Lim Chu Kang mangrove cleanup w/Miss Earth Singapore 2008
on the News from the International Coastal Cleanup Singapore blog and the budak blog
Sentosa with TeamSeagrass
on the teamseagrass blog and wildfilms blog
Exploring Pulau Sekudu
on the tidechaser blog
Black-tailed Godwit in mandibular clash
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
Narrow spark
a life history on the butterflies of singapore blog
Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia 19 Jul 08;
SINGAPORE: The Singapore government has said it will re-look its farming policy to ensure food supplies remain stable in the long term.
In the meantime, its fishing industry is seeing a new breed of farmers, with a small but growing number of mid-career professionals getting into the business.
One such professional is Mr Malcolm Ong. The 45-year-old, who spent much of his career in the IT industry, never thought that he would one day own a fish farm - until January last year.
"I love the sea, I go out (to the sea) very often, and I saw some fish farms and I said, hey, it's a good idea to spend time here," said Mr Ong, the director of MPG Trading.
For daughter Rachel, the farm has also become her playground.
Mr Ong represents a growing breed of fish farmers in Singapore - well-educated, unafraid of technology and completely new to the game.
Mr Ong said: "I don't know anything about fish, so I need partners. I managed to find some good partners. They know a lot about how to put the farm together, I know a lot about how to get the company going, how to register the company, how to handle the taxes, the accounts, etc. That's how we put our strengths together."
He said he knows of other fish farmers like him, who come from a variety of backgrounds.
One, for instance, used to be a car dealer, another sells machinery.
While some treat their business like a side investment, there are some who have decided to make a career switch altogether.
There are 104 fish farms in Singapore, and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is happy to support their growth, providing them with technical advice, health checks, and help in sourcing suitable plots.
Its Marine Aquaculture Centre also hatches fish fry which are sold to commercial farms in Singapore and the region.
The AVA says such assistance extends to vegetable and chicken egg farmers too.
Still, with a start-up cost of nearly half-a-million Sing dollars, and a product vulnerable to death and disease, the risks are high.
But it has been paying off. Market prices of milkfish have gone up by some 30 per cent in the past year, and Mr Ong is thinking of expanding his business.
He said: "What you see here is only potentially a quarter of our fish farm today.....we have 18 nets and we want to double it to 40."
- CNA/ir
It's durian season now, but some Singaporeans prefer to head to the jungle for their fix
Frankie Chee, Straits Times 20 Jul 08;
It is a scene happening across the island: Grown men - and sometimes, women - sneaking through the jungle at night.
All the while, their ears are pricked for a special sound - the snap and crackle of breaking branches that signal a certain prickly fruit has fallen to the ground.
Yes, it is durian season once more.
It happens twice a year here and folks of all ages and walks of life leave Singapore's urban jungle to venture into the real green stuff to drool and even duel over durians.
Being able to harvest the pungent fruit and prise open its treasure of creamy flesh - rather than shell out for it at a shop - holds a powerful appeal for them.
Take insurance agent Christopher Peh, 40. On nights when he should be resting after a day's work, the former commando specialist puts on his army slacks and rubber boots, crosses under a Bukit Timah Expressway bridge near his home and scouts the nature reserve behind it for durians.
It has been his ritual for more than 10 years. This season, he has been out almost every night for the past three weeks.
Either trekking with a couple of his neighbours or sometimes alone, he can gather as many as 80 durians in one trip. He explained: 'This was something I first started doing when I was young and living in a kampung nearby. Since then, every year I will go durian picking.'
He added: 'It's near my place, plus I treat it as exercise. It's also for the fun of it.'
When LifeStyle caught up with him last Tuesday night, he was with neighbour Henry Lim, 40.
Lim's grey T-shirt was drenched in perspiration after lugging two of a three-bag haul, and he said: 'Since I started, I've lost a bit of weight. We lose all the calories we get from the durians by hunting for them.'
The National Parks Board says it is not illegal to pick up fallen fruit in places under its purview. Many of the durian trees are in forested areas which are military training grounds. It is illegal to venture into military training areas which are gazetted as protected areas.
Under the Protected Areas And Protected Places Act, trespassers can be fined $1,000 or jailed two years, or both.
Occasional fights
When LifeStyle visited one durian hot spot, the wooded area behind Yew Tee and Gali Batu flyovers on the Kranji Expressway (KJE), it was like a 'market' for fallen fruit.
About 20 people were milling around. Some were already hauling anything from handfuls of durians to bulging sacks.
Two middle-aged women refused to be named, saying it would be embarrassing. One said: 'My kids like durians so I followed my friend here for fun. It's my first time.'
Lim Chu Kang, Mandai, Yishun, Bukit Batok and Upper Thomson are other locales of tall durian trees and eager pickers.
Packer Soo Poh Soon goes to Yishun, the KJE area or Kranji twice a week to hunt for his favourite fruit. The 40-year-old, who has been doing this for the past three years, said: 'I was in an armoured unit in the army so I am used to these areas.'
He echoed the opinion of many when he said: 'I do this for the fun of it. The wild ones are natural and do not contain pesticides or additives so they're healthier.'
Seasoned pickers can even tell which tree produces good fruit, although they also highlight that fruit from a good tree may not always be good. They reveal that several breeds are found in the wild, even desirable ones such as XO and red-fleshed ones.
There are two modes of operation: Some go treasure hunting - searching from tree to tree, led by their nose or instincts; others sit under a fruit-laden one and wait.
An odd-job labourer in his 30s, who wanted to be known as Tan, was seen sitting patiently under a tree, but bolted forward to pick up a durian that dropped.
He said: 'I stay about three to four hours each time but I also walk around too. It depends on your luck. There's no way of saying which method is better.'
However, quarrels about ownership of the fruit or territory occasionally happen, say pickers. Some even camp overnight to gain 'territorial rights', chasing away intruders by flashing torches or harassing them.
