Best of our wild blogs: 2 Apr 11

19 Apr (Tue): Second sea turtle forum - How are the released sea turtles doing? from Celebrating Singapore's BioDiversity!

Job opportunities in biodiversity
from The Biodiversity crew @ NUS Planting of Native Species and Controlling Woody Weeds

Seven Years of Sea Slugs
from Pulau Hantu

From Lornie Trail to Rifle Range Link Part 1
from Beauty of Fauna and Flora in Nature

Pacific Reef Egret - fish prey
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Mandai mangrove madness: rare plants and big trees
from wild shores of singapore and critters seen

Things We Find in the Woods Part Seven
from Crystal and Bryan in Singapore

Be wary of the kutu babi
from Life's Indulgences

Read more!

Thick Haze Blankets Riau City Of Dumai

Bernama 1 Apr 11;

DUMAI, Riau, April 1 (Bernama) -- A number of Dumai's residents have complained about the impact of thick haze covering the sky of the city in Riau province, Antara news agency reported.

A businesswoman said here Thursday evening that the local authorities need to provide the residents like herself with masks to protect them from the hazardous effects of the haze.

"The smoke gets thicker at night. Who should be responsible for this?" said the 41-year-old woman.

A motorist complained that the thick haze had even affected his visibility and breathing.

The thick haze was caused by bush fire and open burning at palm plantations. The related authorities had attempted to extinguish the flames.

In October 2010, thick haze of the forest and bush fires in various parts of Sumatra Island blanketed the sky of Batam Island in Riau Islands province.

The coming haze affected Singapore, which shares sea border with the Indonesian island of Batam.

In 1997, Riau and many other provinces in Sumatra island were hit by thick smog, caused by forest fires and slash-and-burn method of clearing land for farming and plantations.

As a result, many airports in Sumatra as well as in neighbouring Malaysia and Singapore were temporarily closed. People had to wear masks if they wanted to venture outside their homes or offices.

-- BERNAMA

Read more!

Singapore: The great nuclear divide

Straits Times 2 Apr 11;

Japan's nuclear crisis has reopened the debate over the safety of nuclear power. Senior Correspondent Chang Ai-Lien looks at the argument for and against this energy source.

YES: It is clean and safe

FALLOUTS from nuclear plant disasters are lightweight compared to the deaths, injuries and harmful health effects caused by other energy sources like coal and oil, according to some scientists and engineers.

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest solutions, but the crux lies in placing plants in the right locations, with proper safety precautions in place, as well as educating the layman about it.

Said former Science Centre Singapore chief Chew Tuan Chiong: 'People have a great fear of nuclear energy. There's no denying that the impact of a nuclear accident is more insidious because of the long-term health effects.

'But compared to disasters from coal mining or gas leaks, it is much safer, even taking into account deaths in the long term.'

The harmful health effects from pollution caused by burning fossil fuels are far more widespread than those resulting from accidents in the nuclear energy sector, noted Dr Chew, a chartered engineer and a member of Britain's Energy Institute.

According to a report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) last year, nuclear energy is the safest of the energy sources. This was the conclusion reached after a study of accidents with five or more fatalities from a wide range of energy sources between 1969 and 2000, looking at both immediate and delayed deaths.

It predicted that in OECD countries, the risk of a nuclear disaster causing more than 100 eventual deaths was a factor of 10 or more lower than the risk of an accident causing 100 immediate fatalities in the coal, oil, natural gas and hydro energy chains - and almost a factor of 1,000 lower than the risk from liquefied petroleum gas.

Although the fear of radiation is very real, some of the resistance to nuclear energy stems from a lack of understanding, said Dr Chew.

For instance, he said, many people tend to link nuclear energy with the atomic bomb and its destructive potential, although, in reality, this will not happen at a plant.

There are insufficient amounts of chemicals such as uranium packed closely together to set off a chain reaction leading to such an explosion, he explained, even if, in the worst-case scenario, a meltdown does happen.

He acknowledged that disposing of radioactive waste is a problem researchers are still struggling with. At this stage, however, other potential energy sources such as the wind, biofuels and the sun are still not proven to be viable on the same scale.

'Individual governments need to look at their own level of technological know-how, geography, and even culture and discipline before deciding whether to go the nuclear energy route,' he said.

'And since each new incident seems to tar everyone in this industry with the same brush, companies should be generous in sharing information and research in the field.'

Added tectonics expert Paul Tapponnier: 'We can't stop building nuclear power plants because the world needs them. We just have to learn to make them even more resilient and think a great deal about where to build them.'

NO: It is too dangerous

THE risks of nuclear energy and the effects of radiation fallout on human health are powerful arguments against using this mode of energy, according to an award-winning Japanese journalist who has been studying the subject for three decades.

Money should instead be pumped into clean energy research, said Mr Akira Tashiro, 63, a senior staff writer at a major Japanese newspaper, the Chugoku Shimbun in Hiroshima.

'Japan's nuclear plants are among the world's safest when it comes to earthquake protection, yet we have still suffered this triple punch of earthquake, tsunami and finally the nuclear accident,' said Mr Tashiro, who has visited nuclear facilities in various countries, including Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in Ukraine, site of the world's worst nuclear accident, and studied the effects of radiation for 30 years.

