15 Jan (Sat): Talk on "What is a ‘healthy’ Mangrove Eco-system?"
from wild shores of singapore
Wed 12 Jan 2011: 4.30pm @SDWA – Dan Friess on “Are all intertidal wetlands created equal?” from The Biodiversity crew @ NUS
Reign of Assassins
from Macro Photography in Singapore
雨后裕廊湖观鸟 bird watching @ Jurong Lake
from PurpleMangrove
Calls of the Grey-headed Fish Eagle
from Bird Ecology Study Group
Singapore Red Data Book online!
from Celebrating Singapore's BioDiversity!
Letter from Deirdre Moss Executive Director, SPCA
Today Online 11 Jan 11;
I refer to the letters "Marine park walks the talk" from Resorts World Sentosa and "RWS must comply" from the Singapore Tourism Board (Jan 8).
These letters were in response to recent concerns and objections to the importation of wild-caught dolphins for the planned Marine Life Park at the integrated resort.
The shocking news (reported in Today, Dec 18) that two dolphins from a pod of seven being housed at Langkawi Island, Malaysia, had died, only brings home the reminder that these animals should never have been removed from the wild in the first place.
It is an irony that, whilst the letter "Marine park walks the talk" cites examples where it has supported the conservation of wildlife, Resorts World Sentosa has been party to removing dolphins from the wild. How does this cruel act set an example in education and wildlife conservation?
No doubt RWS has to comply with international regulations and our veterinary authority's animal welfare requirements, but this begs the question of whether it was moral and ethical for the dolphins to have been removed from the wild.
The act of catching and confining these animals in limited spaces and training them to become something they are not cannot possibly contribute towards constructive education of the public on marine life and environmental issues.
While attractions elsewhere may have been successful and have appeal, they have had their share of tragedies as well.
A killer whale, Tilikum, at SeaWorld, Orlando, Florida, killed its trainer last year - following years of confinement and performing in captivity.
Endless mental anguish had probably taken its toll on the giant. We should never underestimate these captive animals' capacity to suffer.
Dolphins, ethics and Resorts World Sentosa
Straits Times Forum 12 Jan 11;
THE shocking news that two dolphins from a pod of seven, being housed on Langkawi island in Malaysia, had died last October only brings home the reminder that these animals should never have been removed from the wild in the first place.
It is an irony that while citing examples where it has supported conservation of wildlife ('Resorts World Sentosa committed to wildlife conservation'; Monday), Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) has been party to removing dolphins from the wild for the purpose of becoming an attraction at its Marine Life Park.
How does this cruel act set an example in education and wildlife conservation?
Although RWS must comply with international regulations and our veterinary authority's animal welfare requirements, it begs the question whether it was moral and ethical to have had the dolphins removed from the wild.
The act of catching and confining these animals in limited spaces, and training them to become something they are not, cannot possibly contribute towards constructive education of the public on marine life and environmental issues. Under the circumstances, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals urges RWS to rethink its decision to import dolphins for its Marine Life Park before more deaths occur in the process.
Deirdre Moss (Ms)
Executive Director
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Koh Kong dredging resumes
Buth Reaksmey Kongkea Phnom Penh Post 10 Jan 11;
Large-scale sand dredging has resumed in coastal areas of Koh Kong province following a three-month halt in the controversial operations late last year, officials said Sunday.
Dredging boats unload sand into a bulk carrier for export to Singapore, around 10 kilometres off the coast of Koh Kong province, in February 2009.
The dredging, which began in Koh Kong in 2008, has long drawn criticism from local and international rights groups, who claim it is causing environmental damage and impacting on the livelihoods of local fishermen.
Pech Siyon, director of the provincial Department of Industry, Mines and Energy, said on Sunday that dredging recommenced in early November after the last licensed company wound down operations in August citing a lack of demand in Singapore.
Pech Siyon said four local companies – which he named as LYP Group, Udom Seima Trading, the International Singapore Company and the Direct Action Company – are currently involved in exporting “at least” 2,000 cubic metres of “selected sands” to Singapore every week.
“We can’t stop these local companies from dredging sand in Koh Kong province, because they have received licenses from the Royal Government of Cambodia to do this activity in the province,” he said.
Pech Siyon said there was no compelling reason to shut the companies down, saying that their activities “have not impacted the environment in the area”.
Neang Boratino, Koh Kong provincial coordinator for local rights group Adhoc, said Sunday that about 200 families supported by small-scale fishing operations in Koh Kong province had been adversely affected by the dredging.
“The dredging activities of these companies have really impacted on local fishermen’s daily businesses, local environments and biodiversity in these areas,” he said.
“I am now afraid that if they continue these dredging activities in the province, natural resources and biodiversity will be completely destroyed and those people who are dependent on fishing as an occupation will lose their jobs.” ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY BROOKE LEWIS
AsianOne 11 Jan 11;
SINGAPORE - Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Assoc Professor Yacob Ibrahim said in a written statement that desalting of the Marina Reservoir was almost complete and that it had started contributing to Singapore's water needs.
This was in response to a question raised by Mr Seah Kian Peng in the Parliament's second session on January 10. Mr Seah had asked for updates on the salinity of Marina Barrage and the ecological effects on its surrounding areas, as well as the rivers feeding it.
Mr Yacob Ibrahim also said the Public Utilities Board (PUB) would continue to monitor the reservoir and the surrounding ecology.
"Close monitoring of the reservoir and surrounding ecology since the onset of the desalting process has so far shown no undesirable effects," he said.
The Marina Reservoir serves three benefits, namely augmenting Singapore's water supply, alleviating floods and creating a new lifestyle attraction.
Desalting of the reservoir began in April 2009 and has steadily progressed through natural replacement by rainwater.
Richard Hartung Today Online 11 Jan 11;
The 14.7 per cent rise in Singapore's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010 is good news for companies and economic recovery. What the average person on the street may wonder, though, is whether that jump made a real difference in their life.
If we were in Bhutan, we'd have a better answer to that question. The concept of measuring happiness conceived by former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck nearly four decades ago has come to fruition and Bhutan has started measuring happiness with its Gross National Happiness (GNH) index.
