Elephants destroy houses in Riau

Antara 7 Mar 10;

Bengkalis, Riau (ANTARA News) - A number of wild elephants destroyed three houses in Petani village, Mandau sub-district, Bengkalis, on Thursday and Friday, local risidents said.

But there were no fatalities in the wild elephants` attacks as the house tenants could escape in time, Poiman, 45, told ANTARA here Saturday.

"We (local residents) have agreed to drive the wild elephants out of the village," he said.

Over the past week, the herbivorous animals have been entering the Petani village area -- home of more than 200 families.

On Friday night, the wild elephants destroyed the villagers` crops and two houses, he said.

The villagers had tried to drive them out by turning on lanterns, burning used tires and firing bamboo canons but failed to expel them.

Instead the animals approached the people, causing them to get panic and run away.
According to another villager, Sonia, 43, the elephants had also damaged crops on five hectares of the locals` farm land and a house on Thursday.

Patris, whose house was seriously damaged by the wild elephants, said the people`s safety was at stake so that 11 families had taken refuge in safer places.

Some of the displaced families moved to their relatives` houses, which were far away from their village, the 40-year-old Patris said.

Besides destroying three houses, the wild elephants also caused minor damage to at least 20 other houses. (*)

No Relocation for Rampaging Elephants Who Trampled Homes in Riau Village
Budi Otmansyah Jakarta Globe 8 Mar 10;

Pekanbaru, Riau. Despite the threat of more elephant attacks in the Bengkalis district of Riau, an official said on Sunday that there was little chance of relocating about 40 wild Sumatran elephants that went on a rampage a day earlier and destroyed at least three houses in the village of Petani.

“At this stage, there is no way we can do a large-scale relocation of the elephants because, as territorial animals, they would find it difficult to adapt to a new habitat, wherever that may be,” said Trisnu Danisworo, head of the Riau Natural Resources Conservation Center.

Trisnu said that there had been suggestions of relocating the pachyderms to the Tesso Nilo National Park, the native habitat of the Sumatran elephant that stretches across the Pelalawan and Indragiri Hulu districts in Riau and is home to hundreds of endangered flora and fauna, including about 80 Sumatran elephants.

The 40-odd elephants began entering Petani village a little over a week ago before going on a rampage on Saturday, destroying at least three houses and leaving 20 other homes with minor structural damages. Although no fatalities were reported, 11 families, fearing for their lives, have moved from the village since the attack.

Trisnu said on Sunday that the center had already dispatched a special taskforce to drive the elephants away from the villages as a short-term solution.

“We were able to scare off the elephants, which should minimize the conflict,” said Trisnu, adding that the taskforce consisted of five people who burned tires and cakes made of elephant dung that emit a pungent smoke to deter the animals.

Trisnu acknowledged however that these methods could not guarantee that the elephants would stop entering villages, stating once again that dwindling forests are the main cause of the increasing deadly conflicts between man and animal.

The forests that once covered Riau are disappearing, and this has seen the province’s elephant population plunge from over 1,500 in the 1980s to 350 today.

Darori, the Forestry Ministry’s director general of forest protection and nature conservation, said the attacks on Saturday occurred because more and more people were cutting down trees.

“The movements of the elephants are actually very ordered. They will always walk along the same paths and eat at the same places over and over again. They will even litter at the same spots,” Darori said, adding that the local administration had failed to discipline companies or officials who cut down trees on land that is known to be vital for the elephants’ survival.

“People invade their areas, chop down trees and cause confusion among the elephants. So they end up entering villages,” Darori said.

“Local governments are supposed to sanction those — mostly companies — who encroach on conservation areas. But nothing is ever done. So it’s the villagers who feel the impact,” he said.

Additional reporting by Fidelis E Satriastanti.

Read more!

Tanzania to seek nod to sell ivory stockpile

Yahoo News 6 Mar 10;

DAR ES SALAAM (AFP) – Tanzania said Saturday it will press for permission to sell around 100 tonnes of elephant tusks to reduce its huge stockpile and use the money to combat poaching.

"Our go-down in Dar es Salaam is full and we need to dispose of some of the tusks to create space for new stock," Natural Resources and Tourism Minister Shamsa Mwangunga.

"Proceeds from the proposed sale of 100 tonnes of elephant tusks will be used to buy equipment and finance anti-poaching operations," she said, adding that around 15 billion shillings (11 million dollars) could be raised.

The Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species (CITES) will hold its 15th session of the conference of parties on March 13-25 in Doha, where Tanzania and Zambia intend to apply for permits to sell ivory stockpiles.

But Tanzania's neighbour Kenya is opposed to allowing the sale of ivory arguing that it encourages poaching.

According to the Kenya Wildlife Service poaching for elephant and rhino tusks has been on the rise in Africa since the 2007 partial lifting of an international trade ban to allow a one-off sale to China and Japan by Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

"We have good reasons to be presented at the CITES meeting and we expect a fair and sober decision," Mwangunga said.

Read more!

U.S. to protect bird, oil drilling likely restricted

Ed Stoddard and Tom Doggett, Reuters 5 Mar 10;

DALLAS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The iconic sage grouse that once roamed the western U.S. plains in great numbers needs protection, a move that will still curtail some energy development, the U.S. Interior Department said on Friday.

The bird will not be listed under the Endangered Species Act, but the department will put special emphasis on preserving the chicken-sized bird on lands where oil companies want to drill and wind companies want to erect their massive turbines.

The bird which feeds off the sage brush in states such as Wyoming has lost about half of its habitat over the past several decades, with its numbers slashed by 90 percent to between 200,000 and 300,000.

Bob Abbey, director of the Bureau of Land Management, said the agency will review drilling permits that have already been approved.

"Certainly, we would be reviewing those applications with a lot more scrutiny in areas where we have determined they are major populations of sage grouse and as a result of that determination...we would likely attach some additional stipulations on that drilling," he said.

It was not immediately clear which projects will be affected, but efforts to protect the bird have already thrown some projects into uncertainty, including a 198-turbine, $600 million wind farm in Wyoming proposed by Horizon Wind Energy.

