Best of our wild blogs: 4 Mar 09


Antics of a bird trapper
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Wildlife Of the Week: The Crimson SunBird
on the Brandon Photography blog

Crimson-breasted Flowerpecker catching caterpillar
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog

Staying out deep water - the Giant Mudskipper
on Otterman speaks

Mon 16 Mar 2009: Peter Cranston on non-biting midges
on the ecotax mailing list

Seen on STOMP: Foam in drain
on the Lazy Lizard's Tales blog

What manner of beast is the merlion?
on the wild shores of singapore blog

Fish farming and the green gap
on the BBC news blog by Richard Black


Read more!

Let us strive to be a bright green dot on the map

Straits Times Forum 4 Mar 09;

IT WAS reported recently that Singapore had improved its ranking last year in a climate change performance index but was still placed 38th out of 57 economies.

When it comes to economic competitiveness or efficiency, Singapore takes pride in being top-ranked. We can do well in the green index too, but more has to be done to develop a sound green infrastructure.

Subsidies for the green effort can be great catalysts for growth. This is an area where Singapore can create growth, and jobs, from within, while waiting for the global economy to turn around.

According to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) Masterplan 2020, the ambient air in Singapore meets the standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the World Health Organisation, except for particulate matters smaller than PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter). The ambient concentration of PM2.5 in Singapore in 2005 was almost 50 per cent higher than the USEPA standard.

High levels of PM2.5 is associated with health conditions such as acute bronchitis and aggravated asthma. The masterplan notes that diesel-driven vehicles contribute to about 50 per cent of PM2.5 in the air.

One solution for this is compressed natural gas, as CNG has hardly any PM emissions, and emits about 20 per cent less carbon dioxide than petrol.

Up until last year, the CNG industry was booming. However, since last August, the rate of conversions has dramatically declined, and so far, we have only about 3,000 CNG cars on the road.

At the end of last year, there were some 1,000 CNG taxis registered, against a total of 23,000-plus diesel taxis; only nine CNG goods vehicles, against a total of 131,000 diesel goods vehicles; and only 12 CNG buses against a total of 14,000 diesel buses. LTA says that only by 2014 will all diesel taxis be Euro IV compliant, and the buses, only by 2020, even though the masterplan acknowledges that CNG is cleaner than Euro IV.

Firms and individuals are interested in converting their cars to CNG vehicles. School buses could also run on CNG. However, the infrastructure is still lacking.

The CNG Committee believes more can be done to encourage owners of diesel vehicles to adopt CNG; and more infrastructure support is needed. Let us try to be a bright green dot on the map.

Alexander C. Melchers
Chairman, CNG Committee,
Sustainable Energy Association of Singapore


Read more!

'Worst cat mutilation case seen'

SPCA offers $1,000 reward to nab culprit
Teh Jen Lee, The New Paper 4 Mar 09;

IT was the worst case of cat mutilation he had seen in his working life.

Mr Shankar Suppiah, an animal-handling officer with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), went to look for two kittens after receiving a call from a resident of Block 550, Choa Chu Kang Street 52.

What he found horrified him - a badly dismembered dead kitten, with little of the body intact.

The find, on 21 Feb, is so shocking that the SPCA has offered a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the culprit.

Mr Shankar, 41, told The New Paper: 'I was expecting live cats because someone had called to say there were two kittens in the 11th-storey stairwell, at about 2pm.

'Instead, when I got there, on the 9th storey, I saw a kitten's head and four legs dangling from the skin. Someone had used a knife to chop the body up.'

Mr Shankar, who has been with the SPCA for two years, said he has seen many cases of suspected abuse, but never before such a degree of mutilation.

'At least once a month, we get a suspected abuse case. I've seen all sorts of dead cats, like the cat's head smashed against the wall or in an accident, or bitten by dog, but never something like this.'

There was no pool of blood at the scene, which meant the culprit had probably cut up the body somewhere else.

A live kitten, believed to be from the same litter as the mutilated one, was found on the same floor. A third kitten was found alive on the sixth storey of the block.

Both live kittens were taken back to the SPCA for adoption.

The SPCA, which reported the matter to the police, has distributed 1,000 fliers through volunteers over the past weekend to highlight its $1,000 reward to catch the culprit.

It also contacted the town council to put up a notice at the block concerned.

SPCA executive officer Deirdre Moss said a resident of the block had alerted them to the presence of four kittens wandering on different levels within the same block on the day before the dismembered kitten was found.

'There is no reason to believe that the kitten was dead before it was dismembered because on the morning of 21 Feb, the resident saw three healthy kittens.

Before that, the resident had seen four, so there might be another kitten out there that we don't know what happened to.'

'Mentally disturbed'

She added: 'The fact that it was cut up and brutally dismembered in an apparently systematic way strongly suggests that this is an abuse case. And the person who did this is probably mentally disturbed.'

A vet's report said the kitten was 6 to 8weeks old, but its sex could not be determined.

The kitten appeared to have been killed less than 12 hours before its remains were found.

Miss Moss referred to another Choa Chu Kang abuse case in which a female cat was found with its belly split open and its insides hanging out.

'It happened in Block 130, Choa Chu Kang Avenue 1 on 29 Nov last year and we're also appealing for witnesses for that.

'We're also looking into feedback from a veterinarian who has treated cats suspected to have been abused in the area.

'It is of grave concern to the SPCA that there could be a serial cat killer or killers in the Choa Chu Kang area and the sooner they can be apprehended, the better.'

Anyone who has information can call SPCA at 62875355 ext 9, she said.

However, Miss Salina Jefrydeen, honorary secretary of the Cat Welfare Society, said: 'Even with rewards as large as $10,000, people are generally not willing to come forward with information.

'Maybe it's the hassle that they want to avoid, such as being interviewed by the police.'

Those convicted of cruelty to animals can be jailed up to a year and/or fined up to $10,000.

Past reward cases

SEPTEMBER 2006

A teen kicked a cat viciously while a friend caught the act on handphone video. Both burst out laughing as the cat flew into the air and landed a few metres away.

Reward: $2,000 from SPCA and SOS Animals.

Outcome: Culprits caught. On the same day the report was published in The New Paper, SPCA received a call about two tertiary students who had made the video. After police investigations, the Attorney-General's Chambers recommended that the boys go through a six-month Guidance Programme by Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports.

AUGUST 2007

Cat discovered at West Coast Car Mart with its head and front legs cut off. Clean cuts indicated the killer was probably skilled with a knife. He or she was likely to have struck early in the morning. As there was very little blood at the scene, it was also likely that the killer had cut up the cat somewhere else before dumping its body.

Reward: $1,000 from SPCA.

Outcome: No one caught so far.

MAY 2008

Seven vicious attacks in Pasir Ris. On 2 May, at Pasir Ris Street 21, two cats found dead believed to have been dunked in thinner. A third, also dunked and barely alive, had to be put down. Ten days later, residents found three cats dying of stab wounds in Pasir Ris Town Park. A fourth cat found dead with a fractured jaw.

Reward: $10,000 in all from animal welfare organisations and an anonymous family in Aljunied.

Outcome: No one caught so far.


Read more!

Papua New Guinea creates first conservation area

Reuters 3 Mar 09;

SINGAPORE, March 3 (Reuters) - Papua New Guinea has created its first conservation area to save an area of pristine rainforest larger than Singapore and to protect rare animals such as a bear-like tree kangaroo, conservationists said on Tuesday.

Saving the horse-shoe shaped area on the remote eastern Huon Peninsula will also lock away 13 million tonnes of carbon and the project might eventually yield tradeable carbon offsets to help fund local communities.

"It's the most pristine forest. It's spectacular and what's also amazing is these are forests that even the local land owners in some places they've never gone into themselves," said Lisa Dabek of Seattle's Woodland Park Zoo, told Reuters from Seattle.

The YUS Conservation Area covers 76,000 ha (187,000 acres) from the coast up to peaks of nearby 4,000 metres (13,000 feet).

