Rising Sea Levels To Erode Sydney Beaches - Study

Michael Perry, PlanetArk 30 Oct 08;

SYDNEY - Rising sea levels as a result of climate change will erode Sydney's iconic beaches by 2050, with some at risk of disappearing, and threaten beachfront homes and commercial properties, a new climate change study said.

Sea levels along Sydney's coast are expected to rise by up to 40 cm above 1990 levels by 2050 and by 90 cm by 2100, with each one centimetre of rise resulting in one metre of erosion on low-lying beaches, said the Sydney climate change impact report.

"The Sydney region has a heavy density of residential and commercial beachfront developments that may be threatened by either ocean inundation or sea level rise-induced recession," said the report by the NSW Department of Climate Change.

"Rising sea levels may exacerbate flood risk in coastal rivers," said the report received on Wednesday.

The report said further study was needed to determine the extent of coastal erosion in particular locations.

But low-lying Sydney beaches such as Collaroy and Narrabeen, which have already been severely eroded by storm seas, and Dee Why and Curl Curl, are most at risk.

Beaches which have a hard promenade, such as Manly, Bondi and Coogee, will shrink as sand is washed away and may need sand deposits in order to survive in further decades.

"In general we expect a recession of the coastline of a sandy beach of about one metre for every centimetre rise in sea level," said Simon Smith, deputy director-general with the depatment.

"The coastline will move inward. What is now currently a vegetated dune may become the beach," Smith said on Wednesday.

"It depends on the beach and the coastal area. Some coastal areas have a rocky foreshore and 40 cm does not make much difference. Some beaches are very deep and high so the beachline will retreat, other beaches are very low-lying and they are up against higher landforms behind them, they will become narrower."

The Sydney Coastal Councils Group, which represents 15 local authorities and some 1.3 million people, has launched a study of "beach nourishment", which involves building up shorelines and beach dunes with sand to combat future rising sea levels.

Being a coastal city, some of Sydney's most important infrastructure is built on its foreshore, and may be affected by rising sea levels. Sydney international airport is built on the edge of Botany Bay, with a runway jutting out into the bay.

"Most of the state's infrastructure was built with a provision for half a metre of sea level rise, but the individual asset owners are already looking to see if they need to make a change in their asset to prepare for the future," said Smith.

(Editing by Roger Crabb)

Read more!

One-Third Of World Fish Catch Used For Animal Feed

Deborah Zabarenko, PlanetArk 30 Oct 08;

Forage fish are near the base of the marine food web, nourishing larger fish, ocean-dwelling marine mammals and sea birds, especially puffins and gulls, the study said.

WASHINGTON - One-third of the world's ocean fish catch is ground up for animal feed, a potential problem for marine ecosystems and a waste of a resource that could directly nourish humans, scientists said on Wednesday.

The fish being used to feed pigs, chickens and farm-raised fish are often thought of as bait, including anchovies, sardines, menhaden and other small- to medium-sized species, researchers wrote in a study to be published in November in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources.

These so-called forage fish account for 37 percent, or 31.5 million tonnes, of all fish taken from the world's oceans each year, the study said. Ninety percent of that catch is turned into fishmeal or fish oil, most of which is used as agricultural and aquacultural feed.

Ellen Pikitch, executive director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science and a professor at Stony Brook University in New York, called these numbers "staggering."

"The reason I find that so alarming is that it's an enormous percentage of the world fish catch," Pikitch said by telephone. "And fish are fundamentally important to the health of the ocean overall."

Forage fish are near the base of the marine food web, nourishing larger fish, ocean-dwelling marine mammals and sea birds, especially puffins and gulls, the study said.


ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES

Unlike such dinner-plate fish as tuna, swordfish and cod, the extraction of forage fish is largely unregulated, Pikitch said. Excessive removal of these small fish from the ocean environment could hurt the species that feed on them.

Aside from the potential ecological consequences, the taking of these large numbers of forage fish interferes with food security for humans, she said.

On average, it takes three to five pounds (1.36 to 2.27 kg) of fishmeal to produce one pound (0.45 kg) of farm-raised fish, Pikitch said.

"If you're creating protein for humans to consume, does it make sense to take three to five pounds of perfectly good food and convert it into only one pound of food?" she said.

Most forage fish are high in omega 3 fatty acids associated with heart health, she said, adding that it makes sense for humans to consume these fish directly rather than to feed them to livestock and farmed fish.

But human consumption of these fish needs to be monitored, said Joshua Reichert of the Pew Environment Group.

"Whatever people take out of the sea needs to be carefully calibrated to ensure that sufficient fish are left to sustain populations of other fish, seabirds and marine mammals, which all play a major role in the healthy functioning of the world's oceans," Reichert said in a statement.

The study is the product of a nine-year partnership between the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and the Pew Charitable Trusts, funded by the Pew Institute for Ocean Science, which is transitioning to become the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Read more!

Crocodile farms, environmentalists form uneasy alliance in Thailand

Paul Dailing Yahoo News 29 Oct 08;

BANGKOK (AFP) – As deforestation and a loss of natural prey threatens Siamese crocodiles with extinction, the farms that once helped endanger the species are now helping save it, conservationists say.

There are fewer than 50 Siamese crocodiles left in the wild in Thailand and about 200 in the entire Mekong river region, but thousands live on commercial farms designed to transform them into belts, shoes and handbags, or meat for export.

"(People) hunt the young to sell to the crocodile farms. For the big ones, they hunt for the skin, the hide," says Chavalit Vidthayanon, a freshwater specialist with conservation group WWF.

