Pomfret and seabass red-flagged

Feb 26, 2010

WWF guide sorts seafood into three categories based on sustainability
By Grace Chua



Workers sorting fish at Jurong Fishery Port. Last year, most of the seafood here came from the over-fished waters off Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. WWF hopes to raise awareness with the guide. -- ST PHOTO: MELISSA KOK

GO EASY on the seabass and pomfret.
This is the message for seafood-loving Singaporeans from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which is concerned that some of the seafood popular here comes from over-fished sources.
It has produced a made-for-Singapore guide to sustainable seafood, the first one tailored to the local market.
The guide puts seafood commonly available here on three lists - the 'recommended' or green list, the 'think twice' or yellow list and the 'avoid' or red list.

What's a seafood lover to do, then?
Choose seafood on the recommended list over those on the other two, and seafood on the 'think twice' list over those on the 'avoid' list, said Ms Amy Ho, managing director of WWF Singapore.
'The aim is to raise awareness and encourage customers to ask where the fish is from.'
She should know that the task of changing consumer attitudes and behaviour is not easy. When the WWF launched a similar guide three years ago in Hong Kong, it found that getting groups or communities to buy into the idea was the toughest part, although a 'ripple effect' followed later.

Changing consumer preferences for seafood is difficult because the demand for it cannot be met if it is continually sourced from where it is not reproducing fast enough, she added.
Most of the 105,163 tonnes of live, chilled or frozen seafood imported into Singapore last year - excluding prawns, cockles and crabs - came from the ecologically fragile Coral Triangle.

This zone covers the waters off Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, but it is not the only over-fished area; more than a quarter of the world's fish stocks are under threat, said the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. Cod stocks which collapsed in the north-west Atlantic in the 1980s have still not recovered.
Eating seafood farmed sustainably is the way to go, but the farms here produce only about 4 per cent of the fish consumed; the aim is to get it up to 15 per cent in five years.

Ms Ho explained that some fish grow too slowly to replace those caught; fish farms add to the problem by catching fingerlings or young fish from the wild.
On the green list are the species for which harvest quotas have been set for commercial and recreational fishing, for example, abalone from Australia.

Not all farmed seafood is in the clear. Tiger prawns farmed in the region are on the red list because of what it takes to farm them. Many South-east Asian mangrove forests, which support entire networks of plants and animals, have been destroyed to make way for prawn farms; when mangrove forests go, the coastlines lose their natural buffer against floods and hurricanes.
It is noticeable that most of the seafood on the guide's recommended list is from far-off places - and more expensive. Examples are Australian abalone, oysters from Canada and China, and green-lipped mussels from New Zealand.
Several red-listed species like the black pomfret, tiger prawns and yellowtail scad or selar are what consumers would go for because they are cheaper and more familiar.

But Singapore Environment Council executive director Howard Shaw said this may be an issue only in the short term: 'As the aquaculture industry develops and grows, it's possible to produce seafood that's affordable for low-income earners.'
Singapore's markets have some way to go in labelling seafood. Checks on fresh seafood sold at Cold Storage, Giant, FairPrice and Sheng Siong supermarkets showed that only Cold Storage labels it by country of origin; but packaged fish balls and salmon are labelled by country of origin in all four supermarket chains.

The WWF plans to update the guide every two to three years, and is shooting for all seafood to make it to the green list, Ms Ho said.
caiwj@sph.com.sg

Go for green list

TO PRODUCE its guide on sustainable seafood, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) assessed wild-caught seafood on criteria such as:
How long it takes to grow to maturity, since a shorter growth period means it reaches table size earlier.

How well-regulated the fishing activity is.

Whether the population in the wild is healthy.

How fish are caught, too, makes a difference to the effects of the fishing activity on the environment. For example, long drift nets which float with the current often also trap unwanted species, or bycatch.
Farmed fish were rated based on whether the young fish were harvested from the wild, which depletes wild stocks, and by the amount of pollution their farms added to the environment.
'AVOID' RED LIST: Bluefin tuna from around the world, crimson snapper and grey prawns from Indonesia, flower crab and unicorn leather jackets from the South

Thursday 18 March Remedial CANCELLED

Dear 5N,

I'm really very sorry to inform you at such late notice that the Thursday remedial is cancelled. I've a very urgent matter to attend to on Thursday morning. Please pass this message around if you read this notice. I'll explain to all of you when I see you. Please accept my apology.

