Best of our wild blogs: 3 Mar 10


Tritodynamia yeoi, a new species of crab from Chek Jawa, Pulau Ubin from Raffles Museum News

The haze is back at Pasir Ris
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales and Out-of-control birds invade Bedok and leave a mess

Hantu Blog Log: 28 February 2010
from Pulau Hantu

Coral Garden at Kusu Island
from Psychedelic Nature

Tanah Merah
from Singapore Nature and colourful clouds and wild shores of singapore

Pulau Semakau
from The Simplicities in Life and Where Discovery Begins and wonderful creations

Crimson Sunbird hovering to harvest nectar
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Dear, we have run out of water from the tap. Can you head to the nearest supermarket and loot some? (Earthquake in Chile) from Water Quality in Singapore


Read more!

Coping with rising urban population

By adopting new intelligent systems, cities around the world can grow and flourish as their populations increase
Foong Sew Bun Business Times 2 Mar 10;

THERE was a time when if someone asked about Singapore's population, the answer would be '3.5 million'. Today, the same question elicits a resounding 'about five million'. According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, Singapore's total population as at June 2009 was 4.997 million.

About 3.733 million are Singapore residents, comprising Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents. Compare this to five decades ago - Singapore's population totalled 1.646 million in 1960. How the city-state has grown. Now let's take a look beyond our shores.

An estimated 60 million people are moving to cities and urban areas each year - over one million every week. Today, the world's cities are simultaneously addressing increasing populations and deteriorating infrastructure. To sustain growth, cities around the world - including Singapore - need to look at new ways of doing things. In the next five years, by adopting systems that are intelligent, instrumented and interconnected, cities will change in the following ways:

Cities will have healthier immune systems: Given their population density, cities will remain hotbeds of communicable diseases. But in the future, public health officials will know precisely when, where and how diseases are spreading - even which neighbourhoods will be affected next.

Scientists will give city officials, hospitals, schools and workplaces the tools to better detect, track, prepare for and prevent infections, such as the H1N1 virus or seasonal influenza. We will see a 'health Internet' emerge, where anonymous medical information, contained in electronic health records, will be securely shared to curtail the spread of disease and keep people healthier.

IBM is already working with organisations worldwide, such as the Nuclear Threat Initiative's Global Health and Security Initiative and the Middle East Consortium on Infectious Disease Surveillance, to standardise methods for sharing health information and analysing infectious disease outbreaks.

City buildings will sense and respond like living organisms: As people move into city buildings at record rates, buildings will be built smartly. Today, many of the systems that constitute a building - heat, water, sewage, electricity, etc - are managed independently.

In the future, the technology that manages facilities will operate like a living organism that can sense and respond quickly, in order to protect citizens, save resources and reduce carbon emissions. Thousands of sensors inside buildings will monitor everything from motion and temperature to humidity, occupancy and light. The building won't just coexist with nature - it will harness it. This system will enable repairs before something breaks, emergency units to respond quickly with the necessary resources, and consumers and business owners to monitor their energy consumption and carbon emission in real time and take action to reduce them.

Some buildings are already showing signs of intelligence by reducing energy use, improving operational efficiency, and improving comfort and safety for occupants. For the first time, the 'E' on gas gauges will mean 'enough'. Increasingly, cars and city buses no longer will rely on fossil fuels. Vehicles will begin to run on new battery technology that won't need to be recharged for days or months at a time, depending on how often you drive.

Scientists and engineers are working to design new batteries that will make it possible for electric vehicles to travel 500km to 800km on a single charge, up from 80km to 160km currently. Also, smart grids in cities could enable cars to be charged in public places and use renewable energy, such as wind power, for charging so they no longer rely on coal-powered plants. This will lower emissions as well as minimise noise pollution.

Smarter systems will quench cities' thirst for water and save energy: Today, one in five people lacks access to safe drinking water, and municipalities lose an alarming amount of precious water - up to 50 per cent through leaky infrastructure. On top of that, human demand for water is expected to increase sixfold in the next 50 years. To deal with this challenge, cities will install smarter water systems to reduce water waste by up to 50 per cent. Cities will also install smart sewer systems that not only prevent run-off pollution in rivers and lakes but also purify water to make it drinkable.