"Crocodile farming may induce hunting also," Chavalit says. "That is a negative side. But on the positive side it means the crocodile farm can retain the genetics of the crocodile for a longer time."

Thailand's crocodile farming has over the past six years expanded into a booming multi-billion-dollar industry, with tens of thousands of crocodile skins and live crocodiles, as well as the reptile's meat, sold worldwide each year.

Much of the skins end up as handbags, wallets or shoes on chic consumers in Asia and the West.

The dark green, three-metre (10-foot) long Siamese crocodile begins life at one of the dozens of farms along the Mekong river.

The conservation group Fauna and Flora International says the farms are to blame for the extinction of the Siamese species from 99 percent of its natural habitat.

But now the industry is helping preserve the rare reptile and deter smuggling, says Wuthiphong Thaolar, a Thai customs inspector and member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Wildlife Enforcement Network.

There are 22 farms in Thailand that are legal and approved under the CITES global treaty on trade in endangered animals.

This makes smuggling wild crocodiles into Thailand from neighbouring countries such as Cambodia a less attractive proposition, says Wuthiphong.

Poaching of wild Siamese crocodiles appears to be more of a problem in Cambodia, where Fauna and Flora International say there are thousands of unregulated, illegal farms, and just a handful of legal ones.

Cambodian farmers will almost 2,000 dollars for a mature wild female, the group says, which represents around half a year's income for many Cambodians.

Efforts to re-introduce the animal to the wild in the region have been "quite far from successful," says WWF's Chavalit.

Water pollution has killed the fish the young Siamese crocodiles eat in the wild, while deforestation and hunting have reduced populations of monkeys and deer that the mature reptiles favour.

Many farms are inter-breeding the Siamese crocodile with the saltwater crocodile for a higher-quality hide and superior growth rate, but this makes the animals useless for re-introduction to the wild, conservation groups say.

Read more!

Economic crisis bites Indonesian python exporters

Alvin Darlanika Soedarjo Yahoo News 29 Oct 08;

JAKARTA (AFP) – Demand among US and European consumers for exotic Asian luxuries such as snakes and coral has nosedived since the onset of the global financial crisis, raising fears of a surge in smuggling.

Indonesian python traders say Western snake lovers are feeling the pinch, or bite, of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, meaning orders for all things scaly are on the slide.

"So far this October the orders for live pythons from the US and Europe are only 10 to 20 percent of what they were in October last year," George Saputra of the Indonesian Reptile and Amphibian Trade Association told AFP.

"The economic downturn also means people are buying less python skin products, as snakeskin is used to make items for a lifestyle that is of secondary importance now."

Whether it's live pythons for high-end exotic pet stores or skins for rock-chic pants, handbags and belts, exporters said snakes appeared to be out this northern summer.

Best known for adorning rock stars like Keith Richards, snakeskin went high-end in Europe in the early 2000s thanks to designers including Yves Saint Laurent, Calvin Klein and Jimmy Choo.

In 2000 an Yves Saint Laurent snakeskin trench coat reportedly sold for 9,250 dollars, and four years later designer snakeskin shoulder bags were priced at more than 2,000 dollars.

But as US and European consumers seek to make savings in the wake of the Wall Street meltdown, the belts they tighten are more likely to be made of cheap imitation leather than an Asian reticulated python.

And that means tough times ahead for the roughly 180,000 people reportedly employed in the Indonesian snake trade.

"The industry is holding on to their employees now but I think lay-offs are coming. My advice to them is to cut down on their production," Saputra said.

Tonny Wahyu of Penta Exomania, an exporter of live pythons, monitor lizards and frogs, said he was worried for the future of his lucrative niche markets in the United States and Europe, and for the future of the reptiles.

"I'm considering developing alternative markets such as Japan and South Korea," the Java-based reptile breeder said.

"But Asian importers can be harder to deal with. Japanese importers are stricter than the American or European importers. If a nail from a reptile is broken or damaged, the Japanese importers will reject it," he said.

Exporters said the falling demand for legally exported snakes could lead to a boom in smuggling.

"If the legal export of reptiles is slowing, then I fear the illegal trade of reptiles will be more rampant," Tony said.

"For example, the komodo dragons are endangered and their trade is prohibited, but somehow they are still exported illegally."

TRAFFIC, a group that monitors legal and illegal trade in undomesticated animals, reported that total python exports from Indonesia into the European Union from 2000-2007 was 405,413 specimens, with 87,372 to the United States.

Reticulated pythons, which are among the largest snakes in the world and are capable of crushing and swallowing a human, are coveted for their attractive diamond markings.

This year, Indonesia's export quota for reticulated pythons is 157,500 for skins or skin products, and 4,500 for pets, according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, or CITES.

Corals from some of Indonesia's thousands of tropical reefs are another niche export market which could be hard-hit by a global recession.

Handoko Prawiro, who has been exporting coral and live tropical fish to upmarket US and European aquariums since the early 1980s, said the trade depended on people with money to indulge their hobbies.

"Aquarium lovers are mostly consumers with a lot of time and cash to spare. The economic crisis could hurt the affluent people who are among my customers," he said.

Hammer, candy and sunflower corals legally harvested from the reefs of Makassar and Banyuwangi can sell wholesale to US distributers for up to 40 dollars apiece, he said.

Like Tony, Prawiro said diversification might be the answer and he was eyeing new opportunities in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

"I know hard times are here but human beings will always need entertainment and this is a new kind of entertainment for some," he said.

Read more!

Dead dugong found in Abu Dhabi

Rayeesa Absal, GulfNews 29 Oct 08;

Investigation revealed that it most likely died due to suffocation from a discarded fishing net.

