Techno-fixes, magic wands and catastrophes: can we have an adult discussion?

Mario Laguë, Head IUCN Global Communications
IUCN 27 Feb 09;

“Now is not the time to burden our faltering economy with additional environmental requirements.” “Combined with carbon capture and storage, clean coal will provide a long-term environmentally benign energy supply.” “You can help the environment by doing nothing more than screw in a few fluorescent light bulbs.”

One can read this type of comment in any daily newspaper. And while everybody agrees that the level of awareness about environmental issues is higher now that it ever was before, the facts – stubborn things, facts – show that besides a few exceptions, things are getting worse.

As just one example, Dr. Chris Field, of Stanford University, said: “We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected…The consequence of that is we are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously.”

So we have undisputable facts regarding the catastrophic consequences of our ways – with increasingly clear deadlines before we reach a point of no return – but the sense of urgency simply isn’t there. Perhaps events that end up being considered of historical importance are rarely perceived as such by those living them – especially if through speeches, meetings and negotiations, the “crisis” is perceived as being “managed”. It may also be that we are collectively trying to put reality aside because we don’t want to look at how far-reaching and deep the changes that need to happen really are. Or perhaps everyone is waiting for someone else to take the lead, with the result that not all that much is happening.

Besides, someone will come up with a solution if it is as serious as “they” say, right? And here lies one of the great dangers of all the techno-fixes we are starting to hear about. It is not in their potentially disastrous unintended consequences, as real as these may be (let’s change the chemistry of the oceans, it might work!), but in the false sense that we can go on producing and consuming things the way we in the West have been doing and that technology will save us. After all, it has worked so far.

Without becoming Luddites, is putting all our eggs in the technology basket a smart thing to do? And now things like carbon sequestration are increasingly presented not as a “possibility”, but as a “solution”, like it has already been successfully tested, tried and is economically and environmentally viable. It might end up being an important tool and we should invest in it. But at times it feels like saying that smoking is OK because, with stem cell research, one will soon be able to grow some new lungs.

The other trend in environmental communications is to provide the public with tips on how to be “green”. Not that this is bad. On the contrary: better to drive a hybrid than a Hummer. Turning off your fluorescent light bulbs is better than leaving the incandescent ones on. But eating 31 kilograms of beef, like an average American citizen does every year, is not eco-friendly even if one drives a hybrid to go to the supermarket. That kilo of beef needed 16,000 litres of water before getting to your plate.

So while all the new products and lifestyle tips are great and necessary, they also comfort us in thinking that we can make a few painless changes and that everything will be fine. Meanwhile, new coal-fired power plants keep opening up; more fertilizers and pesticides are used to grow corn which will end up in gas tanks; tropical forests are chopped down to grow palm for oil. But then again, if it is to fuel Bentley’s new 600 horsepower turbocharged W12, it can’t be all that bad, because it runs on ethanol!

In both the techno-fix and the “small gestures” trends, there is this search for a magic wand, the thing that will make this nightmare go away painlessly. But the reality is now harder to ignore since it is not only the realm of the Birkenstock-wearing crowd anymore: scientists, businessmen, Nobel Prize winners and some politicians are now on one side; flat-earthers on the other. The reality is probably that we will need to do a lot of everything if we want to turn things around: small and big changes, painful and painless ones, the way we produce and consume things, the way we share the wealth and the technologies, the way we control our numbers and our appetites, and the way we change our relationship with nature.

The big problem is that we don’t have much time to do all of this. Tipping points are not science-fiction and they’re coming soon.

What can be done? Let’s dream for a moment. As the US election demonstrated, it is possible to raise serious issues without sugar-coating them. It is possible to have rational public discussions on highly controversial and emotional issues. Is it realistic to think that the same could happen on an even wider scale regarding environmental issues?

Can we look at the pros and cons of a carbon tax? Can we consider, in this time of massive public spending, investing in natural infrastructure? Can we look at ways to control population growth? At ways to curb our collective addiction to oil? Can we match lofty long-term goals on CO² emissions with short-term measurable and enforceable ones? Can we invest in protecting biodiversity, that web of life formed over millions of years that can do for our planet what a healthy immune system can do for an individual? Can we act to protect existing carbon sinks like tropical forests and peat lands without further delays?

We probably can. But to get there, perhaps we need to start treating our fellow citizens like intelligent beings, able to grasp the facts and act upon them. Not to become doomsayers, but to be able to rise to the challenge.


Read more!

Rethinking the value of planted forests

Demand from industry and climate change mitigation increase planted forest potential
FAO 27 Feb 09;

27 February 2009, Rome – With two-thirds of potential industrial wood production available from planted rather than naturally occuring forests, the contribution of planted forests has become increasingly critical to future wood supplies, notes a new FAO study.

“Planted forests also help counter the negative affects of global warming by absorbing up to 1.5 Gigatonnes of carbon every year, which is in parity with current emissions from deforestation,” says FAO’s Jim Carle, Chief of the Forest Resources Development Service and co-author of the study.

In 2005, planted forests represented not more than 7 percent of the global forest area – or 270 million hectares - compared to a total 4 billion hectares of forest covering 30 percent of the world’s land area. However, in the coming decades, the importance of planted forests is expected to increase steadily with wood becoming an increasingly vital feedstock for industry, an increasingly competitive source of bioenergy and due to the role of forests in mitigating the negative effects of climate change.

Planted forests may also indirectly help to reduce losses of natural forests, notes the FAO study published in the December 2008 issue of Forest Products Journal.

The FAO study surveyed 61 countries representing 95% of all planted forests. It found that potential industrial wood production from planted forests in 2005 was 1.2 billion cubic metres (m3) or two-thirds of global wood production. An outlook for the year 2030 indicates that the area of planted forests may increase by 30% and wood production by 50%, taking expected higher productivity into account.

Environmental role

Planted forests play an increasingly important social and environmental role in the areas of conservation, protection of soil and water, in rehabilitating degraded lands, in combating desertification and in urban and rural landscapes.

With deforestation continuing at an alarming rate of 13 million hectares per year, forest planting has significantly reduced the net loss of forest area, according to FAO’s State of the World’s Forests 2007.

Given the diverse social, economic and environmental benefits of planted forests, appropriate management is essential, helping to reduce pressure on native forests while enhancing the livelihoods of local communities that are frequently dependent on forested lands. FAO leads the development and implementation of voluntary guidelines for responsible management of planted forests.

Modern forest industries

Wood-based industries are increasingly encouraged to adapt to “new wood” from planted forests. Industrial products range from timber, plywood and veneer, reconstituted panels such as chipboard, pulp and paper and increasingly bioenergy.

Wood from planted forests is renewable, energy efficient and environmentally friendly as a raw material for construction compared to alternatives such as steel, aluminium, concrete and plastic. The development of forest industries technology has increased the end-use options for raw materials from planted forests, together with improved productivities and reduced wood industry costs.

Forests in a changing world will be the theme of World Forest Week taking place within the framework of FAO’s Committee on Forestry, that will be held in Rome from 16 to 20 March 2009. On 16 March FAO will also launch its report State of the World’s Forests 2009.


Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 27 Feb 09


Job Vacancy for Director, NUS Office of Environmental Sustainability
on the Midnight Monkey Monitor blog

Eggscuse me!
on the annotated budak blog

Raffles Marina: the pontoons are alive!
on the wild shores of singapore blog

Chestnut-headed Bee-eater: Prelude to breeding
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Zeehan Jaafar on Gobies of Singapore
Fri 27 Feb 2009: 10am, NUS SR1 on the ecotax mailing list and on the Raffles Museum News blog

Blessing after the showers - Fort Canning Park
on the Garden Voices blog

Campsite set up & Campfire at Pulau Ubin
on the Pulau Ubin Tour with Justin blog

Eating live grouper devastates reefs and lives
on the wild shores of singapore blog

Nature, Man Included
on the spotlight's on nature blog

Amazing fishes!
on the Psychedelic Nature blog

Clean Coal Ads
on AsiaIsGreen


Read more!

Dynamite fishing destroys marine life and coastal livelihoods in Tanzania

Lucas Liganga This Day 27 Feb 09;

A STUDY on the impact of dynamite fishing in the Kinondoni Integrated Coastal Area Management Project (KICAMP) localities reveals that the damage caused to reefs by dynamite goes beyond the shattering impact of the explosion itself.

