New centre for waste management in Singapore

Straits Times 29 Jun 10;

A NEW training centre will be set up in Singapore to promote sustainable waste management.

The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore and the National Environment Agency to establish a training, advisory and promotion centre for environmental and waste management here, the three bodies said in a press release yesterday.

The centre will be the first of its kind set up by ISWA outside Europe. It will organise waste management training workshops, forums and trade shows, and provide advisory services to regional organisations and governments.

Waste management has become a crucial issue in Asia, which is expected to generate 1.8 million tonnes of waste a day and spend $70 billion on waste management a year by 2025.

Read more!

PUB's Marina Barrage, technology win awards

Jaslene Pang Business Times 29 Jun 10;

COMPANIES and government entities were flying their flags high during the World Cities Summit and the Singapore International Water Week events yesterday, unveiling a host of cutting-edge technological solutions.

National water agency PUB had its Marina Barrage, which was crowned winner of the 2010 International Water Association's (IWA) Asia Pacific Regional Project Innovation Awards in the Design category.

Its technology - dubbed as Variable Salinity Plant - was also declared winner of the Applied Research category in the same competition.

The Variable Salinity Plant harnesses water from the remaining streams and rivulets near the shoreline.

Both the Variable Salinity Plant and Marina Barrage - which creates the Marina Reservoir - are part of PUB's innovative solutions to meet the country's challenge in ensuring water sustainability.

Apart from recognition, the World Cities Summit and the Singapore International Water Week events at Suntec also saw various collaborations come to life.

One such collaboration is the one between the Waste Management and Recycling Association of Singapore (WMRAS), the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) and the National Environment Agency (NEA). The trio signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) yesterday.

The MOU aims to establish a Training, Advisory and Promotion (TAP) Centre for Environment and Waste Management in Singapore.

The TAP Centre - which is expected to be ready next year - will be a key hub for sustainable waste management in Asia, where it will serve as a depository of knowledge and data and catalyst for regional collaboration and public-private partnerships in the region.

Another collaboration was that between Siemens Water Technologies in Singapore and the PUB on a membrane bioreactor (MBR) testing facility at PUB's Changi Water Reclamation Plant.

The one-million-litre-per-day MBR system treats domestic waste water at the Changi plant. This is part of the first phase of the Singapore Deep Tunnel Sewerage System (DTSS) project. The test facility will allow Siemens' research and development personnel to validate new design parameters quickly under real conditions.

Besides the collaboration, Siemens also showcased various other technologies. The technologies included those which Siemens provided the Changi water reclamation plant with - the DualAir fine-bubble and WideBand coarse-bubble diffuser systems to aerate waste water for secondary treatment.

In addition, Siemens provided the plant with 464 chain and scraper mechanisms for 48 stacked clarifiers, which treat waste water with a reduced footprint.

Siemens also said that it supplied seven Memcor CP membrane filtration trains that consist of 960 membranes each for the Changi NEWater plant. The membranes will pre-treat feedwater going to the reverse osmosis system.

The NEWater plant started its first phase in May. The total production capacity will expand to 228,000 cubic metre per day when the plant is completed, making it the largest in the region.

As part of Siemens' South-east Asia regional expansion, service branches have been located in Southeast Asia countries, with headquarters in Tuas.

'Our activities on the Changi plants with PUB ... illustrate the latest in technology and sustainable water treatment solutions,' said Chuck Gordon, president and CEO of Siemens Water Technologies.

Penalise those who waste water
Water Ministers' Forum says realistic pricing should discourage abuse
Victoria Vaughan Straits Times 29 Jun 10;

CALLING for penalties on water wastage, experts at the opening of the first Asia-Pacific Water Ministers' Forum yesterday said that water should be seen as an economic resource and its pricing should discourage abuse.

Speaking at the gathering of 13 ministers at Suntec City, Dr Noeleen Heyzer, executive secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, called for financial penalties for those who waste water.

'To minimise wastage and increase efficiency in water use, we need to charge the real costs of providing water.

'We need to introduce progressive pricing policies that on the one hand recognise the basic need of water for human existence and, on the other, progressively charge those who overuse or waste it.

'This would encourage households, industries and agriculturists to be more eco-efficient in using water,' she said, adding that funds raised could be directed to fixing up water infrastructure as between 30 per cent and 70 per cent of drinking water in the region is unaccounted for partly due to leaking pipes.

Dr Heyzer's sentiments were echoed by Mr Loic Fauchon, president of the World Water Council, who said that better management of water could be achieved through tariffs.

Mr Arjun Thapan, special senior adviser in infrastructure and water at the Asian Development Bank, said there were nine countries considered as water- stressed in Asia, including China and India, and therefore representing more than half the world's population.

He urged the ministers to view water as a business and to let water agencies act independently, adding that if Manila, the capital of the Philippines, and Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, can have world-class water systems so can the rest of the Asia-Pacific region.

Singapore's Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim said that 'we price our water to recover the full cost for producing and supplying it'. He added that a water conservation tax meant that the more you consume, the higher that tax would be.

Speaking after the meeting, he said he did not think the tax would need to be raised but that demand would have to be managed and it was important for households and industry to be frugal when using the nation's water.

There was also a fresh call to meet the Millennium Development Goals to halve the proportion of people without access to clean water and basic sanitation by 2015. Globally, almost one billion people lack clean drinking water and 2.4 billion people have no access to hygienic sanitation facilities, with 1.2 billion lacking any sanitation facilities at all.

Madam Erna Witoelarm, vice-chair of the Asia-Pacific Water Forum governing council, said that reaching the Millennium Development Goals is not a question of possibility but a matter of will. 'To formulate and implement solutions in a timely and pragmatic manner will require significant investment and this would need a strong political will,' she said, urging ministers to push water security up the national agenda.

