Green Design » Biodiversity and Ecosystems

Controlling the Ranching Boom That Threatens the Amazon

Yale Environment 360 — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:21:34 +0000

by Rhett Butler

Clearing land for cattle is responsible for 80 percent of rainforest loss in the Brazilian Amazon. But with Amazon ranching now a multi-billion dollar business, corporate buyers of beef and leather, including Wal-Mart, are starting to demand that the destruction of the forest be halted.

In the Brazilian Amazon, 80 million head of cattle — nearly as many as exist in all of the United States — now graze on land that once was tropical rainforest or the biologically rich, wooded grassland known as cerrado. An area larger than France is given over to the cattle, making ranching by far the biggest driver of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon, responsible for more than three-quarters of forest loss.

Environmental groups have warned for years that cattle production is gobbling up huge chunks of the world’s largest rainforest, but their campaigns have had no discernable impact on deforestation. Forest clearing remains stubbornly high while beef production has continued to expand, enabling the industry to become an economic and political juggernaut, seemingly unstoppable.

But in catering to conglomerates serving an international market — part of a broader trend over the past 20 years in which industrial corporations have replaced poor farmers as the primary agents of deforestation — producers have left themselves exposed to consumer backlash. It’s tough for an environmental group to target a subsistence farmer who’s clearing land to feed his family; it’s much easier to go after a multinational enterprise. So ironically, in its strength, the multibillion-dollar Brazilian cattle industry developed an Achilles’ heel.

In June, Greenpeace leveraged this vulnerability. The green group issued “Slaughtering the Amazon,” a report linking prominent global corporations — including Wal-Mart, Nike, and the French-based Carrefour grocery store chain — to cattle operations that are illegally clearing the Amazon rainforest. The fallout was immediate and substantial, and now a number of important players are moving to build on the report’s momentum by enlisting retailing giants to purchase Amazon beef and leather derived from more sustainable sources.

Those seeking to slow the deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon face daunting challenges in a region where lawlessness, intimidation, and violence have often ruled. But the publication of the Greenpeace report has jump-started overnight a market for certified beef and leather, with the world’s biggest buyers now interested in creating a supply chain through which meat and hides can be traced to ranches that have stopped razing the forest and employ sound environmental practices. Some ranchers, corporations, and conservation groups are considering using sophisticated techniques — including reliance on satellite photography and the implantation of tiny electronic identification tags in cattle — to create a strong system of certification.

Greenpeace’s report, based on a three-year investigation, said that the Brazilian government had invested $2.65 billion in three major beef and leather processing companies that have been key players in driving deforestation. Greenpeace identified a host of brand-name international firms doing business with the three companies, including the shoe manufacturers Nike, Adidas, Reebok, and Timberland. The report highlighted the extent to which Brazilian cattle products end up in a wide array of consumer goods, from supermarket hamburgers to Nike Airs.

After the Greenpeace report was released, Brazil’s biggest beef customers — including Wal-Mart and Carrefour — announced they would suspend contracts with suppliers involved in Amazon deforestation. Nike and the Timberland shoe company did the same. The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation withdrew a $90 million loan commitment from Bertin, the world’s second-largest beef exporter. Brazilian investigators raided the offices of JBS, the world’s largest beef processor, and other firms, arresting executives for corruption, fraud, and collusion.

And a Brazilian federal prosecutor filed a billion-dollar lawsuit against the cattle industry for environmental damage, warning that firms found to be marketing meat raised on illegally cleared Amazon land would be subject to fines of 500 reais ($260) per kilo. Marfrig, the world’s fourth-largest beef trader, said it would institute a moratorium on buying cattle raised in newly deforested areas within the Brazilian Amazon. BNDES, the development bank that accounts for most financing for the agricultural sector in Brazil, announced it would reform its lending policies, making loans contingent on environmental performance.

But while the Greenpeace report effectively turned the Brazilian beef and leather industry upside down, it was short on solutions. Banning cattle production in the Amazon is unlikely given the growing global beef demand, due largely to the surging middle-class appetite for meat in the emerging economies of Brazil, China, India, and Russia.

In the aftermath of the beef scandal, concerned parties have turned to an unlikely figure: a Texas rancher named John Cain Carter. Working in partnership with the Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (a Brazilian NGO), the Woods Hole Research Institute, and other groups, Carter’s organization, Aliança da Terra, has devised a unique approach to promoting land stewardship in the Amazon, one that could eventually be applied to commodity production in ecologically sensitive areas around the world.

Carter is not a conventional Brazilian or Texas rancher. After serving in the first Gulf War, he married a Brazilian and ended up in the Amazon state of Mato Grosso. At that time, eastern Mato Grosso was a frontier in the truest sense of the word — a region without governance, where armed land invasion was rife, conflict between Indian tribes and outsiders raged, and disputes were settled in blood. The circumstances perpetuated a forest-clearing bonanza, and Carter moved to the Amazon during what was perhaps the greatest spasm of forest destruction ever. Some 79,000 square miles were destroyed between 1995 and 2004 — an area larger than Nebraska.

Carter readily concedes he is no environmentalist, but he says the carnage around him compelled him to act.

On paper, environmental laws in the Brazilian Amazon are among the world’s most stringent. Landowners are required to keep 80 percent of their land forested, but lack of law enforcement has undermined this regulation, while economics and politics have conspired to thwart efforts to slow deforestation. For environmental groups, it is hostile territory.

“Two of my workers were gunned down last week,” Carter said. “This is not a place for NGOs to be working. It’s a place for the cavalry.”

But even the cavalry isn’t necessarily on the right side of the law, according to Carter, who says some local officials are complicit in land-grabbing and illicit forest clearing.

“We have local politicians coming on the radio telling people to invade the land,” Carter said while piloting his Cessna over a patch of his reserva legal — the government-mandated forest easement— that was cut and burned by squatters in October, 2007. Marãiwatsede, the Xavante indigenous reservation adjoining John Carter’s ranch, has been invaded several times. At one point the tribe retained control of only a tiny fraction of its land — an army of invasores was busily cutting down trees.

Still, Carter is hopeful that the situation can be improved by converting Brazil’s strict environmental codes into a marketing advantage for ranchers by guaranteeing to buyers that certified beef is produced sustainably. Aliança da Terra’s certification system aims to take the place of a failed governance regime by creating incentives for producers to maintain their forest reserves, reforest waterways, implement fire controls, and conserve soils. Carter maintains Aliança certification could help Brazilian farmers and ranchers get premium prices by directly supplying major supermarkets and restaurant chains that can then say they are using legally and responsibly produced beef.

“We want market recognition for shouldering this conservation burden,” said Carter.

An unlikely advocate for Cain’s certification initiative is Blairo Maggi, the soy farmer-turned-governor of Mato Grosso, to whom Greenpeace gave its “Golden Chainsaw” award in 2005 for being “the Brazilian person who most contributed to Amazon destruction.” Maggi now says certification could be a ticket into more markets for Brazilian agricultural products. Even BNDES, the infamous funder of rainforest destruction, is now mandating that cattle producers demonstrate that cattle have been raised on land that was not illegally cleared.

Noting that the creation of protected areas on paper means nothing without enforcement, Carter said, “If you don’t engage the private sector, [the forest] is never going to be saved. There need to be incentives to preserve forest on private property. Ranchers are tired of being demonized. If they are presented with a viable option, they can be compelled to become part of the solution.”

In a sign that interest in certification is growing, the Forest Footprint Disclosure Project was launched in June to help identify how an organization’s activities and supply chains contribute to forest destruction. The U.K. government-sponsored initiative will ask companies to “disclose how their operations and supply chains are impacting forests worldwide, and what is being done to manage those impacts responsibly.” Major buyers of cattle products are joining in: Both Wal-mart and Nike have announced that they will require chain-of-custody certification from suppliers, and major fast-food chains are in negotiations.

Collaborating with Woods Hole, Google Earth, and others, Carter’s group is working to devise honest land registries and a transparent certification system. This could involve high-tech methods — including satellite photo identification of ranches, tiny electrodes implanted in cattle, and electronic documentation systems — to identify responsible ranches and the cattle they produce.

