Best of our wild blogs: 28 Oct 10

Butterfly of the Month - October 2010
from Butterflies of Singapore

Better alate than never
from The annotated budak

Read more!

UN to adopt Singapore nature 'report card' for cities

Grace Chua Straits Times 28 Oct 10;

THE United Nations is set to adopt a Singapore-proposed index that helps cities measure how well they are conserving wildlife.

The Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity is vital because protecting plants and animals can help cities stand out, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said yesterday in a speech at a high-level biodiversity conference in Nagoya, Japan.

He was addressing delegates to the UN conference to discuss the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), an international treaty on the sustainable use and equal sharing of biodiversity.

The Singapore index, proposed by Mr Mah at a previous UN meeting in 2008, is the first such evaluation tool to assist cities in measuring their biodiversity conservation efforts over time. It serves as a kind of 'report card' with grades for indicators like environmental management and species diversity.

Experts from Singapore's National Parks Board, working with international experts, helped develop and test the index.

It is now part of a new UN plan aimed specifically to help local governments, including cities, conserve their biodiversity. Parties to the CBD will officially adopt the new plan tomorrow when the 12-day UN conference comes to a close.

The spotlight is on urban centres as they already house more than half the world's population. By 2050, that figure will be 70 per cent.

Addressing the perception that urbanisation is a drain on natural resources, Mr Mah said yesterday: 'Cities will be the key to the solution, not, as many have portrayed, part of the problem.'

For instance, he explained, Singapore has managed to increase its green corridors and connectors over time, and construct butterfly-attracting trails and havens for birds and insects in the city centre.

Doing so has its benefits, he added.

'Biodiversity can make cities stand out, and be a competitive advantage to attract talent and investments. It can drive economic growth, in areas such as pharmaceutical R&D, technology innovation and nature tourism.'

In a show of Singapore's commitment to efforts in protecting biodiversity, Mr Mah offered the biennial World Cities Summit, which will be held here next in June 2012, as a platform for city delegates to report on their conservation progress.

Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity to be endorsed on Friday
Channel NewsAsia 28 Oct 10;

SINGAPORE : The parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will formally adopt the Plan of Action on Sub-National Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity in Nagoya this Friday.

The Plan of Action includes the Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity.

The parties to the convention, including Singapore, meet every two years to discuss global issues on biodiversity.

This year marks the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD.

National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, who is in Nagoya, spoke at the High Level Segment.

Mr Mah said that biodiversity could be a competitive advantage for cities to attract talent and investments, and to drive economic growth in areas such as pharmaceutical research and development, technology innovation and nature tourism.

Currently, there are no well-established tools to measure biodiversity efforts in cities.

According to the United Nations, the proportion of the world's population living in urban areas is expected to increase from current levels of 50 per cent to 70 per cent in 2050.

With increasing urbanisation, the demands of economic activities will place greater pressure on the earth's natural resources and the environment.

The Singapore Index is the first such evaluation tool to assist cities in measuring their biodiversity conservation efforts over time.

- CNA/al


Biodiversity action plan to be adopted
Business Times 28 Oct 10;

THE Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will formally adopt the Plan of Action on Sub-National Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity - which includes the Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity - in Nagoya, Japan tomorrow.

The Singapore Index is the first evaluation tool to help cities to measure their biodiversity conservation efforts over time as there are no well-established tools to measure biodiversity efforts in cities presently. The index was put together by Singapore National Parks Board (NParks), in partnership with the Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity, the Secretariat of the CBD and experts from various countries.

The Parties to the CBD, which includes Singapore, are attending the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP10) to discuss global issues on biodiversity.

Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, is currently in Nagoya for the conference.

'Biodiversity can make cities stand out, and be a competitive advantage to attract talent and investments. It can drive economic growth, in areas such as pharmaceutical R&D, technology innovation and nature tourism,' Mr Mah highlighted in his speech at the High Level Segment yesterday.

According to the United Nations, the proportion of the world's population living in urban areas is expected to jump from 50 per cent to 70 per cent in 2050, which will place greater strain on the earth's natural resources and the environment.

Mr Mah first proposed the index in 2008 at the ninth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the CBD in Germany.

Over 30 cities around the world have tested, or are in various stages of testbedding, the Singapore Index.

Read more!

Pilot Intelligent Energy System project underway

Mustafa Shafawi Channel NewsAsia 27 Oct 10;

SINGAPORE: Singapore has taken a step closer towards implementing an Intelligent Energy System (IES).

The Energy Market Authority (EMA) has appointed Accenture and ST Electronics to design and implement Phase 1 of its IES pilot project.

It will test and evaluate new applications and intelligent technologies with the objective of deploying a smart grid throughout Singapore.

This will enable Singapore to better manage electricity demand.

Chief executive of EMA Lawrence Wong said once the applications in the pilot are found to be cost-effective and viable, they will be rolled out progressively on a wider scale.

This is so that all consumers can enjoy the benefits of greater choice and control over their energy usage.

-CNA/wk

Read more!

Energy import via cables an option: EMA

Potential supply could be region's hydro-electric, geothermal power
Ronnie Lim Business Times 28 Oct 10;

SINGAPORE is prepared to look at energy options like coal and electricity imports via long-distance cables in the medium term, says the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

Importing power via cables means Singapore could potentially tap regional hydro-electric and geothermal power. And while the regulator does not say so, it also suggests that the island could tap electricity produced by nuclear power plants in the region.

Singapore needs to diversify its energy options, especially as generating companies and industry here are currently 80 per cent dependent on piped natural gas feedstock from Indonesia and Malaysia - countries whose own gas needs are rising.

Using other energy sources will 'encourage healthy competition in our electricity market and benefit households and industry consumers', EMA says in its just-released Statement of Opportunities 2010 report.

'While the first priority is to diversify Singapore's sources of gas through liquefied natural gas (LNG)' - with the first shipments arriving at the upcoming $1.5 billion LNG terminal in 2013 - 'current import controls placed on non-LNG will limit diversification options in the near term', the report says.

Therefore, in the medium term - that is, once LNG imports reach three million tonnes per annum or by 2018, whichever is earlier - EMA 'is prepared to allow the entry of new energy options on a market basis'.

'In particular, the power generation industry could consider coal and electricity imports,' the report says. 'Coal is expected to remain relatively cheap and can be sourced from different countries. Moreover, new technologies like the integrated gasification combined cycle plants that turn coal into gas are reducing the environmental impact of coal.

'The import of electricity via long-distance, high-voltage cables is another option that will free up valuable land in Singapore. It could also allow us to tap the significant renewable energy potential such as hydro-electricity or geothermal power in the region.

'However, adequate safeguards will have to be put in place to ensure the integrity and stability of our power system.'

