews coastal permits, says the department is "very supportive" of the novel approach of dredging sand from the bottom of the bay and pumping it ashore, for two reasons.

One is that "we are running out of sand" from dunes.

Second, if the replenishment works, it will improve lateral access and thus the public's ability to use the beach along Stable Road.

The sand in the bay is a public resource, he said, and should be used for public purposes. Stable Road is a private road.

Hanada referred to the Sugar Cove replenishment project a short distance to the east of Stable Road. The Sugar Cove residents consider their projects a big success.

Hanada does not. Neither does Brian Yoshikawa, also a diver.

"The tako grounds, it's wiped out. It hasn't come back," he said.

Earlier this summer, Yoshikawa said, he went out in his boat and "the reef I used to dive, I couldn't find it."

Sand washing off the replenished beach had covered the reef.

Darrell Tanaka, a spearfisherman and fishermen's advocate, said he is not opposed to beach replenishment. "There used to be a lot of sand there."

But he is worried about where the sand will be dredged from. A patch of sandy bottom off Speckelsville "is a very important crabbing ground," he said.

"It would be good if the state would hold a meeting; it would put the fishermen's minds at ease," he said. "I think open communication would be better."

The divers have six major fears over the effects of beach replenishment:

= Sand washing off the restored beach will fill in crevices in the reef that octopus, crabs and other marine animals use.

= Silt mixed in with the sand clogs the corals and smothers them. Suspended silt reduces the amount of sunlight in the water, slowing the growth of corals and weakening them.

= Disturbing the bottom upsets the balance of the ecosystem, contributing to blooms of one-celled dinoflagellates that can cause ciguatera poisoning in fish that eat the plankton. Humans, in turn, can get the paralytic poison from eating reef fish.

= The temporary Geotubes used to restrict the movement of sand are "seawalls in a sock," in the words of Yoshikawa. The county has a policy against hardening shorelines with seawalls, rock revetments and other "armor."

= The erosion that alarms beachfront property owners is the natural seasonal movement of sand. "It will come back," Okuda insists.

= If powerful winter swells wreck or move the Geotubes, Tanaka questioned who will be held responsible for preventing the tubes from damaging the reef.

Yoshikawa, president of Maui Sporting Goods, says state officials should listen to divers and fishermen like Okuda. "He's no scientist, but he has practical knowledge of the area that is just mind-boggling. He knows the shoreline from Waihee to Hookipa better than any scientist. His opinion carries a lot of weight."

Okuda said that the Department of Land and Natural Resources employs scientists, and "they should know more about the ocean than we do."

He says you have to look offshore to determine the effects of beach replenishment. "Look for the shells. We're losing all that stuff."

Advocates of replenishment counter that the method has worked successfully at Kuhio Beach in Waikiki. Robb Cole, the consultant guiding the application for the Stable Road landowners, says that when an exploration of ways to deal with erosion began, dredging sand "wasn't in the picture."

It remains much more expensive than trucking in sand, but he believes the sand on the seafloor is a much closer match to the sand on the beaches, without as much "fines" or silty, clay material.

While the local divers may question the rate of erosion based on their lifetimes, Cole cites a 1954 study estimating 800,000 cubic yards of sand were eroded away from the coastline between Paia and Kahului Harbor over the first half of the century, with the erosion rate increasing from 1940 to 1950 - about the time the military was installing revetments and other devices on the beach and in the ocean.

While the shoreline from Paia to Kahului does go through seasonal cycles of erosion and accretion, he said a 2002 analysis by the University of Hawaii sows the coastline is suffering a long-term losses.

The company that did the Kuhio Beach replenishment has been engaged to move the same amount of sand - 10,000 cubic yards for the Spreckelsville project. The DLNR has a master permit from the Department of Health (pending renewal) for projects up to that limit, which are considered small.

One question is how using Geotubes, which are fabric containers for sand, squares with the county policy about structures. The report to the BLNR by Dolan Eversole of the Office of Conservation & Coastal Lands says that after the end of a three-year evaluation period, the Geotubes could be made permanent.

Abbott says the tubes are "like a big arm" and are "not hardening" since they can be quickly dismantled.

Eversole's evaluation of Cole's proposal says the intention is not to completely halt the flow of sand along the shore but to slow it down. More sand would have to be dredged every few years. At the most optimistic, a slug of sand couldn't be expected to stay put longer than 10 years.

If successful, the method might be used at other rapidly receding beaches, as along Halama Street in Kihei.

The divers don't consider erosion a problem. Okuda says about the time his father started teaching him to dive at Hookipa, the Navy was putting in jetties at what was then called Naska (Naval Air Station Kahului) to create beaches where officers and enlisted men could swim.

