SECORE workshop
from Raffles Science Institute
Sex in the Sea: Singapore style
from wild shores of singapore
Dazzling Dragonflies of Singapore!
from Celebrating Singapore's BioDiversity!
Native Plants of Singapore (I) - Taccas
from Garden Voices
Walk at Chek Jawa
from a spark of new hope
pink and emerald
from Mendis' World
Man on a Mission
from Bornean Sun Bear Conservation
Former opponents withhold judgment
Judith Lavoie, Times Colonist 29 Mar 10;
Chris Porter, known internationally as a dolphin slave-trader for his lucrative business capturing dolphins in the Solomon Islands and selling them to aquariums in such locations as Dubai and Mexico, says he has had a change of heart and is planning to release his last 17 bottlenose dolphins.
The controversial dolphin broker and marine mammal trainer, who trained Tillikum the killer whale when he was at Sealand in Victoria and then became Vancouver Aquarium’s head trainer, has sold 83 dolphins around the world over the last nine years and drawn the fury of animal- rights groups.
“To be sure, I have a bad name. I have been deemed the Darth Vader of dolphins,” said Porter in an interview.
“But I have decided to release the remaining animals back to the wild. It’s driven by the incident with Tillikum and I’m disillusioned with the industry,” said Porter, who splits his time between Victoria and the Solomon Islands.
News that Tillikum had killed a trainer at SeaWorld Orlando — the third death connected to the whale — was a shock, showing trainers have been unable to provide for the needs of such an intelligent animal, he said. Another catalyst was the Oscar-winning documentary The Cove, which shows the bloody capture and slaughter of dolphins in Japan.
Porter, who previously believed some animals must be captive educational ambassadors for their species, is beginning to doubt the value of shows, where animals are forced to perform tricks.
“Are we really educating and providing the best representation of wild animals in an aquarium?” he asked.
The artificial, sterile environment in which most marine mammals are kept bears little resemblance to their habitat. Killer whales are likely to become frustrated, increasing the chance they will lash out, he said.
But, from the start of the Solomons project, Porter said he saw himself as saving dolphins, which were being slaughtered by the thousands by islanders there, who used their teeth as currency.
Hunters have now been educated to realize there can be a much larger value in dolphins, Porter said.
“When I got there a dolphin was worth $20, and last year dolphins were worth $140,000,” he said.
Porter’s Free-the-Pod venture is likely to have high profile support from some of his former fiercest opponents.
Activist Ric O’Barry, a marine mammal specialist for California-based Earth Island Institute, who, in the 1960s, trained dolphins for the Flipper television series before dedicating himself to freeing captive dolphins, headed to the Solomon Islands this week to assess the Free-The-Pod exercise.
O’Barry, who spearheaded the making of The Cove, said in an interview that given Porter’s reputation, he wants to look at what is planned before throwing his support behind the project.
“I will see. I have an open mind,” he said.
Mark Palmer, Earth Island associate director, said there are questions that must be answered before Earth Island works on the release plan and helps educate local residents about eco-tourism and other alternatives to dolphin slaughter or export.
“Is it real? Are we really talking about the release and permanent end of the capture of dolphins?” he asked.
Although others are capturing dolphins around the world, the closing of Porter’s operation would make a sizable dent in the supply, Palmer said.
Also, there will have to be a health assessment of the animals and an assessment of whether they can adjust to the wild, he said.
If Free-the-Pod looks like a go, Ric O’Barry’s son, Lincoln, will film it for Animal Planet, Palmer said.
The dolphins are being held in a cove and Porter envisages a phased release, starting next month.
“It’s a natural sea-pen and we will start introducing live fish to them and they will be released with tracking devices and a strict follow-up,” he said.
Food will continue to be provided for animals that return.
Dolphin release
The Solomon Star 30 Mar 10;
DEAR EDITOR – The much talked about dolphin release program by Chris Potter is no more than exaggeration.
Is it a total release to the wild or some experiment whereby animals still come into contact and feeding by people?
Mr Potter claimed that the 17 animals are worth USD5 million (SBD 40 million).
That is USD 295,000 (SBD 2.35m) each. Is this true Mr Potter? From Inside information, why did you sell the 28 animals to Mexico for a mere USD 20,000 and the 28 animals to Dubai for USD$25,000 each?
The 18 animals exported to Philippines was sold for around USD50,000. Why has Mr Potter inflated the value? I understand that these animals are only wild caught and not the fully trained first or second generation animals.
I do not understand why Mr Potter has to throw away such a large amount of money in this release experiment (if value is true).
Only worthless commodities you would throw away like that. Is this just to get media attention?
Mr Potter, in this economic climate, Solomon Island needs hard cash and not scientific experiment.
All the boys working at Gavutu still live in traditional leaf houses. The Chief in Fishing Village, Robert Satu, is still in his same old house and not in a luxury mansion.
Some fishermen in Gela still have receipts for unpaid fish that were supplied.
The Adagege community of North East Malaita, that you used their community name to obtain the first provincial fisheries permit, are still waiting for their share. The Fanalei community that supplied some of the animals in the first collect also claimed that they are also waiting.
To me this is only a tactic to raise funds overseas because Mr Potter has no other Markets.
The only person who would benefit is Mr Potter himself. This is similar to the technique used by activists.
The Solomon Islands people and the Government will miss out from the export taxes and logistics spinoffs.
Funds will be paid direct to an account held overseas and I know that a website has already been created.
To me now, Chris Potter no longer serves the interest of our people but only his own interest.
I always wonder if some of these operations can be done locally without any of these suspicious foreign involvement.
Jacob Takisi Soeasi
Ngorobulo/Baba Village
Asifola, Lau Lagoon
North East Malaita
Dolphin release
Solomon Star 1 Apr 10;
DEAR EDITOR – Ocean Embassy has declined to participate in Chris Porter’s Free the Pod campaign, but has offered to work with the Solomon Island Scientific Authority on a management plan for the existing dolphins on Ghavutu Island that could include those animals’ release.
Our decision is motivated by Chris Porter’s reprehensible and irreconcilable actions and behaviour in relation to the Solomon Islands.
Routinely obviating scientific study, national and international marine law, sound animal management practices and ethical human and animal standards, Mr Porter has made any future collaboration impossible, morally and legally.
Most recently and probably the most disappointing event resulted from his recent dolphine collection.
The 17 animals Mr Porter and his company proposed for release were collected from the Solomon Islands Dolphin Abundance Project (SIDAP) study grid, thereby contaminating data and prematurely ending this important research.
This has compromised nearly five years of research and investment of more than USD$350,000. The lead researcher for SIDAP has officially made this determination.
Our decision to decline participation is also based on the collective opinion of our experts with decades of experience in animal rescue, rehabilitation, care and training: the Free the Pod release plan is greatly flawed.
Clearly these animals could not be deemed “released” if human contact and dolphin feeding were allowed to continue as Mr Porter has described.
The Free the Pod plan is not a bona fide release, it is a form of zoological program in that human contact is provided, encouraged, and no effort will be made to encourage behaviours that will allow these animals to survive in the wild.
If the Solomon Islands Scientific Authority rules that a legitimate release is necessary, Ocean Embassy will certainly offer an intervention plan through the Ministry of Fisheries.
The plan would incorporate the most innovative and professional techniques in rescue, rehabilitation and release of marine mammals and the best interest of each animal in mind.
A successful release plan also will require sufficient funding. What happened to Keiko the famed killer whale should not happen to these animals.
Ocean Embassy’s president, Robin Friday, was the director of field operations for the Keiko Reintroduction Project, and I worked alongside him during that difficult time.
Funding was eventually exhausted, and Keiko’s reintroduction program resulted in being cut short prematurely.
Keiko was never able to function in the wild, but rather relied on the handouts of Norwegian fishermen until he died.
It is our understanding that Solomon Island’s Scientific Authority will maintain that future dolphine exports are inextricably tied to the geographical limitations required by a new unbiased scientific study.
These exports also will be limited to a level below potential biological removal standards suggested by international wildlife management guidelines.
In addition, dolphins will only be provided to zoological institutions with documented compliance to high animal care standards.
Ocean Embassy has been working in the Solomon Islands for nearly seven years and invested well over one million dollars to the community, dolphin facility support and employee animal care and behavioral training.
It conducted a successful dolphin transport to Dubai with zero animal mortality, contrary to the fabricated stories of fundraising activitits.
We continue to see a future where limited dolphine exports, local dolphine population studies, new international zoological dolphine experiences and captive studies can result in a sustainable conservation and business initiative for the Solomon Islands.