Standing up for good governance, Mar 4, 2010

For the 5N pupils who have done the 2003 'N' Level Papers. Remember Source A was a speech by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. Many of you must be wondering who he is and how he looks like. This is a recent interview with him when he came to Singapore to give a lecture. Read about this Nobel Peace Prize winner and his thoughts.

ABLE TALK WITH KOFI ANNAN
By Cheong Suk-Wai, Senior Writer

FORMER United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan was in a Kenyan market recently when he noticed a board on which was scribbled the prices of onions, maize, tomatoes and other vegetables across major African cities. All around him were veggie vendors, mostly women, jabbing their fingers at the board while jabbering into their cellphones as they cut deals with buyers near and far for their produce.

'They'd managed to cut out the middlemen and so I told them they'd set up their own Chicago Board of Trade,' Mr Annan, 71, says, slapping his thigh between hearty chuckles.
The sobering point behind the story, however, concerns poverty in Africa, which has spurred Mr Annan to seek solutions. This son of Kumasi, Ghana, and alumnus of Macalester College, Minnesota, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has set up the Kofi Annan Foundation since retiring as UN secretary-general, so as to champion better policies for the needy, good governance and human rights.

He and his wife, Swedish lawyer and artist Nane Lagergren, were in town till yesterday for his first week-long visit as the first Li Ka Shing Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Over coffee on Monday, Mr Annan told me of his crisis-fraught career in the UN, why he's hopeful about Africa and how Asia could be a better friend to his countrymen.

What do you miss most about your days in the United Nations?
I left behind many friends and wonderful colleagues. Luckily, I continue to run into some of them. Some, we have also lost tragically, like the head of operations in Haiti and his deputy, who worked with me for many years.

What about the UN work?
Sometimes, one had an opportunity to make a difference like when we got governments to ban land mines; or to come up with the Millennium Development Goals. Most people thought the latter wouldn't happen. But it did.

How did you manage to convince countries they sometimes had to override their sovereignty?

It took quite a long time. I first started thinking about it when we went through (crimes against humanity) in Rwanda and Yugoslavia and raised the issue in 1997. Then I raised it again to the UN General Assembly in 1999. But I was conscious that nothing would happen immediately. The Canadians then took it up... and set up a very good commission, which came up with a report entitled Responsibility To Protect. But when the report came out in 2001, it was too early.

But why so, when the world was already so mired in crises?
Some said we should use the report to push the member states to act immediately. I encouraged them to distribute the report widely - but not push for its adoption until the time was ripe. It was 2005 when I eventually introduced it and we worked hard with the member states to adopt 'responsibility to protect'.

But it was too late for Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Iraq?
Well, we had entered a new millennium and also had time to reflect on some of the conflicts we went through towards the end of the last century... What is interesting about responsibility to protect is that we are telling dictators or leaders, who may allow their people to be brutalised, that sovereignty is no longer a shield. But it is also telling the rest of the world that it too has no excuse: it has to act. So it's two-way pressure.

Which crisis did you find hardest to deal with and why?
The Iraq crisis in 2003 was definitely one of the worst because of the way the coalition decided to go to war without Security Council approval... As secretary-general, you have to try to push and work with the member states to ensure that the right thing is done.
At the same time, you also have the responsibility to try and hold the organisation together and not to do anything that will add to the divisions.

Could you have been more forceful about how wrong the war was?
Well, I needed to act in a manner that was not only responsible but also to a great degree effective. I know that, sometimes, people will say: 'Why didn't you stand on the rooftop and shout?'
Well, that was not the effective way. Your action has to make clear where you or the organisation stand on legal and moral principles, but not create a situation that compounds the difficulties.

Do you believe in fate?
You describe it as fate, but you know it when you've done your best. Nobody can tell you so. You know it and you sleep like a baby.

What hope do you see in Africa that others don't?
The one thing most people see is its rich, natural resources. They also see poverty and an ill-educated population. But there is another Africa, one of bright, young educated men and women. Some have worked overseas, are proud of their continent and countries, and are beginning to return because they want to make a difference.

What persuaded them to do that?
Before the October 2008 global financial crisis, Africa had been growing at the rate of about 5 per cent a year for the past five years. So they saw brighter prospects at home. They were, perhaps, also facing economic retrenchment. And they had sent substantial remittances home to help their relatives and all.