The jetties "keep the sand back," Okuda said. The sand moves west till it hits a jetty. In the winter, when northwest swells try to push the sand back to the east, it gets caught.

"It's seasonal."

That's why, says Yoshikawa, there is seaweed all along the shore during the summer (or used to be) but not in the winter. Tako abundance also varies with the seasons.

Abbott says the experiment holds promise for better coordination of beach management than the state and the county have enjoyed up to now.

Along the shoreline from Kanaha Beach Park to Stable Road, the state Department of Transportation has posted no-trespassing signs. Under a new Ocean Resource Management Plan which brings together Eversole's office and county planners like Abbott, as well as other agencies that control shorelines, there is a chance to get better beach access.

For example, in this area, Abbott is hoping to get DOT not only to take down the kapu signs but to clear away tangled undergrowth that makes walking up from Camp One to the Stable Road area difficult.

Hunt said that since the project is novel, "it will be important to take a good look at this one."


Read more!

Trawlermen cling on as oceans empty of fish - and the ecosystem is gasping

George Monbiot, The Guardian 8 Jul 08;

Europe is propping up an unsustainable industry in an extreme example of short-termism that our children will pay for

All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they've sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?

The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world's fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan, and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets. It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt indifference.

Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No east Asian government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can't afford to sail. The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen - who trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that their industry could collapse within a year. Hurray to that too.

It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The EU has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service - the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999 - but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.

The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry €3.8bn. Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen; but the rest is used to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and landing sites; and to promote and market the catch. Except for the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement, there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue - often falsely - that they are the "stewards of the countryside". But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?

The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it's a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.

But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's Fishing News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government's refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse strings". He also insists that new money is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words no more boats should be taken off the water. Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most short-sighted members?

I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss on Thursday. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more money (€100,000 instead of €30,000 per boat) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking the ecosystem with them.

What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While Spanish, French and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing - knowing that if they are allowed to fish now this will be the last season ever - around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.

Prompted by Young's seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught. Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening of the industry.

Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one.


Read more!

Massive under-reporting of fish catches leads to declining stocks

Steve Connor, The Independent 9 Jul 08;

The total amount of fish being caught in the world is significantly under-reported because official statistics do not take into account the substantial catches made by some of the poorest nations that rely on fishing as a food staple, a study has found.

Scientists have estimated that for more than 50 years the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has failed to report the huge volumes of fish being caught collectively by small-scale fisheries in its statistics on national catches.

They believe the discrepancy is exacerbating the decline in fish stocks by allowing some of the poorest countries to report higher fish stocks than really exist. This permits them to sell off their fishing rights to richer nations which take the highest-value fish.

Jennifer Jacquet, a member of the research team, said the official catch reported by the Mozambique government suggests that each citizen is eating about 3kg of fish per year. However, when the scientists looked at the catches being made by subsistence fishing, that consumption rate rose to 9kg a year.

Despite this three-fold discrepancy, the Mozambique government was using its reported catch to justify selling off fishing permits to EU boats that were coming into Mozambique waters to fish for high-value shrimp, which often leads to substantial bycatch that is thrown overboard as waste fish – further depleting stocks for the local community.

"This is the antithesis of the Robin Hood parable. Instead of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, we're stealing from the poor to give to the rich," Ms Jacquet said yesterday.

Daniel Pauly, of the University of British Columbia in Canada, said the study emphasised how under-reporting of fish catches was making the overall decline of fish stocks worse for some of the poorest people in the world.

"We discovered one nation under-reporting its fisheries catches and then realised that this wasn't an isolated case but a problem globally. Everywhere we look, the number of fish being taken from reefs is greater than reported," Dr Pauly said. "This news is not only shocking but disheartening. Our previous conclusions about widespread over fishing must be amplified," he told the International Coral Reef Symposium held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

"The extent of the under-reporting is of such a magnitude, it boggles the mind," he said. "The only fish being reported in the national catches are the ones that are traded and the rest is ignored. So the overall picture is wrong."


Read more!

Tips on cutting back food waste

Waste not ...
The Guardian 8 Jul 08;

We throw out 4.1m tonnes of food each year - the equivalent of £420 for every home. The government wants us to cut back, but how can we break our habit? Laura Barton and Jon Henley ask the experts for tips

There is something slightly irritating about the prime minister's insistence that it is down to us consumers to cut our food waste. Less than half of the food thrown away each year comes from households.

To suggest that the average householder is to blame for our colossal national wastage is to ignore the way that the food industry has been allowed to develop in this country, from the relentless rise of the supermarket to the flourishing of the fast-food outlet, the decline in farming and the death of the local shop. All of these affect why we buy the wrong things, and why we buy so much of what we do not need.