The study jointly done by Chikambi Rumisha, a marine scientist with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism and Dr Christopher Muhando, a marine ecologist and lecturer with the Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) of the University of Dar es Salaam in Zanzibar, says after a blast, algal growth quickly smothers the coral because the shoals of grazing fish that would normally keep it under control have been decimated.

The study focused on the localities of Mbweni, Ununio and Kunduchi as well as the offshore islands of Mbudya, Fungu Yasin, Bongoyo, Pangavini Marine Reserves and fishing grounds in the vicinity. Specific interest was also given to fringing reefs along Ras Kiromoni at Ununio and Malindi coast, Fungu Mkadya, Mbudya patches, Mwenvua, Dute, Dambwe. Mwamba Mrefu, Taa kubwa and Taa ndogo, and Kitapumbe reefs.

Coral reefs are natural barriers that restrain beach erosion by holding back cruising oceanic waves, but dynamite fishing has negated that function in the area under study, say the two scientists.

The study reveals that the destruction of the coral reef, besides exposing the sea flanks, rising sea levels, it also poses a threat to life and property on the mainland and surrounding islands.

The rising beach erosion processes in the KICAMP area are associated with dynamite fishing. Dynamited reefs can no longer act as water barriers, exemplified in the submerging of Bahari Beach Hotel and the nearby fishing village of Kunduchi Pwani, says the study, adding that beach erosion has also impacted the beautiful pristine beach off Jangwani, White Sands and Kunduchi, which were once the hallmark of Dar es Salaam north tourist resorts.

Dynamite fishing also disturbs the breeding, nursery and feeding grounds of many marine organisms. These become degraded and rendered unsuitable.

"In the changed environment this will usually lead to the abundance of trash, low economic value species and explosion of predators and competing organisms," says the study.

THISDAY has learned that coastal zone managers, scientists, and most people in Tanzania are unhappy that dynamite fishing is still practised.

"The issue of dynamite fishing has been discussed in many platforms and many resolutions have been proposed. Enforcement is the main problem," says a marine scientist who prefers to remain anonymous for security reasons.

He says the most recent national fisheries meeting was on December 7, 2007 in Bagamoyo, Coast Region and was attended by representatives of fishers, fisheries officers, police, judiciary, navy and coastal district administrative officers.

The meeting passed a resolution to adopt a zero tolerance policy against dynamite fishing and the formation of a Dynamite Fishing Task Force was proposed.

Understandably, a fisheries officer who also prefers to hide his identity, says the Fisheries Division has already nominated the task force members; however, up to now, the task force is not functional because of lack of funds.

Or if funding is available in abundance, as was the case when the Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation and Development Program was still active, this is apparently diverted to other uses, says the officer.

Industry sources say there are several concepts or explanations leading to failures in enforcing some of the fisheries regulations, including dynamite fishing.

The sources say education and awareness on the impact of dynamite fishing was assumed to be sufficient to change behaviour but this has not happened.

There is also lack of demonstrated intrinsic value of coral reefs � the police, prosecutors and judges, and many politicians are not convinced that dynamite fishing is a big issue, according to the sources.

"The real value of coral reefs is very much underestimated or not considered by many players (especially lawyers). Fear or reluctance to report dynamiters to the responsible authorities has been enhanced by the fact that people don’t know how much loss is actually caused," say the industry sources.

The sources suggest that another effective demonstrative approach to education and awareness is needed, adding : "Where corals are regarded as mere rocks and stones and where killing fish by illegal means is not seen as an offence, law enforcement can be a headache."

They say poverty and ignorance play a role as an excuse to destructive fishing when some local communities, police, prosecutors and judges usually show sympathy to poor and ignorant fishers, or pretend doing so, because they are bribed by the powerful ’godfathers’ organizing the dynamiting .

Finally, the trade, movements, storage and accessibility of dynamite need to be much more monitored and controlled at the sources. For example, companies, building contractors and the defence forces should be made accountable with strict stock control and harsh penalties for any ’lost’ dynamite.

The sources say the national solution to the problem has already been decided---to adopt a zero tolerance policy against dynamite fishing. But the big question, is will this actually happen?

The sources say it will be wise to request for detailed study on factors that will influence or prevent enforcement of zero tolerance to dynamite fishing in Tanzania.

Another measure is to continue, assist and encourage education and awareness programmes that will lead to change in behaviour of fishers, local communities and law enforcement officers (the police and judiciary).

In addition, there is a need to encourage and facilitate scientists to contribute more environmental and resource information that will have direct impact on policy and management of illegal and destructive fishing activities.

Dr Matt Richmond, a marine scientist working for Samaki Consultants Limited, observes that there are few coral reefs globally and the effects of dynamite fishing will further reduce the number of healthy reefs.

"There are not very many coral reefs in the world," warns the marine scientist who has co-authored a book titled: A Field Guide to the Seashores of Eastern Africa and the Western Indian Ocean Islands.

Jerker Tamelander, coordinator for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Marine Programme in the Indian Ocean, says IUCN involvement in addressing dynamite fishing is done in partnership with various institutions and stakeholders, including Sea Sense, the Fisheries Division, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the British High Commission and the Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP).

"There is need to generate knowledge about dynamite fishing beyond reporting incidents of blasting," says Tamelander, a marine biologist.

"For example, we need to understand the bottlenecks to successful prosecution of cases involving dynamite fishing, including any capacity/awareness gaps e.g. in the judiciary and how these can be addressed," he says.

Tamelander says the legislation penal codes also need to be revised, for example, by making sure that the new fisheries Act should leave room for fining perpetrators rather than imprisoning them for a minimum of five years.

However, at the same time the fines need to be high enough to act as deterrents, and provisions for charging for restoration of damage caused could be included.

He says enforcement should also be reviewed. �What makes for effective enforcement? Is there sufficient capacity in terms of money, people and tools’ Is it simply a matter of designing better enforcement campaigns?" he queries, adding that enforcement campaigns without addressing other issues will have only limited impact.

He says dynamite fishing should be recognized as a security issue, something that has been talked about for a long time but seems elusive. On a related note, Tamelander says he senses that there is a broad lack of knowledge about what various acts and laws say about dynamite fishing or explosives in general, their possession, use etc.

"Raising awareness on this would be useful, including among civil society as well as central and district government," says Tamelander.

He says vigilance is also important, and involving stakeholders and the general public meaningfully for monitoring, reporting and supporting enforcement and public awareness campaigns is still needed, and will indeed be essential to support efforts to curb and eventually eliminate dynamite fishing from Tanzania.

Jason Rubens, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Tanzania Programme Office) Marine Programmes Coordinator, says the WWF Tanzania Programme Office has also been active in supporting the Government of Tanzania in addressing dynamite fishing, providing co-funding for government enforcement operations in 2006 and 2008 and assisting preparations for the national meeting on fisheries in December 2007.

"However, the lasting impact of these interventions has been disappointing," says Rubens, a marine scientist.

He adds: "What we have learned is that dynamite fishing may only be stopped through a joint effort by several branches of Government, including fisheries, the police, the judiciary and others all working together. It is not the work of a single ministry or institution."

The marine scientist says it is a waste of time putting a lot of resources into enforcement if the apprehended culprits are not properly sentenced in court, adding that weak sentencing over the past five years has demoralized both enforcement agencies and communities, many of whom have worked hard to try to combat the problem on the ground.

"But when a month later the same people are back dynamiting again they may think ’what is the point?’. A major collaborative effort is therefore needed nationally, co-ordinated by the highest level of Government," says the marine scientist.

Rubens says dynamite fishing has been undermining the livelihoods and security of coastal communities in Tanzania for over 30 years, adding: "Dynamite seems to be freely available along the coast."

"How long will it be before it (dynamite/explosives) is used for a more evil purpose such as terrorism? I am sure this is a cause for concern amongst the national security agencies," queries the WWF marine programmes coordinator.

He says there is no other country in Eastern Africa or the western Indian Ocean that allows this practice to go uncontrolled. "This should give us confidence that we too can put an end to it once and for all," he adds.

Efforts and commitment are needed on a national scale to eliminate dynamite fishing from Tanzania, an illegal activity that is not practised in neighbouring Kenya or Mozambique, together with action from the Government to enforce fisheries laws and deal with corrupt officials.