Such an effort faces daunting challenges. Many producers are furious with the Greenpeace report and have threatened to bypass major beef buyers. While it may seem like an empty threat, Amazon beef is an export-driven industry and most goes to countries where environmental performance is at best a distant concern. Likewise, Brazilian shoppers haven’t shown a strong preference for the eco-credentials of products, suggesting that there remains a strong market for beef regardless of how it is produced. Gaming the system is also a possibility, especially given that BNDES is favoring the use of ear tags — which can be easily removed — for tracking cattle.

“In my hometown, one of the traditional centers of cattle ranching, they have a saying: ‘The cow walks, and the earrings fly,’” said Sergio Abranches, a Brazilian environmental journalist.

However, in the aftermath of the report, the Brazilian government has expressed keen interest in improving environmental performance. Beyond that, if such schemes successfully provide a financial carrot in the form of higher prices for beef and payments for reforestation, ranchers will be encouraged to become part of the system. But standards can be taken too far, becoming so burdensome for producers that they drop out if incentives can’t sufficiently sweeten the deal.

And there are grander issues in play. Brazil has committed to spending roughly $300 billion on new infrastructure projects, a prospect that could negate gains from a commodity tracking system and dwarfs the $21 billion the country seeks to raise for protecting the Amazon. Further, a new law, approved last month by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, could outweigh the value of improved stewardship by ranchers. The law grants title to hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers, and squatters who have illegally occupied more than a quarter million square miles of protected forest. At present it is unclear whether the law will spur increased deforestation or bring some semblance of governance to the region, making it easier to control deforestation.

To some, these issues may suggest that curbing beef consumption is the ultimate solution to deforestation in the Amazon. In the meantime, however, it is clear that industry can play a critical role in turning the tide in the Amazon. And time, Carter and others point out, is short.

“If we don’t do something soon,” said Carter, “the whole forest is going to go up in smoke.”

This piece originally appeared on Yale Environment 360
Photo Credit: iStock

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Yale Environment 360 in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 11:21 AM)

Can We Give Fish a Chance?

Julia Levitt — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:11:17 +0000

Will the oceans run out of edible fish in our lifetimes? Maybe not, according to a new study.

In 2006, a team of scientists led by Boris Worm in Halifax, Nova Scotia, made an alarming prediction: Overfishing was causing saltwater fish populations to collapse at such a rate that we could see the end of seafood by the year 2048. Because more than one billion people worldwide rely on seafood as a primary source of protein, and about 43.5 million people worldwide work in the fishing and seafood industries, this was a potential global food and economic crisis in the making.

Now, a collaborative effort on behalf of scientists on two sides of the issue -- both marine ecologists, who work for conservation, and fisheries management scientists, who work to find a way to safely harvest natural resources from the sea -- has shown that the prediction is a worst-case scenario and not a given. By taking action now, we can ensure a future for fish populations. According to an article in last Thursday's New York Times:

In the end, the scientists concluded that 63 percent of saltwater fish stocks had been depleted “below what we think of as a target range,” Dr. Worm said.

But they also agreed that fish in well-managed areas, including the United States, were recovering or doing well. They wrote that management techniques like closing some areas to fishing, restricting the use of certain fishing gear or allocating shares of the catch to individual fishermen, communities or others could allow depleted fish stocks to rebound.

The researchers suggest that a calculation of how many fish in a given species can be caught in a given region without threatening the stock, called maximum sustainable yield, is less useful than a standard that takes into account the health of the wider marine environment. They also agreed that solutions did not lie only in management techniques but also in the political will to apply them, even if they initially caused economic disruption.

Now that we've heard the warning, it's as though we've been given a second chance. Can we create a globally palatable standard for managing the world's fish -- and, more to the point, the world's oceans?

Read more in the Worldchanging archives:

Aquaponics: A Locavore's Fish Farm?

The Politics of Respecting Humans and Protecting the Oceans

New Fish Farms Move from Ocean to Warehouse

Oceans are the New Atmosphere

In Marine Reserves, the Promise of a Fish-Filled Future

Image: Creative Commons

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 4:11 PM)

Chemical Treaty Covers Additional Pollutants

Ben Block — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:44:59 +0000

Updated Version
An international treaty designed to eradicate the world's most harmful chemicals was expanded this past week to include nine additional pollutants.

Five of the pollutants are no longer in production and will be banned entirely. The remaining four chemicals will be phased out with various exemptions. Environmental advocates warned that the exemptions will ensure that health concerns associated with the chemicals will continue for many generations.

The controversial additions to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) include lindane, an agricultural pesticide and pharmaceutical; two forms of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a flame retardant known commercially as octaPDE and pentaPDE; and perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS), a chemical used in electric parts, firefighting foam, and stain removers.

The nine chemicals are the only pollutants that have been added to the POPs treaty since a group of chemicals known as "the dirty dozen" were first banned in 2001. POPs are associated with dysfunctions of the human endocrine, reproductive, and immune systems, including various cancers and neurobehavioral disorders. Once released, the chemicals often travel globally via wind and water currents, contaminating local as well as remote regions.

"The tremendous impact of these substances on human health and the environment has been acknowledged today by adding nine new chemicals to the convention," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, on Saturday. "This shift reflects international concern on the need to reduce and eventually eliminate such substances throughout the global community."

Lindane, which is already banned in at least 52 countries, has been associated with seizures and low reproductive rates. Negotiators agreed to eliminate the use of lindane as a pesticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration suggests alternative medications for lice removal, warning that "seizures can happen in some patients even if they use Lindane as directed." But the treaty amendments permit the chemical to be used to treat lice and scabies for another five years, with the possibility of an extension.

India, a lindane producer, succeeded in obtaining the exemption despite calls from the European Union and Mexico for an absolute ban. The United States, which signed the POPs treaty but has yet to ratify it, joined in opposing the exemption at the start of negotiations, according to the Pesticide Action Network.

Flame retardants pentaBDE and octaBDE can help slow the ignition and growth of fires, but the chemicals are associated with liver, thyroid, and neurological toxicity. Monitoring programs in Europe, Asia, North America, and the Arctic have found traces of several PBDEs in human breast milk, fish, and aquatic birds.

Although pentaBDE and octaBDE are no longer produced, older cell phones, computers, and cars often contain the pollutants. The POPs treaty would ordinarily forbid these products from being recycled or reused if contaminated with a POP. Negotiators agreed, however, that products contaminated with 18 percent or less of the fire retardants could be recycled until 2030.

PFOS attracted public health concern in 2000 when the company 3M phased the chemical out of its products due to discrete pressure from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Researchers have since detected PFOS and related perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in more than half of drinking water samples collected from New Jersey [PDF] and from the serum of nearly every newborn umbilical cord in a Baltimore,
Maryland study. In animal tests, high doses of PFOS and PFOA have caused cancer, physical development delays, endocrine disruption, and neonatal mortality. Unlike the other eight POPs added to the treaty, PFOS is still produced in large volumes. China, Iran, the United States, and Brazil were among the countries to claim that no economical alternatives to PFOS existed. As a result, PFOS use will continue for a variety of products such as semiconductors, fire foams, insecticides, and textiles, according to the Center for International Environmental Law.

The various exemptions allowed in the treaty amendments led the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), a collection of 700 public interest groups, to accuse negotiators of prioritizing short-term economic impacts above the chemicals' health and environmental concerns.

"Basically, industry and countries are asked what exemptions they want, and those are simply listed," said Mariann Lloyd-Smith, IPEN's co-chair, who attended the conference. "The lack of robust process to assess exemption requests was most distressing."

The decision to allow the recycling of pentaBDE and octaBDE prompted concerns that PBDE-contaminated products would be shipped to developing countries and recycled there. Negotiators responded by restricting exports of products that contain POPs if the products are not allowed for sale in the exporting country.