The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States said it was concerned about how energy development would be affected but was relieved that a full listing of the bird was avoided.

"We're concerned that land managers will nevertheless implement this decision by introducing very restrictive policies that prevent companies from investing and creating high-paying jobs in local communities," the group said.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he wanted to move ahead with energy development while working with the states and private landowners to ensure the sage grouse thrives.

POLITICAL FLAP?

Republicans, who have branded President Barack Obama's attempts to pass a climate change bill as a job killer, said efforts to protect the sage grouse was another example of a green agenda that was bad for workers.

"Wyoming is still left with a black cloud over our job market," said the state's U.S. senator, John Barrasso.

With an unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, the economy will be a politically charged issue in a congressional election year where Democrats are seen in trouble in many districts.

The bird did not attain full endangered status but as a candidate species, federal and state government agencies will be expected to work harder to protect its habitat, so industry could still face restrictions.

Wyoming had already taken steps to protect the bird in a bid to stave off an endangered species listing, which the sage grouse could still attain down the road.

The Bureau of Land Management in early January issued guidelines to protect the bird, which Wyoming officials and environmentalists say will effectively preclude wind power development in about 20 percent of the sprawling state.

According to National Geographic, the bird's range is spread over 11 western states but is concentrated in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Nevada.

(Editing by Jim Marshall and Rebekah Kebede)

Energy groups relieved sage grouse won't be listed
Mead Gruver, Associated Press Yahoo News 5 Mar 10;

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – An Interior Department announcement Friday that it won't list sage grouse as an endangered or threatened species opens the way for continued development of the West's wind energy and oil and gas industries.

Those industries will still face scrutiny in sage grouse habitat but much less so than if the bird were listed.

The government concluded that listing the chicken-sized brown bird as threatened or endangered is warranted but precluded by higher priorities — other species considered in greater danger.

But Interior will classify the bird among species that are candidates for federal protection, which are assigned a priority number between one and 12. The sage grouse has been given an eight, putting it two-thirds of the way down the scale as a priority for federal protection.

Sage grouse have experienced a 90 percent decline in their numbers and a 50 percent decline in their sagebrush habitat from a century ago, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference.

But the bird populations have been relatively stable over the last decade thanks to efforts by states such as Wyoming, Idaho and Montana to protect the species and its habitat, he said.

"Frankly, it is the states in the Western part of the United States that have developed the right kind of strategies to confront this challenge," Salazar said.

Sage grouse inhabit large portions of Wyoming, Nevada, Montana, Oregon and Idaho, and smaller areas of Colorado, Utah, California, Washington, South Dakota, North Dakota and western Canada.

Especially in Wyoming, large areas of sage grouse habitat also are prime spots for natural gas development that has boomed in recent years. In Nevada, the birds are challenged by an invasive species, cheatgrass, which is prone to frequent wildfires that burn up native sagebrush.

Wyoming, home to an estimated one-half of North America's sage grouse, has been mapping the bird's habitat, studying it and taking other steps to better understand how to protect the species and avoid an endangered listing — efforts that Gov. Dave Freudenthal said have paid off.

"The candidate listing gives us a fighting chance, while an endangered or threatened listing would have taken the wind out of our sails," he said in a release.

Some environmentalists were less pleased.

The finding shows the government is willing to protect sage grouse but not willing to do what's necessary, said Jon Marvel, executive director of the Hailey, Idaho-based Western Watersheds Project.

"None of the actions proposed to date are mandatory, and that undermines the commitment for improving conditions for sage grouse," Marvel said.

Friday's announcement results from a lawsuit that Western Watersheds filed in 2006. A federal judge in Boise, Idaho, ruled the following year that political pressure tainted an earlier decision not to list the sage grouse.

The finding effectively ends the group's lawsuit, Marvel said.

Other groups expressing disappointment included the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and the American Bird Conservancy.

Laurie Milford, executive director of the Wyoming Outdoor Council, said the finding "makes a certain amount of sense," while Frank Gill, president and CEO of the National Audubon Society, said Interior is "on the right path."

The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States worries the finding could inhibit oil and gas development on public lands in the West, said the group's director of government affairs, Kathleen Sgamma.

"But it appears that Interior plans to balance implementation so that restrictions on energy development do not apply with a broad brush across the entire region," she said.

The Interior Department recognizes the need to develop the nation's energy resources, said Assistant Interior Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland.

"We know that without good planning, energy activities can impact the sage grouse," he said. "The emphasis here is on smart from the start. We plan in advance."

For the wind energy industry, sage grouse are a concern because the birds don't nest near tall structures such as wind turbines and power lines for fear they could be perches for eagles and other predators.

The Interior announcement is a relief and offers more certainty for wind power, said Craig Cox, executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a wind energy industry group.

"I do hope that as we gain more experience with the impact of wind on sage grouse, that we can develop plans accordingly," Cox added.

The oil and gas industry has been backing important sage grouse research and will continue to do that to help ensure that the species isn't listed, said Cheryl Sorenson, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.

"For us, it's not like, `Whew, we've won one.' It's like, `OK, we need to keep rolling on this,'" Sorenson said.

___

Associated Press Writer Todd Dvorak contributed to this report from Boise, Idaho.

US stops short of protection for western sage grouse
Yahoo News 5 Mar 10;

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US officials Friday stopped short of giving endangered species status to the sage grouse, an iconic bird that is at the center of a dispute over oil drilling in the western United States.

The Interior Department said the bird merits protection but will not receive it for now because of a backlog of other species which are a higher priority, a move that is expected to allow oil drilling to continue.

The agency "will expand efforts with state, local and tribal partners to map lands that are vital to the survival of the greater sage grouse... while guiding and managing new conventional and renewable energy projects to reduce impacts on the species," a statement from Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

"The sage grouse's decline reflects the extent to which open land in the West has been developed in the last century," Salazar said.

"We must find common-sense ways of protecting, restoring and reconnecting the Western lands that are most important to the species' survival while responsibly developing much-needed energy resources."

Environmentalists lamented the decision.

"These magnificent birds need Endangered Species Act protection now," said Michael Connor, California Director for Western Watersheds Project.