Tanzania is facing significant loss of marine biodiversity and the livelihoods of coastal communities are being severely affected.


Read more!

Leave my green spot alone

Koh Wen Hui Melissa Lois, Today Online 27 Feb 09;

We should make it a point to preserve green spots which are still in their natural state, without having to give them nature reserve status.

OVER the years, I have seen many green swathes of the forest which had once covered Singapore being replaced by new buildings, shopping centres and so on. The area where Nan Hua High School now stands used to be covered with tall, old trees, now an increasingly rare sight here. The green hill opposite Wheelock Place where many enjoyed having picnics has now made way for the new ION Orchard. One of the many green spots in my neighbourhood has made way for office buildings and factories.

It saddens me to see what remains of our natural environment gradually being replaced by all these buildings.

I count myself lucky to be living in one of the houses at the edge of a small area of jungle opposite Burgundy Park at Bukit Batok which has for now been left untouched. However, I was greatly saddened to see construction workers clearing the area a few days ago, hacking down the tall trees there.

I’m not sure why they’re clearing the trees, but it seems to me that the jungle I have grown fond of will soon bereplaced by more buildings.

What is even more heart-wrenching is that this patch of forest is home to a community of monkeys which I have often seen perched on the treetops. I have also caught glimpses of a giant monitor lizard wriggling its way back into one of the thick bushes on the jungle floor.I am greatly saddened that such wildlife will have their homes destroyed as the vegetation is cleared to make way for new developments.

Could the respective ministry or company overseeing that development refrain from destroying what remains of that forest patch? We are always talking about having to protect the environment, but how many of us, and how many companies and ministries here, really practise what we preach?

Although I agree that the construction of new office buildings and shopping centres to keep Singapore competitive is necessary, I do not think this should come at the expense of our natural environment. We should make it a point to preserve such green spots which are still in their natural state, without having to give them nature reserve status.

We’re not just a concrete jungle
Letter from Darren Lum, Today Online 3 Mar 09;

I REFER to Melissa Koh’s I Say comment, “Leave my green spot alone” (Feb 27).

If you use Google Earth to look at Singapore from far, you will see that while there’s concrete almost everywhere, at the same time, it is heavily covered with trees and greenery, on every possible inch of earth.

In some areas you can’t make out that there is actually a main road there, so thick is the canopy of trees.

Now, look at Hong Kong’s metropolitan area using Google Earth. Do you see anobvious difference in terms of greenery?

I would like to commend NParks for the fantastic job they have done covering all that concrete with a green “jungle” — decades worth of relentless efforts.

While there’s a lot more we can do to improve our living environment here in Singapore, we cannot compromise on the need to sustain the country’s economy. We have to strike a balance between moving our society forward and, along the way, beautifying our living environment.


Read more!

Gharials get back into the Ganges

WWF 26 Feb 09;

Lucknow, India - No fewer than 131 gharials, the critically endangered long-snouted crocodile native to the Northern Indian sub-continent, were recently re-introduced to the river Ganges at the Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary in Uttar Pradesh by WWF-India officials.

Assisted by the Uttar Pradesh State Forest Department, the operation was carried out in two phases, on 29 January and 12 February. Since then the gharials have been monitored by the WWF team and are responding well.

“An estimate indicates that barely 1,400 individuals survive in the wild [in India],” said Dr Parikshit Gautam, Director, Freshwater & Wetlands Conservation Programme, WWF-India. “For its conservation it is essential to locate viable alternative habitats for this species in crisis.”

The target reintroduction area was carefully selected. A female gharial (3.63m) inhabited the area as recently as 1994 while another was rescued there in 2006-07 and released into the Ganges at a spot further up-stream. Furthermore, easily recognizable features of gharial habitat occur in this stretch of the river.

An awareness drive among the local communities was also conducted to ensure community participation in the operation and to reassure people that gharials have never been known to attack humans and feed only on fish.

The presence of the gharials will help maintain the biodiversity of the river and the objectives of the reintroduction will be achieved through people participation and regular monitoring of sections of the river and studying the response of the released gharials in terms of ability to permanently adapt to the environment. Rescue operations will also be carried out if the gharials drift downstream of protected areas.

Immediately below the Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary the Ganges River and its environs have been declared as a Ramsar Site and the area is currently the focus of a WWF-India dolphin conservation programme which will also benefit gharial conservation, monitoring and protection.


Read more!

WWF: Philippines dealers to cut reef fish exports

Yahoo News 26 Feb 09;

MANILA (AFP) – Live fish traders in the Philippines have accepted a quota plan designed to cut the coral trout catch and prevent a collapse of the reef fish industry, the World Wildlife Fund said Thursday.

The agreement, signed on the western island of Palawan last week, would cut the live reef fish catch by 27 per cent, or around 200 tonnes a year.

It aims to arrest the serious decline in the resource, which the international conservation group estimates could disappear by 2020 if current fishing practices and international demand continue.

The Philippines is the biggest supplier of coral trout, the most highly valued live reef fish, to seafood hubs such as Hong Kong and China.

Palawan supplies around 60 per cent of all Philippines fish, it added.

"The trade in live reef fish in Palawan supports entire communities, many of which have few alternatives for livelihoods," said Geoffrey Muldoon of the fund's Coral Triangle Programme.

"Under a business-as-usual scenario, Palawan's live reef fish trade would become economically unviable in about a decade," he said.

"We hope that we can build on the new quota system and establish a comprehensive management plan that will protect communities from this significant food security threat."

The Palawan live reef fish trade has supplied business lunches and expensive banquets in Asia since the 1980s, bringing more than 100 million dollars a year to fishermen who often use cyanide or explosives to stun the fish.

The WWF said a survey last year found that 20 of 161 species of grouper, a reef fish that makes up a large part of the Coral Triangle's live fish trade, were threatened with extinction.

The 20 include the squaretail coral grouper and humpback grouper, which are a popular luxury live food in Asian seafood restaurants.

The Philippines is considered to be the centre of the Coral Triangle, a region between the Pacific and Indian Oceans that harbours 75 percent of all known species of plants and animals that thrive among coral reefs.

Lapu-Lapu supply fast running out
By Katherine G. Adraneda, philstar.com 1 Mar 09;

MANILA, Philippines - The succulent Lapu-Lapu has always been part of the menu. So, what will a Chinese restaurant be without it?

Global conservation group World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, and the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) held a summit recently in Palawan to seek measures that will avert an impending shortage in the supply of Lapu-Lapu.

WWF noted that 40 years of unregulated cyanide and dynamite fishing plus a rising trend to target vulnerable spawning areas of Lapu-Lapu, especially in Palawan, “is threatening wild stocks with total collapse.”

“Unless we preserve remaining wild stocks today, Palawan’s fisheries will not be able to replenish and will collapse by 2020,” said Dr. Geoffrey Muldoon, live reef fish strategy leader for WWF’s Coral Triangle Program.

Palawan and its territorial waters host some of the most productive yet exploited fisheries on earth, according to WWF.

The Lapu-Lapu (name of Cebu’s legendary chieftain) or grouper is Asia’s most marketable reef fish, fetching up to P6, 000 per piece in Hong Kong and Singapore, WWF said.

Since the 1970s, the group said live grouper, snapper and wrasse have been gracing the restaurants of many Asian nation especially inHong Kong, Singapore and mainland China, where it is believed that fish kept alive just moments before cooking is not only more savory but will lead to a longer life.

WWF noted that Palawan’s waters supply 50 to 55 percent of the country’s seafood requirement, generating an income of over P4 billion for the local economy each year.

“The annual grouper yield is immense. Last year, local fishermen reeled in over 700 metric tons to bring in P1.26 billion in revenues. Unfortunately, we’ve estimated the sustainable yield to be no more than 140 metric tons, meaning the yearly take is five times more than what can be harvested,” Muldoon explained.

During the one-day sustainable live reef summit the other day, WWF, BFAR and PCSD helped locals to develop solutions to forestall the looming crisis in Lapu-Lapu supply. These measures include practical accreditation processes, quotas, levies, surveillance and monitoring systems.

WWF said that, at present, there is no comprehensive scheme to regulate the live reef fish trade, which supports over a hundred thousand people in Palawan alone, with most having no alternative livelihood.

