Statement from Conservation International on the Global Partnership for Oceans announced by World Bank President Robert Zoellick
Following a presentation from World Bank President Robert Zoellick at The Economist World Ocean Summit in Singapore today, Conservation International announced its enthusiastic support of the Global Partnership for Oceans. The partnership, according to Zoellick, will be coalition of governments, international organizations, civil society groups and private interests, joining together to confront widely documented problems of over-fishing, pollution, habitat loss and climate change.
"The bottom line is our lives depend on oceans, but we need to better understand them. We need to adequately value oceans and the benefits they provide, and act on this knowledge. If we don't do this, we and future generations of people will be hurt," said Conservation International Chairman and CEO Peter Seligmann. "I commend Robert Zoellick and the World Bank on taking a critical step to catalyze the funding required by governments, businesses and civil society to secure ocean health for us and our children."
Conservation Internationalhas already demonstrated a successful ocean conservation model in the field with its Seascape approach, which aims to establish responsible governance and recovering ocean health at a large scale (hundreds of thousands or millions of square kilometers) through collaboration among governments of bordering nations, stakeholder groups and partner organizations.
"This partnership is timely because oceans are under threat and have not been properly managed. Demand for seafood and other benefits from the oceans are growing while marine ecosystems are declining in health," said Sebastian Troëng, Vice President of Marine Conservation at Conservation International. "Conservation International has talented staff and strong partnerships around the globe, but no organization has the ability to singlehandedly resolve the challenges facing the world’s oceans. Working with the World Bank in this Partnership, we bring together governments, businesses, financial institutions and local communities to support healthy and productive oceans in a way we could not have done alone."
Over the past decade, Conservation International has catalyzed the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (a collaboration between Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador); the Papuan Bird's Head Seascape (Indonesia); the Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape (Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia); and the Abrolhos Seascape (Brazil).
"When the governance situation changes and countries establish marine protected areas, an average there is a 21 percent increase in the diversity, and a 28 percent increase in the size of the organisms inside the reserves relative to unprotected areas nearby," added Troeng. "Those same reserves have seen the tons of fish per square kilometer increase 446 percent on average. And research has shown that communities using marine protected areas have greater incomes, more diversified livelihoods and greater environmental awareness than nearby communities that do not have marine protected areas."
Conservation International is joined in this partnership by a number of developed and developing countries and country groupings, including island nations; non-government organizations and advocacy bodies like Environmental Defense Fund, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National Geographic Society, The Nature Conservancy, Oceana, Rare and World Wildlife Fund (WWF); science bodies like the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); industry groups like National Fisheries Institute, and the World Ocean Council whose members rely on sustainable seafood supplies or are dependent on ocean resources; international organizations including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The Global Environment Facility, Global Ocean Forum, GRID Arendal (Norway), the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the World Bank Group.
More than 300 eminent scientists from 21 other countries around the world today urged the Australian Federal Government to create the world's largest no-take marine reserve in the Coral Sea.
"Marine reserves are an important tool for managing and restoring ecosystems. They protect brood stocks for sustainable fisheries and rebuild distorted foodwebs. We know how well they work because of the differences that we observe again and again between different marine zones under existing management schemes. Already, the recent rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef has resulted in a doubling of coral trout and other commercially important species" says the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Professor Terry Hughes.
"The Australian Government's draft plan for a marine reserve in the Coral Sea is a significant step forward - but misses a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate global leadership in marine stewardship, by declaring the Coral Sea within Australia's EEZ as the world's largest no-take area," according to the statement, signed by more than 300 scientists.
"The Coral Sea adjoins the Great Barrier Reef, and because of its remoteness is one of the most intact oceanic ecosystems in the world. Together the two reserves would constitute the world's largest protected ocean ecosystem – at a time of growing concerns over the widespread loss of megafauna, corals and other marine life closer to shore," says Professor Hugh Possingham, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions.
"We believe that an increased level of protection would be of immense benefit to Australia and to the world, at negligible cost. The Coral Sea is one of only a handful of places in the world where a very large oceanic no-take park could be created within a single national jurisdiction," the scientists said.
Their statement identifies six main reasons for extending the level of protection in the proposed marine reserve:
Most of the shallow coral reefs, cays and sublittoral reefs of the western Queensland Plateau and the seamounts of the southern Coral Sea will not be fully protected in the Government's proposed reserve.
The reefs of the Coral Sea need more protection: under the current plan only 2 new reefs out of 25 will receive a high level of protection. These reefs are important for recharging the corals of the GBR.
Deep sea systems and seamounts need greater protection. The area contains Australia's largest deep trough system, which attracts large numbers of feeding and spawning fish, birds and whales.
Ocean ecosystems need better protection from long-line fishing vessels, which threaten populations of yellowfin tuna, barracuda, sharks, turtles and seabirds.
Catch-and-release fishing in the Coral Sea should be banned because of the high losses caused by predation and barotrauma, and its impact on shark populations
It is much more cost-effective to manage a single, large no-take zone with simple boundaries than a variety of differently classified zones .
"A reserve of this scale and level of protection would provide unprecedented refugia for top ocean predators that are fast disappearing elsewhere in the world,", Professor Terry Hughes said.
"Such a reserve will help to improve the resilience of the region's coral reefs to climate change, and provide a globally significant scientific reference site," adds Professor Bob Pressey of CoECRS and James Cook University.
"We believe that our recommendations will have minimal social and economic costs because there is very little current use of the Coral Sea region - but the recommendations will boost Australia's international reputation as a leader in marine protection and as an eco-tourism destination," he adds.