Abu Dhabi: Yet another dugong, an endangered marine mammal, has been found dead by the Marine environment experts from the Environment Agency - Abu Dhabi (EAD) at the Jebel Dhanna area in Al Gharbia.

The experts came across the unsightly scene while taking part in a beach clean up campaign organised by EAD.

Last December, they had come across two dead dugongs trapped in an abandoned drift gill net (Al Hayali), close to Abu Al Abyad Island. EAD experts had then confirmed that the dugong suffocated to death after being trapped in the gill net.

Over 100 volunteers who participated in clean-up ended taking home a much stronger message after seeing for real the results of irresponsible human actions.

Beach clean up

"The sight of the dead 200-kg female dugong on the shore stunned volunteers and acted as a reminder of the fragility of biodiversity in Abu Dhabi waters," read a statement issued by EAD on Wednesday. The clean-up was the sixth in a series of campaigns held this year along Abu Dhabi's coastline under the theme 'Marine Debris is a Silent Killer'.

Following an investigation by EAD experts, it was revealed that the endangered marine mammal most likely died due to suffocation from a discarded fishing net, among the many items carelessly thrown into the sea.

"I have read about the dugong but had never seen one until now. We were all saddened to see such a beautiful creature dead and it reminded us that our marine life is precious and needs to be protected. Sometimes we don't realise that a carelessly thrown fishing net or plastic bag into the sea can cause so much damage," said Shwikar Al Kaff, a teacher from Al Bashair School who was volunteering in the clean-up.

Volunteers removed 990kg of marine debris, notably including 586kg of plastic including nylon ropes and nets.

Quick facts: what is a dugong?

Dugong (Dugong dugon) is a greyish brown marine mammal measuring up to 2-4 metres in length and can weigh up to 400kg. Dugongs are shy, secretive animals with poor eyesight and sharp hearing.

It is an air-breathing marine herbivore and spends time grazing on sea grass. Also called the sea cow, dugongs live up to 70 years and can travel large distances. In Abu Dhabi, dugongs are found most near Al Marawah island. They inhabit shallow, tropical marine coastal water.

UAE has second largest dugong population in the world.

The Arabian Gulf and Red Sea host an estimated population of more than 7,000 dugongs, which constitutes the largest population outside Australia. About 40 per cent of this population resides in Abu Dhabi waters. They are protected by the Federal Law from exploitation in any form.

Why are they endangered?

Loss of habitat and destruction of breeding grounds as well as accidental mortality (by collisions with motor vessels) contribute to endangerment of dugongs.

They are also hunted for meat, oil, hides for leather, and for their bones and teeth, which are made into ivory artefacts and charcoal for sugar refining.

Some Asian cultures also prize dugong products for medicinal purposes. Water pollution and oil slicks affect their habitat. Natural disasters, human disturbance, predators, naturally slow reproductive rate etc are some of the other reasons.

Read more!

Mexico, US, Canada to protect endangered porpoise

Mark Stevenson, Associated Press Yahoo News 28 Oct 08;

MEXICO CITY – Officials from Mexico, the United States and Canada are teaming up in a plan presented Tuesday to protect the vaquita marina, a highly endangered species of porpoise in the upper Gulf of California.

Canadian and U.S. experts will join their Mexican counterparts in studying the rare animal and working to convince fishermen in Gulf communities to abandon fine-mesh gill nets and other techniques that threaten the species.

As part of the effort, a U.S. research ship has begun setting out a network of acoustic monitoring devices in the Gulf of California in a bid to determine the number and location of surviving vaquitas. Researchers hope to finish collecting initial data by December.

The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, which is helping coordinate the effort, said only about 150 of the elusive vaquitas remain in the wild, and as many as 40 are killed each year by fishing nets.

"Unless concrete conservation actions are taken, the effective size of the population ... may fall to just 50 adults in the next two years," the commission said in a statement.

The plan calls on the United States and Canada to encourage investment in fishing communities to create other jobs for residents.

Read more!

Sea birds in danger of dying out in UK, warns RSPB

Louise Gray, The Telegraph 30 Oct 08;

Sea birds species are in danger of dying out in the UK, the RSPB has warned, after one of the worst breeding seasons on record due to climate change.

The latest figures shows that kittiwakes, Arctic terns and Arctic skuas nesting off the northern coast of Scotland have had a terrible season, with virtually no chicks reared to fledging.

The RSPB blamed changes in food supply, which may be linked to climate change, and could ultimately threaten the future of these species in the UK.

However other seabird species seem to be weathering the storm. Great skuas, gannets and cormorants have experienced modest increases in their numbers, while herring gulls have remained stable.

Earlier this year, the RSPB predicted a bad breeding season, after noticing abandoned nests and empty cliffs during the spring where there should have been tens of thousands of seabirds.

Now the colony counts in Scotland have confirmed that many species in the north have again suffered major collapses in breeding success this year. The evidence suggests that repeated annual breeding failures are now substantially reducing populations of those species worst affected, with some cliffs that used to support huge colonies experiencing steep population declines.

Kittiwakes
Kittiwakes have been hit very hard, particularly on Orkney. At RSPB's Copinsay reserve, a count of the whole colony found only 1,881 pairs, a 57 per cent decline on 1999 figures, and at North Hill they have declined by 89 per cent in the same period, with just 14 pairs counted this year.

On the Scottish mainland colony at Mull of Galloway, too, the situation for Kittiwakes is bleak, with a 50 per cent reduction in the population since 2005 to just 65 pairs this year.

