First time at Sultan Shoal
on the wonderful creation blog and manta blog and discovery blog.
Dead Colugo found near Chestnut Drive
on the Flying Fish Friends blog
Vertebrates of Pulau Semakau
on the wild shores of singapore blog and scenic semakau with some less happy sightings.
Life History of the Fulvous Pied Flat
on the Butterflies of Singapore blog
Pied Imperial Pigeons eating palm fruits
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
Q: Whose idea was the system?
A: The satellite-based computerised system was mooted by the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency and the Forestry Department and it started on the instructions of Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak who chaired the 20th National Forest Council meeting in September 2006.
Q: When was it completed?
A: It was completed in August this year and launched in October. The agency manages the system which is used by the department.
Q: What does the system do?
A: It monitors both licensed concession areas to detect compliance with regulations as well as high potential areas for illegal land clearing.
By identifying illegal land clearing, we can detect forest fires and help in haze prevention.
The images are also used to build a national forest inventory of the country's total area of forest cover.
This can be used to estimate the timber volume from the forests.
Q: Why do we need an inventory?
A: The inventory contributes to the national effort for forest and environmental sustainability.
There is always criticism that our forests are diminishing.
Q: How does it work?
A: We receive the data from the French Spot (Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre earth-observing satellites) through our ground receiving centre in Temerloh and it is processed within six hours.
The data is then placed in our database which is linked to the department.
To access any information, the department gets on to the Internet and calls up the specific page to check if logging carried out in that area is legal. The department will also go down to the field to check.
Q: What is considered illegal logging?
A: Logging outside the concession area as well as in protected areas such as riverbanks, areas above 1,000m and slopes of more that 40 degrees gradient. Also illegal is the building of logging tracks outside the logging concession area as well as logging of prohibited trees.
Q: How often are the images taken?
A: For licensed logging areas as well as sensitive areas, we take the images once a week.
Sensitive areas are those with high potential for forest clearing and the Spot satellite, which has a 2.3m resolution which can detect individual trees, passes over the same spot once a week.
For less sensitive areas, which consist of normal forest cover, the images are taken monthly.
Q: Does the system cover the whole country?
A: Currently the system is only for Peninsular Malaysia because we are working with the Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia. We can always extend it to Sabah and Sarawak.
Q: How much did the system cost?
A: Only RM120,000. The system was built using existing resources and internal expertise.
Q: Can the images be used as evidence in court?
A: Satellite images have been used to prosecute land owners for open burning so this has potential to be used as evidence in court.
That was a manual system where the image has to be interpreted manually.
This system has all the relevant data incorporated into it, including the template for licensed land boundaries, so it is immediately known that an offence is being committed.
Q: What is the difference between this system and the airborne hyperspectral imaging kit that has a sensor hooked to a computer and global positioning system device?
A: That is an airborne system. Our satellite system is more reliable and cheaper as we don't need an aircraft to operate it.
Our system will also have more frequent images and cover a wider area and it is linked online to the Forestry Department.
'Only field evidence can be used in court'
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
Q: What happens when you receive the images?
A: The satellite images are acquired by the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency and processed.
When the end product is obtained, it will be sent to us and we will access it online. We will then verify the images.
We have a Geographic Information Section (GIS) which will produce hard copies of the images.
Verification can also be done by the state and district offices.
Then, we have to verify the images on the ground. This can be done by state, district or headquarters officers.
The results of this ground check will then be passed on to the enforcement unit.
Q: Why can't action be taken during the ground check? Why does the information have to be passed to the enforcement unit?
A: We have an enforcement unit at the headquarters and several at state forest departments.
By law, every officer posted to a state has to be gazetted in that state.
Only gazetted officers have the locus standi to carry out enforcement in the respective states.
There are plans to amend the National Forestry Act 1984 where federal enforcement officers will be gazetted to be able to carry out enforcement in the states.
Q: How long will everything take?
A: When the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency receives the satellite images, it is in a raw form. The images can be full of distortions like lines, blurring or even cloud cover.
They have to be cleaned and aligned to the scales and coordinates.
The GIS unit will verify the data within two hours as it has to compare the images with our most current base map because the template used could be outdated due to changes in land use and new issuances of licences.
The verification part is to see if there is abuse. We have to ascertain whether what is on the imagery and on the ground is the same.
Our target is to complete everything within 24 hours.
Q: Do you have enough staff for all this?
A: We need dedicated officers to do the verification work and we need to employ them. At the moment, we have officers from different sections helping out.
Q: Can the images be used as evidence in court?
A: At present, the satellite images are not used to prosecute offenders. Only field evidence is used.
However, it has potential to be used as we have included it as an amendment to the National Forestry Act to be used as evidence.