Add to this changes in family structure, transformations in the shape of our towns and cities, moves to online shopping and shifts in working patterns and it's easy to see how we have become untethered from traditional production and consumption of food; today we tend to shop once a week, more often than not driving to an out-of-town supermarket rather than shopping locally, where we buy food increasingly prepared in a way that makes it go off faster, by manufacturers so scared of litigation that they stamp their products with sell-by and best-before dates.

Still, it would be churlish not to do our bit - so here we present 20 tips to waste not want not:

1. Avoid the supermarket

"Supermarkets are very expensive places to shop," says Joanna Blythman, author of Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. "The idea of the one-stop shop encourages you to buy more than you need." If you do have to go to a supermarket, make a list of what you need beforehand, and stick to it rigorously - but do check that these are groceries you genuinely need, and not items you have just got into the habit of buying: "There's the Stepford Wives aspect of supermarket shopping, where you start buying the same thing every time," says Blythman, "the same yoghurt regardless of whether you've run out of the last tub. But I just say don't shop in supermarkets. They are a rip-off."
2. Ignore two-for one offers

More often than not, supermarket two-for-ones exist because the items in question are nearing their use-by date, or to give shoppers what Blythman refers to as "the halo effect" - the feeling that they are in a place of endless bargains. But stop and think: are you really going to eat those 12 iced buns before they go stale? Are most of the cherries in those punnets even edible? Just how much custard do you require? "Two-for-ones are just encouraging overspending," says Blythman. "They're getting you to buy more than you need." Rose Prince, author of the Savvy Shopper, is also sceptical: "All this means is the supermarket has doubled the price for a given period and then halved the doubled price. Amazing, isn't it?" However, such offers can occasionally prove useful, if you are able to think laterally: "They are great value, but only provided you know how you can use the extra food," says Richard Swannell, director of retail programmes at Wrap, the organisation behind the website lovefoodhatewaste.com. "It's just being clear in your mind that you are going to use one and freeze the other."
3. Shop daily for perishables

By shopping daily for what you need, you are less likely to buy mounds of vegetables, meat and fish that will then sit in the fridge going off. Plus you will re-establish a connection with those who produce the food you eat. "The problem is that the distance between the people eating and the people supplying the food is getting longer and longer," says Moritz Steiger, co-author, with Effie Fotaki, of the Independent London Store Guide. Steiger points to the establishment of smaller, neighbourhood supermarkets such as Tesco Metro and Sainsbury's Local as evidence that we still have a desire for corner shops, but these smaller supermarket branches do not necessarily supply the best quality of food, nor do they offer the best deal for the supplier or the customer. Blythman agrees: "Supermarkets generally charge more than the independent greengrocer for fresh fruit and vegetables, especially seasonal produce." As does Prince: "My own researches show that you'll save a minimum of 35% - and usually a lot more."
4. Bulk-buy non-perishables

Bulk-buying storecupboard staples, such as rice, pasta and lentils, along with tinned and bottled items, online is cheaper than visiting the supermarket - not least because it considerably reduces the likelihood of being enticed into buying three punnets of strawberries and a tub of sprinkly cupcakes as you stroll the aisles. "In our house we bulk-buy rice in seven kilo bags," says Swannell. "It saves on packaging and money." Various websites offer a good range of store cupboard essentials, including nifeislife.com, which offers a variety of Italian foodstuffs across the UK, and gfd.org.uk for organic health foods and wholefoods in bulk. Blythman, though, suggests that rather than shopping online you can "just visit your local wholefood shop".
5. Be storage savvy

There are tonnes of household tips for storing foods to increase their longevity (many of them appear on the lovefoodhatewaste.com site) including topping and tailing carrots as soon as you buy them to prolong their life, keeping apples in the fridge so they last days longer than in the fruit bowl, and ensuring your olive oil is kept somewhere cool and dry to prevent the breakdown of the fatty acids. Also, invest in an EGG - "ethylene gas guardian" (4theegg.com): many fruits and vegetables give off ethylene gas as they ripen and the refrigerator traps this gas, which results in the early rotting of your produce. The EGG keeps the ethylene levels in your fridge low, meaning your vegetables last longer.
6. Meal-plan for the week

If, at the beginning of the week, you work out precisely what you wish to cook over the next seven days (some of which may incorporate leftovers), you can then shop with a degree of rigour, are less likely to be distracted by appetising products on the supermarket shelves, and even less likely to end up with a heap of unused foodstuffs at the end of the week. This approach also eliminates the common feeling of returning from the supermarket laden with shopping bags but without a clue what to actually cook for dinner. "In the past," notes Blythman, "people more or less had the same thing on particular nights of the week - leftover roast on a Monday, fish on a Friday ... " and while there is no need for your menu to become quite so predictable, a degree of planning ahead saves time, money and waste and will prevent you from falling back on ready meals.
7. Cook