However, Mr Porter has not followed any recognised standards in the care and management of these resources and has thus compromised the reputation of the Solomon Islands as a responsible steward.
We have a high degree of certainty that Mr Porter has been unable to sell these animals for export and engineered this current scheme to raise alternative income.
Mark Simmons
Vice President
Ocean Embassy
Channel NewsAsia 31 Mar 10;
SINGAPORE: Singapore's first Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal and its supporting pipeline infrastructure are expected to spark new business opportunities.
Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S Iswaran said one possibility is to develop Singapore as a centre for LNG trading in Asia.
He was speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for the terminal on Jurong Island.
Mr Iswaran said Singapore's central geographical position, between LNG demand in Northeast Asia and LNG supply from the Middle East and Australia, offers a key competitive advantage.
Terminal owner, Singapore LNG Corp (SLNG) has already started discussions on these possibilities with several industry players, who have expressed a keen interest to use the terminal capacity for storage and re-loading of LNG.
It is also looking at leveraging on the LNG terminal operations to offer integrated and innovative solutions to industries in Jurong Island.
For example, LNG can be used to cool air and separate it into its components of oxygen and nitrogen which companies can, in turn, utilise for their industrial processes.
Mr Iswaran said the LNG terminal could potentially offer not only low-cost, but also low-carbon integrated solutions for industries located on the island.
Six power generation companies have also entered into long-term purchase contracts for an initial tranche of around 1.5 million tonnes of regasified LNG.
They are: Senoko Energy, PowerSeraya, Tuas Power Generation, SembCorp Cogen, Keppel Merlimau Cogen and Island Power Company.
Mr Iswaran said this is a significant commitment by the generation companies, and ensures a sizeable base-load of LNG throughput from the start of terminal operations.
The S$1.5 billion terminal will have an initial capacity of 3.5 million tonnes per year.
The project is on track for completion by early 2013, after it was deferred by a year.
- CNA/yb
Work begins on LNG plant
Robin Chan, Straits Times 1 Apr 10;
WORK has started on the $1.5 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal that is set to play a pivotal role in Singapore's energy future.
Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran officiated at the 30ha Jurong terminal's groundbreaking ceremony yesterday.
When completed in 2013, the facility will have an initial capacity of 3.5 million tonnes per annum (mtpa), but will eventually be able to store 6 mtpa.
'When fully operational, it will not only help meet Singapore's growing energy needs, but also catalyse the development of a robust gas market to underpin our industrial growth,' said Mr Iswaran, who noted that meeting Singapore's long-term power needs required a diversified energy portfolio.
LNG is expected to contribute about 17 per cent of global gas supply in 2020, and the terminal is viewed as 'a key plank in Singapore's national energy strategy', he said.
Already, six power generation companies have signed 10-year purchase agreements with the terminal.
The six - Senoko Energy, PowerSeraya, Tuas Power Generation, Sembcorp Cogen, Keppel Merlimau Cogen and Island Power Company - have committed to an initial 1.5 mtpa of regasified LNG through BG Group, which is the sole buyer of LNG.
This is equal to about one-quarter of the volume of gas that Singapore now imports via its pipelines.
The facility will hire 50 people initially, expanding to 70 when the terminal ramps up capacity.
Project developer Singapore LNG Corp is to put in place a knowledge and technology-sharing programme for local staff. Executive director Neil McGregor said: 'We're bringing in Singaporeans to shadow expatriates who have that experience... and the other part is to send Singaporeans overseas so they can learn at other terminals.'
Plans for the LNG terminal have been in the works since 2006.
Island to start building Singapore plant
Business Times 1 Apr 10;
It signs deal with LNG supplier BG Group, ensuring feedstock for the project
ISLAND Power, now owned by India's GMR Group, is finally set to start building its Singapore plant, thanks to liquefied natural gas supplies here from early 2013.
Island was among the six buyers that signed up yesterday with LNG supplier BG Group for a total 1.5 million tonnes per annum of LNG, ensuring feedstock for its plant.
GMR's Southeast Asia head Ng Quek Peng told BT this means that Island can start building the long-stalled 800-megawatt plant on Jurong Island 'around October or November'.
The plant can then be up and running by 2013, as GMR officials earlier hoped.
Since GMR took over the Island project in May 2009, it has been trying to secure piped Indonesian gas from Sumatra through importer Gas Supply.
Talks between Gas Supply and Indonesia have been progressing, but there has been no firm deal so far, sources say.
Island tried for years under previous owners to bring in 110 million standard cubic feet daily (mscfd) of Indonesian gas daily through the Sumatra-Singapore pipeline for its plant. But it ran into commercial hurdles involving the pipeline incumbents.
No details were available at yesterday's LNG signing of how much Island, or any of the buyers, will take.
Lion Power, which owns Senoko Energy, indicated previously that it needs an extra 60 mscfd of LNG, on top of its current 230 mscfd of piped gas, to fuel its upgraded plant.
Most of the other buyers are likely to view LNG as a buffer in the form of an additional gas supply source, especially when their supplies of piped gas from Malaysia and Indonesia are depleted down the track.
LNG buyer BG Group will initially bring LNG into Singapore from its global network of plants, including Trinidad, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea and West Africa. It expects later to supply Singapore from its coal seam methane-to-LNG project in Queensland, Australia.
Six gencos seal LNG deals with BG Group
Long-term purchase deals help to underpin $1.5b LNG terminal project
Ronnie Lim, Business Times 1 Apr 10;
IT'S a 'full house' for Singapore's new $1.5 billion LNG terminal, which has been fully subscribed for.
The project has secured the support of the three biggest generation companies here, now all foreign- owned, a fourth new foreign genco player here and, to the surprise of industry observers, the two big local conglomerates, Keppel Corporation and Sembcorp, both of which already import piped natural gas from Malaysia and Indonesia respectively.
At yesterday's ground- breaking for the Jurong Island terminal, all six signed deals with the appointed LNG aggregator or buyer, Britain's BG Group, to buy a total 1.5 million tonnes per annum (tpa). The contracts, of up to 15 years, come with options for increased volumes should the gencos proceed with their planned expansions.
The six buyers comprise the three biggest power players, Lion Power-owned Senoko Energy, YTL-owned PowerSeraya and China Huaneng-owned Tuas Power, new player India's GMR-owned Island Power and Sembcorp Cogen and Keppel Merlimau Cogen.
The event was witnessed by S Iswaran, Senior Minister of State (Trade & Industry and Education) as well as by top genco representatives, among them KepCorp chief executive Choo Chiau Beng and Sembcorp president and CEO Tang Kin Fei.
These initial liquefied natural gas deals - representing one quarter of the natural gas volume which Singapore currently imports by pipeline - help underpin the terminal project, said Mr Iswaran, as they will ensure a sizeable base-load from the start of operations come early-2013.
Industry observers told BT that the support of the two local conglomerates, themselves piped gas suppliers here, reinforce the government's LNG push, given that - as Mr Iswaran put it - it is the first step 'to diversify our energy sources and meet our future needs'.
'When fully operational, it will not only help meet Singapore's growing energy needs, but also catalyse the development of a robust gas market to underpin our industrial growth,' he added.
This is because the LNG terminal, with an initial storage capacity of 3.5 million tpa 'will be the first open-access multi-user terminal in Asia . . . capable of importing and re-exporting LNG from multiple suppliers,' said Mr Iswaran.
Neil McGregor, executive director of Singapore LNG Corporation, the terminal developer, said that once it completes building the project, SLNG's focus will turn from the terminal being a 'project' to being a 'business'.
Singapore has the potential to become the 'Henry Hub' of Asia, much the same as it has done for oil, he said, referring to the renowned US pricing point for natural gas futures traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The project also provides the opportunity to grow Singapore's talent base in this specialist area, he added.
Mr Iswaran said that Singapore's central geographical position, between LNG demand in North-east Asia and LNG supply from the Middle East and Australia, offers a key competitive advantage for LNG trading out of Singapore.
'SLNG Corp has already commenced discussions on these possibilities with several industry players, who have expressed a keen interest to use the terminal capacity for storage and re-loading of LNG,' he added.
Russia's Gazprom, the world's largest gas producer, is among them, BT reported recently. Gazprom, which recently set up marketing and trading operations here, has already traded six spot cargoes of LNG here, and is targeting to trade 25 cargoes, or two million tonnes, this year, worth a total of US$450 million.