Comprised of 72 metrics, GNH measures everything from "karma in daily life" and a person's healthiness to hours of sleep and food insecurity. The results of the 2008 survey showed the happiness level at 0.76. As renowned hotelier Chip Conley said, Bhutan's GNH index is a "transformational role model for the world".
It turns out that a multitude of other countries are now moving in this direction. In 2009, for example, the European Commission approved a document called GDP and Beyond: Measuring Progress in a Changing World that outlined steps to measure social, environmental and other indicators.
President Nicolas Sarkozy announced in 2009 that France would start to measure well-being and the Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom is also developing methods to measure "general well-being".
Here, we do have author Dan Buettner's assertion in his latest book, Thrive: Finding Happiness the Blue Zones Way, that Singapore is the happiest place in Asia, based on his one-time analysis.
To go beyond just a one-off review and understand how we're actually faring, perhaps it's time to start measuring happiness here regularly. Along with being a useful tool to measure and improve well-being, a GNH index could have other benefits too.
For one, it could help measure the effectiveness of social programmes. Along with tracking home ownership, for example, using Bhutan's measures like "sense of trust in neighbours" and "neighbours helping each other" would help let us know whether housing policies provide more than just shelter.
Measuring whether the elderly believe that "your family is a real source of comfort to you" could help assess how older people feel they're treated. Policy-makers could use a multitude of data from the GNH index to figure out whether new programmes are needed or old ones should be phased out.
The index could benefit business, too. If a company wants to attract top talent to Singapore and can point to how well people live using actual measurements rather than just saying "it's a great place", it may be easier to attract the skilled people the country needs to increase its competitiveness.
A GNH index could also help in evaluating whether Singapore is reaching the Economic Strategies Committee's goals of being "a vibrant and distinctive global city" and "a home that provides an outstanding quality of life".
Simply announcing the indicator and plans to measure happiness could have an additional side benefit of generating tremendous publicity for Singapore. It's good when a small country like Bhutan starts to measure happiness. It's even more noticeable when a highly developed nation like Singapore takes a similar approach.
Tourists, companies and scholars alike could well take greater interest in Singapore once it starts to measure happiness. Singapore would need to act fast, though, to be among the first movers.
Starting to measure happiness isn't necessarily easy and measurement is unlikely to happen overnight. Even with the commitment of the King in a small country like Bhutan, it took a long time to refine the index and conduct the first survey. While it would take time to start measuring happiness here too, Singapore could leverage its expertise in statistics to develop the indicator relatively rapidly.
Measurement could have some risks, of course. If happiness declined, there could easily be soul-searching about why Singaporeans don't feel as happy as before. Yet the indicator would also be a tremendous boon in helping to identify what needs to be done and how to continue on the path to greater happiness.
Singapore does well in measuring GDP and the economy is powering ahead. Now, measuring more than economics and developing the Gross National Happiness too seems like an idea whose time has come.
Richard Hartung is a consultant who has lived in Singapore since 1992.
Singapore is trying to rebrand itself as a leisure destination. It might just work, says Claire Wrathall.
Claire Wrathall The Telegraph 10 Jan 11;
There can't be another hotel in the world that looks out on three countries. But from the SkyPark, 600ft up on the new Marina Bay Sands hotel in Singapore, you can see not just Singapore, but the skyline of Johor Baharu in Malaysia and across the Strait of Malacca to the Indonesian island of Sumatra.
It's an arresting sight by any standard, but what really took me by surprise was how green so much of it looked. Not just the 60-odd outlying islands, many of them jungle-clad; nor the extravagant SkyPark itself, which is home to more than 900 species, including 250 types of tree; but also Singapore itself, verdant with public parks and bosky avenues.
And it stands to become yet greener. Next year, for example, the Botanic Gardens, where botanists from Kew first propagated the Brazilian rubber trees that spawned the industry on which much of Singapore's wealth was based, will open a 250-acre extension on the reclaimed land that forms the eastern edge of Marina Bay, complete with two modern glasshouses.
For the moment, however, the only way to view this work-in-progress is from the SkyPark, itself the newest – and by some distance the strangest – green space to have opened in years. Shaped like a boat that's run aground on the roofs of three 57-storey tower blocks, like a sort of glass-and-steel Stonehenge, it's the length of three football pitches and has a swimming pool on its western perimeter that looks across the marina to the Central Business District.
Most of the park is accessible only to hotel guests, though there is a public observation deck, a 19-second elevator ride from the street. A better ruse, though, is to book a table on the terrace of one of the two restaurants up there: Ku dé Ta (pretty ordinary cooking, but the food is hardly the point), or Sky on 57, an about-to-open restaurant run by Singapore's most celebrated chef, Justin Quek.
Built at a cost of £3.7 billion, the hotel has claims to be a wonder of the world, at least in terms of scale. When it's finally fully open, there'll be 10,000 staff, 21 restaurants and 2,561 bedrooms in 18 categories. There are also 10 immense art installations by the likes of Antony Gormley, Sol LeWitt and Ned Kahn, and an arcade featuring just about every major luxury brand (plus a canal along which you can cruise on flat-bottomed sampans). There is also a rather beautiful casino, the decision to permit it being one element of a broad initiative to boost Singapore's appeal as a leisure destination.
But while Marina Bay Sands is an extraordinary architectural feat, I wouldn't necessarily choose to stay there. Better to opt for the even newer Fullerton Bay Hotel, which opened just across the water in July. It has marvellous views of the SkyPark, as well as the armadillo-like Theatres on the Bay, but with just 105 very attractive, comfortable rooms, a fine restaurant and its own rooftop swimming pool, which is surrounded by luxuriant foliage and adjoins The Lantern, which is swiftly establishing itself as the most modish lounge bar in the city.
Like its sister hotel, The Fullerton, converted from the imposing neoclassical post office HQ built in 1928, the Fullerton Bay is part of Fullerton Heritage, a development of two hotels, galleries, shops and restaurants in a waterfront area that strives to make use of listed buildings.
The Fullerton Bay may be an unexceptional glass-and-steel newbuild, but it incorporates Clifford Pier, a huge hall spanned by a red corrugated-iron roof supported by fancy ribbon-like trusses, the place where many immigrants first set foot on the island. Now it houses a fashionable Chinese restaurant, One on the Bund.