While many of us have become rather adept at following recipes, we have, somewhere along the way, lost the ability to actually cook - a tangibly different skill which allows you to know just what to do with all the celery you didn't use in last night's risotto, for instance, or that quarter can of coconut milk that wasn't needed in the pumpkin curry. These aren't strictly leftovers but recipe byproducts, and the accomplished cook will be able to incorporate them into subsequent meals without a great deal of fuss or research. The idea is that you don't ever buy recipe ingredients without simultaneously considering where in your culinary week the remainders - that half a courgette, that zested lemon, that quarter block of feta - will find a home. So, whereas recipes can be seen as singular events, cookery is more of an ongoing project. "We didn't used to buy chicken pieces," says Blythman. "We bought a chicken. We had it hot once, and then we scraped the bits off it for sandwiches, and then we boiled the carcass and the gizzard and used the stock to make soup or risotto. Domestic economy was always a rolling programme, you used what you had as the base, added a few extra fresh bits. It's a question of momentum." G2 chef Allegra McEvedy agrees: "There are three main areas of waste: the first is ingredients that are past their best; the second is bits surplus to a specific recipe [as in 'take a third of a courgette and one stalk of celery') and the last being what is usually understood by the term 'leftovers'. For the first, there are two ways forward: buy less and don't be so quick to toss out. Summer fruit that's lost its shape and has squidgy bits can so easily and happily become jam. Super-soft avos will live again as guacamole for the night, and shrivelled tomatoes often have better flavour than taut-skinned ones, and make a stunning tomato soup. The truth is that almost anything in the kitchen has the ability to be born-again as soup or maybe a slow one-pot braise with some spices and a couple of tins - one of tomatoes, the other of some multi-faceted pulse, such as chickpeas."
8. Buy quality not quantity

"If you buy cheap supermarket bread you have no compunction about throwing it away," argues Steiger. "If you buy quality bread you're more likely to use every last bit of it." This goes for most food items, from the fancy yoghurt you're more likely to eat before the use-by date arrives, to the gourmet biscuits you probably don't want to leave to go soggy (or gobble all in one expensive sitting).
9. Freecyle/become a 'freegan'

The freecycle.org website should point you in the direction of your nearest group of freecyclers, a "grassroots and entirely non-profit movement of people who are giving (and getting) stuff for free in their own towns". That stuff often includes perfectly usable food. Freegans take it one step further, scavenging for food from supermarket dustbins that may be about to reach or is just past its sell-by date but is invariably still edible, or whose packaging may be damaged. Supermarkets, of course, detest them because they are proof that large food retailers throw out tonne after tonne of food that could still be safely consumed; as a result, many now stash their waste bins behind barbed wire fences.
10. Reacquaint yourself with your freezer

The freezer compartment is not just for storing ice cubes, a half-eaten tub of Häagen-Dazs and several inches of encrusted ice, but also to keep leftovers for future meals. Though it's not recommended to freeze salad leaves or crunchy vegetables, it's the perfect place for portions of rice, sprinklings of herbs, pre-sliced bagels that you can pop straight into the toaster. You can even freeze cheese and eggs (so long as you separate the whites and the yolks). It's also worth noting that freezers are more efficient when full, so you'll be saving the pennies there, too. Goodhousekeeping.com has plenty of basic tips for the novice freezer.
11. Don't be afraid of an empty fridge

"I think that goes back to the rise of the big American fridge," notes Blythman. "It's an aspirational thing." You do not, therefore, need to buy acres of food each week to keep it chock-full.
12. Grow your own herbs and salad

Packets of herbs and bagged salad are among the products most likely to go off in the fridge, so if you have a garden, balcony or windowbox, use that space to grow your own. These plants grow quickly and easily and, of course, save on food miles.
13. Buy vegetables whole

A lettuce bought whole and kept in your fridge will not go off in the same way as a pre-prepared salad will, because as soon as fruit or vegetables are processed in any way - even just picked, handled and washed - they begin to decompose. Likewise, it's best not to buy carrots that have been washed, then packaged in plastic and refrigerated, as they will rot sooner than the still-soily variety stored somewhere cool and dark.
14. Know how much a portion is so you don't overcook

Never forget the simple fact that with dwindling rice and wheat crops, the more you waste, the more expensive it will become. So the easy rule is to weigh before you cook: an average portion of rice for an adult is 50g (or a quarter of a mug); for pasta, it is 100g.
15. Bulk-cook meals