'SLNG is also looking at leveraging on the LNG terminal operations to offer integrated and innovative solutions to industries in Jurong Island,' Mr Iswaran said, citing for example that LNG can be used to cool air and be separated into its components of oxygen and nitrogen which companies can, in turn, use for their industrial processes.
'The LNG terminal could potentially offer not only low-cost, but also low-carbon integrated solutions for industries located on the island,' he added.
Sharon See Channel NewsAsia 13 Mar 10;
The Nature Society of Singapore is also using the platform to show where various types of wild birds can be found in Singapore, complete with information about the habitats.
SINGAPORE: The government on Wednesday launched a common map platform for public agencies to publish information and deliver map-based services.
Moreover, Law Minister K Shanmugam said OneMap can also be a platform for innovative applications by businesses and the general public.
OneMap is part of the larger "Singapore Geospatial Collaborative Environment" initiative driven by the Singapore Land Authority and the Infocomm Development Authority.
The initiative brings together multiple public agencies to establish common standards and policies, so that there can be greater sharing and usage of geospatial information among the public agencies.
Mr Shanmugam said it would not only make it more efficient but also increase the effectiveness of the public agencies' policy planning and operations, as well as in the delivery of services to the public.
"A local community can create say, its own "My Kampong" web portal," said K Shanmugam, Singapore’s Law and Second Home Affairs Minister.
"Using the OneMap platform, they can encourage residents to contribute information about the people, food, shops, recreation and landmarks in and around their community. They can even build on this information and create heritage or food trails in their own portal for use by residents or even tourists."
OneMap is an intelligent map system where users can look up services under six broad themes - Culture, Environment, Family and Community, Health, Recreation and Sports.
For instance, under the Health category, users can find updates on dengue clusters, while Recreation carries a list of wireless hotspots.
Another service offered under OneMap is SchoolQuery. Parents can use this service to find out if their homes are within one or two kilometres of a certain primary school.
The Nature Society of Singapore is also using the platform to show where various types of wild birds can be found in Singapore, complete with information about the habitats.
Several companies have also become OneMap pioneer users, using it to display search results for users of location-based services.
The service can be accessed at www.onemap.sg.
- CNA/sc/yb
Forget Google, check out OneMap
Plot out schools or find volunteer options with SLA's interactive map
Tan Weizhen, Straits Times 1 Apr 10;
OneMap can also help businesses choose where to set up shop with demographics from a certain area. -- PHOTO: LTA
CHOOSING which primary school to send your child to or looking out for volunteer activities close by just got easier, thanks to a new online interactive map.
The OneMap, launched yesterday by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), is touted as Singapore's very own version of Google Maps - but with a difference.
It includes content and services offered by 16 government agencies, going beyond basic information such as the location of popular services such as hotels and sports centres.
For example, a look at the latest dengue clusters islandwide is just a click of a mouse away, thanks to updates from the National Environment Agency (NEA).
Other agencies which are involved in the new initiative include the Singapore Tourism Board, National Heritage Board and Ministry of Law.
'We were looking for a common platform to deliver public information and services,' said Mr Ng Siau Yong, SLA's director of geospatial and land asset management services.
'People are very savvy and familiar with the usage of maps.'
Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam, who was the guest of honour at yesterday's launch, added that the map could help bring a community together.
He said: 'Using the OneMap platform, they can encourage residents to contribute information about the people, food, shops, recreation and landmarks in and around their community.'
An application which developers expect to be widely used is a Ministry of Education feature which allows anxious parents to plot out schools within a 1km-2km radius.
Parents who want to register their children at their chosen primary school usually get higher priority if they live within a 1km-2km radius from the school.
Those looking to help out with the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) can also expect an easier time when looking for opportunities near their homes or offices.
'They want what is convenient - what is nearest to them, and the latest activities - by date and by type. They can get it all on this map,' said Ms Jocelyn Ang, NVPC's manager of operations and portal administration.
This map could also be beneficial to tourists, as they could 'navigate' through Singapore to find out where the hotels, tourist attractions, theatres and even wireless hot spots are.
This new type of map does not just benefit individual users, but also businesses - OneMap will feature a new location intelligence service by popular interactive map service ShowNearby which helps businesses make decisions based on the type of demographics in a particular area of Singapore.
'A childcare centre may want to find an area with the most number of children up to nine years old, to set up shop. Businesses may also want to go for areas which have other complementary services. They can find out, using this tool on the map,' said Mr Douglas Gan, chief executive officer of ShowNearby.
OneMap is available online and also on all smartphones with browsers, said SLA. It is also open to private developers, and the developer kit is free.
Internet developers, users set to gain from OneMap
Business Times 1 Apr 10;
It's expected to spur flurry of location-based information applications, services, reports JASLENE PANG
DEVELOPERS and Internet users in Singapore are set to benefit from a new intelligent map information system that is expected to kick-start a flurry of location-based information applications and services.
Dubbed OneMap, this system is driven by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA).
Anyone can use OneMap for business, social, community and personal purposes for free, said Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam at the launch event yesterday.
OneMap took about a year to develop on a budget of $2.2 million, and is the first major application under a larger initiative called Singapore Geospatial Collaborative Environment (SG-Space). Sixteen government agencies are involved in providing data to the OneMap platform.
Powered by Web 2.0 technologies, OneMap aims to spur innovation among businesses and individuals by serving as a foundation on which public agencies, private and people sectors can use to create applications.
For instance, there is an application that lets parents easily survey which schools are within their vicinity, while another application lets individuals and organisations easily find out about public land ownership information.
'OneMap is an example of how the public sector continues to evolve in delivering services to the public in an era where 'facebooking' and 'crowd-sourcing' are daily occurrences,' Mr Shanmugam said.
The launch yesterday showcased several applications that tap on the platform.
One of them, the Ministry of Education's SchoolQuery application, promises to take a load off Singapore parents' mind. Available on the OneMap website, it lets parents survey schools which fall within a radius of one kilometre and 2km from their house, hence helping parents select the available schools for their children.
ShowNearby demonstrated its ShowNearby Analytics application. It packages information - including those gathered from the Singapore Department of Statistics - to let businesses and property buyers check out important investment information, such as demographics and nearby amenities.
'OneMap's structure provides consistent reliability and accuracy which enhances ShowNearby Analystics' capabilities to provide users with push-map accessibility to public amenities and facilities,' said Douglas Gan, chief executive officer and founder of ShowNearby. He added that the company had previously used Google Maps for this application but has now switched to OneMap.
DP Information Group is tapping OneMap for its business information and online marketing Web portals. MapKing showed a mobile application that guides mobile phone users to their destinations using an augmented reality technology. Other OneMap-powered applications included those from the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre and Quantum Inventions.
Mr Shanmugam said that there is a huge potential for the use of geospatial data by the private sector and the community. The term geospatial refers to the combination of spatial software and analytical methods with terrestrial or geographic datasets.
'OneMap is not intended to be the sole provider of geospatial information and services. It cannot be and should not be so,' Mr Shanmugam said. 'We have designed it to provide the basic platform which the public agencies and the private and people sectors can leverage to create their own applications, especially businesses and individuals.'
The public can also chip in to enhance the OneMap platform. For instance, residents can contribute information about the people, food, shops, recreation and landmarks in and around their community. They can even build on this information and create heritage or food trails in their own portals for use by residents and tourists.
To drum up awareness for the new platform, SLA will be launching a competition for business and communities to develop creative and innovative applications using OneMap soon.
'The OneMap portal and applications that you see today is only the start. There will be more public agencies coming on board to add new geospatial information and services,' Mr Shanmugam said.
WWF Malaysia 31 Mar 10;
Tiger BlogFest 2010 - from 19 April to 22 April
Petaling Jaya, Selangor – Bloggers will unite to help wild tigers as the Tiger BlogFest 2010 takes place in conjunction with Earth Day from 19 April to 22 April.
The initiative, which already has 60 confirmed bloggers since it was announced middle of March, was initiated by the nature blog, Planet of the Monyets (planetofthemonyets.blogspot.com).
According to Dr G Balamurugan, founder of the Planet of the Monyets, the Tiger BlogFest 2010 is a forum for bloggers to contribute towards protection of the Malayan tiger.
“The main aim is to increase awareness by reaching out to the large on-line community. It is estimated that the combined traffic to the participating blogs is about 100,000 visitors per day – giving the plight of the tiger the publicity it duly deserves,” he says.
The BlogFest aims to have 100 or more participating blogs, locally and globally, to help spread awareness on the critical problems faced by tigers in the wild. Bloggers can express their concerns in any form, from sharing personal experiences, writing a poem, posting videos, draw cartoons or simply highlighting articles on tiger conservation in any preferred language.