He is the executive director of the Hiroshima Peace Media Centre (http://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp). Launched in 2008, it advocates the abolition of nuclear weapons and advancement of world peace.

He also co-authored Exposure: Victims Of Radiation Speak Out, one of the most thorough descriptions of the plight of radiation victims around the world. His work on the nuclear age in Nuclear Age: Yesterday, Today And Tomorrow won him the 1996 Vaughn-Ueda Prize, the Japanese equivalent of the Pulitzer.

'Accidents are rare but once something goes wrong, the consequences are disastrous. It just shows that nuclear energy is too dangerous to be relied on.'

Ideally, it would be better for Japan not to have any nuclear power plants at all, he said. However, since the country depends on such plants for nearly a third of its energy needs, the alternative is to carefully scrutinise safety measures in place at current plants.

'This accident may be a turning point for Japan, and plans for more new plants could be postponed,' he said.

He suggested shortening the shelf-life of such plants, by closing them down after 30 years, rather than 40 to 60 years.

While slowly decreasing the country's reliance on nuclear energy, research should be ramped up to create safer and cleaner alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, fuel cell and tidal power, which he believed should bear fruit in the next 10 to 20 years.

He added that even without any major accident, the problem of how to deal with spent nuclear fuel safely remained. Such fuel is dangerously radioactive and remains so for thousands of years.

'How can we ensure that 100 years from now, they will be safely stored and not leaching into the groundwater?' he asked.

He stressed that each individual's susceptibility to radiation varies.

'Even if a certain level of radiation is within the permissible range, this does not necessarily mean that the level is safe for all.'

Unborn babies, infants and children are particularly susceptible to the effects of radiation and avoiding exposure to even low doses of radiation is advised for them, he added.

He cited follow-up research studies on atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which found that even low-level exposure to radiation received internally could have detrimental effects on health.

In addition to radiation, he said, there is the concern of hazardous materials such as caesium, iodine and plutonium being released.

'Even if you inhale a minuscule amount of plutonium, it will reside in your body for a long time and could affect your health in the long run,' he warned.

Read more!

Malaysia: No rush for nuclear plant, says Najib

The Star 2 Apr 11;

KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the Government is not in a rush to crystallise Malaysia's nuclear power plan as its viability is still being evaluated.

Fully aware of the repercussions of Japan's nuclear fallout, the Prime Minister said: “I think many countries around the world are going through a re-evaluation and we will leverage on that.

“The Government will make a final decision when the time comes.”

Meanwhile, the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry has begun radiation tests on Malaysia's sea water, rain water and soil.

Minister Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili said the Atomic Energy Licensing Board was conducting the tests to determine the density of Iodine 131 (I-131) and Cesium 137 (Cs-137) radionuclides in the samples of sea water, rain water and soil.

“A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on March 29 confirmed the situation was still serious at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan,” he said yesterday.

Dr Ongkili said the Malaysian Nuclear Agency would release the results of the analyses of the samples periodically.

The Fukushima Daiichi plant was damaged after a 9.0-magnitude earthquake rocked north-eastern Japan and unleashed a tsunami on March 11, causing more than 10,000 deaths and 20,000 missing persons in the twin disasters.

Meanwhile, the National Council of Profes-sors will publish an analysis of nuclear technology to allay public fear following the Govern-ment's decision to develop the technology and the reactor leak in Japan.

Chairman Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Zakri Abdul Hamid said the analysis, to be completed in a month, would list the advantages and disadvantages of the technology and prop-osals to increase public understanding. - Bernama

Read more!

Nuclear Crisis Highlights Prospects For Renewables

Luke Pachymuthu and Francis Kan PlanetArk 1 Apr 11;

The threat of a meltdown at nuclear reactors in Japan has prompted scrutiny of renewable power options by many nations as growing public unease pushes top consumers to either go slow or halt any immediate expansion in nuclear power.

Japan, one of the world's top nuclear power generators and a key advocate of the technology, plans a review of policy to tap sources such as solar. China too may double its target for photovoltaic capacity over the next five years, and Taiwan is studying cutting nuclear output. Germany and Switzerland are either shutting older reactors or suspending approvals.

Investors are already betting on the change, carrying global benchmark indexes to their highest in 14 months.

The global FTSE Cleantech index has spiked more than 8 percent since Japan's earthquake struck on March 11,beating a rise of around 2 percent in the MSCI all-country world stock index. The WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation index of alternative energy stocks has gained around 12 percent.

"If nuclear contributes less, then something has to make up the difference and that could very easily be renewables," Paul Hanrahan, president and chief executive of New-York listed global power firm AES Corporation said in Singapore.

Giving a fillip to the sector, China, the world's biggest energy consumer, has already announced plans to raise the price of power generated from renewable sources over the next two years to help encourage investments.

China's renewable energy law obliges grid firms to buy all the renewable electricity produced in their region, even though it is more expensive than coal-fired power, but it also allows them to charge "additional" fees for clean electricity sources.