Arctic skua
RSPB reserves on Shetland and Orkney have seen a 30 per cent decline in nesting pairs in just one year to 65 pairs. Crucially though, these pairs produced a dismal three chicks in total to the fledging stage. In ecological terms, this is equivalent to virtually no breeding success this year.

Arctic Tern
Some 1,000 nests on RSPB reserves in Orkney and Shetland were abandoned early in the season while reports from areas on the islands away from RSPB reserves also suggest that virtually no young Arctic terns were fledged this year.

Douglas Gilbert, an ecologist with RSPB Scotland, said warmer seas may be affecting the food chain as a decline in plankton causes less sandeels that the seabirds rely on.

He said: "RSPB Reserves are acting as an indicator of the wider fortunes of seabirds around our coasts.

"The outlook for some species such as Arctic skua, kittiwake and Arctic tern is dire, and there are problems with other species like guillemots and puffins in some areas too.

"Unless conditions change to allow these birds the chance of successful breeding, the long-term future for them is bleak. The evidence that this is linked to changes in sea surface temperatures is now growing."

Read more!

The Big Question: Is it right to sell ivory, or does it just encourage the poaching of elephants?

Jerome Taylor, The Independent 29 Oct 08;

Why are we asking this now?

Because the first officially sanctioned auction of raw ivory since 1999 kicked off in Namibia yesterday and made $1.2m (£770,000) from a commodity that it is normally illegal to sell. Over the next month, four southern African nations – Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe – will sell more than 100 tons of tusks that have either been collected from elephants that died of natural causes or were killed in population management schemes. The controversial auctions are expected to make as much as $40m, which will then be ploughed back into conservation programmes. It is only the second UN-approved sale of ivory to be held in almost 20 years.

But isn't the sale of ivory forbidden?

It is. An international ban on selling ivory came into force in 1989 after endemic poaching sent Africa'selephant populations into freefall. Between 1979 and 1989 the number of elephants in Africa halved from1.3 million to 625,000, with Kenya alone losing 85 per cent of itselephants. Since then, the number of pachyderms in Africa has climbed to approximately 450,000, but an estimated 20,000 are still killed every year by poachers who sell tusks on the black market, in a multi-million-dollar industry run by criminal syndicates around the world.

So why are the auctions going ahead?

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) – the regulatory body set up by the UN to enforce the ban – has given the four southern African nations special permission to hold a series of one-off auctions. There will then be a "resting period" of nine years in which no more ivory will be sold, in order to ensure that inter-national stocks of bona-fide ivory are safeguarded.

How did these auctions come about?

In the late 1990s, the four southern African nations, led by Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe, began agitating for one-off auctions at which they might sell legally obtained ivory. They argued that in central African nations such as Chad, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic ofCongo, where elephants are still critically endangered, poaching remained rampant. Meanwhile elephant populations in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana were thriving and at times even becoming a problem. CITES agreed, and allowed them to sell 50 tons of ivory in 1999 to Japan, the only nation that the UN said had the necessary controls in place at the time to separate illegally sourced ivory from officially sanctioned tusks. Last year, CITES gave the same four nations permission to hold a second series of auctions and added China to the "buyer approved" list after the Chinese government successfully persuaded regulators that their officials were now much more active in combating illegal ivory.

Does everyone agree these auctions are a good thing?

Certainly not. Numerous scientists and conservation groups were furious when CITES approved the second auction last year, describing it as tantamount to a "death sentence" for the world's elephants. Their concern is that any legitimatisation of the ivory trade, even in those countries where elephants are doing well, will encourage poachers and consumers to carry on buying illegal ivory.

What are the main concerns?

Firstly, opponents of the auction are worried that the sudden influx of over one hundred tons of ivory on to the Japanese and Chinese markets will make it very easy for poachers to smuggle illegal tusks and pass them off as legally obtained. There are also fears that poachers in central, east and west Africa, where elephants are still highly endangered, will be encouraged to increase the amount of illegal poaching there.

So is poaching on the increase?

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), has more than 20 years experience in tracking ivory smugglers and exposing their tactics. They believe poaching has risen in the run-up to the auction. Julian Newman, EIA campaigner, said yesterday: "CITES' own comprehensive international monitoring system for tracking illegal elephant products, has shown an increase in ivory seizures – driven by rising demand.

"Coupled with a lack of sufficient checks made by importing countries such as China and Japan, together with instability in some African range states, this could easily drag us back to the dark and bloody days of the 1980s, when we were seeing around 200 elephants killed by poachers each week." Disturbing reports from Virunga National Park in the Republic of Congo indicate that more than 10 per cent of its elephant population has already been lost to gangs of ivory poachers this year. Meanwhile, the Zakouma National Park in Chad is facing difficulties, with more than 700 elephants poached each year for their valuable ivory tusks.

Will Travers, head of the Born Free Foundation, said yesterday: "We are deeply concerned that these sales will open the floodgates to additional illegal trade.

"For some inexplicable reason some people think that all elephant populations are adequately protected and thriving. Nothing could be further from the truth. For many of the most vulnerable elephant populations, any increased poaching pressure will almost certainly result in localised extinction."

Can China be trusted to monitor illegal shipments?

CITES certainly appears to believe that China is doing enough to combat illegal smugglers, otherwise they would not have awarded them "approved buyer" status for the auctions. CITES' complex Elephant Trade Information System, which marks a country out of 100 for how effectively it tackle ivory smugglers, gave China just 5.6 points in 2002 which rose to 63 points yesterday.