Advanced water purification technologies will help cities recycle and reuse water locally, reducing energy used to transport water by up to 20 per cent. Interactive meters and sensors will be integrated into water and energy systems, providing you with real time, accurate information about your water consumption so you will be able to make better decisions about how and when you use this valuable resource.

Cities will respond to a crisis - even before receiving an emergency phone call: Cities will be able to reduce and even prevent emergencies, such as crime and disasters. More than 70 per cent of the world's population will live in cities by 2050. By taking these steps over the next five years, cities around the world can grow and flourish as their populations increase.

One wonders what Singapore's population figure will be by then.

The writer is a distinguished engineer and chief technologist with IBM Singapore


Read more!

Muted response to Singapore emissions breakthrough

Singapore firm's system seen as too good to be true
David Hughes Business Times 2 Mar 10;

I HAVE been a shipping journalist for over 20 years now but I am sure I have never come across a story like the one about Singapore-based Ecospec Global Technology's CSNOx gas abatement system.

Now it is not that the story is about a hugely significant technological breakthrough, although it is. No, the really remarkable thing is the muted response that is so far elicited from the global shipping industry.

For those who have not been following this story over the past year or so, Ecospec claims that its system can massively reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, as well as reduce those of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) to below IMO limits.

At present there are International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations restricting SO2 and NOx emissions. One way of complying is to use abatement systems, colloquially known as 'scrubbers', and some have been developed and are in the early stages of commercial use.

There is currently no requirement for reducing or eliminating CO emissions from ships. It had been expected that the United Nations' Copenhagen Conference last December would have provided IMO with the authority to develop international regulations to achieve this in the marine sector.

Of course Copenhagen was a failure and nothing will now proceed at the UN level until this December's Mexico Conference. Nevertheless, unless the review of the basic science behind the case that greenhouse gases (GHG) are leading to dangerous global warming comes up with a surprise, the political pressure is such that shipping will have to act to cut its CO2 production. In the absence of a global GHG regime, the EU is certain to act unilaterally.

Until Ecospec came up with its system, it had been assumed that the technology simply wasn't available to scrub CO2 from emissions.

Now classification society American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) has verified the results of sulphur dioxide (SO2), CO2, nitrogen oxide (NOx) removal from the emissions of a trading 100,000-tonne aframax tanker installed with the CSNOx gas abatement system. ABS has been verifying test results afloat and ashore over past two years.

In the first load point verifications, part of the ongoing IMO Type Approval certification process, conducted during the last week of January, at 50 per cent gas load (equivalent to approximately 5 MW engine output), ABS confirmed the system removed 77 per cent of CO2, 99 per cent of SO2, and 66 per cent of NOx.

Ecospec says the CSNOx system allows vessels to continue using normal heavy fuel and still meet the 0.1 per cent sulphur content as required by an EU ruling which took effect on Jan 1, 2010.

The company says the removal efficiency for NOx is the absolute reduction percentage. After translating this removal efficiency into the NOx emission requirement according to IMO's Tier 1, 2 or 3 (the strictest) requirements, the CSNOx system is able to remove NOx to such levels that vessels installed with it are able to meet even the strictest Tier 3 requirement.

So as well as meeting current IMO requirements, the system holds out the promise of more or less solving the greenhouse gas issue for the shipping industry.

Ecospec founder and managing director Chew Hwee Hong said: 'The shipping community is thrilled with the results. CSNOx is extremely efficient in removing CO2, SO2 and NOx. Of significance is also the wash water quality, which met all IMO requirements with most parameters surpassing the strict criteria by a large margin. ABS verifications also underscore the fact that CSNOx is the world's first proven commercially viable solution that can effectively reduce the hotly debated GHG and pollutants all in one system.'

Actually the shipping community, in general, isn't thrilled; not yet at least. And that is the strange thing about this story. There is such huge scepticism about the Singapore scrubber that most of the industry still doesn't believe Ecospec has cracked the CO2 issue. The attitude seems to be that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. At the moment the general attitude remains indifference, even among some Singapore-based owners.

Mr Chew said: 'The verified results by ABS are critically relevant to ship owners and operators as it means that vessels installed with the CSNOx system will have no difficulty in meeting the IMO's regulations, EU's directives, and EPA's emissions requirements from ships even when using fuel with high sulphur content.'