Besides trying to double solar power capacity, renewable energy officials have urged more government support, saying promotion of clean energy sources could help fill any likely supply gap if safety concerns were to slow China's nuclear program.

NATIONAL SECURITY

"Nuclear power can probably improve China's energy security, but whether it improves overall national security is something that needs to be thought about deeply," Li Hejun, chairman of the China New Energy Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of the renewable sector.

After the Japanese nuclear disaster, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared a three-month moratorium on an extension her government had given last year to 17 nuclear reactors, carrying their lifespan an average of 12 years beyond a prior 2022 cut-off date.

Taiwan's state-run Taipower also said it was studying plans to cut nuclear power output.

"Whatever their exact outcome, the Fukushima events are likely to shift the energy policy balance toward renewables," Pricewaterhouse Coopers said in a report on March 28.

Swiss Energy Minister Doris Leuthard suspended the approvals process for three nuclear power stations so safety standards can be revisited after the crisis in Japan.

Robin Batchelor, a fund manager at BlackRock responsible for $8.2 billion in energy-related funds, said renewables were not really in focus for fund managers prior to the crisis in Japan, adding that the disaster may prompt countries to have a rethink.

EUROPE

In Europe, the bloc's Renewable Electricity Directive missed a 2010 target of a 21 percent share for renewable energy out of total electricity generated, and now aims for it to account for 20 percent by 2020, the body said on its website.

Industry executives and experts say the events unfolding in Japan will help speed the push toward this goal. "The ball is already rolling here in Europe as you have seen with the way the Green Party is advancing in Germany," said Thorbjoern Jensen, oil market analyst at Global Risk Management. "You will certainly see a bigger push on the part of all governments here in Europe to diversify their slate for power generation."

In 2010, nearly half the value of power sector deals concluded in the renewables sector globally originated from Europe. The overall value based on deals done in the region was just over $13 billion, according to PwC.

Hydro accounts for around 13 to 14 percent of the total power generated in Asia Pacific; renewables, excluding hydropower, will account for only 2.3 percent in 2010 and are only expected to increase to 4 percent by 2030.

Wind, solar and biomass power are the largest contributors to the renewable contribution.

The renewable share of world electricity generation is expected to increase to 23 percent in 2035 from 18 percent in 2007, supported by high oil prices and government incentives, according to a U.S. Department of Energy report last December.

The bulk of that increase in renewable electricity supply will be fueled by hydro and wind power, the department said.

"Renewables are a big player in the mix, there will still be other sources of energy but the share of renewables will increase," said Evgeny Fedorov, chief executive of EuroSibErnego, Russia's largest private power generator and one of the world's biggest hydro-electric power players.

RENEWABLE ENERGY EXPANSION

Still, much as governments around the world talk about boosting the renewable energy sector, an immediate surge in spending flows is unlikely because projects will take time to prepare and get off the drawing board, analysts said.

Investment in renewable energy across the globe was expected to maintain the momentum seen in 2010, when the number of deals in green energy projects rose 66 percent versus the previous year, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report showed. Overall investments in clean energy, excluding research and development funding, in the Group of 20 major economies rose 33 percent last year to $198 billion amid recovery from the recession, according to the report.

China was ranked ahead of Germany and the United States with private investments in the sector pegged at $54.4 billion.

Cost may be another factor discouraging large-volume spending in renewables. Renewable projects on which work may have begun, and will be ready in the next five or so, will be far more expensive to run than thermal power projects.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration says that in 2016, onshore wind, the least expensive renewable energy source, will be 80 percent more expensive to run than a combined cycle, gas-fired electricity.

But conventional nuclear power will still be the lowest price energy option in 2016, according to an EIA projection issued in December 2010.

That is probably part of the reason for South Korea, a major global supplier of nuclear plants, to carry on with its nuclear plans despite the crisis at its neighbor Japan.

Nuclear power accounts for 31.4 percent of South Korea's electricity generation needs, and the world's fifth-largest oil importer has a target to increase that to 48.5 percent by 2024.

It has 7 reactors under construction, with plans to build 6 more and bring to 34 the number on-stream by 2024.

But renewable power must battle reliability concerns, compared with thermal or nuclear power, as supplies of sunlight, wind or water are not always steady, a hurdle the sector must overcome before it can displace conventional sources.

"Renewables, yes, to a certain extent you can use, but it can only supplement, it cannot replace," said Che Kalib Mohamad Noh, chief executive of Malaysian power company Tenaga Nasional, adding that conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power would play a pre-eminent role for the foreseeable future.

(Editing by Manash Goswami and Clarence Fernandez)

Read more!

Huge ivory haul seized in Thailand

Yahoo News 1 Apr 11;

BANGKOK (AFP) – Thai customs said on Friday they had seized two tonnes of ivory worth over $3.3 million hidden in a shipment of frozen fish -- equivalent to more than 120 elephants killed.

Officials found 247 tusks concealed among hundreds of boxes of mackerel apparently from Kenya, in a boat at Bangkok Port on the Chao Phraya river, the customs department said.