Dabek, who runs the zoo's tree kangaroo conservation programme with support from U.S.-based Conservation International and National Geographic, has worked with villagers in the area over the past 12 years to develop a community programme to protect the forests.

"The YUS Conservation Area doesn't have any really commercially interesting forest. It's very rugged, montane," said Bruce Beehler of Conservation International who's been going to Papua New Guinea since 1975.

He said under a new law passed by the government, ministries need to sign off on any area deemed to be of conservation value and the YUS had no timber or minerals of great importance, said Beehler.

Under the conservation plan, 35 villages representing 10,000 people have pledged to create a safe zone for forests and wildlife, particularly for the endangered Matschie's tree kangaroo.

The community will also set the rules governing the conservation area and in return will receive aid for education, health and alternative livelihoods.

"They have bought into this model. A lot of it has to do with the fact the PNG government at the national level doesn't offer them a lot of alternatives for development," said Beehler.

He added many villagers backed the plan because they had heard about or seen other areas stripped by miners or loggers, destroying livelihoods and cultures.

"Everyone knows somebody who's been hurt through that pillaging process," he told Reuters.

Beehler said there were another six or seven groups in the country seeking to create conservation zones under the new law. (Reporting by David Fogarty; Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

More links
Photos of tree kangaroos, frogs and more foudn in this forest on the National Geographic website.


Read more!

Higher Penalty For Offences Against Wildlife in Malaysia

Bernama 3 Mar 09;

KUALA LUMPUR, March 3 (Bernama) -- The Wildlife Protection Act 1972 is to be amended to increase by between 10 and 30 times the penalty for offences as well as to protect more species of wildlife considered endangered.

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Douglas Uggah Embas said the ministry would try to table the amendment at the ongoing session of Parliament.

"It is now in the final draft," he said in his opening speech at the Asean Judiciary Workshop on Wildlife Crime and Prosecution, here. The text of his speech was read out by the ministry's secretary-general, Datuk Zoal Azha Yusof.

Department of Wildlife and National Parks director-general Datuk Abdul Rashid Samsudin said the amendment would see an increase of between 10 and 30 times in the penalty imposed for offences against wildlife.

He also urged the public to report suspicious activities which could lead to wildlife crime.

Uggah said the Department of Wildlife and National Parks had done well in combating smuggling and indiscriminate exploitation of wildlife resources.

"In 2008, forty-five cases of wildlife crime were brought to the courts where offenders were fined or imprisoned," he added.

He said the extensive border between Malaysia and its neighbours posed a tremendous challenge to efforts to curb wildlife smuggling, and stressed on the need to further enhance information-sharing among Asean member countries.

Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Robert G. Rapson, said that according to a 2008 US Congressional Report, global trade in illegal wildlife was a growing illicit economy estimated to be worth at least US$5 billion (US$1 = RM3.70) and potentially in excess of US$20 billion annually.

"Demand for illegally obtained wildlife is ubiquitous, and some suspect that illicit demands may be growing. We are pleased to be working cooperatively with Malaysia to eliminate this pernicious activity," he said.

The two-day workshop, jointly organised by the Asean Wildlife Enforcement Network (Asean-WEN) and the Federal Courts of Malaysia, is co-sponsored by the US Agency for International Development and supported by the Federal Courts of Malaysia.

Asean-WEN is the world's largest wildlife enforcement network, comprising Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The next judiciary workshop will be held in Cambodia.

-- BERNAMA


Read more!

Japanese fire up Malaysia's mangrove coal industry

Varsha Tickoo, Reuters 4 Mar 09;

KUALA SEPETANG, Malaysia (Reuters Life!) - A world away from Tokyo, Malaysians are toiling in baking heat to produce quality mangrove charcoal for Japanese customers who have helped revive this industry despite environmental concerns.

The coastal town of Kuala Sepetang, in the northwestern Perak state around 300 km from the capital Kuala Lumpur, houses factories that turn mangrove trunks into charcoal, with uses ranging from barbecues and making tea to purifying air.

The mangrove charcoal is considered superior to regular coal because it burns longer and produces less smoke. It is also used as a detoxifying agent in some traditional medicines.

Trade waned in the 1960s due to a switch from charcoal to cooking gas, but recent Japanese interest has helped drive sales to about $800,000 a month.

"It was at one time known as the sunset industry. Now, the Japanese are here, so it's back on its feet," said Chuah Chow Aun, owner of a factory where workers make $100-$200 a month in jobs ranging from transporting logs to harvesting charcoal.

Bark-stripped trunks of mangrove trees are baked in igloo-shaped kilns to remove water from the logs, leaving behind smoking charcoal collected mostly by local women, who work in the factories while their husbands fish in the nearby river.

Charcoal factory owners obtain mangrove wood from swamps where they are allocated logging areas by the government on a yearly basis, and boats lug the wood to the shore.

There are 336 kilns in Perak, said Chuah, with a total production of around 3,500 tonnes of charcoal a month.

The price of charcoal has risen by nearly half from about four years ago, he said, after a spike in Japanese demand that mops up around 60 percent of total charcoal produced.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Nearly half of Perak is covered with mangrove forest called Matang, the largest in the Malaysian peninsula, spread over more than 40,000 hectares covering nearly half of the state.

The government has a replanting exercise in place but there are environmental concerns about the dwindling forest that guards wildlife, protects against climate change and events such as the tsunami, by acting like a barrier against the Indian Ocean.

"I understand these mangrove trees are very dense and make good charcoal but this would be like burning the Mona Lisa to keep you warm," said Glen Barry, President of Ecological Internet Inc, a U.S.-based non-governmental organisation.

He said the mangrove harvest exceeded the number of mangroves regenerated, due in part to the fact that the trees take 30 years to mature.

But this may be a hard sell to the local people, who depend on the swamps to eke out a living in a state that is the second biggest on the peninsula by area but contributes less than 4 percent to the country's economy.

"I'm not young anymore, what other job can I do?" says Mahteh Mah, a 43 year-old mother of three, wiping the sweat from her face on a dusty afternoon at the charcoal factory.


Read more!

Dead dugong likely killed by fishing equipment

Phuket Gazette 3 Mar 09;

AO PANWA, PHUKET: An examination of a dead dugong found floating in Phang Nga Bay late last month suggests it died suddenly of injuries sustained though contact with fishing equipment, a leading marine biologist has revealed.

A ferry found the female dugong on February 27 and its crew brought the 1.6-meter, 86-kilogram carcass to the Phuket Marine Biological Center (PMBC) for examination.

The examination, which took place this afternoon, revealed that the dugong appeared to have been in a healthy condition right up to the moment of death.

Veterinarian Sontaya Manawattana told the Gazette that “sea grass was still left in her mouth, proving that the dugong was eating food only moments before she died. This indicates that she was healthy.”

It is suspected that the mammal died as the result of an encounter with fishing equipment.

This latest discovery marks the eighth recorded dugong death since October, 2008.

“The dugong population numbers about 250 in the Andaman Sea and around 50 in the Gulf of Thailand. They are in danger of disappearing from the Andaman Sea altogether, so they need to be protected,” said Dr Sontaya.

Dugong population under threat from commercial fishing
mcot.net 5 Mar 09;

Thailand’s dugong population is now under threat. Trawling and fishing by push net has caused a dramatic and continuous decline in the marine animal’s population. According to official statistics, more than 10 dugongs have died over the past 4 months as a result of commercial fishing.

The autopsy of a 40-year-old male dugong in Thailand’s Satun province clearly showed the animal did not die from illness or infection. Instead, the oedema in its chest helped confirm the dugong had struggled to survive so hard it was finally died of shock.

A marine biologist at Phuket Marine Biological Centre, who performed an autopsy for this dugong, believed fishing tools were the culprit.

“Although there’s no wound on its body caused by a fishing tool, there are traces inside the body, which indicate the dugong suffered a serious shock. For instance, an oedema in pericardium and a blood clot in the torso. These traces were believed to be from a fishing tool,” said Phaothep Cherdsukjai, a marine biologist.