"Fully protecting the Coral Sea will provide a lasting legacy for future generations to enjoy and will reinforce the excellent levels of protection already achieved in the GBR," Professor Hughes said.
A Consensus Statement from the Australian and International Science Community on the proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve
The Australian Government's draft plan for a marine reserve in the Coral Sea is a significant step forward, but it contains a number of short-comings. The draft plan misses a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate global leadership in marine stewardship, by declaring the Coral Sea within Australia's EEZ as the world's largest no-take area, to protect its immense environmental and heritage values from the escalating threats of overfishing and climate change.
We believe that an increased level of protection would be of immense benefit to Australia and to the world, at negligible cost. The Coral Sea is one of only a handful of places in the world where a very large oceanic no-take park could be created within a single national jurisdiction. A single large no-take area encompassing Australia's Coral Sea jurisdiction would ensure that the scale of management appropriately matches the biological scale of important ecosystem processes such as dispersal and migration. A very large no-take park immediately adjacent to the GBRMP and its network of highly protected areas would be by far the world's largest protected ocean ecosystem. It would substantially enhance Australia's reputation as a world leader in the stewardship of marine biodiversity, and bolster the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef, which is showing concerning signs of degradation (GBR Outlook Report 2009).
We identify six major issues in the draft plan that need to be addressed:
Most of the shallow coral reefs, cays and sublittoral reefs of the western Queensland Plateau and the seamounts of the southern Coral Sea are not included in the proposed no-take zone. Thus the representativeness of the no-take reserve is poor, with inadequate protection for key habitats in the west and south, contrary to the Australian Government's own principles for marine conservation. The draft plan also makes significant concessions to pelagic fishing activities that are inconsistent with achieving the conservation of species affected by these activities. The South Equatorial Current bifurcates in the Coral Sea into the Coral Sea Gyre in the north and the southwards flowing East Australian Current (Young et al 2011), connecting the Coral Sea biota to both the GBR and southern reefs (Bode et al. 2006), as well as creating unique habitats and a genetic break in the north (van Oppen et al. 2008). The western Coral Sea, which is excluded from no-take zoning, has exceptionally high conservation value, because it includes the majority of the reefs and cays of the Queensland Plateau, breeding and calving grounds for humpback whales, nesting grounds for green turtles, foraging grounds for hawksbill turtles, populations of migratory pelagic species and breeding and foraging areas for seabird species, and the only known spawning aggregation site for black marlin (Ceccarelli 2011). Therefore, the proposed marine national park is not effective at representing the diversity of important habitats, environmental gradients, dispersal potential and highly sensitive species.
The coral reefs of the Coral Sea need more protection. Only 2 new reefs out of 25 named reefs in the Coral Sea are afforded a high level of protection. Monitoring by SEWPAC showed that of the two existing high-level reserves (Coringa-Herald and Lihou Marine Reserves), Coringa-Herald Marine Reserve has depauperate coral reef communities with low coral cover at present (Ceccarelli et al. 2008). To enhance connectivity in the region, and facilitate dispersal and recovery processes, additional reef habitat needs to be afforded no-take designation. Commercial and sport fishing targeting reef predators in the Coral Sea also has the potential to deleteriously affect the integrity of the small, relatively isolated and highly exposed reefs, which host smaller populations that are more reliant on large-scale dispersal of larvae than the highly interconnected Great Barrier Reef.
Deep benthic systems and seamounts need more protection. Neither the Queensland nor the Townsville Troughs are included in the proposed western no-take zone. Together they represent Australia's largest trough system, attracting large aggregations of feeding and spawning pelagic species. The Marion Plateau sub-region, including Marion and Saumarez Reefs, contains a high proportion of endemic species, in particular demersal sponge communities. Southern Coral Sea reef and deep benthic communities are also not represented in the no-take zone, yet they provide potential stepping stones for southwards range expansions of tropical reef species to gain access to climate change refugia (Beger et al. 2011).
Pelagic ecosystems need more protection. The southern Coral Sea is a hotspot for apex predators such as yellowfin tuna, barracuda and sharks. Long-lining should be excluded from the entire Coral Sea because of bycatch of non-target species, among which are sharks and rays, turtles and seabirds, including rare and endangered species in many of these groups. Consequently, as with the adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, long-lining should not be considered a reasonable activity in the proposed Coral Sea marine reserve.
Catch and release fishing in the Coral Sea is inadvisable. Catch-and-release fishing on coral reefs, which will be specifically allowed under the proposed plan, is especially problematic because released fish are vulnerable to predation and to high rates of mortality from barotraumas, hook injury and physiological stress. Catch-and-release fishing also poses a threat to sharks, which are a frequent bycatch in recreational reef fisheries. For example, studies on the Great Barrier Reef shows that grey reef sharks in Blue (fishing) zones are reduced by 97% compared to Pink (no-go zones) (Robbins et al. 2006). Recreational fishing for pelagic species in the Coral Sea Conservation Zone from 1989-2009 amounted to only 0.8% of total catch of black, blue and striped marlin, sailfish, and shortbill spearfish that were caught (and released) in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (NSW Dept. of Primary Industries). Therefore, the economic and social cost of extending the Coral Sea no-take zone to the outer GBRMP boundary is negligible.
