WWF Collectives

WWF has just released their new fundraising program worldwide. It’s called collectives, and allows you to support the areas of WWF’s work that mean the most to you. There are three choices – supporting wildlife, climate change or wild places. By making a one off donation of your choice you can gain access to project information, status updates and regular information sent to you by email, allowing insider access to WWF’s work.

The collective you choose to support will send you video updates, expert opinions and information on current projects, and you will receive invitations to events happening in your area and country that you can get involved in to further support your chosen cause. These collectives will encourage conversation and innovation between people who truly care about the planet, helping to improve and sustain it into the future.

There are technically four collectives that you can support as there is a greatest need option, allowing funding to be directed towards urgent projects within all three sectors. The collectives are currently:

The Wildlife Collective, fighting for an end to wildlife crime and the transport and trade of illegal wildlife products. Working together to reduce poaching against rhinos, tigers and elephants. The current projects are

• Rhino horn micro-chipping in Kenya’s National Parks to help prosecute poachers
• Playing an active role in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
• Training anti-poaching units in India to protect tiger populations
• Sustaining zero poaching in Nepal following the last two years of zero poaching
• Reducing demand for rhino horns in Vietnam
• Improving law enforcement along key animal product trade routes such as those through Malaysia
• Protecting Amur leopards and tigers in the Amur Heilong area by providing software systems and training on law enforcement systems that log signs of poaching and help plan anti-poaching patrols effectively
• Stopping ivory being smuggled into China through wildlife detector dogs in airports

The Climate Collective is aiming to push for critical action against global warming and its effects, rather than more promises. The solutions and prevention techniques are available, and should be implemented to protect people, wildlife and the places we care about. The collective aims to tackle climate change and help to protect the world, reduce carbon emissions, champion positive solutions and ambitious government policies, and to improve the resilience of nature and communities to the future impacts that a warming climate may bring. The current projects are:

• Reducing the increasing conflict between people and polar bears in Canada due to melting ice
• Tackling UK carbon emissions and helping to ensure that the UK’s climate legislation is protected whilst working towards the UK’s power sector to be near zero carbon emissions by 2030
• Getting a fair global deal – the next 12 months are crucial for the future of the climate due to the upcoming UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is vital that this conference sees countries finally commit to carbon emission targets for 2020. Although this may result in slower growth, countries need to realise that this sacrifice is better in the long run, as softening the effects of climate change is beneficial for the entire planet
• Helping Scotland to meet its target of generating 100% of its energy through clean renewable sources by 2020
• Increasing the resilience of ecosystems and vulnerable communities near the Indus river to help them deal with the inevitable impacts of climate change
• Carrying out vulnerability assessments to help governments plan for a changing climate and local communities to adapt to it
• Working with Himalayan governments to help ensure food and energy security and secure freshwater systems and biodiversity
• Helping Brazil work towards a low carbon economy, shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and creating energy efficiency by 2030. If this can be achieved it will be a huge message to other developing countries, that clean development without polluting the environment, is possible.

The Wild Places Collective is focused on protecting the wild places across the globe, focusing on the life forces of the planet such as forests, oceans, rivers and the poles. Working to significantly increase the number and area of wild places that are properly protected, and ensuring that these places are well managed. The current projects are:

• Campaigning against hydroelectric dams in the Amazon basin – the Amazon currently faces unprecented development pressures and badly planned hydropower dams are one of the main threats to the regions people and wildlife. This project aims to effectively communicate the impacts that the proposed dams will have on local communities, especially the indigenous ones, and wildlife and to help local people to have their voices heard by local and national government
• Protecting the Arctic’s last ice area from industrial activity for the benefit of polar bears, other ice-dependent species and local communities
• Working to get at least half of England’s chalk streams back to a healthy status
• Helping local people living near mountain gorillas in Virunga National Park to use their natural resources more sustainably
• Helping communities effectively manage and protect more of the forests in East Africa
• Establishing a two million square kilometre network of protected areas in the Southern Ocean to protect and increase biodiversity
• Halting the decline of the Ganges river dolphin and improving water flows along 400 kilometres of river in the Ganges basin
• Connecting up a landscape of nine million hectares in the eastern Himalayas, home to elephants, tigers and rhinos to provide more space for them and local communities to thrive
• Working alongside the Chinese government to help reconnect 50 lakes back to the Yangtze creating important new wetland areas

These collectives give you the option to get increasingly involved with the World Wildlife Fund and its operations, to join in with a global community of people with the same passions about the environment and wildlife as you, and allows you to individually fund the projects you’re passionate about. The collectives should increase WWF’s action for the planet, whilst educating the global population about how they can get further involved and help. It’s a more personal and interactive way to support the environment and the future of the planet.

Click here to visit the WWF website and choose a collective for yourself

Bibliography:

World Wildlife Fund (2015) WWF Collectives, [Online], Available: http://www.wwf.org.uk/how_you_can_help/donate_now/collectives/?pc=DLB002102&utm_source=Fundraising+Mailing+List&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CLGE_Collectives+General+Pitch+Template 15^th February 2015

Eco-Fuel Africa: The Solution To Deforestation?

Eco-Fuel Africa is run by social entrepreneur Sanga Moses and is based in Uganda. Moses left his city job as an accountant to tackle a prevailing issue in rural Uganda; deforestation. The increasing lack of tree coverage is resulting in more children, like Moses’ sister, from missing valuable school days due to having to travel farther and farther to collect the wood that families are dependent on for cooking and heating.

More than 3.4 million hectares of Africa’s forests – tropical and beyond – were depleted from 2000 – 2010 (Next Billion 2012), showing how deforestation is a continent wide issue that needs to be solved. According to UN statistics, Uganda will have no remaining forests by the year 2052 if nothing is done to reduce the consumption of wood (TED Blog 2013), as eight out of ten people rely on wood for their cooking fuel (National Geographic 2014). In a few year’s time it is likely that Uganda will have to import wood due to the extreme rate of deforestation. However, those who inhabit rural Uganda often live on less than two dollars a day. Therefore, they will be deprived of their cooking fuel and basic human rights due to the high cost of wood as it is sourced from another country. Although wood is a primary export/ import, and so can be bought cheaply, the cost may still be too much for some Ugandan residents.

Moses quit his accounting job and took his US$500 life savings to try and create a solution to the looming energy crisis within his country (Next Billion 2012). After a year of researching and consulting university professors, Moses discovered that agricultural waste, which is abundant in Uganda and is often left to rot, could be converted into clean burning fuel and fertilisers; offering a possible solution to deforestation.

‘I sold all my personal belongings to build a kiln and make the first briquetting machine in April 2010. From there Eco-Fuel Africa was born – in November we brought our first product to market’ (Next Billion 2012).

Eco-Fuel Africa has developed this prototype into a low cost kiln made out of old oil drums, utilising other abandoned resources. They are leased to farmers, who are taught how to carbonise and sieve their waste such as sugarcane, coffee and rice husks, to transform them into charcoal powder which is then sold back to Eco-Fuel Africa; supplying the farmers with additional income. There is also a briquetting machine that doesn’t require electricity to operate, meaning that it can be used in the most remote villages.

The farmers can also retain some of the charcoal to use as an effective and natural fertiliser by mixing it with organic nutrients to encourage further growth of their produce, and so their income. Around 80% of the char is sold directly to Eco-Fuel Africa and each farmer earns an extra income of at least US$30 a month (Eco Fuel Africa What We Do 2014). This has helped over 2,500 marginalised farmers to increase their crop yields by 50%, increasing food security throughout the country (Eco Fuel Africa What We Do 2014).

Eco-Fuel Africa have also created machines to compress the char into fuel that burns in the same stoves that people already use, reducing the cost to consumers. This green charcoal is carbon neutral and burns longer and cleaner than wood without the release of pollutants such as particulate matter and carbon monoxide which can be contained within some fuels. It is estimated that indoor air pollution accounts for one-third of acute lower respiratory infections cases, and that ARI accounts for up to 20% of deaths among children under the age of five (Hanna 2008:71). The green charcoal will therefore lower this number and increase the health of its users.

It is also much cheaper than alternative fuels and has already saved three million dollars in energy expenses for Ugandans (National Geographic 2014). Household users can save at least US$200 a year, and institutional users can save US$500 a year resulting in increased education for children (Eco Fuel Africa Green Charcoal 2014).

The vision of Eco-Fuel Africa can be summed up with a question, ‘What if we could make every community in the developing world energy sufficient by creating briquetting micro-entrepreneurs within each of those communities?’ (Eco Fuel Africa Why Micro-Franchising 2014).

The business plan reflects this vision, and is attempting to put it into action. As demand for green charcoal increases, so will the demand for agricultural waste creating a sustainable supply of resources that were previously unused. However, this waste is scattered in different communities, some of which are remote and cannot be accessed regularly. It is also only fair that those communities that supply the waste are able to benefit from a supply of the fuel. Due to bad infrastructure and high fuel costs, it is impossible to transport green charcoal across large distances and still keep the price down at an affordable level. Therefore, micro-franchising has been used to set up a decentralised network of village based micro-factories; the farmers produce the charcoal locally and it is then sold on by retailers. This creates at least 20 local jobs that are likely to be stable and long term (Eco Fuel Africa Why Micro-Franchising 2014).

The green charcoal is sold back to communities locally through a network of female retailers, who can earn up to US$152 a month in extra income to help support their families (Eco Fuel Africa Why Micro-Franchising 2014). Eco-Fuel Africa selects these women through its links with women’s groups across the country; selected women are trained for three days and are provided with a kiosk within which to sell the fuel to their community. There are currently 460 retailers across Uganda, providing affordable and clean cooking fuel to communities (Eco Fuel Africa What We Do 2014). Through this program the women are empowered and given a valuable skill set which can be useful in later life.

Moses also sees the value of education in reducing deforestation across Uganda and has stated that, ‘We are using a part of the proceeds to build schools and educate the locals about the importance of our trees. We’re encouraging them to replant’ (Next Billion 2012). Another portion of the business’ income is put towards planting trees. Moses has said that schools are excited about this opportunity to inculcate sustainability in their students and to benefit future generations. Therefore a co-op entitled I Am For Trees has been created; 150,000 trees have already been planted however Moses has said that this is only what they can realistically do given their size and that they will plant more as they expand (TED Blog 2013).

‘We are still a drop in the ocean, really, because the country has virtually lost all of its forests. It will take a lot of time, and a lot of resources, to restore these forests’ (TED Blog 2013).

‘The plan is to continue expanding and train more farmers, reach more communities, enrol more schools in I Am For Trees, and stop depletion of the remaining forests. We still have about 30% of the forests standing. But they are under pressure, and we haven’t really covered even 10% of the country with our tree-planting program. We’re still in very few areas. The plan is to expand as quickly as we can, to ensure that all the trees that are left are not depleted for wood, and that we restore some of the forests that have been destroyed’ (TED Blog 2013).