So far, only Tuas Power has been given the nod by the regulator to import coal - a small quantity for its clean coal/biomass-fired $2 billion Tuas Multi-Utilities Complex on Jurong Island. This was only because gas needed for the plant may not be available in 2011, when the chemical customers it will supply utilities too start up.

Allowing greater coal use for power generation on a larger scale should benefit generating companies like Tuas Power (TP).

Others, like PowerSeraya and Senoko Energy, sited near the Causeway, may see potential in importing electricity from neighbouring countries like Malaysia.

In its report, EMA says Singapore's economic recovery, population growth and ensuing gross domestic product increase mean electricity demand here will rise accordingly. Since 1995, maximum electricity demand here has increased almost 73 per cent from 3,485 megawatts (MW) to 6,041 MW in 2009.

EMA now forecasts peak demand will reach 9,000 MW in 2020.

A reserve margin is set at 30 per cent over peak electricity demand, and planned expansions by generators here indicate the reserve margin will remain above 30 per cent over the next 10 years, EMA says.

Island Power, Keppel Merlimau Cogen and TP have all recently signed construction contracts for expansion projects, with KepCorp's 400 MW new plant expected to be operational in 2012, TP's 400 MW re-powering project in 2014 and Island's two 400 MW units starting up in 2013 and 2014.

Sembcorp says it is in the final stages of evaluating EPC players for its 400 MW expansion, which is expected to be operational in 2014.

Read more!

Singapore market for carbon trade growing

More firms setting up here as global industry expands rapidly
Jessica Cheam New Straits Times 28 Oct 10;

SINGAPORE'S carbon market is growing and new firms are setting up shop here on the back of increased interest in carbon trading in Asia.

Ministry of Finance Permanent Secretary Chan Lai Fung said yesterday Singapore's position as a major international financial centre has attracted key players such as Tricorona and Gazprom, which are the world's leading traders of carbon.

Today, there are about 30 carbon trading companies in Singapore, up from just a few a couple of years ago.

The global carbon trading market has been growing rapidly in recent years and is estimated to increase in value from about €90 billion (S$163 billion) in 2008 to nearly €1.2 trillion by 2020.

In Singapore, the Government supports the industry by providing grants to firms. The grants help defray the cost of developing the documentation needed for carbon credit projects that are certified by the United Nations under its Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) scheme.

In November 2008, Singapore registered its first CDM project, which involves the recovery of waste steam from a biomass cogeneration plant for the drying of waste. Currently, there are seven other CDM projects that have been submitted for validation, revealed Ms Chan.

'Although the number of projects may not be large, they represent the industry's commitment in support of the CDM initiative,' she said.

To encourage carbon trading here, Singapore enhanced its scope of tax incentives last year to include such activities.

'It reflects our confidence in the continued growth of the carbon trading market, and our belief that Singapore is well placed to leverage on this growth,' said Ms Chan, who was speaking at Carbon Forum Asia, organised by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and German firm Koelnmesse.

IETA chief executive Henry Derwent said Singapore 'has been understandably cautious about carbon markets (in the past)... but that is giving way to an understanding that in the medium term this has growth potential'.

Mr Derwent said he does not have hope that next month's climate change meeting in Mexico will produce a global treaty that places a certain price on carbon. 'But carbon markets will be as much shaped by other markets and global voluntary markets,' he said.

It does not need a global climate treaty to function although that would add more certainty for the industry, he added.

BNP Paribas director of its carbon origination Asia unit Jean-Christophe Bougle, who attended the conference, said the industry is generally confident there will be a strong carbon market even beyond 2012, when the current trading framework under the Kyoto Protocol expires.

The market could transition into regional or domestic markets, he said. For example, New Zealand has set up its own carbon trading system, and countries like Japan and South Korea are in the process of doing so, which could promote trading in the Asia-Pacific region.

Carbon Forum Asia is one of the first events to kick off as part of Singapore International Energy Week, which began yesterday and ends on Nov 4. It brings together policymakers and businesses from a wide range of countries to discuss energy-related issues.

Read more!

Paying locals to protect forests may help end haze

Jessica Cheam Straits Times 28 Oct 10;

WET and cool weather may have granted Singapore a reprieve from the haze for now, but the issue remained a hot topic at a dialogue session yesterday.

Who is responsible and what needs to be done to fix the recurring problem were debated at the discussion organised by the Singapore Institute of International Affairs (SIIA).

The focus should be on seeking the right solutions and incentives to tackle the problem, said SIIA chairman Simon Tay.

Singapore's collaboration with Jambi province, a fire-prone area in Indonesia's Sumatra, has helped to reduce hot spot activity from 2006, he pointed out.

'This is a model that can be scaled up and applied to other provinces prone to hot spots.'

The recent bout of haze was caused mainly by fires in Riau, another province in Sumatra.

The SIIA dialogue was attended by about 20 leading local environmentalists, private sector leaders and academics.

The topic of responsibility was a controversial one, said Mr Tay after the meeting.

Non-governmental organisations say pressure should be put on those who own land where hot spots occur.

But private companies say it is sometimes difficult to police the land due to its vast size.

Instead of pointing fingers, efforts could be focused on initiatives such as the Redd (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries) scheme, which gives funding for forest protection.

Indonesia, for instance, has agreed to place a two-year moratorium on new concessions to clear natural forests and peatlands under a deal signed with Norway earlier this year.

Carbon Conservation chief executive Dorjee Sun, who was at the dialogue, said neighbouring countries or developed nations could set up a fund that pays local communities to protect their land instead of slashing and burning them for their livelihood.

'There are challenges in implementing this but it's a new idea that could really work,' he said.

Separately, Indonesian official Heru Prasetyo of the President's Delivery Unit told The Straits Times on the sidelines of an industry event that Indonesia was looking into Redd to tackle the haze.

'Redd would attach a higher value to the land and provide a better living for the people. So the pressure to burn the trees is less,' he said.

Haze problem: Change is happening, say experts
Neo Chai Chin Today Online 28 Oct 10;

SINGAPORE - People around the region - who experienced unhealthy levels of haze last week - may feel that reforms are not being made fast enough to deal with the problem, but change is happening in the right direction, according to experts at a discussion yesterday.

And they believe multi-level cooperation should continue.

"One of the improvements over the last three to five years is there are more groups working ground-to-ground ... trying to address the forest fires, the land fires - especially peat land - so really, we have to see whether this patchwork of different experiments can be knitted together to improve the situation," said Associate Professor Simon Tay, chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

For instance, the World Wide Fund for Nature is working with Indonesian non-government organisations to assess forest conservation, he said.

Speaking to the media later, Assoc Prof Tay cautioned against fatalism after Singapore saw its worst haze since 2006. "The directional signs are getting better. Governments are making efforts. Companies are making efforts. Consumers elsewhere are making efforts."