And it's flanked by Waterboat House, a marvellous example of nautical Art Deco, and Customs House, a low linear structure from the Sixties which, when it opens this year, will house Cuban, Japanese and Italian restaurants together with an oyster bar.
I laughed when one of its developers called it a "heritage" building. But it predates independence, he pointed out, and that makes it historic.
However, if Singapore is essentially a modern megalopolis, roaring as befits a Lion City (which is what singa pura means in Malay), where the economy is expected to have grown by 13 to 15 per cent in 2010, there are equally pockets that feel very ancient and untouched. The Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, for example, 400 acres of primeval rainforest bang in the centre of the city, remains home to 500 or so species of fauna, fabulous butterflies, pangolins and long-tailed macaques.
You can see monkeys and monitor lizards on Pulau Ubin as well, perhaps the most atmospheric of all the excursions that Singapore has to offer. Bicycling around this island in the Johor Strait (a 10-minute bumboat-ride from Changi Point), it feels as it must have done in colonial times: a place of rubber plantations, shrimp farms and stilt-houses.
Best of all, there are undeveloped sandy beaches lapped by unexpectedly clean water, just as there are on the islands of St John's and Kusu, south of Marina Bay. In terms of atmosphere and pace, Ubin couldn't be further from the energy and dynamism of downtown. Proof indeed that Singapore has far more to offer those on holiday than simply a place to change planes.
Table Talk with Flavia Pansieri
Cheong Suk-Wai, Straits Times 11 Jan 11;
WHEN the Republic of Yemen was plagued by a polio epidemic in 2005, United Nations official Flavia Pansieri insisted that her office staff, and not just the volunteers, go from door to door to help their World Health Organisation (WHO) colleagues vaccinate as many Yemenese as possible against the virus.
Dr Pansieri, 59, recalls: 'I told my staff, 'This is the campaign. I will provide the transport for everyone who wants to help the WHO' and I could see my staff thinking initially, 'This is another one of Flavia's crazy ideas.''
But in the end, some of them joined her. She adds: 'It was very tough but what was splendid when we came back was that they were so motivated that they convinced our other colleagues to help out too.'
Today, this native of Milan is the executive coordinator of the UN Volunteers (UNV) programme, marshalling some 8,000 volunteers in the field and another 14,000 online to help governments and UN agencies on everything from giving aid to Haiti's earthquake victims to growing vegetables hydroponically, from giving Cambodians more nutrition to keeping Honduran youth away from gangs by engaging them in the arts.
Dr Pansieri speaks and writes Chinese beautifully, having done her doctorate in Chinese language and literature at Venice University. She has served with the UN in such places as China, Bangladesh and Laos. She will be in town later this month to take part in the International Association for Volunteer Effort World Volunteer Conference here.
On another visit here late last year, she took the time to explain why volunteerism is still sorely in need of recognition:
# Why do you want a stronger relationship with Singapore, which is not exactly noted for volunteerism?
I don't know if you're not being overly critical about Singapore because having been here for just five days, I've found a very active voluntary sector here. What, perhaps, can be argued reasonably is that Singapore is a prosperous and well-functioning state, so the need for volunteer activities within the country itself is perhaps less intense than in other countries. But a number of Singapore's voluntary organisations are now very active in cooperating with other such activities abroad.
# Cooperating abroad is one thing, but getting more to volunteer here is quite another issue altogether.
You're right. We celebrated the International Year of Volunteerism in 2001. What we recognised then was that the first pillar of promoting voluntary action was to give it the recognition it deserved. The other pillar is facilitation or providing a voluntary institution with all that's possible to make people volunteer, including legislation. The third pillar is networking, or facilitating exchanges of experiences and learning from one another. The fourth is encouraging everyone to take part and contribute what they can. These four pillars are still valid but I'd argue that much more needs to be done about the first - that is, recognition.
# What exactly should we do more of?
First, recognising that voluntary action is a real, important and measurable contribution to the moulding of society. Volunteers aren't paid; so volunteerism doesn't appear in national economic accounts and so isn't counted. But they do contribute because if you had to pay for the services they provide, the costs would be relevant. Second, voluntary action contributes to the strengthening of links that make a society harmonious. It's about the ability of people to say: 'I don't get any money for this, but I have a moral obligation to do what I can to make things better.' This is both a value in itself and a contribution to harmony in society.
# How do you reconcile this apparent thirst for recognition with the belief that one should not publicise one's altruism?
Not wanting to be recognised for what one does and contributes voluntarily is to me a very Asian trait - a typical modesty. It's certainly acceptable if one feels embarrassed about being recognised for it officially. But at the same time, having others say 'I appreciate what you do' is something that would please anyone.
# With so many people pressed for time, how do you grow your corps of volunteers?
We've been going online since 2000, because we want to make sure that everyone can contribute, and not everyone can travel to remote places to do so. But if you have a computer, you can really do a lot. In 2009, we had more than 14,000 online volunteers engaged in a broad range of activities, from researching and preparing funding proposals to reading maps - without increasing our carbon footprints! Going online has taken UNV by storm; we never expected to be so successful. Every year, we break the previous year's record for completing assignments online. It's really a way of measuring global solidarity.
# But with only about 22,000 volunteers, how do you respond to the ever increasing natural and human disasters?
Yes, it's a drop in the ocean but UNV is not alone. There are many volunteer organisations out there. In fact, most governments in developing countries ask us to help them set up their own systems for volunteerism. So would we want more volunteers? Yes. But at the same time, I'd argue that the quantity of what is being volunteered is grossly underestimated. There are so many forms of volunteering that are not acknowledged or recognised.
# Why so?
Let me tell you a story. When I applied for my present position, I thought, 'Oh, my God, I have not been a volunteer before. What would I say?' But then I started thinking, 'Wait a minute, in that period of your life, you were helping out in this area and in another period, you helped here...' So everyone, at some point in his life, has been volunteering because he thought it the right thing to do. He may think, 'No, this is just helping my neighbour', but it is part of what makes us human beings.
# What are you doing to make volunteering with UNV meaningful?
While we may know a lot about volunteerism, the best (learning) does come from our volunteers, who live it on a daily basis. So we are very keen to learn what it was that made it possible for them to make a difference. To do so, we're now asking them to report regularly. That way, they can tell us what worked, what didn't, whether there's anything we need to set straight.