Through conducting community outreach and travelling the country to advertise green charcoal, Eco-Fuel Africa is showing a video about the dangers of deforestation to communities whilst simultaneously recruiting farmers and retailers to sell their products to fuel their tree planting efforts.

However, as Moses has said, ‘to be honest with you, I don’t think we can singlehandedly fix the problem. We are providing a solution, but there’s also a need to sensitise communities and the government to ensure that they understand they can’t just let independent citizens plant all the trees’ (TED Blog 2013).

Overall, Eco-Fuel Africa is an effective and low cost social enterprise with a sustainable business plan that will affect the future of energy consumption across Africa. Although it will take time to expand, especially to other countries, there is a strong demand for the green charcoal and organic fertilisers that are produced, and so development and growth is almost certain. The micro-franchising allows the business to be adapted to every local setting and is inclusive to all, allowing community development and overall country-wide development due to increased incomes and business experience, as well as increased food security. Sanga Moses has created a successful and environmentally friendly business that will benefit thousands, if not millions, of people across the African continent.

Bibliography:

Eco Fuel Africa (2014) Green Charcoal, [Online], Available: http://ecofuelafrica.co.ug/green-charcoal/ 14^th February 2015

Eco Fuel Africa (2014) What We Do, [Online], Available: http://ecofuelafrica.co.ug/what-we-do/ 14^th February 2015

Eco Fuel Africa (2014) Why Micro-Franchising, [Online], Available: http://ecofuelafrica.co.ug/why-micro-franchising/ 14^th February 2015

Hanna, R (2008) Cooking Stoves, Indoor Air Pollution and Respiratory Health in Rural Orissa, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No. 32, pp. 71-76

National Geographic (2014) Entrepreneur Changes Life in Uganda by Turning Waste into Fuel, [Online], Available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/12/141215-sanga-moses-uganda-energy-wood-burning-fuel/ 14^th February 2015

Next Billion (2012) Waste Not, Want Not: Eco- Fuel Africa, [Online], Available: http://nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=2891 14^th February 2015

TED Blog (2013) Field, Fuel & Forest: Fellows Friday with Sanga Moses, [Online], Available: http://blog.ted.com/2013/10/04/field-fuel-forest-fellows-friday-with-sanga-moses/ 14^th February 2015

The Dog Meat Trade Of Asia

Every year, thousands of dogs from Vietnam, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and South Korea are captured, transported in cramped cages where many die from suffocation, and brutally murdered to fuel the dog meat trade of Asia.

The desire for dog meat has grown with the development of these countries. It is seen as a luxury and a delicacy, which has fuelled a number of restaurants and street venders serving only dog to meet the demands of the population. In Vietnam, dog meat is more expensive than pork, fetching £30 a portion in high-end restaurants (Guardian 2013). Although the Vietnamese, and other Asian populations, may not have the same human-animal relations as the West, we are very sentimental about animals, there is still a valid question of why dog meat? Why not consume beef, pork, chicken and fish as the rest of the world does. What makes dog such a delicacy?

Dog meat is believed to bring good fortune and is related to eating chicken or pork, which normalises its consumption. Similarly, in China dog meat is said to have medicinal properties and to warm the body causing its consumption to increase in the winter months.

In China, dog meat has been consumed for thousands of years as it seen as a socially acceptable practice backed by the government (Voiceless Friends 2014). It has been calculated that 18 million dogs are slaughtered for their meat and fur in China every year (Voiceless Friends 2014). These particular dogs often spend their entire lives in cages, surround by dirt and their own faeces; farmed akin to battery chickens in Europe. They are given a poor diet which leads to disease and some resorting to cannibalism out of desperation to survive.

Similarly, in South Korea 2 million dogs are killed each year for their meat. However, South Korea are making changes as even though the Korea Food and Drug Administration recognises all edible animals and products as food other than drugs, a policy regulation has been passed classifying dog meat as a ‘repugnant food’ (Voiceless Friends 2014). Although this regulation has been ineffective in bringing a halt to the demand for dog meat, it is a step in the right direction.

Dame Judi Dench, Ricky Gervais and several actors from the Downton Abbey cast have become involved with the campaign against the illegal dog trade in Thailand and its neighbouring countries. Dame Judi Dench has exclaimed that ‘I didn’t know that these innocent creatures are crammed into cages so brutally that their bones almost break, so tightly that they can’t move, and that they’re trapped like this for the [entire] smuggled journey, which can take days’ (Independent 2014). The celebrities are using the film below to encourage people to sign and back a petition entitled to the Thai Government that will end the dog meat trade, along with preventing the serving of dog meat in restaurants, a ban on dog skin products, and increased funding for rescue projects (Independent 2014). It has already been signed by more than 423,000 people (Independent 2014).

John Dalley, Vice President of the Soi Dog Foundation, a dog rescue shelter, has stated that ‘Thai people do not consider dogs or cats as food’ (Independent 2014).

‘Some ethnic groups and foreign nationals working in Thailand do, but this is no excuse not to make the practice illegal in a country where the vast majority of its citizens find dog meat consumption abhorrent’ (Independent 2014). He continues to state that, ‘by not specifically making the practice illegal it provides a huge loop hole for the traders to continue stealing and trading dogs’ (Independent 2014). In the last year the Soi Dog Foundation has been working with the Thai government to end the dog meat market, however this has pushed the trade deeper underground with gangs finding dogs from elsewhere.

The dogs abducted are often strays, however with the reduction of dogs coming into countries from traders, it is becoming increasingly common for people’s pets to be stolen and sold to restaurants and venders to be killed for their meat. Hundreds of pet dogs are stolen every day in Vietnam, kidnapped and torn away from their homes to become someone’s meal.

In Vietnam, dog theft is not a crime. A kidnapper, if he/ she gets charged at all, receives a fine of up to $100 which equates to one night’s work (Mirror 2014). The consequential fine must be raised to have any hope of deterring these individuals who continue stealing dogs during the night. In addition, dog thieves are notorious for carrying home-made stun guns and machetes, ready to threaten any pet owner who tries to prevent them from abducting their dog. There have been attacks and even murders over dogs. This has led to villages fighting back against gangs; numerous mob killings of thieves have made national headlines. As one pregnant villager in Thailand stated, ‘We are not scared of them. We won’t beat them to death, just break their arms and legs’ (Mirror 2014), showing the extreme tension between thieves and dog owners.

As Roger Lohanan of the Bangkok based Thai Animal Guardians Association has said, ‘At first it was just a handful of small traders wanting to make a small profit. But now this business has become a fundamental export. The trade is tax-free and the profit 300-500%, so everybody wants a piece of the cake’ (Guardian 2013). It is a black market industry creating more than £1.25 million a year, managed by an international mafia and facilitated by corrupt officials. His statement portrays the escalation of this trade, but does not explain the brutality in which the dogs are treated and killed as this is the main problem. If dog meat was regulated, taxed and suppliers were routinely checked for health and safety regulations as well as humane treatment of the animals, as with any other meat production, dog meat could be considered acceptable. However when pet dogs are sold to slaughter houses, kept for a few days on minimal food and water, and then killed in front of each other, this trade becomes unacceptable.

For example, as the website Voiceless Friends has stated, ‘After being transported to the slaughterhouse in cages where the dogs can barely move, an abhorrent death awaits them. Most of the dogs are clubbed and beaten violently on the head with sticks, hung upside down, stabbed in the thorax region, bled out, or electrocuted. On many occasions, the animals do not die instantly, they lose consciousness only briefly, before being stabbed to death’ (Voiceless Friends 2014). It is a commonly held belief that pain tenderises the meat, creating a system of torture before death.

Activists around the world are pushing for a new animal welfare law to come into existence that would protect pets from being traded and consumed. However Lohanan has stated that the opposite approach may give better results as it will prevent the trade from going underground. One MP in the Thai government, Bhumiphat Phacharasap, has suggested that regulating dog meat and making it a legal trade would reduce corruption and the illegality of exporting dogs without medical papers, ‘We could treat dogs the same way we treat cows and pigs, by ensuring they were free of disease, had been vaccinated and had export licenses, and hadn’t been tortured or harmed in transportation’ (Guardian 2013).

However there is a major issue with this alternative approach as, worldwide, Thailand would be perceived as a culture that tortures animals because from a Western perspective, dogs are not food. Phacharasap is therefore worried that Thailand would lose its trade rights with the rest of the world and its products would be boycotted. However, if legalising the dog meat trade means a reduction in the barbaric practices in which it is currently carried out, I believe the world could accept the eating of dog meat.

If the West refuses, these countries could be argued to be hypocritical, as shown by Peter Singer in his work Animal Liberation. He states that ‘To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbours not to sell their houses to blacks’ (Guardian 2013). To protest against the consumption of dog meat whilst still treating other animals inhumanely is severely hypocritical. Treatment of animals across the globe should be, and needs to become, humane and fair; making them more comfortable and giving them a quick painless death is not going to majorly affect profits. Although I personally would not eat dog meat due to seeing dogs as family rather than food, as long as the supply is compassionate and humane, dogs could be seen as a food source as different climates require different consumption.

‘Whether the answer is regulating it, like pork or beef here in the UK, or banning it outright – as it currently stands people and dogs are suffering pointlessly as a result of the dog meat trade’ (Mirror 2014).

In opposition to the trade, Thailand is taking the most action, with a naval team making arrests and rescuing dogs. The dogs are sent to a government run shelter in Nakhon Phanom to be numbered and treated for infectious diseases, and are then sent to adoption shelters. According to Thailand’s livestock department, nearly 5,000 dogs now live in these shelters (Guardian 2013). However, the sad truth is that many of them will never get adopted as Thai’s want pedigree dogs and those of a specific breed.

Kate Hodal who wrote the Guardian article also states that, ‘It is impossible to imagine any of these animals as a potential food source, not because they are dogs, but because they are abysmally thin and desperately unhealthy. There are bony puppies with broken legs; mangy mutts oozing mucus from their eyes and noses; dogs covered in their own vomit and faeces; and the carcasses of those that have already died, in plastic bags, waiting to be buried’ (Guardian 2013). This shows the extremely poor treatment of the dogs in the trade and raises health issues for those who are consuming dog meat. If these dogs are not vaccinated, and are unhealthy, the meat could cause illness.

In addition there is Soi Dog, a rescue dog shelter in Thailand, the UK, the United States, Australia, France and Holland. Soi Dog helps the homeless, neglected and abused dogs and cats of Thailand by neutering and rehoming them. They are also working to end the dog meat trade throughout Thailand, and respond to animal welfare disasters and emergencies (Soi Dog 2014). They are aiming to demonstrate a humane method of reducing the number of dogs, by neutering them rather than killing and/ or eating them; they have sterilised 77,000 dogs and cats so far (Soi Dog 2014).