On another issue, the discussion noted that Singaporean consumers should push for more transparency from companies in labelling of products - like their European counterparts have done, he said. Although the local market is small, consumers here could ask companies to follow the practice in Europe to label products which are sustainably produced.

The 20 or so participants - who included a corporate representative from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil called for companies to be "more public about their good record, therefore those who keep quiet, we can assume they're not so good".

But it is crucial for consumers to make themselves heard. "Why should these companies give an answer when no one's asking a question?" asked Assoc Prof Tay.

Read more!

Fraser's Hill losing insects to smugglers

Sean Augustin New Straits Times 28 Oct 10;

KUALA LUMPUR: Rampant smuggling of insects and arachnids has been taking place in Fraser's Hill, the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) revealed.

Its head of communications, Andrew Sebastian, said he was concerned as the activity had been going on for a long time, with poachers -- a majority of whom are locals -- setting up traps along the eight trails in the hill resort.

Having seized about four insect traps himself a month ago, Sebastian said the devices would snare and kill insects which are protected under the National Forestry Act 1984.

Fraser's Hill is both a wildlife sanctuary and permanent forest reserve.

Some of the victims of these devices include the tarantula and trapdoor spider.

Should poaching go unchecked, Sebastian warned it would threaten the local bio-diversity which could contain species endemic to the area.


"Smuggling will a create a lose-lose situation for conservation and public awareness, as well as compromise research," he told the New Straits Times.

Sebastian said the poaching might be attributed to the lack of enforcement as well as visible warning signs in the area.

He suggested that the holiday resorts educate their guest about preserving the environment.


"It is not open season and take anything you wish."

While most would have a low regard for insects compared to other endangered species, Sebastian said insects were just as important as tigers and turtles.

Bird watcher Ooi Chin Hock said he had noticed a drop in the number of tarantulas and trapdoor spiders.

"It was quite obvious to see them on the banks of roads. Now, it is very difficult," he said.

Special officer to the Tourism Ministry S. K Durai, who is based at Fraser's Hill, said while there were still instances of people smuggling insects, the situation was now under control.

He said three years ago, tourists could be seen walking out of the sanctuary with boxes of insects.

Demand for insects, especially beetles is very high among the Japanese, who are said to have a great affection for insects and are enthusiastic insect catchers, especially beetles which are sometimes kept as pets.

Most of the larger beetles sold in Japan are said to originate from Malaysia, Cambodia, Nepal, Indonesia and India.

Read more!

Large-Scale Fish Farm Production Offsets Environmental Gains, Assessment Finds

ScienceDaily 27 Oct 10;

Industrial-scale aquaculture production magnifies environmental degradation, according to the first global assessment of the effects of marine finfish aquaculture (e.g. salmon, cod, turbot and grouper) released Oct. 27, 2010. This is true even when farming operations implement the best current marine fish farming practices, according to the findings.

Dr. John Volpe and his team at the University of Victoria developed the Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI), an unprecedented system for objectively measuring the environmental performance of fish farming.

"Scale is critical," said Dr. Volpe, a marine ecologist. "Over time, the industry has made strides in reducing the environmental impact per ton of fish, but this does not give a complete picture. Large scale farming of salmon, for example, even under even the best current practices creates large scale problems."

The fish farming industry is an increasingly important source of seafood, especially as many wild fisheries are in decline. Yet farming of many marine fish species has been criticized as causing ecological damage. For instance, the researchers' found that the relatively new marine finfish aquaculture sector in China and other Asian countries lags in environmental performance.

Dr. Volpe added, "The fastest growing sector is Asia, where we found a troubling combination of poor environmental performance and rapidly increasing production."

With support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, Dr. Volpe and his team developed GAPI, which uses 10 different criteria to assess and score environmental impacts. Incorporating information such as the application of antibiotics and discharge of water pollutants, GAPI allows researchers to gauge which farmed species and countries of production have the best or worst environmental performance. The researchers examined the environmental impact of marine fish farming per ton of fish produced and the cumulative environmental impact for each country producing a major farmed species.

"GAPI provides a valuable tool for developing environmentally responsible fish farming. Governments can use GAPI to inform policies and regulations to minimize the environmental footprint of fish farming. Farmers can use it to improve production practices. And buyers can use it to compare and select better, more environmentally friendly seafood options," said Chris Mann, senior officer and director of the Pew Environment Group's Aquaculture Standards Project, which collaborated on the work.

For further information on GAPI, including a summary of the methodology and findings, please visit www.lenfestocean.org.

The GAPI 2010 report released Oct. 27 is based on 2007 data, the most recent year for which data for all aquaculture indicators are available. GAPI analysis will be updated periodically as additional data becomes available. For additional information, updated research and analysis, please see the GAPI Web site (www.gapi.ca).

The Lenfest Ocean Program supports scientific research aimed at forging solutions to the challenges facing the global marine environment. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Environment Group.

The University of Victoria, located in Victoria, British Columbia is a national and international leader in the study of the oceans, with expertise as far-ranging as ocean-climate interactions, ocean observation systems, physical and chemical oceanography, marine ecology, coastal resource management and ocean engineering.

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Pew Environment Group, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

New index measures impact of fish farming on environment
Yahoo News 27 Oct 10;

VANCOUVER (AFP) – Researchers in Canada on Wednesday released the first scientific index designed to measure the impact of fish farming on the environment.

Aquaculture has become increasingly controversial because of fears it can harm the environment and use up too many resources.

Until now however, there has been no clear way to measure the environmental impact of the practice, said researcher John Volpe, from the University of Victoria, told AFP.

Volpe said his "Global Aquaculture Performance Index" -- developed with help from the US-based Pew Environmental Group and funding from the American Lenfest Foundation -- is intended for use by "industry, farmers, bureaucrats, government ministers and other decision makers."

The tool is similar to the "ecological footprint" concept used around the world to assess the overall impact of humans on the environment.

Salmon farming in ocean pens already is controversial in North America because of concerns that farmed salmon spreads parasitic lice among already-threatened populations of wild salmon.

But the index ranked other species of farmed fish as "far, far, worse," said Volpe.

"Nearly anything coming out of Asia is problematic," he said, because of unregulated use of antibiotics, spread of parasites, and a greater use of wild species caught without regulations.

"Some aquaculture production systems enable and facilitate unsustainable fisheries practices," he said, noting aquaculture has boomed in China especially over the past five years.

The index measures the impact of fish farms according to 10 factors.

These include the impact on the environment of capturing fish in the wild; the use of cleaning chemicals and antibiotics; the economic damage incurred when farmed fish escape into the wild; energy costs; and the impact on water oxygen levels.

Volpe noted that sustainable foods are increasingly popular, as "eat local" and "slow food" movements flourishing in most developed countries.

