Best of our wild blogs: 2 May 10

Stunning Cyrene at Sunrise
from wild shores of singapore

My first Hantu guided walk
from wonderful creation

May Day Palm Tree Inspection
from Life's Indulgences

Can all birds be tamed and will they stay tame?
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Read more!

'Skyrise greenery' reaching new heights in Singapore

Architects report growing demand for green spaces on rooftops and decks
Shuli Sudderuddin and Debby Kwong, Straits Times 2 May 10;

More building owners are going to great heights - such as the rooftop - to go green.

This trend has the official nod. The Government hopes to see some 50ha of such 'skyrise greenery' by 2030, architects say.

The concept refers to greenery integrated into building structures, like rooftops, walls and sky terraces. It can make a skyline striking when it adorns high-rise blocks.

While there are no figures on how much skyrise greenery there is now, architects say they are getting more requests for their designs to incorporate the concept.

A Singapore Institute of Landscape Architects spokesman said that, given the land scarcity and competition for space, 'the logical solution is to integrate greenery onto built structures, for instance, on roofs, skyrise decks and even building facades'.

There are even annual awards, jointly organised by the Singapore Institute of Architects and National Parks Board (NParks), to promote and recognise the greening of high-rise developments.

Known as the Skyrise Greenery Awards, this year's awards - the third edition - were open for submissions last month.

Said Mr Tai Lee Siang, a director at DP Architects: 'Skyrise greenery is a trend here due to the high density of our developments, where green spaces are desirable and it is insufficient to depend only on ground-level green space.'

Mr Vincent Koo, managing director of DCA Architects, which designed the greenery at One George Street office building, said it also uses skyrise greenery for its other projects like Reflections at Keppel Bay and Marina Bay Residences.

The 23-storey One George Street, in South Bridge Road, won a Skyrise Greenery Award in 2008.

Mr Ng Cheow Kheng, assistant director of Streetscape (Projects) for NParks, said even schools are introducing greenery in their buildings.

He said skyrise greenery can have benefits such as improving air quality by absorbing airborne particles, reducing energy cooling costs and increasing property values.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and NParks have a series of incentives to promote skyrise greenery.

The URA's Lush (Landscaping for Urban Spaces and High-Rises) programme encourages developers of high-rise buildings to incorporate greenery from the ground level upwards.

NParks' Green Roof Incentive Scheme encourages owners of existing buildings to green their rooftops.

Malls, too, are heeding the call.

DLQ Design director Lena Quek said DLQ was commissioned to design two sky gardens, with trees and water plants, for the Orchard Central mall. Its design won the first prize in the Skyrise Greenery Awards last year.

VivoCity won an award for its rooftop garden designed by DP Architects in 2008.

DP Architects' senior associate, Mr Paul Appasamy, said many condominium projects being built and launched have sky terraces, as do office buildings in the heart of the Central Business District, such as NTUC Tower in Collyer Quay.

Even Sri Geylang Serai, a public housing development, now has a landscaped deck area on the roof of its multistorey carpark.

Said a Singapore Institute of Architects spokesman: 'People will want to live or work amid well-designed and well-implemented skyrise greenery, therefore it does enhance the value of the property.'

Read more!

New Malaysian think-tank to study low carbon development

On the carbon footprint trail
New Straits Times 1 May 10;

THE Centre for Environment, Technology and Development, Malaysia (Cetdem) will study low carbon development once it establishes a think tank by the end of the year.

"Many people are talking about low carbon development so we want to see how we can do this in Malaysia," says Cetdem chairman Gurmit Singh. He revealed this at a press conference to announce the initiatives the organisation is taking after 25 years of existence.

For the next 25 years, Cetdem will be looking at, among others, expanding the scope of its work by setting up a think tank -- which will function as a section within the organisation -- that will examine sustainable development issues.

"Currently there is no think tank dedicated to environmental issues," says Gurmit, adding that it will work on long-term programmes on sustainable solutions, especially through the marriage of sustainable development and green technology.

The closest equivalent, he adds, is the Institute for Environment and Development (or its Malay acronym, Lestari), under Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, which does research and capacity building in sustainable development.

This is why Cetdem feels there is a need for an independent think tank in Malaysia and is looking at the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research as a possible model.