PUB scores on innovation
Straits Times 30 Jun 10;

NATIONAL water agency PUB has won big at this year's International Water Association's Asia-Pacific Project Innovation Awards.

Its Marina Barrage project bagged an award for design, while its research on variable salinity plant technology won in the applied research category, the association said in a press release.

Both initiatives are examples of Singapore's success in water management, it said. The barrage greatly reduces flooding, provides a key source of reliable fresh water, and creates a recreational activity area.

The variable salinity plant, the first of its kind in the world, can treat both fresh water and sea water.

The awards will be given out tonight at a dinner ceremony at the Singapore Flyer.

Read more!

Once upon a time... there were leopards

Nirmal Ghosh, Straits Times 29 Jun 10;

ON JUNE 14, delegates from 85 nations attended a five-day United Nations meeting in Busan, South Korea. They proposed to set up an international 'science policy platform' that many hope will do for biodiversity what the 2006 Nicholas Stern report did for climate change - put the issue on the global agenda.

The awkwardly named Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) will function much like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It will produce peer-reviewed scientific reports that can serve as the basis for assessments of the planet's biodiversity.

The IPCC's reputation has been somewhat tarnished, though the challenge of climate change remains a genuine and life-threatening one. It is to be hoped that the IPBES will avoid a similar fate.

While a stable climate regime is the cradle of life, biodiversity is the fabric of life. It is too important an issue to be lost in the kind of political and corporate games that delayed action on climate change for years, and continue to obscure the issues.

Unlike climate change, biodiversity is often a local issue. And it is not just vested interests that are destroying biodiversity; beyond that is the entire paradigm in which we view our companion species, from leopards to Lepidoptera, from arachnids to antelopes.

There is enough evidence to confirm that human activity is driving most species to extinction. �One example is the Alaotra Grebe, a wetland bird that declined rapidly after carnivorous fish were introduced to its lake habitat in Madagascar. This, along with the use by fishermen of nylon gill-nets, which caught and drowned the birds, drove it to extinction.

Most species depend on human goodwill to survive. The public's imagination is caught by charismatic megafauna - big-bodied species, mostly mammals, that are instantly recognisable. These include tigers, lions, orang utans, gorillas, whales, dolphins and elephants. Looking cuddly - like the Giant Panda - also helps.

All these species face an uphill battle for survival - but perhaps none more so than the large-bodied predators, some of which, like crocodiles, do not have much appeal to the public.

What they are up against was dramatically illustrated in January this year when students training in the camera-trapping of wildlife in the sprawling wooded campus of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), near Dehra Dun and close to the forests of Rajaji National Park, detected the presence of a leopard.

It was not the first leopard to come through the grounds. Thinning habitat and vanishing prey have driven leopards across India to the margins of their preferred habitat. In some cases, human habitats have come to them, leaving them with little choice but to live in a human-dominated landscape.

Many of the students and faculty at the WII were delighted at the leopard's presence. As scientists working for wildlife conservation, the coexistence of people and wildlife is at the heart of the issues they grapple with. To have a leopard on the premises was to many an endorsement of everything the WII stood for.

Not quite, however. Many were afraid of the leopard. Children were instructed to stay indoors after sunset. After much debate, the director of the WII decided to have the leopard - a female with cubs - driven out of the scrubland.

Parts of the scrub were cut down, and parts burned. As a result, the leopard, cornered, mauled two people. One faculty member wryly remarked that it was a case of 'people attacking the leopard' and not the other way around. The leopard had lived in the vicinity for some time without attacking anyone until the attempt to evict her.

The incident has sparked outrage in conservation circles. If the WII could not tolerate a leopard on its premises, what right do conservationists have to preach coexistence with wildlife?

The problem is our inability to live in peaceful coexistence with species that are capable of killing and eating us, even if most of the time they do not.�In his 2003 book Monster Of God, David Quammen wrote how humans fear being reminded of predators, and of their own place in the food chain - which is not at the top of it. For that reason, we try to destroy the predator.

Many predators are what biologists call 'keystone species'. A keystone balances the opposing forces of an arch; without it, the structure will wobble and collapse. Predators perform much the same function in the food chain. Remove a top or 'alpha' predator and its prey species will multiply, with cascading consequences for the rest of the ecosystem.

It is admittedly easy for faraway armchair conservationists to preach coexistence with predators. Try telling that to a family with small children living in a flimsy cottage at the edge of a forest. Some conservationists maintain that coexistence of humans with large predators like tigers is simply not possible without conflict - which the tiger will, of course, lose.

How far will the IPBES go towards correcting the paradigm? Probably not far enough or fast enough.

Quammen wrote: 'The foreseeable outcome is that in 2150, when human population peaks at around 11 billion, alpha predators will have ceased to exist - except behind chain-link fencing, high-strength glass and steel bars.

'As memory recedes and the zoo populations become... ever more conveniently docile... people will find it hard to conceive that those animals were once proud, dangerous, unpredictable, widespread and kingly, prowling free among the forests, rivers, estuaries and oceans used by humanity.

'Children will be startled to learn, if anyone tells them, that once there were lions at large in the very world.'

Read more!

Coral bleaching: Lost at sea?

Coral reefs support a quarter of the world's marine life, but rising ocean temperatures are killing them. The impact of their decline could be huge, says marine biologist Olivia Durkin
The Independent 29 Jun 10;

A a result of rising sea temperatures, we are seeing the degradation and eventual destruction of one of the most beautiful ecosystems on Earth. Corals around the world are succumbing to yet another mass "bleaching event"; reefs that were once a rich mosaic of colours are now shockingly white as corals fade and die.