# Does being part of the UN hamper your work?
You will find everyone in the UN agreeing with the fact that we have to make the organisation better, more responsive and more efficient. But I would also argue that it is now already performing an essential task, be it in the contexts of development, humanity, crises or conflict. And while what I'm going to say next is not to be seen as a way of justifying shortcomings that need to be addressed, the contexts in which the UN operates are at times exceedingly complex and risky. In the last few years, we have unfortunately lost a number of colleagues and volunteers either to violent acts of man or acts of nature.
As for the recent global financial crisis, I'd say that a positive outcome from that is that we now focus more on results-based management, ensuring that we document the impact of what we do.
It is not enough to do well; you also have to show that you do well.
Sharmilla Ganesa The Star 11 Jan 11;
Here’s a way to help replenish depleted fish stocks: avoid eating the over-fished ones.
IT is easy to think of the sea as an eternal source of sustenance. After all, humans have been getting food from the ocean since about 10,000 years ago.
As the world’s population steadily rises, however, the demand for seafood has increased to the point where our marine ecosystems are under threat. This results not just in grave damage to marine life, but also, ironically, a depletion of the very fish stock that we require, as seafood is extracted faster than it can be naturally replenished.
Of course, it isn’t the consumption of seafood that is to blame, but rather, environmentally damaging fishing practices and over-fishing. What consumers can do, though, is make a difference by choosing wisely when it comes to seafood, and purchasing only the kind that has been fished sustainably.
“Our marine sources need to be preserved for the future,” WWF peninsular Malaysia seas programme manager Gangaram Pursumal explains. “It is demand that drives supply, and if more consumers take a stand, the industry will slowly shift (to become more sustainable). If the situation continues, eventually there will be no more fish.”
But exactly what is sustainable seafood?
Gangaram describes it as seafood sourced from well-managed fisheries that farm their fish in an environment-friendly manner. Fisheries deemed as unsustainable include those that over-fish, damage marine habitats or ecosystems, use methods such as trawling (where the net is swept across the seabed, taking in anything there, including coral, juvenile fishes and seabed creatures), and produce a high amount of bycatch (fish or marine life caught unintentionally while targeting other species).
Sustainable seafood also refers to species that are still relatively abundant, as opposed to those that have been depleted or are under threat.
Sadly, despite being the highest consumers of seafood in South-East Asia – 1.4 billion kg a year – Malaysians remain largely ignorant on the importance of consuming sustainable seafood.
Gangaram shares that many of our fisheries are over-exploited and cause significant environmental damage, with some even collapsing due to dwindling fish stocks. Our bottom-dwelling fish-stock, he points out, has seen a decrease of about 90% since the 1970s.
Yet, the average Malaysian consumer is usually unable to differentiate which types of seafood are sustainable and which aren’t. This involves not only knowing where our seafood comes from, but also knowing which species we should avoid so as to allow time for them to replenish.
To help consumers choose wisely, WWF, together with the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS), launched the Save Our Seafood pocket guide last year, a handy pamphlet that recommends which popular local seafood to consume and which to avoid due to unsustainable practices.
Gangaram admits that some of the seafood to be avoided, like pomfret (bawal) and tiger prawns, may be favourites on our dinner tables.
“It is about making choices, and sometimes that choice can be painful. But we all have to go through a little bit of change. By avoiding high-risk species, you will indirectly be helping the sea replenish itself, and perhaps sometime in the future, it will become sustainable to consume them again.”
Consumers, he adds, can also ask questions when purchasing seafood, such as where it came from, and how it was caught. “As more and more consumers ask these questions, the whole chain (of the seafood industry) will be made aware.”
Read the label
One organisation that helps bridge the consumer knowledge gap is the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which provides certification and eco-labelling for sustainable seafood. A MSC eco-label demonstrates a fishery’s sustainability to seafood markets around the world. It is the most widely-recognised certification programme for marine produce in the world. Fisheries seeking to be certified enter the council’s assessment process voluntarily, and go through an extensive on-site assessment.
According to Patrick Caleo, MSC’s Australia and New Zealand manager, a fishery must prove that it meets three principles in order to be certified. These are: sustainable fish stocks, where fishing activities are maintained at a level that does not deplete the seafood population; minimal environmental impact, so that operations maintain the function and diversity of the ecosystem; and effective management, where the fishery meets local, national and international laws and has a system in place to maintain sustainability.
Caleo asserts that the consumer plays an essential role in maintaining sustainable seafood sources.
“By consuming seafood that is certified as sustainable, you are rewarding those fishing sustainably. This provides incentives for other fishers to then make the necessary improvements. If everyone insist on sustainably sourced seafood, the problem of over-fishing would no longer exist,” he points out.
The effectiveness of eco-labelling and consumer awareness is obvious from fisheries’ and retailers’ responses from around the world: currently, 12% of the world’s wild caught seafood are from MSC-certified fisheries. Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, for instance, has committed to selling only MSC-certified seafood, while other leading retailers like Tesco and Carrefour have recognised the importance of stocking MSC-certified products.
Sustainable option
Recognising this shift in consumer demands, a Malaysian company decided to lead the way. Golden Fresh, the brand owner of the Pacific West frozen seafood line, is the first – and only – Malaysian company to market MSC-certified products.
After entering the certified seafood market in 2008 with their Deep Sea Frosty Fish Fillets, Golden Fresh recently launched three more products, all made from MSC-certified Alaskan pollock.
“We see the challenges faced by Asian seafood companies in complying with European standards,” says Golden Fresh brand/corporate affairs manager Tang Cho Sun. “Certain retailers in Britain, for example, will only purchase MSC-certified seafood from any part of the world. For an Asian company to manufacture and export to the European market, MSC certification is essential.”
It is not all about the business opportunities. Golden Fresh also considers raising awareness on sustainable seafood an important corporate social responsibility activity. As part of this, the company works with NGOs like WWF.
“We must ensure fishery supplies for the future generation is not in jeopardy. It about conserving the environment and its resources,” Tang explains.
As of now, however, there are no fisheries in Malaysia that are MSC-certified. According to Gangaram, this is due partly to the council’s rigorous standards, which most local fisheries cannot meet.
Caleo hopes, however, that this will change in the near future.