This initiative is enthusiastically supported by WWF-Malaysia’s Tx2 Campaign as it will help enhance the public’s awareness and participation in tiger conservation efforts in Malaysia, one of the campaign’s objectives.
“Monitoring of tigers and increasing patrol teams to reduce poaching threats are some of the work that WWF-Malaysia carries out to protect the tiger. However, the Tx2 campaign will only be successful when there is a critical mass of Malaysians who believe in the cause,” emphasised Dato’ Dr. Dionysius Sharma, CEO / Executive Director of WWF-Malaysia.
The campaign has set up a website at www.tx2.my whereby members of the public can sign up for free and help spread the Tx2 message.
A talk on tigers and their conservation efforts will be held on April 17 at the WWF-Malaysia office to assist participants in familiarising themselves with tiger conservation issues. For more information or if you wish to participate, you can log on to planetofthemonyets.blogspot.com or email to gbm.ere@gmail.com
-End
For further information, please contact:
Dr G Balamurugan, Planet of the Monyets
(T) 03-8024 2287
(E) gbm.ere@gmail.com
URL: planetofthemonyets.blogspot.com
Sara Sukor, Tx2 Campaign Coordinator for WWF-Malaysia,
(T) 03-7803 3772 ext 6421
(E) ssara@wwf.org.my
The Star 1 Apr 10;
KUCHING: The state Forestry Department was urged to take the lead in setting up a panel of biodiversity experts responsible for charting future research needs and government policies on biological resources.
A panellist at the Sarawak Biological Resources Forum, Dr Paul Chai, said the forum revealed that a lot more could be done in biodiversity research, conservation and sustainable use.
“Form a panel of experts to discuss and identify the most urgent things to do now, and get researchers from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak and Japan (who have carried out studies on Sarawak’s biodiversity) to contribute as well.
“Prepare a strong recommendation and submit it to the Government for policy-making,” he said during a panel discussion yesterday.
Dr Chai, a botanist and International Tropical Timber Organisation project manager, said young people should also be encouraged and provided with opportunities to carry out biodiversity research.
Bearing in mind that biodiversity experts are currently scattered in different organisations, Sarawak Forestry Corporation biodiversity conservation senior manager Oswald Braken Tisen agreed that the Forestry Department should be the focal point in getting everyone to move towards better research initiatives and documentation, and information-sharing.
The Star 31 Mar 10;
A NEW aquaculture programme that focuses on prawn farming has been introduced in a bid to eradicate poverty in Selinsing, a small town in northern Perak.
Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said about 1,000 participants would be selected to take part in the programme whereby they would be taught modern farming techniques.
He said Hannan Corporation Sdn Bhd, a local subsidiary of Japanese company Misaki Suisan Co Ltd, had entered into an agreement with the Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) to provide the expertise and set up the Selinsing Aquaculture Complex.
Acting as programme operator, Hannan Corporation will manage the ponds besides supplying prawn fry and feed to the programme participants.
Under a buy-back policy, participants, who will each get five ponds, are assured of a guaranteed market for their harvests.
“It is not merely profit-oriented. The main aim is to eradicate poverty among the people in the area by creating about 1,000 job opportunities for fishermen, unemployed graduates and other people,” Dr Zambry told reporters after witnessing the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Hannan Corporation and NCIA on Monday.
Dr Zambry noted that the complex would have 800 ponds measuring 5,000sqm each, spreading over 44.5ha in Kalumpang and Pulau Gulu.
It is estimated that 14,400 metric tonnes of prawns worth RM148mil would be harvested annually when the programme kicks off by the end of this year.
“We are awaiting the outcome of the Environmental Impact Assessment report on the programme.
“If the Department of Environment deems it unsuitable to carry out the programme at the proposed site, then we will move it elsewhere as we do not want any negative impact on the environment,” he said.
On a related matter, Dr Zambry said the state government was in the final stages of drawing up a clear policy on illegal prawn-farming activities in the state.
“Although the aquaculture industry is an important one for the state, we are also concerned about the negative impact it may have on the environment,” he said.
Fidelis E Satriastanti Jakarta Globe 31 Mar 10;
No amount of scientific data will be able to protect endangered species unless countries have the political will to prioritize conservation over trade, environmentalists said following the disappointing CITES meeting in Doha last week.
The two-week meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ended without agreement on new trade measures to protect four species of shark with great commercial value — the Scalloped Hammerhead, Oceanic Whitetip, Porbeagle and Spiny Dogfish.
These species failed to make it onto CITES Appendix II, a second-level protection list, after big importing countries such as Japan, China and Singapore, with the support of Indonesia, one of the biggest exporters, voted down the proposals, keeping the sharks on the market and on seafood restaurant menus.
Marine expert Suharsono, who was a member of the Indonesian delegation to the CITES conference, said there was no controversy over the country’s decision to support the shark trade. He said numerous outstanding issues still had to be resolved before putting the sharks on the list.
“From a scientific point of view, the Indonesian delegation considered that the proposals were not based on complete scientific data and information,” he said. “The data presented to us came only from northern seas and the Caribbean, not worldwide.”
Suharsono added that no scientific findings had been presented on whether shark hunting caused environmental damage.
“The submitters relied a great deal on data from [the UN Food and Agriculture Organization] that shark populations are declining, but to us that was not strong enough,” he said.
The Doha meeting accepted 24 proposals, rejected 10 and seven were withdrawn.
Indonesia voted for all the conservation proposals except for those on marine species.
Its decision to reject efforts to conserve the sharks was criticized by Imam Musthofa Zainudin, the fisheries program leader at WWF-Indonesia, who said delegates should have put more trust in the scientists.
“The government did not feel confident about support the proposals because we still don’t have any data or information on the country’s shark populations, unlike for tuna, so it thought it was better for sharks not to be included in CITES,” he said.
“But these are critical species and numerous foreign research studies have over the years collected enough data and information to support protecting them.”
Imam said blaming its inaction on incomplete scientific data or information was “too cliched.”
“Scientific data supports the fact that these sharks are predators of the seas. If something goes wrong with them then it will affect the whole food chain,” he said. “It comes down to political will, as we know Indonesia is being criticized for being too pro-exploitation rather than supporting conservation.”
For Richard Thomas, communications coordinator at TRAFFIC International, the scientific evidence is incontrovertible and overwhelming that all the shark species up for listing are in serious decline .
“The scientific data is available and it is clear; the species warrant listing,” Thomas said.
“I believe the decision not to list shark species was not in the best interests of conservation. Unless measures are taken to protect sharks, their stocks will collapse and several species will soon become commercially, if not biologically, extinct.”
TRAFFIC says FAO data shows that from 2000 to 2008, Indonesia became the world’s top shark-catching country, with a total of 109,248 tons.
Imam said Indonesia had acknowledged sharks were in a critical state and needed more protection when it established a national plan of action for sharks.
“We have had our own national action plan for five years,” he said.
Even though it is not mandatory, the plan stipulates Indonesia’s commitment to ensuring the shark population does not decline.
“Since it was implemented we should have been preparing, doing more research to support data on our shark populations,” Imam said. “We should be embarrassed complaining that there is not enough research on the proposals to save sharks while not doing our own comprehensive research.”
Suharsono agreed Indonesia’s action plan on sharks had been poorly implemented.
Meanwhile, Willem Wijnstekers, secretary general of CITES, whose secretariat is administered by the UN Environment Program, said the rejection of more listings at the meeting reflected a transitional process of adjusting existing management of fishery stocks toward something more robust and coherent.
“The Doha conference was an important step in the long journey toward the conservation of commercial marine species,” he said. “The quality of the debate and the simple majority reached on three sharks and the red and pink coral proposals sent a strong signal to the international community on the urgent need to stop overexploitation.
“The results do not reflect well the real impact of this meeting, which will only be seen and understood when other international regimes discuss the fate of bluefin tuna and sharks in the coming months.”
Conservation Takes Back Seat to Indonesian Fishermen at Doha Meeting
Fidelis E Satriastanti Jakarta Globe 31 Mar 10;
The interests of the country’s fishermen ultimately won out over endangered sharks when Indonesia voted during an international meeting last week to decide on protection measures and trade rules for a wide range of plant and animal species.
“We need to look closely at the impact on people’s welfare, especially fishermen, and also sociocultural issues,” said Suharsono, a senior marine researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
Indonesia, along with China and Singapore, supported Japan at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species conference in Doha, Qatar, to rule out proposals for tighter trade restrictions on four species of shark — the scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitetip, porbeagle and spiny dogfish.