However, earlier this year Chinese claims to be tackling smuggling were dealt a serious blow when the EIA leaked a Chinese government memo which admitted that in the past 12 years officials had lost track of 120 tons of ivory from the government's own official stockpiles. And in Kenya, which opposes the current auction, a number of Chinese nationals were convicted of smuggling in 22 out of 37 African elephant-range states. Conservationists claim the vast majority of the world's smuggled ivory is still bought by China.

Conservation groups have also criticised the British Government. Why?

Britain, representing the European Union, was among nine regional representatives of nations that supported China's bid to buy up ivory in these special auctions. Conservation groups have now called on Britain to ensure that no illegal ivory becomes mixed with and sold on as legally obtained tusks. Robbie Marsland, director of the UK branch of the International Fund for Animal Welfare said: "The Government must now ensure that elephants do not suffer as a result of this decision."

Should there be officially sanctioned ivory auctions?

Yes...

* Unlike black-market tusks, ivory sold at auction is from elephants that have either died or were culled.

* Any money made from the auctions will be ploughed into conservation programmes.

* Carefully monitored and legally sanctioned auctions might help stem the flow of black market ivory.

No...

* Selling ivory, even at sanctioned auctions, encourages demand and that inevitably encourages poaching.

* Elephant populations are stable in southern Africa but they are perilously endangered elsewhere.

* China is the number-one destination for illegal ivory, but it is not doing enough to combat illicit trade.

Read more!

New Florida rule limits fishing of soft-shell turtles

Rule adopted to slow down catches while wildlife officials work on a plan for the state's native amphibians

McClatchy newspapers, guardian.co.uk 29 Oct 08;

"Turtles are not fish. We know turtles cannot be sustainably harvested. Soft-shells take 10 years to reach maturity. They have totally different life histories and should not be lumped into a commercial fishing license."

William Shockley and his teenage son are fishing for freshwater turtles the same way their family has done for four generations in south-central Florida: deploying about a mile of nylon line on four sets of buoys holding 1,000 small hooks baited with bits of bacon in the clear, shallow waters of Lake Grassy.

They're hoping to catch as many as 40 soft-shell turtles on their trot lines - the maximum allowed under a Florida interim rule that took effect last week - to sell to a market in nearby Lakeport.

The rule, which allows commercial turtle harvesters to take 20 soft-shells per license per day and recreational fishers to take five per day, was adopted to slow down catches while the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission works on a long-term management plan for the state's native amphibians.

Shockley, 39, and son Bryton, 16, said they could live with the restrictions - as long as state wildlife managers take an unbiased look at turtle populations before making the reductions permanent. However, Shockley doesn't believe soft-shells - the species targeted by commercial fishers - are in any peril.

"It would be impossible to over fish the soft-shell turtle population in Florida unless you open all the closed areas," Shockley said. "There are more protected areas for turtles than there are unprotected areas."

Besides closing certain waters, including portions of the St Johns River, to commercial turtle harvest, previous statutes limited the season for soft-shells to nine months. Other species - such as alligator snapping turtles, box turtles, loggerhead musk turtles, Barbour's map turtles, river cooters and diamondback terrapins - already were off limits to commercial harvest.

But a group of turtle scientists from Florida and across the country insist that those restrictions are insufficient to conserve species threatened by insatiable demand from international markets, as well as loss of habitat and natural predation at home.

Members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission are urging the FWC to limit anyone to one freshwater turtle from the wild per day.

"Turtles are not fish. The commission doesn't seem to recognize that," turtle biologist Matt Aresco said. "We know turtles cannot be sustainably harvested. Soft-shells take 10 years to reach maturity. They have totally different life histories and should not be lumped into a commercial fishing license."

Although the FWC issues commercial fishing licenses, it does not have the exact numbers of fishermen who actually catch turtles.

Some fishermen target catfish, for example, but take turtles incidentally. Because the animals live in virtually every river, lake, canal, drainage ditch and retaining pond in the state, estimating their populations is difficult. However, the state keeps track of imports and exports and said less than 10% of freshwater turtles exported from Florida come from the wild; the rest come from about 40 turtle farms across the state.

Aresco counters that the export data is misleading because hatchling turtles raised for the pet trade are combined with larger, wild animals exported for food. China's demand, he said, already has wiped out most of Asia's native turtle populations, so the pressure is on here. Indeed, Lauderhill seafood dealer Wan T Ho confirmed that he sometimes buys as many as 3,000 pounds of live turtles per week, selling some domestically and some overseas.

FWC reptile scientist Bill Turner said he does not believe Florida's turtles are in trouble, but he plans to meet with harvesters, scientists and conservation groups to develop a long-term management plan within the next year.

"My sense of it is we are preventing a problem with these new rules," Turner said. "The rules we passed slowed the harvest to less than it was historically. The real question to me is one of economics. How much interest is there in these turtle populations?" "I think the turtle harvest is dying out. The farms provide most of these. I think the best thing is to consider solutions from the people who know."

Shockley said he is one of those who know. He has lived in Okeechobee his entire life, catching, eating and selling freshwater turtles since he was 8-years-old. He said his best day was a haul of 50 turtles totalling 700 pounds. Shockley, an electrical contractor, doesn't depend on catching turtles to earn a living, and he believes even local commercial fishermen don't, either.

"Maybe 10% of fishermen that are licensed are actually turtle fishing," he said. "Usually, they'll catch a turtle trying to eat the fish on the trot line."

Shockley said the reason he is working to keep the commercial fishery for soft-shells open is for his son. "It gives him an opportunity to make money, and it keeps him out of trouble," Shockley said. "He's not running around trying to be a hoodlum."