Malaysia uses satellite to fight illegal logging: report
Yahoo News 27 Dec 08;
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Malaysia is zooming in on forests with a satellite in order to fight illegal logging which its government says is harming the major timber exporting country, a report said Sunday.
Darus Ahmad, deputy director-general with the Malaysian Remote Sensing Agency, said the "eye in the sky" programme was put in place in October.
"There is always criticisms that our forests are diminishing," he was quoted as saying by the New Sunday Times newspaper.
Darus said that using satellite images the authorities can establish a national forest inventory of the country's total area of forest cover.
They can then check whether logging in a particular area is legal or not, he said, adding that the facility was currently available in the western peninsular part of Malaysia only.
Darus also said the system can be used to prevent air pollution by detecting forest fires and illegal land clearing.
In the 1990s alone, Malaysia lost more than 13 percent of its forests, with much of the deforestation on the island of Borneo, which it shares with Indonesia and Brunei.
The World Wildlife Fund at the time estimated that illegally logged trees made up about one third of Malaysia's timber exports.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi last year pledged not to indiscriminately approve logging licences, amid mounting concern that clearances are threatening endangered species and tribal communities.
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who also heads the National Forestry Council, later warned that illegal logging could undermine Malaysia.
"It can jeopardise our efforts to preserve biodiversity, flora and fauna and have an impact on global warming. At the international level, illegal logging portrays a negative image of our country," he said.
"It can harm our national economy as the timber industry produces 23 billion ringgit (6.8 billion dollars) worth of wood-based products a year," he added.
The European Union market accounts for about 30 percent of Malaysia's annual timber exports.
SAM Urge Government To Preserve Mangrove Forest
Bernama 26 Dec 08;
PENANG, Dec 26 (Bernama) -- Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) has urged the government to stop all activities in mangroves forest and pay serious attention to the threat posed by the aquaculture industry which has resulted in the deterioration of the mangrove forest eco-system.
SAM president S.M. Mohamed Idris said there was a need to re-consider the industrial aquaculture zones and prohibit aquaculture activities in mangrove forest.
"The government should also develop a strong policy and law to control the aquaculture industry as well as to rehabilitate damaged mangrove forest to ensure protection for our coastlines," he told reporters here, Friday.
He said the areas that were badly hit by Tsunami in 2004 like Acheh and Thailand suffered huge losses because the mangrove forest had been converted for aquaculture industries.
"The tragedy of Tsunami created a chaotic situation throughout the world and these are valuable lessons to avert future tragedies especially in the light of adverse impact of climate change in the future," he said.
He said areas comprising mangrove forest in Malaysia has decreased drastically despite a warning by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to stop any invasion and destruction of mangrove forest and a call to replant mangrove trees.
In conjunction with the Tsunami anniversary in Penang today SAM, in collaboration with the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP) would replant about 6,000 mangrove trees in six different locations in Kedah, Penang and Perak.
The Tsunami, triggered by an earthquake in the Indian Ocean, off Sumatra on Dec 26, 2004 claimed over 230,000 lives in countries like Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Somalia, Maldives and Malaysia.
-- BERNAMA
Planting saplings to mark tsunami
New Straits Times 28 Dec 08;
BUKIT MERTAJAM: The tradition of planting mangrove saplings in remembrance of the Dec 26, 2004 tsunami tragedy continued yesterday with 4,000 saplings planted in Sungai Sembilang, Kuala Juru, here.
The project was a joint effort of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), Penang Inshore Fishermen's Welfare Association (Pifwa) and National Peninsular Inshore Fishermen's Action Network (Jaring).
Pifwa chairman Ilias Shafie said 1,000 of the saplings were donated by Intel workers.
Pifwa has planted more than 100,000 saplings along the Penang coastline since 1997.
The sites included Sungai Burung in Balik Pulau, Kuala Sungai Chenaam in Sungai Acheh, Kuala Sungai Kerian in Byram, Nibong Tebal, Kuala Muda in Penaga, Pulau Burung in Nibong Tebal and Batu Kawan.
In Jerlun, Bernama reports that the tradition was also continued by a group of Universiti Sains Malaysia students and residents of Tepi Laut village in Ayer Hitam, who planted mangrove saplings along the coast.
The project, in its fourth year since the tsunami, saw 1,000 saplings planted in the area as a precaution against erosion.
The project was carried out with the co-operation of SAM from Kuala Kerpan to Kuala Tunjang near here, as well as in Langkawi and Sungai Merbok, Sungai Semilang in Penang, Kuala Kurau in Perak and Pontian in Johor, said SAM marine research officer Norsalila Aris.
In Port Klang, the corporate sector also got into the act with Northport (Malaysia) Bhd jointly organising a one-day coastal care carnival with the Klang Municipal Council and Selangor Water Management Board to focus on the conservation of mangroves at the Tanjung Harapan Esplanade yesterday.