“We have been working closely with WWF Malaysia, not only to encourage fisheries to think about MSC certification, but also to engage the market on the importance of sustainable sources of supply,” he says.
He is confident that with awareness, Malaysians can be convinced to make a positive change.
“Seafood is an incredibly important part of the eating culture in Malaysia, and who wouldn’t want this wonderful food source to be available for their children and children’s children? What is missing is the awareness of how big a global problem over-fishing is, and the knowledge of what they can do,” he says.
The Save Our Seafood pocket guide is available at saveourseafood.my.
Stuart Michael and Christina Low The Star 11 Jan 11;
DUE to fear of losing the Kuala Langat South Peat Swamp Forest (KLSPSF) to agriculture, non-government organisations and government organisations have got together to document rare species of animals, birds, trees and plants in the area.
Their intention is to stop the state from allowing it to become an oil palm plantation and preserve one of the last remaining peat swamps in Selangor.
Recently, the Selangor government had approved a Selangor State Agricultural Corporation proposal to turn the entire 6,908ha swamp forest into an oil palm estate.
Since March 2008, the Selangor Forestry Department has banned logging in the state and has not issued any licence for the purpose.
Now, the department is forced to issue logging licences and it has been receiving several calls from contractors.
Environmentalists are alarmed by news of the proposed oil palm plantation and fear many flora and fauna would disappear.
The conservation of this forest is crucial to maintaining the population of rare, threatened and endangered species of the area — some of which are not found anywhere.
The area is also the last virgin jungle reserve in a peat swamp forest south of the Klang River.
During their visit to the swamp forest few weeks ago, members from the Global Environment Centre, Wildlife Department, Malaysian Nature Society, Forest Reserve Institute of Malaysia, State Forestry Department and Universiti Putra Malaysia, documented the species of birds, animals and trees in the eco-system.
The group said the peat land was an important carbon store and played a significant role in the regulation of greenhouse gas emission and global climate.
They said the exploitation and degradation could lead to the release of carbon that would affect the environment.
Studies by these NGOs showed that the average depth in swamp forest is 3.3m, which is classified as deep.
The deeper the peat, the less suitable it is for agriculture as it involves huge capital and technical know-how to develop the peat land.
The usual method of turning the soil here for agriculture is by burning the trees so that planting could take place.
KLSPSF was gazetted as a forest reserve on May 13, 1927 under the provisions of the Federated Malay States Forest Enactment 1918.
It was originally 12,141ha and had since been subjected to de-gazattement several times, with most of the areas used for agriculture.
The forest reserve is surrounded by towns such as Banting, Sepang, Sungai Pelek and Tanjong Sepat.
Swamp forests act as natural reservoirs, absorbing and retaining water and releasing it slowly during drier periods.
Without swamp forests, towns like Banting and other areas in Kuala Langat could easily flood during the monsoon season.
The dominant trees in the area are stemonurus secundiflorus Icacinaceae and koompassia malaccensis (Kempas), which are tropical rainforest species.
Some endangered species of trees like meranti bunga are found in huge numbers in this forest.
Another four species that are under threat are the shorea teysmanniana, meranti bakau, mersawa paya and meranti paya.
The endangered tapir and wild boar could also be found in the forest.
The other animals seen during the visit are the silver leaf monkeys and lesser short-nosed fruit bat and a lizard called cyrtodactylus baluensis.
The swamp is also home to birds species like the collared scops-owl, banded woodpecker, oriental dwarf kingfisher, maroon woodpecker, chestnut-winged cuckoo, green Iora and lesser racket-tailed drongo.
Many speak up to save south peat swamp forest
Christina Low The Star 12 Jan 11;
THE Kuala Langat South Peat Swamp Forest issue is heating up with various parties hitting out at the state government for its non-action on the matter.
Petaling Jaya Utara federal development coordinator Datuk Dr Wong Sai Hou said instead of protecting swamp forest to fight climate change, the state government was destroying it by planning to utilise the land for agriculture.
Dr Wong said they were not only destroying the natural habitat of the hundreds of animals, insects and trees but also wiping out the entire jungle by turning it into an oil palm plantation.
Wong, who enjoys jungle-trekking during his free time, said protecting the peat swamps would benefit the future generation.
“By going ahead with the proposed plan, they are not keeping to their election promise of conserving the environment,” he said.
He also questioned if Selangor Tourism, Consumer Affairs and Environment committee chairman Elizabeth Wong knew about it and why she had not given her views on the matter.
“What is the point of come up with different ways to save the environment like planting tress and not using plastic bags on certain days and at the same time take away the forest reserve? ” he asked.
The internet is also rife with activities with Facebook and Twitter users taking turns slamming rhe move.
Several environmental groups such as Eco Warriors Malaysia (ECM) and the Malaysian Youth Climate Justice Network (MYCJN) have even started a public group page to save the forest.
On its page, the ECM, which has more than 3,700 members, started a signature campaign at Mid Valley Megamall just before Christmas to save the forest.
On Dec 30, MYCJN conducted a one-day phone-in campaign which they claimed was successful.
MYCJN urged the public to call the mentri besar’s office from 10am to 3pm to speak or to his personal assistant on the issue.
Not missing out of the action is Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) president Associate Prof Dr Maketab Mohamed who urged his members to support to MNS Selangor’s campaign as well as make phone calls to Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim or leave messages on his twitter account at @Khalid_Ibrahim
On MNS’ website, Maketab said they were still working with the Selangor government, as they were the coordinator for the inventory study for the area with Selangor Forestry, Wildlife and National Parks Department (Perhilitan) and FRIM.
While on Loyarburok.com, the online journal writers also wrote about their experience at the site which they visited on Dec 26.
The writers noted that within two hours in the reserve, they were able to see a range of wildlife from birds to insects.
“It is a friendly reminder there are still wildlife in the reserve and a hasty conversion to agriculture will lead to the extinction of many species,” said the writers on the site.
Environmentalist Datuk Dr Mikaail Kavanagh Abdullah said in his email that peat swamps were able to store a lot more carbon than other types of forest in the decaying vegetation that builds up as peat.
“Unlike dry land forests, peat land continuously accumulate and store carbon. Therefore, is the proposal compatible with Malaysia’s commitment to reduce its release of carbon gases into the atmosphere as part of the global effort to combat climate change?” Mikaail asked.