"Without this added protection the Mona Basin sage grouse will continue to decline."

Sage grouse have dwindled to about half of their historic range due to habitat destruction, and some scientists warn that the birds could disappear within the next 100 years or less.

The Environmental Defense Fund said the decision "is a wake-up call for landowners, industry, and conservationists to work together to reverse the decline of the bird and the land it inhabits."

"An endangered species listing is no one's first choice as a tool to fix broken landscapes," said Ted Toombs, a spokesman for the fund. "It is really a last resort option to keep species from going extinct.

"The first, best option to protect species is for conservationists, farmers, ranchers, energy companies, the recreation industry, and other stakeholders to work together on habitat conservation and restoration, so that an endangered species listing can be avoided."

The greater sage grouse currently live in only 11 western states: California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Oil and gas companies have said a designation could freeze drilling in areas of Wyoming and other states that are also sage grouse habitat.

Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 6 Mar 10

Save our Pangolins!
from Celebrating Singapore's BioDiversity!

Spot me!
from Psychedelic Nature

Pink-necked Green Pigeon killed by lizard
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Some Forest Plants
from Beauty of Fauna and Flora in Nature

Butt Watching at the Leafmonkey Workshop
from wild shores of singapore and Leafmonkey Workshop

Nestling Mania Started
from Manta Blog

Black-headed Bulbul collecting nesting material
from Bird Ecology Study Group

My volunteering in other areas
from Art in Wetlands

Want Free Green Advice For Your Business?
from Green Future Solutions

Read more!

Wild animals are dangerous

Straits Times 5 Mar 10;

I REFER to Sunday's report, 'Underwater World, other animal attractions safe'.

Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) is concerned that Underwater World Singapore and Wildlife Reserves Singapore are not acknowledging the potential risks involved with the close contact between captive wild animals and visitors at their facilities, and feels the public should be aware of the real dangers of coming into close contact with captive wild animals.

Acres would like to highlight the fact that, no matter how well trained the staff are at facilities housing wild animals, and no matter how familiar the animals are with performing and how accustomed they are to being around humans, they still remain wild animals with natural instincts, and the truth is they can attack at any time.

The use of large animals, such as elephants, in shows or for rides, where they come into close contact with the public, poses particular risks to public safety. There are countless accounts of captive elephants who have attacked either members of the public or their trainers, even though used in shows or for elephant rides for many years.

The example cited of Chawang, the elephant at the Singapore Zoo that attacked and hospitalised his keeper who had taken care of him for 18 years, highlights the fact that a wild animal, no matter how long it has been in captivity or interacted with humans, can never be considered 'safe'.

These attacks can happen at even the most reputable zoos, with stringent safety protocols in place. The simple fact is, when a large animal such as an elephant is about to attack or go out of control, there is nothing we can do to stop it, and those near the animal will be defenceless.

There is much evidence that animals such as whales, dolphins and elephants may suffer from the constraints of captivity, and their likely frustration caused by their confinement may contribute to these shows of aggression towards humans.

In 2002, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority imposed a ban on wild animals performing in travelling circuses, and part of the reason was to ensure public safety.

We hope the captive animal establishments will follow this example, and end all public contact sessions with wild animals, both for safety reasons and to reduce the stress likely to be experienced by the animals during such sessions in which they have no choice to remove themselves from the situation.

Amy Corrigan (Ms)
Director of Education
Acres (Animal Concerns Research and Education Society)

Safety and care come first at wildlife parks
Straits Times 8 Mar 10;

I REFER to last Friday's Forum Online letter, 'Wild animals are dangerous' by Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres).

The Singapore Zoo would like to reassure the public that safety at our park, both of humans and animals, is of prime importance and concern to us all. In line with our operating philosophy to enhance the quality of life of all the animals under our care, we consistently upgrade and create better habitats that are akin to our animals' natural environment.

Our safety policy and procedures are in line with or exceed the international quality standards drawn up by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums. These procedures are strictly enforced by the zoology and animal presentation teams across all parks and in dealing with all animals.

The first line of safety precautions is the proximity to our animals. All our animal enclosures are designed within the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums' safety standards.

The Singapore Zoo, Night Safari and Jurong BirdPark conduct full-scale emergency drills for animal-related incidents twice a year. This ensures that all our staff are familiar with and clearly aware of their roles and responsibilities during emergencies.

These drills are enacted with varying scenarios, where response time is also measured - for example, quick recapture of the 'escaped animal'. Indeed, the swiftness with which previous isolated incidents were managed over the past 10 years is testament to our sound and efficient emergency protocol procedures.

Lastly, all our zookeepers working with potentially dangerous animals are required to undergo an annual review of current safety procedures and correct practices to keep abreast of the latest developments when working with these animals.

In addition, the Singapore Zoo and Night Safari appointed a full-time enrichment officer five years ago to provide behavioural enrichment for our animals. Environmental enrichment is the process where a captive wildlife's environment is enhanced by adding elements which provide the animal with opportunities for problem-solving, encourages the display of natural behaviour and reduces the occurrence of stereotypical behaviour. This focused approach continues to yield immense beneficial value for our animals.

For example, the Singapore Zoo recently highlighted operant conditioning and training of the white tigers, to further elaborate how such training allows keepers and vets to work better with the animals in a non-stressful situation, by obtaining desired behaviour from animals under their care.

All animals involved in the parks' presentations are trained on the principle of positive reinforcement, where rewards are given for particular positive response and behaviour. Animals that are not receptive to such operant conditioning are not used in our presentations and activities.

We hope this will assure Acres and all visitors that the Singapore Zoo, Night Safari and Jurong BirdPark are safe for visitors, our staff and our animals.

Biswajit Guha
Assistant Director, Zoology
Singapore Zoo

Zoo did not address most concerns
Straits Times Forum 13 Mar 10;

I REFER to the letter, "Safety and care come first at wildlife parks", on Monday.

It is encouraging to hear that the Singapore Zoo adheres to the standards drawn up by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Waza).

The zoo, however, did not address most of the concerns raised by the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) with regard to contact sessions with wild animals.

