Life History of the Large Four-Line Blue
from Butterflies of Singapore
Getting high at Hantu
from wonderful creation and singapore nature and wild shores of singapore and psychedelic nature
Collared Kingfisher eats pufferfish
from Bird Ecology Study Group
Smooth Otters & Water Monitors Part II
from Life's Indulgences
Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia 7 Nov 09;
SINGAPORE : Singapore is studying in detail its vulnerability to climate change, so that it can identify how to respond to the challenge.
Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said Singapore's development of desalination and water recycling has allowed it to diversify its water supply.
It has also helped the country buffet against the effects of extreme weather events.
Dr Yaacob added that despite signs of economic recovery, countries may find it a challenge to carry out expensive water infrastructure projects.
That is why there is a need to find practical water solutions that are both energy-efficient and cost-effective.
Dr Yaacob was speaking at the opening of the International Desalination Association World Congress in Dubai. - CNA /ls
The Star 8 Nov 09;
JOHOR BARU: The Johor Government is studying the possibility of building a new dam in Kahang as an alternative water source for the state.
State International Trade and Industry, Energy, Water, Communications and Environment Committee chairman Tan Kok Hong said the suggestion was made after several of the state’s dams showed low water levels even during the monsoon.
“We face this problem yearly and it is quite alarming especially at the Sembrong dam in Kluang,” he said.
He added that the issue was brought up during the State Water Resource committee meeting chaired by Mentri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman.
“We anticipated the problem at the beginning of the year and raised the dam’s capacity.
“This however, has not helped to solve the problem as the water level at the dam is still quite low.”
Tan said the other dams had not reached critical level and gave an assurance the state would be able to provide water for at least two additional months before running dry.
Tan is chairman for the newly formed integrated river basin management committee that monitors the water levels at rivers to reduce the possibility of floods.
“We had our first meeting on Wednesday with experts from the Malaysian Nature Society and other non-governmental organisations to find the best solution to the problem,” he said.
He was speaking to reporters after attending the 10th anniversary of BASF Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, an engineering plastics compounding plant, in Pasir Gudang here on Thursday.
“Floods are a major problem in the state and we need to find a solution that will also be environmentally friendly,” he said.
There are over 400 rivers in Johor.
NGO vs CPO
Optimistically Cautious by Errol Oh, The Star 7 Nov 09;
The campaign against palm oil’s growth in Borneo and Sumatra may come to a climax soon. Must there be losers?
ARE we ready for a Malaysia without oil palm? That sounds far-fetched and overly dramatic, doesn’t it? For that to happen, plantation companies and smallholders would have to stop cultivating the crop because it’s no longer worthwhile doing so. What are the chances of that happening?
Exceedingly slim at the moment, but the domestic plantation industry now has to acknowledge that perhaps more than ever, it’s getting harder to cling to the status quo.
There are several forces at work here. The option of developing new estates in Malaysia, particularly in the peninsula, is fast fading. So there’s the limitation of land scarcity, coupled with the slow rise in yields.
This means it’s tough for oil palm growers operating here to increase output significantly unless they can expand their landbank, which is often an expensive step. Add to that the mounting costs of labour, fertiliser, pesticide and fuel, and you have a challenging operating environment.
On the plus side, demand for palm oil is climbing steadily, driven by the economic strength of major importers such as China, India and the Middle East, and by the world population growth in general.
Also, the food industry’s shift from edible oils that contain trans fatty acids, and the biofuel frenzy triggered by the surging oil prices, have boosted the United States’ and Europe’s demand for palm oil.
Many Malaysian planters have responded to this tangle of factors by venturing into Indonesia, specifically Kalimantan and Sumatra, and to some extent, by opening plantations in Sabah and Sarawak.
The oil palm rush in Borneo and Sumatra – Indonesian companies too have been aggressively increasing their acreage – has led to another shift in the dynamics of the palm oil industry.
As the producers of crude palm oil (CPO) turn tracts of land into oil palm estates, people began questioning the environmental and social impact. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media in the West have become vociferous opponents of oil palm expansion.
With bodies such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth at the forefront, the NGOs are often relentless and clever in swaying public opinion and political will, so as to apply pressure on the palm oil industry.
Different NGOs have different causes. Together, they link the oil palm industry’s rapid growth to deforestation and peatland degradation, which in turn is blamed for species extinction, worsening climate change and the displacement of indigenous people.
Nobody can deny that many of these NGOs are good at staging in-your-face campaigns that grab attention and influence consumers, businesses and politicians.
It helps too that these organisations operate on altruistic platforms, which also makes it easier for the media to support their fights.
The titles of Greenpeace reports on the oil palm industry, for example, scream that the industry is “cooking the climate” and “burning up Borneo”. NGO members take part in loud, theatrical demonstrations to highlight their protest against the development of oil palm plantations in Borneo and Sumatra.
The use of the orang utan as a symbol of what we stand to lose amid the oil palm boom, is inspired and effective.
The NGOs also target the big buyers of palm oil – among them are household names such as Unilever, Cadbury, Ferrero and Nestle – by urging consumers to boycott products that contain palm oil.
The attacks on the palm oil industry has intensified as the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen next month approaches. Essentially, the NGOs want to halt the surge in oil palm cultivation in Borneo and Sumatra.
Says Greenpeace UK in its website, “We want to see the Indonesian government establish a moratorium on clearing forest and peatland areas and to help achieve that, we’re asking supermarkets and food companies to cease trading with palm oil suppliers that are involved in this environmental destruction.
“We also want to see deforested and degraded peatlands being restored, preventing yet more emissions from these areas.”
In the lead-up to the Copenhagen conference, Unilever and Greenpeace are leading a campaign to persuade the Indonesian government to impose a moratorium on deforestation for two to three years.
Clearly, the palm oil industry can’t ignore the NGOs. It’s not entirely bad, of course, that the industry is compelled to examine its practices and attitude towards sustainability issues.
And they have taken a step in this direction by being a part of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), which incidentally counts Unilever as a founding member. It’s an indication that the industry recognises the need for engagement with stakeholders.
However, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are not RSPO members, apparently by choice. It’s an example of how difficult it can be to reconcile the objectives on the NGOs with the raison d’etre of businesses and industries.
The detractors frequently describe palm oil as cheap as if it’s a commodity you sell out of the back of a van. Yet, it’s the crop that produces the most oil per hectare, making it the most efficient in land use, and thus the the lowest-cost option for food use. In addition, the palm oil industry are pivotal in the Malaysian and Indonesian economies.
These are arguments you hear all the time from the industry. Of course, these are not the only facts that matter, but they ought to be a huge consideration in assessing the worth and impact of the oil palm industry. The NGOs may have their hearts in the right place, but demonising the oil palm growers is more about strategy than fairness. Is stalling an industry’s growth truly an all-round superior alternative to engagement via the RSPO?
l Deputy business editor Errol Oh reckons that living in a world operated purely for profit is no better and no worse than living in a world run by NGOs alone.