“Local communities are delivery systems for conservation. The stakeholders of Palawan have created a watershed moment. The agreements arrived at… have been based on a recognition of the realities of over fishing, human footprint and climate change. In a sense, this is true transformation,” said Lorenzo Tan, vice-chairman and CEO of WWF.

The live reef fish summit has brought together local government units, fishermen and traders to discuss sustainable management strategies for their fisheries, aiming to establish synergy between traders from other live reef fish hubs such as Malaysia and Indonesia, the WWF said.

Gregg Yan, media and communications officer of WWF-Philippines, said the most significant outcome of the summit was a pledge to reduce the annual grouper quota by 25 percent to 516 metric tons per annum, or roughly a million half-kilogram Lapu-Lapu.

Yan said a crucial stakeholder alliance was forged between fish traders and local governments to work as one in implementing this quota system and other sustainability initiatives.

“WWF believes in the synergy of environmentalism and economics. Our goal is to work with local communities to export the first batch of sustainably caught wild grouper by June of 2010. Once successful, we can replicate the process in other areas,” Muldoon pointed out.

Citing surveys, Muldoon said that 60 percent of all groupers taken from Palawan’s reefs are juveniles, an indication that adults have been heavily depleted and that as a whole, the ecosystem has been “badly over fished.”

WWF said less than five percent of Philippine-caught groupers are sold locally, as these were often rejected by foreign importers.

Groupers are mostly solitary–often lethargic looking–reef predators from the family Serranidae, according to the world conservation organization.

There are 161 species of groupers, with 20 recently classified by the IUCN as threatened with extinction.

WWF said all groupers are captured for either the aquarium or food trade.

WWF also said that majority of groupers sourced locally are taken from the wild, as current technology to breed and raise high-value marine fish such as Leopard Trout and the CITES-protected Humphead Wrasse is still several years off.

Endangered groupers to stay off dining plates under Philippines deal
WWF 6 Mar 09;

Filipino fishermen and fish traders have signed off on a plan to save grouper stocks in the Coral Triangle by keeping more than a million kilos of the endangered fish off restaurant dinner plates annually across Asia.

The grouper is Asia’s most in-demand reef fish and considered a delicacy with high-end diners in places such as Hong Kong and Singapore.

But decades of highly unregulated cyanide and dynamite fishing, and a rising trend of targeting vulnerable spawning areas to feed the live reef fish trade, are threatening wild grouper stocks in the Philippines province of Palawan with total collapse.

The IUCN recently assessed all 161 species of grouper and categorized twenty grouper species as threatened with extinction, including the squaretail coral grouper and humpback grouper, which are found throughout the Coral Triangle and are a popular luxury live food in Asian seafood restaurants.

To help avoid the total collapse of grouper stocks near the Philippines island of Palawan, the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development, the Palawan Provincial Government and WWF staged a sustainable live reef fish summit in Palawan last month to help locals develop their own solutions – including practical accreditation processes, quotas, levies, surveillance and monitoring systems.

Palawan and its territorial waters host some of the most productive yet exploited fishing grounds in the Coral Triangle – the world's centre for marine biodiversity. Groupers make up a large part of the Coral Triangle’s live fish trade.

At the summit held at Palawan’s State University, fishermen and traders pledged to reduce Palawan's annual grouper haul by more than 25 percent. They agreed to reduce the annual catch of 700 metric tons to 516 metric tons – keeping roughly 1.5 million kilograms of Coral Triangle grouper in the ocean every year.

Beginning in the 1970s, exports of live grouper, snapper and wrasse from the region have made their way to the kitchens and live fish tanks across Asia – particularly Hong Kong, Singapore and mainland China.

The Philippines is the biggest supplier of the most high value live reef fish, coral trout, to those Asian seafood hubs, and the province of Palawan supplies around 60 per cent of all Philippines fish. The highly unregulated live reef fish business is estimated to bring in more than $US100 million dollars annually to fishing communities on the island, making the recent agreement that much more of a watershed moment in conservation.

“The annual grouper yield is immense – last year local fishermen reeled in over 700 metric tones. Unfortunately we’ve estimated the sustainable yield to be no more than 140 metric tonnes – meaning the yearly take is five times more than what can be harvested,” said Dr. Geoffrey Muldoon, Live Reef Fish Strategy Leader for WWF’s Coral Triangle Program.

Fishermen and fish traders made the agreement during the Live Reef Fish Summit held at Palawan State University on 23 Feb. The summit was organized by the PCSD, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the Palawan Provincial Government and WWF to unify local government units, fishermen and traders in discussing sustainable management practices for their fishing trade.

“Local communities are delivery systems for conservation. The stakeholders of Palawan have created a watershed moment. The agreements arrived at today have been based on a recognition of the realities of overfishing, human footprint and climate change. In a sense, this is true transformation,” WWF Vice-Chairman and CEO Lory Tan said.

The decision comes as leaders of the six nations that make up the Coral Triangle – Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste – prepare to gather in Manado, Indonesia in May for the World Oceans Conference where they will announce a comprehensive set of actions to protect ecosystems and food security in the region.

Links to more
Is Singapore a part of this problem?
on the wild shores of singapore blog


Read more!

Indonesia seeks UN support for World Ocean Conference

Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 27 Feb 09;

Indonesia is suggesting the United Nations adopt the World Ocean Conference as its new international agenda for discussing ocean protection and climate change.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Minister Freddy Numberi is seeking support from Indonesian lawmakers to ‘lobby’ the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to become an ‘umbrella’ for future talks on marine conservation.

“We hope the WOC in Manado will be the first Conference of Parties (COP), a new agenda for regularly discussing ocean development that could be placed under the UNEP program,” Freddy told the House of Representatives’ Commission I for foreign affairs and security in Jakarta on Thursday.

Indonesia will host the first WOC in Manado, North Sulawesi, on May 11-15. Around 10,000 delegates from 121 countries and some UN bodies such as UNEP, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been invited.

The meeting, to be attended by ministers overseeing maritime and environmental affairs, will conclude with the signing of a non-binding Manado Ocean Declaration.

Senior officials from 43 countries began a two-day meeting in Jakarta on Thursday to drawn up a draft for the declaration.

Freddy said the declaration would detail the impacts of climate change on oceans, the role of oceans in regulating global climate change and opportunities for regional and international cooperation.

Maritime activities are currently regulated under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into effect in 1982.

Around 135 countries, including Indonesia, have ratified the UNCLOS, which outlines ground-rules on maritime activities.

The UNCLOS, however, does not address the method of managing maritime resources in circumstances of global climate change.

The oceans cover almost two thirds of the earth surface, with million of people living near and relying on the sea for food and income.

Experts predict the oceans are capable of storing about 50 times the carbon dioxide emissions currently released into the atmosphere.

Global warming could cause ocean acidification, temperature and sea level rise and flood entire small island states, such as the Maldives.

Indonesia has about 5.8 million hectares of ocean that could absorb up to 40 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

The maritime minister also unveiled an initiative for the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) to legislators, claiming it was the world’s first initiative to protect coral from the severe impact of climate change.

The heads of states of six countries – Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, the Solomon Islands and Timor Leste – will officially launch the CTI at the sidelines of the WOC. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has confirmed his intention to witness the launch, while United States Secretary Hillary Clinton is also scheduled to attend.

Minister Freddy said preparations for the WOC were about 90 percent complete, though some obervers, including lawmaker Joko Susilo, have warned the government about ignoring pressing issues that require quick organization.


Read more!

Indonesia still underestimates marine potential

The Jakarta Post 26 Feb 09;

Indonesia is still yet to capitalize on the economic potential of its marine environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Minister Freddy Numberi told a seminar in Jakarta on Wednesday.

“We are still restricted by a land-based approach which emphasizes the potential of utilizing land for profit,” the Minister said, adding that such an mindset did not suit Indonesia’s natural archipelagic nature.

Freddy said this path would have a negative impact on the country in the long term and could lead to budget imbalances.

“When the authorities distribute funding, they think in terms of demography and land size, thus small, sparsely populated islands get little out of the budget while development remains concentrated in Java.”

Indonesia is the largest archipelagic nation in the world, with oceans accounting for 70 percent of its territory.

The country has marine territory spanning 3.1 million square kilometers and a coastline of over 95,000 kilometers. Aside from its territorial borders, the country also has an exclusive economic zone extending 200 miles from its borders, which allows special access to marine resources in the zone.