How does the zoo ensure that members of the public are not in danger from contact with the wild animals, which are unpredictable and can attack at any time, regardless of how well-trained the zookeeper is?

The zoo cannot deny that incidents have happened and have resulted in injuries.

In addition, despite the animal enclosures being designed to meet the Waza safety standards, there have been cases of animals escaping from their enclosures in the past.

Lastly, the zoo needs to meet all the standards drawn up by Waza and not just some of them. Section 2 of the Waza Code of Ethics and Animal Welfare states that "where 'wild' animals are used in presentations, these presentations must focus on natural behaviour and not demean or trivialise the animal in any way". The circus-style elephant show at the Singapore Zoo clearly does not meet this standard.

James Chua

Read more!

Tsunami unlikely to hit Singapore

Experts say shallow waters, land mass around island help shield it from any killer wave
Melissa Kok, Straits Times 6 Mar 10;

SINGAPOREANS who are concerned or fearful of a tsunami hitting the shores here can breathe easy.

This is because shallow waters and the land mass around Singapore protect the island, making it unlikely to be struck by killer waves, experts told The Straits Times.

Dr Pavel Tkalich, the head of Physical Oceanography Research Laboratory at the National University of Singapore (NUS), said there was no life-threatening risk of a tsunami in Singapore.

In theory, the largest 'tsunami' that could ever reach Singapore is estimated at just 0.5 m tall - a height that is considerably less than the tidal range of between two metres and three metres sweeping through the Singapore Strait daily.

'If this ever happens, most people would not even notice,' he said.

The only time Singapore would ever be hit badly by a tsunami would be if, for example, a massive submarine landslide struck along the Malacca Strait, creating a tsunami.

But the chances of that happening are probably as incredible as a meteorite hitting nearby waters, which would also generate a tsunami.

Singapore is located in the middle of the Sunda Shelf, which is a shallow water body, 100m to 200m deep.

The closest fault lines - which are potential sources for tsunamis - are located along the Sunda Arc in the Andaman Sea (600km from Singapore) and the Manila Trench off western Philippines (1,000km from Singapore).
Tsunamis generated by strong earthquakes that originate from other active seismic zones in the region are unlikely to affect Singapore, said Mr Foong Chee Leong, director-general of Meteorological Services at the National Environment Agency (NEA).

Assistant Professor Kusnowidjaja Megawati, principal investigator at Nanyang Technological University's Earth Observatory of Singapore, said the worst-case scenario for Singapore was if an earthquake of magnitude 9 struck along the Manila Trench.

But he said it would take about 12 hours for the tsunami waves generated to reach Singapore coastal waters. By then, the waves would be just 0.6 m high, hardly enough to raise Singaporeans' eyebrows.

Since 2004, there have been several earthquakes along the Sumatra islands of at least 7.9 magnitude. The strongest measured quake of 9.2 was in 2004, which created the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed more than 225,000 people.

Asked if the recent seismic activity along the Sunda Arc was a concern to Singaporeans about 600km away, Prof Kusnowidjaja said there was a strong chance that an earthquake with a magnitude of around 8.8 would strike in the area closest to the Mentawai Islands, off the western coast of Sumatra, in the next 30 years.

But he was quick to add that any tsunami created by the earthquake would have even less of an impact than the Manila Trench example, as Singapore would be shielded by the Sumatra islands.

Still, NEA's Mr Foong said Singapore's beaches could still be affected in the event of a tsunami.

That is why a Tsunami Response Plan was implemented in 2008.

The plan includes evacuation procedures to ensure the public leave unprotected beaches safely.

In addition, Mr Foong said Singapore participates in international tsunami exercises to test and fine-tune its operational readiness.

Last year, Singapore joined 17 other countries around the Indian Ocean Rim to test its tsunami warning system for the first time.

Read more!

Whetting Singapore's thirst for rice

International Rice Research Institute, EurekAlert 5 Mar 10;

Singapore: Singaporeans consume around 275,000 tons of rice each year, which requires 688 billion liters of water to be produced – 2.5 times Singapore's annual domestic water use.

Competition for water is getting fiercer and water supplies are dwindling, yet Singapore can contribute to securing its rice supply by joining the global community in helping farmers become water-wise.

This is the key message from Dr. Bas Bouman of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), who will present "Preparing Rice for the Global Water Crisis" as part of the Environment and Climate Change Seminar Series of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore.

"To produce one bowl of rice it takes about 500 liters of water," said Dr. Bouman.

"For a city like Singapore, the question is whether the 688 billion liters of water needed to produce the country's rice will remain available."

Worldwide, water for agriculture is becoming increasingly scarce as groundwater reserves drop, water quality declines because of pollution, irrigation systems malfunction, and competition from urban and industrial users increases.

Climate change will also reduce water availability in large parts of the world. And, by 2025, 15-20 million hectares of irrigated rice will suffer some degree of water scarcity.

"Farmers can reduce the amount of water they use to grow rice by 10-30% if they adopt water-saving technologies, such as 'alternate wetting and drying,'" said Dr. Bouman.

"The hardest part is to deliver these technologies to farmers. The public and private sector need to mobilize to promote and implement the existing water-saving technologies through policies, partnerships, and extension and education efforts.

"At the same time, investments in research to develop new water-saving technologies need to be increased so that the future of rice production is safeguarded."

Dr. Bouman's visit to Singapore is part of IRRI's 50th anniversary activities, which included the launch of the IRRI Fund Singapore and a campaign to raise US$300 million to support rice research to help ensure that rice production is sustainable, to reduce poverty and hunger, and to improve the welfare of rice farmers and consumers.

###

Media are invited to attend Dr Bouman's presentation at ISEAS on 10 March 2010.

The ISEAS Environment and Climate Change Seminar Series provides a forum for policymakers, academics, business people, NGOs, and practitioners to present and make known their views on issues pertinent to Southeast Asia.

Event details
2.30 – 4.00pm
Wednesday, 10 March 2009

ISEAS Seminar Room II
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)
30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Pasir Panjang, Singapore

Parking is available at the Heng Mui Keng Complex Carpark, located next to the ISEAS Building. At the car park, please take the lift to Level 6 (Lobby) and exit through the main entrance to ISEAS Building. For the location map see www.iseas.edu.sg/iseaslocation.htm.