IPEN lobbied for the treaty to require that products be labeled if they contain recycled POPs, but the proposal was not adopted. "Recycled material will be used in unlabeled domestic products including recycled kitchen plastic goods and carpets," Lloyd-Smith said. "These POPs will be perpetuated into the future, and recycled contaminated products will be in peoples' homes."

Following the recent treaty negotiations, various indigenous people groups and nongovernmental organizations urged countries not to exercise the lindane exemption. "The pharmaceutical exemption in essence allows the disposal of existing stocks by dumping them on children's heads," said Karl Tupper, staff scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America, in a statement.
The other chemicals added to the POPs treaty were alpha hexachlorocyclohexane, beta hexachlorocyclohexane, chlorodecone, hexabromobiphenyl, and pentachlorobenzene.

Correction: The story originally stated that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants was expanded to cover additional toxins. POPs, however, are not the same as toxins, which are substances derived from living organisms.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 4:44 PM)

In Gabon, Activists Challenge Chinese Mine

Ben Block — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:29:32 +0000

Six relatively unknown grassroots activists from around the globe receive a moment in the spotlight when the Goldman Environmental Prize announces its list of annual recipients. The prize, now in its 19th year, is considered the Nobel Prize for the environment. Past recipients include Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai, former Brazilian environment minister Marina Silva, and Nigerian environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, who was killed seven months after his recognition.

The Worldwatch Institute is honoring this year's prize winners with a series of profiles based on personal interviews.

A treasure trove of iron lies beneath virgin tropical forest in the West African country of Gabon. Since the discovery of the Belinga deposit in 1895, the infrastructure costs required to tap the ore, one of the last major undeveloped iron reserves in the world, had scared away investors.

But three years ago, Gabon's future appeared set to change.

In 2006, a Chinese-owned consortium, CMEC, agreed tom provide $3.5 billion to develop the Belinga mine as well as associated roads, rail, seaport, and a hydroelectric dam. The support seemed like a blessing for impoverished Gabon, until media reports revealed that the country would receive only 10 percent of the mine's profits and that CMEC would receive a 25-year tax break.

Moreover, CMEC was granted 7,700 square kilometers for themining operations, even though only an estimated 600 square kilometers were considered necessary for development, according to Marc Ona Essangui, president of the Gabonese environmental group Brainforest.

"We didn't understand why the government gave this area to the Chinese company," said Ona, who obtained the leaked contract and distributed it to the press. "The reality is that President [Omar] Bongo didn't have the right information about this contract."

The project, as originally designed, would have inundated more than 5,000 square kilometers of Gabon, displacing upstream villages and threatening several nearby protected areas. The country's gem, Ivindo National Park, was put at risk in 2007 when CMEC began constructing a road directly through the reserve. Hunters have already used the road to access and poach formerly sheltered forest elephants, Ona said.

Ona, who was honored last week with the 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize for Africa, is credited for his government's decision last year to revise the deal so that Gabon receives greater economic benefit as well as enhanced forest protection.

"Without Marc and his colleagues at Brainforest, the iron ore and the dam would likely be under construction with devastating impacts on the environment, little benefit for Gabon's population, and long-term risks for the Chinese investors," said Peter Bosshard, policy director at the environmental group International Rivers.

Ona's efforts to fight the multi-billion dollar contract have not been without risk. Although President Bongo appears supportive of his work, Ona accuses various government ministers of attempting to silence him. The interior minister has suspended the activities of a non-governmental coalition that Ona coordinates, and the Brainforest office was ransacked in March 2008. In December, Ona and other civil society leaders were arrested without charge. After five days in a basement cell, Ona was accused of possessing propaganda documents with the intent to incite a rebellion.

"We were arrested because of this small reason, but the real reason is that we're fighting against corruption," said Ona, who denies allegations that he seeks to start a revolution. Until his trial is held in May, Ona has been barred from leaving the country. He was arrested when he boarded his flight to San Francisco earlier this month to accept the Goldman award. The U.S. ambassador to Gabon intervened to allow his departure, Ona said.

"It's been very tough for my family," Ona said. "But they understand that I have to do this to help the country."

Ona has decided to challenge a significant new force in Africa. More than 800 Chinese companies, many of them state-owned, now operate in 49 African countries. China's direct investment in Africa is estimated at $2-6 billion annually to feed the Asian giant's expanding appetite for resources, including oil from Sudan and Angola, copper from Zambia and Congo, and platinum from Zimbabwe. In exchange, China often supports a variety of infrastructure developments.

Ona appears an unlikely character to confront powerful Gabonese and Chinese authorities. Wheelchair-bound, he contracted polio as a child. Raised in a small village 25 kilometers from the northern village of Oyem, he traveled to school on his father's back.

But the Belinga mine may not proceed due to Ona's efforts. The renegotiated contract reduced the forest area affected by the dam and road construction, limiting the project's territorial scope. But the initiative, which has not undergone an environmental impact assessment, still violates the social and environmental requirements of its Chinese financier, according to a letter Ona sent to China Ex-Im Bank [PDF] in October.

The project is now on hold, Ona said, due to uncertainty caused by the international financial crisis and Gabon's 2012 presidential election.

Ona's father promised not to abandon him when he could not walk. Likewise, Ona said that if the mine project resumes in the future, he will be sure that Ivindo park and its Kangou Falls remain preserved. "As long as Kangou Falls is still breathing, I will not leave it behind."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org. This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service. Photo credit: flickr/Arbron, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 12:29 PM)

Germany Deals Blow to GM Crops

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:25:59 +0000

by Kate Connolly

Germany has thrown its weight behind a growing European mutiny over genetically modified crops by banning the planting of a widely grown pest-resistant corn variety.

Agriculture minister Ilse Aigner said there was enough evidence to support arguments that MON 810, which is the only GM crop widely grown in Europe, posed a danger.

"I have come to the conclusion that genetically-modified corn from the MON 810 strain constitutes a danger to the environment," Aigner told reporters in Berlin.

Germany's move, which has immediate effect, goes against the European Commission's decision to support the lifting of bans on planting MON 810 which have been imposed by governments in France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg.

In the UK, the Welsh Assembly has declared the country GM-free. Supported by Britain, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden, the Commission argued last month that moves to outlaw the corn on the grounds that it is dangerous were unjust because it has been deemed safe by scientists at the European Food Safety Authority.

MON 810 was first approved for commercial use in the EU in 1998 and has been permitted as a commercial crop in Germany since 2005. More than 70 per cent of German consumers support a ban on GM crops for food.

The US biotechnology firm Monsanto which markets the maize did not return calls but industry observers said the ban by Europe's largest country with a strong agricultural lobby, was a blow to the company.

MON 810 was developed to resist a moth larva which bores into the stem of the corn and against which there is only one approved insecticide.

Monsanto has repeatedly argued that MON 810 crops are safe and has tried to encourage their use as a cheap and plentiful food. They are widely grown in the US, Latin America and China.

But opponents insist that too little is known about GM crops and their long-term genetic impact on wildlife and the food-chain.

The German ban will now be analysed by the Commission, amid fears it could trigger trade tensions with the US. Under World Trade Organisation rules, the US administration has the right to retaliate.

Nathalie Charbonneau a spokeswoman for the Commission said it would scrutinise the German decision and "decide on the most appropriate follow-up".

Lobbyists for the biotechnology industry in Germany described the decision as a setback for science and for the economy. They warned that it would prompt biotechnology companies to relocate to other parts of the world.

this piece originally appeared on The Guardian

photo credit: flickr/jercraigs, Creative Commons License.

related articles: British GMO Protests Highlight Global Divide

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 12:25 PM)

Alliance Formed to Limit Invasive Species

Ben Block — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:35:28 +0000

A partnership between the United Nations and global shipping companies will attempt to control the overseas travel of unwelcome invasive species, the international agency announced last week.

The collaboration, known as the Global Industry Alliance, will encourage the shipping industry to share approaches on limiting the number of invasive species transferred in ballast water, the leading cause of introducing a marine alien species.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Global Environment Facility (GEF), and four private shipping corporations form the alliance. The groups hope to develop cost-effective ballast water treatment technologies, such as new efforts to create a "ballast-free" ship, a joint statement said.