Cost-effective management requires large no-take zones with simple boundaries. A recent study of potential management costs for the Coral Sea (Ban et al. 2011) demonstrated that management costs would increase sharply with subdivision of the Coral Sea into multiple-use zones, compared to a single no-take zone, largely due to the increased need for compliance activities. Cost-effectiveness of management therefore requires that the extensive additional no-take zoning in the western Coral Sea should be made, contiguous with the proposed eastern no-take zone. A reserve of this scale and level of protection would provide unprecedented refugia for top ocean predators that are under serious pressure elsewhere in the world (Game et al. 2009), improve the resilience of the region's coral reefs to climate change, and provide a globally significant scientific reference site. We believe that our recommendations will have minimal social and economic costs due to the low levels of use in the region, will boost Australia's reputation and branding as a leader in marine protection and destination for wild nature tourism, and will provide a lasting legacy for future generations.
References:
Ban N.C., Adams V., Pressey R.L. & Hicks J. (2011). Promise and problems for estimating management costs of marine protected areas. Conservation Letters, 4, 241-252.
Beger M., Babcock R., Booth D.J., Bucher D., Condie S.A., Creese B., Cvitanovic C., Dalton S.J., Harrison P., Hoey A., Jordan A., Loder J., Malcolm H., Purcell S.W., Roelfsma C., Sachs P., Smith S.D.A., Sommer B., Stuart-Smith R., Thomson D., Wallace C.C., Zann M. & Pandolfi J.M. (2011). Research challenges to improve the management and conservation of subtropical reefs to tackle climate change threats. Ecological Management & Restoration, 12, e7-e10.
Bode M., Bode L. & Armsworth P.R. (2006). Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 308, 17-25.
Ceccarelli D.M. (2011). Australia's Coral Sea: A biophysical profile. In. Report for the Protect our Coral Sea Coalition Australia.
Ceccarelli D.M., Choat J.H., Ayling A.M., Richards Z.T., van Herwerden L., Ayling A., Ewels G., Hobbs J.P. & Cuff B. (2008). Coringa-Herald National Nature Reserve Marine Survey – 2007. Report by C&R Consulting and James Cook University to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Canberra.
Game E.T., Grantham H.S., Hobday A.J., Pressey R.L., Lombard A.T., Beckley L.E., Gjerde K., Bustamante R., Possingham H.P. & Richardson A.J. (2009). Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol Evol, 24, 360-369.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report. (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville).
Robbins, W. M. Hisano, S.R. Connelly, and J.H. Choat (2006). Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Current Biology 16: 2314-2319.
van Oppen M.J.H., Lutz A., De'ath G., Peplow L. & Kininmonth S. (2008). Genetic traces of recent long-distance dispersal in a predominantly self-recruiting coral. PLoS ONE, 3, e3401.
Young J., David McKinnon A., Ceccarelli D., Brinkman R., Bustamante R., Cappo M., Dichmont C., Doherty P., Furnas M., Gledhill D., Griffiths S., Hutton T., Ridgway K., Smith D., Skewes T., Williams A. & Richardson. (2011) A. Workshop on the ecosystem and fisheries of the Coral Sea: an Australian perspective on research and management. Rev Fish Biol Fish, 1-8.
New joint paper calls on leaders at Rio+20 to change how the wealth of nations is measured, and work with society and private sector to place nature at the core of social and economic development plans.
Prior to the presentation at UNEP from 8 to 10 February, 14 Blue Planet Prize laureates including the first winner Dr. Syukuro Manabe gathered in London to discuss the issues based on contributions each made and completed a joint paper. A press conference was held on the final day and Dr. Watson disclosed the ten key messages and appealed "If we are to solve the problem of climate change, loss of biodiversity and poverty, it is imperative for the world to act now."
Leading international environmental scientists urged today governments to replace gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of wealth, end damaging subsidies, and transform systems of governance to set humanity on a new path to a better future -- or risk climate, biodiversity and poverty crises that will spawn greater problems worldwide.
These are among the messages from a new paper by 20 past winners of the Blue Planet Prize -- often called the Nobel Prize for the environment.
“Governments should recognise the serious limitations of GDP as a measure of economic activitity and complement it with measures of the five forms of capital – built, financial, natural, human and social capital, i.e. a measure of wealth that integrates economic, environmental and social dimensions,” the paper argues. “Green taxes and the elimination of subsidies should ensure that the natural resources needed to directly protect poor people are available rather than via subsidies that often only benefit the better off.”
Bob Watson, the UK’s chief scientific advisor on environmental issues and a winner of the prize in 2010, presented the paper to government ministers from around the world at the UN Environment Programme’s governing council meeting in Nairobi, Kenya on 20 February.
Co-authors include James Hansen of NASA, Emil Salim, former environment minister of Indonesia, Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, José Goldemberg, who was Brazil’s Secretary of Environment during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and Dr. Will Turner of Conservation International, which was awarded the Blue Planet Prize in 1997 for “protecting the Earth’s biological diversity through research into ways to conserve ecosystems while improving the lives of local peoples”.
The paper urges governments to:
Replace GDP as a measure of wealth with metrics for natural, built, human and social capital -- and how they intersect.
Eliminate subsidies in sectors such as energy, transport and agriculture that create environmental and social costs, which currently go unpaid.
Tackle overconsumption, and address population pressure by empowering women, improving education and making contraception accessible to all.
Transform decision making processes to empower marginalised groups, and integrate economic, social and environmental policies instead of having them compete.
Conserve and value biodiversity and ecosystem services, and create markets for them that can form the basis of green economies.
Invest in knowledge -- both in creating and in sharing it -- through research and training that will enable governments, business, and society at large to understand and move towards a sustainable future.