Phuket Marine Biological Centre Commercial fishing, namely by trawler and push net, is directly resulting in a sharp drop in the dugong population, as well as other endangered species such as sea turtles.

Illegal fishing within restricted area of 3,000 metres from the shoreline causes the large animals to be trapped in a net, unable to push themselves up to breathe on the sea’s surface, which finally ends in their death.

“If illegal fishing persists, within the next 10 to 20 years, endangered marine species including dugongs and sea turtles would become extinct in the Thai ocean,” said Phaothep.

Construction of wharves, owing to growth of the tourism business, is also impacting on the survival of seagrass which is the dugong’s source of food.

If no immediate measures are taken by the government, the dugong might become a thing of the past in Thai waters.


Read more!

Sumatran tiger faces extinction as forest habitat shrinks

Richard Lloyd Parry, Times Online 3 Mar 09;

The Sumatran tiger is in danger of becoming the first major mammal to become extinct in the 21st century, as villagers on the Indonesian island fight a deadly war with the magnificent but ferocious predator.

At least four tigers, and nine people, have been killed in the past month alone, as the shrinking of Sumatra’s already depleted forests brings an increase in attacks on farmers, hunters and illegal loggers.

With fewer than 400 of the creatures estimated to be left in the wild, the Sumatran tiger is classified as critically endangered, the most vulnerable of all the six surviving tiger subspecies.

The fact that several victims of the recent attacks have been devoured by the tigers, which usually have little taste for human flesh, suggests how hungry and desperate they are becoming, as economic exploitation of their habitat confines them in ever smaller and more impoverished patches of jungle.

As the tiger attacks become more common, conservationists are hurrying to trap man-eating animals humanely, and release them away from human habitation, before terrified villagers hunt them down and kill them.

“As people encroach into tiger habitat, it's creating a crisis situation and further threatening this critically endangered subspecies,” Ian Kosasih of the conservation group WWF, said. “In light of these killings, officials have got to make public safety a top concern and put a stop to illegal clearance of forests in Sumatra.”

According to the Indonesian government, between five and ten tigers are killed on average every year, but the scale of the slaughter in 2009 is on course to be higher than ever. A male tiger was speared to death a week ago after attacking a security guard on a palm oil plantation in the Indragiri Hilir area of Jambi province, the fourth animal to be killed this year.

Three young tigers were killed in February in neighbouring Riau province, after wandering into a village in search of food. Another Sumatran tiger was successfully trapped by conservationists.

But at least six people have been mauled to death and several more attacked and injured. In the grisliest attack, a 50-year-old man named Suyud was killed in his hut, which he shared with his 21-year-old son Imam Mujianto. The young man was consumed by the creature, which ate his brain, heart and liver, according to local reports.

“The shocking news that six people have been killed in less than one month is an extremely sad illustration of how bad the situation has become in Jambi,” said Didy Wurjanto, the head of the Jambi province Nature Conservancy Agency. “It’s a signal that we need to get serious about protecting natural forest and giving tigers their space.”

The number of tigers across the world has declined by 95 per cent in the past century, and three subspecies have become extinct, including the two others native to Indonesia – the Bali tiger and the Javan tiger, which was seen in the wild as late as the 1970s.

Poachers hunt them for their skins and other body parts which are a prized ingredient in traditional Asian medicines – the bodies of the animals killed in Sumatra in the past weeks quickly disappeared, and a tiger corpse is worth $3,200 (£2,200), a small fortune for an Indonesian villager.

But there is also less and less room for tigers, who require large areas in which to prowl, hunt and mate. Road building, farming, the timber industry and, particularly in Sumatra, the clearing of jungle to create lucrative palm oil plantations, is driving tigers into smaller islands of natural forest.

Sumatra’s lowland forests are shrinking at the rate of 2,700 sq km every year, an area larger than Luxemburg.

“You can't expect tigers to become vegetarians,” Nurazman Nurdin of the Nature Conservation Agency told AP. “They need meat and humans trespassing their territory are relatively easy targets.”

Death Match Between People, Animals in Sumatra’s Declining Forests
Anita Rachman, The Jakarta Globe 3 Mar 09;

In the heart of Sumatra, amid the forests, farmlands and rural villages, a disturbing turf war is raging between humans and animals for dwindling space and natural resources.

The dispute has exposed the ugly side of human nature — illegal logging, land clearance, poaching and corruption — but has also brought out the basic instincts of some of Sumatra’s most critically endangered species.

On Monday morning, the battled erupted again, and once again ended in death, when a Sumatran tiger killed two men in a forest in Jambi Province’s Muarojambi district.

Didy Wurdjanto, head of the Jambi Natural Resource Conservation Body, said he suspected the victims were outsiders who were illegally logging in the forest near Sungai Gelam village.

The fatality scorecard since January now stands at: tigers 4, humans 8.

In addition, two women were trampled to death in late January by a pair of elephants in Aceh Province, which itself has seen increasing conflicts between people and pachyderms.

The tiger who killed Musmuliadi, 31, and Musliadi, 30, on Monday morning was not protecting the forests from the two men. It was protecting itself, which is an increasingly difficult job in Sumatra these days. Local and international conservation groups say there’s less than 500 wild tigers left in Indonesia, mostly in south and central Sumatra, with a lone one believed to be in western Sumatra.

Local residents have nonetheless trapped and killed four “man-eating” tigers this year, despite warnings by the central government, while eight people have died and two others survived their encounters with a tiger. Among the victims was a 17-year-old boy from Lampung Province, whose body was dragged off on Feb. 22 and found the next day.

Direct conflicts between people and animals is occurring because human development is encroaching on the habitat of wild animals, affecting their food sources, hunting grounds and breeding areas, said Desmarita Murni, communication manager of the Indonesian branch of World Wide Fund for Nature.

She said forest cover in Sumatra was 25 million hectares in 1985, but by 2007 it had fallen to 13 million hectares due to illegal logging and land clearance, and the expansion of the palm oil industry and other agribusiness.

Additional reporting by Antara

Catch a Tiger, Save Its Tail
Zakki Hakim, The Jakarta Globe 2 Mar 09;

Indonesia’s tiger catchers have a double job — protecting humans from tigers and tigers from humans.

The elite teams of rangers and conservationists rush to the scene every time villagers report attacks or sightings of a Sumatran tiger, which is a critically endangered species. First, they calm the people. Then, if there are signs the animal is nearby, they return with steel cage traps, live
bait, heat-sensitive cameras and other equipment to catch the magnificent beasts.

This time Sartono, who at 40 has spent nearly half his life on the job, arrives with his six-member squad at a remote oil palm plantation in Sungai Gelam district, knowing they will have to act fast.

Two people have been reported killed in just the last 24 hours, while three were killed in the space of less than a week earlier this month. Rabai Abdul Muthalib, 45, a rubber tapper ambushed near a river, and days later, Suyud, 50, and his son, Imam Mujianto, 21, who were sleeping in their hut when the yellow-eyed tiger pounced through the thin roof. The beast devoured the brain, heart and liver of the youngest victim, spreading terror through surrounding villages.

Sartono knows if he and his team cannot put a quick end to the killing spree, residents will shoot or poison the Sumatran tiger, which is already on the brink of extinction because of rapid deforestation, poaching and clashes with humans. There are only around 250 of the cats left in the wild, compared to about 1,000 in the 1970s, according to the World Wildlife Fund, meaning the Panthera tigris sumatrae could become the first large predator to go extinct in the 21st century.

The tiger catchers’ job is to trap the animals, carry out health checks, fit them with GPS tracking collars and then release them back into protected areas. Often they come back empty-handed, but this time, not long after beginning their intensive foot patrol through palm oil plantations and peatland forest, they have good reason to feel optimistic.