The carnival saw an overwhelming response from Port Klang residents, who participated in the activities, which included a fishing competition, an auto show, a colouring contest and a blood donation campaign, in addition to planting 500 saplings along the coastline.
Orang Besar Daerah Klang Datuk Abdul Ghani Pateh Akhir, when launching the carnival, said the programme would also boost the tourism industry as clean and beautiful beaches would draw more tourists.
Why get seduced if you can't afford it?
Reggie J, The New Paper 28 Dec 08;
WE all remember those heady days when we went to the shops and shopped till we dropped with not a care in the world.
If Singapore's huge credit card debt is anything like what we read it is, it still barely raises a blip on our radar.
It's (still) like there's no tomorrow - flashing credit cards from morning to night.
Advertising, in our excessive and compulsive consumerist society, creates new needs and dreams that are usually fulfilled by buying XYZ.
But has it gone completely berserk?
The growth of discount vouchers has seen the rise of 'voucheristas' - people who choose their supermarket, shops and petrol based on whether there's a bonus point or freebie offered.
What can we make of these freebies - free sweepstakes, free samples, free coupons, free vouchers, loyalty points and other free chocolate-flavoured or beauty-based bonuses - to seduce and woo us to buy for some reason or other?
I just don't get the whole shopping experience thing. If you need a service or product, you should be able to just buy it without feeling the need for the experience to be enriching.
Is there so little poetry in our lives that we feel creativity only comes from marketing?
I wonder if the parallel rise in Internet shopping is a reaction to this constant enticement to shop stronger, harder, longer!
Are online shoppers better off because they're not staying in a retailer for longer and buying unnecessary things or, even worse, because even a rude sales assistant is some sort of social interaction?
Is trawling through a mall a form of exercise or is it all foiled by the promise of an overwhelming choice of fast foods available at every corner?
At a time when we're seeing a rise in depression, where a growing number of people are suffering the effects of debt, job loss and where families have borrowed too much or over-capitalising on their homes and lives, where debt of all kinds is normal, do we really need to be seduced to our detriment?
The fact is that we have become a nation measuring out our lives in shopping bags and nursing our psychic ills through retail therapy.
Shopping has the ability to raise our spirits - as well as our overdraft - whatever the time.
It's the ultimate pick-me-up.
Cheers! Pour another Merlot and let's go shopping.
The writer is a former Singaporean marketing professional.
If you go down to the woods...
Support is growing for ‘rewilding’, which could see bears, wolves and elk roaming Britain
Jonathan Leake, The Times 28 Dec 08;
You are on safari amid lynx, bears and elk. The wetlands around you are dominated by small lakes created by beaver dams. In the distance a wolf howls.
Nothing unusual perhaps – except that this is not northern Canada but Scotland sometime in the near future.
Down in the Lake District, the neat fields and walls that make the area one of Britain’s most manicured “wildernesses” are also changing. The native woodlands of the Ennerdale valley are spreading, Highland cattle have replaced sheep and there has even been talk of reintroducing beaver and bison.
Welcome to rewilding, a movement that is radicalising conservation biology, turning what had been a scientific backwater into one of its most controversial areas. What the rewilders want is nothing less than the reversal of thousands of years of domestication, returning vast tracts of countryside to the way they looked thousands of years ago. They believe the best way to achieve this is by bringing back the biggest and fiercest animals of all – the elk, wolves, lynx and even bears that roamed Britain 10,000 years ago at the end of the Pleistocene era.
It sounds extreme but some of Britain’s most respected wildlife and conservation organisations, including the National Trust, are buying into the idea.
This week the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, which already supports the reintroduction of beaver to Scotland, will suggest northern Britain could support about 450 lynx.
Early next year Natural England, the government’s conservation watchdog, will ask its board to consider making rewilding part of its formal policy for protecting our natural heritage.
“Rewilding is an idea whose time has come,” said Keith Kirby, a woodland and forestry officer for Natural England. “For a long time conservation has been fighting a rearguard battle, simply trying to save species threatened with extinction and reduce the damage caused by humans. Now we need to look at things more holistically, preserving and recreating entire landscapes and habitats.”
Such ideas may sound attractive – but they raise many questions, especially in a country as crowded as Britain. Will the public really accept sharing the countryside with potentially dangerous mammals?
Some of the answers may be emerging from Alladale, a 23,000-acre estate in Sutherland, northern Scotland, where Paul Lister is creating what he hopes will become one of Europe’s best wildlife reserves.
Lister, a multi-millionaire, has already released wild boar on to the estate and earlier this year imported two young European elk from Sweden to found what he hopes will become a breeding herd. In coming years, he wants to reintroduce beavers, wolves, lynx and brown bears.