"Without a doubt, this is the first of its type [for marine invasive species control]," said Andrew Hudson, the UNDP principal technical adviser on international water issues. "It's a unique public-private partnership. For the IMO, there's hope in principle for replication along other shipping issues."

Unloaded cargo vessels fill up with ballast water to provide stability on the high seas. The process enables plants and animals to enter the ship, where they are stored until the vessel deposits the ballast water at its destination.

The IMO estimates that cargo vessels carry 10 billion tons of ballast water across the globe each year and transfer more than 3,000 plant species daily.

Harmful non-native species, such as the comb jelly in the Black Sea and zebra mussel in the U.S. Great Lakes, have overtaken habitats and fundamentally altered the marine areas' ecological balance. Once established, alien species are often impossible to remove.

"We should look at this innovative alliance and its expected outcomes as a development that sends an optimistic message to the global community that, while the challenges appear to be significant, they are not insurmountable," said IMO Secretary-General Efthimios Mitropoulos in a press release.

The alliance noted that the shipping industry currently manages "very little" ballast water specifically to limit the spread of foreign marine species.

Four major shipping corporations joined the alliance's launch: APL, BP Shipping, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, and Vela Marine International. More companies have expressed interest in joining, the IMO said.

Several new technologies are being developed to remove invasive species from ballast water, including the use of heat treatment, biodegradable chemicals, and electrochemical control.

At a ballast water treatment conference in Singapore last year, Hudson said he came across at least 12 different processes. "A blossoming multi-million dollar market is being developed to respond to this issue," he said.

The IMO announcement singled out ballast-free ships, also known as flow-thru ballast tanks, as a possible cost-effective option. A University of Michigan-designed ballast-free ship continuously runs local seawater through a network of large pipes below the vessel's waterline, rather than haul the same water between regions.

A new oceangoing bulk carrier costs about $70 million. Without the costs of conventional filtration systems or ballast tanks, however, a ballast-free design could save about $540,000 per ship, according to a university press release.

In recent years, the IMO has also developed legislative mechanisms to control marine invasive species. The international community agreed that shipping industries would treat the outside of ships, where invasive species such as barnacles often attach themselves, in a treaty that came into force last year.

A separate treaty that focuses specifically on the management of ballast water has not been supported by the 30 countries needed for it to enter into force. Still, Hudson said key nations such as Panama and Liberia are expressing interest. "There's very little perceptible private sector resistance or opposition or lobbying," Hudson said. "There's generally strong support."

Researchers from The Nature Conservancy published the first global assessment of marine invasive species last year in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. The review counted 329 marine invasive species, with 84 percent of the world's 232 marine ecoregions having at least one species present.

The highest levels of invasion were found along the Northern California coast and Hawaiian Islands, and in the North Sea and eastern Mediterranean Sea. An estimated 16 percent of marine regions had no reported invasions, but the study warned that research is lagging in many areas of the world.

The study found the shipping industry to be the most common pathway for invasive marine species. An estimated 228 marine species are transported through ballast water or on a vessel's exterior, and about 57 percent of those species are considered harmful when introduced into non-native ecosystems.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 1:35 PM)

Oceanographer Charles Moore Talks Trash at TED

Sarah Kuck — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:17:06 +0000

Solution to Seas of Plastic: End "Throwaway Culture"

Charles Moore captains the Algalita, a marine research vessel belonging to the foundation of the same name. During a research voyage, Moore discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- an endless floating waste of plastic trash. Moore tells the TED audience, 'end throwaway culture to end the growing, choking problem of plastic debris in our seas.'

Many of the most encouraging solutions involve stopping the waste stream at the headwaters. Designers with foresight are starting to employ ideas such as design for dissasembly and upcycling to create ways to design excess out of the system. For more on this, check out these articles from our archive:

Casa De Botellas: Turning Waste into Modular Construction

Design Roundup: Dual Use Packaging Reduces Waste

Design for Disassembly, Zero Waste and Sustainable Prosperity

Designing a Zero-Waste City: A Visit to the San Francisco Dump

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 2:17 PM)

Oceanographer Charles Moore Talks Trash at TED

Sarah Kuck — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:17:06 +0000

Solution to Seas of Plastic: End "Throwaway Culture"

Charles Moore captains the Algalita, a marine research vessel belonging to the foundation of the same name. During a research voyage, Moore discovered the Great Pacific Garbage Patch -- an endless floating waste of plastic trash. Moore tells the TED audience, 'end throwaway culture to end the growing, choking problem of plastic debris in our seas.'

Many of the most encouraging solutions involve stopping the waste stream at the headwaters. Designers with foresight are starting to employ ideas such as design for dissasembly and upcycling to create ways to design excess out of the system. For more on this, check out these articles from our archive:

Casa De Botellas: Turning Waste into Modular Construction

Design Roundup: Dual Use Packaging Reduces Waste

Design for Disassembly, Zero Waste and Sustainable Prosperity

Designing a Zero-Waste City: A Visit to the San Francisco Dump

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 2:17 PM)

Obama Reverses Bush Decision on Endangered Species Act

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:43:33 +0000

by Suzanne Goldenberg

US President Barack Obama

Barack Obama restored protections for endangered species today in a roll-back of one of the most contentious last-minute rule changes of the George Bush era.
"For more than three decades, the Endangered Species Act has successfully protected our nation's most threatened wildlife, and we should be looking for ways to improve it - not weaken it," Obama said today.
The rule change, which was made final in mid-December last year, left it up to government agencies to decide on their own whether new dams, logging or mining operations posed a threat to endangered species or their habitat.
The rule also said that a project's impact on climate change should no longer be a factor when taking into account its impact on wildlife.
The Bush-era changes amounted to rolling back the clock on 35 years of protocol.
Until the rule became final in December - about six weeks before Bush left the White House - it had been required to call on government biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service or other agencies to deliver a threat assessment before giving the go-ahead to development.
Bush had argued such protections were a drag on the economy. In announcing his decision on Tuesday, Obama said he saw no conflict between development and protecting endangered species.
"Throughout our history, there's been a tension between those who've sought to conserve our natural resources for the benefit of future generations, and those who have sought to profit from these resources," he said. "This is a false choice. With smart, sustainable policies, we can grow our economy today and preserve the environment."
The directive issued today short-circuits the lengthy process ordinarily required for changing government regulations.
It was welcomed by environmentalists, and criticised by businesss groups who said the protections were an obstacle to road-building and other projects that could help get the economy moving again.

"The Bush rules would have allowed agencies with little or no wildlife expertise to make decisions that could mean life or death for animals like the polar bear," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.

"Our wildlife are clearly in much better hands now. President Obama is bringing science back into decision-making."
Congressman Nick Rahall, who leads the House natural resources committee, also voiced support: "I wholeheartedly support the president's proposal to restore the protections for endangered species ... I think we know who would have been the winner in this fox-guarding-the-hen-house scenario advanced by the Bush administration, and it would not be the hens."
Some business groups said they were exploring the option of legal action against the Obama memo.
Obama has said repeatedly that he will let science drive his administration's policies on the environment.

The memo is the latest in a series of moves by the White House to undo Bush's legacy on the environment.
Obama has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review its refusal to allow California to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars.
The White House has also stopped a move that would have opened up land in natural parks - including Arches National Park in Utah - to oil and gas drilling.
This piece originally appeared in The Guardian.
Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 1:43 PM)

Ecosystem Markets Take Off

Ben Block — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:46:45 +0000

Image credit: Wikipedia
Ecosystem markets, exchanges of nature's various services, are adding new dimensions to conservation. In addition to using regulation to restrict development, more countries are turning to the invisible hand of the market to protect biodiversity, clean waterways, and fight climate change.
In a nutshell, market-based approaches assign an economic value to ecosystem services such as erosion control, flood buffers, and clean air. In some circumstances, developers are allowed to pollute or transform a valuable habitat as long as the affected ecological services are offset through separate habitat preservation, water conservation, or greenhouse gas reductions.