They find and snap photos of fresh paw prints and, together with experts from the Zoological Society of London, start repositioning their traps around the rugged Makin Group’s palm oil plantation. They use a young dog and a goat as bait but place the animals in interior cages to protect themselves.

For the next few days, they hike beneath the equatorial sun, their clothes soaked in sweat, in search of clues, while other team members interview witnesses and check out rumors of more attacks and sightings. Finally, they have one of their own.

On a scorching Sunday afternoon, an adult tiger charges out of dense jungle brush and then suddenly retreats into the shrubbery. Slowly, as Sartono aims his cocked rifle at the trembling bushes, the squad walks backward.

“I was afraid, who wouldn’t be,” the veteran tiger catcher later says with an uneasy laugh. “We might have experience, but we don’t have superpowers!’’

After the beast manages to bite off the goat’s head and drag the so-called safety cage with its carcass into the nearby brush, the squad finally snags her. When they pull up to the site in their green pickup truck on day eight, they find a tigress, 1.8 meters long excluding the tail, crouched in the trap. At first she is calm, then she explodes, growling and throwing her 82-kilogram body against the steel bars.

“Easy, easy, we’re here to save you,” whispers Nurazman Nurdin of the Nature Conservation Agency, as the crew carefully approach the tigress, which has since been named Salma.

For the tiger catchers it is a tense but thrilling moment.

For villagers, who have locked themselves up after dark, shuttered stores, and canceled prayers in the mosque from dusk to dawn, it is a relief. Though some support plans to relocate the animal into a jungle far away, others wish the rangers would just shoot it. Many worry there may be more tigers out there.

They are right. Three more people have been mauled to death in the same area since the capture, all of them illegal loggers. Since those attacks took place within the cats’ habitat, there are no immediate plans to catch or relocate them.

Among the most traumatized is Efrianto, a 28-year-old villager who survived January’s midnight attack on his uncle, Suyud, and cousin, Mujianto, by kicking a hole through the wall of their hut.

The men on the tiger team said it was disturbing, and rare, that Salma ate one of the victim’s remains. Normally, Sumatran tigers avoid humans, but if they do kill a man, they usually leave the corpse untouched.

The tiger catchers saw the unusual behavior as a sign of how desperately hungry the tigress must have been.

“There’s no place for its prey to live here, all the land has been converted into oil palm plantations,’’ said Nurdin, the Nature Conservation Agency official, as he surveyed churned-up wasteland and neat rows of trees.

As their name suggests, these tigers can only be found in the wild on Sumatra Island.

Their habitat is disappearing at an alarming rate, with 270,000 hectares of lowland forests being cleared annually, mostly for palm oil, which is used in cosmetics and candy but also to make “clean-burning” fuel for markets in the US and Europe. Other culprits are loggers and mining companies, whose projects limit mating grounds, leave remaining tiger populations isolated and scattered, and chase off the majestic cats’ prey.

“You can’t expect tigers to become vegetarians,’’ Nurdin said.

“They need meat and humans trespassing their territory are relatively easy targets.”

The biggest threat to conservation is conflict with humans, according to a recent report by the Forestry Ministry. On average, 5 to 10 Sumatran tigers have been killed every year since 1998, the report said.

“At this rate, they will soon be extinct,’’ said Hariyo Wibisono of Harimaukita, an alliance that coordinates 15 state agencies and tiger conservation groups.

Sometimes the animals are killed by frightened villagers, other times by poachers who sell their carcasses for trophies or to supply a growing demand for tiger bones in traditional medicine.

A poacher can get $3,300 for a dead tiger, what some people in this impoverished nation of 235 million people make in a year.

But Nurdin said trafficking operations are almost impossible to crack because they involve syndicates. “Only the well-connected would dare to buy such things,” he said, noting that the last person they caught trying to sell a carcass was a soldier.

In the meantime, the tiger catchers are fighting an uphill battle.

At the present rate of deforestation, there will eventually be no safe place to release the captured tigers. So international wildlife experts are working with the government to come up with a 10-year conservation strategy. They want palm oil and other companies to either help monitor the activity of tigers on their property or, better yet, put aside some land as a sanctuary for wildlife.

“For years, we fought against land conversion, but it did not work,” said Wibisono, of the tiger conservation alliance. “We had to try a different approach.”

For Sartono and his team, catching a tiger is bittersweet. “It’s kind of sad, I feel sorry for the tiger, but it’s better than the alternative,” Sartono said.

“But don’t call us tiger catchers. Please! We’re tiger savers.”

Associated Press

2 killed in new tiger attack
Straits Times 4 Mar 09;

JAKARTA - A SUMATRAN tiger has mauled to death another two illegal loggers in Indonesia, bringing the toll to eight in the last five weeks, an official said on Tuesday.

The loggers were attacked in their forest hut on Sunday night in the third such incident since late January, according to a conservation official in Jambi province, Sumatra island.

'They were playing guitar and singing in their temporary hut in the forest when a tiger suddenly attacked one of them,' the official, Didi Wuryanto, told AFP.

'After having paralysed the first victim, it ran after another man and mauled his head and chest while his friends were watching.' Human-animal conflicts are a rising problem as people encroach on wildlife habitats in Indonesia, an archipelagic nation with some of the world's largest remaining tropical forests.

Environmental group WWF said villagers have trapped and killed four of the endangered tigers in response to the deadly attacks, which it blamed on illegal logging in the tigers' habitat.

Mr Wuryanto said authorities were pleading with villagers not to trap and kill the protected cats.

'We've repeatedly urged people not to enter the forest and asked them not to attack tigers,' he said.

There are less than 400 Sumatran tigers left in the wild, according to WWF. -- AFP


Read more!

Pangolins face worst threat in SE Asia: wildlife official

Yahoo News 3 Mar 09;

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Pangolins face the worst threat from poachers and smugglers in Southeast Asia with inadequate punishment and lack of information encouraging the burgeoning trade, according to a wildlife official.

Trade in the animals, also known as scaly anteaters, is expected to increase unless governments here take tougher action, Chumphon Sukkaseam, a senior official with the Association of Southeast Asean Nations (ASEAN) Wildlife Enforcement Network said.

"More than a 100 tonnes of smuggled pangolin meat heading to China was confiscated in the region last year but that is only 10 to 20 percent of the amount of Pangolin meat successfully smuggled into China," he said.

"Smuggling will increase unless tough action is taken as pangolins now face the worst threat from smugglers and poachers in Southeast Asia," Chumphon added, speaking on the sidelines of a workshop on wildlife crime and prosecution for the Malaysian judiciary.

Pangolins are indigenous to the jungles of Indonesia, parts of Malaysia and areas of southern Thailand, with its meat considered a delicacy in China.

It is classified as a protected species under the UN's Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

"The main route for smuggling Pangolins is from Indonesia to Malaysia and then through Thailand to Laos or Vietnam which border China," he added.

Chumphon said the main problem was porous borders between the countries, insufficient information exchange on cases and the small fines given to smugglers.

The head of Malaysia's wildlife and national parks department Abdul Rasid Samsudin said the government was planning to strengthen its wildlife laws this year.


Read more!

The Big Question: Are shark attacks on the rise, and can anything be done about them?

Steve Connor, The Independent 4 Mar 09;

Why are we asking this now?

There has been a spate of shark attacks on bathers swimming in Sydney, the most recent occurring on Sunday when a 15-year-old boy was badly injured. He became the third shark-attack victim in as many weeks. In one of the previous attacks a navy diver in Sydney harbour lost an arm and a leg after being savaged by a bull shark. The other attack was on a surfer using the city's Bondi Beach whose badly severed hand had to be surgically re-attached. Local fishermen claimed that shark attacks are on the increase, aided by anti-pollution measures that have brought shoals of fish – and their natural predators – closer to shore.

Has there been an increase in shark attacks globally?

There is very little data to support the idea of a statistically significant increase in shark attacks. The recent instances from Australia get widely reported but there is no obvious trend which suggests that shark attacks are getting more common. In 2001, for instance, there was a wave of media reports about shark attacks around the world – it became known as the "summer of the shark". There did appear to be a cluster of attacks at that time. However, when experts came to examine the figures at the end of 2001, the actual number of shark attacks and deaths for the year were down slightly on previous years.