Blythman advocates cooking twice as much as you need of one dish and freezing the extra portions, or you can set aside time to stock up your freezer for the coming week. "Buy a box of over-ripe tomatoes from your local street market - they virtually give them away," suggests Prince. "Make a tomato sauce and you have the base for curries, bolognese or just a plain sauce for pasta or to top a pizza. Store both stock and sauce in discarded plastic milk cartons. They freeze beautifully and when frozen you just cut the carton open and heat."
16. Learn how to use leftovers

The lovefoodhatewaste.com site has a huge array of recipes contributed by celebrity chefs, nutritionists and members of the public, including a large number dubbed "rescue recipes" - in other words, how to put that bit of leftover chicken or half courgette to delicious use. There are also websites out there (leftoverchef.com and kitchen-scraps.com, to name but two) that, one you've typed in the primary and secondary ingredients you have spare, will go away and search their databases for recipes to use them up. Bit of fish left over, and some broccoli? Try, for example, Chinese steamed fish. And a couple of books may help: Second Time Around: Ideas and Recipes for Leftovers by Pamela Le Bailly, and The Use It Up Cookbook: Creative Recipes for the Frugal Cook, by Catherine Kitcho.
17. Look to previous generations

We have, as Guardian foodie Matthew Fort puts it, a great deal more food experience than previous generations, but considerably less food knowledge. We are familiar with the taste of foods from around the world, but we've forgotten how to make the most of what we've got already. During the second world war and well into the 1950s and even 1960s, food was precious: a week's meals were planned down to the last carrot, and we used every scrap of food in our larders (few had fridges), cooking dishes such as shepherd's pie and bread-and-butter pudding precisely to use up leftover scraps. These days, we're more likely to buy them ready made from the supermarket. "People just pick what they fancy off the shelves and end up throwing half of it away because they don't know what to do with it," says Sheila Tremaine, 81. "We never threw anything away, because if you didn't use everything up you had nothing to eat. People just seem to have lost that skill." The WI was founded to help women make the most of the food they had, and has some excellent tips and recipes. Try reading that doyenne of wartime cookery writers, Marguerite Patten: We'll Eat Again, a Collection of Recipes from the War Years, and Post-War Kitchen, Nostalgic Facts and Food from 1945-54 may provide inspiration.
18. Take sell-by dates with a pinch of salt

As a general rule, only "use by" is worth taking seriously; "sell-by" and "display-until" dates are merely stock-control devices for food retailers, and "best before" is simply the producer's estimate of when the food will stop tasting good, which is fairly subjective anyway. Rather than slavishly observing these date labels, we'd be far better off understanding the kinds of foods that could actually be harmful if they go off, such as ready meals (including sandwiches), soft cheeses, pates and cooked, processed meats and seafood. Eggs with a Lion Quality stamp can be kept for weeks in the fridge; chicken, raw meats and fish will all look and smell unpleasant long before they're actively unsafe (as long as you cook it thoroughly, chicken, for example, is good for at least a week past its sell-by date). Apples last for months; potatoes are fine as long as you chop the green shoots off before cooking; tins and jars will last decades if not centuries; hard cheese is indestructible; and dry foods will last for years too. "Ignore sell-by dates," insists Swannell. "They're not relevant. And best before is just what it says on the tin; it doesn't mean the food is toxic the day after that date."
19. Rediscover packed lunches

Leftovers can easily be recycled as packed lunches for children and adults alike - not only is this more frugal, in these credit-crunching times, than a daily trip to the gourmet sandwich shop, it also cuts back on domestic waste. Try rethinking leftovers as fillings for wraps or pitta bread pockets, making leftover vegetables into sushi rolls and bruised fruit as fools or compotes.
20. Equip yourself

Introduce yourself to the stockpot, the freezer bag, and the salad spinner. "Make your own bread," says Prince. "It's quick, easy and so much better tasting than shop-bought. It's also much cheaper. Make your own ice cream, it's a doddle. Invest in a mincing machine as an attachment to a food processor, and turn the leftover roast lamb into a base for shepherd's pie. While you're at it, invest in a sausage stuffer and ask your butcher for some sausage skins when you buy the pork."

· Additional research by Andrew Murray


Read more!

Some European Grasslands May Resist Warming

John Roach, National Geographic News 7 Jul 08;

Grassland ecosystems found in higher altitudes throughout Western Europe may be resistant to climate change, according to new results from a long-term experiment.

The finding is in sharp contrast to similar research conducted in an alpine meadow in North America that suggests mountain wildflowers will all but disappear in a warming world.

Other studies have also shown major climate-spurred changes to plant composition in Minnesota bogs, Alaskan forests, and Siberian tundra.