But sustainability, he said, is "hard enough to measure in terrestrial agriculture, where things are simpler."

"Seafood is more complex. You're dealing with the most international, globalized foodstuff that humans consume," he said.

"We hold seafood to a different standard -- a different level of ignorance," said Volpe.

Read more!

Science Struggling To Track Destruction Of Nature

PlanetArk 28 Oct 10;

Scientists are struggling to get a full picture of the variety of wildlife species around the globe as climate change, human exploitation and pollution threaten "mass extinctions," a series of studies published on Wednesday showed.

The 16 studies in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in London said science had an incomplete record of species from animals to plants and microbes at a time when they may be dying out faster than ever before.

Such concerns have led the United Nations to declare 2010 its International Year of Biodiversity, and governments are trying to agree new 2020 conservation targets at a two-week conference in the Japanese city of Nagoya, which ends Friday.

"There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record," said a summarizing paper, titled "Biological diversity in a changing world."

"We still have a very incomplete record of the biological diversity of the planet," the paper added, saying quantitative tools were needed to understand large-scale changes to the planet.

One area of particular concern was tropical forests, which have seen their area roughly halved since the start of the last century.

Scientists still do not understand the extent to which logging destroyed wider networks of wildlife species, and whether they could re-colonize areas which were allowed to re-grow, called "secondary" forest.

Another worry was oceans, where climate change was causing fish populations to shift, and in the case of tropical areas would destroy some habitats altogether as these became too warm.

"To date, warming within the world's oceans has been variable in magnitude though unequivocal in scope," said a paper on the impact on fisheries, called "Transitional states in marine fisheries: adapting to predicted global change."

"Fisheries in some areas are expected to collapse in response to repeated acute disturbance and increasing temperature," the paper said.

Read more!

Price to Save Species Put at 10 Times Present Spending

Jeremy Hsu livescience.com Yahoo News 28 Oct 10;

World leaders failed to meet a 2010 target for cutting global biodiversity losses, but researchers say that conservation efforts still managed to stave off extinction for some species. Now they warn that countries must spend 10 times as much on conservation to halt the loss of plants and animals in the coming decade.

Increasing agricultural use of land, logging, over-exploitation of animals and invasive alien species have all contributed to the failure to significantly reduce biodiversity losses - a goal set by almost 200 countries during meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2002. The only good news comes from a new study showing that losses could have been 20 percent worse without conservation efforts.

Negotiations on new conservation targets have reached a stalemate at the 10th U.N. meeting for the Convention on Biological Diversity being held in Nagoya, Japan, researchers said during a press teleconference held on Tuesday (Oct. 26). They urged countries to form plans for solid action that could rescue biodiversity from its "desperate state."

"This situation is getting worse and that is having impacts on people all around the planet, but our results show that we can turn the situation around - we just need greater political will and resources," said Craig Hilton-Taylor, manager of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Unit in Cambridge, England.

One of the biggest sticking points for negotiators is a plan to fight biopiracy - the act of plundering organisms from a country. Ideally, countries that had organisms taken from them would get a share of profits from later sale or usage of such organisms, but Canada and European Union countries are blocking the proposal.

The United States has signed but not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, and so it is only an observer at the Nagoya conference.

A conservation breakdown

About one-fifth of vertebrates - creatures with a backbone - are classified as "threatened" by the Red List. The list breaks down global risk of extinction into eight categories, with "threatened" encompassing the categories of critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.

That percentage only continues to grow as, on average, 52 species move one category closer to extinction each year. That data came from looking at 25,780 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, cartilaginous fishes, reptiles and bony fishes, as detailed in the Oct. 26 issue of the journal Science.

Such vertebrate animals make up just 3 percent of all species, but have both symbolic and ecological importance for humans.

Conservation efforts have found some success in fighting off invasive alien species that threatened birds and mammals. For every five species that declined in category status because of this threat, two improved because humans took steps to tackle the invasive species.

Habitat loss for mammals and birds has posed more of a conservation challenge. For every species whose survival chances improved through human effort, 10 others saw a fall in status caused by agricultural expansion.

Targeted protection of birds has helped save them from hunting, but has not helped safeguard mammals as much. By contrast, marine mammals have fared better under conservation than birds - the humpback whale and blue whale stand out as successes due to protection from commercial whaling. [Related: Top 10 Species Success Stories]

Meeting the threat

Each individual species and region faces different threats. Rising extinction risks in Southeast Asia come largely from habitat loss due to planting export crops like palm oil, hardwood timber operations, and conversion of land to rice paddies.

By contrast, amphibian species in California, Central America, the tropical Andean regions of South America and Australia have become endangered by mysterious infectious diseases. That, combined with less conservation efforts for amphibians, has put the critters in "double jeopardy," researchers said.

The toxic effects of the veterinary drug diclofenac have also killed Asian vultures to the point where some populations have declined by 99 percent.

"What we need is a particular [conservation] solution to a particular problem, not just one solution that will work everywhere the same way," said Ana Rodrigues, an ecologist at the Center for Evolutionary and Functional Ecology in France and a co-author of the Science study.

More targeted conservation funding could help. A disproportionate amount of conservation funding is spent in wealthy countries, while poorer regions such as Southeast Asia see the greatest imbalance between improving and deteriorating biodiversity trends.

Saving the world

Researchers also want specific, measurable goals for the next decade's targets set by the Convention on Biological Diversity, said Stuart Butchart, a research coordinator for BirdLife International in Cambridge, in response to a LiveScience question.

"For 2020, the 20 targets that are currently being negotiated are much more focused and specific," Butchart explained. "They should be much more tractable in terms of turning into focused actions to meet each of the individual targets, certainly much more so than the great overarching 2010 target."

Those targets include extending protected areas across a greater part of the Earth's land and sea surface, as part of a strategic effort to reduce the losses of habitats.

Even the United States can take action despite not having ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, researchers said. They pointed to a recent "extinction hot spot" in Hawaii where the Kamao bird and other species have recently gone extinct due to invasive diseases and certain climate changes. Many more Hawaiian species are "teetering on the brink of extinction right in America's backyard," the researchers wrote.

"If I could ask one thing [of the U.S.], it would be to show leadership and get serious about tackling the conservation issues in Hawaii," Butchart said.

Read more!

U.N. talks to save nature zero in on historic deal

* U.N. talks aim to set goals for 2020 to save species
* Ministers join Oct 18-29 meeting, urged to seal deal
* World Bank highlights economic value of ecosystems (Adds Brazil comment)
Chisa Fujioka and David Fogarty Reuters AlertNet 27 Oct 10;

NAGOYA, Japan, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Ministers from around the world began on Wednesday a final push for a U.N. deal to protect nature, urged by the World Bank to value the benefits of forests, oceans and rivers on economies and human welfare.