Read more!

Threats to rice crops in Thailand and the Philippines

Thailand: Dry spell, pests threaten crop
Nirmal Ghosh, Straits Times 6 Mar 10;

BANGKOK: Dry weather made worse by El Nino, combined with invasions by mice and plant hoppers, could cut Thailand's rice crop and push up prices later this year.

But rice prices remain low for the moment. The government still has more than 5.5 million tonnes of rice stockpiled and seems unwilling to sell it to exporters at a loss, experts told The Straits Times.

This month, the government plans to try again to sell some 300,000 tonnes of its stockpiled rice. Two tenders have already been floated but were cancelled because the prices offered were too low.

As in many other Asian countries, rice production and pricing is a major economic and political issue. For Thailand, it is a balancing act; having bought the stockpiled rice from farmers more than a year ago, the government now finds that it cannot recoup the investment because the price has since fallen.

But it must also keep procuring rice to ensure that farmers are not hit by low prices. In fact, it plans to buy an additional 290,000 tonnes from farmers to shore up prices, Deputy Prime Minister Trairong Suwannakhiri said last week.

Production could be hit if the drought persists and is made worse by climate change-related factors such as irregular rainfall and long hot spells.

Last month, Thailand's Office of Agricultural Economics predicted a decline of 15 per cent in the rough rice harvest to 27 million tonnes in the year that began last October.

This was blamed on El Nino - the weather phenomenon caused by a warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean - which will reduce rainfall.

Already, several districts of Chiang Rai province in the north have been hit by drought, and the Mekong River is at its lowest level in 20 years, grounding much of the river transport.

On Feb 26, the Vientiane-based inter-governmental Mekong River Commission warned that 'severe drought will have an impact on agriculture, food security, access to clean water and river transport, and will affect... economic development.'

An exporter, who asked not to be named, said he did not expect rice prices to rise over the next three months. Thai rice export prices have been falling in recent weeks and are now around US$555 (S$777) a tonne.

Across South-east Asia and especially in Vietnam, recent rice harvests have been good and supply has not been an issue.

The only short-term uncertainty is whether Indonesia will enter the market to buy Thai rice, Thai exporters say.

Malaysia, Bangladesh and the Philippines are the other three major buyers in the region, and demand from them has already been factored into prices.

Major orders are also still to come in from African and some Middle Eastern countries.

But exporters say the price of rice will still remain well below the peak in 2008 when - in what some experts said was an 'aberration' that some blamed on speculators - prices hit an all-time record of around US$1,000 a tonne.

Philippines: Record imports likely
Alastair McIndoe, Straits Times 6 Mar 10;

MANILA: The Philippine government may import more rice than planned this year, as an unusually severe dry spell caused by the El Nino weather pattern deepens a local production shortfall.

The Philippines is already the world's biggest importer of the grain.

National Food Authority (NFA) spokesman Rex Estoperez said the agency is considering raising the rice quota on imports by private firms to ensure that supplies are sufficient.

This, combined with the NFA's own shipments, could see the Philippines importing a record 2.6 million tonnes of rice this year.

'We'll make that decision after studying an inter-agency report due later this month assessing the crop damage from El Nino,' Mr Estoperez told The Straits Times on Wednesday.

The El Nino weather pattern is expected to last until June, but climatologists say its impact will probably be felt well beyond the middle of the year.

A blistering heatwave has already caused dams, reservoirs and rivers supplying water for farm irrigation to fall to critical levels in parts of the Philippines.

There has been no rainfall since December in some food-basket provinces. Some farmers in parched rice-growing areas plan to raise less thirsty crops, such as eggplant and squash, in the planting season between May and June.

It was only late last year that devastating floods hit the northern Philippines, destroying 1.3 million tonnes of padi rice.

With prices quite soft at the moment, now is a good time to import rice.

The NFA late last year signed contracts for the import of 2.25 million tonnes of rice - mostly from Vietnam - for delivery this year. But more may be needed.

If the NFA grants approval, private firms may import up to 150,000 tonnes of rice above their quota of 200,000 tonnes this year. The previous record of rice imports was 2.3 million tonnes in 2008, when rice prices surged on supply fears.

The Philippines imports rice because of three factors, said senior researcher Piedad Moya of the International Rice Research Institute. 'There is a limited land area, a lack of large river deltas supplying irrigation water, and a continually increasing demand for rice by a large and increasing population.'

The country imports about 10 per cent of its yearly rice needs to make up for production shortfalls at home. That could be reduced by increasing rice yields using new grain varieties and improving irrigation infrastructure, said Ms Moya.

Storm damage caused rice production last year to fall 3 per cent to 16.2 million tonnes. The latest estimate by the Department of Agriculture, made early last month, is that 800,000 tonnes of padi rice worth 12 billion pesos (S$364 million) could be lost in the sweltering El Nino.

As a result, the local authorities are already rushing to lend water pumps to farmers to irrigate their land, dig wells and induce rain through cloud seeding.

Read more!

World cops target traditional healers over smuggled wildlife

Dave Clark Yahoo News 5 Mar 10;

PARIS (AFP) – Police seized tiger bones, anteater scales and bear gall bladders in an international operation against the use of endangered plants and animals in traditional medicine, officers said Friday.

Illegal animal and plant products with a retail value of 10 million euros (13.6 million dollars) were seized in a month-long drive carried out by forces around the world, the global law enforcement agency Interpol said.

"National wildlife enforcement authorities, police, customs and specialised units from 18 countries across all five continents worked together as part of Operation Tram which ran from 1 to 28 February," Interpol said.

Operation Tram "revealed a large amount of medicines either containing or marketing the use of illegal ingredients such as tiger, bear and rhinoceros," according to the French-based international coordinating body.

British police targeted a business selling medicine from the Chinese tradition, but an Interpol spokeswoman told AFP the global operation was against all use of endangered species in cures from various cultures.