"These are unprecedented, daunting challenges we face. But they are also solvable. Our awareness of how climate change, poverty, and security issues arise from environmental degradation has never been greater,” said CI’s Vice President for Conservation Priorities and Outreach, Dr. Will Turner. “Nature is our greatest asset. We will succeed by recognizing the communities and businesses that have already coupled growth or poverty alleviation with nature conservation, and scale these results to the globe through not just top-down governance but people, institutions, and the private sector at all levels."
The paper comes ahead of the Rio+20 conference in June this year – when world leaders have an opportunity to set human development on a new, more sustainable path.
CI’s lead for Rio+20 and Vice President of International Policy, Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, said: “Rio+20 will be an unique opportunity for governments and civil society to limit unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, which are destroying the environment. Nature is the foundation of human well-being, particularly in developing countries, so world leaders must commit to long-term actions that will place nature at the center of development plans."
Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said: “The paper by the Blue Planet laureates will challenge governments and society as a whole to act to limit human-induced climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in order to ensure food, water energy and human security. I would like to thank Professor Watson and colleagues for eloquently articulating their vision on how key development challenges can be addressed, emphasizing solutions; the policies, technologies and behaviour changes required to grow green economies, generate jobs and lift people out of poverty without pushing the world through planetary boundaries.”
The Blue Planet Prize laureates who contributed to the paper are:
Professor Sir Bob Watson, Chief Scientific Adviser of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Lord (Robert) May of Oxford, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and President of Royal Society of London
Professor Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Professor Harold Mooney, Stanford University
Dr Gordon Hisashi Sato, President, Manzanar Project Corporation
Professor José Goldemberg, secretary for the environment of the State of São Paulo, Brazil and Brazil’s interim Secretary of Environment during the Rio Earth Summit in 1992
Dr Emil Salim, former Environment Minister of the Republic of Indonesia
Dr Camilla Toulmin, Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development
Mr Bunker Roy, Founder of Barefoot College
Dr Syukuro Manabe, Senior Scientist, Princeton University
Dr Julia Marton-Lefevre, Director-General of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Dr Simon Stuart, Chair of the Species Survival Commission of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Professor Karl-Henrik Robèrt, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Founder of The Natural Step
Dr James Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Lord (Nicholas) Stern of Brentford, Professor, The London of Economics
Dr Amory Lovins, Chair and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute
Dr Gene Likens, Director of the Carey Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and Director-General of the World Health Organization, now Special Envoy on Climate Change for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Dr James Lovelock, independent scientist and proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis
Dr Will Turner, Vice President of Conservation Priorities and Outreach, Conservation International
The Blue Planet Prize - In 1992, the year of the Rio Earth Summit, the Asahi Glass Foundation established the Blue Planet Prize, an award presented to individuals or organizations worldwide in recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific research and its application that have helped provide solutions to global environmental problems.
The Prize is offered in the hopes of encouraging efforts to bring about the healing of the Earth’s fragile environment. A full list of its past winners is online here.
The award’s name was inspired by the remark "the Earth was blue," uttered by the first human in space, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, upon viewing our planet. The Blue Planet Prize was so named in the hopes that our blue planet will be a shared asset capable of sustaining human life far into the future. 2012 is the 20th anniversary of the Blue Planet Prize. The Asahi Glass Foundation wishes to mark this anniversary with a fresh start in its efforts to help build an environmentally friendly society.
Conservation International (CI) - Building upon a strong foundation of science, partnership and field demonstration, CI empowers societies to responsibly and sustainably care for nature, our global biodiversity, for the long term well-being of people. Founded in 1987 and marking its 25th anniversary in 2012, CI has headquarters in the Washington DC area, and 900 employees working in nearly 30 countries on four continents, plus 1,000+ partners around the world.
A new survey from 2010 reveals that upfront costs of up to €14,000 and lengthy payback times can discourage even the most environmentally conscious citizens from installing domestic renewable technology, such as solar panels and wind generators. However, people signing up to a ‘climate pledging’ scheme were still at least 11 times more likely to install these technologies than the average person in the UK.
In the UK in 2007, domestic electricity was responsible for 23% of total GHG emissions. Yet just 0.5% of households generate electricity from renewable sources using micro-generation (microgen) technology, such as photovoltaic (PV) panels, wind generators or micro-hydro systems. This new study improves our understanding of the relationship between environmental values and behaviour in the context of microgen.
In the new study, researchers carried out a comprehensive online questionnaire between Jan-Apr 2010 to explore attitudes towards microgen technology among 201 environment-sensitive UK citizens belonging to a climate pledging initiative in Manchester. Each of the participants had made a public commitment to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change. The researchers compared their responses with answers to the same questions from a survey of the national population in 2008.
The results revealed that 96% of pledgers agreed that there were risks to people in the UK from climate change, compared to 66% nationally. 91% agreed that they could help to reduce climate change by changing their behaviour; this figure was 63% for the national survey. Pledgers were also willing to pay an average of £5 more per month for low carbon electricity.
Overall, 52% of pledgers had seriously considered microgen technology, with solar proving the most popular option (63% of respondents). However, only 11% of pledgers had actually installed microgen technology in their own homes. The most frequent reasons given for not installing microgen technology were the initial cost (36% of respondents) and the time taken to recoup the money invested (17% of respondents). The average domestic PV system (2.2 kW capacity) costs approximately €14,000 to install and has a payback period of 15 years. Other reasons given for not installing included concerns about aesthetic appearance, uncertainty about environmental value, concerns about house resale and general inconvenience.