Corals are in fact a combination of animal, algae and "rock". Colonies are made up of many identical individuals called polyps that secrete a stony skeleton. Polyps contain microscopic algae called zooxanthellae living within the coral animal tissue; the relationship is mutually beneficial, or symbiotic. Zooxanthellae use sunlight to provide energy and nutrients for the coral through photosynthesis, in return they are provided with shelter. In a reef, each colony acts as a building block, pieced together to form intricate structures that provide habitats for an abundance of reef fish and many other creatures.

Bleaching is the ultimate stress reaction, when environmental conditions decline to a point where they cannot sustain the coral-algae relationship. Zooxanthellae, which are responsible for the magnificent colour of corals, are expelled from the coral, leaving the transparent tissue on a stark white skeleton. Although still alive, bleached corals must work harder without zooxanthellae to obtain the energy they need for growth and survival. If periods of stress are prolonged, the corals will die. Other reef residents such as giant clams, sea anemones and soft corals, which also contain zooxanthellae, are sharing the same fate.

Widespread bleaching tends to be attributed to abnormally high sea temperatures in addition to high levels of light. This happens in times of prolonged calm weather and crystal-clear water. While this may sound like the picture-postcard perception of a typical coral reef environment, it is in fact turbulent waters that keep coral healthy and scientists worry that the current event has the potential to be the worst ever.

Sea temperatures are at an all-time high. Major bleaching incidents are increasingly prevalent. The US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revealed that 2010 has been the hottest year in recorded history. Prior to this, 1998 was the hottest for 130 years, leading to unprecedented intense bleaching and coral mortality worldwide which wiped out more than 90 per cent of shallow water corals in the Indian Ocean. NOAA's Coral Reef Watch monitors and predicts bleaching events using HotSpots, a measure which highlights areas where sea surface temperatures rise above levels that can lead to bleaching.

As predicted by NOAA, bleaching began this February in Mauritius and it has progressed throughout the Indian Ocean and South East Asia, including reefs off Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia and Philippines. Florida and the Caribbean are next, with strong warming of the surrounding sea and severe bleaching expected for the coming months.

Even the world's most southerly coral reef at Lord Howe Island has suffered its worst bleaching event. Lying off eastern Australia, the island is well known for its pristine and beautiful environment. For true coral reef formation, relatively stable conditions are required – and Lord Howe Island is at the threshold of coral reef tolerance. Thermal-induced bleaching at the southern limits of coral reef formation is a cause for considerable concern; evidence that dramatic sea warming has spread to the subtropical regions as well as the tropics. The distribution of coral reefs is expected to shift dramatically with increasing sea temperatures. Elsewhere in Australia, the Great Barrier Reef has escaped severe bleaching. Cyclone Ului, which hit the Queensland coast in March, may have been its saving grace. Maldivian reefs were also spared severe bleaching with the arrival of monsoon weather in early May, quickly dissipating the warmer-than-average conditions. Unfortunately, other reefs were not so lucky and delayed monsoon winds and rain led to a prolonged period of calm weather and elevated sea temperatures. Chad Scott, from the Save Koh Tao conservation group, recalls the situation in the Gulf of Thailand this year: "We experienced some very hot weather and there was no rain for three months. As a consequence, water temperatures peaked at 34oC." Intense bleaching events like these can ruin reefs. Dr Clive Wilkinson, editor of the Status of Coral Reefs of the World reports, states that "approximately 16 per cent of the world's reefs were effectively destroyed in 1998".

This year, there are fears of equivalent losses. "In Thailand, the bleaching is reported to be the most severe in 20 years of monitoring. In 1998, the reefs of the Andaman Sea were essentially unaffected, this year these once outstanding reefs are up to 95 per cent bleached," says Dr James True from Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand, who witnessed the 1998 and 2010 bleaching events.

The situation in Cambodia is equally serious. In Cambodia, a UK based conservation organisation is monitoring the impacts of the bleaching event on local reefs. Coral Cay Conservation (CCC) uses teams of volunteers to collect crucial information about the status of coral reefs around the world. This information is used to develop management recommendations for the host governments. Jan-Willem van Bochove, head marine scientist for CCC, has growing concerns for the future of coral reefs.

The bleaching we are currently witnessing is severe and widespread; van Bochove says, "not many people in the UK are aware of the coral reef crisis currently unfolding in South East Asia. CCC provides the opportunity for volunteers to be involved in reef conservation, and helps create awareness of the importance of coral reefs for a healthy planet."

Although bleached coral colonies can recover, it can take a while. It could be many weeks or months before severely bleached corals regain their colour, through the uptake of new zooxanthellae. More importantly, it could be years before recovering corals reproduce again. So, it may be more than a decade, if at all, before a severely bleached reef recovers.

In fact, many reefs in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific impacted by the 1998 bleaching had shown promising signs of recovery, with the presence of young colonies and successful reproduction. However, recovering reefs have been set back by repeated bouts of coral bleaching.

With sea temperatures increasing in the future, bleaching events are predicted to become more frequent. Continued events will lead to a dramatic change in reef appearance; small, unattractive, boulder-like corals will replace the wide expanses of branching "sensitive" corals that dominate the typical perception of a beautiful reef. Coral reefs are the rainforests of the sea. Despite the fact that reefs only occupy around 1 per cent of the world ocean surface – an area half the size of France or 30 million football pitches – they support over a quarter of the world's marine life. Reefs dominated by slow growing "resistant" species provide a poor habitat for marine life, leading to fewer fish, a decline in biodiversity and extinction of many species.