Whether they are reliving their kampung days, satisfying their hunger for its distinctive taste or simply want some free makan, one thing is for sure: The fruit frenzy is short and sweet.
The season lasts only about a month.
Soo lamented: 'Yishun area is already drying up. There's just another two weeks more or so left here, then there'll be no more durians to pick.'
Sarah Chew, The Star 20 Jul 08;
Stories by SARAH CHEW
Ten students learn, first-hand, that nature’s beauty needs protection.
SUN, sea and beach ... Where else is there a better setting to teach a bunch of tertiary students about the environment than the lovely Pulau Perhentian Kecil?
This year, Bayer chose 10 finalists from around the country to be Bayer Young Environmental Envoys (BYEEs) and they were sent to the island with a purpose – to become ambassadors for the protection of Mother Earth.
Since 2006, Bayer in Malaysia has been selecting environmentally aware youths to attend the five-day camp, during which participants brainstorm and are exposed to certain aspects of conservation.
At the end of the camp, two candidates get chosen to represent Malaysia at Bayer Group’s headquarters in Germany, where they will meet envoys from 17 other countries.
On the go
From the second day at camp, after arriving at Shari-La Island Resort the previous evening, it was non-stop activity all the way, starting with aerobics and line dancing at 7am.
As this year’s focus was water, participants were taught how to measure water quality on the first day. (The focus was mangroves in 2006 and forests, last year.)
Besides indoor presentations and discussions facilitated by lecturers from Universiti Putra Malaysia’s (UPM) Faculty of Environmental Studies, the envoys were exposed to various aspects of nature.
“We try to have a balance of indoor activities and lectures on the field,” said UPM lecturer Tengku Hanidza Tengku Ismail. “Experiential learning is quite effective because you see, hear and talk about the issue.”
And that’s exactly what the envoys did.
They scooped water from the well and waded into the sea with instruments such as the dissolved oxygen meter, pH meter and turbidity meter to test various aspects such as oxygen content, acidity and clarity.
At night, they discussed their findings and tried to give explanations, even challenging each other on their ideas.
For example, when Universiti Sains Malaysia student Vigren V. Radha, 23, was asked how he would implement the water quality results in mechanical engineering, his area of study, he responded by using the dissolved oxygen findings.
“If the dissolved oxygen in seawater is low, we can pump air into the water using machine aeration to increase it.”
On the morning of day three, the participants trekked up to the hill where the wind turbines and solar panels were situated.
The wind turbines on Perhentian Kecil island are the first in Malaysia and are part of a hybrid power generation system which comprises turbines, solar panels, diesel generators and battery.
“The wind turbines have a sensor to detect the wind, and they also have generators so when the blades spin, electric power is produced,” Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) fort finder Norman Shah Ngah told the envoys as he pointed out parts of the turbines, like nacelle and rotor.
He claimed the hybrid system, taken from Japan and Italy, was the first in Asia; even if there was no wind or sunlight, electricity could still be produced by the diesel generators and battery.
Kampung Perhentian Kecil on the island depends on the power these turbines produce, which can reach 11,000 volts.
Later in the day, the envoys trawled Long Beach, interviewing tourists and surveying rubbish strewn along the beach to analyse the island’s waste management practices.
“The feedback from tourists was generally bad, they complained about cleanliness and rubbish on the beach,” said Universiti Malaysia Terengganu student Ung Poh Lynn, 23. “We weren’t surprised as we found cigarette butts, plastic bags and polystyrene on the beach.”
By nightfall, however, the worries of waste disposal were forgotten temporarily as it was time for candat sotong (squid catching)!
Spirits were high as the fishing boats headed out to sea and the students threw in fishing lines and tugged repeatedly, in hopes of snagging a squid.
Some were lucky, but within an hour, most of them ended up looking like ‘squids’ themselves, sitting or lying on the deck, trying to fight the nausea caused by the large waves.
“I vomited three times, but it’s worth it,” said Universiti Teknologi Malaysia student Shee Siew Wah, 24. “I candat a bit, threw up, then candat again!”
Snorkelling the next day was a much more pleasant experience for most, as they spotted many corals and fishes, and had schools of fish nibbling bread from their fingers.
“I enjoyed snorkelling the most,” declared UPM student Akmal Azfar Abd Mutalib, 19, at the end of the camp. “I want to come back next year to acquire a scuba diving licence.”
The envoys also picked up lessons on animal protection when they spotted turtle tracks on Turtle Beach, the nesting site of Hawksbill turtles, and as their boats passed a cave of swallow nests.
Sharing knowledge
Not only did the white sand and clear blue waters serve as a pleasant backdrop to contemplate heavy issues, they also drove home a point — pollute our world and you will lose all that. Through the discussions, however, the issue of how to balance economic development and preserving nature came up.
“You can’t put a monetary value on something intangible like aesthetics. How do you measure the beauty of clear water?” asked UPM lecturer Rosta Harun during her workshop on environmental issues and management.
Assoc Prof Mohd Kamil Yusoff, speaking about water quality, urged the participants to consider various factors before developing land, if they were to become engineers.
“Before you develop land, you have to understand the linkages between atmosphere, soil, water and humans,” he said. “To have continuous water supply, you need to have the forests, as it is a water generator.”
Assoc Prof Mohd Kamil pointed out the effects of development — sediment, chemicals and rubbish being dumped into rivers.
He explained that water is classified from 1 to 5. An example of Class 1 water would be that from the cleanest stream up in the hills. And Class 5 water would be that from Sungai Klang, in the heart of the Federal Territory.
He informed the envoys that what we get from the tap is Class 3 water that has been heavily treated, and is “on par with drinking water for cows and goats”.
“If we destroy the environment, we destroy ourselves along with it,” added Rosta. There were interesting discussions and debates at night on the causes of pollution and what could be done to combat the waste problem.
“There is no centralised system to treat wastewater on the island,” observed Monash University student Khatijah Kalilur Rahman, 24, who added that rubbish on the island was floated out to sea on platforms, to be collected by the mainland authorities.