Suharsono, who was a delegate at the CITES meeting, said stricter regulations would have affected incomes and livelihoods in fishing communities across the country, which is a major exporter of shark products — primarily shark fin.
“Additionally, we don’t have fishermen focusing on catching sharks. Most of the catches are usually by accident, with sharks happening to be caught along with tuna,” he said.
An estimated 250 shark species can be found in Indonesian waters — about half of all species around the world.
According to Suharsono, the new restrictions would have required extra monitoring at ports because sharks were often chopped up and sold in pieces, making it difficult to identify which species were being caught. “Can you imagine how much money would have to be spent to have such technology?” he said.
Imam Musthofa Zainudin, a coordinator with WWF-Indonesia, meanwhile, said sharks should have been listed with CITES expressly because it would not have directly affected Indonesian fishing communities who regard sharks as a side catch.
“Indonesian fishermen are very pragmatic. If they don’t have any tuna then they will keep the sharks they catch, but if they have plenty of tuna they will let sharks go because we don’t even eat sharks,” he said. “There has been a misperception that Indonesia has become the largest exporter because fishermen hunt sharks, but it doesn’t work that way.”
Richard Thomas, communications coordinator at TRAFFIC International, said the CITES listing would have helped fisheries management keep shark catches within sustainable limits.
“Currently, there is a free-for-all, with many species in severe decline because of overfishing for their high-value fins and meat,” Thomas said, adding that shark numbers in some areas around the world had declined by more than 90 percent.
Yahoo News 31 Mar 10;
BRUSSELS (AFP) – EU fisheries subsidies have encouraged overfishing over the years and helped maintain an over-capacity in the industry, according to a study published Wednesday.
The study was carried out in 10 European countries -- including Britain, Denmark, France and Spain -- which accounted for almost all of the 4.9 billion euros of fishing subsidies handed out by Brussels from 2000-2006.
"EU fisheries subsidies and the overfishing of valuable fish stocks are clearly connected," said Tim Huntingdon, consultant at British-based Poseidon Aquatic Resource, which carried out the study along with fellow NGO the Pew Environment Group.
The researchers complained that changes to the funding and reporting systems meant that such a study covering more recent years would be impossible to carry out.
According to their report, 29 percent of the EU handouts went to measures which contributed to overfishing -- modernisation of fleets, vessel construction -- while just 17 percent was dedicated to measures to support healthy fisheries -- scrapping and temporary fishing bans.
Spain, France, Portugal and Germany in particular were said to have benefited from subsidies for "negative measures" as far as sustainable fisheries are concerned.
Of the boats scrapped, the researchers found that more money went to scrap small boats, of less than 12 metres in length, while the reverse was true for the big boats of over 24 metres in length.
Over the study period they found that almost 3,000 new fishing boats were built and 8,000 modernised thanks to EU funding.
However only 6,000 vessels, many of which were small fishing boats on the Greek and Italian coasts, benefited from scrappage aid.
The aim of the EU's Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), from where the finding came for the period in question, was in part to "contribute to revitalising areas dependent on fisheries and aquaculture".
It was also designed to "contribute to achieving a balance between fisheries resources and their exploitation," according to the European Commission.
However the researchers are unimpressed by the results.
"EU fishing subsidies have failed to reduce fleet overcapacity, thus exerting fishing pressure on stocks at two or three times sustainable levels," the Pew group argues.
Among the key European fish stocks where overfishing has been enabled are Southern hake, monkfish, sharks and prawns, the report says.
Since 2007, the EU subsidies have been handed out under the European Fisheries Fund (EFF).
With the change of funding instrument "the transparency has been removed," complained Markus Knigge, of the Pew Environment Group.
The EFF "tighter disclosure criteria make a similar allocation study impossible," he said. "The public have a right to know what they have funded".
Dr. Greg Stone, for CNN 30 Mar 10;
Dr. Greg Stone is Senior Vice President for Marine Conservation and Chief Ocean Scientist Conservation International. Below he expresses his opinion on the health of the oceans
(CNN) -- Twenty years ago when I had the opportunity to dive to 18,000 feet in the Japanese research submersible "Shinkai 6500" in the Sea of Japan. I fantasized about the amazing animals our team might see deep on the ocean floor: rat-tails, deep sea sharks, and octopi.
But when we reached the sea bottom, it was littered with trash that included food bags, soda cans, empty boxes, and even a broken toy doll. I shudder to imagine what that same sea bottom looks like today.
The ocean is a beautiful, mystical world that covers more than 70 percent of our planet and supports a mind-bending array of life below the surface and above. But it's also a fragile ecosystem that is vulnerable to the strains placed upon it, which include pollution, increased acidification, and the warming of the water, all of which can harm the life supported by the oceans.
Some of this strain is visible, but much of it not. The ocean hides most of what we do to it. But I can tell you first-hand that it is facing a health crisis that needs urgent care.
Because most plastic floats, we can see it accumulated along shorelines, on beaches and lately, in ocean gyres hundreds of miles across (large circular closed-current systems -- there are 5 worldwide). And because most Laysan albatrosses nest in protected and well-studied reserves in the Hawaiian Islands, we've seen the frightening accumulations of plastic objects that parents and chicks ingest, and the terrible toll that takes.
I was at one such reserve in Mid-Way Island last June and saw this fist hand. Every few feet, everywhere on the island were pieces of plastic brought there by albatrosses because they confuse the plastic for food. I saw one mother trying to feed an old toothbrush to her chick. Less visible are the effects of plastic ingested by marine turtles that mistake plastic bags for their jellyfish prey and choke to death or die of intestinal blockage.
Completely invisible are the effects of tiny particles (microplastics) released when larger chunks of plastic slowly degrade at sea and enter food chains. We have little idea of the extent to which these particles block or damage the digestive systems of zooplankton and larval fish, or the effects of oil, PCBs, and pesticides, which accumulate on the particles' surfaces.
In all these ways, plastics typify the major plot line for most of our abuse of the ocean: wonderful new products or techniques are ingeniously developed, deployed to excess, and thoughtlessly abandoned after use with unpredicted and unregulated disregard for side effects that harm the environment and marine life. It's this that has also led to expanding "dead zones" (large areas of low oxygen water such as those found in the Gulf of Mexico), climate change, sea level rise, ocean acidification, overfishing, loss of biodiversity, and increasing frequency of invasive species.
All of these threats to our oceans and planet have traceable sources and both visible and invisible effects. Today, the relentless spread of these stresses has reached global scale. A study in 2008 published in "Science" led by B.S. Halpern showed that no area of the ocean is unaffected and 41 percent is strongly affected by multiple human activities. The comparatively small 4 percent of ocean which scored as "very lightly impacted" was located near the poles, where seasonal or permanent ice cover has reduced human access. Those areas will see increased impact as ice cover recedes because of global warming.
So the bad news is that the ocean and many of its habitats and populations are approaching a state of crisis. But the good news is that they aren't dead yet. Also we understand the nature and extent of the worst problems and we know what solutions will bring the ocean back to good health.
It is also good news that the ocean's problems are entirely extrinsic. They are not caused by weakness, disease or any other fault of the marine system itself, but from the activities of people. Solutions therefore must focus entirely on us and our behavior. Again, this is good news because we know a lot more about ourselves than we do about the ocean and its citizens.
At Conservation International (CI) we've adopted a three-prong strategy to rebuild ocean health. First, we've pioneered something called the Seascape model which integrates management of broad marine areas through collaborations between governments, non-governmental organizations, conservation organizations, coastal communities and the private sector. Seascapes in Bird's Head, Papua, (eastern Indonesia); the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas (Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines); and the Eastern Tropical Pacific (Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador) are setting new standards for cooperative marine stewardship by establishing biodiversity reserves, designating critical areas, improving procedures for assessing the environmental impacts of development, and helping to establish a coordinated legal framework for management by neighboring countries.
That is just the beginning. CI is currently working to promote entirely new Seascapes in Brazil, Hawaii and the Western Indian Ocean, while also encouraging governments and multilateral agencies to create and support additional Seascapes on their own.
Second, we're scaling up that model for larger-scale regional management. For example, CI worked with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in a partnership called the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI), which uses the same management techniques to help six governments (Malaysia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Solomon Islands and East Timor) promote coral reefs, fisheries and food security. That initiative benefits more than 100 million people in the region who depend on the sea for their food, recreation and livelihoods.