For centuries, traditional Chinese healers have used tiger bone to treat arthritis, rhinoceros horn for fevers and convulsions and bear bile to treat various infections, thus encouraging poachers to hunt rare animals.

In Rome, Italian forest rangers said they had seized 30,000 products containing wildlife, worth about one million euros, after checking more than 3,000 individuals, planes, baggage, and container ships.

Arrest warrants were issued against 40 individuals or companies.

"We noticed there is great deal of illegal traffic in Italy," the Italian Interpol director Colonel Giuseppe Verrocchi told AFP, adding that rare plants and parts of tigers, bears and pangolins -- a scaly anteater -- were seized.

"The products were imported directly from India, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Vietnam through the ports of Mestre, Trieste and Naples and Milan airport," a statement by the Italian forest rangers said.

In London, the Metropolitan Police raided a Chinese traditional medicine business and found what seemed to be plant species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

"Most traditional Chinese medicines are perfectly legal. However, a small number of people continue to trade in illegal products containing endangered species," said Sergeant Ian Knox from the force's wildlife crime unit.

"This trade threatens some of the world's most iconic species, and it will continue as long as the demand exists," he added.

A director of the company that owns the raided properties will be questioned once the plants have been analysed, Scotland Yard said.

Police in Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Georgia, India, Italy, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey and Zimbabwe also took part in the operation.

"The important cultural, historical and religious values of traditional medicines are recognised by the law enforcement community," said senior British officer Chief Constable Richard Crompton.

"However, the increased use of endangered species in medicines can no longer be tolerated as it places extreme pressure on their very survival," he warned.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), still known in North America as the World Wildlife Fund, welcomed the raids.

"Given that this crosses many borders, coordinating effective efforts to tackle the illegal trade in wildlife is not easy," said Heather Sohl, who advises the WWF on wildlife trafficking.

"It's great to see 18 countries all working simultaneously ... This can be a blueprint for future action on other areas of illicit wildlife trade too."

INTERPOL targets illegal trade in wildlife medical products
TRAFFIC 5 Mar 10;

5 March 2010—a month-long operation targeting the illegal trade in medicines containing protected wildlife products has resulted in arrests worldwide and the seizure of thousands of illegal products worth more than EUR10 million.

INTERPOL co-ordinated Operation Tram, which involved national wildlife enforcement authorities, police, customs and specialized units from 18 countries across all five continents. In Italy alone, officers from the Corpo Forestalle dello Stato made more than 30,000 seizures.

The operation, which ran throughout February, involved investigations into individuals and companies as well as inspections of premises such as seaports and wholesalers.

Many of the seized medicines contained or were marketing the use of illegal ingredients such as tiger, bear and rhinoceros.

“A primary goal of Operation Tram was to combat the illegal trade in endangered wildlife, which is a threat to our planet’s biodiversity and demonstrates the commitment of INTERPOL and its member countries in fighting this type of crime,” said David Higgins, Manager of the INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme.

“This operation has again proved that while environmental criminals may cross borders and display high levels of organization, so too will the international law enforcement community in its efforts to apprehend those criminals.

“The success of this operation would not have been possible without the close co-operation and dedication of the police, customs, wildlife law enforcement agencies and specialized units in the 18 participating countries,” added Higgins.

The operation was co-ordinated by the INTERPOL Environmental Crime Programme with strong support from the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) and was developed in response to the increasing use of endangered and protected wildlife products in traditional medicines throughout the world.

“The important cultural, historical and religious values of traditional medicines is recognized by the law enforcement community,” said Chief Constable Richard Crompton, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead for the UK NWCU, “However, the increased use of endangered species in medicines can no longer be tolerated as it places extreme pressure on their very survival and existence.”

TRAFFIC has undertaken a number of studies into the use of threatened species in medicinal products, and has published a guide to Traditional Asian Medicine Identification Guide for Law Enforcers (PDF, 5.5 MB), the latest version in 2004.

Countries involved in Operation Tram were Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Georgia, India, Italy, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

More details on the operation on the Interpol website

Read more!

Activists Wary of Indonesia's New Forest Regulations

Fidelis E. Satriastanti, Jakarta Globe 6 Mar 10;

Despite its stated objective to control open-pit mining, the Forestry Ministry’s new land-use regulation could backfire and lead to the destruction of more forests, policy development institute Greenomics Indonesia said on Friday.

The Forest Area Use regulation, which has been signed by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono but has yet to come into force, aims to allow forest areas to be used in the development of non-forestry activities that are categorized in the regulation as “activities inevitably tied to strategic goals.”

These activities include mining, renewable energy technology, telecommunications development, generator installations, public roads, toll roads, railroads, forestry-related industries, security and defense, and temporary shelters in response to natural disasters.

Regarding mining, the regulation allows for both open-pit and underground mining in productive forests, but only underground mining in protected areas and only under restricted circumstances. It would not be allowed in situations where the mining would cause land subsidence, change the function of the forested area or damage ground water.

“The idea [of the regulation] was to affirm that only 13 companies would be allowed to operate in protected forests,” Greenomics Indonesia executive director Elfian Effendi said. “In the future, if mining companies want to operate in protected forests, they can only use underground mining, not open-pit mining.”

However, Elfian said that the definition of mining as an “activity inevitably tied to strategic goals” was open to misinterpretation and could be taken advantage of to generate more mining activities in protected forests.

“Mining could be considered as strategic, but it’s not inevitable as that means mining can be carried out in protected forests at any cost,” said Elfian, adding that underground mining did not mean that it was environmentally safe.

Agus Setyarso, executive chairman of the National Forestry Council of Indonesia, said the government needed to clarify the definition of mining to prevent multiple interpretations.

“The government needs to strictly monitor the implementation of the regulation because it can easily be turned upside down,” Agus said, adding that mining was better classified as a priority rather than strategic.

He said that it was interesting the government allowed underground mining given that the country was not yet able to implement the technology mainly due to the high costs involved.

“Even those companies that have been granted access to protected forests cannot afford the technology to carry out underground mining,” he said, adding that the idea of underground mining was to exploit minerals or other natural resources without changing the landscape above the ground.