Supporters praise the approach for its promotion of conservation funding at a time when financial resources are scarce. But critics suggest the market is a last resort that indicates governments may be neglecting their duty to protect ecosystems as habitats come under increasing levels of stress.

The most widely known ecosystem commodity is carbon. The global carbon market - exchanges of mandatory or voluntary greenhouse gas reductions - rose 84 percent in value last year, according to the research group New Carbon Finance, which released a report on the topic last week.

The net worth of the carbon market was estimated at $118 billion in 2008, and the report predicted its value could grow to $150 billion this year as carbon prices rise on the European carbon exchange, known as the EU Emission Trading Scheme.

Due in part to the success of carbon markets, more countries are experimenting with market exchanges that seek to protect biodiversity and clean water as well.

With biodiversity banks, for example, landowners who cannot legally develop their property because of the presence of an endangered species or a wetland can collect payments or "credits" from the conservation of their land. Once the property is preserved, the landowner sells the credits to developers who need to offset development that occurs where similar habitats are found.

About $3.4 billion of regulated biodiversity offset transactions occur per year, the research group Ecosystem Marketplace estimated in a report released last year [PDF].

"We're finally looking at the opportunity to capture much more capital market investments to spend on conservation," said Michael Jenkins, president of Forest Trends, a sustainable forestry think tank that launched Ecosystem Marketplace in 2005. "There's never enough money through private foundations or agencies to address these issues."

The markets are most developed in the United States, where wetland offsets first appeared in the 1970s, but more countries are showing interest. Australia launched an active biodiversity offset program in 2006, and several countries require some form of environmental offset to allow any impact on a protected area.

Ecosystem Marketplace predicts the biodiversity markets will grow to $4.5 billion by 2010 due to continued interest in the United States and Australia.

Although the markets are growing, economic recessions worldwide may affect the offset markets. "Ultimately it'll be about the bottom line, so there is potential for some additional investments in offsets to slow down," said Joe Kiesecker, science director for The Nature Conservancy's Rocky Mountain region. "But once developments move forward, the process will continue."

With water markets, governments typically cap the level of degradation allowed in a given area and allocate pollution permits that can then be traded among the polluters. Similar programs are now found in North
America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. The size of actively trading water markets is expected to reach $500 million by 2010, Ecosystem Marketplace estimates.

As a sign of the growing interest in ecosystem markets, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is creating the first office dedicated solely to these emerging conservation strategies. The new Office of Ecosystem Markets and Services is tasked with creating uniform guidelines for the numerous markets, with an initial focus on carbon sequestration standards for agriculture and forestry.

Sally Collins, the office's first appointed director, said she was originally skeptical of the use of markets to protect ecological services. She eventually embraced the approach and began to implement market-based conservation strategies in her former role as the associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service.

"The regulatory framework that is so critical was driving people to do just the bare minimum. It was not doing enough to protect the land," Collins said in an interview. "Something different was needed."

Supporters of emerging ecosystem markets still acknowledge that the programs are not without their flaws. The offsets at times do not replace the lost ecological services - for instance, wetland offsets do not always provide as much habitat or flood control as the original ecosystem. For the markets to work, and for conservation efforts to succeed, the programs rely heavily on proper oversight and enforcement.

If successful, the shift in conservation strategy toward ecosystem services not only redefines the rationale for protecting a habitat, but it could also reshape the traditional role of rural areas, said Sara Scheer, president of Ecoagriculture Partners, a conservation research group.

"Historically we considered rural America as a way we got our food, where we found our parks," said Scheer, a contributing author to the Worldwatch Institute publication State of the World 2009. "Now we realize it has a really powerful role in providing ecosystem services."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

This piece originally appeared on the Worldwatch Institute's news service Eye on Earth.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 11:46 AM)

Picturing an End for Mountaintop Removal

Sarah Kuck — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:56:48 +0000

Flying over the Appalachian Mountains of West Virgina will undoubtedly award you with stunning views of rolling blue-green hillsides, deep misty valleys and high plateaus. But from your birds-eye view, you might also be accosted by the sight of unnatural-looking, rocky bald spots where the tops of mountains used to be.

Mountaintop removal/valley fill coal mining in southern West Virginia

Photo by Vivian Stockman

Mountaintop removal is technique used for finding more coal in which miners blast through 800 to 1,000 feet of mountaintop stone to get to embedded coal seams. This isn't easy or safe for the surrounding ecosystems, the mine workers or nearby communities.

Independence Coal (a Massey Energy subsidiary) operates the Upper Big Branch surface mine (permit # S-3019-99), where this massive valley fill looms over the devastated landscape The valley fill is locally known as the Birchton Curve Valley Fill.

Photo by Vivian Stockman

These mines are more than just aesthetically scarring. They destroy ancient forests and habitats, exacerbate erosion and sediment runoff, and pollute the streams below, ruining the water that farms and towns rely on for irrigation and daily life.

Another view of the Birchton Curve Valley Fill.

Photo by Vivian Stockman

On Tues., Dec. 2, many opponents of mountaintop removal were surprised to hear that the Environmental Protection Agency repealed a rule that restricted this type of mining.

This wasn't a popular move, and was most likely another attempt by the Bush Administration to push through more environmentally backward midnight regulation, as Margaret Williams, contributing editor for Asheville, North Carolina's Mountain Xpress wrote:

In October, a nationwide poll on mountaintop-removal mining found that two out of three likely voters opposed the rule change. An Oct. 21 New York Times editorial noted that “more than 1,200 miles of streams in Appalachia already have been buried or destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining.” And then-presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama both voiced their opposition to the practice.

“Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to live up to its name. With less than two months left in power, the Bush administration is determined to cement its legacy as having the worst environmental record in history,” said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel at Earthjustice.

By some measures, more than 400 mountaintops have been stripped of trees and flattened, 1,200 miles of mountain streams buried under rubble. The forests that once cloaked 387,000 acres of the world’s most ancient mountain range have been razed. If the industry is allowed to proceed at its current pace, an area the size of Delaware will have been lost, say environmental groups.

At 10 cents per kilowatt hour, coal's low monetary cost currently trumps that of more sustainable energy options, like solar and wind. Until the price of alternatives are equal, it will be difficult to stop the demand for dirty energy. But according to a recent article by the Christian Science Monitor the cost per watt of renewables is dropping:

Evidence of a shift appears to be taking shape around the country. Google, the Internet search company, has invested in several young solar-power start-ups with an explicit cheaper-than-coal goal. San Jose, Calif.-based Nanosolar already claims to be shipping “thin-film” solar panels that generate electricity on par with the cost of coal-fired power. And in Lexington, Mass., Frank van Mierlo and Emanuel Sachs are leading a team of engineers with one audacious mission: Make a silicon photovoltaic cell that turns sunshine into electricity as cheap as electricity from a coal-burning power plant.

“There’s no doubt that we’re going to see solar as cheap as coal power a lot sooner than many people realize,” says Mr. van Mierlo, president of solar power efficiency company 1366 Technologies.

In addition to making alternatives to coal more affordable, another solution is movement building and activism.The Rainforest Action Network declared victory on Thurs., Dec. 4, as Bank of America posted its new policy against mountaintop removal coal mining.That success is lending optimism to others within the movement working to make energy from coal a thing of the past.

That's one for technological solutions, and one for community voices. Now on to the long-term solutions.

The bright green solution to mountaintop removal coal mining is finding a way to more honestly price the resources we use. This method would price energy in a way that directly reflects the true cost of its extraction and the environmental cost of its use, while placing value on the ecosystem services nature provides to us for free.

Pricing energy honestly allows the true expense of blowing the tops off mountains to be seen more clearly. As a result, alternative sources look far more attractive. This solution helps us make smart decisions, like valuing ecosystem services and choosing renewable energy sources.

We need a national policy that supports this. If you believe in this, please sign our letter to President-elect Obama asking him to discuss this and other solutions for addressing climate change in his inaugural address.