The haul -- which officials said was the biggest in a year and equated to at least 123 elephants killed -- weighed 2,033 kilos (4,472 pounds) and was displayed by authorities in the Thai capital.

Wildlife anti-trafficking group Freedland said it was the first time customs officials had found ivory coming into Thailand by boat and said it showed smugglers were being forced to change tactics.

"It is another sign that steady collaboration by Thai and African law enforcement is foiling ivory traffickers who are losing huge amounts of money, and that's where you have to hit them to stop them -- in the pocket," said the group's director, Steven Galster.

Freedland said the seizure marked the ninth major enforcement action by authorities in Kenya and Thailand since a collaboration was agreed in November 2010.

More than four tonnes of ivory have been confiscated since then, it said.

International trade in ivory was banned in 1989, but seizures have risen dramatically in the past five years.

Experts say traffickers use Thailand to smuggle ivory, rough or carved, into neighbouring China -- where it is ground up in traditional medicine -- and Japan. But some also ends up in the United States and Europe.

Read more!

Indonesia: Green Groups Dismayed by Ruling to Give Jakarta Reclamation Project Go-Ahead

Arientha Primanita & Fidelis E. Satriastanti Jakarta Globe 1 Apr 11;

Environmental activists have slammed a decision by the Supreme Court to allow a land reclamation project to proceed along the city’s coast.

Ubaidillah, director of the Jakarta branch of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), said he was disappointed by the ruling, which effectively annuls the State Ministry for the Environment’s order to revoke the permit for the project.

“This shows how the city’s power can supersede even that of the central government,” he said on Thursday. “Even the Environment Ministry didn’t stand a chance against the reclamation project.”

Some 32 kilometers of coastline is set to see land up to 1.5 kilometers in length reclaimed from the sea. Overall, a total of 2,700 hectares of land is expected to be reclaimed, on which the city plans to build commercial and industrial hubs.

The project, proposed in 1994, was sidelined in 2003 by the Environment Ministry after failing to pass an environmental impact analysis (Amdal).

Contractors working on the project, however, immediately filed a suit at the Jakarta Administrative Court to overturn the ban.

That court ruled in favor of the contractors but the project remained suspended on appeal. In July 2009 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ministry.

But that decision was appealed by Tjondro Liemonta, owner of Bakti Bangun Era Mulia, one of the six project contractors, and the original ruling was upheld on March 24.

The other contractors involved are Taman Harapan Indah, Manggala Krida Yudha, Pelabuhan Indonesia II, Pembangunan Jaya Ancol and Jakarta Propertindo.

Imam Hendargo, deputy for spatial planning at the Environment Ministry, said his office had not yet received official notice of the latest ruling but would stand its ground on blocking the reclamation plan.

“This is not a matter of who’s right or wrong, but about how the environmental assessment was conducted and what the impact will be to the environment,” he said.

“The project is touted as a positive development for the people. But which people are we talking about here? If the fishermen there agree, then go ahead.”

Imam said the ministry would insist the project also obtain a strategic environmental assessment (KLHS), considering its potentially wide-ranging impact on regions beyond the capital.

“The project will have to be coordinated with other affected sectors, including energy and ports,” he added.

The city says the new land will accommodate up to 1.5 million people and help prevent the chronic tidal flooding that plagues much of Jakarta’s north.

However, Slamet Daryoni, from the Indonesian Green Institute, said land reclamation was not the right solution for Jakarta, especially in terms of ecological sustainability.

“Currently, North Jakarta is prone to severe land subsidence and tidal flooding,” he said. “The reclamation project will only burden the area further because of the need for additional infrastructure there along with residential and office space.”

He said the city should instead focus on projects to revitalize the North Jakarta area.

Slamet said his group, along with Walhi and several other NGOs, would ask the Judicial Commission, which oversees the conduct of judges, to review the latest ruling because it did not represent environmental or public interests.

Muhammad Tauchid Tjakra Amidjaja, the city’s assistant for development and environment, meanwhile, said the ruling vindicated the city’s plan and would allow it to go ahead with the reclamation project.

“The city administration always had the proper legal basis,” he said. “The Environment Ministry only said that the Amdal needed to be completed, which we’re doing.”

Tauchid added that the Jakarta Development Planning Board (Bappeda) was also completing the KLHS, which will cover all environmental prerequisites for the project.

Ridwan Panjaitan, head of compliance at the Jakarta Environmental Management Agency (BPLHD), said the city was doing its part and the Environment Ministry should accommodate it by granting the Amdal.

Tauchid said the administration would also revitalize North Jakarta, including building embankments and a sea wall to prevent tidal flooding. “We’re taking all aspects and all people into consideration,” he said.

“When the project is completed, it will be a new source of economic growth that will help boost the city’s income, which in turn will benefit the people’s welfare.”

Read more!

Curb on forest use may cost Indonesia 3.5m new jobs a year

Rangga D. Fadillah, The Jakarta Post 1 Apr 11;

International aid programs intended to curb the expansion of forest-related industries in Indonesia will likely deprive the country of an opportunity to create 3.5 million new jobs annually and reduce export revenues, a new report claims.