These results highlight that although microgen installation rates are higher among climate pledgers (11%) than the national population (0.5-1%), more than a third of environmentally-conscious pledgers still chose not to have microgen technology installed . This discrepancy, reflecting an ‘attitude-behaviour gap’, indicates that the ability to fulfil the ideal of environmental citizenship is limited by the financial costs involved.
The researchers point out that this study was carried out prior to Feed-In-Tariffs (FIT), which came into force in the UK in April 2010 guaranteeing payment for electricity generation and thereby reducing the payback period. Nevertheless, this survey emphasises the importance of cost as a potential barrier to microgen installation and a similar study post-FITs would help to clarify how far financial costs directly influence green behaviour, say the researchers. Other issues, such as consumer uncertainty about the relative environmental benefits of different types of microgen technology, could be tackled through more effective advertising campaigns in conjunction with new pricing and regulation policies.
Source: Upham, P. (2011). Environmental citizens: climate pledger attitudes and micro-generation installation. Local Environment. DOI: 10/1080/13549839.2011.631991
Interesting and sometimes even touching – the stories of the finalists of the European Tree of the Year contest 2012 show the connection between people and nature. Vote for your favourite tree from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania or Slovakia until 29 February on the official website. The winning tree will be awarded at a ceremony at IUCN's office Brussels by the organizer of the contest – the Czech Environmental Partnership Foundation.
A thousand-year-old pistacia from Corsica was saved by her owner Élise. When the neighbourhood was engulfed in flames, she asked the firemen to save the rare tree instead of her house. A Hungarian lime tree protects its forest as well as the Bánó family who still maintain the tradition of introducing new family members to the tree.
A classroom, a precious treasure, an honorary “freeman” and a symbol of the town – silent witness of historical events, a member of a family or a magician who can make your wishes come true – trees can mean all that to people. Stories of the finalists of the European Tree of the Year – organized for the second time – show the bond between trees and people, a family, a school or a whole town.
"We are trying to make Europeans care more for trees through their stories which connect to the local communities where they are found. At the same time we want to draw attention to the protection of old trees and biodiversity," said the contest coordinator Hana Rambousková of the Czech Environmental Partnership Foundation.
Through this initiative people can also get to know the story of the Polish Oak “Grot” which can make dreams come true if you put your left hand on its trunk and whisper them. 700 year old Bulgarian elm tree is also a wish tree – the legend has it that it healed the blind daughter of the local miller Dobril. The story of the Czech alley shows that trees can be a valuable aid in education. The history of Slovakian lime and Romanian elm trees shows how the life of a town can be connected to the one of a tree – important agreements were made under the lime tree and the elm is the last witness of a village burning down during the revolution in the 19th century.
The competition will be tough, as these finalists have won the national contests in their countries. "Online voting is open until the end of the month. Anybody in the world can vote. The voting will be secret during the last week so that the watchful waiting for the results is crowned with a surprise," says Hana Rambousková. The results of the online voting will be announced on 1 March. The award ceremony will take place at IUCN's office in Brussels and the winner will receive a trophy by the renowned Czech artist Martin Patřičný.
The contest is organized under the patronage of Mr Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for the Environment and with the financial support of the State Environmental Fund and the Ministry of Environment of the Czech Republic.
To mark the 20th anniversary of the Blue Planet Prize and inject fresh impetus to global environmental action, IUCN’s Director General is part of a team of Blue Planet laureates working on a report ‘Environment and Development Challenges: the Imperative to Act’. This will be presented to the Rio+20 conference and other key international meetings, including the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September.
The Blue Planet Prize was established in 1992, the year of the Rio Earth Summit, by the Asahi Glass Foundation. It is presented to individuals or organizations worldwide in recognition of outstanding achievements in scientific research and its application in finding solutions to global environmental problems.
The award’s name was inspired by the remark "the Earth is blue," spoken by the first human in space, Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin. The Blue Planet Prize was named in the hope that our blue planet will be a shared asset capable of sustaining human life far into the future.
The Asahi Glass Foundation wishes to mark the 20th anniversary of the Prize with a fresh start in its efforts to help build an environmentally-friendly society.
IUCN was awarded the Blue Planet Prize in 1993. Director General Julia Marton-Lefèvre was joined at the recent meeting of Blue Prize Laureates by Simon Stuart, Chair of IUCN’s Species Survival Commission.
The Smithsonian Guide to the Shore Fishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific
The Smithsonian has just released a guide to eastern Pacific shore fishes on iTunes.
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute has released the first completely portable bilingual species identification guide for the shore fishes of the tropical Eastern Pacific as a free iPhone application. Unique fish-finding, list-making tools and range maps make the app a powerful tool for scientists, divers and tour guides and a model for future phone-based field guides.
The tropical Eastern Pacific, spanning the area from Baja California to Ecuador, and including the Galapagos, is one of three great global centers of marine biodiversity. Until the 1990s there was no guide to the fish in this region. The iPhone app evolved from Fishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific, a written guide published in 1994 by Gerald R. Allen, consultant for Conservation International, and D. Ross Robertson, Smithsonian staff scientist.
The book presented detailed descriptions of nearly 700 species and led to the first Spanish-language guide in 1998. With funds from the Smithsonian Women's Committee, Robertson created the Smithsonian's first bilingual interactive field guide application, released as a compact disc in 2002 and on the Internet in 2008.