The organisation is now trying to raise the RM1 million needed to set up and run the think tank for the first four years.

Only then would it start identifying the core researchers to manage the think tank and possible collaborators to work with.

"It will study issues related to energy and environment, especially low carbon economy and development," says Gurmit.

Countries around the world are seeking to become low carbon economies -- which have minimal output of greenhouse gas, specifically carbon dioxide -- to try and mitigate global warming.

Cetdem was founded in 1985 as an independent, non-profit, training, research, consultancy, referral and development organisation.

In its existence, it has sought to demonstrate sustainable solutions on environmental issues in the Malaysian context. It has worked at the community, public and professional levels in energy efficiency, sustainable farming and sustainable transportation.

Aside from the establishment of the think tank and sustaining its current work on energy, climate change and organic farming, Cetdem will be deepening its work on transportation issues; venturing into addressing water issues and developing innovative ideas on the use of green and sustainable technology beyond the National Green Technology Policy.

Under its sustainable farming programme, Cetdem had operated the first organic farm from 1986 to 1996, contributed to the development of Malaysian Organic Farming standard and certification scheme, organised exhibitions, short courses, farm visits and projects such as the Community Initiative on Household Waste Composting in Petaling Jaya as well as run the Organic Farming Community Centre.

Hari Organik, an event Cetdem has been organising every three to four months since last year, has been gaining popularity since its inception.

"I noticed more Malay families had turned up for the latest one recently," says Organic Farming Project coordinator Tan Siew Luang, adding that it is an encouraging sign that more are becoming aware of the benefits of organic food and healthy living.

In a Learning Curve article titled The Organic Crowd (Oct 11, 2009), it was noted that the majority of the visitors to Hari Organik were ethnically Chinese.

Cetdem executive director Anthony Tan had attributed this occurrence to the media that had promoted the event (primarily a Chinese language radio station) and the venue itself (Section 19 -- where the event is held -- together with its neighbours SS2 and Sections 14 and 17 are mostly populated by Chinese).

Activities in this area will continue under the Organic Farming Community Centre in Section 19, which acts as a model for keeping an organic farm in an urban environment.

Cetdem also intends to conduct a baseline study of all the state capitals' public transport ridership, mobilise an awareness campaign to motivate people to use better public transport and lobby the new Land Public Transport Commission to improve the quality of public transportation.

After three years, it aims to assess the impact of these measures.

"We've heard that public transport ridership in Malaysia is only 17 per cent, while some claim it's 30 per cent.

"But we don't know where these figures come from," says Gurmit.

Cetdem will also be tackling the National Green Technology Policy, which Gurmit says does not really examine the role or the promotion of clean technologies, or pollution prevention technologies, and to look at cradle to cradle technologies -- where products can be used and later disassembled to be reused in other ways.

The organisation also wants to tackle unresolved water issues, such as whether Malaysians are optimally utilising their water resources for end use in various areas and if the current method of repairing water pipes is the most efficient.

Whatever it undertakes, Cetdem strives to put into practice sustainable solutions that can be duplicated.

"The biggest drawback with many activities in Malaysia is that there is there is a lot of awareness building but no follow-up and no practical solutions that people can adopt," says Tan, adding this is where Cetdem is different.

And that is one of the strengths that Cetdem will use in its growth in coming years.

Read more!

Increased Enforcement is Cheapest Way To Save Southeast Asia´s Coral Reefs From Blast Fishing

World Sentinel 1 May 10;

Washington D.C. -- A new study analyzing the destruction of Southeast Asia´s coral reefs by blast fishing finds that an ounce of prevention is indeed better than a pound of cure. The authors of the study in the journal Conservation Letters find that using marine patrols and enforcement to prevent blast fishing can be 70 times more cost-effective than rebuilding those reefs after the damage is done.

Blast fishing, an illegal practice in which home-made bombs are detonated into schools of fish for easy collection, leaves large areas of broken coral rubble that are unlikely to recover naturally.

The result is severe impacts on biodiversity and habitat for other fish because it kills both target and non-target fish and shatters coral skeletons. It also often injures and maims those doing the fishing when the home-made bombs malfunction. Blast fishing has been practiced in Southeast Asia since World War II despite regulations in most countries prohibiting it.