The Jakarta Post 7 Nov 09;
The population of deer (Cervus timorensis) in the Rawa Aopa Watumohai National Park (TNRAW) in Southeast Sulawesi has declined significantly in the last 16 years, a member of park management staff says.
The number of deer at the park was now less than 1,000 from around 33,000 in 1993, according to Budi Prasetyo, an officer of the TNRAW, told Antara state news agency in Kendari on Saturday.
Illegal logging and poaching activities in 2001 especially, were the main factors which caused the deer population to fall sharply, he said.
The 105,194-hectare national park is the habitat of various flora and fauna such as 155 species of birds, including 32 species of endangered birds, anoa, 'digo' monkey (Macaca ochreata) and brown civet.
Jeff Barnard, Associated Press 7 Nov 09;
Killing or removing 25 California sea lions over the past two years has not reduced the toll on salmon at the base of Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River.
A new report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates sea lions ate 4,960 salmon and steelhead during the spring of 2009 — 2.4 percent of the fish passing the dam located near Cascade Locks, Ore. That compares to an adjusted estimate of 4,927, or 2.9 percent of the run, in 2008.
And while the number of California sea lions was down — 54 this year compared to 82 in 2008 — the average number of salmon eaten by each one was up, along with the number of Stellar sea lions — 26 this year compared to 17 last year.
Sharon Young of the Humane Society of the United States said the numbers show that trying to restore salmon by killing predators does not work at a place like Bonneville Dam.
"You have to address the root issues causing problems for the salmon," such as the dams, fishing, habitat loss and irrigation withdrawals, she said. "Obviously, if predation were the primary issue in the recovery of salmon, we wouldn't be seeing the run size fluctuating like this. The run size fluctuates due to oceanic variables to which the animals are exposed."
The report showed spring runs steadily increasing from 88,474 in 2007 to 186,060 in 2009, while the numbers of salmon eaten by sea lions stayed about the same — 4,335 in 2007 when no sea lions were removed and 4,960 this year after 25 were trapped and killed or sent to aquariums.
A companion report from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates that removing the sea lions doing the most damage saved some 1,655 salmon.
Department spokesman Rick Hargrave said the hazing and removal of California sea lions will continue next year with few changes. One difference will be trying to block areas near the dam where the sea lions can get out of the water to rest.
California sea lions are normally protected by federal law. But since some have discovered that salmon — including threatened and endangered species — are easy pickings at the dam, NOAA Fisheries Service has given authority to the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho to kill up to 85 a year. This was the first year sea lions were killed as well as trapped and sent to aquariums.
Meanwhile the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments in Portland, Ore., Friday on the Human Society's lawsuit trying to stop the program. A trial judge rejected the organization's arguments that dams and fishermen kill more fish than the sea lions, and the appeals court has refused to halt the trapping while the case is in the court.
The Army Corps report also found that a few sea lions were hanging around the dam in the fall for the first time, raising concerns they could start feeding on fall and winter salmon runs. It also found the numbers of white sturgeon eaten, particularly by the Stellar sea lions, continued to increase, hitting an estimated 1,710 this year.
David Wivell, Associated Press Yahoo News 7 Nov 09;
BEIJING – A Chinese scholar persecuted during the Cultural Revolution for smuggling a rare collection of mushrooms out of China before World War II was honored Saturday when the collection was returned more than 70 years later.
At a ceremony at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Cornell University President David Skorton handed over the collection that had been meticulously gathered by scholar Shu Chun Teng.
Teng studied mycology at Cornell University in the 1920s, then spent the next decade traveling on horseback gathering molds, lichens, yeasts, rusts and morels in the forests, fields and marshes of his homeland.
"I think the most important part about what we're doing here today is really returning a hand to the Chinese people that was outstretched three quarters of a century ago," Skorton said.
During the Japanese invasion in 1937, Teng arranged for his best specimens to be removed from a national botany institute he directed to save them from destruction. During World War II, they were smuggled by ox cart to Indochina and then by sea to the United States, and 2,278 of the specimen packets ended up at Teng's alma mater.
But that action meant Teng became a target during the devastating 1966-76 Cultural Revolution. Discharged from his lab, he was subjected to daily beatings and mental prosecution that ruined his health and career. He died in 1970 at age 67.
Teng's daughter, Deng Yi, said she felt many emotions at the ceremony.
"During that time my father was classified as a counterrevolutionary and labeled with many different crimes. The main crime he was blamed for was maintaining illicit relations with foreign countries — selling out our heritage. The reason was this collection," she said.
"So now that these specimens have returned to their home country, my father up in heaven would feel a great happiness in his heart," Deng said.
At Cornell's initiative, the university divided up and is sharing its Fungi of China Collection with the academy's Institute of Microbiology.
Zhuang Wenying, a mycologist at the Institute of Microbiology, praised Teng's action.
"I think that his motivation and his actions were great things, because he saved this treasure so that we can still see and research with them today. Some of these samples do not exist anywhere else," she said.
During his travels to all corners of China, Teng made meticulous notes and drawings of the fungi he found — and frequently mailed duplicates to Cornell. He returned to teaching after the war, restored a national mycology laboratory and published a 1963 book that remains an indispensable source of information on his country's fungi in the first half of the 20th century.
Harmful fishing practices will be banned from UK coastal waters under new legislation to protect endangered species
Lisa Bachelor, The Observer The Guardian 8 Nov 09;
An exotic underwater world of seahorses, sharks and corals that surrounds the coast of Britain is to be given greater protection under new legislation coming into force this week.
The long-awaited Marine Act will allow conservation groups to map sites of nature preservation for the first time. Future legislation to be enforced in these marine conservation zones will see an end to damaging practices such as scallop dredging and trawler fishing.
Currently there is only one small piece of coastline in Britain that is heavily protected – the sea around Lundy Island, off Devon. As a result, species such as spiny sea-horses, found in Studland Bay in Dorset, and basking sharks, seen in Britain's coastal waters in the summer, have been under serious threat.
"This is a truly momentous event for our marine wildlife," said Joan Edwards, head of living seas for the Wildlife Trusts. "We have campaigned for many years for new laws to provide better protection of marine habitats and wildlife, as well as improved management of activities at sea. Numbers of basking sharks have dropped by more than 95% and corals, seahorses, whales, dolphins and seals have all been affected. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill, if effectively implemented, will provide the chance to conserve the thousands of species which inhabit UK waters."
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds hopes the act will also offer greater protection to Britain's seabirds, which are vulnerable to destructive fishing methods and marine pollution. "In recent years we have seen frightening declines in kittiwakes and other seabirds," said Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's director of conservation. "Climate change has been warming our seas and the food chain on which they rely is in danger of collapse. While this act can't stop climate change, it can help reduce other pressures on these vulnerable populations."
Part of the act's purpose is to safeguard Britain's vast network of brightly coloured, delicate corals. These include rarities such as the sunset cup coral, only found at a small number of isolated sites in the south-west of England and Wales. It is a slow-growing, long-lived species, making it particularly vulnerable. "Bottom trawling is like taking a plough along the sea bed," said Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at York University. "That is not conducive to sustaining healthy populations of fish."