Elfian added that it was possible underground mining could lead to open-pit mining if the government was unable to apply stricter regulations.

“What may start as underground mining could end up as open-pit mining if miners were able to convince the government that the natural resources in the area are worth bending the regulations,” he said.

Meanwhile, Masyhud, the spokesman at the Forestry Ministry, said the regulation was no threat to protected forests. “It is clear in the Law on Forestry that there cannot be any open-pit mining in protected forests.”

New Indonesian Forestry Regulations May Open Way to Mining in Conservation Areas
Fidelis E. Satriastanti, Jakarta Globe 9 Mar 10;

It appears the Ministry of Forestry is playing Catch 22 with the country’s forests. Despite guarantees by the ministry on Monday that mining was forbidden in conservation areas, two recent regulations may have opened a back door to mining in those areas.

On Jan. 21, the government issued the Procedures for Forest Conversion regulation allowing conservation areas (including protected forests) and production forests to be converted to other functions. This means that conservation areas could be converted to either protected or production forests.

Based on the 1999 Law on Forestry, forest functions are divided into conservation, protection and forestry-production purposes, with a percentage of the latter allowed for other non-forest activities, such as plantations.

On Feb. 1, another government regulation on Forest Area Use stipulated that protected and production forest areas can be used in the development of non-forestry activities that are categorized in the regulation as “activities inevitably tied to strategic goals.” That includes mining.

This regulation states that mining companies can now operate inside protected forest areas although only under restricted circumstances. For instance, underground mining is allowed but not open-pit mining and mining would not be allowed if it could cause land subsidence, change the function of the forested area or contaminate ground water.

However, in production forests, the regulation allows for both open-pit and underground mining.

“The [Forest Area Use] regulation only applies to [activities in] production and protected forests, but not for conservation areas. It has already been stipulated in the [1999 Forestry] Law that these areas cannot be used for mining activities,” said Bambang Mulyo, head of forest use subdirectorate at the forestry ministry’s planning directorate general.

However, if, as stated in the Forest Conversion regulation, conservation areas can be converted into protected or production functions, then the way, albeit indirectly, would be open to mining in those areas.

But Bambang denied the regulation could be used to convert conservation forests into mining concessions.

“There is little chance of irregularities whereby companies could end up trying to change conservation areas into mining sites,” Bambang said.

Markus Ratriyono, spokesman for Forest Watch Indonesia, said conservation areas were established to protect them from being destroyed by any human activity.

“The law is clear that there should not be any mining activities, even underground mining, in conservation areas,” said Markus. “However, because underground mining has never been really implemented in Indonesia, I’m not certain how it would effect the environment. There would eventually be some damage, I’m just not sure of the extent of the damage.”

The Forest Area Use regulation has been criticized by environmental groups, who said that despite the Forestry Ministry’s stated objective to control open-pit mining, the new regulation could backfire and lead to the destruction of more forests.

Read more!

How to make the most of rubbish in Bali

A rubbish revolution is under way in Bali
Geoffrey Lean, The Telegraph 5 Mar 10;

It's known as the "Island of the Gods", but it's sinking under a rising sea of rubbish. You see garbage almost everywhere in Bali: on the beaches; dumped by roadsides; clogging rivers and streams and blocking drainage channels. This has got so bad that it is threatening not only people's health, but also that of the economy: two thirds of tourists surveyed said that it would prevent them from coming back. But, still, little is collected, and rubbish tips are overflowing.

And yet, on a disused pig farm not far from the main tourist beaches, a rubbish revolution is under way; it is spreading throughout Indonesia, and could have a bearing all over the Third World. I discovered it in between meetings of the world's environment ministers on the island last week, when tracing what happened to the contents of my hotel room wastepaper basket.

Beneath the corrugated iron roof of an open-ended old pig shed – amid swooping swallows – workers were painstakingly hand-separating paper, plastics, glass, aluminium, food scraps, vegetable matter and other material that can be used again, leaving only the remnants to go into the island's rudimentary waste disposal system. Every week, 140 lorryloads of waste arrive. Only 10 leave carrying real rubbish.

I was shown the operation by Yuyun Ismawati, who started it 12 years ago, then in her early thirties. An environmental engineer, designing water supply systems for wealthier areas, she decided to switch to working with the poor and picked garbage "because no one else wanted to touch it". She found the pig farmer was paying hotels for their waste – five-star food scraps for his animals – and persuaded him that recycling it would be more profitable. Now 25 hotels – including mine – pay him to take their garbage away. Almost all is recycled: food scraps are bought by pig farmers and grass clippings and other vegetation is composted, and mostly returned to the hotels for flowerbeds.

This, she says is the green economy – the very subject the ministers were discussing – in action, providing new employment for those that need it. In all, she adds, the operation supports over 400 "real green jobs", while the old farm employed just 10 people. It is very basic but it succeeds. "If you want a hi-tech solution in a developing country, you will wait and wait and wait until you get the money, or big donors to fund it. And even then it may not work."

A big blue machine, provided by the local government to process the waste stands idle in a corner, proving the point. The electricity needed to power it costs too much: human energy is cheaper, and employs more people. Ismawati wanted to get rid of the contraption but was persuaded to let it remain as a kind of monument to official support.

The scheme was the first of its kind in Indonesia. She has now established six more, all on the neighbouring island of Java. Now that the government has backed the idea, 15 are to be established annually.

Ismawati – who this year won a Goldman Award, the world's biggest prize for grassroots green activists – has had even more success with a similar plan for tackling an even bigger problem, the sanitation crisis. Only eight of Indonesia's 450 cities, she says, have a sewerage system, covering just 1.3 per cent of its almost 250 million population. Worldwide, over two billion people lack proper sanitation; the resulting pollution causes more than two million deaths a year.

Building big sewerage systems costs a fortune, and takes ages. But Ismawati found that she could rapidly get small schemes running for a fraction of the cost. Local government provides most of the funding, but the people it serves also chip in and are trained in their operation. Some 300 have been set up across Indonesia and, from this year, 1,000 – serving a total of a million people – are to be established annually.