Mikaail, who was formerly WWF-Malaysia chief executive officer, said Malaysia’s palm oil industry had been working hard to show the world that it was sustainable and produced palm oil in a way that was environmentally responsible.
WWF 10 Jan 11;
Toxic pollution from flooded farms and towns along Australia's Queensland coast will have a disastrous impact on the Great Barrier Reef’s corals and will likely have a significant impact on dugongs, turtles and other marine life, WWF warned today.
“In addition to the terrible costs to farmers and communities in Queensland, we will also see a major and extremely harmful decline in water quality on the Great Barrier Reef,” said WWF spokesman Nick Heath.
Heath said the restoration of important woodlands in flood prone catchment areas of the Fitzroy River and Murray Darling Basin would help protect communities and the marine environment from future floods.
“Today’s floods are bigger, dirtier and more dangerous from excessive tree clearing, overgrazing and soil compaction. As a result less water infiltrates deep into the soil, increasing the size and erosive intensity of floods,” he said.
Rebuilding
“While the current floods would still have occurred, trees and wetlands slow flood waters down and absorb water, lessening the impact of the flood. We can better prepare for future floods by bringing trees back into previously cleared catchment areas.”
Climate change is likely to deepen the cycle of drought and floods, with further loss of top soil followed by bigger rainfall events, and therefore increase the damage caused by floods.
Heath said the need to rebuild farms presented an opportunity to introduce best-practice farm design and management in reef catchment areas that would boost future profitability, better prepare farms for flood recovery and significantly reduce the future impact of farming on the Great Barrier Reef.
“As devastating and tragic as these floods are, they also provide a chance to introduce newer and better technologies that will reduce pollution and increase profits,” he said.
“Better management and design of our farms can reduce the risks to people, livelihoods and wildlife and also lead to greater profits further down the track by increasing deep infiltration and soil moisture, improved topsoil retention and therefore productivity.”
Over the past 150 years sediment inflow onto the Great Barrier Reef has increased four to five times, and five to 10 fold for some catchments, while inorganic nitrogen and phosphorous continue to enter the Great Barrier Reef at enhanced levels, according to the Australian Government’s Outlook Report.
Biodiversity is the new carbon in environmental circles, but can you really measure, manage or cost it as easily as you can carbon?
David Burrows guardian.co.uk 10 Jan 11;
It was October 2006 when Nicholas Stern published his review on the economics of climate change for the government. At the time, top climate change economist professor Michael Grubb hailed the report, suggesting that it "finally closes a chasm that has existed for 15 years between the precautionary concerns of scientists, and the cost-benefit views of many economists". Four years on and many are pinning their hopes on the TEEB report having the same impact on biodiversity.
Dubbed the new carbon, biodiversity just had its own international year of recognition with the UN, culminating in the Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan. The summit placed the issues in the spotlight but there remains a feeling that an obsession with carbon emissions has distracted businesses and policy makers from equally important environmental challenges, such as the health of the world's ecosystems.
It's easy to see why awareness, acceptance and action on climate change have eased their way into the boardroom more readily than biodiversity. Global policy may be stalling, but businesses understand the concept of carbon measurement and footprinting; there's also evidence emerging that cutting carbon brings financial benefits. A recent UK government report found some companies were investing £50k in carbon measurements and reporting, but saving £200k as a result. Not a bad return.
Carbon is relatively easy to measure, of course. Thanks to Lord Stern's report, policy makers were also able to put a price on not dealing with the issue. Regulation is now snowballing, at least on a regional and national scale, and the pressure on businesses to cut emissions continues to increase.
However, attention is now turning to biodiversity. Research and reports have emerged showing the grave state of the world's biodiversity. WWF's Living Planet Report, covering 2,500 species in almost 8,000 locations, found that we are using the resources of 1.5 planets every year. "That's a bit like spending £15,000 a year when you earn £10,000," says WWF UK's head of business and industry, Dax Lovegrove. In the UK it's closer to £27,500 – if everyone consumed at our rate we'd need 2.75 planets. For Lovegrove, these figures demonstrate why "biodiversity has to be part of the environmental equation for businesses nowadays".
Alongside WWF's analysis, other reports have pushed the biodiversity agenda firmly into the business spotlight, providing estimated values for the services provided by the natural world. The goal, as explained by TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity report – is to show just how dependent the economy is on the natural world.
Joshua Bishop, chief economist at the IUCN and business and enterprise coordinator for the study, says value is useful for translating a somewhat opaque environmental agenda [like biodiversity]. "It adds a dimension that people can relate to. After all, we live in a market economy and dollars and cents make it more accessible," he explains.
"Polar bears and penguins"
However, TEEB and WWF's Living Planet Report are global studies, with some national breakdowns. While biodiversity is being touted as a top environmental priority for UK Plc, many businesses are still confused about what it is they need to do. Some still see it as a bit "polar bears and penguins", says one consultant. When it comes to biodiversity protection there are none of the easy, bite-sized messages – such as "cutting carbon = cutting costs" – that finance directors and marketers so love.
Efforts to tackle biodiversity loss have one clear advantage over measures to address climate change: the local benefits of doing so are very clear. The business benefits, however, are less so. Unlike carbon, biodiversity does not have an intrinsic value and is hugely complicated to assess. Not every business will save four times as much as it spends on reporting carbon by cutting it, but the potential for savings – and the reputational benefits – are helping to make carbon reduction an increasingly attractive option.
Unilever recently carbon-footprinted 1,600 of its products in a bid to cut its overall footprint and inform consumer choice. Could it do the same for biodiversity? Could it calculate the biodiversity footprint of its products, or even its business, and report it? Could it calculate the savings from protecting biodiversity? The answer, to all three, is 'not really' – at least not as conclusively as it can for carbon.
But that does not mean businesses should forget about it, says Malcolm Preston, PricewaterhouseCoopers partner for sustainability and climate change. "Like the impact of the recession, there is simply no sector that will be immune to biodiversity and ecosystem loss," he observes. "Business needs to begin to draw the dots between natural resources, their supply chain, consumer demand and the future value of their business."
But he admits connecting those dots will not be easy. "If you are trading with India there is a book you can read about the tax implications. Biodiversity is very, very different. People want a solution in a box, but there isn't one," he says.