Tai Chi, the dog shown here is one example of the work of Soi Dog. He was found severely malnourished in a gutter and could not even stand. However through Soi Dogs provision of injury and emergency veterinary care he made a full recovery and is shown with his new owner.

Sign the Soi Dog petition here, or buy a billboard to advertise the trade for £16 here

Bibliography:

Mirror (2014) Dogs Kept in Cramped Cages and Slaughtered for Meals: the Horrors of Vietnam’s Meat Trade, [Online], Available: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dogs-kept-cramped-cages-slaughtered-4369456 14th January 2015

Soi Dog (2014) About Soi Dog, [Online], Available: http://www.soidog.org/en/about-soi-dog/ 15^th January 2015

The Guardian (2013) How Eating Dog Became Big Business in Vietnam, [Online], Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/eating-dog-vietnam-thailand-kate-hodal 15th January 2015

The Independent (2014) Ricky Gervais and Dame Judi Dench Back Campaign to Stop Thailand Dog Meat Trade, [Online], Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ricky-gervais-and-dame-judi-dench-back-campaign-to-stop-thailand-dog-meat-trade-9818198.html 14th January 2015

Voiceless Friends (2014) Dog Meat Trade, [Online], Available: http://voicelessfriends.org/dog-meat-trade/ 14^th January 2015

Adele’s Voice For An End To The Misrepresentation Of Africa

Adele’s own words for how she bravely, and rightly, stepped down from taking part in this years Band Aid single. Although she may receive criticism from some, she has made a statement to show how the lyrics of this beloved song are ethnocentric and create the picture of Africa as in need of rescue, yet again. Negative publicity such as this perpetuates the idea that in order to grow and develop, the 55 countries of Africa need food, water, cures for disease and other simple humanitarian acts of giving, rather than large scale policy change, the reduction of western trade barriers and the cancellation of World Bank and IMF loans, which restrict investment in health and education, the fundamental building blocks of growth and change. The continent of Africa needs a chance to develop, not more aid money.

 

As taken from the Guardian website:

The Guardian (2014) Why I Had To Turn Down Band Aid, [Online], Available: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/19/turn-down-band-aid-bob-geldof-africa-fuse-odg 19th November 2014

 

Saying no to Bob Geldof is one of the hardest decisions I have had to make this year. However, seeing what looked like the corpse of an African woman being carried out of her home on primetime TV when the video was premiered on X Factor crystallised my concerns about this strategy to combat the Ebola crisis. For me it is ultimately flawed.

A week before the recording of Band Aid 30, I received a call from Geldof asking if I would take part. I was honoured to be asked and, connecting with his passion for wanting to tackle the Ebola crisis, said I wanted to offer my support.

But I also had my concerns. I was sceptical because of the lyrics and the videos of the previous charity singles, and I worried that this would play into the constant negative portrayal of the continent of Africa in the west. Geldof and I spoke at length about this and he agreed with me on many levels, assuring me that we could use it as an opportunity to showcase the positives of Africa.

However, on receiving the proposed lyrics on Thursday – two days before the recording was due to take place in London – I was shocked and appalled by their content. The message of the Band Aid 30 song absolutely did not reflect what Africa is truly about and I started to question whether this was something I wanted to be a part of.

I pointed out to Geldof the lyrics I did not agree with, such as the lines “Where a kiss of love can kill you and there’s death in every tear”, and “There is no peace and joy in west Africa this Christmas”. For the past four years I have gone to Ghana at Christmas for the sole purpose of peace and joy. So for me to sing these lyrics would simply be a lie.

In truth, my objection to the project goes beyond the offensive lyrics. I, like many others, am sick of the whole concept of Africa – a resource-rich continent with unbridled potential – always being seen as diseased, infested and poverty-stricken. In fact, seven out of 10 of the world’s fastest growing economies are in Africa.

Let me be clear, I’m not disregarding the fact that Ebola is happening and that people need help. Since the start of the outbreak in March it has killed more than 5,000 people. But every human being deserves dignity in their suffering and the images flashed on our screens remove any remnants of this from Ebola sufferers, many in their dying moments, when they should have it the most.

I am not disputing Band Aid’s good intentions. But the shock-factor strategy they have used since the 1980s has sparked a whole wave of “good cause” organisations that have been irresponsible with regard to the images shown to the rest of the world. It’s been totally one-sided. That’s understandable in part, as they wouldn’t raise much money if they showed the affluence, wealth, and happy lifestyles that exist in the continent. But in the process of doing all this “good work” a huge imbalance has been created.

That image of poverty and famine is extremely powerful psychologically. With decades of such imagery being pumped out, the average westerner is likely to donate £2 a month or buy a charity single that gives them a nice warm fuzzy feeling; but they are much less likely to want to go on holiday to, or invest in, Africa. If you are reading this and haven’t been to Africa, ask yourself why.

This is New Africa (Tina) is a movement empowering people to shed a positive light on Africa. I was born in Tooting, south London, and was taken as an infant to Ghana. Returning to London at the age of 11, being African was not something to be proud of because of all the negative connotations it conjured up, and it drove me to be almost ashamed of who I was.

Anyone who has experienced Africa in a positive way is a citizen of the New Africa and needs to play their part in challenging perceptions. I’m sharing my experience through my music – and if I can make chart-topping music that celebrates Africa then surely Band Aid and its extensive network can do the same. I’ve performed in two of the three countries currently hit by the Ebola crisis, where I have friends and loyal fans, and will be donating the proceeds from my next single to help tackle this issue.

I hope from the bottom of my heart that the disease can be eradicated in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea. But though shock tactics and negative images may raise money in the short term, the long-term damage will take far longer to heal.

The Chlorofluorocarbon Issue And Global Warming

The use of chlorofluorocarbons are threatening the planet, human health and agriculture by reducing the protective layers of the ozone and allowing a greater intensity of UV rays to reach the earth, which is increasing the rate of global warming. Chlorofluorocarbons are man-made chemicals that exist as gases or liquids and have been used as refrigerants in air conditioners and refrigerators, in aerosol spray cans, in manufacturing foams as industrial solvents and as cleaning agents in the manufacture of electronics (Pollution Issues). They were first manufactured in 1930 under the trademark freons, and contain chlorine, fluorine and carbon which are detrimental to the environment and particularly the ozone layers that protect our planet (Clean Air Strategic Alliance).

Chlorofluorocarbons have a high greenhouse effect as they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere as many other man-made products are. Instead they waft slowly upwards towards the stratosphere (10-50km above the earth) where they slowly break down and release their chlorine atoms (Science Direct). Each chlorine atom is capable of destroying tens of thousands of ozone molecules, decreasing the earth’s protective barrier at an alarming rate. The thinner this barrier gets, the more UV rays will reach the earth’s surface, leading to increased climate change.

Catalytic destruction of the ozone removes the odd ozone species [atomic oxygen (0) and ozone (03)] from the atmosphere whilst leaving the chlorine behind. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, and so the earth, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not found until 1984 (CIESIN). The announcement of ozone depletion over both the poles in March 1985, prompted scientific initiatives to research the ozone depletion processes, along with calls to freeze production of chlorinated fluorocarbons (CIESIN). One of the primary objectives of researchers looking into this issue has been analysis of trends in ozone and chlorofluorocarbons levels. This has mainly been achieved from space using the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer, which has shown statistically significant downward trends in ozone levels at all latitudes except around the tropical belt, due to rain forests’ potential to absorb UV rays.

The absorption of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation by the stratospheric ozone is crucial to the protection of all living organisms that live on our planet. Around 3% of the sun’s electromagnetic output is emitted as UV radiation, however only a fraction ever reaches the earth’s surface (Science Direct). With the thinning of the stratosphere more of this radiation will reach the earth, changing our climates and threatening animal and plant species worldwide.

This degradation can lead to increased cases of skin cancer, eye cataracts and impaired immune systems; as well as increased acid rain and smog, reduced crop yields, diminished productivity of the ocean and possibly contributing to the decline of amphibious populations that is currently occurring around the world (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Several of the world’s major crop species, including the staple crops, are vulnerable to increased UV radiation, causing them to have reduced growth, photosynthesis and flowering, reducing not only their output but their reproduction as well. These species include wheat, rice, barley, oats, corn, soybeans, peas, tomatoes, cucumbers, cauliflower, broccoli and carrots (British Columbia).

Similarly, trees can also be at risk of increased UV rays reaching the earth’s surface, only a few commercially important trees such as fruit and nut trees have been tested for UV and UV-B sensitivity. However, results from these studies suggest that plant growth, especially in seedlings, will be reduced with more UV radiation (British Columbia). Wood, plastic, rubber, fabrics and many construction materials are degraded by UV radiation, threatening the life-spans of our buildings, infrastructure, transport and domestic items such as clothing.

In domestic and farm animals, UV overexposure may lead to eye and skin cancers. Although some areas will be more vulnerable than others to increased UV radiations, these impacts could happen worldwide. Species of marine animals in their developmental stages such as young fish, shrimp larvae and crab larvae can have their growth restricted due to increased radiation, those living under the Antarctic ozone hole are currently threatened by this (British Columbia).

Scientists are particularly worried about the possible reduction in plankton populations. These small creatures are the first vital step in aquatic food chains meaning that all other marine populations will suffer if their numbers start to drop. This could lead to the disruption of both the fresh and saltwater food chains and a consequent loss of biodiversity in the world’s oceans, rivers and lakes. This will largely reduce yields for commercial fishermen, consequently lowering their income and the amount of fish that is available to purchase, raising the prices of all fish species.

Although chlorofluorocarbon emissions have stopped, the destruction to the stratospheric ozone layer will continue for the next 60 to 100 years, as the chlorine molecules located within these substances are already circulating the atmosphere, slowly moving upwards. This shows how the actions of the past are still threatening us and causing problems today.

An international commitment was created in 1981 to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone depleting substances. This led to the Vienna Convention in 1985 which established the monitoring and scientific assessment of activities related to using substances that are known to be ozone depleting (Clear Air Strategic Alliance). In addition, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987 set out a schedule for reducing the use of chlorofluorocarbons by 50% by 1999 (Clean Air Strategic Alliance). At a meeting in Helsinki in 1989, participating nations agreed to increase the cut down to 85% by 1999 (Clean Air Strategic Alliance), decreasing the production and use of ozone depleting chemicals even further. The Kyoto Protocol of 1994 is another such meeting to address greenhouse gas emissions and to find solutions to the global problem ahead.