Why are we hearing more about shark attacks?

It's been a hot summer in Australia and that means a lot more people than normal are going swimming in the sea. The sheer increase in the number of bathers means that there is going to be a greater risk of a shark attack that gets reported in the media. In previous years, it was South Africa's turn to be the focus of attention. The lurid nature of the attacks make for captivating stories, like that of the 77-year-old South African woman who was attacked by a great white shark during one of her regular morning dips. Nothing was left of her but a floating swimming cap.

How many people are attacked by sharks?

Worldwide, between 50 and 100 shark attacks on people get reported each year on average. Less than 10 of these prove to be fatal. Given that there are millions of people who go swimming in the sea each year, the risk of being bitten by a shark – let alone dying from an attack – is incredibly small. Indeed, the risk is equivalent to highly unlikely events such as death from lightning strike, bee stings or being fatally attacked by farmyard animals. In America alone the chances of death from drowning is about 550 times greater than the probability of dying from a shark bite.

What kind of sharks attack people?

There are something approaching 400 species of sharks and only 27 of them have been implicated in, or suspected of, attacking humans. The four most dangerous sharks are the great white (Carcharadon carcharias), the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), the bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas) and the oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinus longimanus). The great white – made infamous by the 1975 film Jaws – is probably more likely to encounter humans in cool, temperate regions off California, South Australia and South Africa. The bull shark is more of a problem in shallow coastal areas and tropical rivers, whereas the tiger is often seen around tropical oceanic islands. The whitetip is a more often found in open, tropical ocean.

Why do sharks attack people?

There is no easy answer to this question. The idea that sharks can become blood-hungry "man-eaters" fixated on human flesh is simplistic and almost certainly wrong. More than 95 per cent of shark attacks involve a single bite, which suggests that they are not the result of the shark engaging in the sustained hunt of a potential item of prey. Wounds are typically open-mouthed slashes or simple "nip-and-release" bites which, although devastating for the attacked person, represent relatively restrained behaviour on the part of the shark.

Some commentators have suggested that sharks often mistake swimming humans for natural prey species, such as seals or sea lions. But experts are not convinced, saying that great whites, for instance, are unlikely to confuse the sleek movements of a fast-diving seal with the surface flapping of a human swimmer. Great whites attack seals with a devastating initial bite that bears little resemblance to the almost gentle nibble they impart on their human victims – albeit leaving horrendous wounds. This has led some shark experts to suggest that an attack by a great white – which senses objects in its environment through its teeth – has more to do with an exploratory gnaw of a novel object rather than an outright assault on an item of food.

What can be done to lessen the risk of attacks?

Experts suggest not to swim or surf alone. Even the presence of a companion might deter a shark from attacking, and a friend would certainly help if you were attacked. Avoid swimming between dusk and dawn, when sharks feed most actively, and avoid swimming in an area where there has recently been a shark attack, or a shark longer than five feet has been seen.

Also, it is advisable to avoid swimming near river mouths after rainfall, as the silt flowing into the sea can attract sharks. Experts also advise swimming with goggles or a mask to see underwater so that you can watch the behaviour of fish and look out for any large sharks. This all applies to swimming in tropical or semi-tropical waters. Swimming in British waters – even on the rare occasions when it is warm enough to do so – poses little or no risk of shark attack.

What should you do if you are attacked by a shark?

In the unlikely event of this happening, it is important not to panic. It might seem easy to say this, but many attacks result in injuries that are readily treated, and it is important to keep a clear head. Do not try to incite a retaliatory strike on the part of the shark. Call for help and get out of the water as soon as you can, stemming the flow of blood by pressing a hand against the wound. Try to keep an eye on the shark to make sure to keep out of its way as best you can. If you survive, sell your story to a newspaper and offer the film rights to Steven Spielberg.

Are sharks really vicious animals that deserve no sympathy?

Their "aggression" is borne out of the evolutionary necessity to survive as one of the ocean's top predators. Most species of sharks are threatened with extinction and they deserve our respect rather than our wrath. They have survived in the oceans for hundreds of millions of years yet never in their long history have they become so suddenly endangered.

When we reel in horror at the latest shark attack, we should spare a thought for a majestically beautiful animal that is likely to disappear if we don't do something about shark fishing, pollution and climate change. For more information on sharks go to www.sharktrust.org .

Are we wrong to demonise the shark?

Yes

*Millions of us swim in the sea – on average fewer than 10 people are killed annually by sharks

*There are around 400 species of shark. Of these a mere 27 have ever been involved in attacks

*The shark is itself an endangered species. Every time it attacks it is fighting for its own survival

No

*Of all possible ways that a wild animal could attack a human, attack by shark is uniquely terrifying

*The water is the shark's element, but not man's. What goes on below will always be a source of fear

*The great white is the most feared shark for a reason. Not much of its victim is left when it attacks


Read more!

Quarter of antelope species in danger of extinction

IUCN 4 Mar 09;

A quarter of all antelope species are threatened with extinction, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™.

The results, compiled by the Antelope Specialist Group of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission, show that out of 91 species of antelope, 25 are threatened with extinction. The status of several species has become worse since the last complete assessment of all antelopes in 1996.

“Unsustainable harvesting, whether for food or traditional medicine, and human encroachment on their habitat are the main threats facing antelopes,” says Dr Philippe Chardonnet, Co-Chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group. “Most antelopes are found in developing countries which is why it’s critically important that we collaborate with local communities there since it is in their own interest to help preserve these animals.”

Five species of antelope are in the highest category of threat, Critically Endangered, including the Dama Gazelle (Nanger dama), Aders’ Duiker (Cephalophus adersi), the Saiga Antelope (Saiga tatarica), Hirola (Beatragus hunteri) and Addax (Addax nasomaculatus). The Scimitar Horned Oryx (Oryx dammah) is already Extinct in the Wild, but there are ongoing efforts to reintroduce it. The Dama Gazelle and Addax are both reduced to tiny remnant populations and highlight the dire situation for wildlife in the Sahelo-Saharan region.

A further nine species are in the next category of threat, Endangered, and another nine are classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Nearly 70 percent of antelope species are not threatened with extinction and some areas of the world are doing better than others in terms of antelope populations. India, for example, is home to four species of antelope and only one of them is currently regarded as threatened.

“Despite the pressure of living alongside 1.2 billion people, antelopes are doing well in India,” says Dr David Mallon, Co-Chair of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group. “It is no coincidence that there is very little tradition of hunting in India and gun ownership is rare.”

Overall, populations are stable in 31 percent of antelope species and decreasing in 62 percent of antelope species. The Springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) a native of southern Africa is the only antelope species with a long-term increasing trend, mainly as a result of the game ranching industry.

To see case studies of antelope, download the report (PDF).

Quarter Of Antelopes Under Threat: Report
Alister Doyle, PlanetArk 5 Mar 09;

OSLO - A quarter of the world's antelope species is under threat of extinction due to hunting and human damage to their habitats from the Sahara to Tibet, a study showed on Wednesday.

The South African springbok was the only antelope whose numbers were rising, bucking a dwindling or at best stable trend for all the 91 types of gazelles and other antelopes worldwide.

Twenty-five of 91 antelope species, or about a quarter, were rated "endangered" in a review by experts for the "Red List" of threatened species run by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

"The status of several species has become worse since the last complete assessment of all antelopes in 1996," it said in a statement. The IUCN groups governments, scientists and conservation organizations.

"Unsustainable harvesting, whether for food or traditional medicine, and human encroachment on their habitat are the main threats," said Philippe Chardonnet, co-chair of the antelope specialist group of the IUCN.

"Most antelopes are in developing countries which is why it's critically important that we collaborate with local communities there since it is in their own interest to help preserve these animals," he said in a statement.