"Now, not only can you carry the means to identify almost 1300 species in your pocket, this application surpasses many of the currently available field guides in its ability to create and share lists that correspond to specific regions or field trips," said Robertson. "We also made it portable: The information is all in your phone so you don't need to be connected to a server to use it...important when you are out at sea."
Users can browse alphabetic lists by species and family, use identification keys and perform a combination search on name, location, shape, pattern and color characteristics to identify unknown fishes. The notebook module serves two functions: users can keep track of the species that they have recently seen and keep annotated lists of fish from different sites that are then organized in folders; they can also export lists by email.
Each species page includes common and scientific names, images of the species, a detailed description, key features used to distinguish it from other species and a map of its range in the Tropical Eastern Pacific. The information is also stored in the apps database, and can be used to search for a fish. A glossary of scientific terms makes the guide accessible to students and lay-people, and information about the extinction risk status (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List) is available to resource managers and conservationists.
Find the guide by searching in the iTunes store for "fishes east pacific" or by following this link directly to the iTunes store.
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, headquartered in Panama City, Panama, is a unit of the Smithsonian Institution. The Institute furthers the understanding of tropical nature and its importance to human welfare, trains students to conduct research in the tropics and promotes conservation by increasing public awareness of the beauty and importance of tropical ecosystems.
Tiger photographed by camera-trap in Hua Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand
Beginning in January 2012, top species conservation experts from around the world have determined the allocation of $US 3.3 million to 23 species conservation projects. Gorillas, cockatoos, and frogs are just a few of the multitude of threatened species that are receiving a helping hand from SOS (Save Our Species), a global species conservation fund initiated by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), the World Bank and the GEF (Global Environment Facility).
Drawing on species conservation knowledge accrued over decades by IUCN, for the first call for proposals SOS focused on species groups that were completely assessed on IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species™ and already had specific conservation action plans in place. According to IUCN’s Red List, one in three amphibians, one in eight birds, and one in four mammals are at risk of extinction in the wild. Nineteen different organizations will use these funds to conserve threatened animal and plant species and their habitats.
“The dire situation facing the world’s biodiversity calls for an action and response. SOS is seeking to bring knowledge, expertise and funding together in order to address the plight of threatened species,” says Julia Marton-Lefèvre, IUCN’s Director General. “Through these exciting projects we hope to show that, if properly implemented, conservation works.”
A high variety of different species is crucial for ecosystem health and SOS aims to conserve a multitude of threatened creatures, focusing on Asian and African mammals, amphibians and birds with the new round of funds. SOS supports a variety of mammal projects such as conservation programmes targeting the critically endangered Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) and Black Rhino (Diceros bicornis) in Africa, in addition to the endangered Snow Leopard (Panthera uncia) in Pakistan.
Mammals represent the largest portion of the SOS portfolio, but they are not the only species at risk. SOS also supports bird and amphibian projects, protecting the critically endangered Spoon-billed Sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus) in Asia; a project to re-introduce the Philippine Cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia); and an initiative preserving the Golden Mantella Frog (Mantella aurantiaca) in Madagascar.
“Ignoring species conservation means ignoring a world in which species are currently disappearing at a rate 100 to 1,000 times higher than normal. The loss of wild plant and animal species is a real threat to human well-being, sustainable development and poverty reduction. In these times of economic turmoil, it would be wise not to further damage nature—our ultimate safety net,” says Jean-Christophe Vié, Deputy Director of IUCN’s Global Species Programme and SOS Director. “By implementing on the ground conservation action, the projects SOS select help protect entire habitats which both people and wildlife depend on.”
In October 2010, SOS was established with more than $US10 million in financing commitments in order to build a global coalition to protect threatened species and their habitats. This unique international alliance aims to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation and looks for participation from innovative companies across all industries. Nokia was the first company to join SOS.
“SOS was established to use the charisma of wild animals to explain the role of nature, generate interest in the plight of threatened species, and shed light on the complexity of conservation work,” says Monique Barbut, CEO and Chairperson of the GEF and Chair of the SOS Donor Council. “Today, with our core funding we are adding 23 new projects covering a large number of threatened species, including around 60 that will be closely monitored. So far we are on track. The only thing missing now is the private sector’s commitment to join our endeavour to save the planet’s captivating wildlife before it is too late.”
This decade has been declared by the United Nations as the Decade of Biodiversity. Issues surrounding species survival will be discussed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, Republic of Korea, from 6 to 15 September 2012.
For more information:
Elke Blodau, SOS Marketing and Communications Officer
His Royal Highness Prince Charles – Prince of Wales: "We should not pin all our hopes on massive and risky technical fixes. So much of what we need to build cleaner and more efficient communities is already with us often in the form of working more in harmony with nature’s genius."
In a speech marking the launch of his International Sustainability Unit (ISU’s) Marine Programme, HRH the Prince of Wales struck an optimistic note. His message was clear and simple "if managed properly our seas could still provide us with profitable harvest for years to come. However, if we are not careful we may end up breaking the bank."
A speech by HRH The Prince of Wales at the launch of the I.S.U. Marine Programme
3rd February 2012
Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, may I first of all just say how extremely grateful I am to you for coming to this event today. I know that many of you have come a very long way indeed to be here, and I can only express my warmest gratitude that you have taken the trouble to do so. I am delighted that Minister Richard Benyon and Commissioner Maria Damanaki are here; as well as Ministers from the Sultanate of Oman, the Republic of Maldives, the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Isle of Man; officials from The United Nations, the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and our fishing representatives from around the world, as well as leaders from the N.G.O. community and, critically, the private sector. What an extraordinary gathering of knowledge and wisdom! At the end of the day, the only way we can achieve real progress on some of the most complex issues that confront our world today is by people coming together and finding workable, effective solutions.