We're also in the early stages of working with President Anote Tong of the Republic of Kiribati, and leaders of other island nations to create a "Pacific Oceanscape" that could extend from Micronesia, through Melanesia, Polynesia and all the way to New Zealand, bringing ecosystem-based management to millions of square kilometers of ocean.
Third, CI is working to secure sustainable fisheries management on the High Seas, the 70 percent of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, where the void in governance has created no-holds-barred competition for the 11 million tons of fish harvested there each year. Reform is needed for high seas fisheries, but also for protecting seamounts, the underwater mountains formed by extinct volcanoes whose tops support remarkably productive, but very slow growing, populations of fish, cold-water corals and other species 1000 to 4000 meters below the sea surface.
CI are promoting policies and actions to stop unsustainable exploitation of fisheries, habitat-destructive industrial fishing techniques, and fisheries practices that threaten the food security of millions of coastal residents who depend entirely on subsistence fisheries.
How will we know whether CI's actions and others are working? As one answer to that question we are developing a new approach to measuring and evaluating the ocean's health that is centralized, specific and scientifically verifiable. Ocean managers and the public will be able to see how the waters they frequent are faring and whether marine conservation is working. After all, we assign indices to track our financial markets, grades to monitor our children's educational progress, and scores to compare our favorite sports. The ocean's health deserves our same attention.
In all these ways Conservation International and its partners are helping build the capacity of nations, institutions and communities to create effective management of their marine resources; and encouraging social and political support for actions that promote the health and productivity of marine systems. Seascapes, Oceanscapes, Sustainable Fisheries and evaluation of subsequent improvements in ocean health will in time restore a rich abundance and diversity of marine life.
As threatened habitats, species and populations recover, we will see not only a healthier ocean, but greater prosperity and well-being for humans, including more than one billion of us who depend on seafood as our primary source of protein. We are confident that the coordinated, collaborative, partner-based techniques developed while creating and maintaining Seascapes and Oceanscapes will improve all aspects of ocean health, including stopping the proliferation of waste plastic at sea.
This requires deliberate, coordinated, multinational action, driven by awareness of the enormous value of the ocean to a healthy, prosperous human future. We humans cannot thrive by continuing to abuse the life support system that comprises 98 percent of the world's biosphere, recycles carbon, nitrogen, water and other essential substances, produces 70 to 80 percent of the oxygen we breathe, and contains the greatest diversity and abundance of life on our planet. The ocean works hard for us. Now it is time for us to work on its behalf.
The Plastiki expedition is a courageous, bold undertaking that will raise awareness about the ocean's health, and we hope, will be a call-to-action to inspire people. All of us at Conservation International wish Plastiki and her crew a safe voyage. We salute you for calling attention to plastics pollution and boldly challenging society to find solutions that eliminate this important problem.
Nayelli Gonzalez, PlanetArk 1 Apr 10;
It has arrived. Ladies and gentlemen: the compostable water bottle has arrived. Earlier this month, Green Planet Bottle launched an organic, 100% plant-based bottle which is not only petroleum- and BPA-free, but it's also carbon neutral. This is certainly a good business move: Green Planet is entering the $11 billion bottled water market that doesn't seem to go away. But can bottled water really be "green," or sustainable?
The company is targeting schools, corporate campuses, and hotels, and can be used to gain LEED certification. According to the press release that announced the launch, "Green Planet Bottling was formed to help its customers make positive and sustainable differences by making a product that is healthy for our bodies and our planet. Its vision is to become the premier bottler of waters/beverages in organic, sustainable packaging."
This upsets me.
According to a study conducted by the Pacific Institute, bottled water raises serious concerns about the energy and water resources required to produce bottles and deliver them to consumers. The process of bottling water produces more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide, and it takes 3 liters of water to produce 1 liter of bottled water. Transporting bottled water also requires millions in barrels of oil. And the list goes on...
Most people who know about environmental issues know that bottled water is unsustainable on many levels. Changing the way the bottle is made is not a sustainable answer to bottled water. A compostable bottled water is still bottled water. Even so, the Green Planet website claims it is a "category changer." As a brand, they are reframing the controversy of bottled water and are positioning themselves as a sustainable alternative to old school bottled water. Their strategy, in my opinion, is the strategic version of greenwashing. The company is opportunistically capitalizing on people's desire to be environmentally responsible (and buy compostable vs. plastic products), and is misleading the public about the true environmental sustainability of its product.
Other than promoting the bottle's material, nowhere on the Green Planet Bottling website can one find information about the sustainability of the company. Is the production process sustainable? Do they use alternative sources of energy to manufacture the compostable bottle and then bottle the water? Do they use hybrid or electric vehicles to transport the bottles (or are they still using gas-guzzling trucks)? And what are they doing to teach consumers about water conservation and the larger global water crisis? Those answers are not available online-and that's probably another strategic move.
Reprinted with permission from EcoLocalizer.com
Yahoo News 31 Mar 10;
BEIJING (AFP) – China said Wednesday that more than 24 million people were short of drinking water because of a crippling drought, the worst to hit the country in a century.
Most of those affected live in the southwest where meteorologists say the situation will not improve until the rainy season, which should kick off after May 20, vice minister of water resources Liu Ning told reporters.
Authorities have set aside 6.3 billion yuan (923 million dollars) to help mitigate the immediate effects of the drought and bring drinking water to the affected population.
Over the long term, the government plans to launch water conservation projects such as the construction of new reservoirs.
Liu insisted food supplies would not be affected by the dry spell, which has spread across Yunnan, Guizhou and Sichuan provinces, the Guangxi region and the mega-city of Chongqing.
"This drought will not have an impact on food production and security in our nation," Liu told a press conference.
Putri Prameshwari & Fidelis E Satriastanti, Jakarta Globe 31 Mar 10;
Environment Minister Gusti Mohammad Hatta said on Wednesday that the ministry would not float any candidates for the leadership of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as the deadline for submitting candidates passed.
Yvo De Boer, executive secretary of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, announced his resignation in February, three months after the highly anticipated international climate change talks in Copenhagen ended with a nonbinding agreement considered a failure by environmentalists.
Although Indonesia never made an official announcement, three candidates were considered to be in the running for the post.
They are former Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda, Agus Purnomo, the head of the National Council on Climate Change and a special staff member to the president on climate issues, and Liana Bratasida, the environment minister’s assistant for global environmental affairs and international cooperation.
“We do not have any candidates for the UNFCCC,” said Gusti, adding that Liana had rejected the offer “because of her own reasons.”
Liana said she was grateful to have been offered the candidacy, but she was not interested in taking the job.
“I have submitted my refusal letter to the minister,” she said. The job “is not as easy as it seems so I think I will pass on that offer.” She also said that she was “no stranger to this kind of job and [the UN bodies’] way of working.”
At the Bonn climate talks last year, Liana was appointed to head the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, a technical body under the UNFCCC that focuses on emissions targets, financing, mitigation and technology transfer. She was also a former member of the Clean Development Mechanism’s executive board, which was tasked to determine whether carbon projects should be approved.
A source who did not wish to be identified told the Jakarta Globe that Indonesia had failed to submit names because no one met the UNFCCC requirements.
“They have requested that the applicant have experience in managing around $100 million in funds and 150 international staff members. Not one of the alleged candidates fit the criteria, so, that’s why we did not submit any names,” the source said.
Indonesia misses chance to run for UN top post
Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 1 Apr 10;
Indonesia’s hope to chair the UN climate body waned as it lacked an eligible candidate.
The UN requires executive secretary post candidates of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which needs filling after Yvo de Boer’s resignation, to show they have past experience in leading an institution with at least 150 international staff and a budget of at least US$100 million.
The government did not make an official statement on the competition Wednesday, the deadline for countries to submit their candidates.
“If we do not submit a name, this means we will not join the race,” National Council for Climate Change (DNPI) chairman Rachmat Witoelar told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday.
Rachmat, former environment minister, declined to say that Indonesia did not join the race because Indonesia lacked an eligible candidate. Rachmat was one of the strong candidates from Indonesia partly due to his role in leading the UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties (COP) 13 in Bali in 2007.
A source, told the Post that Indonesia had no candidate who had experience with an 150-staff member institution. “The UNFCCC requires candidates have experience in dealing with this number, which hampers many candidates eligibility from developing nations,” the official, who requested anonymity, said.
The recruitment process for Indonesian candidates involved selection by Coordinating Public Welfare Minister Agung Laksono and the Foreign Ministry.
“As far as I know, we have not assessed candidates for the post,” Coordinating Public Welfare secretary Indroyono Susilo told the Post.