Senior officials from nearly 200 countries have gathered in Nagoya, Japan, to set new goals for 2020 to fight animal and plant extinctions after they missed a goal for a "significant reduction" in losses of biological diversity by 2010.

The meeting hopes to push governments and businesses to commit to sweeping steps to protect ecosystems under threat, such as forests that clean the air, insects that pollinate crops and coral reefs that nurture valuable fisheries.

World Bank head Robert Zoellick, speaking at the start of a three-day session of mostly environment ministers, said finance ministers and businesses also needed to take note of the value that nature provides for food, medicines, tourism and industry.

"Productivity of the land and seas is diminishing, and with them the ecosystem services that are crucial for people to get out of poverty," he said. "Endangered species are fading away forever before our very eyes."

Envoys have been negotiating since last week for agreement on the new 2020 target and a 20-point strategic plan that aims to protect fish stocks, fight the loss and degradation of natural habitats and conserve larger land and marine areas.

But countries have been split on the level of ambition and have bickered over who will pay for the efforts. Current funding for fighting biodiversity loss is about $3 billion a year but some developing nations say this should be increased 100-fold.

FUNDING

Japan, chair of the talks, offered $2 billion to developing countries over three years from 2010, but it was unclear if Europe would match the efforts.

The United States has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity and is taking part in the Oct 18-29 talks only as an observer.

"We haven't really come here with a mindset of a pledging conference," Karl Falkenberg, head of the European Commission's environment department, told a news conference. "Europe, over the last eight years, has spent 1 billion euros annually already."

Poor countries have refused to sign up to 2020 conservation targets without more funding and agreement on a new U.N. protocol that would give them a fairer share of profits made by companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, from their genetic resources.

Developing countries could gain billions of dollars from the so-called access and benefit-sharing (ABS) protocol but envoys are divided over issues such as the scope of the pact and some businesses are worried about potential higher costs. [ID:nSGE69O073]

The plight of nature was highlighted in a study by more than 170 scientists showing that about a fifth of the world's vertebrates are threatened with extinction. [ID:nSGE69P0BS] They used data for 25,000 species from the International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List of threatened species.

Brazil stressed the need to seal a deal, urging compromise and flexibility.

"We are all tired of endless meetings which just postpone the solutions for the problems. We are also tired of decisions which are dissociated from real life," Environment Miniser Izabella Teixeira told the meeting.

"In the last 10 days, we had time enough to see the difference that separate us. We have now only three days to see what unites us."

(Editing by Jonathan Thatcher)

Earth is 'at a tipping point', warns Harrison Ford
Jerome Cartillier Yahoo News 27 Oct 10;

NAGOYA, Japan (AFP) – On screen he has battled Nazis, stormtroopers and terrorists to save democracy, freedom or civilisation from clear and present danger. Now Harrison Ford describes his latest role as a real-life fight for the future of this planet.

"What is at stake is the ability of nature to provide services to the human community that we can't afford to do for ourselves," said the actor, 68, in an interview with AFP.

He was speaking in the central Japanese city of Nagoya, where he is urging the 193 member countries of the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to use their 10-day meeting to protect vast swathes of the Earth's surface.

"Intact ecosystems provide us with fresh water, clean air, help produce healthy soils, are the source of genetic material from which to derive pharmaceuticals and regenerate our food supply.

"These are all the free services of nature," he said, but they are under threat from environmental degradation and "bold and decisive" action had to be taken now.

"One of our missions is to create a sense of urgency, help people understand that... just because they don't see it in their own lives, the effects are everywhere.

"Where it registers in everyone's life is in the economic impact; higher costs of food, depletion of fish stocks etc.

"The urgency can't be overemphasised... We are at a tipping point."

The Indiana Jones star -- who had his chest waxed two years ago in a stunt to publicise tropical deforestation -- insisted he had "really no ambition to be a celebrity spokesman for anything".

But he has sat on the board of the campaign group Conservation International for 20 years.

According to the organisation, 25 percent of the world's land surface needs to be protected and 15 percent of its oceans to effectively preserve biodiversity and combat global warming, up from the current 13 percent and less than one percent respectively.

"That's why our fishery is in such a poor shape -- 70 to 80 percent of the fish that we eat are in danger of disappearing or close to extinction," said Ford.

The figures are the subject of tough negotiations in Nagoya, with no agreement reached by Wednesday.

A proposed compromise of 20 percent for land and 10 percent for seas was rejected earlier this week by several countries including China and India.

A global agreement was essential, said Ford.

"We all make small efforts in our lives and individual efforts do count but we have to really effect a change of scale that really is only possible through international engagements."

The American hoped that public opinion would ensure his country, one of the few not to have ratified the CBD, soon did so, saying it had so far not been politically "necessary".

"There are many many small victories, positive effects. Certainly we have encouraged the business community to behave more responsibly, we have educated them to the fact that consumer base now holds them responsible for their behaviour.

"The bigger picture is that we need to do more."

But he dismisses the idea that his own particular field, blockbuster cinema, can play a role.

While Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth "works very well", he said, "movies are there for the entertainment.

"Certainly we can engage people emotionally, but the solutions to the environmental issues are so much more complicated.

"We want people to recognise that solutions are complicated and specific. I am just not sure that the profit making movie business is the right place to deal with these issues."

Read more!

Leading scientists accuse thinktanks of being logging lobbyists

Open letter accuses two 'independent' groups of distorting facts and having close associations with multinational logging corporations
John Vidal guardian.co.uk 26 Oct 10;

Twelve leading scientists, including the former head of Kew Gardens and the biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank, have written an open letter accusing two international thinktanks of "distortions, misrepresentations, or misinterpretations of fact" in their analysis and writings about rainforests and logging.

The unprecedented attack on the tactics and objectivity of the two groups who claim to be independent is contained in an open letter sent to the Guardian. It accuses the Washington-based World Growth International (WGI) and Melbourne-based International Trade Strategies Global (ITS) of having close associations with politically conservative US thinktanks and advancing "biased or distorted arguments" on palm oil plantations and logging.

The scientists claim that ITS Global is "closely allied with", and "frequently funded by" multinational logging, wood pulp, and palm oil corporations and lobbies for one of the world's largest industrial logging corporations which has has been repeatedly criticised for its environmental and human-rights records.

"WGI frequently lobbies public opinion on the behalf of Sinar Mas holdings, a conglomerate of mostly Indonesian logging, wood-pulp, and oil palm companies," added the scientists.

"These organisations portray themselves as independent thinktanks or NGOs, but are actually lobby groups that are aggressively defending and funded by some of the world's largest logging, oil palm and pulp-plantation corporations. These corporations are playing a major role globally in the rapid destruction of tropical forests," said William Laurance, research professor at James Cook University in Cairns and Prince Bernhard chair of the International Nature Conservation at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands.