But the new study found very little change in a European grassland even after 13 years of controlled exposure to higher temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns.

"It's taken a long time to recognize that some systems may be rather more resistant [to climate change] than those that were reported on earlier," said lead study author Philip Grime, an ecologist and emeritus professor at the University of Sheffield in England.

Grime and colleagues describe their work in a paper published online today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Simulated Warming

Between 1994 and 2006, Grime's team monitored 97-square-foot (9-square-meter) plots in a grassland in Buxton, England, normally used for grazing livestock.

Each plot was trimmed to simulate continued grazing but was kept 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) warmer than nearby outside temperatures.

The team also manipulated rainfall patterns to mimic the droughts and deluges anticipated in a warming world.

Initially the scientists saw an increase in some shrubs and a decrease in flowering plants such as rockroses and wild thyme due to the simulated droughts.

Otherwise, not much has happened to species composition at their research sites.

Grime and colleagues think that one of the reasons for the grassland's resilience is that many of the species are long-lived. Some have leaves, for example, that have adapted to the vagaries of shifting weather.

"They have a capacity over a very short time to adjust the internal physiology of their cells," Grime explained. This helps them to resist frost in the winter and drought in the summer.

In addition, recent research has shown that many of the plant species are genetically diverse at the local scale. So even if a spike in temperatures one year kills some individual plants, the survivors will be robust enough to repopulate the area.

"Each plant will have winners and losers, but the net effect will be that the individual species—most of them—tend to survive," Grime said.

What's more, he added, the limestone soil underneath the grassland is patchy. Soils are deep in some places, shallow in others; some drain well after heavy rains, others do not.

This combination of factors should keep the grasslands intact for years to come even in the face of global warming, the team says.

"We think this is a quite complex, multifaceted resistance mechanism," Grime said.

While similar grasslands were once common throughout Europe, most have long since been converted to crop fields, Grime noted.

Today conservationists are keen to protect the remaining grasslands because they are home to many uncommon species.

Rarities at Buxton include a small fern known as the green spleenwort and the stemless thistle, Grime said.

In fact, the Buxton experiments suggest that agriculture and other land uses will be bigger threats to such ecosystems than climate change.

Atypical Response?

John Harte is an ecosystem sciences professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the Buxton research.

Harte and colleagues have heated an alpine meadow in the Rocky Mountains for 18 years to simulate climate change and study its effects.

In the meadow, shallow-rooted forbs such as wildflowers "were hammered by the heating," Harte said. Shrubs such as sagebrush, meanwhile, have thrived.

Harte said grazing may be a key factor in the Buxton grassland's resilience.

His former graduate student Julia Klein is now working on the Tibetan Plateau, where she has found that simulated grazing reduces the effect of warming on plant productivity and species composition when compared to a nongrazed plot.

This could be because grazing keeps shrubs, which would thrive in warmer climates, from expanding and taking over the grasslands.

"It's wonderful that they've found a system that is relatively resilient," Harte said of the Buxton research site. "But I don't think its representative of the world's ecosystems."

A more typical response to climate change, Harte said, will be extinctions and major shifts in the dominant plant species.

Understanding exactly what such ecosystems will look like is "almost impossible," he added.

"I'm beginning to believe now that it's a lot easier to solve global warming than predict its consequences."


Read more!

Snared in a homemade 'NitroNet'

Mark Sutton, BBC Green Room 9 Jul 08;

Farming and industry are producing too much of a substance we ought to be concerned about, says Mark Sutton; not carbon, but nitrogen. And he would like to hear your ideas on what society should do about it.

Over the last decade, you have surely heard many views as to why you should worry about carbon and climate change.

But the chances are you're not worrying about nitrogen.

In fact, there is a global nitrogen threat out there, yet the world seems not to notice!

It's an issue that has recently been highlighted by two reviews in the journal Science.

In many regions of the world, humans are producing too much nitrogen, creating a host of different environmental threats.

Most of this nitrogen is made for a reason - we need it to fertilise crops and feed ourselves. Without it, it has been estimated that around half of the world's population would not be alive.

Put these parts of the problem together and you get what we might call the "NitroNet" - a complex web of nitrogen interactions that are difficult to explain and even harder for governments to manage.

And here you can already see why people on the streets are not yet talking about nitrogen.

Complex web

There are many different nitrogen forms, from atmospheric ammonia, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, to the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide and nitrates in aquatic systems.

Each has different effects: increased air pollution threatens human health and biodiversity, disturbance of the greenhouse gas balance, and loss of drinking and bathing water quality.

It is the kind of complexity that is not easy to chat about casually on a bus journey.