From interviews with locals and resort operators, the envoys found that mainland boats were inconsistent when it came to collection and some rubbish would end up in the sea, and eventually harm the coral reefs.
“Some locals complain that the government is not helpful, but they themselves don’t practise recycling much – there are no recycling bins around,” Khatijah Kalilur said.
Chan Sze Meun, from Universiti Malaya, felt there should be law enforcement on the part of the local authorities. But the UPM lecturers pointed out that residents should think of better ways to dispose their rubbish. They even had the opportunity to suggest to a resort operator ways to turn food waste into compost.
Tengku Hanidza observed that this year’s camp was different from those held in Kuala Gula, Perak and Taman Negara, Pahang, in 2006 and 2007, respectively.
“We decided this time we wanted a marine environment because the past two camps were held inland,” she says.
“We did more things since we got the opportunity to visit the wind turbines and solar panels. There were new and alternative technologies involved.”
The final two
After lots of learning and laughter, the time came for the finalists to present their ideas on how they would personally embark on environmental conservation.
The envoys were kept in suspense, till the award dinner, as to who would be going to Germany.
In the end, Vigren and Chan impressed the judges with their ideas of conducting a competition to design eco-friendly cars and implementing recycling of lunch containers in the workplace, respectively.
Speaking at the award ceremony on behalf of the Natural Resources and Environment Minister, the deputy. Datuk Maznah Mazlan, urged the envoys to tackle climate change.
“I am convinced that young people have a key role to play,” she said. “This programme is a critical step towards inculcating a culture of environmental concern among them.”
However, the journey didn’t end there. As Bayer Co (M) Sdn Bhd managing director Christoph Bremen said: “We hope by giving our two BYEEs the opportunity to visit our headquarters in Germany and network with their international counterparts there, they will return to Malaysia with a broader perspective on sustainability and lots of entrepreneurial ideas and projects!”
The BYEE programme in Malaysia is organised by Bayer in partnership with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and UPM.
Raising awareness
The Star 20 Jul 08;
BAYER Group, a global enterprise, has been adopting environment-friendly practices since the 1990s.
In 1995, Bayer started the Young Environmental Envoy Project in Thailand. It has since expanded and become the BYEE programme, under which youths from four continents are selected annually to visit the Bayer headquarters in Germany.
During the week-long trip, participants will get to visit the federal environmental protection agency and municipal waste management facilities, and observe the company’s practices.
“We believe young people are future leaders,” says Bayer Co (M) Sdn Bhd project leader Ho Mei Choo. “The environment is at stake now, but these students with a passion can give back to the environment.”
Every year in Malaysia, students aged between 18 and 24 will go through a selection process to be part of the programme.
After submitting an essay on an environmental problem and how they can solve it, the applicants are interviewed by a panel of judges.
Those who qualify for the final round will attend a BYEE Eco-Camp for free.
At the end of the camp, the finalists have to present their ideas on promoting environmental protection. Two winners are then chosen to represent Malaysia in Germany.
“We keep in touch with the envoys after they return,” said Ho. “If they need funds for their proposed environmental projects, we will sponsor them.”
In 1997, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Office for Asia Pacific placed the BYEE project under its umbrella, and has been working closely with Bayer since.
The Daily Express 20 Jul 08;
Tawau: As food prices soar and people scream for greater food security, Sabah's much sought-after wild mud crabs are dying in their mangrove habitats, at the hands of planters.
This large-size mud crab was found dead inside what looks like an intact pocket of sub-tidal mangrove forest in Bombalai that had been cleared and is now under investigation.
Mud crabs dead in their habitat - how is that possible one might ask. Because its connection with the ebb and flow of tides has been cut off while the last poodle of seawater has been bled dry into a deep drain dug around it by a planter who had also cleared a 20-acre provisional lease mangrove forest (6994) for oil palm, possibly involving tracts of State mangrove forest reserves as well.
Habitat fidelity is characteristic of mud crabs and this fixed trait is probably the downside of their survival where there is a penchant for mangrove clearance.
Tidal and sub-tidal mangrove forests are their fixed homes. They can't migrate to the oil palm estates or the rainforests and survive. So Sabah be warned.
Little by little, a bit of clearing here, a bit of wetland draining there, the bitter truth is that the State's boast of being a seafood paradise may suddenly become history.
When the still affordable seafood runs out, a lot of people will suffer - from the seafood gatherers to restaurants to transporters of the seafood and tourists.
One kilo of mud crab costs RM60 at hawker stalls in Bukit Bintang but it's just RM24 in popular seafood restaurants around KK.
However, abundant seafood can remain only if this generation actively protects wild crabs, etc, in their natural habitat, i.e. Sabah's mangrove forests.
The action of mud crabs on the mangrove forest floors also contribute to abundant fish stocks. The mangrove crabs improve the nutritional quality of the mangal mud for other bottom feeders by mulching the mangrove leaves.
Marine biologists always say where mangrove forests are abundant, fish populations are also abundant in the adjacent coastal waters. Mangrove forests generate high nutrient density and diversity for its nearby waters which makes it extremely productive.
Metaphorically, mangrove forests work like a "bridge" between terrestrial and marine environments. A "bridge" that transfers matter and energy from the land to the sea forming the base of many marine food webs.
This key nutrient transporting dynamic is the reason why a wide diversity of animals is found in estuary mangrove swamps. Because they are constantly replenished with nutrients transported by fresh water runoffs.
Fushed by the ebb and flow of the tides, they support a bursting population of bacteria and other decomposers and filter feeders.
It is an ecosystem that supports billions of worms, protozoas, barnacles, oysters sponges and other invertebrates which are the food of fish and shrimps.
Many fish species that live as adults on the coral reefs live in the mangrove as juveniles.Which is why mangroves are the 'Nursery Habitats' for these species and whose presence increases the population of these fish in the nearby reefs!