Not only that. Coral reefs provide food, coastal protection and support fishing and tourism industries. Losing these charismatic ecosystems, and the goods they provide will have worrying consequences for at least 500 million people worldwide, especially the 150 million people who live within the Coral Triangle and, as outlined by several researchers, the 30 million people worldwide directly dependent on coral reefs for food and livelihood.

Over the next 30 years, coral reefs are expected to become highly susceptible to frequent bleaching events, and we will lose the functionality of our reefs. Recurrent bleaching, along with ocean acidification, is likely to be the greatest threat.

So whether the current bleaching turns out to be the worst on record or not, it is certainly a wake-up call. The fact is the sea is getting warmer and frequent bleaching events are a grave consequence of this. Humankind must do all it can to limit continuing warming of the sea or damage to the reefs themselves. We must reduce our carbon emissions significantly, improve water quality, promote the effective coral reef management and enhance reef recovery through reef restoration projects. The repercussions of repeated mass bleaching are dire. Not only for marine life but ultimately for us all.

Olivia Durkin is currently co-ordinating the Coral@CBiPT bleaching project at the Centre of Biodiversity of peninsular Thailand. Find out more about bleaching at Coralreefwatch.noaa.gov

Read more!

Sabah adamant on keeping its wildlife

Muguntan Vanar, The Star 29 Jun 10;

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah will not budge from its stand that the state’s wildlife should remain in its natural habitat and not sent out to zoos.

State Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Datuk Masidi Manjun said it would be irresponsible to relocate iconic wildlife such as the proboscis monkeys, Borneo pygmy elephants and orang utan.

“Moving them elsewhere will compromise the animals’ survival chances outside their home,” he told reporters on Monday evening after receiving a courtesy call from the Chinese International Travel Service United from China here.

“We may consider some animals but to ask for the iconic animals from Sabah is really out of the question.”

Masidi stressed that it was not a case of Sabah not wanting to give the animals but because they wanted to keep them in their natural habitat.

“Sabah understands the special needs of these animals, so it will be irresponsible for us to send them out of the state knowing that their chances of survival will be very much compromised,” he added.

He was responding to a statement by Malaysian Zoological Association president Ismail Hutson who had said that Zoo Negara visitors would be able to view more exotic wildlife from Sabah as preparation was underway to receive the Borneo pygmy elephants, proboscis monkeys, orang utan and hornbills.

Masidi said there has been no official request from the association or other parties pertaining to the matter.

Read more!

Indonesia: Locals feel left out of environmental programs

Benget Besalicto Tnb., Jakarta Post 15 Jun 10;

The old villager dispensed with the usual introductory formalities and niceties that normally kick off meetings between locals, government officials, NGOs and private companies, when addressing the crowd at the opening ceremony of an orangutan seminar in remote Central Kalimantan.

"My name is Janas. But first, I would like to remind you that you forgot to mention the name of our village, which is hosting our meeting today," said Acoi Janas, the 62-year old Dayak, jokingly.

His audience included his fellow villagers, as well as representatives of NGOs like Borneo Orangutan Survival (BOS), Orangutan Foundation International (OFI), World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Orangutan Conservation Services Program (OCSP), the Natural Resources Conservation Center (BKSDA), and palm oil company Agro Group.

The meeting, held on May 17, marked the start of a two-day orangutan seminar in Janas' village, which is also home to 32,000 orangutans, or more than 60 percent of the island's total population of the only great ape family in Asia.

Apparently the master of ceremony had mentioned in his speech the names of all the villages whose residents were invited to attend the meeting, except Janas'.

Before directing his eyes toward the stage, where all of the ceremony's prominent figures sat, Janas look around for a moment, as if he was wishing the trees surrounding the ceremony venue would inch closer to protect him from the blazing sun.

"BOS has been operating here for more than 10 years," he started. "But I think you haven't been paying enough attention to the local people. You have set up a special clinic for orangutans, but none of you care about our welfare."

According to Janas, NGOs should help empower locals by prioritizing them as potential workers, and think of them as partners who can provide goods and services for their programs. Foreign NGOs currently run the world's largest orangutan rehabilitation center in Nyaru Menteng, Central Kalimantan.

Another woman, who did not wished to be named, concurred with Janas. "We noticed that only *BOS* staff members are given the opportunity to supply goods and services needed by the orangutan rehabilitation center, not local people," she noted.

Rawan, a teacher at Senior High School VI, who lives in Tumbang Tahai village, complained environmental conservation programs sometimes worsened the plight of locals.

"We've noticed Sebangau National Park is being developed near where we live. But that development goes against our interests as locals. Its spatial planning is not clear yet," he said.

The forests of Sebangau were finally declared protected areas in 2004, after being logged unsustainably for years under forestry concessions handed out during president Soeharto's regime.

Consisting of 95 percent peat soil and spreading over an area of 569,000 hectares across several regencies - Katingan, Pulang Pisau and the city of Palangkaraya, the park is a combination of swampy forests, transitional forests, lowland canopy forests and granite forests, which are rich in various kinds of species, including birds, mammals, and primates.

Many locals who planted their crops in certain zones for generations, found they had to hand over their plots of land as those were now part of the Sebangau National Park, Rawan went on.

"Many of the locals had to surrender their land to the park management without receiving any compensation. We're worried we'll have the same experience," he said, adding that locals needed their land to make a living.

Guris, a villager who lives near the Tangkiling Hill forest sanctuary, expressed similar concerns, saying members of his community were worried they would lose their properties because of the Tangkiling sanctuary project.

As the only mountain in the low-land of Central Kalimantan, Tangkiling Hill is considered a treasure that should be conserved at all costs because of its rich and unique ecosystem.