All this makes for a double challenge to the scientific community; to understand and deal with an extremely complex system, while distilling out the simple messages.

This is where the Science papers start to help.

One of the ideas they contained is that we can distinguish nitrogen into two main forms - unreactive and reactive.

There is plenty of unreactive nitrogen in the world; this is the N2 that makes up 78% of the earth's atmosphere. But it can't be used directly by most plants or animals.

By contrast, reactive nitrogen (Nr) is all the other nitrogen forms that can be used.

In natural conditions, reactive nitrogen is in extremely short supply. Biologically, it can only be made by special nitrogen fixing bacteria, typically associated with legumes like clover and beans.

A century ago, a serious shortage of reactive nitrogen in agriculture limited food production in Europe, and encouraged careful re-use of manures.



Since that time, two major new sources have appeared.

Firstly, high temperature combustion in vehicles and industry now oxidises more N2 to Nr. This contributes to acid rain, photochemical smog and particulate air pollution, the last of which may, for example, reduce average life expectancy across south-east England by 8-12 months.

Secondly, development of the Haber-Bosch process has allowed industrial-scale manufacture of reactive nitrogen fertilisers.

The benefits of this process for global food production have been immense, with synthetic fertilisers being the foundation of the Green Revolution. But along with the benefits have come hidden costs, as the extra reactive nitrogen pollutes air, land and water.

Perhaps the most dramatic changes are seen immediately downwind of large livestock farms, where atmospheric ammonia can completely wipe out certain wild flowers, bog mosses and lichens.

Seasonal problem

One message from the developing scientific assessment is that there are clear choices to be made.

How much nitrogen do we really need for food production? And how can we weigh up the environmental costs and benefits?

For example, Nobel Prizewinner Paul Crutzen has recently argued that emissions of nitrous oxide from fertilised biofuel crops can outweigh the carbon benefits of avoided fossil fuel use.

Others have highlighted a possible benefit of nitrogen in making forests grow faster, absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

But the decisions get even harder when dealing with multiple nitrogen threats.

For example, policies to reduce nitrates in water have banned wintertime spreading of farm manures across much of Europe's farmland. The resulting focus on springtime manure spreading has intensified peak ammonia emissions, giving a new threat to biodiversity and air quality.

The recent "odour episode" experienced in London is not unrelated, and likely to be repeated.

Food for thought

Future policies will, I hope, emphasise a smarter overall management of Nr in agriculture. The big challenge, however, will be for governments to weigh up trade-offs between the different nitrogen threats, and make better informed choices in international agreements.

Yet, there is also a simple challenge for each of us.

The cascade of reactive nitrogen from fertiliser bag to food on our plate is extremely inefficient, with losses to the environment occurring at every stage.

Eating meat and dairy products adds an extra step to the food chain, massively increasing the Nr losses. This observation can help us in our search for clear messages.

At its very simplest, the carbon story might be summarised in three short words: use less fuel.

At this level, the matching nitrogen challenge for developed countries becomes clear: eat less meat.

Of course, we all know that both stories are more complicated. But for nitrogen, this is a message that needs to be shouted much more loudly.

According to World Health Organization guidelines, many of us eat more animal products than is good for us.

As we begin to untangle the NitroNet, we could even find some health benefits too.

Mark Sutton is based at the Edinburgh Research Station of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

He is co-chair of the UN's Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen (TFRN), director of the European Centre of the International Nitrogen Initiative (INI) and co-ordinator of the NitroEurope Integrated Project

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website


Read more!

Higher CO2 levels may be good for plants: German scientists

Yahoo News 8 Jul 08;

The dangerous rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may be troubling scientists and world leaders but it could prove to be a boon for plants, German researchers said Tuesday.

Increasing exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields, Hans-Joachim Weigel of the Johann Heinrich von Thuenen Institute for rural areas, forestry and fisheries in the central city of Brunswick told AFP.

"Output increased by about 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat" when the plants were subjected to higher levels of carbon dioxide, Weigel said.

The Thuenen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon in fields since 1999, trains CO2 jets on the plants so the gas reaches 550 parts per million in the air around them -- the level expected in the atmosphere by 2050.

Weigel said the studies have indicated that while greater CO2 exposure appears to spur growth, it can also undermine the quality of the produce.

He said the next step in the study would be to evaluate the effect of higher temperatures on plant growth -- which scientists cite as another consequence of higher CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

Weigel said that while the institute's findings may prove surprising to some, they are not intended to undermine the drive to slash CO2 emissions.

"This research is not intended as an argument for doing nothing to curb the rise of CO2 levels," he said. "It is to find out what the effects would be."

Other studies have presented a more mixed picture about the impact of higher CO2 levels on plants, and there is uncertainty about its effects on soil fertility and which plants benefit most from more CO2.