However, mangrove forests can perform this crucial seafood enriching role only if the tidal links are maintained.
In the Bombalai saga that was highlighted by Daily Express on Saturday, the planter had on the one hand dug drains to dry off any remnant seawater from a handsome pocket of beautiful mangrove trees where the dead crab was found and built bunds to keep the tides out.
Daily Express received many calls from concerned nature lovers stressing that the Tawau Forestry Department insist on the developer reopening the blocked tidal link to enable the ebb and flow of sea tides to once again flush nutrients in and out.
This means making him fill the drain back, restore the original land profile so that sea tides can move freely in and out again. It is left to the Forestry Director to ensure this since he has already detained the planter's excavator.
The China Post 17 Jul 08;
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- As the Council of Agriculture (COA) prepares to issue licenses to 89 coral-mining boats, scholars and environmentalists urged the government yesterday to help coral miners adopt more sustainable methods to limit damage to the marine ecology.
Currently, there are only three coral-mining boats in Taiwan operating with licenses, but a study conducted by local governments showed that a total of 96 fishing boats have been exploiting red corals without authorization.
The COA last May gave the green light for coral-mining boats to apply for licenses, up to maximum of 96, citing consideration for the livelihood of fishermen and a desire to better manage mining activities.
To date, the Fisheries Agency has received 89 applications, according to an official of the agency.
However, environmentalists and scholars urged coral-mining business operators to adopt more sustainable mining methods, stressing that biodiversity on deep-sea coral reefs is as rich as on coral reefs in shallow waters,
Under current regulations, only deep-sea coral mining is allowed.
Red corals, which grow at a rate of 0.5 to 2 centimeters per year, are not a "renewable marine resource, " said Allen C. Chen, an associate research fellow at Academia Sinicia's Research Center for Biodiversity, at a hearing on the conservation of deep-water coral reefs.
He added that indiscriminate mining methods, such as tangle net dredging, have been banned in western countries, and suggested instead the use of selective methods such as remote-controlled arms or submarines.
But he admitted that these methods are very expensive and suggested that the Fisheries Agency provide aid to coral-mining operators. "If the government makes an effort to help coral-mining business operators adopt more sustainable methods, coral-mining will not become a sunset industry, but rather can contribute to research on deep-sea coral reefs, " said Chen, adding that Taiwan lacks data and research in this area.
The environmentalists also questioned why the relevant COA regulations specify only that each boat is limited to 120 kilos of coral per year, saying that this means excessive quantities of red corals could be taken and those of better quality exported.
In response, Huang promised that the Fisheries Agency will amend the relevant articles in the regulations.
Red corals, found at depths of more than 100 meters, are crimson or pink in color and are often used to make jewelry.
Located in a subtropical zone, Taiwan has rich coral reef resources. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, Taiwan ranked first among countries that exploited red corals during 1980 to 2005, ahead of Italy, Spain, Japan and Tunisia.
Taiwan's coral reefs are also under threat from human behavior and natural changes, such as artificial fish reefs that push against coral reefs, industrial pollution and global warming.
This year has been designated as the international year of the reef by the Reef Check Foundation, an international non-profit organization dedicated to the protection and rehabilitation of reefs worldwide.
Yahoo News 20 Jul 08;
Moves around the world to drain marshes and other wetlands to make space for farming could be hastening climate change, scientists gathering in Brazil from Monday will be hearing.
Around 700 researchers from around the world are to descend on the central western town of Cuiaba for a four-day conference to discuss ways to preserve wetlands, the UN University, a grouping of scholars, said in a statement.
They are concerned that evaporation from warmer global temperatures and man's destruction of wetlands are releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, which could be increasing greenhouse gases.
Wetlands such as marshes, swamps, mangroves, peat bogs and river floodplains cover six percent of the Earth's land surface, and store up to 20 percent of terrestrial carbon in the form of slowly decaying organic matter, the statement said.
They are estimated to contain 771 billion tons of greenhouses gases -- carbon dioxide and methane -- an amount comparable to the carbon content already in the atmosphere.
According to the UN University, 60 percent of wetlands around the world have been destroyed in the past century, mainly to provide drainage for farming.
"Too often in the past, people have unwittingly considered wetlands to be problems in need of a solution. Yet wetlands are essential to the planet's health," said UN Under Secretary-General Konrad Osterwalder, who is also rector of the UN University.
A German expert, professor Wolfgang Junk of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, added: "Wetlands act as sponges and their role as sources, reservoirs and regulators of water is largely underappreciated by many farmers and others who rely on steady water supplies."
The conference, co-organized with Brazil's Federal University of Mato Grosso in Cuiaba, will be looking at ways to protect and better manage wetlands, some of which extend over national borders.
Cuiaba itself is on the edge of the Pantanal, a remote and therefore relatively untouched wetland straddling Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.
The UN University is a community of researchers studying pressing global problems set up by the UN General Assembly. Its headquarters is in Japan.
Wetlands Could Unleash "Carbon Bomb" - Scientists
Deborah Zabarenko, PlanetArk 21 Jul 08;
WASHINGTON - The world's wetlands, threatened by development, dehydration and climate change, could release a planet-warming "carbon bomb" if they are destroyed, ecological scientists said on Sunday.
Wetlands contain 771 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth and about the same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere, the scientists said before an international conference linking wetlands and global warming.
If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal Regional Environment Program in Brazil.
"We could call it the carbon bomb," Teixeira said by telephone from from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the conference. "It's a very tricky situation."
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the INTECOL International Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil's vast Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect these endangered areas.
Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves, tundra, lagoons and river flood plains.
Together they account for 6 percent of Earth's land surface and store 20 percent of its carbon. They also produce 25 percent of the world's food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as buffers against violent coastal storms.
Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilization. About 60 percent of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century, mostly due to draining for agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat extraction add to the destruction.