Lister has found himself facing powerful opposition. Farmers worry that his animals will escape; ramblers fear they will be blocked from Alladale’s footpaths or attacked by wild animals. It shows that in Britain we may profess a love of wildlife – but the idea of dealing with a real wilderness is highly controversial.
“The Highlands are considered one of Europe’s last great areas of wilderness, yet much of the flora and fauna that once thrived here has been driven to extinction by the activities of man,” said Lister.
Even the beautiful mountain-scapes of northern and western Britain are unnatural, a result of ancient forest clearances. Bears disappeared 900 years ago; lynx died out in medieval times; and the last wolf was shot in Scotland in 1743.
The inspiration for rewilding comes largely from America, where in one scheme wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone national park. However, the much larger open spaces of the US mean animals can roam without coming across humans.
A more comparable example lies in the Netherlands. Oost-vaardersplassen is a 14,000-acre tract of uninhabited fen, scrub woodland and wild grassland that was reclaimed from the sea just 40 years ago and set aside for wildlife. The reserve offers Europe the best glimpse of the Pleistocene it might wish for, with ancient breeds such as Heck cattle and Konik horses already living there and plans to introduce European bison.
In Britain, private landowners have been keenest to adopt such ideas. In West Sussex, the 3,500-acre Knepp castle estate, owned by Sir Charles Burrell, has abandoned modern farming methods and removed nearly all the fences to allow Old English Longhorn cattle, Exmoor ponies, Tamworth pigs and fallow deer to roam at will through the spreading undergrowth.
Conservation bodies were a little slower climbing aboard but the National Trust, Britain’s largest landowner, is adopting the same “let nature take its course” approach. At Ennerdale it is working to replace sheep with hardy cattle, remove exotic trees and push for a switch to organic farming, while in Cambridgeshire it is trying to recreate ancient wetlands around Wicken fen.
The one thing played down in most of these schemes, however, is any mention of the reintroduction of wild animals, especially large predators.
The experience of people around the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire shows why. They have been pestered by growing numbers of wild boar, whose population has grown rapidly after a handful of animals were released into the wild. Some churned up the turf of a football club’s pitch, others attacked passing horse riders, and one had to be shot after its visits to a primary school became aggressive. The Forestry Commission last week announced that it had sent rangers from the area to Germany, where there is greater experience of dealing with boar.
Concerns about similar problems have affected Britain’s most ambitious rewilding project, the release early next year of four families of beavers into the countryside in Knapdale forest, mid-Argyll.
Beavers were once common throughout Britain but were exterminated for their fur and because their dams and tree-cutting make woodlands awkward for humans. For rewilders, they are an important species – their engineering opens up woodlands, creating glades and encouraging the growth of fruit-bearing bushes needed by other creatures. If they survive in Britain’s woodlands, then eventually many other species might follow.
It has taken 10 years to persuade the Scottish executive and local people to accept the idea of beavers being introduced – and most rewilders are understandably cautious about talk of wolves. Some, however, cannot restrain their enthusiasm.
David MacDonald, director of the wildlife conservation research unit at Oxford University, said: “The reintroduction means we could see beavers impacting woodland ecology for the first time in 400 years. It is very exciting to think of the other species for which they could pave the way.”
This week the People’s Trust for Endangered Species will publish a report by MacDonald showing that Scotland could support a population of 450 lynx, a medium-sized cat that preys on small mammals and deer, in northern and central Scotland. The prospect of lynx roaming wild is far less frightening than it may sound. Such creatures seldom cause problems for humans.
For true rewilders, the real aim is to restore all lost species – including dangerous ones. Peter Taylor, a founder of the Wildland Network, which campaigns for the reintroduction of larger creatures, said: “The most wild experience available for a human becomes the unarmed walk into territory where humans are not only not in control, but also not the top predator. That frisson of risk and vulnerability marks the transition from a tame landscape to a truly wild one.”
With leading organisations backing rewilding, that may not be as wild a prospect as it seems.
Elizabeth John, New Straits Times 27 Dec 08;
Running out of resources, choking on pollution and plagued by economic woes — time to rethink priorities and reconsider what really makes the world go round? The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, tells ELIZABETH JOHN that the time has come
Q: Could you tell us the significance of the recent international meeting in Putrajaya
A: We have a world full of biodiversity studies but in 2008 we are still confronted with unprecedented loss of biodiversity across the world.
We are losing ecosystems. We are facing the prospect of a collapse of fisheries in the oceans.
We have to scale up the capacity of governments to combat these trends.
This meeting discussed how we could strengthen the impact of science on policies of biodiversity and ecosystem management.
The idea here is to create something similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but for biodiversity.
The panel brought together all the science, peer reviewed it and it helped develop policy relevant findings that governments could use, giving them options to respond.
That is the debate in Putrajaya now. Will this kind of panel also be a good way to strengthen our ability to deal with the biodiversity and eco-system crises we are facing.