A report by the NGO World Growth released Thursday concluded that programs backed by international aid agencies including USAID and high-profile environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) aimed at curbing forest conversion for commercial purposes would significantly hurt Indonesia’s economy.

World Growth chairman Alan Oxley said international aid donors promised to give Indonesia US$2 billion to back up programs that “unnecessarily crimped” expansion of the country’s most important industries — forestry, palm oil and mining — to reduce emissions from deforestation.

“Such condition may cost Indonesia’s economy up to 3.5 million jobs annually, cut growth to industries that make up 15 percent of the economy, reduce government revenues and hamper its ability to continue poverty alleviation efforts,” he said.

The report claimed the forest and palm oil sectors contributed more than $22.1 billion in exports annually, approximately 15.6 percent of the country’s total export revenue, and restraining the expansion of the two sectors would severely impede Indonesia’s promising economic growth.

Indonesia is currently the largest palm oil producer in the world. In 2010, total exports reached 15.5 million tons, up 6.8 percent from 14.5 million tons a year earlier. In 2020, Indonesia has targeted to produce 40 million tons of palm oil.

Indonesia agreed to impose a two-year moratorium on forest and peat land clearing after signing a letter of intent with the Norwegian government in May last year. Under the LoI, Indonesia will receive $1 billion, which will be disbursed once the moratorium is implemented.

Oxley said new research commissioned by the World Bank and the Norwegian government released at the UN Framework on Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) meeting in November 2010 revealed that deforestation actually accounted for only between 5 and 9 percent of global emissions.

The number was half the figure generally accepted within the climate policymaking community, which was 17 percent, he added.

“The result of the research is significant for Indonesia as many have blamed deforestation as the main contributor to the country’s emission production,” he said.

Oxley added that the study was a warning signal for the Indonesian government to take a different
approach to reducing emissions apart from the Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) scheme, which limited land conversion for commercial purposes.

“Funds from donors will not be able to generate economic [growth] effectively compared to what the private sector can do,” Oxley, the former Australian representative to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), said.

The report suggested that the Indonesian government assess the economic impacts all REDD-based projects might bring and publicly announce the results. It also urged the government to consult with private industries that may be affected by any proposed emission reduction programs.

Indonesia previously said it would reduce emissions by 26 percent by 2020, or by up to 41 percent if assisted by foreign support.

Read more!

A historic move in the battle to save tropical rainforests

Guyana and Norway in the second stage of a deal whereby Norway would make annual payments to Guyana to keep its forests
Tony Juniper guardian.co.uk 1 Apr 11;

This week a further historic step is taken in the battle to hang on the world's remaining tropical rainforests. It is unlikely to make too many headlines, but on Friday two countries will take forward the kind of arrangement that many have talked about but few have had the boldness to actually do.

Guyana and Norway's leadership is seen in the second stage of a ground-breaking deal through which one (Norway) makes annual payments to the other (Guyana) to keep its forests. The amount of money to change hands is calculated on the basis of how well Guyana has done in holding back deforestation, and the value of that in terms of avoided carbon dioxide emissions. A complex calculation is made to determine how well the recipient country has done but this year $40m is being transferred.

Guyana spends the money paid by Norway - a total of $250m spread over a period of years - on projects that will help with environmentally sound development, for example through funding solar panels on all the houses belonging to the indigenous people. In remote rainforests these are no fashion accessories. They are the means for children to read books at night and mark the end of the kerosene lamps and candles which cause indoor air pollution and fire hazards.

There is also money to connect remote settlements to the internet, again powered with solar electricity. There is money to pay for the costly job of legally demarking Amerindian lands and there are plans for health, education and business support. The overall strategy is geared to keeping the forest intact, and thus the priceless services they provide for the entire world. Any rational economic calculation must conclude the world is getting the bargain of the century.

Without this kind of support from Norway, the pressures on the forests might become irresistible. Guyana is poor. The country needs jobs, foreign exchange and tax revenues. And there are plenty of takers for the natural resources that await plunder in delivering these benefits. Since Brazil has cracked down on deforestation, the loggers, ranchers and soya farmers there have been looking for other places to expand their industries. Guyana is next door, connected by a new road and a prime target. I wrote about this in 2009, but fortunately there has so far been no major incursion. Part of the reason is because Guyana's President Jagdeo has been able to hold the line politically, in part because Norway has delivered money on a different basis.

But even with the best will, Guyana needs to undertake some forest clearance. There are plans for a new hydropower dam that will flood 45 square kilometres of forest. It will lead to the loss of 0.05% of the country's forest and is by any standard a major project. There has also been forest loss to gold mining. In the last year forest clearance has nearly tripled, mainly because of an expansion of this industry, from about 40 square kilometres to about 110. It is important, however, to put this change into the context of a tiny original deforestation rate – at six hundredths of 1% per annum, Guyana's present rate of forest loss is about 95% below the global average. With forest nearly the size of England and Scotland combined, the total loss from the dam and mining will lead to the equivalent of 10% of Norfolk being deforested. And the very fact that we know this is a major step forward. Both the low deforestation rate and the rapid rate of change were revealed by satellite monitoring funded from the first tranche of Norwegian money paid last year.