The wildlife charity WWF has identified six "flagship species" that are under threat or in decline, which it believes will benefit from the act. These are the Atlantic salmon, whose numbers have been falling for 30 years; the pink sea fan, an exotic-looking horny coral; the harbour porpoise, usually seen in summer along the Welsh and Scottish coasts; sea-grass beds, a vital sea-horse habitat; deep-water coral reefs and horse mussel beds.
The establishment of the marine conservation zones will take place over the next two years, and the rules that govern each zone will be different, depending upon the needs of the species that are identified within them.
"If the Marine Act produces another feel-good exercise, it will have failed. My feeling is that it won't and that it will offer real protection to marine species," said Roberts.
Alister Doyle, Reuters 7 Nov 09;
BARCELONA, Spain (Reuters) - New uses of genetic testing can help track how animal diets may change due to global warming and are helping crack down on wildlife smuggling, experts said on Saturday.
"There's been an extraordinary growth in the use of the technology," said David Schindel, executive secretary of the Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) at the U.S. Smithsonian Institution of a system for identifying plants or animals by their genes.
The database had more than doubled since 2007, with over 700,000 records representing 65,000 species, he told Reuters in a telephone interview.
The system is inspired by "barcodes" like the black and white identification tags on products in supermarkets. A snippet of animal tissue or plant material can be used to reveal a unique DNA genetic code in a laboratory for a few dollars.
Scientists said they are using the techniques to understand the food web by studying the DNA genetic code of food in the guts of hunters. About 350 experts will meet in Mexico from November 7-13 to discuss advances, including in identifying plant DNA.
Barcodes are helping to study relations "between hunter and prey in the wild and how diets may be changing due to climate change," says Scott Miller, chair of the CBOL.
"Tiny soil organisms eat each other, roots, and all sorts of plant and animal debris," he said in a statement.
"Knowing what eats what is important to many studies, including investigations into how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are being released from soils into the atmosphere," he said.
BATS
New research, for instance, shows that eight bat species feed on over 300 types of insect, one of the widest food webs known. Comparing diets now with those in future can help understand how climate change may affect nature.
Barcoding has widening applications, ranging from stopping wildlife smuggling, tracking the spread of agricultural pests or mosquito-borne disease.
Experts say courts in Uganda and Kenya often give the benefit of the doubt to smugglers of hard-to-identify bushmeat -- DNA coding can identify if the meat is from an endangered species of animal.
In Brazil, a man caught smuggling 58 eggs in 2003 said they were quails. The eggs never hatched but genetic testing showed that he was trying to smuggle parrots.
Barcoding is "a significant contribution toward the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity," CBD Executive Secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf said in a statement.
The systems might also be used to identify species of animals or plants buried in permafrost -- for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. No DNA fragments have yet been discovered from fossil dinosaurs, Schindel said.
Forthcoming book examines the role of humans in the eradication of species, and its findings are not likely to be pleasant
Robin McKie, The Observer The Guardian 8 Nov 09;
At first sight it seems an unlikely topic for a landmark publishing deal: a fee of about half a million dollars for a book about dead animals – or, to be more precise, extinct animals.
Nevertheless the subject of eradicated species has become publishing hot property after a bidding battle in the US saw Henry Holt, a publisher, beat its rivals to buy The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert last week. According to the New York Times, a "mid-six-figure advance" has now been agreed between writer and publisher.
"The idea of mass extinctions as the next step after talking about the perils of global warming is the most crucial subject," said Gillian Blake of Holt, after completing the deal with Kolbert, a writer for the New Yorker on environmental issues. Her last book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, outlined evidence collated from sites across the planet showing how global warming is changing the world. The book was well reviewed on both sides of the Atlantic, with the Observer praising it as "a superbly crafted, diligently compressed vision of a world spiralling towards destruction".
Now, Kolbert is to focus on humanity's impact on the animal world, and in particular will look at the species that are today being rendered extinct by men and women. Scientists say the number of species being lost is approaching levels reached during five pivotal extinction events that have swept the planet over the past 600 million years. Among these catastrophes was the event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Kolbert's task will to be show whether or not humanity – with its spiralling population, widespread habitat destruction, over-fishing and global warming – is rivalling these.
The theme is intriguing but not new. Nor is the title. In 1996 the distinguished palaeontologist Richard Leakey, with journalist Roger Lewin, produced his version of The Sixth Extinction, in which he argued that the five previous mass extinction events were now being matched by a sixth. "Homo sapiens is poised to become the greatest catastrophic agent since a giant asteroid collided with the Earth 65 million years ago, wiping out half the world's species in a geological instant," he says.
Other distinguished scientists, including EO Wilson and Norman Myers, have also produced works on this theme. None received advances like the one agreed between Holt and Kolbert, however. So what has changed? Why have extinctions become the subject of such attention and finance?
Answers have much to do with timing. Over the past decade, there has been a revolution in concerns about the environment – on both sides of the Atlantic. A succession of reports from United Nations wildlife experts and climate scientists have shown that our planet is in peril and that thousands of species are now hovering on the brink of extinction. For a decade, the public has been deluged with stories about the vulnerability of the tiger, coral reefs, amphibians and a host of other creatures. Hence the interest in Kolbert's new book.
In publishing terms, the move is also a significant one because it represents a shift from big-money outlays on works of fiction which have dominated the market in recent years. Huge sums, for example, have been paid to novelists such as Audrey Niffenegger for works – such as her latest, Her Fearful Symmetry – that have had disappointing sales. A dose of eco-horror might prove rewarding, it is thought.
Certainly, extinctions make a riveting and disconcerting subject. As Professor Norman MacLeod, keeper of palaeontology at the Natural History Museum in London, told the Observer: "We now know that 99.9% of all lifeforms that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. That means, to a first order approximation, that all life is extinct."
Obviously this latter, rather disturbing, scenario has not quite arrived. Nevertheless it does indicate that the constant eradication of lifeforms has been the norm throughout the history of life on Earth. It is the fate of all species to become extinct, a notion that should concentrate the minds of Kolbert's readers. The question is: what forces are responsible for the loss of vast numbers of species in such a short period?
Answers depend on individual cases, it transpires. For example, a huge asteroid crashing on Earth 65 million years ago is generally thought to have done for the dinosaurs. The vast plume thrown up by the impact coated the planet in dust and triggered a devastating climate change. As a result, 47% of marine genera (groups of related species) and 18% of land vertebrate families, including the dinosaurs, were wiped out.
And as evidence geologists point to the Chicxulub crater near the Yucatán peninsula, beneath the Gulf of Mexico, as the impact point of the asteroid.
Similarly the Triassic extinction, which occurred between 199 million and 214 million years ago, was most likely caused by massive floods of lava erupting from the Atlantic Ocean. These created a wave of global warming. In this case, around 22% of marine families and 52% of marine genera were eradicated.