Q: What would you say to developing countries about this initiative, especially those that might see this attempt to link biodiversity to policy issues as a way to curtail development?
A: Biodiversity and ecosystems are essential to the economy and livelihoods of people in developing countries. In some cases more essential than they are to people in developed nations.
If you go to any farmer or fisherman who is observing environmental change and feeling its impact on his ability to harvest and use nature then very quickly that issue becomes secondary.
In 2008, we have to recognise that the loss of biodiversity globally and locally is beginning to take on dimensions that are no longer acceptable.
We are undermining the capacity of our own ecosystems to sustain not only current populations but also the billions more who will live on this planet in the future.
That is why we look at this discussion here as an attempt to bring both the developed and developing country perspectives together to say:
Let science inform the debate rather than politics and ideology.
Q: Although the climate change science came from a single, independent scientific authority, there were many questions and doubts. Wouldn't this system be faced with similar challenges?
A: Despite all these economic arguments, national interests and political positions on climate change, the power of rigorous science made it possible to convince the public about the nature and scale of the climate change challenge.
In turn, they empowered their politicians to act in a way that would have been unthinkable five years ago.
Because the public says things are serious, because they believe in the scientific evidence that is being presented to them, they ask the political leaders what they are doing about it?
And suddenly politicians are able to move and take actions that they didn't dare to before.
The direction we are heading in this 21st century is towards a low carbon, less polluting and more recycling economy.
Those that rely heavily on a 20th century industrialisation model will have to invest a lot more on transformation.
Those who come out with new products, processes and innovations stand to gain a lot more from this transformation.
Q: Will the developing world be able to move from oil dependence to a greener economy?
A: It's the same debate in a developed country as it is in a developing country.
If you listen to people who build cars today, who run steel mills and coal fired power stations, they'll say: We're going to lose jobs, we can't do this.
The same arguments are happening in Washington, Berlin and London as they are in Kuala Lumpur, New Delhi and Beijing.
Secondly, are developing countries going to invest their future in the old economy or the new economy?
Q: Could a country like Malaysia make that change?
A: Malaysia is already a knowledge economy. Why would it not take advantage of what is now quite clearly emerging as a global market opportunity -- renewable energy and recycling.
The winners in the future global marketplace will be the resource efficient, innovative, energy efficient product.
A country that does not invest domestically in promoting that transition will not have products, patents or research and development giving it a competitive advantage.
So it will buy the factories of yesterday and continue producing at a lower premium what others no longer want to produce.
China and India already do this -- if you want to take the developing country argument.
Suzlon and Suntech are companies that are both less than 10 years old.
They are dominators in the global marketplace today.
(India-born Suzlon is Asia's largest wind power company. Chinese owned Suntech is a leading global solar energy company)
Germany has just made the single largest investment in Mexico to produce photovoltaic panels there.
That investment could come to Malaysia too but not if there isn't a domestic market that supports that.
Q: But that's the thing isn't it? The whole economy, all the infrastructure isn't designed to support any of this, is it?
A: That can change.
The idea here is that government shouldn't do all of it but the market, investors, entrepreneurs have to believe that the government is committed to a long term transformational path.
Then they will mobilize their intellectual property, their capital and their corporate resources for this purpose.
Q: I'm sure many developing countries will be looking at this Green Economy Initiative and thinking that once again, they'll be starting from behind. It's going to involve a lot of technology we don't have and that's going to create a bit of fear, isn't it?
A: Because you are five years behind, will you stay that way forever? Or will you catch up?
If you take a company like Suntech, which is the world's largest producer of PV panels, its founder Dr Shi Zhengrong, was a lecturer in Australia up to eight years ago.
Then he came back to China and started this company.
So there is nothing to prevent entrepreneurs with government support in countries like Malaysia which already have that highly developed infrastructure, well trained human resources, vast experience in public policy, supported technology innovation programmes, to say: why don't we get into this?
If you're not part of this today, you are much less likely to be part of it tomorrow.
Now if India and China can do it, is there a reason why Malaysia cannot do it?
Q: Where's the motivation when you are an exporter of oil? What's the motivation for a country like Malaysia?
A: Responsible inter-generational leadership.
Oil will run out one day. This is what England is finding out right now, what Norway will find out, what Dubai and others have already factored into their development.
So how do you diversify your economy from what is in essence a lottery win - which is that you have found oil and gas and that has given a tremendous boost to your economy.
Rather than spending all that money, Malaysia is already making choices in terms of investing it in human resource development, infrastructure development.
These are benefits accruing not only to the current generation but future generations so in a sense it is a strategic choice.
Do you believe that this transition to a green economy is an opportunity to innovate, to access new markets and generate new jobs?
If you do, then you have a rational to invest in them.
Q: What help is there for countries that might want to make the transition but don't know how?