In the worst case, the scimitar-horned oryx was rated extinct in the wild despite some unconfirmed reports of wild animals in Niger and Chad. Several thousand oryx are in captivity, with plans to reintroduce them the wild.

DIK DIK

Populations of antelopes -- ranging from the Tibetan gazelle to the silver dik dik in east Africa -- were falling for 62 percent of species, stable for 31 percent and rising only for one -- the springbok.

The status of the other six percent was uncertain. The springbok has been helped by good management of the species, it said. The antelope is prized for its meat and many are raised in ranches.

The study adds to an IUCN study last year that estimated a quarter of all mammals, from elephants to shrews, were under threat.

A rising human population is putting strains on nature. In many countries, farmers are converting spare land to crops while cities and roads are encroaching more on grasslands. Climate change is adding to problems.

The report said the addax, a large Saharan antelope, was among those most at risk with an 80 percent plunge in numbers over the past two decades.

"The total population is estimated at less than 300 individuals," with most in Niger, the report said.

The saiga antelope in Kazakhstan, Russia and Mongolia was most threatened in Asia. Its numbers have crashed to about 50,000 from 1.2 million three decades ago.

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

Quarter of antelope species face extinction: IUCN
Yahoo News 4 Mar 09;

PARIS (AFP) – More than 25 percent of the world's 91 known antelope species are threatened with extinction, according to an update of the IUCN Red List, an authoritative index of threatened animal life.

The status of several antelope species has become worse since the last complete assessment, in 1996, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature said.

"Unsustainable harvesting -- whether for food or traditional medicine -- and human encroachment on their habitat are the main threats facing antelopes," said Philippe Chardonnet, director of the International Foundation for the Conservation of Wildlife.

Five species are in the highest category of threat, critically endangered: the dama gazelle, Aders? duiker, the saiga antelope, hirola and addax.

The scimitar-horned oryx is already extinct in the wild, but there are ongoing efforts to reintroduce it.

The dama gazelle and addax are both reduced to tiny remnant populations, highlighting the dire situation for wildlife in the Sahelo-Saharan region, a vast expanse of desert and savannah in northern Africa, the report said.

Nearly 70 percent of antelope species are not threatened, including some in areas densely populated by humans.

India, for example, is home to four species of antelope of which only one is classified as facing extinction.

"Despite the pressure of living alongside 1.2 billion people, antelopes are doing well in India," says Dr David Mallon, co-chair, with Chardonnet, of the IUCN Antelope Specialist Group.

"It is no coincidence that there is very little tradition of hunting in India and gun ownership is rare."

The springbok, a native of southern Africa, is the only antelope species whose numbers have increased over the long term, mainly as a result of the game ranching industry, the study found.


Read more!

Reintroduced golden eagle poisoned in Ireland

Yahoo News 3 Mar 09;

DUBLIN (AFP) – The Irish government said Tuesday it was considering banning poisoned baits following the death of a golden eagle, a species specially introduced into Ireland.

Environment and Heritage Minister John Gormley expressed his "concern and disgust" about the death of the eagle in County Donegal in northwest Ireland.

"This is not the first case of poisoning of a rare reintroduced bird in Ireland," he said.

"Last year we had incidences in County Kerry (in the southwest) where a white-tailed eagle was also killed after eating poisoned bait.

"I have been concerned since then that our laws regarding the use of poisoned bait are not strong enough, and that a very small number of people have been acting irresponsibly and possibly illegally in this regard."

Gormley said his ministry was drafting proposals to regulate poisoned meat-based bait so it can only be used under licence in exceptional circumstances when there is no alternative.

Farmers use poisoned bait in Ireland against unwanted animals.

Imported golden eagles from Scotland have been set free every year in the Glenveagh national park in Donegal since the project was adopted by the government as a new millennium scheme.

The first eagle chick to be born in the country for almost 100 years hatched out in 2007.

Golden eagles died out in Ireland after they became a popular target in the era of shooting parties on large estates in the 19th century.

Stuffed specimens were a fashionable decorative item in the country's big houses and their eggs were highly prized by collectors.

Golden eagles were last bred in Glenveagh in 1910 and became extinct in Ireland after the last breeding attempt in County Mayo on the west coast in 1912.


Read more!

Obama renews protection for endangered species

Yahoo News 4 Mar 09;

WASHINGTON (AFP) – President Barack Obama on Tuesday restored rules aimed at saving endangered species from harm by government projects, in his latest move to undo Bush-era laws seen as damaging to the environment.

"The work of scientists and experts in my administration... will be respected," Obama said, announcing all government departments would now be consulted on projects which may affect endangered species.

"For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife. We should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it," Obama said.

Late last year, the Bush administration changed rules under the Endangered Species Act to allow government projects to go ahead without an independent review by the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Critics, among them environmental groups, warned the move could result in further harm to already endangered species and welcomed Obama's executive order.

"The Bush rules would have allowed agencies with little or no wildlife expertise to make decisions that could mean life or death for animals like the polar bear," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, a conservation group.

"When it comes to protecting wildlife, we should listen to the scientists who spend their lives studying these animals.

"Our wildlife are clearly in much better hands now. President Obama is bringing science back into decision-making."

Obama also demanded a review of the laws issued in the waning days of the administration of president George W. Bush.

"Until such review is completed, I request the heads of all agencies to exercise their discretion, under the new regulation, to follow the prior longstanding consultation and concurrence practices," Obama said in a memorandum.

It was yet another reversal of a Bush-era policy, as the Obama administration seeks to fulfill a campaign pledge to protect the environment.

In early February, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar ordered the Bureau of Land Management not to accept bids by energy companies on 77 parcels of Utah wilderness.

The lands involved sit "at the doorstep of some of our nation's most treasured landscapes in Utah," Salazar said, referring to the Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Parks, Dinosaur National Monument and Nine Mile Canyon.

The move was hailed by US environmentalists including actor Robert Redford, who had fought the Bush administration's rush to sell off the land in its final days.

Bush had widely pressed Congress to lift bans on offshore oil prospecting and backed moves to allow oil exploration in wilderness areas including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Salazar then also moved away from "drill-only" energy policies as he blocked what he called a "midnight action" by the Bush administration to push through the sale of offshore leases to gas and oil companies.

"On January 16, the last business day of the Bush administration, the administration proposed a new five-year plan for offshore oil and gas leasing," Salazar said on February 10.

It would have brought forward from 2012 to 2010 the creation of a new energy development plan that would affect some 300 million offshore acres (121 million hectares) on the outer continental shelf, from the US eastern seaboard to the Pacific Ocean off California, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

"We need to set aside the Bush administration's midnight timetable for the plan," Salazar said, ordering a six-month extension for the public hearings that put the deadline back from March to September.

Obama rolls back Bush rules on endangered species
Jeff Mason, PlanetArk 5 Mar 09;

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Tuesday directed U.S. government agencies to consult with scientists before taking action that could harm endangered species, rolling back last-minute rules put forward by former President George W. Bush.

Obama, a Democrat who has spent much of his first six weeks in office undoing policies of his Republican predecessor, signed a memo urging agencies such as the Department of Transportation to consult with government scientists before pursuing projects that could hurt threatened animals.

The Bush administration had proposed to let those agencies decide on their own whether their activities, such as building highways and dams, posted such a threat.

Obama took a shot at his predecessor when announcing the move during a visit with employees at the Department of the Interior earlier in the day.

"Today I've signed a memorandum that will help restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act, a process undermined by past administrations," Obama said to applause.

"The work of scientists and experts in my administration ... will be respected. For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it -- not weaken it."

Bush, who battled with environmentalists for years over his polices on climate change and other issues, drew further criticism at the end of his term for issuing "midnight regulations" that were viewed as ecologically unfriendly.

His changes to the Endangered Species Act were just one of a handful or such moves.

Environmental activists praised Obama's shift on Tuesday.

"Today's announcement marks the unequivocal return of science to the agencies that govern our fish, wildlife, and natural resources," said Carl Pope, executive director of environmental group Sierra Club.