Then there was the Permian-Triassic extinction, about 250 million years ago, which has been linked to both asteroid impacts and volcanism. This was Earth's worst mass extinction, killing 95% of all species, including an estimated 70% of land species such as plants, insects and vertebrate animals. Before that, the Late Devonian extinction, about 360 million years ago, killed 57% of marine genera. Its cause remains unknown. And finally, there was the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, about 440 million years ago, which has been linked with changes in sea levels and which led to the eradication of 60% of marine genera.
Life on Earth has, on some occasions, become remarkably unpleasant in a short space of time, to say the least – though this has not always been the prevailing view among scientists. In fact, Darwin thought extinction was a slow, painful business. "The complete extinction of the species of a group is generally a slower process than their production," he once remarked, a view that held sway for more than a century. Indeed it was only in the latter half of the 20th century that scientists uncovered evidence – the Chicxulub crater – that an asteroid crash must have been involved in the demise of dinosaurs. Extinctions could be sudden, they realised.
However, MacLeod urged caution in interpreting such discoveries. "Most palaeontologists dislike the idea that any single cause was responsible for one of the main extinctions," he said.
"Life is very robust and it takes a sequence of events to produce large-scale extinctions."
Thus the dinosaurs were wiped out at a time of considerable volcanic activity on Earth. Plumes of material were already sweeping the planet, plunging it into a period of global cooling. The crashing asteroid then administered a planetary coup de grace.
On top of volcanoes and errant astronomical objects, other factors involved in these mass extinctions include extreme ice ages which coated the planet in ice from pole to equator, and eruptions of deep-sea methane deposits that set off massive global warming. The resulting death toll is measured in millions of species.
What remains unclear is the degree to which humans are now repeating this bloodletting, to the extent that we are about to set off a sixth extinction wave. If so, we will be the first single, biological cause of this kind of catastrophe. "If you add up the numbers of species that have been wiped out over the past few hundred years, then you find the figures fall well short of a mass extinction," said MacLeod. "It is only when you look at the numbers of creatures that are poised at the brink of eradication does the picture become alarming."
Tigers, coral reefs and all the marine life they support, amphibians such as the golden frog of Panama, orang-utans, sharks, mountain gorillas, the marine iguanas of the Galápagos, albatrosses, chimpanzees and thousands of other creatures now face obliteration: hunted, rendered homeless, and poisoned by humans.
More to the point, this predation has been going on, not for hundreds of years, but for tens of thousands of years.
Whenever Homo sapiens has moved into new territory, this has been followed quickly by the disappearance of most large land mammals, palaeontologists have found. For example, the Clovis people, ancient hunters armed with fearsome stone-tipped spears, arrived in North America 12,000 years ago.
A total of 75 species, including woolly mammoths, mastodons, four-horned antelopes and lumbering sloths the size of giraffes were killed off almost immediately. A thousand years later, the slaughter continued in South America when humans arrived there.
The glyptodon (a giant armadillo-like animal), several species of rodent and various llama-like animals were wiped out. And a similar bloodbath occurred in Australia with the arrival of the first members of Homo sapiens.
In short, humanity has a great deal of blood on its hands, spears and guns. Whether we maintain this kind of eradication of our fellow Earthlings remains to be seen. Most experts predict grim times, an outcome that will provide Kolbert with the core of her ambitious look at the fate of our planet – and at the fate of the animals who are trying, unsuccessfully, to share it with human beings.
Channel NewsAsia 7 Nov 09;
TOKYO: The leaders of Japan and Southeast Asia's five Mekong River nations wrapped up a summit at which Tokyo pledged more than US$5.5 billion in loans and grants and vowed deeper ties.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told a press conference on Saturday the Mekong region was a "priority area" for Japan's official development assistance (ODA) as it seeks to boost development in the resource-rich area.
A joint declaration said "Japan commits more than 500 billion yen of ODA in the next three years" for the further development of the Mekong region, which includes Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand.
"We strongly recognised the need for further strengthening of the Mekong-Japan relationship and cooperation to maximise the potential of the Mekong region," the statement said.
Asian giants Japan and China have for years poured aid and investment into the region, home to more than 220 million people, and are seen increasingly as competitors for influence.
Much of the region along the lower reaches of the 4,800-kilometre (2,980-mile) Mekong River has historically been isolated by war and political turmoil and remains poorer than other parts of Southeast Asia.
Hatoyama, who has pushed the concept of an EU-style Asian community, has set his sights on boosting economic development and has vowed to expand aid, particularly to Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
Eighty per cent of the US$5.5-billion package would be in low-interest yen loans, for projects ranging from regional highway links to water infrastructure and technological training, a government official said.
The leaders also agreed on an action plan to promote development, protect the environment and fight climate change under the slogan "A decade towards the Green Mekong."
And they demanded that Myanmar take steps towards democracy, calling for transparent elections next year.
The action plan said the leaders "expect that the government of Myanmar would take more positive steps in its democratisation process."
Hatoyama was later Saturday due to meet Thein Sein, Myanmar's first premier to visit Japan since 2003.
The Nikkei economic daily said Hatoyama would outline plans to increase aid to the country, criticised for human rights abuses including its detention of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
Hatoyama hailed Washington's latest efforts to engage Myanmar as beneficial for the entire Mekong region.
President Barack Obama's administration has recently changed its policy on Myanmar, saying it would push for engagement with the military regime because sanctions on their own had failed to bear fruit.
The leaders at the summit agreed to hold talks every year.
The goal of the Mekong group is to boost development through cooperation.
But the summit took place amid increasing tensions between Thailand and Cambodia, sparked by Cambodia's naming of Thailand's fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra as a government adviser.
- AFP/yb
Straits Times 8 Nov 09;
Thousands evacuated or isolated as storms strike states in Malaysia, Thailand and Australia
Kuala Lumpur - Continuous rain has caused flooding in parts of South-east Asia.
In Malaysia, 4,000 people from several villages in low-lying areas in Kelantan and Terengganu were forced out of their homes last Friday and given shelter in evacuation centres after four days of heavy rainfall.
The situation in Terengganu improved yesterday as many flood evacuees were allowed to return home, Bernama news agency reported.
A state security council spokesman said that, as of yesterday, only 1,022 people remained at six evacuation centres in Besut, Dungun, and Kuala Terengganu.
There were some who had been allowed to return home but chose to remain at the centres for fear of a second wave of flooding.
The number of evacuees in Kota Baru stood at more than 2,031, said Kelantan state flood operations control centre chief Shahnaz Nurul Amin.
Ms Shahnaz said the water level at Sungai Golok and Sungai Kelantan was still above the danger level.
A total of 579 people in Padang Terap in Alor Star were evacuated yesterday.
Kedah flood operations room spokesman Salim Mahmud said he expected more people to be evacuated, as the water level in Sungai Padang Terap was rising and had breached the danger level.
Meanwhile, at least six people have died and several districts in Thailand's provinces of Phatthalung, Yala and Narathiwat were declared disaster zones.
Fierce storms continued to lash southern Thailand, causing severe floods and landslides.
The Bangkok Post also reported flash floods in the Hat Yai, Na Thawi and Rattaphum districts of Songkhla province.