De Boer announced his resignation in February. He will leave the UN office in July, just months before negotiators from 190 countries will gather again to hammer out a long-delayed binding treaty on emission cut targets.
The secretariat of UNFCCC located in Bonn, Germany, currently employs 200 international staff. Among other issues, the talk aims to prepare official documents for discussion on the COP on climate change.
The new executive secretary chief will be appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in consultation with the COP.
As of March, Costa Rica, India and South Africa are among countries that have announced their
interest in racing the climate-change post.
Indian environment secretary Vijay Sharma and South African Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk first made the public announcement to race the post. Costa Rica planned to nominate its lead climate negotiator Christiana Figueres, who has had a long career in the UNFCCC.
Yahoo News 31 Mar 10;
LONDON (AFP) – British Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said Wednesday his government would accept two global treaties on cutting carbon emissions if no agreement could be reached on one.
After high-level talks in London following up December's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, Miliband said Britain was "flexible" about the form a global deal would take as long as it was legally binding.
"We do not want to let a technical argument about whether we have one treaty or two derail the process. We are determined to show flexibility as long as there is no undermining of environmental principles," he said.
More than 180 countries have signed up to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol committing them to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but China and the United States refused to join the agreement, which expires in 2012.
Miliband suggested Kyoto could be extended and a second treaty drawn up to include all the other countries.
"We are uncompromising about the need for a legal framework covering everyone, but we are willing to be flexible about the precise form that takes," the minister said.
The London talks were co-hosted by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Ethiopian counterpart Meles Zenawi and focused on how rich countries can help poorer states adapt to climate change -- a key sticking point at Copenhagen.
"If we can solve this problem I believe we will be on our way to achieving a global agreement. And today's first meeting of the group has made a really constructive start," Brown said.
The talks were attended by Guyanan President Bharrat Jagdeo, Norwegian premier Jens Stoltenberg and US President Barack Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers.
UK pushes for twin-track deal on climate change
Britain prepared to extend Kyoto if developing nations agree to a new, global treaty
Michael McCarthy, The Independent 31 Mar 10;
Britain proposed a new twin-track climate deal yesterday to end the logjam which has affected international talks on global warming since the failed Copenhagen climate conference last December.
In a surprise policy U-turn, the Climate and Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, announced that the Government would agree to an extension of the current international climate treaty, the Kyoto protocol – something developing countries have insisted on but which has so far been rejected by the UK and the European Union as a whole.
Britain would accept a renewed Kyoto, Mr Miliband said, alongside the entirely new, legally binding global deal it has been pursuing. In effect there could be two separate international climate treaties, covering emissions cuts by different countries.
The move is ultimately likely to put pressure on China, one of the countries which blocked agreement at Copenhagen and now the world's biggest CO2 emitter, to join in a comprehensive new climate arrangement covering the whole world.
But if China was intransigent at the talks in the Danish capital, it was British and EU insistence on abandoning the 1997 Kyoto treaty which was the immediate cause of the talks' breakdown, and nearly led to a complete and humiliating collapse of two years of negotiations between 192 countries.
In the end, a limited ad-hoc agreement, the "Copenhagen Accord", was put together by world leaders during the conference's final day but it fell far short of the legally binding global warming treaty, with detailed targets for cutting global emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, which had been Copenhagen's original objective.
In announcing yesterday that Britain would accept a renewal (technically, a "second commitment period") of Kyoto, Mr Miliband was in effect starting the climate talks all over again by sending a clear signal – and making a large concession – to developing countries, for whom maintaining the 1997 treaty had taken on almost totemic status.
"We are interested in trying to break the deadlock and find ways through some of the issues raised in Copenhagen," he said. "We do not want to let a technical argument about whether we have one treaty or two derail the process. We are determined to show flexibility as long as there is no undermining of environmental principles."
Developing countries have strongly supported Kyoto because it commits them to do nothing, at least initially, while getting rich countries to take on legally binding emissions targets. The poorer countries see this as a just reflection of the fact that most of the man-made greenhouses gases in the atmosphere were put there by countries such as the US and Britain, which should therefore be the first to take action.
But more than that, the treaty – indeed, almost the word Kyoto itself – had come to be seen as a talisman of the good faith of rich countries, while abandoning it tantamount to a betrayal of the developing nations.
In its place, Britain wanted a new treaty which would bring in all countries of the world, including the US – which George W Bush withdrew from Kyoto in 2001 – and commit the developing countries for the first time to cut back their own emissions, which from now on will far exceed the CO2 output of the developed world. China overtook the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter in 2007.
Britain fought hard to achieve this new deal in behind-the-scenes negotiations, and persisted in the position despite many warnings that the poorer countries were simply too attached to Kyoto to give it up. In the end, the draft text of the non-Kyoto deal was leaked, widely criticised by developing countries as a betrayal, and the talks ran into the ground.
Britain still wants the new arrangement, binding on all countries, and yesterday Mr Miliband insisted that it was the only way forward.
As the price of attaining it, he said the UK would accept a renewal of Kyoto, so that there would in effect be two international climate treaties running in parallel. But he stressed that Britain would not accept one without the other.
In part, this is a response to the bloody nose the Government was given in Denmark, and a recognition that its hard-line, no-Kyoto policy was unrealistic. But it is also smart politics, as it will remove the objections of developing countries, but box China into a corner with its own objections to a new legal deal.
"We are uncompromising about the need for a legal framework covering everyone, but we are willing to be flexible about the precise form that takes," Mr Miliband said. "By making these proposals, we can take away this myth that developed countries were trying to destroy Kyoto and get on with a legal treaty."
Alister Doyle, PlanetArk 31 Mar 10;
A goal to limit global warming to "below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) is opening a new rift for 2010 talks on a U.N. climate treaty as developing nations say it means the rich must deepen cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
An alliance of 101 developing nations and island states says the temperature target, endorsed by major emitters since the Copenhagen summit in December, is tougher than a previous goal by industrialized nations of 2 degrees as a maximum rise.
"2.0 degrees is unacceptable," said Dessima Williams, Grenada's ambassador to the United Nations who represents the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which wants to limit temperatures to below 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial times.
But rich nations and some researchers say the Copenhagen Accord's "below" 2 is vague -- it can mean 1.999 degrees and so be indistinguishable for policy purposes from 2. The Accord does not lay down how the temperature goal will be reached.
"It can mean anything until we may agree on what it means concretely," European Union Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said of the temperature target.
"The good thing about saying 'below 2C' is that you then have a ceiling. A number of countries say 1.5 C and this has not been taken off the table," she said.
Senior officials meet in Bonn, Germany, from April 9-11 for the first U.N. talks since Copenhagen, trying to work out a new pact to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after the U.N. summit failed.
DEGREES OF DIFFERENCE
"We do not see a redefinition of the '2 degree C limit' through the Copenhagen Accord: in that sense we interpret it as 1.9999 degree C," said Brigitte Knopf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The semantic dispute has huge economic implications for guiding a shift from fossil fuels toward renewable energies.
The U.N. panel of climate scientists said in 2007 that a greenhouse gas goal consistent with 2 degrees C would cost about 3 percent of world gross domestic product by 2030. It did not work out the higher costs of 1.5.
Williams said that promises for cuts in emissions outlined by developed nations so far put the world on track for a 3.9 degrees C rise in temperatures that would bring droughts, floods, mudslides, heatwaves and rising sea levels.
"Climate change leadership is certainly not forthcoming from actions and actors committing to such dangerous levels of emissions," she said. Hedegaard also said current targets are insufficient to meet the 2C goal.
Many analysts doubt that the next annual talks of environment ministers in Cancun, Mexico, in late 2010, will end with a treaty. One reason is that U.S. legislation to cut emissions is stalled in the Senate.
Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 Celsius above pre-industrial times.
"To stay below 1.5 C is probably impossible given the massive inertia of the socio-economic and biophysical systems," said Pep Canadell, head of the Global Carbon Project at Australia's Commonwealth, Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
"It will be very tough to stay below 2C."
The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific view that the rise in global temperature "should be below 2 degrees C." The Group of Eight and big emerging nations agreed at a mid-2009 summit in Italy that the rise "ought not to exceed 2 degrees."
The Copenhagen Accord also holds out the prospect of $10 billion a year from 2010-12 in climate aid for developing nations, rising to $100 billion a year from 2020.
Knopf noted that the Accord adds a new element by saying that the tougher 1.5 degrees target should be reviewed in 2015.
So far, about 110 nations have endorsed the Copenhagen Accord, including top emitters led by China, the United States, Russia and India. The deal was only "noted" by the Copenhagen summit after objections from a handful of developing states.