The scientists include Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Thomas Lovejoy, chief biodiversity adviser to the president of the World Bank; Prof Omar R. Masera, director of the bioenergy lab at the National University of Mexico and Nobel laureate on behalf of the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others from Oxford, Stanford and Imperial College, London. Together, they accuse the two organisations of promulgating "serious misconceptions" about tropical forestry and reaching conslusions that are "strongly at variance with refereed scientific matrial."

"WGI and ITS have failed adequately to recognise that many forests of high conservation value are being destroyed and fragmented by plantation development —a process that is mostly driven by corporations, not small holders. While routinely accusing several environmental organisations and the IPCC of bias and scientific misrepresentation, WGI and ITS have, in our opinion, advanced a range of biased or distorted arguments themselves," says the letter.

WGI has in the past launched fierce attacks on Greenpeace, whom it has accused of "falsifying data", as well as Rainforest Action and WWF over their analysis of deforestation in Indonesia. Earlier this year WGI attacked the IPCC over "glaciergate", when a mistake was found in the panel's 2007 report about the date glaciers in the Himalayas would melt. Yesterday it accused WWF, the world's largest conservation group, of "deceiving business", saying that "working with WWF ultimately harms business and economic growth".

Environment groups have long been at war with US conservative thinktanks, but this is one of the few times that leading scientists have become involved in the debate.

Alan Oxley, chairman and director of both groups, is a former Australian diplomat and corporate lobbyist for free trade agreements. He is a prominent climate sceptic who set up the now defunct denial website Climatechangeissues.com and runs the Asia-Pacific pages of Tech Central Station – a conservative website funded by ExxonMobil.

Along with other directors of World Growth, he has worked with DCI Group, a leading Republican political lobbying firm that had close ties to the George W Bush administration. DCI specialised in setting up third-party industry groups which lobbied as independent NGOs.

Oxley and both groups were contacted by the Guardian but have so far failed to respond to the allegations by the scientists.

ITS, WGI Accused of Anti-Green Bias
Fidelis E. Satriastanti Jakarta Globe 27 Oct 10;

Jakarta. A group of international scientists has questioned the independence of two related research organizations that say Western-style environmentalism threatens development and poverty alleviation in emerging economies.

The group of 12 scientists, which includes the president of the US-based Center for Conservation Biology, Paul Ehrlich, say International Trade Strategies and World Growth Institute are effectively lobbying on behalf of the logging, wood pulp and oil palm industries.

The Melbourne-based ITS is owned by Alan Oxley, a former Australian trade representative and ambassador. Oxley is also a consultant and former head of the Washington-based WGI.

ITS last month accused Greenpeace of faking data in order to undermine the environmental credentials of Asian Pulp & Paper, a major wood pulping company. WGI has attacked the World Wildlife Fund, accusing the group of exploiting businesses’ good intentions to further its own agenda.

“Business should be wary of what WWF partnership means,” WGI said in a report. “Our close review of collaboration between WWF and business has found that working with WWF ultimately harms business and economic growth.”

On Monday, the group of 12 scientists hit back in an open letter, questioning the independence of Oxley and the two organizations.

The scientists said ITS “is closely allied with, and frequently funded by, multinational logging, wood pulp and oil palm corporations. The financial supporters of ITS include parent corporations producing paper and wood products under the aegis of Asian Pulp & Paper, among others.”

They also said some of the arguments proposed by WGI, ITS and Oxley “represent significant distortions, misrepresentations or misrepresentations of fact.”

“In other cases, the arguments they have presented amount to a ‘muddying of the waters,’ which we argue is designed to defend the credibility of the corporations we believe are directly or indirectly supporting them financially,” the letter read.

“As such, WGI and ITS should be treated as lobbying or advocacy groups, not as independent research organizations.”

Aida Greenbury, APP’s director for sustainability, acknowledged that the company was affiliated with ITS, but only through its services as an auditing firm.

ITS conducted an audit for APP after allegations of illegal logging raised by Greenpeace in its report “How Sinar Mas is Pulping the Planet,” referring to APP’s parent company.

“We use professional auditors and independent organizations on an ongoing basis to look at virtually every aspect of our business,” Greenbury said, adding that the ITS audit was one of many the company had commissioned.

“It was unique only because it was specifically undertaken to assess allegations laid out in the Greenpeace report,” she said.

“Given the nature of the allegations — 72 significant charges that were leveled against us to intentionally harm our business — we had no choice but to bring in an independent group to analyze and assess the claims one by one.”

She added that the scientists in their letter had not refuted the audit nor provided support for specific claims made by Greenpeace that the results of the audit were false or misleading.

Conservation Debate: A Question of Credibility
Bill Laurance et al Jakarta Globe 27 Oct 10;

As professional scientists employed by leading academic and research institutions, we are writing to alert the general public about some of the claims and practices being used by the World Growth Institute and International Trade Strategies, and their affiliated leadership.

WGI and ITS operate in close association. ITS is owned by Alan Oxley, an Australian industrial lobbyist, former trade representative and former ambassador who also heads WGI.

According to its Web site, ITS has “close associations” with several politically conservative US research organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

In our personal view, WGI and ITS — which are frequently involved in promoting industrial logging and palm oil and wood pulp plantations internationally — have at times trodden a thin line between reality and a significant distortion of facts. Specifically, we assert:

• ITS is closely allied with, and frequently funded by, multinational logging, woodpulp and palm oil corporations. The financial supporters of ITS include corporations producing paper and wood products under the aegis of Asian Pulp & Paper, among others.

• Oxley and ITS have lobbied in favor of Rimbunan Hijau, one of the world’s largest industrial logging corporations. Rimbunan Hijau has been repeatedly criticized for its environmental and human-rights impacts in Papua New Guinea.

• WGI frequently lobbies public opinion on the behalf of Sinar Mas holdings, a conglomerate of mostly Indonesian logging, wood-pulp and oil palm companies that includes Golden Agri Resources, a Singapore-based firm.

One of these companies, known as Smart, could face expulsion by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, an industry-led trade group, for “serious non-compliance with the RSPO Code of Conduct” with respect to its environmental and social sustainability guidelines.

• In an interview with Malaysia’s The Star newspaper, in which he strongly advocated further palm oil expansion in that country, Oxley refused to answer a direct question as to whether he or WGI was supported by the Malaysian palm oil industry.

He dismissed this question as being “immaterial.” We believe that WGI’s financial supporters include many of the same industrial sectors for which WGI regularly advocates.

• While routinely accusing several environmental organizations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of bias and scientific misrepresentation, WGI and ITS have, in our opinion, advanced a range of biased or distorted arguments themselves.