Replacement compounds such as hydro-chlorofluorocarbons have been invented as a solution to the destructive impacts of CFCs. These compounds still contain chlorine atoms, however the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with the chemical species in the troposphere which will greatly reduce the likelihood of the chlorine atoms reaching the stratosphere (CIESIN). However, these hydro-chlorofluorocarbons still have a greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide; their impact is hundreds of thousands times that of CO2. Although they do not deplete the ozone layers, these compounds are still detrimental to the future of our planet as they will help to accelerate its warming, and the potentially catastrophic impacts that this may cause.

The earth’s average temperature is expected to rise by 1.4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 (Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry), this is an accumulation of many causes such as pollution, greenhouse gases, depletion of the ozone layer etc…However chlorofluorocarbons, and their replacements, have undoubtedly had an impact on this prediction of the warming of the earth. There is major concern that this temperature rise will cause the ice in the poles to melt and consequently cause a large rise in sea levels, allowing the sea to encompass low-lying land and any towns and cities that are residing upon it, resulting in millions becoming homeless. Although global warming has been said to be just another stage in the Milankovitch cycle, as argued by Al Gore, our development of technology, and the resultant pollution, has definitely worsened the situation we are currently in. Temperature increases of up to 5.8°C will make changes to our climates, landscapes, and so our lives.

Overall, chlorofluorocarbons have, and are, causing damage to the earth’s stratosphere, resulting in increased UV rays from the sun to reach the earth’s surface. Global warming cannot be attributed to these substances alone, however their prolonged use and life expectancy has undoubtedly had a negative impact upon our ozone layers, increasing the rate of climate change. The subsequent impacts on the plants and animals of our planet, including us, are yet to be fully understood and the levels of their extremity are unknown. Hopefully the majority of them can be avoided or controlled. Chlorofluorocarbons were a progressive technology when invented, but have now come to pose problems for our future. Technology needs to look towards possible future impacts more often, to make sure that new products will not be detrimental to the planet, and so, to us.

 

Bibliography:

(CIESIN) Center for International Earth Science Information Network (1992) Ozone Depletion, [Online], Available: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/011-466/011-466.html 4th October 2014

British Columbia (1999) The Impacts of Ozone Depletion, [Ozone], Available: http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-impacts.html 4th October 2014

Clean Air Strategic Alliance (1990) Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) And Halons, [Online], Available: http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c09/c09links/www.casahome.org/chlorofl.htm 28th August 2014

Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (2007) History of Chlorofluorocarbons, [Online], Available: http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/chemical_management/ozone/files/pamplet/panel/08e_basic.pdf 4th October

Pollution Issues (2009) CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), [Online], Available: http://www.pollutionissues.com/Br-Co/CFCs-Chlorofluorocarbons.html 28th August 2014

Science Direct (1991) Environmental Health, [Online], Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PdfExcerptURL&_imagekey=1-s2.0-S014067368790972X-main.pdf&_piikey=S014067368790972X&_cdi=271074&_orig=article&_zone=centerpane&_fmt=abst&_eid=1-s2.0-S014067368790972X&_user=13281404&md5=8d1fd0f45d20b3efab4b88ae00f941a4&ie=/excerpt.pdf 4th October 2014

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Environmental Indicators: Ozone Depletion, [Online], Available: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/ 4^th October 2014

The Rim Fire 2013: Let Nature Heal Rather Than Log

Large fires are an annual problem facing many of the world’s temperate Western forests. These mega-fires are often caused by ‘a combination of drought, heat, wind, fuel from fire suppression, budget cuts and encroaching development’, states Scott Stephens, a professor at the University of California (Phys Org). The Rim Fire of 2013 is one example. This wildfire began as a hunter’s illegal campfire near the Rim of the World Vista (hence the name) on August 17^th, and consumed 257,314 acres of trees, chaparral and grassland, along with $127 million taxpayer dollars over three months within Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park (Phys Org). The fire burned continuously for two months before it was fully contained, and then continued to smoulder until winter snows extinguished the last embers. The Rim Fire was the largest fire on record in the Sierra Nevada and the third largest wildfire in California history, the trend of large wildfires is likely to continue and increase with climate change causing increasingly dry conditions and lightning storms.

Jay Miller, US Forest Service fire ecologist, stated that 60 square miles, 155 square kilometres, of the fire’s path were completely charred leaving nothing left alive, ‘In other words, it’s nuked’. ‘If you asked most of the fire ecologists working in the Sierra Nevada, they would call this unprecedented’ (National Geographic). However, in contrast, it has been argued by several forest ecologists that fire is beneficial and necessary to sustain a healthy forest, in opposition to members of the Forest Service who are intent on logging burnt areas.

As Jim Branham, executive officer of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, has said, the Rim Fire offers a ‘real opportunity to take a different approach’ to the restoration of a burned landscape (National Geographic). The Conservancy has been earmarked $1 million towards the restoration of the forest affected by the Rim Fire (National Geographic), this is just a fraction of the tens of millions that are expected to be spent on restoring the charred landscape over the coming years. The other option, preferred by the Forest Service, is logging the charred trees, fuelling the timber industry.

Branham has been asking the question, ‘How do we do this differently so we don’t come back 25 years from now and have to do it all over again’ (National Geographic). Fires affected the same area in the 1980s; following this, forest managers planted new tree plantations as part of a regrowth plan. However, these trees acted as fuel for the Rim Fire, increasing the blaze. Ryan Burnett, a bird biologist with the conservation group Point Blue, has said that the Rim Fire burned so hot because ‘for the last 75 we suppressed fire pretty well’ (National Geographic), as a result large amounts of dead wood and grassland had developed, resulting in an inferno.

Branham is currently working with a diverse group of stakeholders including government agencies, scientists, conservation groups and local citizens, to create a new restoration plan that will benefit the forest, but also minimise the natural fuel for future fires. For some areas of burned forest, letting nature take its course and create new life may be the best route forward.

The positives created by wildfires for forests are vast, fire benefits both the flora and fauna of a forest, increasing biodiversity and the numbers of several populations such as wood-boring beetles. Chaparral, chamise, manzanita and scrub oak burn frequently because they must burn, similarly, leaves of the ceanothus tree are tacky with flammable resins. When ignited they provide the intense heat that is required for ceanothus seeds to germinate. Furthermore, chamise, or greasewood, dries out and burns like a grease fire, clearing out surrounding less pyrotechnic competition and quickly sprouts again, sustaining its population and giving itself an edge against other plants in the forest.

Fire is also necessary for giant sequoias, the largest living thing to have ever lived, to spread their seeds. In a sequoia grove, fire ‘prepares the seedbed, cycles nutrients, sets back succession in certain relatively small areas, provides conditions which favour wildlife, provides a mosaic of age classes and vegetation types, reduces numbers of trees susceptible to attack by insects and disease and reduces fire hazards’ (National Park Service), fulfilling many important roles for the continuation of the species. Giant sequoias are protected from fire by fibrous outer bark that can be four feet thick (National Geographic Opinion). The tiny seeds of this giant germinate best following a fire, as fire in a sequoia-mixed conifer forest provides soft soil on which the lightweight sequoia seeds can easily settle and be buried. By consuming branches and duff, fire allows the seed to reach mineral rich soil; additionally, the ash deposit on the ground increases the available stores of phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium which are beneficial for plant growth. In heating the soil, fire changes its texture in a way that allows the seed to be completely covered by a few millimetres of soil when it falls from the tree, promoting germination (National Geographic Opinion).

The rising convection column of heat that occurs during a fire, dries out and kills the needles on the trees more than 100 feet up (National Park Service). This may also help to dry out the sequoia cones and ensure a heavy seed fall. Once the sequoia seeds are buried and germination takes place, moisture in the rooting zone becomes critical. Fire also assists in this matter, the highest survival rates of sequoia seedlings has been found on soils which have been heavily burned as this creates more available soil moisture. The elimination of fungi and other competition for water sources also assist sequoia seedlings in growing. Therefore, wildfires greatly assist the continuation of the giant sequoia population, ensuring this giant tree lives on.

Fire ecologist, Dr Robert Mutch, hypothesised 30 years ago that through natural selection, some fire-dependent species have developed certain biological characteristics that increased their flammability as if to intentionally create fires (Fire Ecology). Thus allowing a higher survival chance for their seeds. These plants generate sufficient fuel to affect the frequency, intensity and seasonality of wildfires in ways that increase the biological benefits that they derive from fires, allowing their populations to flourish.

The fir, cedar and pine forests of the high Sierra are adapted in this way to frequent fires ignited by lightning; fire scars on older trees can frequently be seen, recording a history of low intensity fires every 10 to 20 years (Phys Org). These low intensity fires, it has been found, kill just 5-10% of the mature trees in the affected area (Phys Org). Similarly, recent studies have found that wildfires in mixed conifer forests often run out of fuel when they encounter sections of the forest that have already burned within the last decade, showing how wildfires reduce the frequency of extreme fires by decreasing the amounts of fuel within the forest and increasing the health of the ecosystem.

Wildfires are also beneficial for the animal populations that live within these forests. After a fire begins, certain species thrive from its presence. For example, wood-boring beetles can detect the heat or smoke of a high-intensity fire from 40 miles away (National Geographic Opinion). They fly towards the blaze, in the opposite direction of the deer, bears, foxes, birds and squirrels fleeing the fire. As Burnett has observed, ‘when trees die, wood-boring beetles come in and lay their eggs in them…Their young eat the wood and become these big, delicious grubs, and woodpeckers go crazy eating them’ (National Geographic).

Black-backed woodpeckers, a species that is being considered for the Endangered Species Act, follow the beetles into the blackened forest to drill for their larvae within the snags of trees. As woodpeckers chisel out a multitude of new nest cavities and abandon their previous nest sites, this allows other forest birds such as mountain bluebirds to move in, increasing the biodiversity of the blackened forest once more. A few weeks later, insects will begin to swarm around the newly flowering shrubs and herbs that have grown from the charred landscape. Swifts, swallows, flycatchers and bats fly in to hunt these insects; small mammal populations then follow these and experience population booms. Hawks, owls, weasels and coyotes then move in to hunt the small mammals; repopulating the burnt forest.

In studies of the snag forest habitat left in the wake of high-intensity fires, ecologists have found levels of biodiversity level, or surpassing the biodiversity found within old-growth forests, showing the beneficial impacts of fire upon a forest landscape.

The burnt landscape left by the Rim Fire of 2013 described by the Forest Service as ‘nuked’ and ‘hopeless’ is greening up as always after a fire (National Geographic Opinion). However, the Forest Service is intent on executing a ‘salvage logging’ project to cut 30,000 acres of the forest in addition to a hazardous tree removal project that will log a further 16,000 acres (National Geographic Opinion). The salvage plan will put 661 million board feet of timber up for sale, four times the amount sold last year across all of California’s national forests (National Geographic Opinion). This plan contradicts the Forest Service’s purpose, to protect old-growth forest. The trees of Yosemite National Park are recovering from the blaze, and animals are re-populating the burnt forest; this logging to beneficial to the timber industry, not the landscape.