A: This is one of the problems. There is not enough.
For poor developing countries, making these quantum leaps are very difficult.
If you are a country like Kenya today , where the UNEP is headquartered, if you were to chose to jump one generation of energy production and move straight into solar energy or thermal power, initially the equipment you're buying off the shelf is more expensive.
And therefore every kilowatt hour of electricity is more expensive.
So I will suggest that the climate change convention and the financial mechanism that we have, be made available should a country want to buy down the difference between going on a path of high fossil fuels or more renewable energy.
If you can buy the difference down and bring that country forward by 20 years -- like South Africa that shifted from coal to more solar and wind -- why shouldn't the international community pay for that. It is in its own interest from a climate point of view and it is in the interest of helping a developing nation.
As the executive-director of UNEP it is very disconcerting for me to observe a world that can mobilise thousands of billions of dollars overnight for a financial crisis but is incapable of committing 100 billion dollars a year in additional financing to help the world achieve a scenario where global warming will stabilise.
But this is the challenge we face -- to bring the environmental imperative to act on the economic rationale of investment.
Q: What has the reception to the New Green Economy plan been like?
A: We have been overwhelmed by the interest and the extent to which this discussion has been going on all over the world.
We've seen initiatives in Korea, Britain and Costa Rica suddenly being driven under this concept.
We've seen (US president-elect) Barack Obama and the secretary-general of the United Nations taking on this subject.
The response has been tremendous also because of the fear that the money we're spending on the short term financial crisis must also be used on longer term challenges.
There is of course going to be a counter-reaction. The old economy or the economy that has very little interest in this transformation is going to raise objections.
They will say: We have the jobs and now you are going to put your money into all these phantom jobs?
That is why we are working on very hard empirical research with the International Labour Organisation, trade unions and employer federations, to put together our first jobs report.
We want to show where green jobs are being created, why are they being created and what is the potential for future growth.
Q: What impact will falling oil prices have on this plan to invest in a greener economy?
A: Well if you believe that climate change and global warming is a hoax then you should celebrate that oil is only US$60 per barrel.
If you even believe half of what we know is going to happen in the next 60-80 years, your first reaction should be: what a tremendous opportunity this is.
We were able to operate in our economy when oil was $100 per barrel, now its $60, let's use this $30-$40 dollars we have gained and invest it in a more diversified, cleaner-fuel economy instead of going back to putting our foot on the pedal and driving our cars faster.
The original assumption was that at $60 or $70 a barrel, solar and wind energy technology become perfectly competitive.
Now what did we see the big energy companies do?
They sold off their solar and wind energy businesses and as the Arctic was melting, began dreaming of drilling for oil there. This is not rational.
Q: Why is not rational?
A: Because it is a short term interest that accrues to a few people who are mortgaging the future of the next generation.
Can you explain to me, to my son and my grandsons why an oil company should today make billions in net profit which is two-thirds more than what we would need to spend as a global community on shifting away from global warming?
It's not as if oil companies are drilling in a more beautiful or intelligent or cleaner way. It's the same oil, from the same oil wells, in the same market.
And these companies can, in a sense, privatise a profit that we as a community, if we could use some of that, could finance the transition to a cleaner energy economy.
This disconnect in the marketplace versus the social and public goals of our economic development path need to be narrowed.
We need to step back from the virtual economy that allows a company to be worth $25 million dollars one evening and $5 million the next morning. That's not the real economy.
The real economy is rooted in assets including the environmental assets we hold.
One of the interesting transformations we'll see in the next century is that our economic choices will be defined by our natural capital rather than our financial capital.
Because these are real assets and if we lose them, we cannot afford to replace them with something artificial.
Q: Sure, but there are very immediate concerns a government has to address -- from keeping prices down to securing votes.
A: Well that's not new. That will always be the dilemma of a politician.
But we expect too much from our politicians. It actually comes down to you and me.
If we are well informed citizens, will we give our politicians the license to raid our larder or the license to use our profit to build a more sustainable future economic development path?
The politicians will act accordingly.
I think that is part of democracy. That is part of the public debate that happens.
That's why we at the UNEP belief that the debate about renewable energy, these are the debates we have to take to the public.
Because it is there that people form the opinions that then drive the political agenda and responses.
There will always be those who don't give a damn but as a society I don't think that is a prevailing notion
Q: What would be the cost of not taking this seriously? What would be the cost of leaving biodiversity out of the equation?
A: In the long term it's devastating. I'll give you some examples.
In the year 2008, we've actually reached a situation where we are depleting our fisheries stocks so fast that in our generation we may end up with no more global fisheries in our oceans.
The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment looked at 24 ecosystems goods and services and found that in the beginning of the 20th century reached a level where 60 percent of these are either used at maximum level or depleted.
With six billion people now and eight or nine billion people in the next 30-50 years, surely these trends are unsustainable.