Photo credit: Vivian Stockman / www.ohvec.org
Flyover courtesy SouthWings.org.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 4:56 PM)

WWF Living Planet Report 2008

Julia Levitt — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:04:46 +0000

The Living Planet Report 2008, a study published by the WWF, offers the organization's most in-depth study of global ecosystem decline to date. The report combines data from the Living Planet Index (a survey of 1,313 vertebrate species from both land and water habitats around the world), global ecological footprints, and also studies of water resources (we've covered previous editions of the Living Planet Report).

According to Pavan Sukhdev, lead author, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity current studies show that we are losing between 2 and 5 trillion dollars in natural capital per year:

WWF video courtesy of YouTube

On an analytical map indicating which nations are "eco-debtors" (with ecological footprints greater than their biocapacity), a bright red swath cuts across much of the developed world indicating nations in debt. Striking is the comparison between the same map made with 1961 data, and the much redder 2005 version.

Looking at this map, it's hard for me to not wonder about the strain that such uneven resource use will have on international relations as irreplaceable natural capital continues to disappear and the harmful impacts of climate change continue to affect everyone without regard to which populations are more to blame.

But the devastating news must have an upside: the sophisticated analysis allows researchers to determine the world's most pressing problems: excess carbon emissions, the WWF says, remain the most harmful effect that humans have on the planet. And knowing that gives those who want to change the pattern of destruction a place to start:

Using a wedge approach (as pioneered by Pacala and Socolow in 2004) the report illustrates how, for example, moving to clean, efficient energy generation based on current technologies could allow us to meet the projected 2050 demand for energy services with major reductions in associated carbon emissions.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 1:04 PM)

Ecosystem Services of Tropical Forests to be Protected with Precedent-Setting Memorandum

Sarah Kuck — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:11:09 +0000

Earlier this week California, Illinois and Wisconsin joined forces with six states in Brazil and Indonesia to fight climate change in an unprecedented way: the states will develop programs that will protect and restore tropical rainforests to ensure the safety of these essential carbon sinks.

According to a recent release from Marshall Maher of Conservation International, by signing the memorandum of understanding (MOU), the governors are stating that they are willing to pay for the service the tropical forests are providing: storing and absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

"When a tropical forest is destroyed, it hurts everyone, no matter where they live," said Peter Seligmann, the chairman and CEO of Conservation International (CI)…The US governors' leadership in this area will help stabilize the Earth's climate by providing effective incentives to conserve these threatened tropical ecosystems that are so critical for supporting the livelihoods of forest-dwelling communities and indigenous peoples."

Governments and institutions around the world are seeing the MOU as a hopeful sign that legislatures are finally willing to take action at the state level, and are optimistic that this proactive measure will encourage others to do the same.

"This would open the door for carbon credits derived from protecting forests to be used for compliance purposes under US climate legislation," said Toby Janson-Smith, the senior director for forest carbon markets in CI's Center for Environmental Leadership in Business. "International negotiators will see that it can be done in a credible and robust way, and that reducing emissions from deforestation should finally be included in the global climate change framework."

The Kyoto Protocol only allows for emissions trading for new or replanted forests. As far as carbon markets go, this has mostly resulted in voluntary financing for forest conservation. Last year’s U.N.-led negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, looked into forest protection as a possible strategy for climate change mitigation, but they have not yet agreed upon such a measure. This measure is unparalleled, for now. Many hope that this effort will provide a model for success that the U.N. can look to during next year's negotiations in Copenhagen.

Thanks to the Environmental Media Alliance for bringing this story to our attention.

Image credit: Flickr/Andy Hadfield.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 1:11 PM)

Conservationists Push to Protect Marine Areas

Ben Block — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:50:53 +0000

Conservationists are increasing their efforts to establish a global network of marine protected areas in response to the deteriorating health of the world's oceans.

Marine parks, areas that ban fishing, development, and other commercial activity to allow the recovery of fish populations and wild ecosystems, have become popular strategies in recent years to address the oceans' woes. More than one-third of marine ecosystems are seriously threatened by human activities, according to the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Effective protective areas are often difficult to administer, however, due to their massive size and the fact that they often straddle national borders. About 0.08 percent of the world's oceans are protected, and 0.2 percent of the total marine area within national jurisdictions prohibits extractive industries.

To accelerate marine efforts, environmentalists announced priority regions to create marine protected areas (MPAs), several new policy strategies, and cutting-edge technologies that allow the public to virtually "see" the underwater conservation areas for the first time. The developments came at last week's IUCN World Congress, a quadrennial meeting of some 8,000 participants.

"Let's move forward. Let's scale up. Let's get visible. And let's show the world what we can do," said Dan Laffoley, a marine specialist with Natural England and vice chair of IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas. "We want MPAs all over the place."

MPAs are one of several conservation strategies to protect marine ecosystems. Whereas other measures allow limited sustainable development in the protected waters, MPAs limit the right to remove seafood and other marine resources from these areas. For these restrictions, fishing communities often oppose the MPAs.

But MPAs are considered useful tools to boost fisheries within the reserve's boundaries and beyond due to their potential to protect key breeding and feeding sites. One MPA in the Philippines experienced a 560 percent increase in the biomass of its predatory fish populations, said Jane Lubchenco, a zoology professor at Oregon State University.

"There is incredible potential for those MPAs to help revive fisheries outside the reserve," Lubchenco said. "The reserves are not a panacea-they don't solve all marine problems-but they are a good resource."

While several governments have been preserving large marine areas for decades - Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was designated in 1975 - more MPAs have been announced in recent years. The south Pacific nation of Kiribati set aside an area the size of California this year to create the world's largest MPA. The United States has also discussed plans to protect portions of the Pacific Ocean that may surpass Kiribati's Phoenix Islands Protected Areas in size.

Yet international goals to form a global protected area network by 2012 are not likely to be met until at least 2060, based on the current rate of protection, conservationists said at the World Congress. "An immediate global concern is the need for a rapid increase in MPA coverage in conjunction with scaling up of ocean management," a guide released to ocean experts said.

To suggest further MPA efforts, a coalition of environmental groups identified ten marine sites that they consider ideal for protected status. The sites, three of which are in the west Atlantic, range from the world's largest seagrass community in the western Indian Ocean to the partially frozen Ross Sea between West and East Antarctica. "These are magnificent places that are very much worth saving," said Elliott Norse, president of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute.

All ten of the sites are considered to be in the "high seas" - the 45 percent of the world's oceans that belongs to no single nation. Conservationists have historically dedicated less attention to these regions, but industrial fishing operations are increasingly moving to more-distant waters as global fish stocks plummet. Today, 75 percent of the world's fisheries are overexploited or exploited to their maximum capacity, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

Environmentalists have so far had difficulty convincing governments to preserve regions beyond their own maritime borders, which are typically restricted to coastal zones that extend out from the continental edges. Carl Gustaf Lundin, head of IUCN's global marine program, said one solution could be the use of multinational bodies such as the International Seabed Authority, which oversees the sunken Titanic.

To provide further guidance, the IUCN Congress revealed "10 Principles for High Sea Governance." The document called for industries to perform environmental assessments prior to all activities in the high seas, and for a switch to more holistic marine policies based on ecosystem-wide approaches rather than the current focus on specific at-risk species.

IUCN President Valli Moosa described the principles as "one of the more important outcomes of the Congress." Members of the Congress, which include government agencies, did not vote on the document, however, because IUCN did not want to make some countries "uncomfortable," he said, adding that "bureaucrats don't have authority to say anything."

Other Congress announcements included two new media ventures that conservationists hope will allow the public better access to MPAs worldwide.

Google Earth announced the addition of an "MPA layer" to its online mapping software. The program allows viewers to visit more than 4,000 MPAs and access photographs, videos, and stories about the underwater sites. "We will never be able to get rapid progress unless...we crack the visibility issues," Laffoley told Congress attendees. "It's not just about putting dots on a map. It's about being able to engage the world community to make history."

Laffoley said the Google Earth layer should also help developing countries access global information about marine preservation. "For the first time, countries across the Pacific who had trouble with communication... have the ability to connect to the site just as well as well-funded western NGOs," he said.