Last year, the Maritime and Fisheries Ministry recorded over 8 million tons in fish production and reaped some US$2.8 billion from fishery exports. Apart from this, the country’s waters also hold immense potential in oil and thermal energy sources.

Freddy said originally Indonesians were seafaring but the colonial occupiers imposed agricultural structures on the land, deeming the sea to be dangerous and lacking potential.

“Sadly, we are still unable to undo this damage and to this day our development plans continue to marginalize the oceans,” he said.

Freddy said an urgent policy shift was necessary to revert the countries development back toward the oceans.

“An ocean policy, made with the cooperation of all stakeholders and representatives from all sectors, such as tourism, technology and mining, will set us on the right course to realize the full potential of our marine resources,” he said.

Freddy said Indonesia was behind in developing this policy compared to continental nations such as the United States and Australia.

“We have many maritime laws. However, they are disorganized and tend to overlap one another,” he said.

Navy Chief Admiral Tedjo Edhy Purdijatno, who also spoke at the seminar, said the nation’s marine environments were also occupied by various conflicting security forces, all dealing with their own separate issues.

Currently, the navy shares its duties with seagoing forces from the Police, the Ministry of Fisheries, a Sea Security Coordinating Agency (Bakorkamla) and several others.

According to Tedjo, a unified maritime security force, or a coast guard, is necessary to manage the country’s extensive coastline. (dis)


Read more!

Loving chimps to death: Jane Goodall

A tragedy in Connecticut is a reminder of the mistakes we make when we try to turn the wild animals into pets and entertainers.
Jane Goodall, The LA Times 25 Feb 09;

Last week in Stamford, Conn., a chimpanzee named Travis was shot and killed after he mauled a friend of his owner. The chimpanzee lived with a widow, eating lobster and ice cream at the table, wearing human clothes and entertaining himself with a computer and television.

But as the tragedy made clear, a chimpanzee can never be totally domesticated.

The human brain is more highly developed than that of any other living creature. So why can't we learn that wild animals simply do not make good "pets"?

I believe it has a great deal to do with the fact that chimpanzees are so frequently used in entertainment and advertising. Only a month ago, Americans watching the Super Bowl may have laughed at an ad in which chimpanzees dressed as mechanics worked on a car. They seemed cute, funny and even lovable. Is it any wonder viewers might think that chimpanzees would make great pets?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Only infant chimpanzees are used in entertainment and advertising, because as they approach maturity, at about 6 to 8 years of age, they become strong and unmanageable. Chimpanzees evolved in the tropical forests of Africa, and that's where they're suited to live, roaming in groups of their own kind. A house in Connecticut was a completely alien environment for a chimp.

Yet as a "domesticated" chimpanzee, Travis could never have returned to the wild. He had never learned the array of skills necessary to survive there. The entertainment industry and pet owners rarely, if ever, provide for the long-term care of chimpanzees. Zoos don't want them because they have not learned to interact with others of their kind. So most of these poor creatures spend the rest of their lives -- as much as 50 years or more -- in small cages in circuses, roadside attractions and, yes, even in the homes of individuals who lack the means to provide for them.

Meanwhile, more infant chimpanzees are bred to maintain the supply for the entertainment industry.

The use of chimpanzees in entertainment and advertising not only condemns chimpanzees to lives they were not meant to live, it makes it hard for people to believe that these apes are actually endangered in the wild. But they are.

Chimpanzees are losing habitat, in part because of commercial logging and in part because of encroachment by ever-growing human populations who live in poverty and cut down the forest to grow crops and graze cattle. This deforestation also contributes significantly to climate change. And sometimes chimpanzees are caught up in ethnic conflicts or killed for their meat, a practice that is believed to have led to the human strains of HIV.

The Connecticut tragedy should remind us not just that chimpanzees do not make good pets but that their fate is intimately tied to ours.

Jane Goodall is founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and a U.N. Messenger of Peace. Information about her work can be found at www.janegoodall.org.


Read more!

Threat of oil spill menaces Russian Pacific island

Alexander Osipovich Yahoo News 25 Feb 09;

KORSAKOV, Russia (AFP) – Standing on the icy shoreline, Dmitry Lisitsyn recalled the day when over 100 dying birds washed up on this beach, coated in a thick layer of oil and helplessly flapping their wings.

"We believe there were several thousand birds killed in all," said Lisitsyn, an environmental activist on Russia's Sakhalin Island, located in the Pacific Ocean just a few dozen kilometres (miles) north of Japan.

"In such weather few birds can make it all the way to shore covered in oil without drowning. Most drown out there in the sea," Lisitsyn added, waving his hand at the frigid waters of Aniva Bay near the island's southern tip.

Activists fear that the incident late last month could be a sign of things to come on Sakhalin, whose rich oil and gas fields have drawn billions of dollars' worth of investment in recent years.

The development of Sakhalin's energy industry has brought jobs and gleaming new business centres to this impoverished piece of Russia that used to be a prison colony in the 19th century.

It also promises to serve energy-hungry Asian economies, as underlined by the new liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant expected to send its first cargo to Japan next month.

But locals worry about the ecological impact on Sakhalin, a long and narrow island whose 800-kilometre (500-mile) length includes forests, taiga and rivers rich in salmon.

Kim Limanzo, a fisherman from the town of Nogliki in northern Sakhalin, complains that fish populations have suffered since drilling began at offshore oil and gas fields nearby.

"Sometimes the fish tastes like oil," he said.

Activists have called for stronger safeguards to prevent a major spill, noting that tankers visiting Sakhalin must navigate harsh and icy waters and cross narrow straits spiked with dangerous rocks.

"It is a question of when, not if, an oil spill will happen on Sakhalin," said Leah Zimmerman, head of Russia programmes at Pacific Environment, a US-based group that monitors ecological threats in the Pacific region.

"Spills can come from extraction wells, subsea pipelines, or a major tanker accident like the Exxon Valdez spill," she said by e-mail, referring to the notorious 1989 spill in Alaska.

Others fear that the Trans-Sakhalin pipeline, which runs underground from northern Sakhalin to Aniva Bay in the south, could leak and spill tonnes of crude oil into rivers where salmon come to spawn.

In 2006 the Russian government accused Sakhalin Energy, the consortium that built the pipeline, of environmental abuses including the endangerment of salmon spawning areas.

The legal dispute was settled after Russian state-run energy giant Gazprom bought a majority stake in the consortium, which had previously been led by British-Dutch oil major Shell.

"There were some things that we did not get right the first time, but I think we learned and adapted what we were doing," Sakhalin Energy chief executive Ian Craig told AFP last week.

Craig stressed that the worst was over: "All of these impacts were limited to the construction phase. In two or three years' time people will largely not know where the pipeline is," he said.

But activists note that Sakhalin is seismically active and worry that the pipeline could be ruptured by an earthquake or a landslide, potentially devastating salmon runs.

January's incident in which dying, oily birds washed up in Aniva Bay has also raised fears of a major spill along Sakhalin's coast.

The cause of the incident has yet to be established, but it took place near the terminal operated by Sakhalin Energy where tankers load up on crude.

Lisitsyn does believe it was necessarily caused by a spill from a tanker, however, saying it could have been caused by an accidental discharge of oil from a cargo vessel.

Still, he fears it could presage a big spill like the Exxon Valdez disaster of March 1989, when the Exxon-operated tanker hit a reef and released over a quarter of a million barrels of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound.

"Exactly 20 years ago the Exxon Valdez oil spill took place in Alaska," Lisitsyn said. "We are very afraid that something similar could happen here."

Natives in Russia's far east worry about vanishing fish
Alexander Osipovich Yahoo News 25 Feb 09;

VENI, Russia (AFP) – There is only one family left in this once-thriving fishing village on the northeastern shores of Sakhalin Island, where the Nivkhs, a small indigenous ethnic group, have lived for centuries.

But on a recent winter day, Pyotr Popka was not lamenting the fact that there are only 2,500 of his fellow Nivkhs on Sakhalin or that only several dozen of them can still converse in the Nivkh language.

The 27-year-old fisherman was instead concerned about the lack of fish.

"Every year there are fewer and fewer," Popka complained after returning by snowmobile from a disappointing trip to haul up his family's fish traps from beneath the ice of Nyisky Bay, a small inlet of the Sea of Okhotsk.