The Shockleys didn't exactly strike it rich on Lake Grassy last Friday. After spending about seven hours baiting and rigging the trot lines, another eight hours waiting, then pulling in the lines and burning $100 (£60) in boat and truck fuel, they caught seven soft-shell turtles totalling 110 pounds. The Lakeport dealer paid them $165 (£100). Said Shockley: "Now, that ain't a decent living."

Read more!

Nations See REDD In Rush For Carbon Credits

David Fogarty, PlanetArk 30 Oct 08;

SINGAPORE - In the far north of Indonesia's Sumatra Island lies a vast stretch of forest brimming with orangutans and rare Sumatran tigers and elephants.

In a quirk of fate, a decades-long insurgency in Aceh province prevented illegal loggers from stripping the place bare.

Apart from its wildlife and timber, though, the forest is rich in another resource; the carbon locked up in the soil and very trees coveted by loggers -- legal and illegal.

Keen to earn money from the forest, called the Ulu Masen ecosystem, the government of Aceh province joined a leading conservation group and the financial market to save it.

In return, the province is set to earn millions of dollars through the sale of carbon credits to investors, with a portion of the cash flowing to local communities to encourage them to halt illegal logging and pay for alternative livelihoods.

Money from the initial sale of credits for this project is expected to flow in the coming months.

"I strongly believe there should be a market for carbon credits and forests. It's about the only mechanism that could provide local incentives," said Frank Momberg, project director for international NGO Fauna and Flora International, the group at the heart of the Ulu Masen forest conservation project.

The model is being studied and repeated across Indonesia and other tropical developing nations as the world turns to saving the remaining rainforests in the battle against climate change.

The UN-based scheme, called reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation, or REDD, could be worth tens of billions of dollars a year for developing nations, with rich nations buying forest credits to meet mandated emissions curbs.

With so much money potentially at stake, banks and carbon trading firms are ramping up their interest.


LOCAL ISSUE, GLOBAL PROBLEM

But much has to be sorted out, such as how to ensure the forests aren't cut down, how to accurately measure the amount of carbon saved over time, the best method to trade REDD credits and how to ensure local communities get a fair share of the money. Satellite monitoring as well as developing national carbon accounting systems will be key, and so too will be avoiding "leakage" in which preventing deforestation in one area causes logging to occur in another.

Some conservation groups also fear rich nations will merely buy up vast amounts of REDD credits to meet their emissions targets while doing little to clean up their own industries. Europe also fears a flood of cheap REDD credits could overwhelm its existing emissions trading scheme, depressing offset prices.

"For us the main point, from a trading stand-point, where REDD projects are difficult is on their permanence," said Trevor Sikorski, director of commodities research for Barclays Capital in London.

"If it's about deforestation but then that deforestation goes ahead in three years then that carbon would still be released into the air. So it's all about the reversibility of forests as carbon sinks and that's the real core issue that has to be addressed," he said.

Forests soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide, acting like a set of lungs for the planet. But clearing and burning them is contributing to about 20 percent of all mankind's carbon emissions that are warming the planet.

The United Nations aims to incorporate REDD into the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol from 2013.

The idea is to complement an existing Kyoto scheme, called the Clean Development Mechanism, that allows wealthy states to invest in clean energy projects in the developing world in return for CO2 offsets called CERs. These are presently trading around 16 Euros per tonne.


"HUGE MARKET"

"The dimensions are massive. If you compare with a CDM project of 60,000 tonnes a year, these projects are sometimes 200 times bigger, so if this comes through, it's going to be a huge market," said Renat Heuberger, managing partner of global carbon project developer and advisory firm South Pole Carbon.

Indonesia has rapidly become the centre of REDD trial schemes in Asia because it still has large areas of forest, despite rapid deforestation.

FFI has teamed up with Australia's Macquarie Group to develop three REDD projects in West Kalimantan and Papua. Investment group New Forests, headquartered in Sydney, has signed a deal with the government of Papua to protect 200,000 ha of forest that could save up to 40 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted over the project's lifetime.

The Australian government has pledged A$30 million as part of a scheme to protect 50,000 ha of forest in Kalimantan and rehabilitate at least 50,000 ha of drained peat swamp.

The Ulu Masen scheme aims to save 3.4 million tonnes of CO2 being emitted each year, or 100 million tonnes over the project's lifetime.

To market the credits, the government of Aceh last year teamed up with US bank Merrill Lynch and Australian firm Carbon Conservation to sell the offsets, called VERs, into the voluntary carbon credit market.

Carbon Conservation is acting as a broker and joined FFI to develop the project.

The project hinges on regular monitoring of the forest from the air and on the ground and FFI is running a programme to recruit and train 1,000 forest rangers, some of them ex-rebels from Aceh's former GAM separatist group.


SEEING REDD

Community development was also key, said Momberg.

This meant ploughing part of the proceeds directly back to the estimated 130,000 people who live around the forest to develop sustainable biofuel production, biomass power generation, mini-hydro power projects as well as promote growth of alternative cash crops.

Failure to do so would mean villagers returning to illegal logging. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 villagers were involved in the lucrative trade around Ulu Masen, according to a 2006 report by World Bank-backed Aceh Forest and Environment Project.

"If you don't involve the local communities in either an alternative business or something that is good for them to actually preserve that forest, there's no long-term suitability of that project," said Pep Canadell, executive officer of the Global Carbon Project.

"It's critical and I haven't really seen a package of interesting possibilities," said Canadell, a member of an Australian government advisory panel on REDD.