National Geographic also revealed the first 24-hour, live ocean camera made available to the public. Readers can find the video, streaming from an atoll in Belize, here.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute, where this post originally appeared.

Photo: Australia’s protected Great Barrier Reef was the largest marine park until commercial activity was banned in two huge areas of the south Pacific in the past two years. Photo courtesy Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 10:50 AM)

Coalition Releases REDD Advice

Ben Block — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:15:11 +0000

Leaders from the environmental and business communities have released the most comprehensive recommendations yet on the role that forests should play in the next climate change agreement.

The Forest Dialogue's Initiative on Forests and Climate Change, a 250-person coalition of governments, environmentalists, timber companies, trade unions, financial institutions, and indigenous peoples, released five "guiding principles" [PDF] in a joint statement at the World Conservation Union (IUCN) World Congress in Barcelona on Wednesday.

Among the recommendations, the initiative said negotiators must address the factors that now complicate halting deforestation, including agriculture production, population growth, and unclear land rights.

"Perverse incentives that encourage the clearing of land that would otherwise have remained as forest should be identified and removed," the statement said.

Deforestation is reponsible for nearly 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet forest management is not included in the Kyoto Protocol, the current international climate agreement. The exclusion was due in part to disagreement within the environmental community about how such a forestry policy should work, or whether it should exist at all.

At December's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, however, negotiators from Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea said it was unfair that countries that have been actively protecting their forests were not being rewarded for this effort. Conference delegates agreed and included a policy that would compensate nations for forest protection, known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), in the final "Bali roadmap" [PDF] report.

The policy's ambitions, however, are no easy task. Billions of dollars will likely be necessary to persuade loggers to change their ways. The policy also raises the questions: Who will receive the funds? How will they be distributed? And how will people who depend on forest clearing for their livelihood be compensated if tree felling is prohibited?

Several critics have also raised concerns about the general concept of REDD. "Reward the destroyers to stop destroyin g- isn't that encouraging those who are doing wrong instead of those who are trying to protect the forests?" said Kanyinke Sena, Eastern Africa representative for the Indigenous People of Africa Coordinating Committee.

While the initiative's statement does not provide specific answers to these questions, it emphasizes that sustainable forest management must be central to the REDD agreement.

"Unless development issues such as poverty and corruption are addressed... a revenue stream to reduce deforestation might not do the trick," said Warren Evans, senior director of the World Bank Environment Department.

The guidelines also call for climate policies that respect the "importance of mapping and securing the tenure, property, and carbon rights of Indigenous Peoples, family forest owners, and local communities." These groups have often been excluded from climate negotiations both in their own countries and in international negotiations.

"For a long time we have been kept out - the people really doing work [of traditional forest management]," said Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, chairperson of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. "It's good that we are finally being heard through the Forest Dialogues."

The initiative's consensus is similar to what environmentalists have been saying since sustainability became a popular talking point nearly two decades ago. Yet the collaboration provides the first comprehensive guidelines on REDD for climate negotiators. "The huge step is having a unified statement from businesses to indigenous groups," said Daniel Birchmeier, senior program officer for Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO). "That can't be ignored."

The consensus also suggests that the environmental community as a whole is more willing to include forestry in a climate agreement than it was in the past. The initiative was organized mainly by IUCN and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, but leaders from the largest environmental organizations all participated in the process.

While the REDD policy has still not been finalized, several countries are already accepting funds to support anti-deforestation measures. Earlier this year, Norway became the first donor to Brazil's voluntary forestry fund, which the government hopes will collect $1 billion annually to help protect the Amazon forest from further destruction. And the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit selected 14 forest-rich countries in July to receive grants for policies that they hope will avoid further deforestation.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reach at bblock@worldwatch.org.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 3:15 PM)

Addressing the Source of Species Extinction

Sarah Kuck — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:54:26 +0000

One of the greatest tragedies of our time is being both witness to and having a hand in the sixth extinction (which you can read more about here and here). Not only is it challenging and seriously depressing to try to understand this (a headline I saw this morning actually read: “Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism as Arctic Ice Melts”); it often feels downright impossible to come up with solutions for helping endangered species recover.

But when we truly go after long-term solutions, we can start looking to the root of the problem for answers – allowing us to bypass short-sighted quick fixes. We found a great example of this in today’s New York Times about how this has happened in an impoverished region in southern China.

“It Takes Just One Village to Save a Species” tells the story of how, in 1996, Pan Wenshi, China’s premier panda biologist, suggested that in order to save the rapidly disappearing population of endangered langurs, the government address the region’s crippling poverty:

This was at a time when hunters were taking the canary-yellow young langurs from their cliff-face strongholds, and villagers were leveling the forest for firewood.

Dr. Pan quickly hired wardens to protect the remaining animals but then went a step further, taking on the larger social and economic factors jeopardizing the species, [believing] that alleviating the region’s continuing poverty was essential for their long-term survival.

In the 24-square-kilometer nature reserve where he has focused his studies, the langur population increased to more than 500 today from 96 in 1996.

“It’s a model of what can be done in hot-spot areas that have been devastated by development,” said Russell A. Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International. “Pan has combined all the elements — protection, research, ecotourism, good relations with the local community; he’s really turned the langur into a flagship for the region.”

Taking a straight-to-the-source solutions approach helped to create a win-win situation that proves that we can all find ways to live together. In this story, the government backed the solutions that truly brought about recovery. Not all countries are so lucky, but researchers and scientists are still working diligently to identify the long-term solutions that will lead to species recovery anyway. And hopefully, the barriers to implementation will fade away before biodiversity does.

Photo credit: The New York Times, courtesy of the Peking University Chongzuo Biodiversity Research Institute

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 6:54 PM)

Addressing the Source of Species Extinction

Sarah Kuck — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:54:26 +0000

One of the greatest tragedies of our time is being both witness to and having a hand in the sixth extinction (which you can read more about here and here). Not only is it challenging and seriously depressing to try to understand this (a headline I saw this morning actually read: “Polar Bears Turn to Cannibalism as Arctic Ice Melts”); it often feels downright impossible to come up with solutions for helping endangered species recover.

But when we truly go after long-term solutions, we can start looking to the root of the problem for answers – allowing us to bypass short-sighted quick fixes. We found a great example of this in today’s New York Times about how this has happened in an impoverished region in southern China.

“It Takes Just One Village to Save a Species” tells the story of how, in 1996, Pan Wenshi, China’s premier panda biologist, suggested that in order to save the rapidly disappearing population of endangered langurs, the government address the region’s crippling poverty:

This was at a time when hunters were taking the canary-yellow young langurs from their cliff-face strongholds, and villagers were leveling the forest for firewood.

Dr. Pan quickly hired wardens to protect the remaining animals but then went a step further, taking on the larger social and economic factors jeopardizing the species, [believing] that alleviating the region’s continuing poverty was essential for their long-term survival.

In the 24-square-kilometer nature reserve where he has focused his studies, the langur population increased to more than 500 today from 96 in 1996.

“It’s a model of what can be done in hot-spot areas that have been devastated by development,” said Russell A. Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International. “Pan has combined all the elements — protection, research, ecotourism, good relations with the local community; he’s really turned the langur into a flagship for the region.”

Taking a straight-to-the-source solutions approach helped to create a win-win situation that proves that we can all find ways to live together. In this story, the government backed the solutions that truly brought about recovery. Not all countries are so lucky, but researchers and scientists are still working diligently to identify the long-term solutions that will lead to species recovery anyway. And hopefully, the barriers to implementation will fade away before biodiversity does.

Photo credit: The New York Times, courtesy of the Peking University Chongzuo Biodiversity Research Institute

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 6:54 PM)

Return of the Plains Grizzly

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:39:01 +0000

By WorldChanging Canada writer Rod Edwards.