The Nivkhs have long grown accustomed to the harsh climate of Sakhalin, a large island in Russia's far east located much closer to Japan and China than Moscow, seven time zones away.

They survived the Soviet era when they were forced onto collective farms and their children were made to study Russian in a bid to modernise their ancient culture of fishing, hunting and gathering.

But now it is capitalism which is changing their lives, in the form of huge offshore oil and gas projects that have brought Sakhalin billions of dollars' worth of investment but also, the Nivkhs say, deeply eroded fish stocks.

"When the drilling began, the problems started," Popka said as he stood outside his family's wooden house. "Before that there were fish."

At an oil field just a few kilometres (miles) away, pumpjacks rock back and forth and pipes belch fire over a patch of blackened soil, burning off unneeded gas, a legacy of the Soviet oil industry that began on Sakhalin in the 1920s.

However the offshore projects launched in the 1990s, led by foreign oil majors Shell and Exxon, pose an even greater danger to indigenous groups and their way of life, said Nivkh activist Alexei Limanzo.

Fish stocks crucial to the Nivkhs have been in a "depressed state" since offshore development started, said Limanzo, head of the Union of Indigenous Peoples of Sakhalin, a local group which lobbies for the rights of natives.

"Today's projects are much bigger and more aggressive in relation to the environment and bioresources, despite what they tell us about the use of up-to-date technologies," Limanzo said.

Nivkhs say that the dwindling opportunities to fish, hunt and gather mean that they can rarely prepare traditional foods such as "mos", made of fish skin, berries and seal liver.

"Our national foods are now delicacies that we eat only two or three times a year," said Lyubov Sadgun, a Nivkh who works as an English teacher in the north Sakhalin town of Nogliki.

In 2006 Sakhalin Energy, a consortium developing a massive offshore project near the Nivkh lands, pledged to spend 1.5 million dollars (1.17 million euros) over five years to assist indigenous peoples.

The consortium -- which was then led by Shell but is now majority-owned by Russian energy giant Gazprom -- agreed to the programme after Nivkhs carried after a series of protests in 2005.

Limanzo, whose union spearheaded the protests, praised the programme and said the Nivkhs were fortunate to deal with a Western oil major.

"We are lucky here on Sakhalin that we had dealings with multinational companies, because they have to deal with Western public opinion and it hurts their image if they are seen as being against native peoples," Limanzo said.

In the village of Veni, Pyotr Popka's family has a new Buran snowmobile courtesy of Sakhalin Energy's assistance programme.

But the snowmobile will be of little use if there are no fish and the family is forced to move to the city, away from the coast where Nivkhs caught fish and hunted seals long before the oil companies arrived.

That prospect terrifies Lidia Muvchik, the 68-year-old matriarch of the family and one of the last speakers of the Nivkh language.

"We are accustomed to living in the taiga, on the periphery, with forests, rivers, the sea, with berries," she said, seated inside near the stove. "That's all we want. In the city we would just die, because there are no fish!"


Read more!

Britain will become one big city in order to cope with climate change refugees

Britain could be one high rise city by the end of the century due to the number of migrants who will move here because their own countries have become too hot, scientists have predicted.
Louise Gray, The Telegraph 26 Feb 09;

If the world warms by an average of 4 degrees Celsius in the next 100 years, the worse case scenario suggested in certain climate change models, it is expected many areas in the south of the world will become too dry to support human life.

James Lovelock, who developed the "Gaia" theory which sees the Earth as a self-regulating "superorganism", said people from these countries will come to countries like Britain as "climate change refugees". He said infrastructure will have to be built to support the increase in population including more housing, hospitals and schools.

"Because we will be one of the life boat nations we should be preparing for a flood of people who will be refugees from climate change even from Europe," he said.

"The nation is already a large city and it will become even larger, with that will come the need to support people. We do not want starving refugees - that will be worse - so we have to spend a lot of money on infrastructure."

His comments were supported by a number of scientists writing in the New Scientist, some of whom said the human race may not even survive the increase in temperatures.

Perhaps as early as 2050 human habitation will be becoming difficult across central America, southern Europe, north Africa, southern Asia and Japan as well as southern Africa, the Pacific islands, and most of Australia and Chile. Only the far north and south of the planet will remain wet enough to allow large scale human settlement and agriculture.

"These precious lands with access to water would be valuable food-growing areas, as well as the last oases for many species, so people would need to be housed in compact, high-rise cities," said the article.

The scientists agreed that curbing the flow of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is essential to avoid further damage to the world that could threaten human survival.

However the latest reports from the U S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found the amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere accelerated last year with the growth of developing countries like China.

The new data will dampen hopes that a slowdown in industrial output and carbon emissions caused by the recession would deflect climate change.


Read more!

Droughts 'may lay waste' to parts of US

Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian 26 Feb 09;

The world's pre-eminent climate scientists produced a blunt assessment of the impact of global warming on the US yesterday, warning of droughts that could reduce the American south-west to a wasteland and heatwaves that could make life impossible even in northern cities.

In an update on the latest science on climate change, the US Congress was told that melting snow pack could lead to severe drought from California to Oklahoma. In the midwest, diminishing rains and shrinking rivers were lowering water levels in the Great Lakes, even to the extent where it could affect shipping.

"With severe drought from California to Oklahoma, a broad swath of the south-west is basically robbed of having a sustainable lifestyle," said Christopher Field, of the Carnegie Institution for Science. He went on to warn of scorching temperatures in an array of cities. Sacramento in California, for example, could face heatwaves for up to 100 days a year.

"We are close to a threshold in a very large number of American cities where uncomfortable heatwaves make cities uninhabitable," Field told the Senate's environment and public works committee.

The warnings were the first time Congress had been directly confronted with the growing evidence that the impact of climate change will be far more severe than revealed even in the UN's most recent report, in 2007.

The hearing was also the first time senators had been permitted to hear testimony about the dangers to human health from climate change. In 2007, the Bush administration censored testimony from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the rise in asthma and other respiratory illnesses, as well as the increasing occurrence of "tropical" parasites.

"The CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern," said Howard Frumkin, the director of the centre for environmental health at the CDC.

Yesterday's gathering of climate scientists, led by the head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, RK Pachauri, was designed to give momentum to efforts by the Democratic leadership to press ahead on energy reform.

"If we don't do it people are going to die. They are going to get sick and they are going to die," said Barbara Boxer, who as chair of the Senate environment and public works committee is key to securing the passage of climate change legislation.

But even with the new administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress now united on the urgency of acting on climate change, there were still signs of battles ahead.

The hearing saw a steady stream of bickering between Boxer and her Republican counterpart, James Inhofe, renowned as a climate change sceptic.

Republicans argued that Barack Obama's proposed carbon cap legislation would be costly. "I will certainly oppose raising energy costs on suffering families and workers during an economic crisis when the science says our actions [to combat climate change] will be futile," said Kit Bond, a Republican senator from Missouri.

The Republican minority on the committee also invited testimony from Professor William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University, who is a well-known climate change sceptic. "It's still not as warm as it was when the Vikings settled England," said Happer.


Read more!

Water 'more important than oil' businesses told

Looming water crisis could unravel world economy without radical action, investors told
Juliette Jowit, guardian.co.uk 26 Feb 09;

Dwindling water supplies are a greater risk to businesses than oil running out, a report for investors has warned.

Among the industries most at risk are high-tech companies, especially those using huge quantities of water to manufacture silicon chips; electricity suppliers who use vast amounts of water for cooling; and agriculture, which uses 70% of global freshwater, says the study, commissioned by the powerful CERES group, whose members have $7tn under management. Other high-risk sectors are beverages, clothing, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, forest products, and metals and mining, it says.

"Water is one of our most critical resources – even more important than oil," says the report, published today . "The impact of water scarcity and declining water on businesses will be far-reaching. We've already seen decreases in companies' water allotments, more stringent regulations [and] higher costs for water."

Droughts "attributable in significant part to climate change" are already causing "acute water shortages" around the world, and pressure on supplies will increase with further global warming and a growing world population, says the report written by the US-based Pacific Institute.

"It is increasingly clear that the era of cheap and easy access to water is ending, posing a potentially greater threat to businesses than the loss of any other natural resource, including fossil fuel resources," it adds. "This is because there are various alternatives for oil, but for many industrial processes, and for human survival itself, there is no substitute for water."