Ismawati next wants to provide clean water in a similarly decentralised way and took me down a river to explain why. It was full of rubbish, of course, including the occasional dead cat. Batik dyers lined its banks: the colours, she said, often showed in the river. Water from rice paddies, presumably laden with pesticides, also ran into it.

Below all this, near the river mouth, was a water supply intake. Who gets this stuff, I asked? Ismawati thinks she knows, as she was once offered a job in the waterworks. She roared with laughter. "It probably goes to your hotel."

Read more!

Should We Put A Dollar Value On Nature?

Judith D. Schwartz, Time Magazine 6 Mar 10;

Nature lovers might cringe at the term "ecosystem services" to describe, say, the view of a pristine beach or a stream teeming with trout. But a growing number of experts within the scientific and economic communities say that putting real economic value on components of nature will help protect the environment and promote biodiversity.

Far from cheapening nature, thinking in terms of "natural capital" can offer a way to assess the crucial but unmeasured benefit that humans derive from the nature. Ascertaining that value can then help decision makers bring environmental factors more explicitly into their planning.

Can biodiversity loss, then, be seen as a failure of the market? "Biodiversity is the living capital of the planet," says Pavan Sukhdev, a senior banker with Deutsche Bank and Special Adviser to the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) Green Economy Initiative. Like any capital, he says, it has to be measured to be managed. "If you don't count half of your balance sheet, you're going to get your profit and loss ratio incorrect — and we have."

Sukhdev, who's also Study Leader for a UNEP initiative called The Economics of Ecosystems and Diversity (TEEB), says that currently "the economic value attached to nature is zero. Our metrics are geared toward consumption and production of man-made goods and services, and we tend to gloss over nature." This, he says, has led to "bad accounting" which, in turn, has contributed to rapid biodiversity loss.

There is clearly an irony in the notion that attaching a "price" to ecosystems can help people reconnect with nature and what it offers us. Yet appreciating nature from an economic perspective may put environmental concerns on the table in a way that governments and institutions can work with. "In speaking the language of economics, you can play a role in the policy process," says Edward B. Barbier, Professor of Economics at the University of Wyoming, who does research on the economics of natural resources. "Twenty-five years ago, people said, 'That's horrendous — you can't discuss nature that way!' Now they say, 'You're right. We've got to put a value on nature."

What kind of value are we talking about? According to research cited in the TEEB report, an annual investment of $45 billion to biodiversity conservation worldwide could safeguard about $5 trillion in ecosystem services — a benefit to cost ratio of 100 to 1.

For a site-specific example, in Southern Thailand converting mangroves into commercial shrimp farms yields financial returns of about $1,220 per hectare per year. However, this does not consider the rehabilitation costs of $9,318 per hectare necessary when the area has been "shrimped out" after five or ten years. Other economic benefits the mangroves provide include: collected wood and other forest products; cultivation for off-shore fisheries; and coastal protection against storms, a total of $12,392 per hectare over the course of nine years. If the developer were accountable for the mangrove depletion, would you still want to invest in that shrimp farm?

"The reason we're losing natural capital is because it's free," says Ed Barbier, noting that we often think of conservation in terms of its costs rather than its value, and regard manufactured goods in terms of value rather than their environmental costs. Says Barbier: "When we incorporate the services of ecosystems we may start to think: maybe the costs of maintaining [the integrity of] ecosystems aren't that high compared with the benefits. Maybe the gains we get out of converting nature into commodities are not so large in comparison. The point is that we don't see that tradeoff until we go out and measure that value."

The challenge is that our business institutions evolved at a time when nature seemed limitless; the idea of endless natural bounty is embedded within our national identity. "In the past, natural resources were abundant," says Robert Costanza, Director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. "We've used up all the frontier. Those days are gone. People are recognizing this, but our institutions haven't caught up." So markets continue to ignore natural capital as if it's of no economic consequence.

Right now, he explains, there is an expectation of free and open access to nature. However, its use affects everyone. For example, unless an area is specifically regulated, someone can clear-cut a hardwood forest in a developing nation for the timber. But losing that forest also means the loss of habitat for wildlife, other forest products for food and shelter, soil fertility — plus numerous other functions, including climate regulation, which are not yet completely understood.

There have been other efforts to value ecosystem benefits, notably by British economist David Pearce, through his book Blueprint For a Green Economy, which was influential in the 1990s. (Professor Barbier was a coauthor.) What's different now is the urgency — we get news of nature disappearing every day — and new tools for measuring value, since research on ecosystems and valuation metrics have been evolving steadily over the last 20 years. Through programs like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, drawing on the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide, the economic value of biodiversity — which, alas, is often determined after its loss — is becoming more apparent.

According to Costanza, we need different institutions for managing natural capital because of its "public good" aspects. For example, there are systems of payments for ecosystem services, such as compensating farmers who plant trees for carbon sequestration. These could be embedded in common asset trusts, set up to assign property rights to the community rather than private hands. Those who damage ecosystem services would be charged, while those whose land produces services could be paid. Economic incentives can encourage people to preserve natural assets. For example, in Costa Rica U.S. pharmaceutical companies are paying landowners to conserve their properties — essentially maintaining a genetic laboratory in an area with great natural wealth. (About half of manufactured drugs derive from materials found in nature.) "Costa Rica has been a laboratory in strategies for making money while saving the environment," says Barbier.

While such economic arrangements hold great promise, Barbier warns that focusing on one "ecosystem service" — as opposed to grappling with complex systems and interactions — can distort value. He also notes that payments may not cover all the costs of preservation, particularly in the short term. But they may, for instance, pay for running conservation programs, or supplement the income of people who live in the area.

The renewed interest in valuing nature gives Barbier some optimism. "If through scientific and economic analysis we can show the benefits that the natural environment offers, and show that the economic value is not zero, this gives policy makers a vehicle for addressing our fragile ecosystems," he says.

Pavan Sukhdev observes, "The loss of forests worldwide amounts to somewhere between $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion a year. Losses in the U.S financial sector [in the economic downturn] were between $1 and 1.5 trillion. But the banks made the headlines."

And, one might add, got bailed out.

Read more!