For example, consider an ostensibly “independent” audit from ITS that sought to exonerate Asian Pulp & Paper from claims of illegal and damaging logging practices in Sumatra.

This audit appears to be far from objective in scope, especially given the clear financial links between these two entities, which brings into question its claims to be “independent.”

Among other claims, the ITS audit broadly understates the scope and gravity of forest loss and degradation in Indonesia, despite the nation having among the world’s highest absolute rates of deforestation and being ranked 7th worst out of 200 nations in terms of net environmental damage.

It also suggests that the palm oil and pulp and paper industries are not important drivers of deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia.

Yet recent research has demonstrated that much of the oil palm expansion in Indonesia between 1990 and 2005 came at the expense of native forests.

Moreover, the rapid expansion of pulp plantations is a serious driver of native-forest loss in both Sumatra and Kalimantan.

• A recent technical report by ITS concluded that “There is no evidence of substantial deforestation” in Papua New Guinea, a conclusion strongly at variance with quantitative, remote-sensing studies of forest conversion published in the refereed scientific literature.

• Reports from WGI and ITS routinely claim that newly established palm oil plantations sequester carbon more rapidly than do old-growth rainforests.

This claim, while technically correct, is a distraction from the reality that mature palm oil plantations store much less carbon than do old-growth rainforests.

• WGI, ITS and Oxley frequently invoke “poverty alleviation” as a key justification for their advocacy of palm oil expansion and forest exploitation in developing nations, and it is true that these sectors do offer significant local employment.

Yet forest loss and degradation also have important societal costs.

There are many examples in which local or indigenous communities in the tropics have suffered from large-scale forest loss and disruption, have had their traditional land rights compromised, or have gained minimal economic benefits from the exploitation of their land and timber.

• One of the most serious misconceptions being promulgated by WGI and ITS in our view is that “two-thirds of forest clearance is driven by low-income people in poor countries.”

In fact, the importance of industrial drivers of deforestation has risen dramatically in the past one to two decades.

These industrial drivers are largely responsible for the explosive expansion of roads in tropical frontier regions, which facilitates massive forest loss and degradation.

Such industries and their lobbyists also create great pressures on the governments of developing nations to allow access to their lands and natural resources, both via legal and illegal means.

Hence, a crucial and overarching cause of tropical forest loss and degradation today is increasing industrialization and globalization.

In summary, our goal is not to defend any environmental organization or to suggest that environmentally and socially equitable development is not an important objective for developing and transitional nations.

Nor do we dispute that palm oil plantations, when established on previously deforested or abandoned lands such that they do not contribute either directly or indirectly to deforestation, can have important economic benefits and largely acceptable environmental costs.

However, we do assert that a number of the key arguments of WGI, ITS and Oxley represent significant distortions, misrepresentations or misrepresentations of fact.

In other cases, the arguments they have presented amount to a “muddying of the waters,” which we argue is designed to defend the credibility of the corporations we believe are directly or indirectly supporting them financially.

As such WGI and ITS should be treated as lobbying or advocacy groups, not as independent research organizations, and their arguments weighted accordingly.


William F. Laurance, Ph.D.; Thomas E. Lovejoy, Ph.D.; Sir Ghillean Prance, FRS, VMH; Paul R. Ehrlich, Ph.D.; Georgina Mace, Ph.D., FRS, CBE; Peter H. Raven, Ph.D.; Susan M. Cheyne, Ph.D.; Corey J.A. Bradshaw, Ph.D.; Omar R. Masera, Ph.D.; Gabriella Fredriksson, Ph.D.; Barry W. Brook, Ph.D.; Lian Pin Koh, Ph.D.

Conservation Debate: A Question of Growth
Alan Oxley Jakarta Globe 27 Oct 10;

The refusal of the Indonesian government to allow Rainbow Warrior, dubbed by some as Greenpeace’s environmental warship, to dock in Indonesia recently, reveals a growing impatience in Southeast Asia toward the attitudes and methods of Western environmentalists.

There are two sources of disaffection. The first is disregard of the poor and economic growth.

The second is distortion of science to make a political case.

The declared aim of Greenpeace and WWF is to see an end to all conversion of forest to any other purpose everywhere. There is no scientific case for this and a powerful economic argument against.

World Growth joined the global debate to argue for solutions that respected action to reduce poverty, not displace it. This has drawn criticism, as we expected, and we welcome it.

At last the impact of green strategies on poverty is now on the table.

To those who argue that biodiversity is threatened unless all conversion of forest land ceases, we ask the questions: “What biodiversity is expressly protected by global cessation of conversion of forest land to other purposes and how is that biodiversity scientifically measured?”

To World Growth’s knowledge, no scientific analysis supporting this position has so far been produced.

However, one political effort has been made to set how much forest should be preserved globally to be able to protect current biodiversity.

Signatories to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity proposed at one point that 10 percent of the world’s forests needed to be set aside to protect biodiversity.

WWF has reported that that target has been met. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that 21 percent of forest land in South and Southeast Asia has been set aside for biodiversity conservation (considerably more than the CBD’s proposed 10 percent).

The United Nations Environment Program has reported that 21 percent of tropical forests are in protected areas. In temperate forests the percentage is less than 13 percent, but even then we cannot be too precise.

For example, the FAO recently revised its deforestation figures for 2000-2005 downwards by more than 12 million hectares — half the area of Britain.

Two points to underline here are that plenty of forest land remains for productive activity and that globally the rate of deforestation is modest and declining.

The FAO reports the global deforestation rate has declined from 0.20 percent of forest land per annum to around 0.14 percent per annum over the past two decades.

This reflects historical and current empirical research on forests and economic development — that as societies become wealthier, deforestation slows, stops and eventually gives way to forest expansion.

That said, this is all educated guesswork. The technical basis of the measurement of global measure of forest cover could be significantly improved, and the FAO has been pressing for this to be done.

This would evidently be useful information. Instead of agitation for this from biodiversity activists and environmentalists, there is silence.

This is not surprising. Science is adduced to support a political case when it suits, not to establish facts.

Greenpeace and WWF have a long record between them of producing supposedly scientific reports where claims are not supported, even false and facts are misrepresented or distorted.

Greenpeace has been caught out twice in the last few months, producing heavily distorted reports about the pulp and palm oil industries.

WWF’s record is little better. It has made claims about the rate of burning down Indonesian forests which have been publicly demonstrated as wrong.

The London Telegraph dubbed as “Amazongate” revelations that WWF had produced supposedly science-based reports on the adverse impacts of forestry in Brazil which could not be supported.

There is a political campaign at work here. The aim is to brand the largest plantation operators in Indonesia as responsible for the bulk of the country’s deforestation.

The group of mostly biodiversity scientists who here challenge World Growth share that sentiment. It is not true.