"Many locals are afraid to grow crops on their land as they fear the government will seize their property. But we have to make a living from the land. So, please make sure that the sanctuary's spatial planning does not disadvantage locals," he said.

During the rest of the meeting, several other locals echoed more or less similar concerns resulting from a number of environmental conservation programs.

Representatives from local administrations, NGOs, and private companies operating in the area, took the opportunity presented by the meeting to defend their position.

To address Janas' complaint, Togu Manurung, the chairman of BOS, said locals should differentiate between NGOs, the government, and private companies.

"They are different in terms of functions. Our job as an NGO is to rehabilitate orangutans. That's our main task. So, it's not our job to improve people's health or empower locals. That's the government's job. Here, we're partnering with the government to help conserve orangutans," he said, "But we will take on board some of your feedback on prioritizing locals to source goods and services."

Anung Setiadi, the head of Central Kalimantan's forestry agency, who represented Governor Agustin Teras Narang during the meeting, reiterated that all conservation programs should be pursued with the interests of local people in mind.

"We'll urge them to do the best they can to empower locals while operating here," he said.

Janas only hoped all the promises made during the meeting would be held.

"They've paid serious attention to preserving the environment. They are spending billions of rupiah each month to save orangutans. But what about us, the locals? Our situation is also difficult. We hope we won't continue to be ignored."

Read more!

Indonesia must learn from its environmental history to avert catastrophe

Jonathan Wootliff Jakarta Post 29 Jun 10;

It’s ironical that the United States President’s postponed visit to Indonesia — as a result of the grotesque oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — has delayed the signing of important environmental protection agreements.

Norway’s recent commitment to give Indonesia a billion dollars in return for introducing a moratorium on new forestry concessions, raised people’s expectations a similar deal would be forged between Presidents Barack Obama and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during their discussions in Jakarta scheduled for last month.

Indonesia’s unenviable ranking as the world’s fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter is mainly a result of the poor state of the country’s forests which urgently require improved management.

Funds are badly needed if the government is to have any chance of tackling illegal logging, uncontrolled land clearance, fires and other threats to Indonesia’s rainforests.

Dramatic images of the millions of barrels of spewing crude from BP’s failed Macondo oil installation is certainly a good reason for President Obama to stay at home. The American people rightly demand their government ensures that everything is done to resolve this terrible crisis.

When catastrophe strikes, we want our leaders to act with decisiveness. However unrealistic, we expect government to come to the rescue with an immediate fix.

Unfortunately for the people and wildlife of the states of Louisiana, Alabama and Florida, even the world’s most powerful man is unable to stop the relentless of flow of oil.

Sadly, human-induced environmental disasters are not new. And, in spite of the hideous manifestations of the BP blowout, which occurred just two days before Earth Day, this is not the worst man-made calamity to have beset our fragile planet.

Bhopal and Chernobyl provide just two dreadful examples of the unthinkable impacts of industrial accidents. A thousand five hundred innocent lives were lost in 1984 when a US-owned factory in India leaked deadly chemicals into the atmosphere, and just two years later explosions at a Ukrainian nuclear power plant resulted in the deaths of more than 40,000 people.

In 1997, raging fires in Indonesia pumped caustic smoke into the air that enveloped much of South East Asia, reaching as far north as southern Thailand and the Philippines, with Malaysia and Singapore also badly affected.

An estimated area of 51,100-square kilometers was completely devastated. The lives and health of 70 million Indonesians were jeopardized and species already endangered, such as orangutans, rhinos, and tigers, were pushed closer to extinction.

These were among the worst blazes the world had ever seen and attracted widespread attention from news media, environmental organizations, and governments.

For over three months, dense, choking haze billowed from Indonesia’s forests. The international concern generated by the fires and haze brought massive global assistance, but little could be done to extinguish such overwhelming fire.

Forestry experts attributed negligence to the cause of Indonesia’s 1997 Armageddon, which cost an estimated US$4.5 billion.

They were left in no doubt that had the forests been properly managed with weak enforcement of environmental laws blamed for unbridled forest conversion, the catastrophe would have been avoided.

Attention was also drawn to the immense human and environmental costs borne by Indonesia and its neighbors, which came on top of economic hardship already being suffered because of the prevailing Asian financial crisis.

Environmental organizations concerned with Indonesia’s forests fear that memories are short and the events of more than a decade ago could quite easily reoccur. WHALI, Greenpeace and the Worldwide Fund for Nature are just three of many such groups highlighting a further deterioration of the state of the nation’s forests which has significantly increased the fire hazard.

They say that it is only a matter of time before the forests, made combustible because of unfettered conversion, will catch fire again, and this time on a far more devastating scale.

In spite of popular cries from ordinary American people for government to plug the oil-billowing hole on the more-than-a-kilometer-deep seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, in reality it is only the private sector that has the necessary wherewithal and expertise.

Arguably, we expect too much of government. It is often companies that have far more resources and skills to fix, but perhaps more importantly to avert such environmental calamities.

Indonesian oil palm as well as pulp and paper companies have a clear business interest in preventing fire.

Some of the major forestry operators claim to deploy sustainable practices that actively help to protect the forests.

While government is all-too-often impotent when it comes to conservation, large commercial players say that they provide the only feasible solutions to prevent the release of carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases.

These companies state that unmanaged forests only accelerate the degradation and risk of fire, citing their on-the-round management techniques as key to curbing such destructive behavior as illegal logging and poor land conversion practices commonly undertaken by local people.

Savvy forestry businesses are coming out in support of effective and constructive regulation, target setting and guidance on acceptable operating practices.