We are producing in agriculture worldwide food crops that have already led to over 30 per cent of our arable soils being depleted and having lost their productive quality.
It will cost some more than others. The poor will be at the frontline of paying the price for land degredation, desertification, loss of wildlife and wild plants that they use for medicinal purposes.
Economies will lose tremendously because they will increasingly have to compensate for what is lost, with money and infrastructure.
And as we run out of alternatives to grab something from somewhere else we will suddenly realise the value of that biodiversity we lost.
Reuters 27 Dec 08;
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has said it achieved its aim of forcing Japan's whaling fleet out of Antarctic waters claimed by Australia.
In a statement on its website (www.seashepherd.org), the U.S.-based group said its ship, the Steve Irwin, had forced the fleet into waters off the Ross Dependency, which is a New Zealand possession.
Australia has declared an 'economic exclusion zone', known by the letters "EEZ," in waters off the coast of its Antarctic territories, and an Australian court order bans whaling there.
Sea Shepherd has said it is enforcing that order by pursuing Japan's whaling fleet, which is in the area for an annual hunt to kill around 900 whales.
However, Japan does not recognize the zone and says its whaling fleet is in international waters.
In the statement, dated Saturday, Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson promised his organization would continue its pursuit of the Japanese fleet.
"The good news is that they are no longer whaling in Australian waters and they only managed to hunt in the waters of the Australian Antarctic Territory for about a week before being forced to flee the Australian EEZ," the statement said.
"They are now in the waters of the Ross dependency and the Steve Irwin is in pursuit."
Watson said this was "bad news" for whales in waters south of New Zealand.
Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research, which runs the hunt, has accused Sea Shepherd of "eco-terrorism" and of ramming its vessel the Kaiko Maru during a protest action last Friday. Sea Shepherd has blamed the Japanese for the collision.
In a video of the incident released on its website (www.icrwhale.org), the organization showed the crew of the Japanese ship warning Sea Shepherd in English that its protesters would be treated as "illegal intruders under Japanese law" if they tried to board.
During the last whaling season, two Sea Shepherd activists were briefly held on a Japanese vessel they boarded during a protest action.
Despite an international moratorium on whaling since 1986, Japan justifies the hunt on the grounds that its whaling is for "scientific" purposes.
Much of the meat ends up on supermarket shelves.
(Editing by Sami Aboudi)
Activists attack Japanese whalers with stink bombs
Yahoo News 27 Dec 08;
TOKYO (AFP) – Militant environmentalists said they had pelted stink bombs at a Japanese whaling ship in Australian waters in their latest bid to disrupt hunting of the protected creatures.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said it "pursued and delivered 10 bottles of rotten butter and 15 bottles of a methyl cellulose and indelible dye mixture" to the Kaiko Maru vessel Friday evening.
A Japanese government-backed whaling body claimed that the activists' ship rammed into the left side of the Japanese vessel, damaging a bulwark.
"We cannot tolerate disruptive activities that threaten the safety of the crew members," Minoru Morimoto, head of the Institute of Cetacean Research, which carries out Japan's whale hunting operations, said in a statement.
Sea Sepherd said in an online statement however it was the Japanese ship that "steered hard" and struck the group's ship "Steve Irwin", although neither vessel suffered serious damage.
Paul Watson, the captain of the activists' ship, said in the statement that his crew was trying to push the Japanese whalers out of Australian waters. Sea Shepherd is an international group with headquarters in the United States and Australia.
Japan kills hundreds of whales a year in the name of research despite an international moratorium on commercial whaling.
Tokyo makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables and accuses Westerners of insensitivity to its whaling culture.
For the past four years Watson has led a Sea Shepherd vessel trying to impede the whaling ships during their hunting season.
Watson claimed earlier this year that his ship's hounding of the Japanese whalers last season had saved the lives of 500 of the giant mammals.
But the activists' repeated attacks have led Japan to label them as "terrorists."
After an earlier attempt to pelt a Japanese harpoon boat with stink bombs, Watson told AFP on Monday that the activists would continue trying to hamper the whalers.
"We will just harass them, blockade them, do everything to prevent them from resuming whaling," he said at the time.
"Most likely they will run and we will chase and they'll run and we'll chase and that's fine. As long as they are running they are not killing whales."
Mark Kinver, BBC News 27 Dec 08;
A sustainable global food system in the 21st Century needs to be built on a series of "new fundamentals", according to a leading food expert.
Tim Lang warned that the current system, designed in the 1940s, was showing "structural failures", such as "astronomic" environmental costs.
The new approach needed to address key fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanisation, he added.
Professor Lang is a member of the UK government's newly formed Food Council.
"Essentially, what we are dealing with at the moment is a food system that was laid down in the 1940s," he told BBC News.