Actually he is not quite there yet. Ecospec needs to get IMO approval, certified by ABS, for its system before it can be used by owners to comply with IMO and EU rules. That said, the latest verification from ABS must be a major step on that road.

It is looking increasingly likely that a Singapore company is responsible for probably the most significant technical breakthrough in combating the greenhouse gas build-up so far.


Read more!

Making a whale into a killer

In the wake of the SeaWorld attack, an expert explains how captivity drives orcas crazy -- and can turn them deadly
Jed Lipinski Salon.com 28 Feb 10;

On Wednesday, a female trainer at SeaWorld was killed when a 12,000-pound orca named Tilikum ("Tilly") grabbed her by the ponytail, dragged her under water, and thrashed her about in his jaws. Twenty audience members, lingering after a production of "Dine With Shamu," witnessed the act. It was the third human death Tilly has been involved in, and yet the park has no intention of euthanizing him, partly because his motives were unclear. Was his intent to kill, or was it an accident, the result of roughhousing with a mammal 1/100th his own size?

No one knows. But the stresses of captivity seem responsible. Captive orcas often decline to eat, and are force-fed until they do. And while there are no known cases of an orca killing a human in the wild, around two dozen cases exist of captive orcas attacking humans.

In response, SeaWorld, whose brand-image depends on friendly-looking killer whales, has found itself in a public-relations quandary akin to what Accenture experienced with its “Go on. Be a Tiger” ads. And yet it’s been suggested that Wednesday’s death may generate a new audience for the park -- that of teens and young adults, enlivened by the possibility of violence.

Salon recently caught up with Philip Hoare, author of the nonfiction book "The Whale," to discuss our relationship with orcas, the toll captivity takes on whales, and the continued risk it poses for human beings.

Some whale experts have said that if Tilly was aiming to kill his trainer, he would have done something more gruesome. But how can we tell if an orca is playing rough or trying to cause harm?

Well, other whales have been known to go too far in their play with humans. Pilot whales off Madeira, in the Atlantic, have been known to drag swimmers down to the depths, apparently heedless of their need for air. But just watch what an orca does with a seal kill. It's tossed in the air -- orcas often play with their food before eating it. It is evident that they get off on that! I think you're right, though. We can't tell. No orca would regard a human as food. They're much too smart for that. Their sonar can diagnose if a woman is pregnant, for heaven's sake. I think that Tilly's behavior on balance does indicate a kind of cetacean psychosis. But until we perfect whale speak, we won't know.

Are whales in captivity more likely than other animals to get stressed out, or even become psychotic?

Well, here you've got species that are used to having an entire ocean -- if not the watery world -- in which to live and play. Dolphins -- and an orca is just an overgrown dolphin, really -- are addicted to play. It is an essential part of their social structure. (Dolphins are also one of the few species, after human beings, that have sex for its own sake.) Take away the stimulus of that vast, three-dimensional, near-gravity-free environment, and the social structures they have built up over millennia, and it’s obvious you're going to induce mental illness. Just look at the sea lions circling their pool in Central Park.

Do you think orcas like Tilly are pushed too hard to entertain at places like SeaWorld?

They want to please, like dogs. They need to exhibit creative behavior. We're artificially inducing that behavior, to our own needs. Trainers do have their animals' best interests at heart, of course. That poor woman in SeaWorld could never have thought her life would end that way. But you are only ever dealing with a wild animal, whose reactions are unpredictable, at base.

After Tilly and two female whales killed a trainer in Victoria, British Columbia, in 1991, Tilly was moved to Orlando, partly because the females were bullying him. Is orca-bullying common in the wild, or is it something induced by captivity?

Dolphins certainly bully other cetaceans. The resident bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth in Scotland, for example, have been seen beak-butting porpoises and tossing them in the air, just for fun. Hierarchical structures certainly exist within cetacean species, and possibly between the species, too. Artificial environments -- so confined -- are bound to induce aberrant behavior. Look at your local prison.