The Forest Service has begun its hazardous tree removal project along Highway 120, the main road into Yosemite National Park, which many tourists take each year. The logging has currently reached just a few miles down the road, however will eventually clear 100,000 trees along 194 miles of road throughout the forest, destroying the natural habitat and the picturesque views of the park (National Geographic Opinion). The standard removal distance is 1.5 or 2 tree lengths from either side of the road, however trees are not being selected and marked, everything is being taken, dead or alive. Many miles of old road that are not maintained for public use are also due to be logged, raising the question of whether this logging project is about public safety or selling timber. According to one Forest Service estimate, travellers to Yosemite should expect to see an average of one logging truck every 30 seconds (National Geographic Opinion), showing the extremity of this project.

Randi Spivak, a spokeswoman for the Center for Biological Diversity has said that, ‘This timber sale will be incredibly destructive. The logging will hurt watersheds and wildlife and even increase the risk of unnatural fires by spreading invasive species. It’s little more than an excuse to cut old trees in forests that would otherwise be protected’ (The Union Democrat), expressing the opinions of many critics of the Forest Service.

Forest ecologists and environmentalists are protesting this plan and stating it as a catastrophe. The ecologists have pointed out that most Western forests are not only fire adapted but fire dependent. Therefore, a burn in the Sierra Nevada is not a tragedy, it is a simple stage in the life of the forest. The environmentalists maintain that burned trees are not a waste; the snags, logs and other deadwood that the Forest Service is anxious to rush to the mills are the next generation of trees, as shown with the dispensing of sequoia seeds during a fire.

As National Geographic have stated, ‘Western trees are beautifully adapted to fire ecologically but poorly adapted politically. No forest type has fewer legal protections, and is more vulnerable to exploitation, than burned forest’ (National Geographic Opinion).

Leaving heavily burned areas of forest to revert back to a healthy ecosystem on their own runs against traditional management plans. As Burnett has stated, ‘The public looks at dead trees and thinks managers aren’t being good stewards of the land’, however his research shows that ‘places where people did not plant lots of trees right away have higher bird diversity’ (National Geographic). He added that, ‘We know [that] trees will grow in those burned areas eventually, but it will be valuable habitat for [the woodpeckers] for 10 to 20 years’ (National Geographic).

Decades of encouraging private logging companies to remove the largest, oldest and most fire-resistant trees from public lands and national parks, has left behind large amounts of fuel for wildfires such as small trees, brush, weeds and stumps. When timber plantations burn, the young trees are usually incinerated leaving no seed sources to naturally regenerate the forest, in contrast to mature and old-growth trees who have a biological resistance to fire. Additionally, evidence is now coming to light that the Forest Service is routinely igniting backfires and burnouts during dry and severe fire weather conditions, adding significant amounts of acreage that is burned throughout the summer. Ethical questions are raised as the Forest Service has planned salvage timber sales in the same areas that it burns. In addition, offering salvage timber sales in protected forest areas could be seen as opportunistically exploiting trees burned by arson.

The case can be argued that the Forest Service has become a fire-dependent bureaucracy, profiting from the annual wildfires that incinerate thousands of trees within national parks. Forests have become increasingly flammable, however, following each wildfire disaster, the Forest Service gains increased power, resources and opportunities to dictate the management of forests and to continue their logging policies. Following large scale public scrutiny and criticism of the agency’s logging practices, the Forest Service and their enablers in Congress have learnt to mask timber sales as ‘fuel reduction’ and ‘forest restoration’ projects (Fire Ecology), even though these projects increase the risk of wildfires occurring, due to the reduction of mature and flame-resistant trees.

Although the Rim Fire blackened and charred a large percentage of Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park, wildfires are a necessary stage in the life cycle of a forest. Annual fires are extremely beneficial for the entire forest ecosystem, providing the optimum time for trees to disperse seeds, and a new and thriving place for mammals, birds and insects. Logging and destroying this ecosystem is not a ‘service’ to the forest, it is exploiting an area of importance for sustaining life for a monetary profit. These schemes are often ignored as the majority of the public do not know about the benefits of fire, and so will not stand in the way of logging. Fires are an excuse for the Forest Service to cut down the trees that make up the beauty of National Parks and landscapes around the world. Fire is extremely beneficial and we should let nature take its course and restore forests to their former glory following a fire.

 

Bibliography:

Fire Ecology (2003) Fanning the Flames! The U.S. Forest Service: A Fire-Dependent Bureaucracy, [Online], Available: http://www.fire-ecology.org/research/USFS_fire_dependent.html 19th August 2014

National Geographic (2014) Huge Rim Fire Gives Opportunity to Restore Forest Differently, [Online], Available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140120-rim-fire-restoration-forest-ecology-science/ 14^th August 2014

National Geographic (2014) Opinion: Don’t Log Burned Forests – Let Nature heal them, [Online], Available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140714-rim-fire-salvage-logging-forest-ecology-wildfire-restoration/ 14^th August 2014

National Park Service (1972) Fire’s Role in a Sequoia Forest, [Online], Available: http://www.nps.gov/seki/naturescience/fic_firerole.htm 14th August 2014

Phys Org (2014) The Rim Fire 1 Year Later: A Natural Experiment in Fire Ecology and Management, [Online], Available: http://phys.org/wire-news/168255861/the-rim-fire-1-year-later-a-natural-experiment-in-fire-ecology-a.html 13th August 2014

The Union Democrat (2014) Rim Fire Log Salvage Plan Opposed By Ariz Group, [Online], Available: http://www.uniondemocrat.com/News/Local-News/Rim-Fire-log-salvage-plan-opposed-by-Ariz-group 19th August 2014

Shell’s Dangerous Plans To Drill In The Arctic

Shell, Europe’s largest oil company has halted drilling for oil in the Arctic for the second consecutive year. The company has spent $5 billion over seven years exploring the Beaufort and Chukchi seas for oil, but has halted work after a series of technical difficulties and accidents in 2012 and 2013 (Bloomberg). Shell sent 22 ships to Alaska’s northern coast in 2012 to begin searching for oil, however ran into difficulties when a patch of ocean the size of Pennsylvania froze in 48 hours, preventing any drilling (Bloomberg). Similarly, a rig broke free and ran aground in heavy surf, showing the dangerous environment of these northern seas. As Cindy Shogan, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League has stated, ‘Shell Oil was forced to abandon its plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean in 2013 due to its own lack of preparedness and technical failures, together with Alaska’s harsh and unpredictable conditions’ (Bloomberg).

This is a positive for the Arctic environment as the area is already undergoing stress from climate change. The region has heated up twice as fast as the rest of the planet throughout the past three decades, by August last year there had been a 76% decrease in sea ice since 1979 according to the University of Washington’s Polar Ice Center (Bloomberg). It is this receding ice that has exposed the previously unreachable oil under the sea that Shell now wants to exploit. Their presence in the Arctic will increase this rate of ice depletion, possibly exposing more oil which is beneficial for Shell to profit from, but extremely detrimental to the sensitive ecosystems that exist in the Arctic Ocean.

Drilling in the Arctic Ocean is currently under debate as the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the Department of the Interior have violated US law in deciding to hold a drilling lease sale in which Shell and other companies purchased leases to drill in the Chukchi Sea. The court ruled that the government failed to accurately evaluate the negative impacts that drilling could have on the Arctic, removing the legal agreements around oil excavation. Shell’s CEO, Ben Van Beurden, has produced a statement saying that ‘The lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014. We will look to relevant agencies and the court to resolve their open legal issues as quickly as possible’ (Bloomberg), avoiding the illegality of oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea.

The environmental impact statement provided to allow the leases to be sold, was based on estimates that the proposed oil rigs would produce 1 billion barrels of oil, ignoring earlier US government estimates that the rigs could actually extract 12 billion barrels. Twelve times more than the amount used whilst producing the potential environmental impact assessment (Huffington Post). However, the oil predicted to exist beneath the Arctic seabed will only utilise US oil demand for two years (Huffington), therefore at a time when the world is attempting a shift to renewable energy, it makes sense to leave this non-renewable resource under the sea.

It is estimated that the Arctic holds 30% of the world’s remaining undiscovered natural gas and 13% of the undiscovered oil. This amounts to around 400 billion barrels of oil, ten times the total oil and gas produced in the North Sea to date (Shell 2013). However, retrieving this oil and gas will not only be difficult, but extremely risky for the environment as an oil spill under the ice would be impossible to clean up, and would devastate the human and animal inhabitants of the region. In addition, Shell’s 2012 oil containment dome, a device that will supposedly contain oil spills during the Arctic exploration, failed a testing exercise in the calm waters of Puget Sound; showing its incapability to prevent oil spills from damaging the environment and polluting the ocean.

Shell has developed other technologies to potentially minimalise their impact upon the Arctic and to produce resources responsibly. This includes technologies to prevent and respond to oil spills in the ice, to reduce noise levels that can affect marine mammals, and technologies to allow Shell to operate safely in the unpredictable ice landscape. These technical solutions are supposedly assisting Shell by reducing the likelihood of oil leaking into the ocean, as well as lessening the impact if a leak does occur. However any oil spill, no matter how large, will impact negatively upon the fragile ecosystems of the Arctic Ocean. Shell has buried underwater pipelines several metres under the seabed, reducing the risk of floating ice damaging the pipes and causing an oil spillage. The electronic systems controlling the management of the pipelines are designed to detect any drop in pressure, which will activate multiple valve systems to stop the oil flow as a failsafe. Shell have stated that they are able to respond to a spill within 60 minutes, 24 hours a day (Shell 2014). Response times to a potential spill will have to be under 60 minutes to ensure complete security for the ocean.

The technical, environmental and social challenges of exploring for and developing oil and gas in the Arctic are immense. They include its remoteness, variable climate, ice and permafrost, fragile ecosystem and the need to help conserve the traditional lifestyles of indigenous people (Shell 2011). The Arctic region is too risky to excavate natural resources from, and it is too much of a gamble with the environment, and the planets climate.

The science behind drilling in the arctic is dangerous. Scientists have found that the trend of shrinking polar ice will amplify global warming by darkening the planet’s surface and allowing more heat to be absorbed, contributing to changing weather patterns (Live Science). Changes in the weather are already threatening communities around the world who are prone to hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Polar ice is melting, sea levels are rising and extreme weather events are already killing 150,000 people every year (Greenpeace).