Guyana has sent a signal – and it is being heard. One consequence is seen in the fact that land-hungry natural resource companies looking for space in which to expand agriculture and logging are heading toward neighbouring Surinam. That country has no such deal with Norway, or anyone else for that matter, and unfortunately business as usual prevails there.

History is being made; and not just history in human affairs. It is about the history of life on Earth and whether we will find the means to co-operate in arresting the destruction of our planet's verdant lifebelt of tropical rainforests.

• Tony Juniper is a campaigner, writer, sustainability adviser and a well-known British environmentalist

Read more!

Amazon Rainforest Brown After Severe 2010 Drought

ENS 31 Mar 11;

BOSTON, Massachusetts, March 31, 2011 (ENS) - Last year's record-breaking drought across the Amazon Basin has turned nearly a million square miles of green rainforest to brown, finds a new mapping study based on NASA satellite data.

"The greenness levels of Amazonian vegetation, a measure of its health, decreased dramatically over an area more than three and one-half times the size of Texas," said Liang Xu, the study's lead author.

"It did not recover to normal levels, even after the drought ended in late October 2010," said Xu, who is with Boston University's Climate and Vegetation Research Group in the Department of Geography and Environment.

The comprehensive study was prepared by an international team of scientists using more than a decade's worth of satellite data from NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, MODIS, and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission.

Analysis of these data produced detailed maps of vegetation greenness declines from the 2010 drought. The study has been accepted for publication in "Geophysical Research Letters," a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

"Last year was the driest year on record based on 109 years of Rio Negro water level data at the Manaus harbor," said Marcos Costa, co-author from the Federal University in Vicosa, Brazil. "For comparison, the lowest level during the so-called once-in-a-century drought in 2005 was only eighth lowest."

The severity of the 2010 drought was seen in records of water levels in rivers across the Amazon Basin, including the Rio Negro which represents rainfall levels over the entire western Amazon.

Water levels started to fall in August 2010, reaching record low levels in late October and began to rise with the arrival of the winter rains.

As anecdotal reports of a severe drought began to appear last summer, the authors started near-real time processing of massive amounts of satellite data.

They used a new capability, the NASA Earth Exchange, NEX, a collaborative supercomputing environment that brings together data, models and computing resources. NEX was built for the NASA Advanced Supercomputer facility at the agency's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California.

With NEX, the study's authors obtained a large-scale view of the impact of the drought on the Amazon forests and were able to complete the analysis by January 2011, in record time.

Similar reports about the impact of the 2005 drought were published about two years after the fact. They concluded that Amazon forests did not green up during the 2005 drought.

"Timely monitoring of our planet's vegetation with satellites is critical, and with NEX it can be done efficiently to deliver near-real time information, as this study demonstrates," said study co-author Ramakrishna Nemani, a research scientist at Ames.

An article about the NEX project appears in this week's issue of "Eos," the weekly newspaper of the American Geophysical Union.

Using NEX, the researchers first developed maps of drought-affected areas using thresholds of below-average rainfall as a guide.

Then they identified affected vegetation using two different greenness indexes - one for green leaf area and the other for physiological functioning.

The maps show the 2010 drought reduced the greenness of some 965,000 square miles of vegetation in the Amazon - more than four times the area affected by the last severe drought in 2005.

"The MODIS vegetation greenness data suggest a more widespread, severe and long-lasting impact to Amazonian vegetation than what can be inferred based solely on rainfall data," said Arindam Samanta, a co-lead author from Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts.

There is concern that in a warming climate the moisture stress could result in Amazon rainforests being replaced by grassy savannas.

In that case, the large reserves of carbon stored in these forests, about 100 billion tons, could be released to the atmosphere, which would accelerate global warming.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned droughts similar to the one last year and another in 2005 could be more frequent in the Amazon region in the future.

Read more!

Flotsam from Japan's tsunami to hit US West Coast

Phuong Le Associated Press Yahoo News 1 Apr 11;

SEATTLE – John Anderson has discovered just about everything during the 30 years he's combed Washington state's beaches — glass fishing floats, hockey gloves, bottled messages, even hundreds of mismatched pairs of Nike sneakers that washed up barnacled but otherwise unworn.

The biggest haul may come in one to three years when, scientists say, wind and ocean currents eventually will push some of the massive debris from Japan's tsunami and earthquake onto the shores of the U.S. West Coast.

"I'm fascinated to see what actually makes it over here, compared to what might sink or biodegrade out there," said Anderson, 57, a plumber and avid beachcomber who lives in the coastal town of Forks, Wash.

The floating debris will likely be carried by currents off of Japan toward Washington, Oregon and California before turning toward Hawaii and back again toward Asia, circulating in what is known as the North Pacific gyre, said Curt Ebbesmeyer, a Seattle oceanographer who has spent decades tracking flotsam.

Ebbesmeyer, who has traced Nike sneakers, plastic bath toys and hockey gloves accidentally spilled from Asia cargo ships, is now tracking the massive debris field moving across the Pacific Ocean from Japan. He relies heavily on a network of thousands of beachcombers such as Anderson to report the location and details of their finds.