In a joint statement, CERES' president Mindy Lubber and Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, urged more companies and investors to work out their dependence on water and future supplies, and make plans to cope with increased shortages and prices.

"Few companies and investors are thinking strategically about the profound business risks that will exist in a world where climate change is likely to exacerbate already diminishing water supplies," they say.

"Companies that treat pressing water risks as a strategic challenge will be far better positioned in future," they add.

The CERES report adds to growing concern about a looming water crisis. In the Economist's report, The World in 2009 , Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, chairman of food giant NestlĂ©, wrote: "under present conditions… we will run out of water long before we run out of fuel". And at its annual meeting this year the World Economic Forum issued what it itself called a "stark warning" that "the world simply cannot manage water in the future in the same way as in the past or the economic web will collapse".

CERES, which has members in the US and Europe, made recommendations, including that companies should measure their water footprints from suppliers through to product use, and integrate water into strategic planning, and that investors should independently assess companies' water risk and "demand" better disclosure from boards.


Read more!

"Eco Hubble" to Bring Nature Data to the Public

Ker Than, National Geographic News 26 Feb 09;

A network of ecological "satellites" set to monitor environmental change could do for ecology what the Hubble Space Telescope has done for astronomy, researchers say.

Since 1991 raw data from Hubble have been made publicly available for use by professional researchers, educators, and citizen scientists via an online catalog."The public can access [the data] and do their own research," said Hubble spokesperson Ray Villard. "They paid for it. They deserve it."

A similar open-access model is key to the National Ecological Network Observatory, or NEON, a new program set to be up and running by 2016.

NEON will link together already existing field stations across the U.S. that are using planes and orbiters, ground-level sensors, and human-run labs to monitor activity in the wild.

The project will look for changes related to climate, biodiversity, invasive species, and other environmental issues.

National Resource

Each of the project's 20 candidate sites represents a different habitat in the United States, from the neotropical zones of Puerto Rico to the cold, dry mountains of the Northern Rockies.

With funding from the National Science Foundation, NEON program managers plan to collect and archive data online for at least 30 years.

NEON will cost an estimated 300 million U.S. dollars to set up and about 60 million U.S. dollars a year to maintain, once operational.

The information can be used by scientists to conduct studies, by policymakers to make science-related decisions, and by educators to teach students about the environment.

NEON will also create opportunities for the public to aid scientists in conducting field research, said senior team member Carol Brewer, a biologist at the University of Montana.

"By participating in citizen science endeavors, individuals can increase their knowledge of the natural world as well as increase their understanding of science, nature, and the role humans play in shaping the environment," Brewer said.

(NEON is described in the February 27, 2009, issue of the journal Science.)


Read more!

Billions fewer plastic bags handed out in the UK

Shops' cutbacks could stave off government plan to charge for carriers
Martin Hickman, The Independent 26 Feb 09;

Shops gave out 3.5 billion fewer plastic bags last year under a voluntary scheme which has, for now, headed off the threat of a government ban on free carrier bags. Figures from Wrap, the Government's anti-waste body, show that the number of plastic bags dispensed fell from 13.4 billion in 2007 to 9.9 billion last year, a drop of 26 per cent.

Wrap said that when taking into account increased recycled content in the bags, the use of virgin materials in the bags had been slashed by 40 per cent, well above the 25 per cent target set in 2007.

Supermarkets have now agreed a target of reducing the number of bags by 50 per cent – from 2006 levels – by May. But the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), while welcoming the new figures, warned that it would retain the option of introducing a charge for bags if stores failed to honour their commitments.

Environmental campaigners lambaste plastic bags as one of the worst excesses of consumerism. The bags waste resources and end up in landfill, scattered across the countryside or swirling round the seas, where they choke and kill marine life, particularly turtles. Several countries have banned the bags, including Rwanda, Bhutan, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Zanzibar and Botswana.

In the UK, 21 leading supermarkets and high street chains agreed in February 2007 to cut bag waste by 25 per cent. Britain's biggest retailer, Tesco, introduced loyalty points for customers reusing bags, helping slash the number of bags by two billion, and other stores such as Sainsbury's have moved bags from the bagging area, putting the onus on customers to request them. As a result, shoppers have become more used to reusing carrier bags or buying sturdier, long-lasting alternatives such as jute bags. "Consumers deserve congratulations for these results as they clearly show we are moving away from using bags once to re-using bags often," said Liz Goodwin, Wrap's chief executive. "They are also a credit to retailers who have worked hard to find innovative ways of helping us reuse our bags."

The British Retail Consortium urged customers to help stores by remembering to take stronger "bags for life" on shopping trips and, when they had to take them, reusing lighter carriers on five or six shopping trips before returning them for recycling.

The Environment minister, Jane Kennedy, said the "great progress" made showed that the national reliance on carrier bags was diminishing: "It also puts retailers well on the way to meeting the ambitious 50 per cent reduction in the number of carrier bags that they have pledged to reach by the end of May this year."

Later, Defra confirmed that it had not abandoned the threat of a ban on free plastic bags. "The powers are there in the Climate Change Act to introduce a charge, but, particularly in the current climate, we don't believe introducing a charge would be the right option," a spokeswoman said. "It would be a significant burden for retailers. But that's not to say we have abandoned the possibility of introducing a charge; at the moment, the voluntary approach seems to be working."

Cotton and jute: The alternatives to plastic

Cotton and jute bags have become fashionable as shoppers seek to replace plastic carriers with more eco-friendly alternatives. Sales of jute bags alone increased from around 100,000 in 2006 to 7.4 million last year, according to Wrap. The most famous "eco-bag" is the Anya Hindmarch "I'm not a plastic bag" bag, constructed from reusable cotton. Superdrug's £2.99 cotton shopper, released for the 30th anniversary of the Prince's Trust, caught the headlines when Kate Moss was pictured carrying one, while Tesco and Sainsbury's have also released green bags. Stronger "bags for life", intended to be re-used several times, are sold by supermarkets, while many swisher stores are dispensing paper bags with the implication that they are more eco-friendly.

So which bag is the least harmful? "A very difficult question to answer," replied Richard Swannell, Wrap's director of retail programmes. "The best thing you can do to help the environment is to re-use your bag. If you buy a bag for life and then don't re-use it that is a disaster for the environment."

9.9bn

The number of plastic bags dispensed last year, down from 13.4bn in 2007.

The Big Question: What more can Britain do to beat its addiction to plastic bags?
Michael McCarthy, The Independent 25 Feb 09;

Why are we asking this now?

Because yesterday the Government's anti-waste body, Wrap, announced that plastic bag use in the UK had dropped from 13.4 billion in 2007 to 9.9 billion in 2008 – a reduction of 26 per cent, or 3.5 billion bags.

That's a pretty hefty reduction in just 12 months, isn't it?

Yes, indeed it is; the 3.5 billion bags which have been cut from use, laid end to end, would stretch to the Moon and back twice, or around the Earth 44 times, Wrap obligingly points out (which is a bizarre but undeniably impressive image). On the other hand, we are still using 10 billion bags a year – approximately 166 bags for every man, woman, child and infant in these islands. That's hardly a kicked habit.

So how many of those 10 billion can we cut?

There's the rub. In December, seven of the major supermarkets, which are the leading plastic bag sources, agreed that they would seek a 50 per cent reduction in single-use bags by May this year, as against May 2006. It is not clear yet how they are doing, but the rate of change indicated in the UK figures released yesterday certainly suggest that the target is achievable. But where do we go from there? In December, the Government hinted at a 70 per cent eventual reduction in UK plastic bag use (in Whitehall-speak, this is an "aspiration" rather than a target. Targets you have to meet. Aspirations, you aspire to). Could that be attained? Even if it could, we would still be using four billion bags a year. That's a long way from zero.

Why does all this matter?

Because plastic bags are one of the greatest scourges of the consumer society – or to be more precise, of the throwaway society. First introduced in the US in 1957, and into the rest of the world by the late 1960s, they have been found so convenient that they have come to be used in mind-boggling numbers: in the world as a whole, the annual total manufactured now probably exceeds a trillion – that is, one million billion, or 1,000,000,000,000,000. And according to the British Antarctic Survey, plastic bags have gone from being rare in the late Eighties and early Nineties to being found almost everywhere across the planet, from Spitsbergen, at latitude 78 degrees North, to the Falkland Islands at 51 degrees South. They are among the 12 items of debris most often found in coastal clean-ups. On land they are ubiquitous too. Windblown plastic bags are so prevalent in Africa that a cottage industry has sprung up harvesting bags and using them to weave hats, and even bags, with one group harvesting 30,000 per month. In some developing countries they are a major nuisance in blocking sewage systems.