I guess what I want to say is that it is ignorance that's at the heart of the issue. But, of course, there's a certain beauty to that ignorance -- a reminder that we haven't worked everything out. A death in a Florida pool is too high a price to pay for that. But whales have suffered a two-century-long holocaust. The cumulative effects of that, on both our species, is unknowable. As Melville wrote: "Ah the world, oh the whale."

What uses did we have for orcas before aquariums and amusement parks came around?

In Australia, in the 20th century, shore whalers at Eden, on the coast of New South Wales, cooperated with a pod of orca, led by a bull male named Old Tom. The killer would herd humpbacks, passing on their migration, south toward the Antarctic. The unenlisted orca would corral the unsuspecting great whales into the cup of Two-fold Bay, where the human hunters would then row out to harpoon the whales. Sinking naturally to the shallow seabed, the orca would there be allowed to claim their prize: the humpback's tongue, the only part of the animal they relished. A day later, the dead whale, bloated with gas, would rise to the surface for collection by the whalers.

It was an efficient, if not cynical exploitation of both species of cetacean -- a counterpoint to this week's tragic events at SeaWorld. The truth is now as it's ever been: We need whales more than they need us.

When did we start domesticating whales this way?

Killer whales were first held captive for the purposes of entertaining humans in the 1960s. Since then, 200 killer whales have died in captivity. My first exposure to a living whale was at a safari park outside London, where Ramu, a newly captured orca, went through its routines. Even to a young boy, it was clear this wasn't the right way to treat a wild animal. Imprisoned in its overgrown swimming pool, its proud, 6-foot dorsal fin had flopped over, a symptom of stress and a symbol of its detumescent state.

Most zoo animals are euthanized immediately if they become dangerous, but SeaWorld is not euthanizing Tilly. Besides the fact that he’s a valuable commodity for SeaWorld, do humans just have a deeper affection for whales?

We certainly seem to react to whales in a different way. I think it's because of the paradoxical elusiveness of their nature. For all their massive size, we barely ever see them. We never know their reality. The latest research into cetacean intelligence places them only just after Homo sapiens, and above primates, in their capabilities. It's that not-knowingness that leads us on. Also, our guilt. We may feel the collective regrets of a collective history between our species. We know what we've done. The amazing thing is -- though when it comes to human beings, I guess this is no surprise -- that we go on doing it. More whales are dying now than ever died through whaling. We've just refined the ways we kill them. Exquisitely slowly.


Read more!

Abduction of aboriginal whaling rights

Chris Butler-Stroud, BBC Green Room 2 May 10;

Commercial and political interests are abusing historical whaling rights of indigenous people, says Chris Butler-Stroud. In this week's Green Room, he says that ambiguities in international regulations are creating a "dangerous and uncertain" future for whales.

When the authors of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling negotiated their first draft in 1946 and created the International Whaling Commission (IWC), they accepted that there were people, especially in the high Arctic, that relied on whales and other wildlife for their survival.

So, when the world community imposed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, the IWC continued its longstanding policy of allowing certain "indigenous" peoples to hunt otherwise protected whales for local use to satisfy their nutritional subsistence and cultural needs.

In doing so, they created a category of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW).

But little did they contemplate that in the opening decades of the 21st Century, it would be acceptable for ASW whalers to sell whole whales to corporate wholesalers, with processed meat being sold in supermarkets to anyone in Greenland, including tourists.

Loose language

The concept of indigenous whalers taking enough whales to feed their family and friends appears to have been so self-evident to those early regulators that they made no attempt to define many key terms, including "aboriginal", "local use" or "subsistence".

Despite the expansion of ASW in recent decades, the IWC has still not defined those terms; nor has it ever implemented a management regime for these hunts.

Thanks to this lack of a clear regulatory framework, the establishment of ASW quotas and the operation of these hunts have become controversial issues for the IWC.

In the absence of any formal definition of "aboriginal", governments simply nominate those peoples whom they consider applicable and there is no requirement that they meet any definition of indigenous people agreed in international law based on cultural or anthropological parameters.

Following this process, the IWC has granted ASW quotas that allow the Chukotkan people of Russia and the Inuit of Alaska to take bowhead and gray whales.

Since 1983, it has also permitted "the taking by aborigines" of fin, minke and Bowhead whales in Greenland, but unlike the Alaskan Inuit, the Greenlandic Home Rule Government has exploited the ambiguities in the treaty about whose "needs" the whales are to meet.