"If you put a major city through a trash grinder and sprinkle it on the water, that's what you're dealing with," he said.

As to whether any of the debris might be radioactive from the devastation at Japanese nuclear power plants, James Hevezi, chair of the American College of Radiology Commission on Medical Physics, said there could be.

"But it would be very low risk," Hevezi said. "The amount that would be on the stuff by the time it reached the West Coast would be minimal."

Only a small portion of that debris will wash ashore, and how fast it gets there and where it lands depends on buoyancy, material and other factors. Fishing vessels or items that poke out of the water and are more likely influenced by wind may show up in a year, while items like lumber pieces, survey stakes and household items may take two to three years, he said.

If the items aren't blown ashore by winds or get caught up in another oceanic gyre, they'll continue to drift in the North Pacific loop and complete the circle in about six years, Ebbesmeyer said.

"The material that is actually blown in will be a fraction" of the tsunami debris, said Curt Peterson, a coastal oceanographer and professor of in the geology department at Portland State University in Oregon. "Some will break up in transit. A lot of it will miss our coast. Some will split up and head up to Gulf of Alaska and (British Columbia)."

"All this debris will find a way to reach the West coast or stop in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch," a swirling mass of concentrated marine litter in the Pacific Ocean, said Luca Centurioni, a researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

"The dispersion is pretty large, so it's not like a straight shot from Tokyo to San Francisco," said Centurioni, the principal investigator for the Global Drifter Program funded by NOAA. The program deploys about 900 satellite-tracked drifting buoys each year throughout the world to collect sea surface temperature and other data.

Much of the debris will be plastic, which doesn't completely break down. That raises concerns about marine pollution and the potential harm to marine life. But the amount of tsunami debris, while massive, still pales in comparison to the litter that is dumped into oceans on a regular basis, Ebbesmeyer said.

Ebbesmeyer and retired NOAA researcher Jim Ingraham are using a computer program to plot the path of debris from March 11 tsunami to add to growing knowledge about ocean currents. The modeling relies on weather data collected by U.S. Navy, and the researchers are waiting for the monthly release of that data to make their first projections.

Ingraham developed the program to figure out the effects of ocean currents on salmon migration, but the two also have been using it plot the path of a multitude of floating junk.

Ebbesmeyer first became interested in flotsam when he heard reports of beachcombers finding hundreds of water-soaked shoes in Washington, Oregon and Alaska. An Asia cargo ship bound for the U.S. in 1990 had spilled thousands of Nike shoes into the middle of the North Pacific Ocean. He was able to trace serial numbers on shoes to the cargo ship, giving him the points where they began drifting in the ocean and where they landed.

The oceanographer also has tracked plastic bath toys — frogs, turtle, ducks and beavers — that fell overboard a cargo ship in 1992 in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and were later found in Sitka, Alaska.

Anderson says he constantly scans the beaches watching for something that catches his eye. He's found about 20 bottled messages, mostly from schoolchildren, and the several hundred Nike sneakers, which he cleaned up by soaking in water and eventually gave away, sold or swapped.

"In two years, there's going to be stuff coming in (from Japan), and probably lots of it," he said. "Some of it is bound to come in."

Read more!

Lost, Then Found: Shipping Containers On Seafloor

Christopher Joyce NPR 1 Apr 11;

Scientists surveying the bottom of the Pacific Ocean have discovered something they knew was there but had never seen before: a shipping container.

Cargo ships regularly lose these containers overboard — they write them off and collect insurance. But now marine biologists have found one off the coast of California and have decided to study how it may affect sea life. Already, they've discovered that the container has become a new type of habitat on the muddy ocean floor, attracting its own suite of creatures.

That might not pose any problems, but the idea that tens or even hundreds of thousands of containers are down there might.

The investigation started with real needle-in-a-haystack kind of luck. Biologists on a research ship in 2004 were scanning the seafloor in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary with a robotic submarine. It was mile after mile of mud until, suddenly, the navigator's screen filled with the image of a bright yellow shipping container.

Peter DeVogelaere, a biologist with the sanctuary, is one of the scientists studying it.

"This is a 40-foot-long container, and it landed upside down with one corner stuck into the soft sand muddy bottom," he says.

The scientists who first found it marked its location. Eventually, they tracked the container to the merchant vessel Med Taipei, which had lost 15 containers in a storm off Monterey Bay a few months earlier. The yellow container was one of those.

'Highways Of Trash' In The Oceans?

The law says you can't dump stuff in a marine sanctuary. The sanctuary negotiated and the shipping company agreed to pay for a study of how the container might affect life at the sea bottom.

But what could a single container really do to sea life? Well, DeVogelaere points out that it's not just one container.

"As a matter or course of business, about 10,000 of these containers fall off of a ship every year," he says. That's a rough estimate — no one knows exactly what the number is, but it's clearly in the thousands every year. And they're clustered along shipping lanes that crisscross the oceans.

"What nobody's really thought of before was the trash that we're leaving across the Pacific and other oceans every time we lose these containers, and to drop hard substratum along certain routes could create steppingstones or highways of trash as years accumulate and these things don't really disintegrate," DeVogelaere says.