Read more!

G8 Papers Over Differences on Climate Change

Tabassum Zakaria and David Clarke, PlanetArk 9 Jul 08;

TOYAKO, Japan - G8 nations, papering over deep differences, said on Tuesday they would work toward a target of at least halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but emphasised they would not be able to do it alone.

In a communique released during a summit in northern Japan, the Group of Eight leaders also agreed that they would need to set interim goals on the way to a "shared vision" for 2050 although they gave no numerical targets.

Mention of mid-term goals was an advance from last year when the G8 agreed at Heiligendamnn, Germany, only to "seriously consider" a goal of halving emissions by mid-century.

But calling on countries involved in UN negotiations on climate change to also "consider and adopt" the 2050 goal satisfies the United States, which has said it cannot agree to binding targets unless big polluters such as China and India rein in their emissions too.

Dan Price, assistant to US President George W. Bush for international economic affairs, said the statement reflected that "the G8 alone cannot effectively address climate change, cannot effectively achieve this goal, but that contributions from all major economies are required".

Critics outside the rich nations' club slammed the deal, although many had already predicted that chances for bold steps were slim until a new US president takes office next January.

"The G8 are responsible for 62 percent of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem," environmental group WWF said in a statement.

"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility."


DEVELOPING NATIONS WANT MORE

Five big emerging economies including China, India and South Africa also panned the G8 and called on rich nations to slash their greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and make cuts of 25-40 percent by 2020.

South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said he feared this year's communique was a step backward.

"While the statement may appear as a movement forward, we are concerned that it may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the challenges of climate change," van Schalkwyk said.

The Group of Five, which also includes Brazil and Mexico, met in the northern city of Sapporo before joining talks with the G8 on Wednesday.

The European Union and Japan had been pressing for this year's summit to go beyond just "considering" the 2050 goal, and Brussels had wanted clear interim targets as well.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown praised the agreement.

"There has been major progress on the climate change agenda beyond what people thought possible a few months ago," he told reporters. "For the first time the G8 has said we will adopt at least a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 as part of a worldwide agreement that we hope to get in Copenhagen."

Summit host Japan also said the deal represented "significant progress" from last year and would boost momentum for the UN-led talks, although not all Tokyo's hopes had been met.

"Are we disappointed? Not really, because we have been able to achieve consensus among the G8," said Koji Tsuruoka, director general for global issues at Japan's foreign ministry.

The UN-led talks aim to create a new framework for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and are set to conclude in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The G8 comprises Japan, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia and the United States.


FOOD AND FUEL

Global warming ties into other big themes such as soaring food and fuel prices discussed at the three-day summit at a plush mountain-top hotel on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, where 21,000 police have been mobilised.

In another statement, the leaders expressed strong concern about sky-high food and oil prices, which they said posed risks for a global economy under serious financial strain.

The G8 said the steep rise in global food prices also threatened food security and called for countries with sufficient food stocks to make available a part of their surplus for countries in need.

The leaders agreed to bring major oil producers and consumers together in a new forum to discuss energy security. One diplomat said it would also be a venue to talk about output and prices.

The price of food and of oil, which hit a record high of US$145.85 a barrel last week, is taking a particularly heavy toll on the world's poor.

A World Bank study issued last week said up to 105 million more people could drop below the poverty line due to the leap in food prices, including 30 million in Africa.

The G8 leaders reaffirmed aid targets pledged at their Gleneagles summit in 2005, when they vowed to raise annual levels of aid by US$50 billion by 2010, US$25 billion of that for Africa.

Aid workers and NGOs had expressed concern about the pledge, saying donor countries might fail to meet their promises, which are not legally binding and are hard to track in actual spending.

The summit has become a magnet for protesters and although Japan has been effective at cracking down on any demonstrations -- helped by the remote location of the summit -- a few thousand have managed to hold protests several km (miles) away.

A group of demonstrators marched to the sound of music and drums on Tuesday, holding signs saying "Smash the G8 summit" and "Free G8 political prisoners".

Tomoyuki Sueoka, a 25-year-old graduate student, said: "G8 nations do not have the right to decide the policies of the world. This is not democratic. They talk about poverty and food shortages but they are simply talking about business." (Additional reporting by Linda Sieg, Yoko Nishikawa, David Fogarty, Alan Wheatley, Chikafumi Hodo, William Schomberg, Vivek Prakash, Chisa Fujioka, Yoko Kubota, Alan Wheatley, Lucy Hornby, Gernot Heller, David Ljunggren; Writing by Linda Sieg; Editing by Sonya Hepinstall and Rodney Joyce)


Read more!