In the Bang Saphan Noi district of Prachuap Khiri Khan, powerful waves wrecked one part of a seawall, as well as part of the road next to it.
The Office of the Meteorological Department predicted more heavy rains unleashed by the strong monsoon over the Gulf of Thailand and Andaman.
Floods have also inundated parts of Australia's east coast, forcing the authorities to declare a natural disaster along parts of the country's east coast yesterday. Heavy floods cut off the main road linking major cities, leaving thousands of people stranded.
Agence France-Presse reported that torrential rain soaked the Coffs Harbour region north of Sydney, swamping the arterial Pacific Highway with floodwaters that isolated almost 5,000 people.
About 40 people had to be evacuated from the area hit by raging floods, and New South Wales Emergency Services Minister Steve Whan declared a natural disaster, releasing state funds for relief operations.
More than 500mm of rain had fallen in the past two days, Mr Whan said, in the fifth major flooding incident to hit the region this year.
'I guess one of the things we've seen predicted from climate change consistently is that the rain and the weather events will come in the form of more storms and more short-term deluges,' he said.
A first hand account of what it is like to cover the UN climate change negotiations.
Louise Gray, The Telegraph 7 Nov 09;
Time was when saving the planet meant overcoming a dastardly villain or just wearing a tight pair of pants over your trousers.
Not any more. If you want to save planet Earth from a temperature rise of two degrees C or more – which scientists agree is the biggest challenge facing the world right now – it means gathering in a soulless conference room to discuss more prosaic matters like greenhouse gas emissions and carbon budgets.
The men and women involved in this tedious negotiating process known as the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are undoubtedly worthy but they are not super humans – I wish they were. These are the faceless bureaucrats charged with thrashing out a global deal on climate change in time for Copenhagen in December. It is a huge task and don’t get me wrong, it is a deeply fascinating - if dangerously anoraky - process. It’s just that it is quite frankly impenetrable to most of the general public.
I have been charged with reporting on the latest rounds of negotiations from Barcelona this week. Ok, so as cities go it’s not a bad place to end up for a couple of days. But as usual in these negotiations, the talks are in a concrete hangar on the edge of town.
For the majority of the time delegates from 192 countries are locked in negotiations closed to the press. Everyone agrees that the best way to limit global warming is to reduce greenhouse gases, the question is how. Basically rich countries, that are historically responsible for most of the pollution, don’t want to cut dirty industry because it stops them being rich. Poor countries, who will be responsible for most of the pollution in the future, do not want to cut dirty industry because it will keep them poor.
Every so often you see flashes of colour from the multi-ethnic talks when a brightly coloured delegate from Bolivia (who send members of the indigenous community as observers) nip into the canteen for a coffee. The only photo opportunities are the constant stunts by people like Greenpeace who dress up as President Obama or Gordon Brown or even aliens to make a point and liven things up a bit.
But mostly the press rely on non-governmental organisations like WWF and Friends of the Earth, who follow every cough and spit of the talks, and briefings from national governments. Bingos – or business and industry NGOs - also provide less neutral briefings.
At the highest level you know it is like a high stakes poker game. Rich countries such as the US and UK employ the highest trained negotiators to play exactly the right cards without even raising an eyebrow. Poorer countries may have fewer resources but are quite willing to use dirty tricks, as demonstrated by the African nations who walked out in protest earlier this week.
Both sides throw the journalists titbits every so often and we try to interpret what is going on – after all it is going to be our taxes paying for these carbon cuts and our children who will suffer the consequences of global warming.
So saving the planet isn’t boring – Lord knows, someone’s got to do it - it’s just not easy.
It is an insult to science to rule that belief in man-made climate change is a religious conviction
Myles Allen, guardian.co.uk 5 Nov 09;
A British judge has decided that belief in human influence on climate has the status of religious conviction. This is being celebrated as a success by some activists. As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming. Is Jeremy Clarkson similarly entitled to protection if he declares himself a conscientious objector and wants to keep his 4x4?
It is yet another symptom of general confusion over the status of science among the public, politicians, the judiciary and, indeed, just about anyone who is not a practising scientist.
I don't ask anyone to believe in human influence on climate because I do, or because thousands of other scientists do. I ask them to look at the evidence. As Einstein is said to have reacted to an article entitled 100 scientists against Einstein: "If I'm wrong, one would be enough."
The scientific case for human influence on climate is not a political opinion, made stronger simply by lots of people signing up. Nor is it a religious conviction, made stronger, in Mr Justice Burton's phrase, if it is "genuinely held". It is based on evidence and understanding that has withstood some of the most intense scrutiny in the history of science.
If I could come up with convincing evidence that greenhouse gas emissions do not cause dangerous climate change after all, evidence that similarly withstands the scrutiny of my peers, I would get, and deserve, a Nobel prize (and for physics this time, not peace). If a scientist finds something that appears to conflict with mainstream opinion, she or he publishes it like a shot – this is not the behaviour of an adherent to a "genuinely held philosophical belief".
There is, of course, a moral and ethical dimension: to what extent should we concern ourselves with what happens to the generation-after-next? But very few of those arguing against emission reductions actually claim they don't care at all what happens in the 22nd century. They argue that emission reductions will not make a substantial difference to the risk of dangerous climate change. That is a testable hypothesis, and one which looks, on the overwhelming weight of current evidence, to be wrong.
To be fair, Tim Nicholson, the activist who brought the case, seems to be aware he may have opened a Pandora's box, stressing that climate change is not a new religion because it "is based on scientific evidence". But that means he should have lost his case: one of the key arguments the judge used was that, in his opinion, the case for human influence on climate was not "a view based on the present state of information available". But that is precisely what scientific evidence provides: if countervailing information becomes available, I would revise my view, as would any genuine scientist.
There is a very dangerous trend to regard climate scientists as just one of many "stakeholders" in the climate change debate. Journalists have taken to asking me whether I take steps to reduce my personal carbon footprint, presumably as a test of whether my beliefs are "genuinely held". If anyone thinks this is relevant, they don't understand how science works. I know climate scientists who drive Priuses and climate scientists who drive 4x4s: this is not a factor I consider when reading or reviewing their papers.
Working as I do in a University traditionally dominated by the Humanities, I suspect many of my colleagues would also be suspicious of a scientist arguing she or he occupies a privileged position. Memories of Cold War arrogance die hard. Of course, unlike the pope, science is not infallible: that is precisely the point. But nor are scientists just another participant in a political, philosophical or religious discourse. Our job is to provide the factual framework within which that discourse takes place. Some of the darkest episodes of the 20th century occurred when we forgot this distinction.
The problem is not Mr Justice Burton's views on climate change. The problem is his view of science. This decision should be appealed, and the appeal should be supported by the Royal Society and universities everywhere, in the name of science in general. Myles Allen heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, and was an author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Welcome to the age of the eco-martyr. God help us
Nothing will harm climate change campaigners as much as a judge decreeing that the green movement is a faith
Catherine Bennett, The Observer 8 Nov 09;
Following Mr Justice Burton's ruling that green beliefs should enjoy the same protection as religious ones, many committed recyclers will have been wondering how green you have to be to become unsackable. Would buying Duchy Originals do the trick? Or would you need to be sustainably crucified or burned at the stake, prior to receiving compensation? In recitations of his own creed, Tim Nicholson, who won the ruling allowing him to claim discrimination, sets the bar rather lower.