Some conservation groups, such as Friends of the Earth, fear placing a greater value on forests risks a jump in land rights abuses by governments and corporations in the rush for carbon credits, threatening the livelihoods of indigenous communities.

More than a billion people worldwide depend of forests for their livelihoods, so REDD is a huge threat to them if not managed properly, the group says.

FFI's Momberg said the key was to limit the direct involvement of national governments in funding schemes for local communities. REDD schemes should also meet stringent verification standards to ensure permanence, community involvement and protection of forests' biodiversity.

"If everything is vested in the national government, that's where you will find it very difficult to have that fair level of participation at the community level," said Jeff Hayward, of US-based conservation group Rainforest Alliance.

"Fundamental to verification criteria is who owns the carbon, what rights do they have, how have they decided upon the use of those rights, how fairly are they being compensated, are they informed," said Hayward, manager of the alliance's climate initiative.

Momberg said interest in REDD investments has jumped since the United Nations formally backed the scheme last December.

"I'm getting phone calls every month from investors into REDD. The appetite for REDD and voluntary carbon credits was non-existent two years ago."

(Editing by Megan Goldin)

UN Scheme Aims To Use Carbon Credits To Save Forests
PlanetArk 30 Oct 08;

The United Nations hopes to include a market-based scheme aimed at using carbon credits to save rainforests as part of a broader pact to fight climate change.

Called REDD, or reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation, the scheme won backing at last year's UN-led climate talks in Bali and trial schemes are now being developed, a number of them in Asia.

The idea is to refine the pay-and-preserve scheme for inclusion into the Kyoto Protocol's successor from 2013.

WHY IS REDD IMPORTANT?

Deforestation contributes about 20 percent of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide and methane from clearing and burning forests. Tropical rainforests are crucial water catchments and act as lungs for the planet by soaking up vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the air.

They also contain a rich array of plant and animal species and many indigenous communities depend on them for their livelihoods. Paying to preserve these forests can help brake climate change and maintain the planet's rich biodiversity.

WHAT'S THE AIM?

REDD's aim is simple: saving remaining tracts of rainforest by paying national and local governments to keep them standing. The payment, via the sale of carbon credits, would reflect the value of carbon stored in the forests or the lost opportunity costs of cutting down the forest for its timber, for cattle farming, or growing crops, such as palm oil.

HOW WOULD IT WORK?

Mechanisms are still being worked out. But essentially one idea is to use the sale of fully fungible REDD credits to help developing nations halt logging and in return allow rich nations to meet a portion of their UN emissions reduction goals. Estimates vary but REDD could yield between $10 billion and $30 billion a year in funds for the developing world, with REDD credits fetching $4 to $10 a tonne.

CONCERNS

There are many and include:

-- Permanence, or compliance. How to ensure the forest will remain standing for the long-term and that a country has the means to protect that forest from fire or illegal logging.

-- Baseline. Each country will need to set a starting point for REDD to report changes to forest cover over time (increase and decrease). The problem is calculating that baseline.

-- Leakage - How to prevent a halt on logging in one area driving deforestation in another location.

-- Flood of carbon credits. The European Union fears a flood of cheap REDD credits could overwhelm Europe's emissions trading system. But some researchers dispute this, saying a properly regulated market would allow for a gradual increase in REDD credits over time. The United States also needed to commit to modest emissions cuts as a minimum.

-- Benefits for local communities. Central to REDD is ensuring long-term funding to local communities. But some NGOs fear the commoditization of forests could lead to land disputes and loss of livelihoods for locals by corrupt officials.

-- Dodging responsibility. Some NGOs also fear the availability of cheap REDD credits could allow rich nations to avoid real and deep emissions cuts at home.

NEXT STEPS

Governments and the United Nations are studying various payment options and methods of monitoring and verifying REDD projects. Some forest carbon credit options are market-based under the Kyoto Protocol. But a scheme backed by Norway would side-step the carbon market and instead allow rich nations to buy separate Kyoto emissions allowances, with the proceeds going into approved UN funds to reward developing nations' efforts to avoid deforestation.

(Editing by Megan Goldin)

Read more!

Environment, Economy Weigh On Bottled Water Sector

Emma Thomasson, PlanetArk 30 Oct 08;

ZURICH - The world's top sellers of bottled water are trying to stop western consumers turning back to the tap by addressing environmental issues and trumpeting health benefits, while expanding aggressively in emerging markets.

Nestle, the world's biggest bottler of water with brands like Perrier and Poland Spring, said last week the economic slowdown and environmental concerns were hurting sales in western Europe and North America.

PepsiCo saw double-digit declines in the third quarter in its water brands, which include Propel and Aquafina, while Danone, with brands like Evian and Volvic, said demand had contracted in France, Spain and Britain.

Organisations like conservation group WWF have campaigned against bottled water, saying resources are wasted in bottling and transporting water which may be no safer or healthier than tap water while selling for up to a thousand times the price.

"It is a problem area for the whole industry," said Sarasin analyst Patrick Hasenboehler, citing downtrading risks as well as concerns over transport, packaging and water sourcing.

"When you have clean water at home it's one of the easiest ways to save money. For certain people it's become a bit trendy to drink tap water rather than bottled water."

Nestle controls 19.2 percent of the world's bottled water market followed by Coca-Cola on 9.4 percent, Danone on 8.0 percent and Pepsi on 4.8 percent, according to a report by food and drink consultancy Zenith International.


TAP VERSUS BOTTLE?

John Harris, Nestle Waters executive vice president, said last week the firm had listened to environmental concerns, cutting energy used in bottling and lobbying for more recycling.