So it's a confluence of these winds of change?
All these good things coming together - yes. And Africa has a robust civil society that is going to keep its politicians on their toes.

How real a turning point is this in Africa?
In my own country, Ghana, the difference between the governing party and the opposition in the last elections was 23,000 votes. But the handover of power went very smoothly. The people, press and civil society were very active in monitoring and ensuring that things went well.

Where do you see yourself in all this?
I like to encourage younger people. We've reached the stage where we need generational change in Africa. That would be extremely healthy and helpful because they will come up with new approaches.
I also want to continue to fight against poverty. That is why I'm now talking to small-scale farmers - most of whom are women - who produce the bulk of the food on the continent. We want to help them all along the value chain - all the way from the farm gate to the market.

Why can't they help themselves?
They don't often have the money to get fertilisers and so they plant year after year without putting anything back (into the soil). They don't have the right seeds or can't afford the right seeds or the right seeds are not available. So they're using very low-yielding old seeds - some as old as 20 years.

You urge Asia to be a better friend to Africa. How can it be a better friend?
Asia can help through sharing some of its best practices, especially in growing small and medium-sized companies, (and by partnering) Africans in business... I also want to see more exchanges of young people between both continents at the university level.

Are there still many psychological and cultural road blocks to teaming up with Africans, do you think?
You're right. Those will always exist between groups, from time immemorial. But human beings have managed to overcome them and work together. We also need the will to interact with mutual respect, in a mutually beneficial way.

But isn't such will what's lacking the most?
It's important for leaders to understand that there's something in it for them and for their people, and if you get the latter engaged, you're likely to get results. The Millennium Development Goals are a good example. The average man in Mumbai, Bugata or Lagos understands what clean water and education for girls mean. They can now also say to their leaders: 'These are the eight (Millennium) goals. What are you doing for me? Come and see my village.'
suk@sph.com.sg

File Check! Content's Page Update

Dear 5N and 3E pupils,

Please check you have the following documents in your file. Fill in the content's page separately for SS and Geo.

Have a Heart, save the rainforest

The expansion of oil palm plantations in Indonesia (above) and Malaysia has led to deforestation, which has an impact on wildlife and fresh-water supply, as well as contributes to carbon emissions. -- ST FILE PHOTO

The head of the World Wide Fund for Nature's (WWF's) Heart of Borneo rainforest conservation initiative, Mr Adam Tomasek, was in Singapore recently to speak about the programme. The WWF is working with Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei to protect 220,000sq km of highland rainforest on the island of Borneo which is rich in species diversity. Mr Tomasek, 37, speaks to Grace Chua on the scheme's progress three years after the 2007 declaration was signed.

Three-nation pact shelters Borneo's ecosystem from logging, development

What were the issues facing the Heart of Borneo initiative?

It really comes down to economic development. Palm oil was a relatively new industry just 20 years ago and the impact of converting forests to oil palm plantations was not very well known.

As companies expanded in Indonesia and Malaysia, we started to see some of the impact and realities in higher rates of deforestation.

That is a combination of the timber industry rising and plateauing, and the palm oil industry on the upswing.

In those countries, over 80per cent, almost 85per cent, of the carbon emissions comes from deforestation and land use conversion... not urban development, not coal-fired power plants... It is keeping forests or turning them into something else.

What has the initiative achieved in the three years since the pact was signed?

There are a number of examples. One of them is that the Sabah state government has implemented a no-logging policy on more than 200,000ha of land.

This area has the highest density of orang utan in Malaysia.

They have also removed proposals to have more oil palm plantations.

There are real conservation outcomes - about 5,000 to 6,000 orang utan live in this part of Sabah, and they have a safe home.

And a one-million-ha forest corridor that will connect the four main national parks in Borneo is being planned, allowing species to roam around.

How did you get Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei to put aside their differences and cooperate?

In that long negotiating process, they agreed that they all shared the island. Borneo is still draped in these wonderful tropical rainforests, and there is a lot of pride in that.

But it is not just about forests. It is about the other things that come along with having a healthy forest ecosystem. One example is fresh water.

All the major cities, all the economic developments in the lowlands are completely dependent on water that comes from the highest parts of Borneo. And some watersheds are transboundary, so there is an interdependency.

In 2006, Brunei Shell - which runs the oil and gas refineries along the Brunei coast - came to the conclusion that if it were to lose the upstream fresh-water sources that it had not valued economically, in no more than 48 hours, the industrial energy and natural gas plants would be shut down.