"I no longer travel by aeroplane," he told an employment tribunal, by way of piety credentials. "I have eco-renovated my home, I try to buy local produce, I compost my food waste, I encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions and I fear very much for the future of the human race, given the failure to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale."
Don't we all? Or intend to, anyway? Give us an eco-renovation, but not yet. That's religion for you, isn't it? We stray, occasionally, particularly where the smellier food waste is concerned. Even St Tim, one notices, does not disclose what part, if any, the car plays in his "low carbon lifestyle". Or specify how cold it has to be before he turns on the central heating. Indeed, following his court victory , the great martyr admitted that, just five years ago, he walked in darkness. "I flew abroad on holiday and for work, drove fast cars and had no knowledge of or concern about carbon emissions."
Not unlike St Paul, Tim then went on a journey and had an epiphany. After a 6,000-mile jaunt to New Zealand in a 50-year-old Morris Oxford, the young quantity surveyor asked himself: "How could I continue to live in a way that would increase the already dangerous high levels of CO²?" Not going on any more 6,000 mile car journeys was just the first step on his road to an exemplary, low carbon lifestyle in which, he reveals, he does not eat much meat.
Following his conversion, St Tim went to work for Grainger plc, which describes itself as "the UK's largest listed residential landlord". On the face of it, this seems about as sensible a scheme as a campaigning feminist taking a job in a lap-dancing club. Was the epiphany of the gradual variety or was it more of a missionary thing? One recalls that St Paul was specifically instructed, during his conversion, to go and preach to the contemporary of Grainger plc: the Gentiles. Writing about his court victory, St Tim said: "I hope that in practice it will encourage people who share my beliefs to speak up about climate change in their workplace and seek practical measures to cut emissions."
In practice, it seems likely that his achievement in getting climate change classified with the supernatural will do more planetary damage even than a 6,000-mile trip in a 50-year-old Morris Oxford. Some wonder if St Tim has not been possessed by the spirit of Christopher Monckton. For short of the collective apostasy of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is hard to imagine a more rewarding episode for sceptics who have always said that environmentalism is a matter of faith, not facts. For them, the most effective way of discrediting the movement is to depict it as an alliance of gullible consumers and doomy, secular preachers, who rant about sin, self-scourging and the apocalypse because they can't produce any evidence. Disparaging analogies with religion, implying that it has no science worth challenging, have followed the movement almost since it began, finding their most elegant expression in a well-known speech made by the late Michael Crichton. "Environmentalism is the religion of choice for urban atheists," he said in 2003. "Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief."
Too many environmentalists have helped make his point. Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, was so liberal with panic that the same Michael Burton, in a court case funded by sceptics, found nine "inaccuracies" that, he said, made it unacceptably "partisan". For instance, in attributing the melting snow on Kilimanjaro to anthropogenic climate change, Gore went against the scientific consensus (David Miliband has made the same mistake). One wonders if this experience contributed to Justice Burton's suggestion in the Nicholson case, that environmentalism is as much a viewpoint as a rational respƒonse to physical evidence.
As for Nicholson, he could have been designed to embody the common objection that the green movement is populated by affluent, I'm Not a Plastic Bag-carrying caricatures, who think it meritorious to advertise their eco-friendly tat or Cameronesque affectations. Does his "we don't eat much meat" generally inspire admiration? Or unworthy thoughts along the lines of Orwell's, when he raged against the middle-class cranks who, he argued, were putting working people off socialism? "If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt," he wrote in The Road to Wigan Pier, "and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!"
By chance, Orwell identifies at least three of the possible types who, following Burton's ruling, may take the opportunity to make a nuisance of themselves under the pretext of the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) 2003 Regulations. Lawyers are already crowing over the procession of vegetarians, humanists, feminists and – why not? – climate change sceptics, who are expected to find that their deeply held beliefs have been callously disrespected.
But even without Nicholson, this dismal outcome was predictable once the Labour government had chosen to enhance the place of religious faith in public life, instead of making a stand for secularism. Once it had encouraged religious people to believe that workplaces should take account of their myriad spiritualities, it had, in spirit of fairness, to extend a similar right to cause mischief to people who strongly believe in non-religious stuff.
The difficulty with a belief such as environmentalism, Burton said, is testing the "genuineness" with which it is held. So, probably, the more extreme the protestations, the better the chance of a pay-out. That's something for future green martyrs to bear in mind. Haven't we all heard voices telling us to buy local produce where possible? Aren't you hearing one, right now, saying that, for green believers, Earth Day is right up there with Christmas and Easter?
In fact, one wonders if it would not have been more prescient of Professor David Nutt, after being sacked by Alan Johnson, to say that his beliefs on the decriminalisation of drugs were dictated by an undeviating adherence to the shamanistic practices of Carlos Castaneda and thus privileged, like all similar codswallop, by the 2003 act. The counter-argument that he should, in that case, have found a job somewhere more congenial is, as we know, far too rational to be worth entertaining.
Martin Abbugao Yahoo News 6 Nov 09;
SINGAPORE (AFP) – Asia-Pacific powers including the United States, China and Russia are expected to call next week for sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the final countdown to a crunch climate meeting.
US President Barack Obama and 20 other regional leaders will also say it is too early to wean their economies off stimulus spending, according to a draft summit communique obtained by AFP on Friday.
At their November 14-15 summit in Singapore, the leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum will call man-made climate change "one of the biggest challenges facing the world", the draft declaration said.
"We believe that global emissions will need to peak over the next few years, and be reduced to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries," it said.
The leaders including Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will stress their commitment to reaching a "good agreement in Copenhagen", it added.
The December gathering in the Danish capital will try to thrash out a new treaty to tackle global warming, but preparatory talks have become deadlocked and officials warn that the process could drag on into next year.
Obama, who will stop in Singapore as part of his first presidential tour of Asia, faces a recalcitrant Congress and his administration wants more action from developing nations such as China.
The developing powers want more money from the industralized world to combat what they say is a Western-produced problem.
The draft APEC text said global action to cut emissions should "be accompanied by measures to support the most vulnerable countries to assist them to adapt to the adverse impact of climate change".
On Thursday, US Senate Democrats pushed a climate change bill through a key committee, shrugging off a Republican boycott. But it could still be a long way before it can clear the full Congress.
The Senate bill calls for a 20-percent emissions cut by 2020, more ambitious than a House of Representatives version passed in June calling for a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels.
In September, Hu told the United Nations that China would reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by a "notable margin" by 2020, but did not provide a figure.
Carbon intensity is the measure of greenhouse gas that is emitted for each dollar of gross domestic product.