IMAGE PROBLEM
"Too often in the past, people have unwittingly considered wetlands to be problems in need of a solution, yet wetlands are essential to the planet's health," said Konrad Osterwalder, UN Under Secretary-General and rector of United Nations University, one of the hosts of the meeting.
So far, the impacts of climate change are minor compared to human depredations, the scientists said in a statement. As is the case with other environmental problems, it is far easier and cheaper to maintain wetlands than try to rebuild them later.
As the globe warms, water from wetlands is likely to evaporate, rising sea levels could change wetlands' salinity or completely inundate them.
Even so, wetland rehabilitation is a viable alternative to artificial flood control for coping with the larger, more frequent floods and severe storms forecast for a warmer world.
Northern wetlands, where permanently frozen soil locks up billions of tonnes of carbon, are at risk from climate change because warming is forecast to be more extreme at high latitudes, said Eugene Turner of Louisiana State University, a participant in the conference.
The melting of wetland permafrost in the Arctic and the resulting release of carbon into the atmosphere may be "unstoppable" in the next 20 years, but wetlands closer to the equator, like those in Louisiana, can be restored, he said.
Teixeira admitted wetlands have an image problem with the public, which is generally well-disposed to saving the rainforest but not the swamp.
"People don't have a good impression about wetlands, because they don't know about the environmental service that wetlands provide to us," he said. (Editing by Alan Elsner)
Warming world 'drying wetlands'
BBC News 22 Jul 08;
More than 700 scientists are attending a major conference to draw up an action plan to protect the world's wetlands.
Organisers say a better understanding of how to manage the vital ecosystems is urgently needed.
Rising temperatures are not only accelerating evaporation rates, but also reducing rainfall levels and the volume of meltwater from glaciers.
Although only covering 6% of the Earth's land surface, they store up to an estimated 20% of terrestrial carbon.
Co-organised by the UN University and Brazil's Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, the five-day Intecol International Wetlands Conference in Cuiaba, Brazil, will examine the links between wetlands and climate change.
"Humanity in many parts of the world needs a wake-up call to fully appreciate the vital environmental, social and economic services wetlands provide," said conference co-chairman Paulo Teixeira.
These included absorbing and holding carbon, regulating water levels and supporting biodiversity, he added.
Konrad Osterwalder, rector of the UN University, said that people in the past had viewed the habitats as a problem, which led to many being drained.
"Yet wetlands are essential to the planet's health," he explained. "With hindsight, the problems in reality have turned out to be the draining of wetlands and other 'solutions' we humans devised."
Under pressure
Scientists warn that if the decline of the world's wetlands continued, it could result in vast amounts of carbon being released into the atmosphere and "compound the global warming problem significantly".
It is estimated that drained tropical swamp forests release 40 tonnes of carbon per hectare each year, while drained peat bogs emit between 2.5 to 10 tonnes.
Data shows that about 60% of wetlands have been destroyed in the past century, primarily as a result of drainage for agriculture.
"Lessening the stress on wetlands caused by pollution and other human assaults will improve their resilience and represents an important climate change adaption strategy," explained Wolfgang Junk from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Germany.
"Wetlands act as sponges and their role as sources, reservoirs and regulators of water is largely underappreciated," Professor Junk added.
"They also cleanse water of organic pollutants, prevent downstream flood inundations, protect river banks and seashores from erosion, recycle nutrients and capture sediment."
The conference organisers said the ecosystems, many of which have biodiversity that rivals rainforests and coral reefs, were in need of complex long-term management plans.
They hope the scientific meeting, which ends on Friday, will highlight the range of measures needed, such as agreements that covered the entire catchment areas of the wetlands.
Michael McCarthy, The Independent 19 Jul 08;
Lobsters have boomed in Britain's first marine nature reserve, where fishing is banned. The large crustaceans have soared in numbers in the "no-take zone" around Lundy Island in the Bristol Channel, which was established five years ago as a prototype for sea-life reserves around Britain.
Lobsters of takeable size are now nearly seven times more abundant in the protected zone than they are elsewhere around the island, or in fishing zones off the coast of north Devon and south Wales, says a survey by Natural England. In the other areas, a string of 10 lobster pots produces one lobster, on average; in the Lundy no-take zone the average is 6.7.
The population increase is now having a "spill-over" effect into waters which can be fished, showing that conservation can strongly benefit fisheries.
However, there is a drawback, in terms of other sea life: numbers of the velvet swimming crab are showing a decline, which is thought to relate to predation from the lobsters. A string of 10 pots which was producing four crabs before the no-take zone was established is now producing only one. The zone around Lundy's east side, 12 miles off the Devon coast, was set up five years ago by Natural England and the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee, which administers fishing with local fishermen. Natural England scientists believe the zone should help Devon's lobster-potters by providing a refuge where young lobsters can grow to maturity, then migrate into areas where commercial fishing is permitted.
Fishermen are a little more sceptical. "It's difficult to say whether it's helped us – we didn't used to fish in there much anyway, except close to shore, but it was always good for lobsters," said John Barbeary, whose lobster and whelk boat works out of Ilfracombe.
"When we were asked about it we were all for it ... [but] we couldn't afford to have the zone made any bigger because it would completely ruin our business, and I think you'd find that with a lot of fishermen around the country – it would make it totally uneconomic."
Sarah Clark from the Devon Sea Fisheries Committee said she believed the zone was good for the industry. "Having a larger brood stock especially of females within the no-take zone will obviously produce more juveniles," she said. "We're tagging them to see if they're moving out – if they are, they'll be moving out of the no-take zone into the area that's being fished, and that can only help with the fishery, and help fishermen too."
The idea behind the no-take zone is to try and return the seabed to the state it was in before modern fishing. "The site wasn't only set up to protect lobsters – it's to protect the whole environment," said Chris Davis, Natural England's senior specialist in marine policy. The Marine Bill, scheduled for next year, is likely to designate a series of conservation areas around Britain that will be representative of all types of marine habitats.