Greenpeace campaigner, Charlie Kronick has stated, ‘The company has spent huge amounts of time and money on a project that has delivered nothing apart from bad publicity and a reputation for incompetence. The only wise decision at this point is for Mr Van Beurden to cut his company’s losses and scrap any future plans to drill in the remote Arctic Ocean’ (The Guardian). Greenpeace are urging other companies to reconsider offshore drilling in the Arctic due to Shell’s experience, stating that the Arctic is ‘too remote, too hostile and too iconic to be worth exploring’ (Alaska Dispatch News).

Environmentalists are worried that drilling in the Arctic could lead to another Exxon Valdez incident, the largest oil spill in the US and one of the most environmentally detrimental events in history. Oil washed up onto 1,200 miles of Alaskan shoreline, killing countless animals, both mammals and birds, and disrupting the commercial fishing industry and the lives of thousands of locals (Scientific American). The region still has not completely recovered from the event as toxic oil is still present in the sand, oil is frequently unearthed when people or animals dig pits on some Alaskan beaches. Although $2 billion has been spent on a clean-up project, only around 8% of the oil has been recovered and removed from the environment, the remainder still lingers around in the earth.

Jeff Short, Pacific Science Director for Oceana, a Washington based ocean conservation organisation, studies oil spills as an environmental chemist for the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. He has been interviewed by Scientific American about the possible dangers of drilling in the Arctic, he has stated that, ‘I don’t think it is widely appreciated that the Bering Sea and the Chukchi Sea are among the most biologically productive seas in the world’ (Scientific American), showing the variety of life that exists within these remote and seemingly hostile environments. Short continued to say that, ‘Beyond basic productivity, though, we really know very little about how the basic food web of these ecosystems works, or even to a large extent what life forms are there’ (Scientific American).

‘The region is already undergoing profound changes due to global warming and increasing ocean acidification’ (Scientific American), the effects of climate change will be greatly enhanced with the presence of multinational corporations such as Shell, leading to further problems for the whole planet. Short is concerned as ‘the loss of sea ice in the last two years risks engaging feedback loops that could put runaway global warming beyond our control. As sea ice melts in the summertime, a reflective surface, the ice, is transformed into an absorptive, watery one. So the waters heat up, which in turn heat up the landmasses, melting the permafrost and setting the stage for massive methane and carbon dioxide release from frozen biomass, accelerating [climatic warming causing more] sea ice melting, and so on’ (Scientific American). Therefore, oil extraction in the Arctic seas could vastly accelerate global warming by releasing large quantities of methane and carbon dioxide that have been frozen for centuries. If these gas stores are released, our climate could be thrown off balance and the world will heat up drastically, drilling in the Arctic is not safe and should not be explored to create further profits for Shell.

Shell has built up relationships with other Arctic stakeholders such as governments, regulators and environmental non-governmental organisations; including the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Wetlands International, the Nature Conservancy and First People’s Worldwide to help minimialise their impact. However, operating in the Arctic will cause damage no matter how many environmental agencies have supplied information on how to reduce Shell’s impact.

Similarly, Greenpeace are highlighting Shell’s long-term relationship with Lego, urging Lego to end their connection to show support for non-drilling in Artic waters. Shell has spent money on making itself appear family-friendly and caring by placing their logo on popular products and children’s toys such as Lego bricks. Oil companies such as Shell face barriers to their plans to drill in the Arctic, they need regulators to give them permission to drill, these regulators are less likely to give permission for activities that the public does not want. Therefore, these companies frequently divert attention away from their negative aspects by spending millions on improving their image by placing their branding on common, everyday products.

Lego itself has good social and environmental policies and values, and has made a conscious effort to reduce its environmental impact. Although Lego blocks are currently made of oil, among other ingredients, Lego has pledged to phase out the use of oil to make its products and to replace it with a sustainable alternative by 2030 (Greenpeace). They are also working to reduce their packaging materials and to ensure that they are all FSC certified, decreasing Lego’s impact upon the environment in landfill sites, and promoting the recycling of their packaging. Greenpeace is giving children a voice in this issue and against drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic as Shell is deceiving them, and they are the ones who will have to live with the results of climate change.

Overall, Shell’s plans for drilling in the Arctic Ocean should not be allowed to come to fruition. The scientific implications of melting polar ice and the release of large methane and carbon dioxide stores could greatly exaggerate climate change, impacting negatively upon the planet. Shell’s presence in the Arctic will deplete the ice even further, causing greater problems. There are also worries for the future of the animal populations who exist in the Arctic, as multinational companies such as Shell invading their habitat will cause them to migrate to less suited areas to escape the disturbance, and may decrease their populations. Environmentalists and conservationists, as well as members of the general public, are against oil drilling in the Arctic to protect this iconic landscape and to prevent further climate change. Action needs to be taken to protect the Arctic, such as possibly naming it a World Heritage Site to make any extraction or alteration illegal. This region should not be allowed to be exploited for monetary profits for Shell and a quick fix for depleting oil reserves, now is the time to switch to renewable energy while we can.

 

Bibliography:

Alaska Dispatch News (2014) Shell Won’t Drill Offshore In Alaska Arctic This Year, [Online], Available: http://www.adn.com/node/1515266 5th August 2014

Bloomberg (2014) Shell Halts Alaska Drilling after U.S. Court Appeal Ruling, [Online], Available: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/shell-halts-alaska-drilling-plan-after-u-s-appeal-court-ruling.html 5th August 2014

Greenpeace (2014) Lego and Shell – FAQs, [Online], Available: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/lego-and-shell-faqs-20140630 5th August 2014

Huffington Post (2014) Good News for the Arctic – Shell Scraps Drilling For 2014, [Online], Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ted-danson/good-news-for-the-arctics_b_4858415.html 5th August 2014

Live Science (2013) In a Warming Arctic, Oil Drilling Brings Disaster, [Online], Available: http://www.livescience.com/41744-arctic-drilling-brings-disaster.html 5th August 2014

Scientific American (2009) Drilling the Arctic for Energy: Does Tapping Alaskan Oil to Increase Energy Independence Come at Our Peril?, [Online], Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drilling-the-arctic-for-energy/ 5^th August 2014

Shell (2011) Shell in the Arctic, [Online], Available: http://s04.static-shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/future-energy/downloads/arctic/shell-in-the-arctic.pdf 5th August 2014

Shell (2013) Shell in the Arctic, [Online], Available: http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/arctic.html 5th August 2014

Shell (2014) Oil Spill Prevention and Response, [Online], Available: http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/arctic/oil-spill-prevention-reponse.html 5th August 2014

The Guardian (2014) Shell Shelves Plan to Drill in Alaskan Arctic This Summer, [Online], Available: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/30/shell-shelves-alaskan-arctic-drilling-oil 5th August 2014

More Whales In The Ocean May Increase Fish Populations

A new study compiling the evidence of scientists from a variety of university’s and marine research institute’s, has been published in this month’s Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment journal. The study, Whales as Marine Ecosystem Engineers, shows how an increase in whale populations globally could result in higher fish populations, as opposed to the common misconception that whales consume commercially important fish stocks. This study could work towards a better future for whales and prevent recurring culls from taking place.

Scientists and the managers of fisheries have continuously underestimated the role that large whales play in healthy ocean ecosystems. This underestimation occurred due to the fact that ‘when oceanographic studies were started, large whales were largely absent from the ecosystem because we had killed most of them’ (National Geographic), states Joe Roman, a biologist at the University of Vermont and the study’s lead author. He also stated that ‘our new review points to several studies that show you have more fish in an ecosystem by having these large predators there’ (National Geographic).

Until the 1970’s, large whales were heavily hunted which reduced their numbers drastically, an estimated 66-90% of the animals were removed from the ocean (ESA). However, since 1970 their numbers have been slowly increasing, restoring the populations of whales worldwide. There are now more than a million sperm whales and tens of thousands of grey whales (National Geographic). The blue whale, however, have been slow to recover. These aquatic giants, the largest animals ever to have lived on the planet, remain at 1% of their historic range in the southern hemisphere, showing their numbers to still be feeble.

Roman has stated that scientists think whales’ absence in ocean waters may have altered the marine ecosystem, making it harder for all species to survive. This may explain the decrease in fish stocks globally, as well as over-fishing, as fish are grown for commercial purposes rather than recovering their populations in the wild. However, recent advances in technology have allowed scientists to tag and track seafaring animals to learn more and gather data around their migration patterns, food sources and population growth or decline. Some of these tags also contain a video camera, and so picture images can be gathered showing an animal’s eating habits. Roman has said that this technology will help scientists to gain a better understanding of how important cetaceans are.

Whales are beneficial to marine ecosystems due to their activity of travelling deep into the ocean and back to the surface to feed, although not every species of whale performs this activity, many do. The scientists who produced the study stated that when whales feed by diving down and returning to the surface, they mix up the water column, spreading nutrients and microorganisms through different marine zones. This allows other species to consume prey which they could otherwise not reach, sustaining their populations as well. Similarly, the materials in whale urine and excrement, especially iron and nitrogen, serve as effective fertilisers for plankton, reproducing the food source for many whale populations.

Many varieties of great whales, such as blue, sperm, right and grey, migrate long distances to mate and so bring these nutrients with them, spreading them around the globe and increasing the populations of all marine species. When they breed in far latitudes they make important nutrient contributions to areas that often have low levels of resources and nutrients. This therefore re-establishes these areas, allowing them to support life once more. Even a whale’s placenta can be a rich source of food for other organisms, showing how whales are a necessary component in the marine food chain. Roman calls whale migration a ‘conveyor belt’ of nutrients around the ocean (National Geographic).

Whale deaths are also useful for the marine environment, when one of these large creatures dies its body sinks to the ocean floor providing nutrition for unique ecosystems of scavengers such as crabs, worms and hagfishes. Many of these scavenger species are found nowhere else and so a whale’s body provides sustenance for weeks if not months compared to fish bodies. Roman and the other scientists have stated that, ‘Because [humans] took out so many whales there were probably extinctions in the deep sea before we knew those [scavenger] species existed’ (National Geographic).

Whales previously had a large influence on marine ecosystems due to their high metabolic demands and as consumers of fish and invertebrates. Their high food intake prevents population explosions of plankton and other invertebrates, balancing out other species’ populations. They are also necessary as prey to other large predators such as giant squid, giving them their food source and continuing their populations.

Commercial fishermen have complained about whales’ interference in their operations for decades, claiming that whales eat the fish they’re trying to catch. The Japanese government have frequently complained stating that ‘whales are threatening our fisheries’ and called minke whales ‘the cockroach of the ocean’ (National Geographic). Some whales do eat fish but the majority of species eat invertebrates. In addition, many of the species eaten by whales, whether invertebrate or fish are of no interest to commercial fishermen, reducing their complaints to nothing.