They believe the UN’s program for Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Rainforest Degradation (REDD) can help to improve the state of Indonesia’s forests. And they welcome a deal between the Presidents of Indonesia and the US to help this happen.

In spite of the tensions between environmental organizations and the forestry industry, there is growing recognition that Indonesia needs a strong private sector to help overcome the massive challenges and ensure a sustainable future for one of the country’s most critical natural resources.

There is much room for improvement from commercial players in Indonesia’s forests.

But they can provide viable remedies. Business has the money and manpower to support the government’s ambitions to protect the forests from out-of-control destruction.

Companies can provide community development programs to provide good, alternative livelihoods to otherwise-illegal loggers.

Companies can provide aerial equipment to seek out hotspots and ensure rapid prevention resources to stamp out forest fires; and can provide education to farmers to dissuade them from slash and burn practices.

Companies can work with government to identify only areas with no important environmental values for commercial development; and can actively protect areas found to be of so-called High Conservation Values for ongoing conservation.

Companies have a clear business case for doing all of this.

Environmental advocacy and activist groups need to be working more closely with the private sector.

With more collaboration and less confrontation, there is surely an increased chance of securing the future of Indonesia’s forests. And government must play an active role in facilitating productive partnerships between all forest stakeholders

This country must learn from its environmental history.

The ravaging fires of the late nineties were Indonesia’s Deep Water Horizon.

Without increased effort to protect the nation’s forests, Indonesia could face an environmental catastrophe that would make the events in the Gulf of Mexico look like a spit in the ocean.



Jonathan Wootliff leads the Corporate Accountability practice at the consulting firm, Reputation Partners. He specializes in sustainable development and in building productive relationships between companies and NGOs. He can be contacted at jonathan@reputationpartners.com.

Read more!

Indonesian coal mining damages forests

The Jakarta Post 29 Jun 10;

Indonesia has been the world’s largest exporter of seaborne thermal coal since 2005, enjoying the advantages of low production costs as most of its estimated 95 billion tons of reserves allow for open-cast mining, its coals produce low emission of sulphur, and the country is geographically part of Asia, the world’s coal largest market.

However, this coal-mining boom seemed to have inflicted severe damages to our forests due to reckless issuance of mining rights by regional administrations and weak enforcement of the forestry, environmental, spatial and mining laws.

Last Wednesday’s discovery by a central government team of extensive forest damages inflicted by coal mining operations in Kalimantan only confirmed our fear of the excesses of the launching of the regional autonomy in 2001.

The regional autonomy devolved the authority of licensing general mining operations (outside oil and natural gas) to regional administrations which is further reaffirmed by the 2009 mining law. But this has made mining as the second biggest destroyer of forests, in addition to illegal logging and slash-and-burn farming.

The team of Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan, Environment Minister Gusti Muhammad Hatta and members of the President’s anti-judicial mafia taskforce observed during its aerial survey of East Kalimantan that hundreds of thousands of forested areas have been damaged by greedy legal and illegal miners.

The team saw from the air hundreds of huge black holes abandoned by open-pit coal miners. These holes are supposed to be reclaimed with reforestation by the mining concessionaires.

We find it mind-boggling to understand why the government had not anticipated such environmental damages because mining operations not only are complex but also transcend the jurisdictions of many other ministries — beside the mining and energy ministries — such as the ministries forestry, environment and health.

Mining has been playing an important role in the country’s economy as the country holds major deposits of oil, gas, copper, gold, nickel, coal, silver, diamonds and base metals.

But the central government should have regulated how the various ministries and the different levels of government execute their respective functions and responsibilities as regards mining operations and the supervision of environmental, health and safety aspects as well the rights of the local people around mining areas.

But what the team learnt at a meeting with East Kalimantan Governor Awang Faroek in Samarinda was an acute lack of apprehension of the division of authorities between provincial and regency administrations with regards to the awarding of coal mining rights.

Governor Faroek, instead of accepting responsibility for the weak supervision of coal mining operations in his province, asked for special authority from the central government to enable him to order regents to rein on coal mining rights.

One of the main problem, we think, lies in the long delay in the enforcement of the 2009 mining law that already clearly regulates the division of authority in the licensing of mining ventures between the central government and provincial and regency administrations, the delineation of areas opened to mining contractors or reserved for strategic mining area under direct jurisdiction of the central government.

But we cannot understand why the government has yet to issue all regulations needed to implement the mining law more than one year after its enactment.

Without sweeping realignment in the issuance of mining licenses/rights and strong enforcement of the new mining law, as well as the forestry and environmental laws, Indonesia’s two-year moratorium on clearing natural forests President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono declared at a climate-change conference in Oslo late last month could become a joke.

Read more!

China to move tens of thousands for huge water scheme

Reuters 29 Jun 10;

BEIJING (Reuters) - China will move 345,000 people, mostly poor villagers, within about two years to make way for a vast scheme to draw on rivers in the south to supply the increasingly dry north, an official newspaper said on Tuesday.

The forced resettlement for the South-to-North Water Transfer Project will be the biggest China has undertaken since building the Three Gorges Dam, the world's biggest hydroelectric scheme, said the People's Daily.

The project involves an eastern route to take water from the lower reaches of the Yangtze River and a central route to tap rivers flowing into the Danjiangkou Dam in central China.

The scheme has been troubled by delays, cost increases, pollution and the burden of resettling displaced farmers.

Zhang Jiyao, the official in charge of the project, said the mass move for the central route could be more demanding than the Three Gorges Dam move, which sparked years of contention with displaced residents unhappy with compensation and conditions.

"The intensity of the resettlement will surpass that of the Three Gorges Dam Project, because that involved a million migrants over about 10 years, and the resettlement for the South-to-North Water Transfer Project must be completed in over two years," the paper quoted Zhang as saying.