That is very much the spirit in which my International Sustainability Unit has invited you here today – and, indeed, the spirit in which it has sought the views of many people over the last two years in order to identify a consensus on how we might manage marine fisheries more sustainably.
I know there are many of you in this room today who know only too well how enormous this challenge is and how important it is that we address the issue now, before it is actually too late. The world simply cannot ignore the question any longer. That is why, if I may, I would like to share with you the key findings so far of my I.S.U. and what those findings lead me to consider are important targets in the near future.
For my part, the issue of sustainable fisheries is something I have taken an interest in for over twenty years. And having spent most of my Naval service over thirty-five years ago trying to avoid running into fishing boats operating in large fleets at night (!) – not something I would recommend to any of you! I have also had interest in those who work in the sector, both at sea and, further down the supply chain, on land. I need hardly say that it is a source of great pride to me that I was made a Liveryman of the Fishmongers Company in this very hall in 1971, just over forty years ago – even if coming here today serves to remind me just how many years ago that was and how many bits have dropped off me in the intervening period!
The thriving existence of this venerable institution, however, surely reflects the fact that marine fisheries represent an incredibly important activity which is far from marginal, either economically or socially.
When you think about it, it is an astonishing fact that the world's marine environment has the regenerative capacity to continue providing us with seafood long into the future. Unfortunately, that capacity has been severely weakened and it is critically urgent that we find a way to manage this precious resource much more intelligently.
Of course, the challenge of making the transition to more sustainable fisheries is only one of a number of pressures on the marine environment. Oceans are becoming more acidic; run-off from industrialized farming is causing waters to become too rich in nutrients, thus creating dead zones in the oceans; waters are getting warmer, and more and more square miles of them are being polluted with plastic. The human assault on the Earth’s oceans is depressingly comprehensive. Many, like myself – but not enough at present – are deeply concerned about all of these issues. However, the I.S.U. Marine Programme I am officially launching here today will focus principally on fisheries.
I must say, I have been particularly struck in the last two years since my I.S.U. began the extensive research and consultation process that has led to us gathering here today, by the growing number of incredibly encouraging stories we have come across of those fisheries that are either certified as sustainable or are in transition towards being sustainable. The story today need no longer be one of doom and gloom and inevitable decline, but one that harbours the possibility of generating more value from a strongly performing natural asset. This potential can only be tapped if we can manage it well. And this, of course, is the real challenge – how can we ensure that the many and varied benefits that wild fisheries provide can support us in the long term?
I am rather tempted to use an analogy that is somewhat prominent at the moment – the business of operating a well-run bank where, if you don't want to see your capital wither away, it is sound economic practice to take only a dividend on the return your capital produces. A well-run bank also adopts sensible spending patterns that keep that capital intact. You will all know better than me that data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, and from others, on the exploitation of fisheries tells us that we are not running the bank as well as we should. We go beyond taking the dividend. We are digging a long way into the entire marine eco-system's capital reserve, which has reduced its resilience considerably leaving us dangerously exposed.
Nevertheless, hope is at hand. And this is why I wanted to share with you some of the findings of my International Sustainability Unit. The team has spoken with experts around the world, from the retail and processing sectors, to N.G.O.’s and academic bodies and, most importantly, to those who actually do the fishing. And what is fascinating – and encouraging – is that there is a lot of common ground among the seemingly disparate parties involved in fisheries – more convergence than you might think, in fact.
For instance, most people agree that fishing must take account of the way the whole ecosystem operates. There is also broad agreement on the importance of adopting robust methods that control illegal fishing. It is also clear to most that the current economic model which underpins much of the fishing sector needs considerable adjustment. All are agreed that incentives must protect livelihoods and help to generate growth but, at the same time, they must also be designed so that they enable future generations to benefit too.
What I have found most striking, and perhaps even surprising, is the extent to which in different parts of the world real progress is being made in establishing a more sustainable approach to fishing. I think it is fair to say that the general impression of what's happening in fishing has been pretty depressing. It has been a story of constant over-exploitation, haunted by the prospect of collapse.
This is certainly part of the picture, but my I.S.U.’s report being published today clearly shows that this is by no means the whole picture. From Norway to Namibia and from Japan to Peru, there are inspiring examples of good practice which are beginning to translate into bigger catches of fish, higher earnings and more secure jobs.
There are so many examples of good practice that not only is it encouraging that this can actually be done but it is also vitally important that they are replicated and amplified. They represent a clear message of hope that we don't have to see the continuing decline of fish stocks as some kind of inevitable destiny. There truly are viable alternatives and it is my hope that, by highlighting these examples, my Marine Programme will help to prove that something can be done, and develop a consensus on how it can be done.
It is incredibly encouraging to know that we have within our grasp the tools and expertise to rebuild the world’s fish stocks. Of course, like most questions linked to the better management of natural capital, there is huge complexity with many devils lurking in the detail, but in a bid to muster the will to affect a change, let me outline what I see as three broad areas of action which may just help to enable the scale of change required. They will be the main focal points for my Marine Programme’s continued attention.
First of all we need good information. To have any chance of making the right decisions which take proper account of the needs of complex marine ecosystems, it is vital we have the best possible understanding of what is going on beneath the waves. And if that information is to be put to the very best use we need to encourage more of those dynamic relationships that are proving so effective where they now exist between the scientific and fishing communities.