"The Bush rules would have allowed agencies with little or no wildlife expertise to make decisions that could mean life or death for animals like the polar bear. When it comes to protecting wildlife, we should listen to the scientists who spend their lives studying these animals."

Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who chairs a Congressional committee on energy independence and global warming, also welcomed the move.

"Today proves that, under an Obama administration, scientists are no longer an endangered species," he said in a statement.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)


Read more!

Sweden's ozone layer thickest in decades: institute

Yahoo News 3 Mar 09;

STOCKHOLM (AFP) – The ozone layer over Sweden was thicker in February than it has been in decades, just a year after the second-thinnest level was recorded, the Swedish meteorological institute SMHI said on Tuesday.

Measurements taken at SMHI's station in Norrkoeping, just south of Stockholm, showed the ozone layer was at its thickest in February since recordings there began in 1988, with a measurement of 426 Dobson units (DU).

At the Vindeln station in northern Sweden, where measurements began in 1991, a record high of 437 DU was recorded.

"We have to go as far back to the measurements taken in Uppsala between 1951 and 1966" to find levels that high, SMHI said in a statement.

There, the highest level for February was in 1957, when a value of 439 DU was recorded.

The circumpolar whirl over the Arctic -- a polar high pressure system formed of a distinct column of cold air that develops during the long polar night -- disappeared very quickly in mid-January, and the stratosphere warmed up quickly in the space of a few days, SMHI explained.

As a result, "the low temperatures that usually cause rapid depletion of the ozone layer did not take place," it said.

The ozone layer over Sweden usually reaches its thickest level during the spring, before thinning during the summer and reaching a minimum during the winter, according to SMHI.

Ozone provides a natural protective filter against harmful ultra-violet rays from the sun, which can cause sunburn, cataracts and skin cancer and damage vegetation.

Its depletion is caused by extreme cold temperatures at high altitude and a particular type of pollution, from chemicals often used in refrigeration, some plastic foams, and aerosol sprays, when these have accumulated in the atmosphere.

Most of these chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), are being phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, but they linger in the atmosphere for many years.


Read more!

Inconvenient truths: Don't believe the greenwash

The Independent 3 Mar 09;

So you drive a Prius, eat organic and boycott anything made in China – but will that help to fight climate change? Simon Usborne faces the facts many ecologists would rather ignore

Cute animals will have to die

You may not have come across the Bewick's swan. The smallest swan found in Britain, it reaches our shores from its Siberian breeding grounds in October and, along with 65,000 other water birds, it splashes down in the wetlands of the Severn Estuary. It is, without doubt, very cute.

But soon, it will have to find somewhere else to feed. In a few years' time, hundreds of lorries and cranes are set to sling 10 miles of steel and concrete across the most beautiful and ecologically diverse of estuaries, flooding the swans' habitat. Could anything be more of an affront to the eco-minded? The call would seem to be as clear as they come: save the swans, say no to construction.

But it isn't that simple. All that steel and concrete will become the Severn Barrage which, by harnessing the tides, would provide 5 per cent of Britain's electricity, with no nasty carbon emissions. So, which to choose: clean electricity, or the protection of birds and beasts?

It's a tough call, but one we may have to get used to. Last year, the EU set a target for the UK to increase the proportion of its energy gained from renewable sources such as wind, water and the sun from 1.8 per cent to 15 per cent – in 12 years.

The House of Lords' European committee called the target "extremely challenging". Others call it unachievable. Either way, the Government is forced to seek more options than a few offshore wind turbines – and there's going to be some serious cute collateral along the way.

We need nuclear power

"The whole universe runs on nuclear energy, so why not us?" argues the environmental scientist James Lovelock. While there are associated concerns about weapons and radioactive waste, a government White Paper published last January found that nuclear power emits only 2 to 6 per cent of carbon per kilowatt-hour of that emitted by the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas. And it factored in everything from the uranium mining through to power-plant decommissioning.

About 18 per cent of the UK's electricity is currently generated by nuclear power, with all but one of our existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2023. We need to build more now because, however much we'd like it to, wind power cannot be relied on to generate enough electricity at the times when it is needed. As John Constable, the director of policy and research at the Renewable Energy Foundation, said in December: "To generate 30 or 40 per cent of our electrical energy from wind power would present unmanageable and unaffordable difficulties at the present."

Even Sweden has just announced plans to overturn a 29-year ban on atomic plants. "I'm doing this for the sake of my children and grandchildren," said Center party leader Maud Olofsson.

Counting food miles will get you nowhere

It's true that our suppers have never travelled so far to reach our plates – asparagus from Peru, green beans from Kenya, lamb from New Zealand. Importing bananas and kiwis is one thing (they don't grow so well in Kent) – but surely it's madness to fill our supermarket aisles with butter, apples and beans from the other side of the world?

Well, not necessarily. The food miles argument is perhaps one of the most criminally oversimplified in the whole green debate.

First, it's worth looking at just how much food we do import. According to the Department for Environment and Food's latest figures, we are 61 per cent self-sufficient; crucially, when it comes to foods we can produce here, that figure rises to 74 per cent.

But what of the relatively small percentage of food we do ship in? The food miles argument would have it that a leg of lamb's carbon hoofprint is in proportion to the number of miles it travels. But that ignores the concept of scale. Say a small local farm produces 10 tons of lamb, and has a lorry that can carry one ton at a time. And say it is 100 miles from the nearest market. You get lamb with 100 food miles, but the farmers have to make 10 trips to transport their meat.

Meanwhile, lamb from a bigger farm 500 miles away would travel 500 food miles, but they've got a 10-ton lorry so they do it in one trip. Sure, the big truck guzzles more gas than the little one, but not five times as much, so the carbon footprint of the far-flung lamb is smaller.

OK, that's a fictional example. But there have been more rigorous studies. Adrian Williams, an agricultural researcher at Cranfield University, has called the food miles argument "foolish: provincial, damaging and simplistic". Williams and his team have looked at the relative carbon footprints of produce grown locally and thousands of miles away, taking into account factors such as fertilisation, irrigation, means of transportation and harvesting methods – not just the number of miles from field to fork.

Williams showed that apples from New Zealand may be "greener" than those grown locally because the climate there allows for much greater yields, and farms rely mostly on electricity generated by renewable sources. A study at New Zealand's Lincoln University showed that lamb shipped to Britain produced one-quarter of the CO2 emissions of British lamb when you accounted for the relative reliance on fertiliser and energy-hungry irrigation systems, as well as the method of transport – shipping emissions have been shown to be about one-60th of those produced by air travel.

And it's not just food and drink that can travel ethically. Williams carried out a study of the lives of 10,000 roses on sale in Britain in February. The total carbon footprint of flowers grown in heated greenhouses just over the Channel in Holland was six times greater than that of stems flown all the way from Kenya.

It looks as if the new generation of green shoppers who'll only buy local have something to think about over dinner. As Gareth Thomas, Trade and Development minister, said at a recent seminar on air freight: "Driving 6.5 miles to buy your shopping emits more carbon than flying a pack of Kenyan green beans to the UK."

An old banger beats a hybrid

Driving a banger might well be greener than zipping about in a hybrid car such as the Toyota Prius. The zeal with which green-minded drivers have embraced the Prius is scarcely credible, because the hybrid's eco-credentials are far from clear. Since its 1997 launch, the Prius, which combines a battery with a petrol engine, has become a big seller – Toyota has shifted a million of the things, and drivers include a clutch of celebrities led by Leonardo DiCaprio – and a symbol of everything a standard car is not: green, clean, virtuous.

But is it? Petrolheads have questioned Toyota's claims. Not always successfully; in 2007, an American market research company pitched too high when it published a report claiming that the Humvee, thought to be the worst-offending car on the road, had a smaller carbon footprint than a Prius. Further studies discredited that, but the researchers were on to something. Because the Prius uses a big battery to complement its engine, a Prius is green when it gets to the road, managing (Toyota says) a respectable 65.7mpg in mixed driving. But that hulk of a battery includes almost 14kg of nickel – and the Prius, therefore, requires more energy to build than a standard car of a similar size.