Some countries currently desire to lift the International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling to protect their fishing industries. However, it is not the whales that are causing a decline in fish stocks, it is the overfishing itself as this does not allow fish populations to recover and multiply. Additionally, the increase in fish populations that may result from a whale cull will not last, as the fish are likely to be eaten by other predators including predatory fish, sea birds, other whales and seals than they are to be caught by fishermen (IFAW).

Whales would usually keep these populations in check, as well as eating fish, therefore the ecosystem would be more successful with whales present as there would be a greater variety of species living within the environment. Feeding relationships in the ocean are complex and it is difficult to predict what the effect of reducing one component will be on the rest of the system, it is therefore better to leave all components of an ecosystem to thrive and co-exist on their own. Culling whales will not increase fish populations, the problem lies with the fact that 75% of all commercial fish stocks are currently overexploited (IFAW), these populations need to be allowed to recover to make the industry sustainable and to allow it to continue into the future.

The majority of whale populations were previously far larger than they are currently, there was enough fish and plankton to support them and enough left over to support the global fish stocks that have since been exploited by commercial fisheries. Scientists support no evidence that cetaceans have harmed commercial fisheries. The partial recovery of some whale populations over the past 30 years cannot explain the decline in fisheries worldwide, as whale populations have not recovered enough to make an impact upon fish stocks. Additionally, whales are meant to be present in a marine environment, their presence will increase all life in the ecosystem, benefitting all species.

Roman has said that the next step is to conduct more field studies to further analyse the presence of whales in an ecosystem. This will help scientists to further understand exactly how plankton and other organisms respond to the presence of whales, creating an understanding of their exact impact on marine environments.

The study published in this month’s Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment journal, has shown how an increase in whale populations could benefit the overall health of the ocean, leading to greater diversity and the regrowth of fish populations. Whales are not responsible for the decline in fish stocks, it is the unsustainable management and overexploitation of fish that has caused this decline. Therefore, whales should be allowed to recover and help to improve the health of all marine ecosystems through the spreading of nutrients, which will benefit thousands of species, as well as us. The International Whaling Commission’s moratorium on commercial whaling needs to be upheld to protect all whale populations and to allow them to recover, hopefully every whale species will increase, especially the blue whale who is teetering on the brink of extinction. Whales are a necessary component of marine environments, and as this study shows, more whales means more fish, which is beneficial for the ocean as well as us.

 

Bibliography:

ESA (2014) Whales as Marine Ecosystem Engineers, [Online], Available: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130220 26th July 2014

IFAW (2001) Whales and Fisheries, [Online], Available: http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/English.pdf, 26^th July 2014

National Geographic (2014) More Big Whales in Ocean Could Mean More Fish Scientists Find, [Online], Available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140710-whales-ecosystem-engineers-fish-conservation-science/ 25^th July 2014

Virunga National Park Under Threat From Oil Exploration

Virunga National Park, situated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, has been under threat for decades. The park was founded in 1925 by Belgium’s King Albert I (National Geographic) but has since seen many periods of conflict and the settlement of refugees. These have both led to the reduction of the forest and its animal populations. Virunga is home to half of all species on the African continent including elephants, lions, hippos, chimpanzees, okapi and 200 of the world’s remaining 800 mountain gorillas which are a verified endangered species. Due to the park’s alignment along the seismically active Albertine Rift it encompasses a variety of habitats such as lava plains, tropical forests, marshes, savannahs, glaciers, mountain snowfields and two active volcanoes, one of which (Nyiragongo) has the world’s leading open air lava lake. This variety allows Virunga to be home to thousands of different species of both fauna and flora, making the park unique spot on the planet.

However, despite its beauty, the park suffers from an abundance of natural resources such as rubber, diamonds, copper, gold, tin, coltan and animals that can be killed for ivory and bush meat. This has led to extensive resource exploitation by poachers, illegal charcoal harvesters and members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a rebel militia founded by the Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. This group have frequently hunted the park’s animals for bush meat, cut down its trees and built bases within its borders disturbing the wildlife and the forests’ recovery.

The damage to Virunga began with King Leopold II of Belgium during colonial times. By implementing a campaign of forced labour, Leopold was able to extract a personal fortune from Congo’s natural riches, exploiting the park’s rubber, ivory, diamonds, copper and mahogany which helped to build industrial Belgium. The rule of Mobutu Sese Seko, a known kleptocrat, also crippled the park by exhausting the nation’s mining infrastructure extracting precious stones. The mining sector was then consequently sold off to foreign corporations in 2001 removing any governmental regulation of the extraction of’ gems and the expansion of mining.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has seen conflict for the past 14 years due, mainly, to the influx of refugees from the Rwandan genocide. More than a million Hutu refugees fled into the country, along with some of the perpetrators of the genocide. Several armed groups implemented poaching, illegal fishing, logging and other extractive activities to fund their operations. Many refugees still remain in the DRC as they cannot return to Rwanda, although the majority do not live around Virunga.

However, this damage to the environment is small compared to the possible future for the park, large multinational companies now want to assess the site for oil drilling. This venture could cause large scale excavation of trees and soil leading to depleted biodiversity. Lake Edward, upon which 20,000 people depend, is the primary site for exploration, threatening thousands of livelihoods (National Geographic). Joseph Kabila, the current president, consented to a license granting rights to Block 5, one of five government created concessions in the Albertine Rift that includes Virunga National Park, to SOCO International and the British firm Ophir. SOCO bought out Ophir’s stake in 2012 giving them complete control over oil exploration in Virunga, deciding the park’s fate (National Geographic).

SOCO’s contract allows them access to 1,500 square miles of Virunga National Park (National Geographic), threatening the park with disruptive seismic tests, forest clearing, underground drilling and the laying of vulnerable oil pipelines. Additionally, the extraction of oil from Virunga will cause a large influx of people to the park which will also be detrimental to the environment, although will provide jobs.

SOCO is currently undertaking a seismic study to determine whether there are oil supplies beneath Lake Edward. Roger Cagle, SOCO’s deputy CEO, has said that this process entails releasing compressed air at intervals along the lake bed. The data collected will determine whether subterranean structures exist from which oil can be extracted by SOCO and the Congolese government. As Cagle has stated, ‘The seismic study won’t even tell us if there’s oil. It will simply give us a profile of the subsurface geology and whether there could be the potential for oil, if it is even there, to have been trapped’ (National Geographic). The extraction of oil therefore may not be possible if there are no oil deposits underneath Lake Edward, which environmentalists hope there is not.

The international mining corporation has received floods of criticism from local and international conservationists, WWF, human rights groups and the British government. UNESCO who listed Virunga National Park as a World Heritage Site in 1979 has stated that oil exploration in the park violates the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s commitments to the World Heritage Convention and has called for the cancellation of all oil permits inside the park. The areas allocated as oil concessions cover around 85% of Virunga’s land and the habitats of endangered chimpanzees, hippos and forest elephants (WWF), causing possible devastation to the forest and these populations. The endangered mountain gorillas of Virunga live in Mikeno, an area just 20 miles south of SOCO’s land (Telegraph). The disturbance of oil drilling is likely to put pressure on their population due to environmental and noise pollution. Additionally, the workers of the oil plants may begin hunting the gorillas, reducing their fragile numbers even further.

SOCO has therefore stated that they will not drill for oil inside Virunga National Park, presenting the following statement with the World Wildlife Fund. ‘In relation to Virunga National Park we will complete our existing operational programme of work in Virunga which we anticipate will conclude within approximately 30 days of the date of this statement. The company commits not to undertake or commission any exploratory or other drilling within Virunga National Park unless UNESCO and the DRC government agree that such activities are not incompatible with its World Heritage status’ (Statement). This shows however that SOCO is open to drilling for oil if the park’s World Heritage status is removed or adapted; oil exploration may therefore occur in the future, posing the same threats to the park.

WWF has drawn parallels between an oil producing Virunga and Nigeria’s Delta region in which oil is also produced. Violence levels have soared in this area and poverty has doubled since oil was discovered 50 years ago. This picture depicts an oil spill from an abandoned Shell Petroleum oil well in the Niger Delta. The well was closed in 1977 but frequently leaks, in 2004 it released an oil spill of over 20,000 barrels of crude oil (Telegraph). Oil spills in the Niger Delta over the past five decades will cost $1 billion to rectify and a UN report has found that it could take up to 30 years to clean up (Telegraph). This could be the future for Virunga if oil exploration and drilling goes ahead.

The company has committed to continuing their social enhancements for the societies around Virunga, such as road upgrades, medical programmes and mobile phone masts, improving the lives of locals even though they will not drill for oil. The company said ‘SOCO will honour commitments we have made to local inhabitants to continue with our social programmes as long as we hold rights to the Block 5 license’ (Guardian).

Studies by WWF have found that Virunga National Park could support up to 45,000 people with peaceful industries such as hydropower generation, fishing and ecotourism (Guardian). Revenue generated by mountain gorilla ecotourism programmes has already provided funding for conservation work and community development projects, initiatives such as this can allow the locals to benefit without disrupting the environment. Even without oil drilling, the Virunga ecosystem could generate £250 million a year from environmentally friendly industries creating 45,000 new jobs, and sustaining the livelihoods of the 30,000 people who live around Lake Edward (WWF). In contrast, WWF has said that oil exploration risks pollution through oil spills and gas flaring and could force people off their land. This could also consequently trigger eruptions of the several active volcanoes on the park, destroying the entire ecosystem, villages and industries.

The Virunga Alliance, an initiative led by the ICCN, (the Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature who protect the fauna and flora of the country and its National Park’s), is building a 12.6 megawatt hydroelectric plant. The project is being funded by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and is under construction near the town of Rutshuru where less than 5% of households are connected to the power grid (National Geographic). As Ir Safari Samuel, an engineer overseeing the project has said, ‘Once we have power, we believe we can create sustainable industries. Today, for many of our youth, the main occupation is war. We want to change that’ (National Geographic).

These projects offer an environmentally friendly future for Virunga that will also benefit the local populations. Additionally, the developmental projects such as building roads and connecting homes to the power grid by the ICCN and SOCO International will increase transport, trade, give jobs to the locals and provide them with their basic human needs. This will benefit society without exploiting the environment.

Overall, Virunga National Park is still under threat as SOCO International PLC is still interested in exploring the Block 5 area for oil, and extracting it if it is found. The World Heritage Site status of the park is the only restriction preventing SOCO from destroying the fragile and unique ecosystem of Virunga. If this status is removed or changed, SOCO will not hesitate to extract any oil that is found despite heavy international outrage. In addition, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s government is encouraging the exploration of oil even though the environment will be damaged and take decades to repair itself. The World Wildlife Fund and the ICCN are continuing to oppose oil drilling in the park, and international support is continuing to grow to prevent this from ever occurring. SOCO has said they will not search for oil, however it is in their interests to excavate the environment and so oil drilling may occur in the future; international support from the public, UNESCO and non-governmental organisations can prevent this if the pressure is kept up. There are environmentally friendly ways to utilise the park’s resources without harming the different ecosystems contained within it such as fishing and ecotourism, which will allow visitations to the endangered mountain gorillas. These tours will also put money back into their protection, allowing their populations to stabilise and grow due to higher levels of protection from rangers. Oil will be the end of Virunga and the amazing biodiversity contained within the park, hopefully it will never be extracted.