Secondly, there is an urgent need for sufficient funding to support the transition from unsustainable to sustainable management. As always, the issue of transitional finance is absolutely key, just as it is if we hope to save what is left of the rainforests. I have read plenty of estimates as to how much finance would be needed to achieve sustainable fisheries worldwide – for example, the United Nations Environment Programme puts it at approximately 0.1% of global G.D.P. – but whatever the estimate it would surely be an extremely useful step to conduct a thorough analysis of the gap between what is needed and what is available today – from governments, philanthropic institutions and development agencies. Then we might be able to identify where that extra funding might come from, and you never know, such an analysis might also serve to highlight where some of the more perverse subsidies might be re-directed or, indeed, even removed to make a more positive contribution.
I am certainly encouraged that some organizations have experimented successfully with innovative market incentives to achieve more sustainable fisheries. It is the I.S.U.’s intention to build a consensus on how some of these mechanisms might be scaled up and how transitional finance might be best deployed.
The third point of action is to try and create a more joined up, collective approach. I am convinced that if we can build partnerships between those fisheries that are willing to change with those in the private sector who are the links in the supply chain, as well as the scientists who gather the good and useful information and those who can provide the necessary funding, then we might collectively achieve the scale of change required. That is my hope, and my I.S.U. intends to work with all of these stakeholders to create a clear model of how this can be done. As part of this, I am delighted that we have been able to identify twenty leading experts and practitioners in the fishing industry who are prepared to act as ‘ambassadors’. They have been drawn from all corners of the world and have kindly agreed to act, at the very least, as catalysts among the industry, to stimulate the debate about how practical steps might be taken to move towards more sustainable fisheries management.
I must say, I am particularly heartened that this year promises to be especially busy. There are many opportunities for making progress towards sustainable fisheries. Later this month, for instance, The Economist will host a major oceans summit in Singapore. In May, for the first time, Europe will host the World Fisheries Congress when it comes to Edinburgh. In June, the Rio Plus-20 Summit will convene an Oceans Day in Brazil. There is also the on-going reform of Europe’s Common Fisheries Policy, and the annual Seafood Summit which meets in Hong Kong in the Autumn. I sincerely hope that all these events, and others besides, will lead to further progress and that in the years that follow sustainable fisheries can become the norm rather than the exception. If that was to happen, then I am in no doubt we could lay the foundations for improved economic development, for more robust and resilient coastal communities and thus ensure better food security.
In fact, if we did achieve sustainable fisheries at scale, I believe it could be a turning point for the world. The impact would be felt far beyond the fishing sector. And I cannot stress how important this would be. We have to fend off what I often detect in many quarters, which is a debilitating fatalism that dogs any serious discussion on how best to marry human demands with what the Earth’s natural systems can sustainably provide. Even though they may not say so publicly, there are many who have already decided that nothing can be done to steer us away from catastrophe. Not least because they believe human nature will always favour short-term gain over the long-term stewardship of resources – ever more consumers demanding ever more commodities will, they claim, push the Earth to the point of ecological collapse and there is nothing we can do about it...
Well, I happen to believe this need not be the case. It is not in Nature's make-up to fail. So, it is not in our nature to fail either. Just as Nature transforms, so it is in our nature to transform, especially when we have acquired the knowledge to do so. We have it in our collective gift to steer the better course, to achieve a better balance by properly understanding and then operating according to Nature's harmonic system. Thus, we can thrive from the dividends provided by the world's ecosystems, if only we can come together to work out the solutions and then encourage their broad acceptance and support.
And, as I say, if we can balance what is undoubtedly a difficult equation, we may provide inspiration and confidence on a wider scale. That is why I urge all of you to work together in the period ahead, to build on the inspiration provided by the many leaders who are here with us in this room today, to take our world in the positive direction which our experience – and, indeed, our instinct – tells us is so clearly possible.
There are many opportunities for national governments, the European Commission and businesses to enhance the protection of Europe’s wilderness. Participants of the recent policy conference organised by PAN Parks Foundation and Wild Europe Initiative in Brussels assessed what had been achieved so far and provided suggestions for policy development actions to ensure preservation of untouched natural areas for future generations.
The conference ’Protecting Wilderness in Europe’ took place earlier this week at the European Parliament in Brussels with nearly 50 participants including representatives of the European Commission (EC), NGOs and scientific institutions. The event generated lively debate on inspiring issues and proved that wilderness is still high on the EU agenda. One of the speakers, Stefan Leiner, Head of Natura 2000 Unit (EC DG Environment) confirmed “wilderness is an essential mainstream element of the European Biodiversity Strategy.”
Three years after the European Parliament’s adoption of a special report on wilderness and the development of the European Commission’s Agenda for Europe’s Wilderness, untouched natural areas still faces widespread threats from logging and development so participants of the policy conference on wilderness in the European Parliament call for actions:
the European Commission should ensure the inclusion of wilderness and clearly define its role in relation to the Green Infrastructure and also ensure a proper representation of marine wilderness areas;
national governments must ensure the protection of wilderness through implementing the relevant actions of the European Biodiversity Strategy through national strategies;
national governments and the European Commission should ensure that neighbourhood policy pays special attention to wilderness protection as several neighbourhood countries host large pieces of wilderness (eg. in the Caucasus);
in the light of the discussion of how to finance the Natura 2000 network further work on diversifying the funding sources available for wilderness protection through promoting payments for ecosystem services of wilderness through studies such as PAN Parks’ ’The Economics of Wilderness’