Canadell said the world could emit 1,000 billion tons of carbon "starting now and stay at 2 degrees C or below with a 50 percent probability." Limiting emissions to 600 billion would raise the probability to 90 percent, but boost costs.
(Additional reporting by Karin Jensen in Copenhagen; Editing by Louise Ireland)
Alister Doyle, Reuters 31 Mar 10;
OSLO (Reuters) - More than 110 countries have signed up to the Copenhagen Accord on fighting global warming but the United Nations said on Wednesday that their pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions were insufficient.
The first formal U.N. list of backers of the deal, compiled since the text was agreed at an acrimonious 194-nation summit in December, showed support from all top emitters led by China, the United States, the European Union, Russia, India and Japan.
It also includes smaller emitters from Albania to Zambia.
The accord, which falls short of a binding treaty sought by many nations, sets a goal of limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. But it leaves each nation to set its own targets for 2020.
Yvo de Boer, outgoing head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat which compiled the list, said pledges for cutting greenhouse gas emissions so far fell short of that goal.
"It is clear that while the pledges on the table are an important step toward the objective of limiting growth of emissions, they will not in themselves suffice to limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius," he said in a statement.
The accord also outlines almost $10 billion a year in aid for poor nations from 2010-12, rising to at least $100 billion from 2020, to help them slow emissions growth and cope with impacts such as floods, droughts and rising sea levels.
MEXICO
De Boer said the accord could be used to help advance formal negotiations toward a successful outcome in Mexico, which will stage the next U.N. climate conference of the world's environment ministers in Cancun in late 2010.
Many experts, including de Boer, have expressed doubts that Mexico will achieve a breakthrough where Copenhagen failed to work out a U.N. pact to succeed the existing Kyoto Protocol. One reason is that U.S. carbon capping legislation is stalled.
The Secretariat said that 112 parties -- 111 nations and the European Union -- had so far signed up for the accord. The list of 111 includes the 27 individual EU states.
It said 41 rich nations submitted goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 35 developing countries outlined plans to limit growth of emissions. Together they account for more than 80 percent of world emissions from energy use.
The Copenhagen Accord was merely "noted" by the 194-nation summit after objections by a handful of developing nations including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Sudan. The United Nations then asked all countries to say if they wanted to be listed or not. Wednesday's list is the result.
Many emerging economies were initially reluctant to sign up after the deal failed to gain universal support, even though the original text was worked out by U.S. President Barack Obama with leaders of states such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Many developing nations want the 1992 U.N. Climate Convention to guide U.N. negotiations on a new treaty, arguing that it spells out more clearly that rich nations must take the lead. Washington, by contrast, favors the Copenhagen Accord.
Nations that stayed off the list include many OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia, which fears a loss of oil revenues if the world shifts to renewable energies, and some small island states such as Tuvalu which fear rising sea levels.
(Reporting by Alister Doyle, editing by Paul Taylor)
Factbox: The Copenhagen Accord and global warming
Reuters 31 Mar 10;
(Reuters) - Following are details of the Copenhagen Accord for fighting global warming after the United Nations published on Wednesday a first formal list of more than 110 countries as formal backers.
The non-binding deal, worked out at a 194-nation summit in December, was only "noted" at the time after objections by some developing nations. The United Nations then asked all countries to say if they wanted to be listed as backers of the deal
The list of supporters includes major emitters led by China, the United States, the European Union, Russia and India.
Following are main details of the Accord:
TEMPERATURES - Governments will work to combat climate change "recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius" (3.6 Fahrenheit). Temperatures have already risen by about 0.7 Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - The Accord does not set greenhouse gas goals for reaching the 2 degrees C target except to urge "deep cuts in global emissions" and to say that a peak in global emissions should be "as soon as possible." Many developing nations had wanted the rich to cut emissions by at least 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 -- rich nations' promised cuts so far average about 14-18 percent.
ADAPTATION - The Accord promises to help countries adapt to the damaging impacts of climate change such as droughts, storms or rising sea levels, "especially least developed countries, small island developing states and Africa." It also says all countries face challenges of adapting to "response measures" -- OPEC nations, for instance, argue they should be compensated if responses mean a shift from oil to wind or solar power.
2020 TARGETS - In an annex, rich nations list national goals for cuts in greenhouse gases and developing nations set out actions to slow the rise of emissions by 2020. In December, a leaked U.N. overview showed that, taken together, they imply a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius, not 2.
VERIFICATION - Developed nations will submit emissions goals for U.N. review. Developing nations' actions will be under domestic review if funded by their budgets but "subject to international measurement, reporting and verification" when funded by foreign aid. In Copenhagen, China resisted foreign review while the United States said it was vital.
DEFORESTATION - The text sees a "crucial role" for slowing deforestation -- trees store carbon dioxide as they grow.
MARKETS - The accord says countries will "pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets" to curb emissions.
AID - Developed nations promise new and additional funds "approaching $30 billion for 2010-12" to help developing countries. In the longer term, "developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020." Last month, the United Nations set up a high level panel, led by Britain and Ethiopia, to study sources of finance.
GREEN FUND - Countries will set up a "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund" to help channel aid. The deal will also set up a "Technology Mechanism" to accelerate use of green technologies.
REVIEW - The accord will be reviewed in 2015, including whether the temperature goal should be toughened to 1.5 degrees Celsius. An alliance of 101 least developed countries and small island states want temperatures to rise less than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
(Compiled by Alister Doyle in Oslo, Editing by Dominic Evans)
More countries set emission targets for 2020: UN
Richard Ingham Yahoo News 31 Mar 10;
PARIS (AFP) – Seventy-five countries accounting for more than 80 percent of greenhouse gases from energy use have filed pledges to cut or limit carbon emissions by 2020, the UN climate convention said on Wednesday.
The promises, made under the Copenhagen Accord, are only a step towards wider action to tackle global warming, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said in its official report on December's world climate summit.
A total of 111 countries plus the European Union (EU) "have indicated their support for the Accord," the UNFCCC said.
Cobbled together in the summit's crisis-ridden final hours, the Copenhagen Accord sets the goal of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), gathering rich and poor countries in action against carbon pollution that causes the problem.
It also promises 30 billion dollars (22 billion euros) for climate-vulnerable poor countries in the three years to 2012, and up to 100 billion dollars annually by 2020.
Supporters point out it is the first accord to include advanced and emerging economies in specified emissions curbs.
Critics retort that it has no deadline for reaching the warming target, has no roadmap for reaching it and its pledges are only voluntary.
The UNFCCC's report on Wednesday confirms that major emitters, including China, India and Brazil, have given the Accord their political blessing.
After more than two months of foot-dragging, the emerging giants separately aligned themselves with the document in early March.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said the promises were significant but not the final answer.
"It is clear that while the pledges on the table are an important step towards the objective of limiting growth of emissions, they will not in themselves suffice to limit warming to below 2 C (3.6 F)," he said.
"The climate conference at the end of this year in Mexico therefore needs to put in place effective cooperative mechanisms capable of bringing about significant acceleration of national, regional and international action both to limit the growth of emissions and to prepare for the inevitable impacts of climate change."
The December 7-19 confab drew attendance from 120 heads of state or government, the highest for any climate meeting.
It was initially touted as the culmination of a two-year negotiation process towards a global pact for tackling climate change beyond 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol's current provisions expire.
But delaying tactics and textual warfare, reflecting entrenched national interests and concern over the cost of switching out of carbon-intensive fuels, drove the summit to near-collapse.
In the end, heads of around two dozen countries, led by the major emitters, huddled together to produce the Accord.
The first official talks under the 194-nation UNFCCC will take place in Bonn, western Germany, from April 9-11.
Negotiators will be tasked with breathing life into the Copenhagen deal and seeing how it integrates with the labyrinthine two-track UNFCCC process.
"The meeting... is going to be very important to rebuild confidence in the process, to rebuild confidence that the way forward will be open and transparent on the one hand and efficient on the other," de Boer told reporters in a teleconference.
Greenhouse gases are mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas as well as methane from forest loss and agriculture.
They are blamed for trapping the Sun's heat in the atmosphere, instead of letting it radiate safely back into space.
The warming is changing the delicate ballet of Earth's climate system -- and by century's end, many millions could be afflicted by drought, floods, rising seas and severe storms, experts fear.
To achieve the 2 C (3.6 F) goal by 2100, rich countries would have to cut their emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020 over 1990 levels, while developing countries would have to brake their emissions by 15-30 percent below forecast trends.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07