Greenland regards the total number of "Greenlanders born in Greenland" (including non-native people) as qualifying and, is now seeking yet a further increase in its ASW quota - even though, to all appearances, the indigenous whalers and their communities have more than enough whale meat to meet their subsistence needs.

For the IWC, this poses a significant problem; its "accepted practice" has allowed whale meat from ASW hunts to be traded in order to pay hunting costs etc, but on the assumption that the trade is limited to within a small and localised group of peoples.

However, Greenland defines the whole territory of over 55,000 people as a local community.

As a result, all residents, not necessarily just the Inuit population, can consume the whale products and it is now also distributed through commercial outlets such as supermarkets.

It seems that "surplus" minke whale meat can even be sold abroad. This extensive commercialisation suggests that the whaling communities whose needs the IWC believed it was meeting have more than enough whales.

Demand and supply

Indeed, the Greenlanders kill some 4,000 small whales and dolphins annually and have not even taken all their available IWC quotas of fin and minke whales in the last 20 years.

But now, referring to its claimed "wider population", Greenland states that its existing quota does not meet its needs and it wants more whales.

Three years ago, it secured a quota of two bowhead whales and 25 more minke whales. Over the last two years, Greenland has demand an additional quota of 10 humpback whales a year.

Many EU countries, which historically have looked sympathetically at ASW requests, have expressed their concern at this insistence on even more whales for no demonstrated need, but they find themselves held hostage by Denmark and its ally, Sweden, who have been lobbying to give Greenland any quota that it specifies.

Disagreements on internal EU voting procedures required when the EU needs to act as a co-ordinated body could see Denmark and her allies trying to cause the EU to abstain rather than oppose the item when it comes up for decision this week.

The IWC Parties meeting in Florida this month will also consider proposals to legitimise the existing commercial whaling for Japan, Iceland and Norway.

The question must be asked: "What will stand in the way of Greenland or others arguing in the near future that they should be able to expand their whaling to become commercial whaling not unlike Norway and Japan?"

It seems the lid on whaling's Pandora's box is not being just slightly opened by the whalers, but is being well and truly ripped open.

This is creating a dangerous and uncertain future world for the whales and an IWC that is robbed of any real decision-making capability.

The coming year could see conservation take a back seat to back room deals and political fixes.

The only guarantee is that in 20 years' time we shall be wondering how we let our elected officials get away with it.

Chris Butler-Stroud is chief executive of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDSC)

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website


Read more!

Indonesian-Australian carbon project in Sumatra

Yahoo News 2 Mar 10;

JAKARTA (AFP) – Indonesia and Australia announced on Tuesday a multi-million dollar initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation on the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

The Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership worth 30 million Australian dollars (27 million dollars) will address immediate threats to forest on mineral soils in Jambi province.

The announcement in a statement by Australian Climate Change Penny Wong and Indonesian Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan is an expansion of an existing agreement.

"The partnership in Jambi is a demonstration activity, which is a pilot project to show how you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in practice," Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership coordinator Neil Scotland told AFP.

"The first demonstration activity already takes place in Central Kalimantan (Borneo)," he said, adding that it was in line with the UN-REDD programme on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation.

Rapid deforestation in Indonesia by legal and illegal loggers has made Indonesia one of the highest emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Indonesia plans to reduce its emissions by 26 percent by 2020.


Read more!

Opening of Indonesia's Protected Forests Defended

Arti Ekawati & Fidelis E Satriastanti, Jakarta Globe 2 Mar 10;

Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan on Tuesday defended a presidential decision to open protected forests to development, saying only underground mining activities would be allowed, thus minimizing damage to the environment.

The regulation, which has reportedly been signed by the president, is yet to be issued, he said, adding that strict requirements will have to be met by companies before they are allowed to conduct underground mining.

“The regulation will only allow mining activities to operate under the forest areas. So this is not for open mining and hopefully will only bring a minimum impact to the ecosystem in protected forests,” said Zulkifli, adding that the regulation will be implemented soon.

He said the regulation would oblige companies to provide lands in exchange for their mining areas and strictly prohibited them from damaging the forests above ground.