Assigning impacts
The complications begin with measurement. The main headache, says Dr David Vackar, a footprinting expert at Charles University in Prague, is how to allocate impacts on biodiversity to business. "Biodiversity loss is an outcome of aggregate human impacts, especially land conversion, land use changes, habitat fragmentation, unsustainable harvest, climate change and pollution, which are driven by increasing human population, increasing energy demand and consumption of meat and other goods," he explains. "To disentangle the impacts of particular sectors or even firms is challenging."
Currently, it's only possible to assign biodiversity impacts to business in a "limited way". Some are attempting, for example, to use land area appropriated by human activity or number of threatened species, but these can be assigned to businesses only to a limited extent. Indeed, Unilever senior vice president for sustainability and communications, Gavin Neath, admits that it is one of the most difficult areas with which the consumer goods giant has to deal. To get a grip on carbon, and water, is "fairly easy", he explains, but to do the same with biodiversity is "very difficult". "The general levels of understanding, and I include myself in that, are not as good as they should be," he admits.
For a company that sources 7.5 million tonnes' worth of raw products from around the world every year, the biodiversity impacts are vast and complex. Neath says there is no chance of the company neglecting biodiversity, but managing it is tricky. "When we look at large plantations, like our tea in Tanzania, then we tend to do really well, but that's the exception rather than the rule," he says. "Many of the solutions are very localised."
Unilever has just committed to sourcing all its agricultural raw materials from sustainable sources by 2020. To achieve that goal, "we'll need to get closer to our suppliers," says Neath.
Some companies are beginning to tread a similar path; they are realising they need to in order to prolong their own existence, as Paul Laird, corporate partnerships manager at the Earthwatch Institute, explains. "Companies like Cadbury and Starbucks are essentially reliant on one crop, grown in certain areas of the world where biodiversity and ecosystems are under threat," he observes. "With land at a premium, along with the investment they have made in those areas and farming communities, they're increasingly aware that they need to play the long game and ensure a sustainable supply beyond the next year or so in those areas."
The relationship between food business and biodiversity is often easier to comprehend: crops need soil, insects for pollination, water and so on. Indeed, research by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that risks related to biodiversity and loss of ecosystem services are already impacting businesses like farming, forestry and fishing. But there is also a warning for all the other sectors.
"Just because you don't have a first-hand touchpoint with nature doesn't mean you won't have a second or even third," says Malcolm Preston, Pw sustainability and climate change partner. "No sector remains untouched from the risks."
Lessons learned
There have been, to date, some positive lessons from integrating biodiversity into business, yet biodiversity concerns are generally not fully understood at an operational level. According to Pw's spring 2010 survey, just 18 of the world's largest 100 companies made any mention of biodiversity or ecosystems in their full annual report; six of these have measures in place to reduce their impacts, and only two identified it as a strategic issue.
"Corporate supply chain processes don't seem to have taken biodiversity into account to a great degree yet," admits Mark Line, executive chairman at sustainability consultancy Two Tomorrows. "However, many companies are looking at the issue strategically from a supply security point of view."
The past few months have seen the release of the UN's TEEB report, the biodiversity deal set out in Nagoya and a commitment by the World Bank to a five-year programme aimed at encouraging countries to value ecosystems in the same manner as GDP. Just before Christmas, a sister to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was also born. The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will report on the state of global biodiversity but also help further promote the extent to which economies depend on healthy ecosystems.
This has all given the issue a shot in the arm. The latest instalment of the TEEB report, for instance, urged businesses to disclose how they are affected by environmental risks and changes to natural resources in their annual reports. More are expected to do so, even if developing a standardised means of measuring biodiversity impacts remains years away.
Red flags
While it might not yet be possible to measure biodiversity footprints to the levels achievable for carbon, it is possible to identify where the red flags might be. This wider perspective on footprinting could be the future, according to Best Foot Forward senior consultant Richard Sheane. Taking the idea of footprinting to scale is a big challenge for businesses, he says, so analysts are looking to streamline the process. "It's more simplified but it'll give an idea of the hotspots," he says.
Much of the business case for assessing biodiversity impacts lies in understanding the risks, including security of supply and reputational risk. Unlike carbon and water, where the impacts to the bottom line are often clear, biodiversity loss hits the bottom line in other ways – in many other ways, in fact. Take BP. The company is no doubt wishing it put biodiversity immediately after safety at the top of its corporate responsibility agenda; the fact it did not has increased costs, laid the company open to legal action, and potentially lost billions of dollars in future revenue.
As Tom Nevard, CEO at the farming scheme Conservation Grade, puts it: "If the wind had blown their oil slicks just slightly further west and it had damaged some of the Texas shore reserves, they'd be broke. So, paying attention to biodiversity these days for multinationals is not optional, it's a practical necessity."
Besides risk, CEOs are beginning to see opportunities: 59 per cent see biodiversity as more of an opportunity than a risk for their companies, according to a recent McKinsey survey. This positive outlook is in stark contrast to executives' views on climate change in late 2007, when only 29 per cent saw the issue as more of an opportunity than a threat.
The Nagoya summit gave leverage to the idea that businesses were coming to terms with biodiversity as a major issue – perhaps even faster than they had done with climate change. As BusinessGreen reported, arguably the most significant breakthough in Nagoya comes not from the new treaties, but the context in which they were negotiated. Observers said that progress in Nagoya was driven in large part by the realisation that ecosystems are essential to the global economy, and as such businesses played a key role in lobbying for more ambitious protection measures.
It sounds remarkably similar to Grubb's comments following the Stern report. In fact, many are hoping that Pavan Sukhdev, the Deutsche Bank economist leading TEEB, can do for biodiversity what Stern did for climate change, alongside Nagoya. The project has already put an economic value on the services provided by the natural world, such as water purification, pollination of crops and climate regulation: between $2 trillion and $5 trillion a year.
Putting a value on biodiversity is a complex process, and those involved in TEEB appear aware of its limitations. However, with the momentum gathering around the study as well as other initiatives, biodiversity is certainly set to remain in the spotlight. Though complicated to measure, to manage and to cost, there's a case building for business to take action.