The FAO routinely states that worldwide around two-thirds of forest land clearance is by the poor — to acquire fuel wood, to practice low-return agriculture or to acquire shelter.

The other third is converted to highly productive use — commercial agriculture (including palm oil) and forest plantations.

These activities are important contributors to economic growth. A large share of it is undertaken by large companies.

Most land clearing by the poor in most developing countries already flaunts local land use rules. It’s hard to see how a ban on deforestation driven by Western campaigners is going to make any difference.

The answer to this problem, as we have noted before, is the postulation by Kenyan environmentalist and Nobel Price laureate, Wangari Maathai: End poverty.

It is the large corporations and the plantation industries which create the jobs which remove the incentive for the poor to clear land. Stopping corporations converting forest land to more productive uses removes the best tool (employment — and therefore food security) to stop wasteful conversion.

There has been a response to World Growth’s call to address poverty, but it borders on the disingenuous.

It was advanced by WWF and echoed by the biodiversity scientists that protection of the forest preserves the subsistence lifestyles of indigenous forest peoples.

But in fact, all this preserves is high rates of infant mortality, illiteracy and short life spans.

The forest dwellers might as well be in an open-range zoo established for the pleasure of environmental campaigners.

And how does that help the 40 million people in Indonesia still living below the poverty line?

Here, we arrive at the nub of World Growth’s position.

Apart from the fact that deforestation rates have been overstated, and that the leading cause has been misrepresented, humanitarianism dictates that we devise solutions to protect the environment without restricting our capacity to lift people out of poverty.

No reasonable person would object to that.

A reasonable person would, however, object if solutions to environmental problems exacerbated rather than improved the condition of the world’s poor, unless they elected to subscribe to sort of morally unacceptable strategies to reduce population, which has been entertained by one of our critics, biology professor Paul Ehrlich.

Alan Oxley is chairman of the Washington-based World Growth Institute and a managing consultant at International Trade Strategies in Melbourne.

This article was written in response to an open letter by 12 leading conservation scientists.

Conservation Debate III: A Rejoinder to Alan Oxley
William Laurance et al Jakarta Globe 1 Nov 10;

Last week on these pages we wrote a serious critique of Alan Oxley and his affiliated organizations, World Growth International and ITS Global.

In his reply, Oxley countered virtually none of our specific, documented assertions. Instead, he has muddied the waters — focusing not on our assertions but on the views of environmental groups such as WWF and Greenpeace.

Oxley’s reply contains some important inaccuracies or misperceptions. Most notably, he understates the environmental impacts of oil palm expansion while ignoring its close linkages with the timber and wood-pulp industries and their collective roles in promoting tropical deforestation and frontier-road expansion. And he ignores entirely a vast body of scientific literature revealing the serious impacts of these industries on tropical biodiversity and greenhouse-gas emissions.

We stand by our original assertions. Alan Oxley, WGI and ITS rely on the direct financial support of major timber, oil palm and wood-pulp corporations. Over the past two decades, some of these corporations, such as Rimbunan Hijau and Asian Pulp & Paper, have been among the most chronic environmental offenders in the tropical world.

We assert that Oxley, WGI and ITS should be regarded as paid lobbyists, not as independent research organizations or NGOs. Oxley refuses to disclose the funders of WGI — a striking lack of transparency. Two environmental groups that Oxley frequently criticizes, WWF and Greenpeace, are open about their funders. Why not do the same?

The 12 scientists who drafted our original open letter did so without communicating with any environmental organization. Each of us is regarded as a leader in our respective field, and as such we felt a responsibility to take a stand.

Oxley, WGI and ITS seemingly attempt to cast all who disagree with them, no matter their professional background or the seriousness of their arguments, as extremists. In the realm of public discourse, this is not “fair play.”

William F. Laurance, PhD
Thomas E. Lovejoy, PhD
Sir Ghillean Prance, FRS, VMH
Paul R. Ehrlich, PhD
Georgina Mace, PhD, FRS, CBE
Peter H. Raven, PhD
Susan M. Cheyne, PhD
Corey J.A. Bradshaw, PhD
Omar R. Masera, PhD
Gabriella Fredriksson, PhD
Barry W. Brook, PhD
Lian Pin Koh, PhD

Read more!

Futuristic climate schemes to get UN hearing

* Sun-dimming schemes may cause threats to rainfall
* U.N. climate panel to review geo-engineering-Stocker
Alister Doyle, Reuters AlertNet 28 Oct 10;

OSLO, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.

Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the panel's working group examining climate science, said some so-called geo-engineering solutions could disrupt world rainfall and might backfire by causing abrupt temperature rises if they go wrong.

He told Reuters his group will hold meetings of experts in 2011 to focus on geo-engineering and ocean acidification, blamed on rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, to help prepare the next U.N. review of climate science, due for completion in 2014.

Stocker said proposals for imitating the effect of volcanoes by frequently pumping sun-dimming sulphur gases into the upper atmosphere would have knock-on effects on world rainfall.

"You will have additional effects of drying or moistening in various regions of the world that may be unwanted and even surprises," Stocker, a professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland, said in a telephone interview.

Proposals for geo-engineering include mirrors in space as planetary sunshades, sun-blocking gases injected into the upper atmosphere, fertilisation of the oceans to grow carbon-absorbing algae or methods to produce more clouds.

The last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 was dismissive, saying geo-engineering was so far "largely speculative and unproven" with "risks of unknown side effects".

"TERMINATION PROBLEM"

Among geo-engineering proponents are 1995 Nobel Chemistry laureate Paul Crutzen, who has proposed spewing sulphates into the upper atmosphere.

Geo-engineering "is a young and emerging branch of the physical science," Stocker said. "It's natural that additional ideas and options are being discussed."

But, he cautioned that there was also a "termination problem" if the world adopted such geo-engineering projects for several years but then found that damaging side-effects, for instance on world food output, outweighed the benefits.

In one scenario, abruptly stopping injection of sun-dimming sulphates could cause an annual temperature rise 10 times faster than the current rate from global warming if greenhouse gases kept on building up, he said.

Stocker denied suggestions that the panel's focus on geo-engineering was caused by the failure of world leaders to agree a new U.N. treaty to curb emissions of greenhouse gases at a summit in Copenhagen in December 2009.

"I have seen increasing interest significantly earlier" than Copenhagen, he said. And he said that global warming, blamed on a build-up of greenhouse gases, could not be solved by geo-engineering alone but would also need cuts in emissions.

The IPCC is trying to restore credibility after errors including its exaggeration of the thaw of the Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report. It says the mistakes do not affect its conclusion that it is at least 90 percent certain global warming is manmade. (For Reuters latest environment blogs, click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/ )

(Editing by Elizabeth Fullerton)

Read more!