“Because of the lack of regulations, most of the areas were being exploited without considering reforestation,” he said. “In addition, they will be obliged to pay taxes for operating mines under the protected forest.”

The underground mining regulation is one of two related to forest use that were to be finalized during the government’s first 100-days program.

Emil Salim, an adviser to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and a former cabinet member, said there were only 13 mining companies granted special exceptions to operate in protected forests areas, a holdover from former President Megawati Sukarnoputri.

Emil said he was not aware of the underground-mining regulation but said such operations would only be suitable for geothermal activities.

“But this is still in discussion, because analysis on the technology to ensure minimum impact for protected forest areas would be needed,” he said. “It still needs more technology to make sure that the [geothermal] activities will not affect the forests’ function to absorb water in order to prevent erosion, floods or landslides.”

Meanwhile, Siti Maimunah, national coordinator of the Mining Advocacy Network, said the regulation did not deal with urgent issues concerning the sector.

“They don’t have to issue that kind of regulation to prevent more illegal mining [in protected forest areas] because the Law on Forestry already stipulates that open mining is prohibited in protected forest areas,” Siti said.

She said the regulation was only to legalize another form of mining, while the country’s main objective should be to put in order mining-permit issuances that have been led to illegal mining activities.

Indonesia Allows Mining, Other Projects In Forests
Muklis Ali, PlanetArk 2 Mar 10;

JAKARTA - Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has signed a decree to allow projects including mining, power plants, transport and renewable energy deemed strategically important to take place in protected forests.

Yudhoyono has pledged to do more to cut through red tape and prevent overlapping regulations slowing down projects ranging from mining to toll roads in the resource-rich developing nation in his second term in office.

Increasing exploitation of mineral resources and speeding up infrastructure development is seen as key for boosting growth and creating jobs in Southeast Asia's biggest economy.

But the decree, which was obtained by Reuters and came into effect on February 1, will anger green groups given Indonesia already has one of the fastest rates of deforestation in the world.

"The use of forest areas for development activities can be done for unavoidable strategic purposes," said the decree, which cited key development projects as including power plants, renewable energy, toll roads and train lines.

The decree said open-pit and underground mining could take place in production forests, which is a forest area that is considered neglected or abandoned after trees have been cut.

"In a protected forest, mining can be done through underground mining," the decree said.

The decree defined mining activities as including oil and gas, minerals, coal and geothermal.

Indonesia's state oil firm Pertamina has previously urged the forestry ministry to allow geothermal activities in protected forest as most of geothermal reserves are located in these areas.

There has frequently been confusion over whether companies can exploit resources in forest areas, with various ministries requiring permits.

Indonesia's forestry ministry recently asked Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc to submit a request to use land in a protected forest area, a ministry official said on Tuesday.

Freeport operates the huge Grasberg copper and gold mine in Papua province. Grasberg has the world's largest recoverable reserves of copper and the largest gold reserves.

In 2004, Indonesia allowed 13 mining firms, including Freeport, to continue mining operations in Indonesia after the introduction of a law in 1999 which banned open-pit mining in forested areas.

Last month, Indonesian police temporarily shut the Jorong coal mine in Kalimantan operated by a unit of Thailand's top coal miner Banpu PCL over a land permitting problem.

Banpu said the closure would only have a slight impact on production at its Indonesian unit Indo Tambangraya Mega Tbk.

Indonesia has struggled to attract fresh investment into mining, as well as for developing new oil and gas fields, partly due to uncertain regulations and red tape.

Indonesia has previously said it expected mining investment to hit $2.5 billion this year, up from $1.81 billion in 2009, supported by greater certainty after the introduction of new mining regulations.

(Editing by Ed Davies)

Government legalizes conversion of protected forest areas
The Jakarta Post 3 Mar 10;

After nine years of delay, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono finally signed a regulation legalizing the conversion of protected and conservation forest areas for business purposes, a practice already deemed to be rampant in this country.

The government regulation signed on Jan. 22 took effect on Feb. 1 but many activists claim they were not involved in the discussions.

Article 36 of the regulation says the status of protected forest areas could be shifted into conservation and production forests.

“Conservation forest areas could also be changed into protected and/or production forest,” it says.
Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan has vaunted his ministry’s success in finishing the regulation in his 100-day program.