What matters is what happens to them after use. Enormous numbers end up in landfill or incinerators, itself an enormous waste of the petrochemical products which have gone into their manufacture; but billions get into the environment, especially the marine environment, where their lack of rapid degradability makes them a persistent and terrible threat to marine life.

What threat do degrading bags present to nature?

Sea turtles mistake them for their jellyfish food and choke on them; albatrosses mistake them for squid and die a similar death; dolphins have been found dead with plastic bags blocking their blowholes. The British wildlife film-maker Rebecca Hosking was staggered by the plastic-bag-induced mortality of Laysan albatrosses on the Pacific island of Midway; she found that two-fifths of the 500,000 Laysan chicks born each year die, the vast majority from ingesting plastic that their parents have mistakenly brought back as food. As a result, Ms Hosking started a movement to turn her home town of Modbury into Britain's first plastic bag-free community, which many residents and retailers have enthusiastically joined.

So is a plastic bag-free Britain possible?

Perhaps. Who could have imagined half-a-century ago that Britain's public places would one day all become cigarette smoke-free? Of that we would all be using lead-free petrol? Who would have thought even a decade ago, come to that, that about two-thirds of us would by now be actively engaged in recycling? Major shifts in public behaviour can certainly occur.

So what would be needed to make such a change?

Above all, a general change in consumer attitudes, towards the "re-use habit" – employing reusable shopping bags. Older people will remember how this was entirely the norm before the late 1960s; households, and in particular, housewives – as they then were – had a "shopping bag", a sturdy receptacle which was used to carry items bought in the daily shopping expedition. But that was the very different pattern of household shopping then – the purchase of a much smaller number of items, on a daily basis, after a walk to small shops – which were local. Today the housewife is largely a vanished species, and many of us tend to drive to the supermarket once a week and fill up the boot with seven days' worth of provisions, for which plastic bags, of course, are fantastically useful. It's a hard habit to break.

Why have we seen such a dramatic drop in plastic bag use this year?

Because the leading supermarkets and other retailers are making a major effort to wean us from the habit, with a whole host of initiatives, ranging from "bags for life" schemes to bag-free checkouts. It is clear that habits are starting to change; reusable bags are more visible than they were even two years ago. Wrap's Dr Richard Swannell said yesterday: "When you go into supermarkets or go down the High Street, there is a real plethora of people with reusable bags."

Should the Government be putting a tax on plastic bags?

The Government is considering the idea, and Gordon Brown has said that if actions by the retailers do not achieve the desired result, then direct intervention is a possibility. What people have in mind is the example of Ireland, where in 2002 a levy of €0.22 – the PlasTax – was introduced on all plastic bags, the first of its kind in the world. This quickly prompted a quite astonishing reduction of 90 per cent, from 1.2 billion bags a year to fewer than 200,000, and an enormous uptake in the use of cloth bags – with the revenue from the tax ring-fenced for environmental clean-up schemes.

What is the Government going to do next?

In the Climate Change Act, which was introduced late last year, the Government gave itself the power to bring in a plastic bag levy. You might well think that it wouldn't give itself a power it wasn't eventually going to use. Certainly, kicking the habit completely may well require stronger action. To get a sense of the scale of the problem, check out the website Reusablebags.com, which has a "clock" showing how many plastic bags have been produced so far in 2009. At 6pm last night, the figure was 76.37 billion.

Will Britain soon be a plastic bag-free nation?

Yes...

* The trend in plastic bag use is definitely falling, which suggests we are moving in the right direction

* The Government intends to drive bag use down even further

* Ministers may bring in a tax, which in Ireland has reduced usage by 94 per cent, which will help further

No...

* We are now too attached to the weekly supermarket shop, which plastic bags facilitate

* It is unrealistic to expect everyone to return to the habits of the 1960s

* Plastic bags are simply too convenient for people to give up altogether, and they certainly hold heavy shopping better than paper ones

Plastic bag use falls by 26 per cent in two years
The use of plastic bags has fallen by more than a quarter over the last two years as shoppers switch to reusable bags, new figures have shown.
Louise Gray, The Telegraph 25 Feb 09;

Figures from the waste reduction agency WRAP showed the number of carrier bags handed out by the major supermarkets and shops has fallen from 13.4 billion to 9.9 billion since 2006. The amount of plastic used has also been reduced by 40 per cent in the same period by using less plastic for each bag and recycled materials.

The target to reduce the environmental impact of carrier bags was part of an agreement with UK Government and retailers have now agreed to try and cut use of plastic bags by 50 per cent by May this year. This would save 130,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide – equivalent to taking 41,000 cars off the road

Jane Kennedy, the environment minister, said the supermarkets were on the way to meeting the "ambitious" target.

"This is great progress made by both retailers and shoppers and shows that reducing our reliance on carrier bags is becoming a way of life," she said.

But Dickey Felton from Keep Britain Tidy said carrier bags are still a litter problem.

"In the last few years we have seen an increase in the numbers of plastic bags ending up on our streets as litter," he said. "We absolutely welcome moves by supermarkets recently to reduce plastic bag use. We hope this will lead to a reduction in the number of plastic bags ending up as litter."


Read more!

American taste for soft toilet roll 'worse than driving Hummers'

Extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply toilet roll made from virgin forest causes more damage than gas-guzzlers, fast food or McMansions, say campaigners
Suzanne Goldenberg, guardian.co.uk 26 Feb 09;

The tenderness of the delicate American buttock is causing more environmental devastation than the country's love of gas-guzzling cars, fast food or McMansions, according to green campaigners. At fault, they say, is the US public's insistence on extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply products when they use the bathroom.

"This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the ecological consequences of manufacturing it from trees is enormous," said Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council.

"Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age. Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution." Making toilet paper has a significant impact because of chemicals used in pulp manufacture and cutting down forests.

A campaign by Greenpeace seeks to raise consciousness among Americans about the environmental costs of their toilet habits and counter an aggressive new push by the paper industry giants to market so-called luxury brands.

More than 98% of the toilet roll sold in America comes from virgin forests, said Hershkowitz. In Europe and Latin America, up to 40% of toilet paper comes from recycled products. Greenpeace this week launched a cut-out-and-keep ecological ranking of toilet paper products.

"We have this myth in the US that recycled is just so low quality, it's like cardboard and is impossible to use," said Lindsey Allen, the forestry campaigner of Greenpeace.

The campaigning group says it produced the guide to counter an aggressive marketing push by the big paper product makers in which celebrities talk about the comforts of luxury brands of toilet paper and tissue.

Those brands, which put quilting and pockets of air between several layers of paper, are especially damaging to the environment.

Paper manufacturers such as Kimberly-Clark have identified luxury brands such as three-ply tissues or tissues infused with hand lotion as the fastest-growing market share in a highly competitive industry. Its latest television advertisements show a woman caressing tissue infused with hand lotion.

The New York Times reported a 40% in sales of luxury brands of toilet paper in 2008. Paper companies are anxious to keep those percentages up, even as the recession bites. And Reuters reported that Kimberly-Clark spent $25m in its third quarter on advertising to persuade Americans against trusting their bottoms to cheaper brands.

But Kimberly-Clark, which touts its green credentials on its website, rejects the idea that it is pushing destructive products on an unwitting American public.

Dave Dixon, a company spokesman, said toilet paper and tissue from recycled fibre had been on the market for years. If Americans wanted to buy them, they could.

"For bath tissue Americans in particular like the softness and strength that virgin fibres provides," Dixon said. "It's the quality and softness the consumers in America have come to expect."

Longer fibres in virgin wood are easier to lay out and fluff up for a softer tissue. Dixon said the company used products from sustainbly farmed forests in Canada.

Americans already consume vastly more paper than any other country — about three times more per person than the average European, and 100 times more than the average person in China.

Barely a third of the paper products sold in America are from recycled sources — most of it comes from virgin forests.

"I really do think it is overwhelmingly an American phenomenom," said Hershkowitz. "People just don't understand that softness equals ecological destruction."


Read more!