In recent years many have tried to rebuild damaged reefs with artificial "reef balls," concrete structures, coral transplantation and electric fields, the authors write. But the long-term effectiveness of these rebuilding efforts is unproven and they are not as effective as protecting centuries-old undamaged reefs from damage in the first place. In terms of cost, the authors found that prevention is anywhere from 5-70 times more cost-effective than rehabilitation using locally quarried rocks as a base for regrowing corals, depending on the calculations used.

"There are few if any methods of coral reef rehabilitation that are economically feasible at large scale or for developing nations." said Helen Fox, World Wildlife Fund Marine Conservation Scientist and the corresponding author of the study. "The million dollar question is whether to invest limited conservation funds in prevention of damage or repair of damage to coral reefs and it appears that prevention through increased enforcement is the answer in this case."

Coral reefs are among the most diverse and most threatened ecosystems on the planet – 19 percent of the world´s reefs are non-functional and in Southeast Asia 40 percent are non-functional. Most marine protected areas are underfunded and marine patrols often have few boats and thousands of square miles of ocean to protect from illegal activities such as blast fishing.

This is one of the first studies to quantifiably examine the cost-effectiveness of various management options for coral reefs. The findings could significantly affect policies not only on coral reef protection but also on the protection of other habitats.

The study was authored by experts from World Wildlife Fund, the University of Maryland, Purdue University, The Nature Conservancy and People and Nature Consulting International. It can be read in full here.

The study site was Indonesia´s Komodo National Park, which is in a region known as The Coral Triangle. This vast area of the Indo-Pacific region harbors 75 percent of all known coral species, more than half of the world´s reefs, 40 percent of the world's coral reef fish species, and six of the world´s seven species of marine turtle.

Komodo itself has over 200 species of reef- building corals but they are under threat. Half of Komodo´s 4200 acres of coral reefs had been damaged by blast fishing by the mid-1990s. Since enforcement efforts began in 1996 with the help of The Nature Conservancy blast fishing has decreased by 80 percent to 100 percent. Locals and dive operators report blast fishers to police, and "floating ranger stations" are supported by speedboats to pursue blast fishers.

TNC also began rehabilitation of damaged reefs using locally quarried rocks as a base for regrowing corals in large rubble fields. The efforts were mostly successful, resulting in the growth of both hard and soft corals in the rehabilitation areas.

The costs for both enforcement and rehabilitation were then analyzed: to patrol the Park adequately for seven years would cost $1,122,953 while the cost to install rock piles in all the damaged coral reef habitat of Komodo National Park would be $40,800,000, or about $10,000 per acre. Despite this price tag, this method is among the cheapest; others have costs that range from $32,000 per acre to $247 million per acre.

"Our study clearly shows that in this case for coral reefs, spending the money upfront on enforcement is far cheaper and in the long run, is better for the long-term health of reefs and the species that rely on them, including humans," Fox said. "In addition, research on how to increase management effectiveness and compliance with regulations could yield high dividends."

The authors recommend that along with increased enforcement, conservationists and park staff should promote community education and alternative livelihoods to blast fishing, such as seaweed farming and sustainable fishing.

Read more!

Fears for crops as shock figures from America show scale of bee catastrophe

The world may be on the brink of biological disaster after news that a third of US bee colonies did not survive the winter
Alison Benjamin, The Guardian 2 May 10

Disturbing evidence that honeybees are in terminal decline has emerged from the United States where, for the fourth year in a row, more than a third of colonies have failed to survive the winter.

The decline of the country's estimated 2.4 million beehives began in 2006, when a phenomenon dubbed colony collapse disorder (CCD) led to the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of colonies. Since then more than three million colonies in the US and billions of honeybees worldwide have died and scientists are no nearer to knowing what is causing the catastrophic fall in numbers.

The number of managed honeybee colonies in the US fell by 33.8% last winter, according to the annual survey by the Apiary Inspectors of America and the US government's Agricultural Research Service (ARS).

The collapse in the global honeybee population is a major threat to crops. It is estimated that a third of everything we eat depends upon honeybee pollination, which means that bees contribute some £26bn to the global economy.