Big dams and hydro projects have featured among China's engineering trophies symbolizing its growing wealth, but are also a lightning rod for persistent discontent.

The South-North Project is the latest among such efforts and the drive to finish resettlement for the rising Danjiangkou Dam by 2013 has already stirred complaints from farmers, who say they are being moved to poorer land with dim job prospects.

The dam is being raised to store more water, which will then be drawn along 1,421 km (883 miles) of canals and tunnels to Beijing, the nearby port city of Tianjin and surrounding areas.

North China has about half the country's population but 19 percent of its fresh water resources. Industrial and urban growth have strained the nation's rivers and underground reserves, according to official estimates.

The planned completion for the first stage of the central route was pushed back to 2014 after it became clear that earlier deadlines of 2010 and 2008 could not be met.

Many of the displaced farmers are residents of Xichuan county in Henan province, which lies on one side of the Danjiangkou Dam. They will be resettled in crowded Henan, the country's most populous province with nearly 100 million people.

(Reporting by Chris Buckley; Editing by Paul Tait)

Read more!

Nature's Wrath in 2009 Tallied by Country

Jeanna Bryner livescience.com 28 Jun 10;

Asia took the brunt of natural disasters in 2009, experiencing more than 40 percent of Mother Nature's havoc, with the Americas coming in second, according to a new report.

The Philippines, China and the United States were the countries most often hit by notable natural disasters last year.

Overall in 2009, 335 natural disasters were reported worldwide, killing 10,655 people and affecting more than 119 million others. The economic damages from these events exceeded $41.3 billion in U.S. dollars. The number of disasters is actually down compared with the 2000-2008 annual average of 392, mostly because there were fewer storms and other meteorological disasters last year.

While there weren't any so-called mega-disasters, residents did feel the Earth shaking and burping scorching magma. The highest number of reported deaths was due to the earthquake in Sumatra, Indonesia on Sept. 30, which left 1,117 dead and more than 2.5 million others affected. The floods in July in Southern and Central China impacted the most individuals (39.4 million people).

The new report, called the Annual Disaster Statistical Review and compiled by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, reveals the unequal distribution of the burden from natural disasters. For instance, from the 111 countries affected by natural disasters last year, 18 accounted for more than 75 percent of the overall reported number of deaths, victims (number killed and affected) and economic damages.
The top 10 countries by number of notable natural disasters experienced in 2009 were:
Philippines: 25 disaster events

* China People's Republic: 24 events
* United States: 16 events
* India: 15 events
* Indonesia: 12 events
* Brazil: 9 events
* Mexico: 7 events
* Australia: 6 events
* Bangladesh: 6 events
* Viet Nam: 6 events

The number of events doesn't tell the whole story, though, since disaster type and intensity as well as the country's infrastructure can play a role in determining the number of human victims.

Here are the top 10 countries by natural-disaster-caused mortality in 2009:

* India: 1,806 deaths
* Indonesia: 1,407
* Philippines: 1,334
* Taiwan: 630
* China: 591
* Australia: 535
* Peru: 419
* Viet Nam: 356
* Italy: 335
* El Salvador: 275

Nature's most destructive disasters

Hydrological disasters, such as floods, remained the most common disasters in 2009, accounting for 53.7 percent of total reported natural disasters. This was followed by meteorological disasters (storms such as hurricanes), accounting for 25.4 percent of disasters; geophysical disasters (earthquakes, volcanoes) accounted for 2.7 percent of total disasters.

The 10 most destructive disasters regarding mortality included:

* Earthquake in September, which killed 1,117 individuals in Indonesia
* Flood from July-September, which killed 992 individuals in India
* Ketsana tropical storm Ondoy from September-October killed 716 individuals in the Philippines, Viet Nam, Cambodia and Lao People's Democratic Republic
* Typhoon Morakot in August killed 664 individuals in Taiwan, the Philippines and China
* Typhoon Pepeng in October killed 542 individuals in the Philippines and China
* Heat wave from January-February killed 347 individuals in Australia
* Flood from September-October killed 300 in India
* Cyclone Aila in May killed 298 individuals in Bangladesh, India and Bhutan
* Earthquake in April killed 295 individuals in Italy
* Hurricane Ida in November killed 281 individuals in El Salvador, the United States, Mexico and Nicaragua

And already Mother Nature has delivered a blow in 2010, from the catastrophic Haiti and Chilean earthquakes to the U.S. blizzard that descended on Washington, D.C., in February. In fact 2010 is already proving above average in terms of natural-disaster casualties.

Read more!

International Law Failing to Protect Coral Reefs and Tropical Fish, Experts Argue

ScienceDaily 28 Jun 10;

International law has failed to protect coral reefs and tropical fish from being decimated by a growing collectors market, but U.S. reforms can lead the way towards making the trade more responsible, ecologically sustainable and humane.

That's the view of 18 experts, including Washington State University marine ecologist Brian Tissot, writing in the journal Marine Policy.

"Our actions have a big impact on what happens in these coral reef ecosystems, which are already hit hard by other forces like global warming, ocean acidification and overfishing," said Tissot, lead author and professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at WSU Vancouver.

Using data from the United Nation's conservation monitoring program, the authors say trade in coral and coral reef species is substantial and growing, removing 30 million fish and 1.5 million live stony corals a year. The aquarium industry alone targets some 1,500 species of reef fishes. Many die in transit, leading collectors to gather even more animals to compensate for their losses.

The result is some species have gone "virtually extinct," said Tissot. The Banggai cardinalfish, which is unique to a remote Indonesian archipelago, has had its numbers reduced and even eliminated through much of its range after it became a popular aquarium fish in the late 1990s.