The regulation says the shift of forests was made to give more space for development of infrastructures for the sake for public welfare.

It also allows for a land swap system for the firms to substitute each hectare they take in the production forests with other areas.
The licenses to change the status of a forest would be issued by Forestry Ministry based requests by local administrations.

Article 50 says the forestry minister could withdraw the permits if holders began working in protected areas before getting the license.

“Withdrawing the license is not enough. The ministry should take stern legal action in line with the forestry law,” executive director of Greenomics Indonesia Elfian Effendi said.

He warned that the release of forest areas could only be done in the convertible production forests.
“If the forest coverage is less than 30 percent, its status cannot be changed,” he said.

Massive forest conversion is currently regulated under ministerial decree. The 1999 Forestry Law requires the change of a forest’s status should be made through government regulation.

Greenpeace Indonesia warned the government against the new regulation, saying it will further accelerate forest damage in the country if unsupervised.

“It is dangerous to change the protected status of a forest if there is no clear explanation as to the kind of business activities that would take place in the area. There would be mix interpretations,”

Public outreach coordinator of Greenpeace, Joko Arif said.

He warned that the regulation would open loopholes for forest conversion including on oil palm plantations.

Indonesia is home to 120 million hectares of rainforest, making it the third-largest rainforest country after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The deforestation rate in Indonesia — claimed to be the world’s worst, with an area the size of
Switzerland lost every year — has already cleared 59 million hectares of forests.

Indonesia is home to 120 million hectares of rainforest.


Read more!

UNEP awards Indonesia for its ocean initiatives

Dr. Tonny Wagey and Elshinta Suyoso-Marsden, Jakarta Post 2 Mar 10;

In late 2007, during the preparation for the World Ocean Conference (WOC) in Jakarta, the national committee paid a visit to Jusuf Kalla, then the vice president of RI, to inform him of this initiative.

Kalla asked a straight-to-the point question, "This is a good idea for Indonesia as we have vast amount of marine resources. But what United Nations Organization deals with marine issues, and if you know which one, do you have their support at this conference?"

In May 2009, 76 countries and more than 13 international organizations came to Manado for the 2009 WOC. Five heads of states joined President SBY to declare their support for the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) - from The Philippines, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and the Solomon Islands.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provided full support to the Marine and Oceans Management Initiative - the inclusion of the ocean dimension into the issues needing urgent attention.

The leadership shown by Indonesia has not gone unnoticed. At the recent UNEP-Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in Bali (Feb. 24-26, 2010), the agenda focused on emerging policy issues in the field of the environment.

The executive director of UNEP, Achim Steiner, presented President SBY with an award for the patronage and leadership in Marine and Ocean issues, the first ever of its kind from the UNEP.

This makes Indonesia the most influential country as far as oceans are concerned. Particular attention was given to Indonesia's success in hosting the WOC and CTI Summit. This is a remarkable achievement by Indonesia, a nation still dealing with multiple crises, natural disasters and food security issues.

What does the award mean?

First, it is a global recognition of what Indonesia has achieved especially in foreign policy: Raising the ocean and marine sector's importance in climate change.

In his speech during the opening ceremony of the UNEP meeting, SBY emphasized the catastrophic impact to thousands of small islands in Indonesia if the sea-level were to increase by 1 meter. A global warming of the ocean would wipe out thousands of marine flora and fauna.

This award signifies the need for collaboration between countries using ocean resources to generate wealth - including providing people with sources of protein.

However, this award also signals the problems related to understanding the oceans' role in regulating climate change.

There are studies showing oceans act as a global carbon regulator, but none showing the regional or national impact.

This lack of local understanding resulted in little discussion within the recent talks at the COP15-UNFCCC in Copenhagen.

We still need to conduct research in order to get a better understanding of the role oceans play when it comes to carbon reduction and how to maintain its benefits, without jeopardizing the ecosystem.

One such attempt is the concept of Blue Carbon, coined by UNEP and other UN organizations. Minister Fadel Muhammad and Mr. Achim Steiner launched this concept at last week's UNEP Bali meeting, where Indonesia committed to allocating key sites to implement this initiative on a large scale.