"We worry about the more familiar issues such as climate change, water stress and pollution, but we tend to forget why," says Anthony Kleanthous, WWF UK senior policy adviser for sustainable business and economics. "We worry about them because they all threaten the ecosystems on which we depend for life's essentials, from food and medicines to timber and flood control.
"Measuring and managing our impacts on biodiversity may be harder than it is for greenhouse gases and water, but it is at least as important. The good news is that businesses are becoming increasingly aware of their responsibilities, and new collaborations between public, private and third sector organisations are working on solutions."
Indeed, 2010 may have been the International Year of Biodiversity, but it's set to remain in the spotlight for some time to come.
ScienceDaily 10 Jan 11
Geologists at Brown University and the University of Washington have a cautionary tale: Lose enough species in the oceans, and the entire ecosystem could collapse. Looking at two of the greatest mass extinctions in Earth's history, the scientists attribute the ecosystems' collapse to a loss in the variety of species sharing the same space. It took up to 10 million years after the mass extinctions for the ecosystem to stabilize.
The findings appear in Geology.
The world's oceans are under siege. Conservation biologists regularly note the precipitous decline of key species, such as cod, bluefin tuna, swordfish and sharks. Lose enough of these top-line predators (among other species), and the fear is that the oceanic web of life may collapse.
In a new paper in Geology, researchers at Brown University and the University of Washington used a group of marine creatures similar to today's nautilus to examine the collapse of marine ecosystems that coincided with two of the greatest mass extinctions in the Earth's history. They attribute the ecosystems' collapse to a loss of enough species occupying the same space in the oceans, called "ecological redundancy."
While the term is not new, the paper marks the first time that a loss of ecological redundancy is directly blamed for a marine ecosystem's collapse in the fossil record. Just as ominously, the authors write that it took up to 10 million years after the mass extinctions for enough variety of species to repopulate the ocean -- restoring ecological redundancy -- for the ecosystem to stabilize.
"It's definitely a cautionary tale because we know it's happened at least twice before," said Jessica Whiteside, assistant professor of geological sciences at Brown and the paper's lead author. "And you have long periods of time before you have reestablishment of ecological redundancy."
If the theory is true, the implications could not be clearer today. According to the United Nations-sponsored report Global Biodiversity Outlook 2, the population of nearly one-third of marine species that were tracked had declined over the three decades that ended in 2000. The numbers were the same for land-based species. "In effect, we are currently responsible for the sixth major extinction event in the history of the Earth, and the greatest since the dinosaurs disappeared, 65 million years ago," the 2006 report states.
Whiteside and co-author Peter Ward studied mass extinctions that ended the Permian period 250 million years ago and another that brought the Triassic to a close roughly 200 million years ago. Both periods are generally believed to have ended with global spasms of volcanic activity. The abrupt change in climate stemming from the volcanism, notably a spike in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, decimated species on land and in the oceans, losing approximately 90 percent of existing marine species in the Permian-Triassic and 72 percent in the Triassic-Jurassic. The widespread loss of marine life and the abrupt change in global climate caused the carbon cycle, a broad indicator of life and death and outside influences in the oceans, to fluctuate wildly. The authors noted these "chaotic carbon episodes" and their effects on biodiversity by studying carbon isotopes spanning these periods.
The researchers further documented species collapse in the oceans by compiling a 50-million-year fossil record of ammonoids, predatory squidlike creatures that lived inside coiled shells, found embedded in rocks throughout western Canada. The pair found that two general types of ammonoids, those that could swim around and pursue prey and those that simply floated throughout the ocean, suffered major losses. The fossil record after the end-Permian and end-Triassic mass extinctions shows a glaring absence of swimming ammonoids, which, because they compete with other active predators including fish, is interpreted as a loss of ecological redundancy.
"It means that during these low-diversity times, there are only one or two (ammonoids) taxa that are performing. It's a much more simplified food chain," Whiteside noted.
Only when the swimming ammonoids reappear alongside its floating brethren does the carbon isotope record stabilize and the ocean ecosystem fully recover, the authors report. "That's when we say ecological redundancy is reestablished," Whiteside said. "The swimming ammonoids have fulfilled that trophic role."
The U.S. National Science Foundation and the NASA Astrobiology Institute funded the research.
Fidelis E. Satriastanti Jakarta Post 9 Jan 11;
Jakarta. Nobel laureate and former US Vice President Al Gore on Sunday thanked Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for his vision, courage and leadership on climate change issues.
"I would like to say a special word of thanks to the president of Indonesia, President Yudhoyono, because of his courage and vision and leadership on the issue that we are here to discuss and work on," Gore said in his 15-minute speech addressed to some 350 participants of the three-day Climate Project Asia-Pacific Summit, which kicked off on Saturday. .
"He spoke out at a time when no other leader of a G-77 nation was willing to stand up and take the initiative and break the mold, thus breaking a longstanding deadlock that had frustrated progress in some areas that are now amenable to some progress.
"I respect him bravely and admire his leadership and I know that the historic pledge that he made on the eve of Copenhagen is going to continue to bring great things to the world and to Indonesia," he said.
Gore also noted the country's high potential for geothermal power.
“Indonesia, just to pick one example, is already the third largest producer of geothermal electricity,” he said.
“Scientists and engineers are now saying confidently that certain forms of enhanced geothermal electricity production may represent one of the largest resources of carbon-free electricity available in the world today.
"And Indonesia could be a super power of geothermal electricity. With the new regional super grids that are being proposed on every continent, it can be a significant advance for Indonesia's economy."
Furthermore, Gore added that the solution for climate issues involves many steps that can save money and reduce green house gases emissions.
Gore added that Indonesia's profile “is unique because it is heavily dominated by emissions from peat forests.”
He explained that the amount of carbon contained underneath the peat forests are enormous that the burning of these peat forests greatly exceed industrial emissions from big economies that burn coal, oil and natural gas.
"There is a great opportunity to take a sustainable approach that preserves these forests, avoids the emissions and earns income that can improve the economy of Indonesia.
“More efficient use of the land both increases economic value and reduces the emissions of global warming pollution.
“There are high impact mitigation efforts, such as stopping the use of fires for land clearing and rehabilitation of previously opened peatlands, which recognize the long-term economic value that greatly outweighs the benefits from continuing unsustainable and high greenhouse-gas emitting activities."
Posts
visitors since Nov 07