Effects On The Ecosystem

DeVogelaere recently returned to the site with a robotic submersible and a team from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Submerged now for seven years, the container still looks new, and it has attracted a lot of sea life, like Neptunea, a large sea snail with big shell.

"What we think might be happening," DeVogelaere says, "is that they are attracted to this place to lay their eggs on it, but then there's octopus and large crabs underneath that feed on them, so you have a whole bunch of broken shells as well."

These containers are creating a new kind of habitat, with its own bevy of creatures, in the middle of the seabed. DeVogelaere says no one can say yet if that's bad — the seabed is still a big mystery. But what happens if we "pave" parts of the seabed with containers?

"Who knows?" he says. "They could even provide steppingstones for invasive species that go from one coastal harbor to another."

And containers carry everything, from toxic chemicals to ribbon. The Monterey Bay container appears to be safe, though — according to the shipping company, it's full of radial tires.

Read more!

U.S. Farmers Going All Out, But Grain Bins Thinner

Charles Abbott PlanetArk 1 Apr 11;http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

U.S. farmers say they will plant some of the biggest corn and soybean crops ever this spring, racing to keep pace with unrelenting global demand that's rapidly depleting stockpiles and driving up food costs.

A government survey found corn plantings would be the second-largest since World War Two and soybeans the third highest ever. But traders focused on a companion report that showed unexpectedly small stockpiles, sending corn prices up by 5 percent. Wheat and soybeans surged more than 3 percent.

"We are not going to run out of (corn and soybeans) but we are in a very tight situation," said Joe Glauber, Agriculture Department chief economist, in an Insider interview.

The USDA reports underscored that U.S. farmers are reaching the limits of arable land in the world's biggest crop exporter, with increased corn crowding out soybeans and cotton. Spring wheat sowing, while among the biggest in decades, could yet shrink.

This year's spring planting season in the world's biggest crop exporter is being watched more closely than ever by countries fearful that further increases in already record-high food prices could stoke unrest. Traditionally docile U.S. food prices are forecast to rise a sharp 3.5 percent.

A Reuters analysis of likely plantings and historical yields suggested the corn harvest could be the largest ever, at 13.7 billion bushels, and soybeans the third-largest at 3.3 billion bushels.

Even so, corn inventories at the end of the 2011/12 season would equal a three-week supply. Soybeans would dwindle to scarcely 10 days' cover. Analysts say prices must rise high enough to reduce demand.

"This turns us back to having to ration the corn," said Charlie Sernatinger, analyst at ABN Amro.

Corn for May delivery jumped 30 cents to $6.93-1/4 a bushel, the largest daily rise allowed in Chicago markets. Options trading suggested further gains to more than $7.15, near the post-2008 peak of $7.35 hit on March 4. Soybeans jumped to over $14.18 and wheat recouped part of its 20 percent slump since mid-February.

NEARLY POST-WAR PEAK

Farmers plan to sow 92.2 million acres with corn, the most since 2007 and second-largest since World War Two. That's up 4.5 percent from a year ago, more than the 4.1 percent rise that traders expected.

But it will barely replenish stocks drained by strong ethanol and livestock feed demand at home and ravenous demand abroad, including surprise buying from China. Stocks are falling faster than expected, with inventories as of March 1 at 6.52 billion bushels, about 2.5 percent less than forecast.

Corn usage was at a record high for the three months ending on March 1, said USDA, with 28 percent of the 2010 crop consumed.

Soybeans, which have fallen 5 percent since hitting a post-2008 peak of $14.50 a bushel in February, will be sown on 76.6 million acres, the third-most ever and down 1 percent from last year. But inventories on March 1 were 1.25 billion bushels, 4 percent less than traders predicted.

USDA's estimates are based on a survey of growers during early March. Farmers can change plans before planting ends in May. Wet weather often delays planting, which can prompt farmers to sow soybeans over corn.

TOTAL ACRES

Farmers will sow 253.8 million acres to the eight major crops this year, up 3.5 percent from last year and the most since 1998. Analysts say this will require double-cropping on some land -- planting soybeans after reaping wheat in the spring, for instance -- or bringing lower-quality land into production rather leave it fallow or in pasture.

Iowa, the No. 1 corn state, is expected to plant 13.9 million acres of corn, up 4 percent. Illinois, the No. 2 producer, was forecast to plant 12.8 million acres, up 2 percent from 2010. Nebraska, also a premier grower, would plant 9.5 million acres, up 4 percent.

Corn would expand while soybean shrinks -- USDA said Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Ohio each will reduce soybean area by 100,000 acres or more.

Wheat plantings were forecast at 58 million acres, up 8 percent from 2010, led by a 10 percent increase in winter wheat.

The Prospective Plantings report overstated corn plantings in 12 of the last 20 years and under-stated soybeans in 13 of 20 years. The margin of error for both crops is 3.5 percent.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Christopher Doering, Emily Stephenson and Russell Blinch in Washington and Karl Plume in Chicago;editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid)

Read more!