Blue Carbon is simple, yet requires commitment from national and local governments to keep the coastal ecosystems filled with mangroves, sea-grasses and salt marshes and avoid further degradation due to development or other human activities.

These vegetated coastal ecosystems have the capacity to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in the same way that trees and forests do.

In summary, the more studies we conduct - to understand the function of the ocean in relation to climate change, the more it will contribute to our effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The best way to implement this is for Indonesians to keep their ocean and coast "healthy". The commitment to do so is what the award really means.

The award also reflects UNEP's commitment to pay more attention to ocean and marine issues.

In the past, we have focused on the development of our large land resources.

It is timely to shift this paradigm by investing our resources toward enlarging the areas of coasts and ocean - our "seascapes" - managed using a sustainable development concept.

In the case of Indonesia, there are several potential regions for seascapes, all of which would generate economic benefits for the local people, without degrading the ecosystem.

Indonesia leads the world in seascape development as well as networks of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

In Papua, the Birds Head Seascape is being established, and in the Raja Ampat region, North of West Papua Province.

The communities and local governments have agreed to protect 901,680 of the 4.6 million hectares, providing a safe home for more than 1,100 species of fish, 700 species of mollusks and more than 540 species of coral reefs - the heart of the six Nations Coral Triangle.

These initiatives can be seen as Indonesia taking a lead in the awakening of a new ocean era, integrating them into national policy for states that have costal and ocean areas. Other countries must now try and follow, achieving real results on the ground.

At the Bali meeting, the member states adopted the Ocean Decision as one of the key documents approved unanimously by around 1,200 delegates of 130 countries.

It is a major outcome from the meeting to see ocean and marine issues at last being discussed and put in the front row of issues.

UNEP made the ocean the most important issue during its meeting in Bali, and Indonesia has been able to meet the challenge for bringing that to the world.

That's why SBY deserves the award!

Although it is a little too late to answer the question Mr. Jusuf Kalla's asked three years ago, now one can say to him, yes Pak JK, UNEP is the key United Nations organization carrying the mandate of the World Ocean Conference.

Dr. Tonny Wagey is a lecturer at the University of Pattimura, Ambon, and senior scientist at the Agency for Marine and Fisheries Research. He is also the regional coordinator of the Arafura and Timor Seas Expert Forum (ATSEF) involving Indonesia, Timor Leste and Australia.

Elshinta Suyoso-Marsden was the National Organizing Committee member for PR and Media Adviser of World Ocean Conference/Coral Triangle Initiative Summit 2009 held in Manado and currently works for Conservation International-Indonesia.


Read more!

Top 5 Greenest Cities In The World

Beth Hodgson, PlanetArk 3 Mar 10;

Over the last few months, we've seen serious discussions taking place globally as countries and cities pledge to go green.

Some cities have made greener strides than others, which puts them at the top of the list for sustainability goals.

The five greenest cities in the world aren't necessarily those that are nothing but green space, but they're on the right track to improving their footprints.

5. Vancouver, Canada

Vancouver has been recognized for trying to make the Winter Olympic games sustainable, but it's their day-to-day focus that really allows this Canadian city to earn its ranking. Ninety percent of Vancouver is powered by hydroelectricity.

Wind, solar, wave and tidal energy all help ensure that this city remains green. Plus, they've got even greater goals for the future.

4. Malmo, Sweden

This is one international city that is focused on green space. They are well-known for their parks, but also upon sustainable urban develop. It's one of the largest cities in Sweden and it's truly urban. They've been transforming neighborhoods to make them environmentally friendly.

3. Curitiba, Brazil

This Brazilian city focuses upon maintenance using green methods, for example, parks that are trimmed by sheep. They are also known for one of the best transit systems, so commuters are encouraged to leave their cars at home.

2. Portland, Oregon, United States

Although many U.S. cities are now jumping on board, this was the first to focus upon alternative transit with light-rail and extensive bike path networks to encourage people to leave their cars in the driveway! It was also one of the first to pledge to reduce emissions and start transitioning buildings to use sustainable materials.

1. Reykjavik, Iceland

This city is run entirely on green power, including geothermal and hydroelectricity. Their transit system also uses hydrogen buses and it's motivated to become Europe's cleanest city.


Read more!