"It followed on from the dust bowl in the US, the collapse of food production in Europe and starvation in Asia.
"At the time, there was clear evidence showing that there was a mismatch between producers and the need of consumers."
Professor Lang, from City University, London, added that during the post-war period, food scientists and policymakers also thought increasing production would reduce the cost of food, while improving people's diets and public health.
"But by the 1970s, evidence was beginning to emerge that the public health outcomes were not quite as expected," he explained.
"Secondly, there were a whole new set of problems associated with the environment."
Thirty years on and the world was now facing an even more complex situation, he added.
"The level of growth in food production per capita is dropping off, even dropping, and we have got huge problems ahead with an explosion in human population."
Fussy eaters
Professor Lang lists a series of "new fundamentals", which he outlined during a speech he made as the president-elect of charity Garden Organic, which will shape future food production, including:
* Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."
* Water scarcity: "One of the key things that I have been pushing is to get the UK government to start auditing food by water," Professor Lang said, adding that 50% of the UK's vegetables are imported, many from water-stressed nations.
* Biodiversity: "Biodiversity must not just be protected, it must be replaced and enhanced; but that is going to require a very different way growing food and using the land."
* Urbanisation: "Probably the most important thing within the social sphere. More people now live in towns than in the countryside. In which case, where do they get their food?"
Professor Lang said that in order to feed a projected nine billion people by 2050, policymakers and scientists face a fundamental challenge: how can food systems work with the planet and biodiversity, rather than raiding and pillaging it?
The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, recently set up a Council of Food Policy Advisers in order to address the growing concern of food security and rising prices.
Mr Benn, speaking at the council's launch, warned: "Global food production will need to double just to meet demand.
"We have the knowledge and the technology to do this, as things stand, but the perfect storm of climate change, environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity, threatens our ability to succeed."
Professor Lang, who is a member of the council, offered a suggestion: "We are going to have to get biodiversity into gardens and fields, and then eat it.
"We have to do this rather than saying that biodiversity is what is on the edge of the field or just outside my garden."
Michelin-starred chef and long-time food campaigner Raymond Blanc agrees with Professor Lang, adding that there is a need for people, especially in the UK, to reconnect with their food.
He is heading a campaign called Dig for Your Dinner, which he hopes will help people reconnect with their food and how, where and when it is grown.
"Food culture is a whole series of steps," he told BBC News.
"Whatever amount of space you have in your backyard, it is possible to create a fantastic little garden that will allow you to reconnect with the real value of gardening, which is knowing how to grow food.
"And once you know how to grow food, it would be very nice to be able to cook it. If you are growing food, then it only makes sense that you know how to cook it as well.
"And cooking food will introduce you to the basic knowledge of nutrition. So you can see how this can slowly reintroduce food back into our culture."
Waste not...
Mr Blanc warned that food prices were likely to continue to rise in the future, which was likely to prompt more people to start growing their own food.
He was also hopeful that the food sector would become less wasteful.
"We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food.
"In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.
"At least the amendment to European rules means that we can now have some odd-shaped carrots on our shelves. This is fantastic news, but why was it not done before?"
He suggested that the problem was down to people choosing food based on sight alone, not smell and touch.
"The way that seeds are selected is about immunity to any known disease; they have also got to grow big and fast, and have a fantastic shelf life.
"Never mind taste, texture or nutrition, it is all about how it looks.
"The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let's say an apple - either Chinese, French or English one - they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.
"They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting."
Growing appetite
The latest estimates from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger in 2008 as a result of higher food prices.
This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.
The FAO warned that the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.
"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO assistant director-general Hafez Ghanem at the launch of the agency's State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 report.
"The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he added.
Professor Lang outlined the challenges facing the global food supply system: "The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land."
Jennifer Berry, livescience.com Yahoo News 26 Dec 08;
As the year wraps up on a gloomy economic forecast, people are wondering what will become of the green initiatives set forth by hundreds of organizations and governments as cash becomes harder to come by.
Despite the negative outlook on the market, many expect green initiatives (and the funding for them) to continue to grow, according to a survey released by SunTrust Bank Private Wealth Management. The study surveyed more than 200 business owners, with at least $10 million in annual revenue, about their outlook on "green" giving and investing.
Of those surveyed:
"The survey shows that business owners recognize that environmental stewardship can have genuine bottom-line results," says Dave Johnston, senior vice president, SunTrust Private Wealth Management.
Environmentalism+Economics
Green investing has a number of components beyond just the bottom line:
"In the surveys we have conducted over the past year, we have found business owners give altruistically and abundantly," added Johnston. "This survey indicates that business owners consider it a priority to take action based on their personal concerns about changes in the world around them."
Other concerns motivating executives to invest in the earth included pollution and energy policy, a personal desire to make positive changes in the world and past performance of a particular investment fund.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07