The Grizzly bear's Latin name captures its place in popular culture: fierce symbol of untamed wilderness, Ursus arctos horribilis. Among carnivorous North American land mammals, the grizzly is second in size only to its larger cousin, the polar bear. Despite its stature, or perhaps because of it, the grizzly has long been a victim of human territorial expansion, compounded by its own reclusive nature, low birth rate, and large territorial needs. Consider: A mature male grizzly can occupy a territory up to 1800 square kilometers, and breeding pairs have litters only every three to four years with an average litter of two pups. Add to this the bear's love of solitude, and its easy to see why grizzly territory is half of its former range while contemporaries like the black bear have lost little ground at all.

Prior to the settlement of western North America, grizzly territory ranged as far east as the Manitoba/Ontario border, and south as far as northern Mexico. Currently, the 60,000 grizzlies estimated to remain in the wild range principally in British Columbia, Alaska, Northern Canada, and parts of the Northwestern US—a territory that assiduously avoids human populations.

There are signs, however, that grizzlies are slowly reoccupying their former lands. A recent Winnipeg Free Press article by Martin Zeilig reported on sightings by Conservation officers: conducting helicopter surveys of polar bear populations, officers have sighted large, healthy grizzlies regularly over the past few years. The year-to-year persistence of the bears, and the fact that several unique bears have been identified, suggest that bears are in fact permanent inhabitants of the region, not just transients. That would make these grizzlies the first verified permanent residents of Manitoba in over 150 years—and would mark the return of the Plains Grizzly.

Unfortunately, I can't share why the grizzlies have returned. Is it a case of better conservation efforts in the north making former habitats welcoming again? Or, are grizzly populations being put under stress elsewhere (oil sands development in northern Alberta, for instance), driving them back into formerly marginalized territory? I've put a call into Dr. Robert Wrigley, curator of the Winnipeg Zoo, who was quoted in the Free Press Article. I'll comment with any updates.

Sources:
"Grizzlies make home in Manitoba," Martin Zeilig, The Winnipeg Free Press, August 10, 2008. (Not available online).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=90

Inside Image Credit: Dustie

Article from WorldChanging Canada

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 7:39 AM)

Can the Dead Sea Be Brought to Life?

WorldChanging Team — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:17:14 +0000

by Hannah Doherty

The Dead Sea has been a religious and cultural landmark of the Middle East for thousands of years. Saltier than the oceans, the lake is like none other in the world.

But in the past 30 years, the Dead Sea has lost about a third of its surface area. As much as 95 percent of the flow of its main tributary, the Jordan River, has been diverted for agriculture and domestic use. Excessive mineral mining for potash and magnesium chloride is removing water at a rate of 150 million cubic meters per year. As water levels drop by as much as one meter per year, the combination of diversion and evaporation is threatening both economic development and the natural oases that support the Dead Sea's unique ecosystem.

In an effort to halt the sea's rapid disappearance, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, with the help of the World Bank, are proposing a project to import water from the Red Sea in the south. While dramatic engineering may be necessary to save this timeless attraction, environmentalists warn that less-risky alternatives are being ignored.

If built, the Red-Dead conduit is expected to cost $15 billion. Projects of this scale are not unprecedented, especially as water demand grows rapidly in many regions of the world. According to the United Nations World Water Development Report, water withdrawals have increased sixfold since the 1990s, twice the rate of population growth. Costly projects to meet demand - the $60 billion Chinese South-North water transfer, for example - have come under fire by environmentalists for failing to address the underlying causes of water stress, such as a lack of conservation.

The World Bank says the proposed 180-kilometer conduit would carry 2 billion cubic meters of water to the Dead Sea. It would also provide desalinated water, generate energy, and build a symbol of peace and cooperation between Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Territories, the Bank says.

"Given the fact that the flow of the Jordan River is largely appropriated for what are viewed as key economic and social uses, good water management within the basin may have to be combined with a water transfer from outside the Jordan Basin to restore the Dead Sea level to a reasonable level," the World Bank noted in a background document.

By introducing water of a different density and composition to the Dead Sea, however, engineers may drastically alter the very thing they are trying to save. The Dead Sea is rich in calcium, while the Red Sea is rich in sulfate; mixing the two could create a surface layer of gypsum. New algae growth might also change the buoyancy of the water and alter its blue water to appear red. These critical changes could damage the tourism industry in both Israel and Jordan.

Two weeks ago, the World Bank held three public hearings in Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority as part of its preliminary study into the feasibility of a Red-Dead transfer. The Bank came under intense fire from a coalition of six organizations: the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, Tzalul, Life and Environment, Friends of the Earth Middle East, the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, and Green Course.

The environmentalists said the project's feasibility study, to be completed in 2009, is not dedicating enough resources to researching the environmental implications of the water transfer and assessing alternative methods for resuscitating the Dead Sea. These critiques coincide with a recent World Bank internal review reporting the Bank's insufficient attention to long-term sustainability.

Separate from the feasibility study, the World Bank is conducting an environmental assessment of the water transfer, led by a team of three specialists nominated by each country and selected by the Bank. But some environmentalists and water experts argue that the assessment should be performed not by representatives of the three governments already in favor of the project, but by independent, international consultants. "It's like asking a cat to guard a bowl of milk," Gidon Bromberg, Israel director of Friends of the Earth Middle East, told the Jewish Review.

As an alternative to the diversion project, environmentalists and local geologists propose rehabilitating the Jordan River. According to Dan Zaslavksi, a former Israeli water commissioner, regenerating the flow of the river to bring water to the Dead Sea will cost no more than $800 million, substantially less than the $15 billion estimated for the Red-Dead plan, Al Jazeera reported. Critics also suggest reforms in the chemical industries on both sides of the sea.

Alexander McPhail, task-team leader of the Red-Dead feasibility study, said the Jordan River rehabilitation plan, as well as alternatives such as a Mediterranean-Dead Sea canal or a water pipeline from Turkey, have merit. Should no solution be found, there is also the alternative of doing nothing, McPhail notes in the China Review.

The World Bank will use the results of its feasibility study to determine whether the Red-Dead plan is a viable solution to save the Dead Sea. But without objective research into the plan's environmental consequences, wrote Friends of the Earth's Bromberg in a recent op-ed, "the World Bank vision may lead to ecological disaster."

Hannah Doherty is an intern with the Worldwatch Institute. She can be reached at hdoherty@worldwatch.org.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 8:17 AM)

Ontario to Protect Northern Boreal Forest

Sarah Kuck — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:14:13 +0000

Tuesday, Primer Dalton McGuinty announced that Ontario will set aside 55 million acres of Northern Boreal Forest for permanent protection from development. The area, one of the world's largest intact forest and wetland ecosystems, is roughly the size of the United Kingdom.

More than 1,500 scientists worldwide sent letters to inspire the Canadian government to initiate the legislation, which, once enacted in 10 to 15 years, will work to protect the forest as well as its more than 200 sensitive animal species from oil, mining and logging interests.

According to this article by Kerry Gillespie of the Toronto Star, the plan will not only work to protect the forest, but will also help the forest protect us from climate change:

“The announcement is globally significant in the fight against climate change, advocates say. Nearly 100 billion tons of carbon are stored in the Northern Boreal region and another 12.5 million tons are absorbed each year.

These lands remain, for the most part, untouched by development. But with increasing world demand for resources, it was just a matter of time before mining and logging inched up from the south.

Now, those resource industries will be barred from half the land and have to work with the government and local First Nations communities to create sustainable development plans for the rest, McGuinty said.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, the province will work with scientists and communities to map out the specific lands that are the most valuable as carbon storehouses and for species protection and which lands have the greatest resources and should be developed.”

The Northern Boreal Forest, as we’ve written before, is an impressive ecosystem worth more than just the sum of its natural resources. But getting everyone to understand the long-term benefits of natural capital is sometimes a difficult task. And in the interim between now and full implementation, the Canadian government will have to hold its ground to protect the forest against competing interests.

But I stand optimistically with Larry Innes, Director of the Canadian Boreal Initiative, who commented that ‘This is a tremendous opportunity to get it right, and it looks like all the elements are there for success."

Photo credit:Peter Gorrie for the Toronto Star

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Biodiversity and Ecosystems at 5:14 PM)