Then all of a sudden you had a business voice on the table.

What challenges remain?

They are related to economic development. For instance, the Sarawak government started a statewide renewable energy drive to generate hydroelectric power and maybe export electricity, but that will affect watersheds.

So we have to ensure that the commitments around the Heart of Borneo are really embedded in these economic growth decisions.

What does the initiative mean for Singapore?

The Heart of Borneo is part of the regional heritage and Singaporeans can take pride that this is one of the few places in the world where you get orang utan, pygmy elephants and rhinoceroses living together.

In Singapore, citizens have a voice and they have a choice.

Palm oil is in almost every choice - food, cosmetics and so on. Being aware of good choices is a really big step.

There are very strong Singaporean business links to palm oil - such as holding, parent or investment companies - and there are very strong linkages to a lot of big industrial sectors.

We have been trying to engage them in a regional context.

But it is slow work. Agricultural product suppliers Olam and Wilmar or Asia Pulp and Paper have a lot of different business interests.

Part of it is figuring out what is in their best interests and where the liabilities and risks are.

(We are trying to) bring together a kind of green business network that would cut across the different sectors.

What do you think you can do to support the movement of 'Save the Forest'? You can post your thoughts under comments.

No modified eggplant just yet

Feb 10, 2010, ST

Indian govt says more tests will be conducted before launch of Bt brinjal

By P. Jayaram, India Correspondent

DELHI: Bowing to public pressure, the government yesterday put off the launch of the country's first genetically modified vegetable at least until more tests are done on such food crops.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said he was halting the introduction of Bt brinjal, as the modified eggplant is known.

'I am issuing a moratorium on the Bt brinjal until further notice,' he told reporters a day ahead of a scheduled government announcement on the subject. 'The long-term effect on human health needs to be studied.'

Bt refers to Bacillus thuringiensis, a natural bacterium that kills pests that play havoc with crops and cause huge losses to farmers.

Since such genetically modified, or GM, crops are pest-resistant, they give better yields.

Mr Abhijit Sen, an agricultural economist and a member of the Planning Commission, said promoters are keen to start cultivating a variety of GM food crops. These include maize, mustard, sugarcane, chickpea, rice, tomato, potato, banana, soyabean and medicinal plants. Now all that will have to wait till the moratorium on Bt brinjal is lifted.

Mr Ramesh faced protests and was heckled by farmers, activists and scientists when he visited six cities in regions that grow brinjal, a native vegetable of India with some 2,500 varieties, for public hearings on the issue.

Some fear such GM foods carry health hazards, including cancer.

Yesterday, Mr Ramesh said: 'It is my duty to adopt a cautious approach to Bt brinjal till independent scientific study establishes...the safety of the product.'

Many of the state governments, including those ruled by the Congress party which heads the ruling coalition in Delhi, oppose Bt brinjal.

The United States rushed its chief scientific adviser, Ms Nina Fedoroff, a proponent of GM food, to lobby policymakers before the government announcement. The controversial US biotech firm, Monsanto, has a stake in Mahyco, the Indian seed firm that developed Bt Brinjal.

The government's decision comes at a time when agricultural scientists have been calling for a second 'green revolution'.

The first, in the mid 1960s, saw the introduction of high-yielding varieties of seeds and use of fertilisers turning the country from a net importer of food to one that could feed itself.

Supporters of GM food argue that India must embrace the technology to feed its growing population and to avoid the kind of food shortages and high prices that have already started to crop up.

India allowed farmers to grow Bt cotton - the only GM crop commercially grown in the country so far - in 2002, despite strong opposition from farmers and others at that time.

Now India is reaping the financial harvests of its standing as the world's second largest producer of Bt cotton after China.

The government's biotech regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, approved Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation after it passed all the recommended lab tests over the last six years.

But the Planning Commission, which charts the government's development strategy, warned that the country's food exports could be hit if the cultivation of GM food crops was allowed.

Senior officials of the commission said that several European nations and others preferred importing food items from India because it was 'GM-free.'

Mr Kushal Singh Yadav, coordinator of the food safety and toxins programme of the Centre for Science and Environment, a Delhi-based advocacy group,warned against the introduction of GM crops.

'It is a good decision,' he said. 'It is the right step.'

pjay@sph.com.sg