The Marine Policy paper grows out of a meeting of more than 40 scientists, NGOs and policy experts during the 2009 International Marine Conservation Congress. Their concerns grew even more pressing after the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, did not take action on key groups of corals this March. Authors include experts from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Marine Fisheries Service, Humane Society International, the Pew Environment Group and the Environmental Defense Fund.

With U.S. buyers accounting for more than half the trade in live coral, reef fish and invertebrates, the authors recommend leveraging U.S. market power to reduce the trade's environmental effects. They suggest laws to protect a wider variety of species, better enforcement that includes tracking a product's chain of custody, and reforms in source countries. They also recommend changes in marketing to promote sales of species certified as being humane and sustainable.

"The U.S.," say the authors, "should assume its role as an international leader in coral reef conservation and take steps to reform the international trade it drives."

Read more!

Thailand fights addiction to plastic bags

Bangkok is holding a 'No Bag, No Baht' campaign to reduce the 600,000 plastic bags the Thai capital consumes every day
Lynette Lee Corporal for IPS, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk 28 Jun 10;

Buy a hairpin and the sales clerk has a microscopic plastic bag for it. A soda purchase from a corner store may end up having the liquid poured into a plastic bag, and then topped off with a plastic straw. There is no plastic bag yet that could fit a car, but if there was one country that could come up with one, Thailand would probably be it.

But here in the capital, local authorities have restarted a campaign to wean the residents of the Thai capital from their plastic bag 'addiction'.

For the second year in a row, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is holding its 45-day 'No Bag, No Baht' project, which offers consumers a one-baht (three U.S. cents) discount for every 100 baht (nearly three dollars) purchase if they use their own cloth bags when shopping in several local markets. Meanwhile, each plastic bag will cost them one baht.

This year's BMA campaign was launched on Jun. 5, World Environment Day. Last year, the campaign targeted a cutback of 4.4 million plastic bags among Bangkok consumers. This year, BMA authorities want a cutback that is three times that figure.

BMA figures show that every day, more than 600,000 plastic bags are used in this city of nine million people.

Their annual disposal cost reaches more than 600 million baht (18.4 million dollars), city officials have said. Local media have quoted BMA deputy governor Porntep Techapaibul as saying that of the city's daily 10,000 tonnes of trash, about 1,800 tonnes are plastic bags, a number projected to increase by about 20 percent each year.

By now, many Bangkok residents have heard of the health and environmental hazards posed by plastic bags. Made from a non-renewable natural resource, petroleum, the bags have for their main ingredient polyethylene — or polythene — which is said to take 1,000 years to decompose on land and 450 years in water.

But even green-minded residents have problems avoiding the use of plastic bags. Thai Fund Foundation coordinator Chomphu Rammuang says that although she brings a big cloth bag to the supermarket and a lunch pack to work, she can still wind up with a plastic bag in hand by day's end.

Thailand, after all, is a major manufacturer of plastic. That could help explain why even micro-entrepreneurs here think nothing of shoving their merchandise in plastic bags.

For instance, Yakult health drink vendor Suprathit says that a 100-piece pack of small plastic bags costs her only five baht (15 cents). Pusadee, who sells office lunches in clear plastic bags, also says she buys a kilo of these for 70 baht (two dollars). She says a kilo's supply lasts her two days.

Thailand produces other plastic products. According to Greenpeace South- east Asia-Thailand country representative Tara Buakamsri, the country is among South-east Asia's biggest manufacturers of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is the third most widely produced plastic after polythylene and polypropylene.

Cheap, durable and easy to assemble, it is often used to make pipes, water bottles, credit cards. It is also non-biodegradable.

In April, the English-language daily 'Bangkok Post' reported that domestic demand for PVC is about 450,000 tonnes per year.

A study presented in 2009 by Wuthichai Wongthatsanekorn at the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology in Dubai, says that the recovery rate of plastic waste in Thailand in 2000 was only 23 percent.

It also says that only about 35 percent of the solid wastes collected from parts of Thailand outside of Bangkok are properly managed, while the rest of the waste products are "piled up in open dumping areas waiting to be dissolved."

For a campaign to be effective, Tara says, consumers have to be aware of the importance and the long-term effect of the scheme.

"We need to study what economic mechanism will work if plastic bags are banned in Thailand," he says. "What would be the reaction of the huge plastic industry in the country? What will be the economic incentive for people to follow this campaign?"

The good news, though, is that many establishments like supermarket chain Tesco Lotus and furniture store Home Pro are open to taking part in the BMA project. In fact, even before the 'No Bag, No Baht' project was relaunched, Tesco Lotus already had its very own 'Green Bag Green Point' campaign. For each bag saved, a customer can earn one Green Clubcard point.

Tesco Lotus senior corporate affairs manager Saofang Ekaluckrujee told IPS in an email interview, "We are very pleased to see policymakers such as the BMA making this issue a national priority. Our Green Bag Green Point scheme's initial target is to reduce plastic bag usage by 9.8 million bags in 2010." Other huge shopping malls like Siam Paragon and Central also give incentives like bonus shopper points for not using their bags – plastic or paper ones for that matter – or a 5 percent discount at certain times of the month.

Even small businesses are joining in. During the BMA campaign's soft relaunch in May, than 5,000 stores in Bangkok's famous Chatuchak weekend market participated.

Chomphu also reports that her monthly visits to the Chatuchak weekend market have become a pleasant experience, plastic bag-wise. "The vegetarian store near Chatuchak that I go to is actively participating in the project," she says. "Buyers are encouraged to bring their own bags."

Read more!