But although some will be "no abstraction and no deposition" zones – meaning you can take nothing away and dump nothing within them – it is unlikely that fishing will be strictly forbidden in all of them.
Government scientists are canvassing opinions on how big such zones should be, and whether, in a given area, one big zone might be more effective than several small ones.
Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian 19 Jul 08;
Cities at sea have long been a libertarian dream, but concerns over climate change have now pushed the idea on to the environmental agenda. Do they hold water, asks Oliver Burkeman
In the event that it is ever actually built, the Freedom Ship, "the world's first mobile, floating city", will have to be constructed at sea: there isn't a port on the planet that would be big enough to accommodate it.
"Imagine a mile-long stretch of 25-storey buildings in New York City; now imagine that floating on the water," one reporter wrote, after detailed plans were released a few years ago. As it turned out, "imagine" proved a well-chosen verb.
But there was no denying the breathtaking ambition of the Freedom Ship's designers: artists' impressions showed a gargantuan, flat-bottomed slab of glass and concrete, 340ft high, capable of housing 60,000 people and topped with several aeroplane runways. The QE2 was pictured alongside, for comparative purposes; it looked like some kind of tugboat.
On board the Freedom Ship would be schools, hospitals, banks, light manufacturing industries, shops, restaurants and 200 acres of open space, according to its chief engineer, a modern-day Noah from Florida called Norman Nixon. There would be no local taxes. "It will follow the sun - it will be better than a land-based city," the head of marketing told anyone who asked.
By 2002, 3,000 families and businesses had reportedly signed up to live and work on it, although Nixon himself adopted a wry tone that seemed to acknowledge the absurd vastness of his plans. "As soon as I build this joker," he told Fox News, "I'm going to retire and live on it."
But some things are easier said than done, especially when it comes to building giant floating cities weighing 2.7m tonnes, and recently a downbeat statement signed by Nixon appeared on the Freedom Ship's website. It uses too many quotation marks, and devotes several lines to a bizarre attack on Wikipedia, but the gist is clear.
"We were... contacted by a group of people who we thought in the beginning had a serious interest in the ship [but] wanted nothing more than to use us for a 'scam'," Nixon claims. There then follows a string of accusations and allegations of financial impropriety: "So, as you might guess, we have a major lawsuit against everyone involved."
Things are at a standstill "while the lawyers get to work. We could get moving if we could find $150m, but as of now we don't have that kind of money." Nixon is currently busy running a long-shot campaign for the US presidency.
Perhaps you need to be an eccentric to dream on this kind of scale, and maybe it's inevitable that you'll attract scam artists along the way.
Several times, in recent decades, different groups have proposed building floating cities at sea, but almost always their plans have collapsed amid acrimony, alleged criminality or lawsuits, along with a chronic lack of funds.
Mostly, they have been Americans of a libertarian bent, intent on escaping the yoke of government, especially taxes, and embarking on a kind of endless retirement cruise.
But last month the idea re-emerged in a different form: what if colonising the oceans were to become not just a libertarian escape fantasy, but an environmental necessity?
A young Belgian architect, Vincent Callebaut, unveiled Project Lilypad, a vision of a "floating ecopolis", shaped like a giant waterlily, that could house tens of thousands of people forced from their homes by rising sea levels. "It will be one of the major challenges of the 21st century to find ways to accommodate environmental migrants," he says.
According to the UN's International Panel on Climate Change, sea levels will probably continue to rise for centuries even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilised; they could rise by as much as 81cm this century, enough to devastate areas such as the islands of Kiribati and the Maldives, and parts of Bangladesh. The Netherlands is spending huge sums to reinforce its dykes, Callebaut notes, and the United Arab Emirates is building expensive new land, near sea level, in the Palm Jumeirah reclamation project.
But both solutions can only ever be sticking-plasters. "The Lilypad," he says, "would be a long-term solution to the water rising."
The notion is ridiculous, of course: another chapter in the long history of urban futurology, according to which we were all supposed to be travelling in airborne bubble-cars by now.
And yet there's something bewitching about Callebaut's designs. The Lilypad is calming even to look at; it feels like something that might have evolved naturally. The steel and glass that dominate the Freedom Ship are relegated to second place behind the flowing contours of three "mountain ridges", covered in vegetation and hollow within.
Where the real-life lily is weighted and balanced by its central submerged stalk, the Lilypad has a glass-walled, underwater, bowl-shaped space that could be used for commercial and leisure facilities.
Technical details are notably lacking from Callebaut's vision - he doesn't even pretend to estimate how much it would cost to build - but the general idea is that it could be self-sustaining, using various forms of renewable energy and collecting and purifying rainwater in a central lake. Its titanium dioxide skin could absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
"The whole city is covered by a stratum of suspended gardens," Callebaut says. "The goal is to create a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature." One of his images pictures Lilypad floating between the islands of the Maldives. It doesn't look like an emergency solution to a nightmarish crisis: it looks like a beautiful addition to the view.
But it didn't take long for the old problems of egos and allegations of underhand behaviour to assert themselves.
The media excitement over the designs overlooked the striking similarity they bore to Mermaid, a project created by a Danish architect, Julien de Smedt. Mermaid was envisaged as something far more modest: a floating "wellness resort", with a water park at its centre. It was designed to accommodate far fewer people, but that wasn't enough to prevent De Smedt from growing angry at the attention Callebaut's images received.
"We have been running a case on him," says De Smedt, whose firm has been investigating Callebaut's other work to look for instances of plagiarism. "He's a strange character. His project is on another scale, but it's the same: the shape, the three peaks, everything. In my view, it is totally driven by our work." (When I asked for his response to this allegation, Callebaut stopped communicating with me.)
The idea for the Mermaid, De Smedt says, came to him almost by chance: "Our client wanted this wellness resort, but he didn't feel it was suited to Denmark, so he started asking the question of whether we should think of another location. I suggested designing an island."