"We fundamentally believe that we can address the sustainability issues facing the brand and get growth going," he said, adding the amount of plastic used to bottle water has fallen by 22 percent since 2002.

Nestle is also promoting its bottled water as a healthy alternative to soft drinks and other high-calorie beverages that Harris said make up 21 percent of Americans' energy intake.

"Bottled water is not tap water. We have minerals and vitamins that are unique to the local community and we want to sell that," he said.

Coca-Cola said in a sustainability report this week it was working to make packaging lighter and was investing more than $80 million to build six plastic bottle recycling plants:

"With our water brands, as with all our beverages, we are committed to using resources responsibly, reducing our environmental footprint and protecting natural resources."

Sarasin's Hasenboehler said premium mineral and spring water brands -- like Nestle's San Pellegrino and Danone's Volvic -- would remain a growth area, even in developed markets.

But lower-cost brands that purify local water sources like Coca-Cola's Dasani and Pepsi's Aquafina -- launched to counter falling soft drink sales due to health concerns -- could have a tougher time as western consumers tighten their belts.

"It will not be so easy to promote these waters especially in Europe and the United States," he said. "But it's more a problem for PepsiCo and Coke compared to Nestle as they're more exposed to the US market."

Zenith said global consumption rose 6 percent to 206 billion litres in 2007, or 30.8 litres per person, with the United States the biggest market, followed by China and Mexico.


THIRSTY WORLD

Gary Roethenbaugh, Zenith head of market intelligence, said he was still upbeat for bottled water, predicting global consumption will rise 32 percent to 272 billion litres in 2012.

"Consumers want a refreshing, zero-calorie beverage and this underpins the bottled water industry," he said, adding he saw strong growth opportunities in "enhanced water", noting Pepsi and Coca-Cola had recently bought brands with added vitamins.

He said flavoured and "functional" waters should make up a third of value growth up to 2012, rising to almost 20 percent of market value from about 14 percent in 2007.

Meanwhile, all the big players are trying to stake a claim to fast-growing markets in developing countries.

Danone said last week that Asia and Latin America still had good growth in the third quarter, with sales particularly strong in Indonesia, Mexico and Argentina.

Although developing markets account for only 10 percent of Nestle water sales, the group said it had organic growth there above 20 percent in the first nine months and wants to further accelerate the growth of its Pure Life brand, launched in 1998.

Dubbed "Perrier for the Poor" by one Swiss daily, Pure Life has quickly become the world's top bottled water brand with sales up 16 percent in the first nine months.

"In the western world, we take tap water availability and quality for granted. In other markets, bottled water is much more of a vital lifeline," Zenith's Roethenbaugh said.

(With additional reporting by Laura MacInnis; Editing by David Cowell)

Read more!

Global business backs UN efforts to clinch climate change deal

Mary Sibierski Yahoo News 29 Oct 08;

WARSAW (AFP) – Global business leaders meeting Wednesday in Warsaw endorsed the United Nations' drive to clinch a new global framework to curb climate change at its December 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen.

"Business is a solution to the climate change crisis," Lars G. Josefsson, president and CEO of European power giant Vattenfall, told reporters after roundtable talks of business leaders on climate change.

Josefsson is also the coordinator of the Combat Climate Change 3C initiative grouping 55 multi-national corporations, including General Electric, AIG, Citigroup, BP, Siemens, Hitachi, the China Oil Offshore Company, Volvo, Tata Power, HP and Vattenfall, among others.

"We were here today to create a critical mass for Poznan (UN climate summit December 2008) and ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen summit," Josefsson said, noting a "great deal of optimism in the room despite the global economic downturn.

"Business leaders must show the leadership, focus, and spirit of common understanding that has been lacking in the political process," he said.

The European Union's efforts to adopt a strategy to cut CO2 emissions by 20 percent -- compared to 1990 emission levels -- by 2020 in December are in danger of being torpedoed by vetos from Italy and heavily coal-dependent Poland, raising fears that Europe's global leadership on climate policy could falter.

Environmental groups also warn the global financial crisis cannot be used as an excuse to postpone slashing global carbon dioxide emissions in order to curb global warming to under two degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

Global investment in green technology in 2007 approached 150 billion dollars, up 40 percent from 2006, according to Dr. Steve Howard, CEO of The Climate Group, a global environmental consultancy.

"Now because of the lack of liquidity, the financial crisis (investment) will slow down and take a temporary dip so we won't see that level of growth sustained this year," Howard told AFP, but predicted that "within three to four years we'll be up to 300 billion dollars of real money going into green energy (per year)."

Vattenfall recently opened a zero CO2 emission coal fired power plant in eastern Germany using the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology involving the capture of C02 emissions and storing them underground.

While some scientists warn that CO2 stored this way could contaminate ground water, producing carbonic acid (H2CO3) present in effervescent, carbonated water, CCS technology is regarded as a significant option for slashing CO2 emissions.

"CCS will be competitive by approximately 2020-2025," Josefsson told AFP. Vattenfall is considering more CCS projects for Poland, Germany and Denmark, he said.

"Our company has made a declaration that we are going to be carbon neutral by 2050 - that we won't have CO2 emissions," said Josefsson.

"If you look at our growth from now until 2050, we believe that 50 percent of our investments will be into renewables, 25 percent into nuclear and 25 percent into CCS.

"We invest heavily into wind, biomass, we invest into ocean energy -- we are making trials in ocean technology on the Swedish west coast and in Ireland on different technologies and we think it is very promising," said the Vattenfall CEO. "We think it can be as big as wind power."

Read more!