On the economic crisis, the APEC leaders were expected to say: "We will maintain our economic stimulus policies until a durable economic recovery is secured."
But the draft stressed that "economic recovery is not yet on a solid footing".
The United States implemented a 787-billion-dollar Recovery Act in February which the White House says has saved or created nearly 650,000 jobs, and likely more than a million.
And analysts say that massive stimulus packages rolled out by Asian governments played an important role in helping the region weather the downturn better than the United States or Europe.
The Asian packages totalled more than one trillion US dollars, according to a tally by Standard and Poor's, led by 585 billion dollars in spending by China.
The APEC summit's host, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said this week that winding down the stimulus packages to make way for growth led by the private sector should be managed carefully.
"How exactly it has to be phased out... and how you balance the risks of withdrawing too quickly and administering too much adrenalin, that is something which will have to be discussed by the finance ministers and the central banks and calibrated as we go along," he said.
The leaders are also expected to "firmly reject all forms of protectionism" and work for a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of global trade talks by 2010.
They will instruct their officials to draw up by the end of next year ways to achieve a free-trade zone stretching from Chile to China, it said, reaffirming a longstanding goal of the 20-year-old APEC grouping.
APEC summit kicks off in Singapore
Channel NewsAsia 8 Nov 09;
SINGAPORE: The 20th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum kicked off in Singapore with a meeting of senior officials on Sunday.
The forum brings together 21 members located around the Pacific Ocean in an annual summit focused on economic growth, free trade and investment.
More than 10,000 delegates, including leaders and ministers, are expected at the week-long event in Singapore.
APEC leaders, including US President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, will meet on November 14 and 15.
APEC members are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam.
APEC's 21 member economies account for 40.5 percent of the world's population, 54.2 percent of its gross domestic product and 43.7 percent of global trade.
The forum has worked to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers across the region. It is guided by its "Bogor Goals" (named after the 1994 summit venue in Indonesia) of free and open trade and investment. Industrialised members were meant to achieve this by 2010 and developing economies by 2020.
APEC operates on the basis of non-binding commitments, and decisions are reached by consensus.
This year, the forum comes at a time when global economies are just recovering from the worst downturn in decades. Addressing the issue, a draft APEC communique stressed that "economic recovery is not yet on a solid footing" and "we will maintain our economic stimulus policies until a durable economic recovery is secured."
On climate change, APEC will call it "one of the biggest challenges facing the world", according to the draft declaration.
The leaders will try to give a boost to a crunch global meeting on climate change next month in Copenhagen. They will stress their commitment to reaching a "good agreement in Copenhagen", according to the draft communique.
The December gathering in the Danish capital will try to thrash out a new treaty to tackle global warming, but preparatory talks have become deadlocked.
APEC executive director Michael Tay said the discussions on climate change were part of efforts to achieve sustainable economic growth.
"One way is to look at energy efficiency, the sharing of best practices, the sharing of technology," he told AFP. "We are also looking at how to give better access for trade in environmental goods and services."
- CNA/AFP/ir
Toni Vorobyova and Anna Willard, Reuters 7 Nov 09;
ST ANDREWS, Scotland (Reuters) - Rich countries and developing nations fought over climate change on Saturday, failing to make progress on financing ahead of a major environmental summit in Copenhagen next month.
Britain, which was hosting a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Scotland, was determined to push toward a $100 billion deal to cover the costs of climate change by 2020.
But talks got bogged down in a row with large developing countries about who should foot the bill.
"There was a heated argument," Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said.
"I think we should be very careful in approaching the possibility of piling big new commitments onto developing countries as this can put a brake on the pursuing of other crucial tasks such as the eradication of poverty."
The climate change discussion had dragged on for hours and a French official said the debate was so intense there was a risk the final statement would not mention climate change at all.
In the end, they agreed on the need "to increase significantly and urgently the scale and predictability of finance to implement an ambitious international agreement."
European Union leaders agreed in October that developing countries would need 100 billion euros a year by 2020 to battle climate change.
About 22-50 billion euros of the total will come from the public purse in rich countries worldwide and the EU is expected to provide between 20 and 30 percent of that.
"It's a bit disappointing because we would have liked to have done a little bit more work," said French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde, adding that Europe's offer was "substantial."
STUMBLING BLOCK
China is often denounced by Western critics as the main obstacle to agreement, because it argues developing countries should not submit to binding international caps on emissions while they grow out of poverty.
In turn, China and other emerging powers have said the rich countries have done far too little in vowing to cut their own greenhouse gas output, and in offering technology and money to the Third World to help cope with global warming.
"We have not come as far as we had hoped even this morning," said German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble.
"We have not reached an agreement. There is still some work to do. I hope everybody knows that Copenhagen must not be a failure."
A European source said there was also frustration in a sunny St Andrews at the stance of the United States, who were sitting on the fence over climate change financing.
A 175-nation U.N. meeting in Barcelona ended on Friday with little progress toward a global deal on climate change but narrowed options on helping the poor to adapt to climate change, sharing technology and cutting emissions from deforestation.
The final U.N. preparatory meeting before Copenhangen re-opened a rich-poor divide on sharing the burden of curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and criticism of the United States for not tabling a formal, carbon-cutting offer.
About 40 world leaders will go to Copenhagen next month to improve the chances of clinching a climate deal, the United Nations has said.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, addressing the G20 delegates, said climate change was a test of global cooperation every bit as stern as the world financial crisis.
(Additional reporting by Gernot Heller and Jan Strupczewski, writing by Sumeet Desai and Patrick Graham; editing by Mike Peacock)
G20 fails to reach pre-Copenhagen climate finance deal
Katherine Haddon Yahoo News 7 Nov 09;
ST ANDREWS, Scotland (AFP) – G20 nations fell short of reaching agreement on climate finance a month before key UN talks, while pledging Saturday to maintain stimulus measures for a still "uneven" global economy.
The 20 leading economies committed to work for an "ambitious outcome" at December's vital Copenhagen climate change conference, but could not achieve their goal of agreeing how to distribute funding to poor countries to tackle the problem.
"We committed to take action to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen" where countries will seek agreement on slashing greenhouse gas emissions, the communique said.
Finance ministers also said they would stick to emergency stimulus support measures despite signs that the world was emerging from a 12-month financial maelstrom.
"We are not out of the woods yet and we need to maintain the measures we have taken," Alistair Darling, finance minister of G20 president Britain, said.
With the world's biggest economy barely out of recession, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said there was a "very broad consensus that growth remains the dominant policy."
Meanwhile, a proposal by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for a tax on global financial transactions got a lukewarm response, with the United States offering no support.
A month before the December 7-18 Copenhagen conference, the G20 said it was fully behind fighting climate change, though it promised only to "take forward" work on funding and provided no figures.
"We committed to take action to tackle the threat of climate change and work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen," the communique said.
"We discussed climate change financing options and recognised the need to increase significantly and urgently the scale and predictability of finance to implement an ambitious international agreement."
But there were signs of discord on the issue.
A French source told AFP late Friday that some emerging countries say the G20 is not the "appropriate forum" to discuss the issue.