A Middle Eastern investor is now interested, and engineering feasibility studies have been carried out, De Smedt says - all of which suggests another difference that may soon distinguish the Mermaid from the Lilypad, and from every other fantasy of a floating metropolis that anyone has ever entertained: it might really exist.
People have dreamed of colonising the oceans for decades, but they've generally glossed over the practical challenges. Their minds have been on higher things - specifically, creating new nations to which their founders could escape and live in peace, untroubled by the actions of governments, or by other people in general. Their projects have had names such as the Free State Project, Laissez-Faire City, Libertocracy and New Utopia.
As is common in the world of libertarian politics, the language in which they speak of their plans tends to be tetchy and misanthropic, dripping with contempt for the ordinary herd. "Most people never leave 'home' - they grit their teeth and simply endure whatever their 'home' government throws at them, as if no possible alternative exists," writes Prince Lazarus Long, ruling monarch of the as-yet nonexistent principality of New Utopia, which he plans to build on concrete platforms perched on the Misteriosa Bank, a submerged atoll in the Caribbean. (Long was born Howard Turney; he changed his name to that of a character in a science fiction novel.)
"A small - but growing - number of individuals... refuse to confine themselves to the advantages and drawbacks of just one country," he continues. Taxation will be illegal in New Utopia, and Long claims that more than 3,200 people have paid a fee to register as the first citizens. Unfortunately, there will first be some hurdles to overcome: in 2000, the US Securities and Exchange Commission declared New Utopia to be a "fraudulent nationwide internet scheme", accusing Long of making tens of thousands of dollars from the sale of bogus securities. He insists it is legitimate, and is ploughing ahead.
On a handful of occasions, such schemes have become reality - perhaps most famously in the case of Sealand, the unofficial "micronation" on a structure off the Suffolk coast that was used as a second world war fort.
Sealand's ruler is Prince Roy, aka Paddy Roy Bates, who now lives in retirement in Spain; in 2006, a fire caused extensive damage, and plans are reportedly underway to sell the platform and open an internet casino there.
Yet the dream of creating a thriving new nation on the sea refuses to die. Earlier this year, Peter Thiel, the entrepreneur behind the web-based payments system PayPal, donated $500,000 to inaugurate the Seasteading Institute, which aims "to establish permanent, autonomous ocean communities to enable experimentation and innovation with diverse social, political, and legal systems."
Although motivated by similar libertarian impulses, the institute does seem, for once, to be giving extensive consideration to the engineering work such dreams would require. The strategy is to start small and scale up: from "PintStead", a tongue-in-cheek structure small enough to float in a beer glass, to the fish-tank-sized AquariumStead, to PoolStead, to CoastStead, "a floating home that can go anywhere", which they plan to build and exhibit off the US west coast, starting next year. (After that, they plan to explore larger combinations of multiple floating homes.)
Meanwhile, at Seasteading.org, enthusiasts discuss a plethora of issues, from farming algae to produce fuel, to procuring surface-to-air missiles as a defence against attacks from established states.
It is ironic that the notion of the floating city should arise as a potential answer to the problems caused by global warming, since the libertarians responsible for the earlier ocean-colonising visions have tended to despise government-led initiatives, including those targeting climate change.
But building floating homes is an idea with its own history, too, primarily in the Netherlands: near Maasbommel on the banks of the river Meuse stand almost 40 three-storey homes, tethered to the ground, designed to rise with the water whenever the river floods. (Responding to a problem by seeking to accommodate it, rather than eliminate it, is a characteristically Dutch approach: it is, of course, how the Netherlands deals with prostitution and drugs, too.)
Earlier this year, two architecture graduates at Harvard made a related - if rather more fantastical - proposal for post-Katrina New Orleans, envisaging homes that could float when required. "Rather than considering the river an unwanted guest, welcome it in," they suggested. "Allow the city to wander through the river... Individual dwellings bob, tethered [by] umbilical cords through which potable water, electricity, sewage and telephone connections continue uninterrupted. When the water subsides, depositing the city in a new arrangement, a post-diluvian landscape emerges," they went on. "The city's historic economic stratification is blurred."
One can envisage a few practical problems with a street layout that changes every time a city floods. But it's something to think about.
Environmental campaigners tend to be scornful of ideas such as Callebaut's Lilypad, which, they say, offer not solutions to the climate crisis but dreamy distractions that encourage us to think we might get away with not having to make drastic alterations to our lifestyles right away.
"The idea that we can somehow take humanity, scoop it up and place it on an island that's self-sustaining, and therefore that we can continue to exist as we were - well, let's just say that it's deeply unrealistic," says Ben Stewart, a Greenpeace spokesman. "Perhaps it would be possible for a small, elite proportion of humanity. But what we should really be talking about is trying to protect a planet that is perfectly capable of sustaining us in perpetuity... The coming century isn't going to look like an HG Wells novel, where, if we lose the battle, we move to another planet or to the oceans. It's not going to look like that. It's going to be a large number of people dying."
Besides, it's hard to imagine that life on a Lilypad would really be such a paradise. Surely they'd soon become floating refugee camps, housing people the rest of the world would prefer to forget - prisons for an unrooted, essentially homeless underclass?
Even as an elite getaway, it's not clear that a floating metropolis would be that much fun. Cruises, after all, are an acquired taste, and there's something unavoidably fake and claustrophobic about even the finest ships. On board QM2, for example, according to publicity material, "sybarites can enjoy the rejuvenating treatments of the world-renowned Canyon Ranch Spa Club... Or how about a visit to the planetarium? A wine-tasting seminar? Or a walk down history lane at the Maritime Quest exhibit? QM2 is a veritable City at Sea, with everything from virtual-reality golf [and] a basketball court to a bookshop." Now imagine living there all year round.
Scientists' complaint on accuracy is rejected
Kevin Dowling, The Times 19 Jul 08;
A Channel 4 documentary that argued that global warning was a fraud is to be criticised by the media regulator.
On Monday Ofcom is expected to publish a long-awaited report that upholds claims by some of the scientists who appeared in the programme last year that they were misrepresented.