Potential causes range from parasites, such as the bloodsucking varroa mite, to viral and bacterial infections, pesticides and poor nutrition stemming from intensive farming methods. The disappearance of so many colonies has also been dubbed "Mary Celeste syndrome" due to the absence of dead bees in many of the empty hives.

US scientists have found 121 different pesticides in samples of bees, wax and pollen, lending credence to the notion that pesticides are a key problem. "We believe that some subtle interactions between nutrition, pesticide exposure and other stressors are converging to kill colonies," said Jeffery Pettis, of the ARS's bee research laboratory.

A global review of honeybee deaths by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) reported last week that there was no one single cause, but pointed the finger at the "irresponsible use" of pesticides that may damage bee health and make them more susceptible to diseases. Bernard Vallat, the OIE's director-general, warned: "Bees contribute to global food security, and their extinction would represent a terrible biological disaster."

Dave Hackenberg of Hackenberg Apiaries, the Pennsylvania-based commercial beekeeper who first raised the alarm about CCD, said that last year had been the worst yet for bee losses, with 62% of his 2,600 hives dying between May 2009 and April 2010. "It's getting worse," he said. "The AIA survey doesn't give you the full picture because it is only measuring losses through the winter. In the summer the bees are exposed to lots of pesticides. Farmers mix them together and no one has any idea what the effects might be."

Pettis agreed that losses in some commercial operations are running at 50% or greater. "Continued losses of this magnitude are not economically sustainable for commercial beekeepers," he said, adding that a solution may be years away. "Look at Aids, they have billions in research dollars and a causative agent and still no cure. Research takes time and beehives are complex organisms."

In the UK it is still too early to judge how Britain's estimated 250,000 honeybee colonies have fared during the long winter. Tim Lovett, president of the British Beekeepers' Association, said: "Anecdotally, it is hugely variable. There are reports of some beekeepers losing almost a third of their hives and others losing none." Results from a survey of the association's 15,000 members are expected this month.

John Chapple, chairman of the London Beekeepers' Association, put losses among his 150 members at between a fifth and a quarter. Eight of his 36 hives across the capital did not survive. "There are still a lot of mysterious disappearances," he said. "We are no nearer to knowing what is causing them."

Bee farmers in Scotland have reported losses on the American scale for the past three years. Andrew Scarlett, a Perthshire-based bee farmer and honey packer, lost 80% of his 1,200 hives this winter. But he attributed the massive decline to a virulent bacterial infection that quickly spread because of a lack of bee inspectors, coupled with sustained poor weather that prevented honeybees from building up sufficient pollen and nectar stores.

The government's National Bee Unit has always denied the existence of CCD in Britain, despite honeybee losses of 20% during the winter of 2008-09 and close to a third the previous year. It attributes the demise to the varroa mite – which is found in almost every UK hive – and rainy summers that stop bees foraging for food.

In a hard-hitting report last year, the National Audit Office suggested that amateur beekeepers who failed to spot diseases in bees were a threat to honeybees' survival and called for the National Bee Unit to carry out more inspections and train more beekeepers. Last summer MPs on the influential cross-party public accounts committee called on the government to fund more research into what it called the "alarming" decline of honeybees.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has contributed £2.5m towards a £10m fund for research on pollinators. The public accounts committee has called for a significant proportion of this funding to be "ring-fenced" for honeybees. Decisions on which research projects to back are expected this month.
WHY BEES MATTER

Flowering plants require insects for pollination. The most effective is the honeybee, which pollinates 90 commercial crops worldwide. As well as most fruits and vegetables – including apples, oranges, strawberries, onions and carrots – they pollinate nuts, sunflowers and oil-seed rape. Coffee, soya beans, clovers – like alfafa, which is used for cattle feed – and even cotton are all dependent on honeybee pollination to increase yields.

In the UK alone, honeybee pollination is valued at £200m. Mankind has been managing and transporting bees for centuries to pollinate food and produce honey, nature's natural sweetener and antiseptic. Their extinction would mean not only a colourless, meatless diet of cereals and rice, and cottonless clothes, but a landscape without orchards, allotments and meadows of wildflowers – and the collapse of the food chain that sustains wild birds and animals.

Read more!