And some road tests have questioned whether it's even that green on the road. Drivers claim their dashboard gauges rarely show the promised 65.7mpg. In one test, the motoring journalist Jason Dawe took part in an experiment in which a Prius and a BMW 520 diesel were driven 545 miles from London to Geneva, including 100 miles of urban driving. The Prius guzzled 11.34 gallons of fuel (48.1mpg) compared to the BMW's 10.84 gallons (50.3mpg). Yet the Prius owner would pay £15 in road tax (£115 for BMW), be exempt from the London congestion charge (£8 a pop) and get to feel smug.

Other studies suggest that a diesel doesn't even need to be new to out-green a Prius. One US-based sustainability engineer, Pablo Paster, calculated that Toyota's hybrid burns 1,000 gallons of fuel before its first mile, thanks to the energy required to make that battery. He compared the Prius to a 10-year-old Toyota Tercel, which puts in 35mpg but has paid off its manufacture carbon debt. Paster estimates that the Prius would have to travel 100,000 miles before it could better the Tercel's overall carbon footprint.

Coal is not a dirty word

The coal-fired power station is the ultimate symbol of the way we send clouds of carbon into the atmosphere – yet the latest wisdom is that we should build more coal-fired power stations.

Why? Solar, wind and tidal power will only get us so much electricity. The other part of the solution may well involve a dirty, black rock we might have thought had been cast into history. Coal is seen as a key part of Britain's formula for green energy. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for the Department for Energy and Climate Change, recently said the black stuff "has to be part of the energy mix, partly because there is an abundant source in Britain". Britain still has enough coal to power the country for a century – and, in the longer term, "clean coal" is seen as a viable if imperfect way for developing countries to green up their power.

But how can coal be clean? The answer lies in a technique called carbon capture and storage (CCS). Traditionally, coal power plants belch tons of CO2 straight into the atmosphere. CCS power stations, or those fitted with the technology, would capture the greenhouse gas and bury it, usually in depleted oil or gas fields in, say, the North Sea. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that a modern power plant with CCS could reduce CO2 emissions by 80 to 90 per cent compared to a standard plant.

The first pilot CCS plant began operation in Germany last year. The Schwarze Pumpe processing plant separates and squashes its CO2 emissions to one-500th of original volume before pumping the gas into cylinders for transport and burial 1,000 metres underground in a gas field. In the next few weeks, the German energy company E.ON is expected to get approval to build a plant at Kingsnorth, in Kent.

The prospect of Britain's first new coal-fired power station for 30 years horrifies green campaigners, and Kingsnorth has seen clashes between police and protesters who say CCS is expensive, requires huge amounts of energy itself and won't greatly cut emissions for decades. But "clean" coal has momentum.

Organic farming doesn't add up

Organic must be good, right? Better food, free from nasty pesticides, packaged in recycled cardboard (preferably brown), with a bit of soil thrown in to confirm its wholesome provenance; better for us, better for the cows and chickens and lambs and fruit and veg, better for the planet.

Or have we been fooled by the virtuous glow of organic brands? There's a reason a kilo of organic carrots at the online supermarket Ocado costs £1.49 while a bag of standard carrots the same size costs 95p. Organic food is more expensive to farm. That's because, per acre, the yield is usually lower than for standard crops because organic fertilisers aren't as effective. And smaller farms are often less efficient in harvesting, processing, transporting and associated carbon emissions (see food miles).

Organically reared livestock provide less meat per acre, and their impact is greater than that of vegetables. According to the Department for Environment and Food, 75 per cent of the greenhouse gas methane on farms is emitted directly by ruminants – cattle and sheep. But feed for organic animals is higher in roughage and low in concentrates, resulting in higher methane output per beast. A study by Dr Andy Thorpe at the University of Portsmouth suggested that 200 cows emit the annual equivalent methane to a family car driven 111,850 miles.

Then there's the perception that to buy organic is to support the small farm down the lane. The food giants knew a good thing when they saw it (the UK organic industry is now worth £1.5bn a year) and, since the 1990s, they have invested heavily in small organic firms: Cadbury's gobbled up Green & Blacks, and Dean Foods, America's biggest dairy producer, gulped down Rachel's Organics.

So the organic principle is good in some ways – the taste of food, the lack of pesticides – but "organic is best" isn't always true.

Ancient forests must be axed

It isn't picturesque – but it is practical. It sounds ruthless, but wheezy old trees can't suck up the carbon like they used to. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 tonnes of CO2 until it reaches 55 years of age, after which absorption slows. And when that tree decomposes, it belches all the CO2 back out again. So although the results won't be terribly scenic, if we were utterly rational, our trees should get the axe after reaching their CO2-hoovering peak. The wood can then be used to make furniture, houses and many of the products we currently manufacture from less sustainable materials. We should then plant fresh seedlings to farm.

Nature needs GM crops

The public image of genetically modified foods lies somewhere between that of asbestos and nuclear weapons. Think GM and many of us picture tomatoes being cloned in laboratories with nasty strip lights and bubbling test tubes, or campaigners in white suits tearing up "frankencrops" in fields of undisclosed location.

But for many of those pondering the future of food, GM doesn't evoke such horrors – it's the answer to a potential global crisis taking root in fields from Bedfordshire to Brazil. The price of feeding a global population of more than six billion is its huge environmental impact.

According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture – with all its chugging tractors, fertiliser production and farting cows – accounts for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, throwing out tonnes of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. That's more than the world's cars, trucks, trains, ships and planes put together. In fact, UN figures suggest meat production alone churns out more greenhouse gases than transport.

An easy solution would be to reduce the posterior emissions of ruminants by eating less beef, but before we all go semi-veggie, perhaps we should give bioengineers, and their genetically modified carrots, a second chance. One third of agriculture's greenhouse emissions are caused by the production of nitrogen-based fertilisers. Some of the biggest names in GM are developing crops whose greater efficiency would mean higher yields for less fertiliser.

And it's not only in the food industry that GM could benefit the environment. Engineered corn would improve the efficiency of biofuels, which, thanks to the huge areas of land required to produce each barrel, and the energy required to run the mega-farms, frequently result in more carbon emissions than they save. Meanwhile scientists in Hawaii are engineering algae that "grows" biofuel, while in Boston a company is turning maize into plastic. And it doesn't stop there; scientists in Norwich have added the genes of snapdragon flowers to tomatoes to create a purple fruit rich in antioxidants which has been shown to stave off cancer in mice.

Almost 10 years ago, Sir Robert May, who was the Government's chief scientific adviser at the time, said people who were anti-GM displayed "the attitude of a privileged élite who think there will be no problem feeding tomorrow's growing population".

Carbon offsetting doesn't pay

Dreamed up by politicians and businessmen rather than climate change scientists, carbon offsetting has been described by Friends of the Earth as "a smokescreen to avoid real measures to tackle climate change". In the same way as the medieval church allowed monied folk to buy their way out of sin, so offsetting is designed to allow the wealthy to salve their consciences for all those shopping trips to Dubai. It would be far greener not to "spend" the carbon in the first place. And that's without going into the impossibility of accurately calculating how much carbon is emitted on any given flight and ensuring the "offset" doesn't involve planting a tree that will end up emitting even more carbon.

China might be the solution

We've all seen "Made in China" stamped on disposable goods – but you're now likely to find the same stamp on solar panels, wind turbines and the rechargeable batteries used by electric vehicles. According to a Climate Group report, China is on the way to overtaking developed countries in creating clean technologies. The world's largest emitter already leads the world in terms of installed renewable capacity. With its own coastal cities threatened by flooding, and soaring world demand for its green technology, China is on the way to becoming a "low-carbon dragon economy".

Additional reporting by Helen Brown


Read more!