Darling had earlier acknowledged there were "different views" around the table which would lead to "arguments."
"If there isn't an agreement on finance, if there isn't an agreement about contributions to make sure we can deal with this problem, then the Copenhagen agreement is going to be much, much more difficult," he said.
The outcome was criticised by campaigners including environmental group WWF.
In a statement, it said the G20 had "failed to reach agreement on the financing required for a global agreement to stave off catastrophic climate change" and voiced "scepticism" about promises to make further progress before Copenhagen.
Brown had earlier urged the G20 to consider a tax on global financial transactions, known as a Tobin Tax, as part of a new "social contract" for banks.
The move would be one way of reflecting the "global responsibilities" which financial institutions have to society, said Brown, who has in the past been wary of such a tax because of fears it could harm Britain's financial sector.
Asked by Sky News television whether he backed a Tobin Tax, US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said: "No, that's not something that we're prepared to support."
In a later press conference, he added: "I think it is fair to say that we agree that we have to build a system in which taxpayers are not exposed to risk of loss in the future."
He said that "we look forward to working with our counterparts" on how to avoid this although declined to say if the US would actively oppose such a tax.
Brown stressed Britain would not act alone on the Tobin Tax, saying it would also have to be implemented by all the world's major financial centres, including the US, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Switzerland.
"Let me be clear: Britain will not move unless others move with us together," he said.
Earlier, around 200 people, many dressed in bankers' pinstriped suits, gathered on a beach in St Andrews to protest against the meeting -- claiming the talking had to stop and firm action taken.
Climate finance hits snag before key UN summit
Katherine Haddon Yahoo News 8 Nov 09;
ST ANDREWS, Scotland (AFP) – The G20 talked big but delivered little on climate finance, campaigners said Sunday, as the clock ticks down to the UN's key Copenhagen summit in just one month's time.
One of the key talking points on Saturday for finance ministers meeting in the Scottish town of St Andrews had been working out how to deliver cash from rich to developing countries so they can tackle climate change.
The G20 agreed to work for an "ambitious outcome" at Copenhagen, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They also "recognised the need to increase significantly and urgently the scale and predictability of finance."
But there was no agreement on how cash should be delivered, although there would be "further work" on the issue, the final communique said.
Nor was there a clear figure for how much G20 countries would commit, although sources had played down hopes that this would be achieved before the meeting started.
With the Copenhagen talks starting on December 7, time is running out for a financial agreement to be in place by then.
"If there isn't an agreement on finance, if there isn't an agreement about contributions to make sure we can deal with this problem, then the Copenhagen agreement is going to be much, much more difficult," Alistair Darling, finance minister of hosts Britain, warned before the final session on Saturday.
Campaigners expressed disappointment at the meeting's outcome.
British charity Oxfam's senior policy adviser Max Lawson said: "The G20 has once again failed to live up to its rhetoric on climate change.
"As the clock ticks towards Copenhagen, the hundreds of millions of people around the world who are already suffering as a result of climate change cannot afford to wait any longer for a deal."
Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland, said the failure to reach agreement on funding was a "major disappointment."
"We wanted to see solid proposals on how the money would be raised, managed and distributed and an indication of how soon the countries most vulnerable to climate change will receive assistance," he added.
"The G20 has failed to deliver and the real work will now have to be done at Copenhagen."
Yvo de Boer, the UN's climate chief, said at the end of last month there were two "major opportunities" to make headway on finance before December.
One was the G20 finance ministers meeting in St Andrews the other was an EU summit earlier this month when leaders agreed that developing nations would need 100 billion euros (150 billion dollars) a year annually by 2020, but failed to agree how much individual countries would give.
So has all hope for a finance deal ahead of Copenhagen disappeared?
Darling on Saturday proposed that Britain, which is G20 president until the end of the year, could convene "a small group of countries which have particular problems."
"I am confident we can make progress at Copenhagen," he added.
There are also other chances for the international community to get together.
These include the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, bilaterals between the United States on one side and China, India and Japan on the other, and meetings between the European Union (EU) and China and India.
There will also be a restricted ministerial-level meeting among key countries in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations and talks among major economies that together account for 80 percent of the world's carbon output.
In Copenhagen itself, leaders could be there to give a final push in the closing days or hours -- Brown has said he will be there and Brazilian President Inacio Lula da Silva has urged others to attend.
Q+A: Climate change finance -- how does it work?
David Milliken, Reuters 8 Nov 09;
ST ANDREWS, Scotland (Reuters) - Discussing how to pay for efforts to combat climate change was a major theme at Saturday's meeting of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 leading economies.
Ministers made little visible progress in sorting out the thorny issue of how rich countries should help poorer ones fight global warming, but did agree that a big increase in funds was needed.
Following is a guide to the financing issue ahead of a United Nations summit on climate change in Copenhagen next month:
WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE FINANCE?
It covers a broad range of proposals to fund schemes in the developing world which reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that cause climate change.
The schemes are usually based on funding from governments and investors in richer countries -- in part because a dollar of spending can achieve a greater reduction in emissions in the developing world. Possibilities for cheap reduction of emissions in developed countries have largely been exhausted. Moreover, spending money on fighting climate change is not a priority for many developing countries, which blame industrialized nations for the problem. They argue spending on health, education and other poverty-reduction measures bring more immediate improvements to the quality of life.
Some schemes aim to mitigate the effects of climate change -- for example by boosting flood defenses -- where this is cheaper or more urgent than trying to reverse global warming.
WHO WOULD PAY?
Primarily governments and investors in rich countries. The European Union estimates effective action would cost 100 billion euros ($149 billion) a year, around a quarter to a fifth of which would be funded by taxes.
How the taxes would be levied is unclear. Options include charging firms for permits to emit carbon dioxide, taxes on financial transactions, and a tax on actual carbon dioxide emissions.
Private sector investment can be attracted since many schemes help save money by reducing energy costs. Some governments are also keen to have private sector involvement because they believe profit-driven investors are better at picking successful energy-saving technologies than civil servants or non-profit groups.
WHO WOULD RECEIVE THE MONEY?
Some funds would go directly to governments -- either administered by the World Bank, as some rich countries prefer, or via the United Nations, preferred by some poorer countries.
Other funds could pay for carbon emission credits which would go to firms that proved their investments had helped reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The UN has recently expanded such a scheme.
WHY ARE GOVERNMENTS SO IMPORTANT?
Public sector funding to combat climate change is crucial because the benefits of avoiding climate change will be felt too far in the future for the private sector to spend optimal amounts of money.
Also, the benefits of solving the climate problem will be felt by the entire population, not merely by investors.
WHO SUPPORTS/OPPOSES?
The EU supports greater rich-world financing of measures to tackle climate change, and has its own internal market for permits to emit carbon dioxide. It has promised to pay its "fair share" of the 100 billion euro annual costs.
The United States and Japan have both agreed in principle to help poorer countries fight climate change, but have been even vaguer about the details.
(Editing by Andrew Torchia)
Posts
visitors since Nov 07