Petitions by WWF are still running to oppose oil exploration in Virunga, click here to add your name and here to make a donation.

 

Bibliography:

National Geographic (2014) The Battle for Africa’s Oldest National Park, [Online], Available: http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/special-features/2014/06/140606-gorillas-congo-virunga-national-park/ 18^th July 2014

Statement (2014) Joint Statement By SOCO International PLC and WWF, [Online], Available: http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/soco_wwf_statement_11_june_2014.pdf 21st July 2014

The Guardian (2014) Soco Halts Oil Exploration in Africa’s Virunga National Park, [Online], Available: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/11/soco-oil-virunga-national-park-congo-wwf 21st July 2014

The Telegraph (2014) Gorillas’ Habitat Threatened as Oil Exploration Puts Congo’s Virunga Park at Risk, [Online], Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/10214545/Gorillas-habitat-threatened-as-oil-exploration-puts-Congos-Virunga-Park-at-risk.html 21st July 2014

WWF (2014) Virunga under Threat, [Online], Available: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/congo_basin_forests/problems/oil_extraction/virunga_under_threat/ 18^th July 2014

Scuba Rice: The Natural Disaster Proof Crop

Rice is the world’s most important crop next to wheat, three billion people count on rice as their staple crop and one billion are involved in its production (McKinsey & Company). Rice is consequently highly elastic and sensitive to price fluctuations, a small change in prices can activate a large decrease in purchases of food. This is highly important for the populations of developing countries as a lack of access to affordable food results in malnutrition and lower levels of education as children cannot attend school. As Banerjee and Duflo have recorded in their essay, The Economic Lives of the Poor, food represents 56-78% of consumption within rural households (Banerjee & Duflo), showing the importance of low prices to ensure enough consumption to meet 2000 calories a day.

In Asia, where the largest percentage of the world’s rice is grown, 20 million hectares of land is prone to flooding (IRRI). This leads to 4 million tons of rice being destroyed by floods in India and Bangladesh every year (CGIAR), resulting in low rice stocks on local and regional markets which consequently rises prices. The International Rice Research Institute has created a new genetically modified rice variety that can survive and thrive within these floods that occur every year during the monsoon season. This scuba rice should be able to reduce the vulnerability of farmers in these regions by guaranteeing a crop each time where other rice varieties will perish.

Although a destructive flood may only occur once every three years, the year of flooding will destroy a farmer’s, and his family’s, means of subsistence and sustenance. This can lead to them needing to sell their productive assets such as hand tools and seeds that are needed to produce, to be able to afford food. As Dr Abdelbagi Ismail, a scientist at the International Rice Research Institute has said, ‘If [farmers] lose their land there’s no way there’s no way for them to recover. One year of bad weather can take a farmer from being able to provide food to having nothing’ (Next City).

Losing the ability to produce can also cause farmers to move to towns and cities in search of wage employment, instead of relying on an unpredictable and possibly unproductive yield each season. However, as is the case in many cities in the developing world, there is a high population density with high levels of unemployment that leads to people living in make-shift camps which evolve into large scale slums. As farmers have no skills for working in the city, they can struggle to become productive unless they adapt and shift their expertise to activities such as garment or pottery production.

A subsistence farmer’s first priority is securing sufficient food for the year for his/her family; healthcare and education for their children or strategies for diversifying income therefore come behind the need to provide food. Once they can regularly secure the year’s sustenance, school attendance and healthcare begin to improve.

The IRRI has created a rice variety that is able to survive throughout flooding, drought and salinity; overcoming the three main barriers to rice production around the world. Swarna-Sub1 incorporates the Sub1 gene which allows the grain to survive during floods. This gene has been added to the popular Indian rice variety Swarna, and other varieties, making them resilient to flooding for up to 17 days whilst retaining the desirable traits of the traditional grains (CGIAR). All scuba rice varieties contain popular characteristics such as high yields, good grain quality and local pest and disease resistance. It is additionally expected that anaerobic germination for direct seeding underwater in flash floods will soon be available to further increase yields. By adopting scuba rice varieties, it is expected that farmers will be able to grow enough extra rice to feed 30 million people (CGIAR), creating food security for subsistence farmers allowing them to afford meat, education, job training and transport which can lead to further prosperity.

The scuba rice thrives in times of flooding by becoming dormant until the water recedes allowing it to breathe again, this hibernation-like response is controlled by the SUB1 gene and allows farmers’ yields to survive securing their food supply. Traditional rice varieties push to survive by stretching their leaves and stems above the water towards the air and sunlight. This effort drains the plants energy reserves and results in them dying after 4 or 5 days (McKinsey & Company). This is where scuba rice has the advantage by preserving itself in its dormant state.

Dr Ismail showed two comparable fields at an IRRI research institute, one planted with Ciherang, a popular Indonesian rice variety and one with Ciherang Sub1. He flooded both fields under a metre of water and left them for 14 days to simulate a natural flood event. Both fields were then drained; the plot with the traditional grain was nearly entirely dead whereas the Ciherang Sub1 plot contained healthy crops still growing in neat rows. This simulation shows how effective scuba rice is to increase crop yields leading to greater profits for producers, and lower prices for consumers due to more food being available.

Since scuba rice allows a farmer to produce many more kilograms of rice per square metre than a traditional variety, farmers can diversify their produce, adding an additional potato, tomato or cabbage harvest to increase profits and food security. Dr Ismail states that in rural areas where the IRRI’s scuba crop has spread, there has been a renewed interest in farming as it has become an increasingly secure occupation due to the flood and drought resistance. This will prevent the commonplace rural to urban migration which will in turn, mitigate the problems of unemployment and the creation of slums.

As global warming lifts ocean levels by melting the polar icecaps, flooding will dramatically increase, threatening to reduce rice production in developing countries by 15% over the next few decades (McKinsey & Company). This could easily cause hunger and famine, as in developing countries alone, more than 3.3 billion people depend on rice for more than 20% of their daily calories (Gov UK). As well as providing these climate adaptive rice varieties, the IRRI is working on promoting their new seeds by working with national governments to work around the restrictions of introducing a new seed variety, and providing subsidies to make the seed accessible for farmers. They are also helping governments to map the regions that will most likely need salt tolerant or flood and drought resistant rice.

A new rice variety normally needs four to five years of field testing before it is released, and another two to three years before it reaches farmers to begin producing the crop. Through targeted dissemination and the Stress-Tolerant Rice for Poor Farmers in Africa and South Asia project, the scuba rice is being distributed to flood prone areas where farmers can benefit from a submergence tolerant rice variety. This removes the delay in production giving benefits to farmers and markets sooner rather than later. This project aims to raise yields by 50% over the next 10 years through improved crop cultivation and management, this is expected to benefit 18 million households in developing countries across Asia and Africa (IRRI 2009).

Today, there are a few million acres across the world planted with one of the IRRI’s genetically modified stress tolerant rice varieties, but there are millions more acres that could also benefit. Currently, 70,000 IRRI mini-kits containing 5 kilogram packets of seeds have been distributed to more than 100,000 farmers (CGIAR), allowing them to benefit from increased food security and preventing them from migrating to already overpopulated cities.

Although this new rice variety offers farmers around the world a chance to produce higher yields leading to a higher income and greater global food security, the monetary benefits may be short lived. This is due to the fact that an increase in yields will reduce the cost of rice as there is a larger supply on local and national markets, driving global prices down. This is beneficial for consumers and means that the poor are more likely to be able to afford this staple crop, however is problematic for producers who are looking to make a profit. However, with the diversification into other produce and other sectors to make additional money this problem could be averted, but the opportunity to diversify needs to be available, and in rural areas this may not be as accessible.

Due to the success of this crop, the biodiversity of rural areas and the range of food being produced could decrease as farmers are more likely to choose a flood resistant crop rather than a traditional one, making the safe choice but reducing the production of traditional varieties. This reduction in biodiversity could make farmers vulnerable as one disease could wipe out the entire scuba rice varieties, leaving them with no crops to sell, reverting back to the initial problem of failed harvests leading to selling productive assets and migration. A mix of seeds including the flood resistant varieties will put farmers in a sustainable position. Although no disease targeting the scuba rice has been discovered, it is a possibility.

Overall, the International Rice Research Institute’s scuba rice is an excellent beneficial and sustainable innovation to help farmers overcome floods, drought and increasing soil salinity. With higher yields comes higher profits, at least initially, which will help producing families to better themselves through purchasing efficient farming equipment such as machinery and irrigation systems which will allow them to produce even more. Additionally, children are more likely to be able to attend school as any fees and travel costs will be able to be covered. The scuba rice provides economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing farmers to survive the worst weather conditions and still have a productive harvest. This seed will help provide food security in the present, benefitting the farmers of developing countries; and in the future to help accommodate the world’s growing population. Scuba rice, and crops like it, could be the future of global agriculture.

 

Bibliography:

Banerjee, A & Duflo, E (2006) The Economic Lives of the Poor, [Online], Available: http://economics.mit.edu/files/530 7th July 2014

CGIAR (2012) Scuba Rice: The Makings of a Runaway Success Story, [Online], Available: http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/scuba-rice-the-makings-of-a-runaway-success-story/ 7^th July 2014

Gov UK (2010) Sowing the Seeds of Scuba Rice, [Online], Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/sowing-the-seeds-of-scuba-rice 7th July

International Rice Research Institute (2009) Scuba Rice: Breeding Flood Tolerance into Asia’s Local Mega Rice Varieties, [Online], Available: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/IRRI/DFID_impact_case_study_SUB1rice_FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf 12^th July 2014

International Rice Research Institute (2014) Flood-tolerant Rice Saves Farmers Livelihoods, [Online], Available: http://irri.org/our-impact/increase-food-security/flood-tolerant-rice-saves-farmers-livelihoods 7th July 2014

McKinsey & Company (2012) Scuba Rice: Building a Better Food from Past Innovations, [Online], Available: http://voices.mckinseyonsociety.com/scuba-rice-building-a-better-food-from-past-innovations/ 7^th July 2014

Next City (2014) Scientists Develop ‘Scuba Rice’ That Can Stand up To Climate Change, [Online], Available: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/scientists-develop-lab-created-scuba-rice-that-can-stand-up-to-climate-chan 7th July 2014