The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired in March last year, has been accused of downplaying the threat in the public mind. It sparked an outcry among environmentalists and many campaigners argue that the programme has contributed to people believing that the threat is not real.
It is understood that complaints by Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will be upheld. The regulator is expected to say that Channel 4 should have told Dr Wunsch that the programme was going to be a polemic.
The regulator will also uphold complaints made by the government’s former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But the broadcaster will not be censured over a second complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, with Ofcom finding that it did not mislead the public.
Debate has raged since the programme was shown, with many scientists claiming that it misrepresented evidence about the threat of global warming and that it rehashed discredited arguments and skewed data and charts to make its arguments stand up. In the closing moments of the program a voiceover from the climate change sceptic Fred Singer claimed that the Chief Scientist of the UK had said that by the end of the century the only habitable place on the planet would be in the Antarctic and that “humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic”.
Sir David has never made such a statement. It is thought that Mr Singer confused the comments with those made by the scientist James Lovelock, who infuriated many colleagues in the science community when he publicly questioned global warming.
Ofcom is expected to find that the programme made significant allegations against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, questioning its credibility and failed to offer it timely and appropriate opportunity to respond.
Channel 4 argues that the organisation refused to cooperate with the programme-makers.
After the broadcast, Dr Wunsch said that the programme was as close to pure propaganda as anything since the Second World War and that he was duped into appearing on it. Martin Durkin, the director of the programme, has defended it vigorously. He wrote in a newspaper: “The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong.”
The producers have sold the programme to 21 other countries and a global DVD release went ahead despite protests from scientists.
Channel 4 claimed that the public response to the programme, in the form of phone calls it received, was six to one in favour of it. The broadcaster said that the documentary was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and that it had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.
A recent poll found that the majority of the British public is sceptical that climate change is caused by human activity, with many saying the problem exists but is exaggerated.
Ipsos MORI polled 1,039 adults and found that six out of ten agreed that “many scientific experts still question if human beings are contributing to climate change”. Campaigners believe that steadily increasing economic worries are denting public interest in environmental issues and some of them have blamed the programme.
Channel 4’s head of science, Hamish Mykura, said last March that he commissioned the film because it reflected the views of a significant minority of respected scientists.
An Ofcom spokeswoman said she could not comment before the report was published. Channel 4 said that it could not comment at this stage.
Channel 4 to be censured over controversial climate film
Watchdog finds documentary was unfair to scientists but did not mislead viewers
Owen Gibson, The Guardian 19 Jul 08;
Channel 4 misrepresented some of the world's leading climate scientists in a controversial documentary that claimed global warming was a conspiracy and a fraud, the UK's media regulator will rule next week.
In a long-awaited judgment following a 15-month inquiry, Ofcom is expected to censure the network over its treatment of some scientists in the programme, The Great Global Warming Swindle, which sparked outcry from environmentalists.
Complaints about privacy and fairness from the government's former chief scientist, Sir David King, and the Nobel peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be upheld on almost all counts, the Guardian has learned.
But it is understood that Channel 4 will still claim victory because the ultimate verdict on a separate complaint about accuracy, which contained 131 specific points and ran to 270 pages, will find that it did not breach the regulator's broadcasting code and did not materially mislead viewers.
The detail of the ruling is expected to criticise Channel 4 over some aspects of the controversial programme, made by the director Martin Durkin, but executives will argue that the key test of whether or not it was right to broadcast the programme has been passed.
One source said both sides would be able to claim victory after a bitter dispute that has raged in newspapers and online since the programme, billed as "a definitive response" to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, was first broadcast in March last year.
The programme was criticised by scientists, who claimed it fundamentally misrepresented the evidence about global warming, that it rehashed discredited old arguments and manipulated data and charts to make its case.
The IPCC, King and other scientists including Dr Carl Wunsch, a climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, complained to the regulator over the way they were represented. Ofcom is expected to find in favour of King's complaint and three out of five of the IPCC's. One is expected to be thrown out and the fifth will be partially upheld.
In its judgment on King's complaint, Ofcom will say: "Channel 4 unfairly attributed to the former chief scientist, David King, comments he had not made and criticised him for them and also failed to provide him an opportunity to reply".
In the programme, the concluding voiceover from the climate change sceptic Fred Singer claimed "the chief scientist of the UK" was "telling people that by the end of the century, the only habitable place on Earth will be the Antarctic and humanity may survive thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic ... it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad".
King has never made such a statement and it is believed Singer confused his views with those of the contrarian scientist James Lovelock. King did once say that "the last time the Earth had this much C02, the only place habitable was the Antarctic".
Addressing the IPCC's complaint over 21 pages, Ofcom will rule that the programme "made significant allegations ... questioning its credibility and failed to offer it timely and appropriate opportunity to respond".
But Channel 4 has argued that the organisation had refused to cooperate with the programme-makers.
After the broadcast, Wunsch said the programme was "masquerading as a science documentary when it should be regarded as a political polemic" and was "as close to pure propaganda as anything since world war two".
He claimed he had been duped into appearing and his comments had been misleadingly edited.
The Ofcom ruling is expected to find that Wunsch was misled about the tone and content of the programme, but that his views were accurately represented within it. Durkin, who had previously made other controversial documentaries, including Against Nature and the Rise and Fall of GM, vigorously defended the broadcast.
"The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," he wrote.
Channel 4 justified the broadcast by saying it was a useful contribution to a timely debate, arguing that it had a tradition for iconoclastic programming and had also aired programmes supporting the case for man-made climate change.
The producers claimed that after it was broadcast, Channel 4 received a record number of phone calls that were six to one in favour of the arguments made. The film was subsequently sold to 21 other countries. A global DVD release went ahead despite protests from scientists.
A Channel 4 spokesman said: "We wouldn't comment on any Ofcom ruling in advance of its publication." Ofcom declined to comment.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07