SEARICE

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT: 

AGROBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT: EXPERIENCES FROM THE COMMUNITIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

date: 20 May 2008 

time: 18:15-19:45 (6:15 pm - 7:45 pm)

venue: Room S25, Stresemann Bldg, Bonn, Germany 

In light of intensifying concerns about Climate Change and with the food (price) crisis happening in our midst, how do small-holder farmers particularly from developing countries in Latin America, Southeast Asia and Africa cope and respond to these realities while securing food production? 

SEARICE, as member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation (CBDC) Network - a network of different stakeholders and actors promoting on-farm conservation and development of agricultural biodiversity in 21 countries in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia invites you to attend a public event where smallholder farmers will share their experiences and initiatives on how they adapt to climate change, their perspective on the food (price) crisis and how they continue to contribute in ensuring food production while conserving and developing agricultural biodiversity. 

  

If you are in Bonn, Germany, join us and share your thoughts this coming 20 May 2008 in Room S25 of  Stresemann Bldg (walking distance from the Hotel Maritim).   Food and refreshments will be served. 

Tay Gipo (Eulogio Sasi Jr.) was the lone farmer voice during the Opening Conference of the Global Seed Vault, last 25 February 2008. On the invitation of the Ministry of Agriculture of Norway, Tay Gipo delivered a speech before an international audience of more than 250 people in Longyearbyen, who were likewise invited to witness the opening of the global seed vault. In his speech, Tay Gipo shared his experiences as an ordinary rice farmer (he is a tenant) in President Roxas, North Cotabato - how he developed new rice varieties and cared for his farm. He called the attention of everyone present, and the world around, to similarly give attention to the work of farmers in conserving and developing diversity in their farms. Reminding everyone present about the equal importance of farmers' work in conservation and the very reason for the existence of the seed vault and the work of most of the invitees. Below is his speech in English.

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
18 February – 22 February, 2008, Rome, Italy


The SOUTHEAST ASIA REGIONAL INITIATIVES FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SEARICE), a regional Non-governmental Organization working with farmers and farming communities in the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Bhutan, working on the promotion and strengthening of farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the field level and in local and national policy actions, welcomes the report on Biodiversity and Climate Change identifying options for mutually supportive activities for the Secretariats of the Rio Conventions and for parties and relevant organizations.

SEARICE raises the following observations and recommendations that the Parties present should consider to recommend that the Conference of the Parties to the Convenion on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting:

1. On Ocean Nourishment and Fertilization, SEARICE welcomes and commends interventions from various Parties to the 13th Meeting of the SBSTTA which have expressed grave concern on ocean nourishment and geo-engineering, by taking a stand in recommending the adoption of precautionary approach measures and the establishment of an Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Working Group on this.

We likewise put emphasis to the concerns raised during the London Convention on Marine Dumping, where Parties to that Convention have already expressed grave concern over the ecological risks of ocean fertilization and expressed the need for oversight on these technologies due to their large-scale impact on the environment, and, in addition, on its potential impact on local communities that rely on resources in target areas of these technologies.

2. SEARICE also recommends for the Parties to take the precautionary approach on large-scale climate-change mitigation activities and endeavors, especially large-scale agrofuels production, that will in large part compromise health, food security, food safety, and the agricultural biodiversity being conserved and utilized sustainably by farmers, local communites and indigenous peoples.

3. It is important that Parties recommend engagement with and active involvement of farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples on concerns regarding climate change, in consideration of the crucial role that they play on adaptation and adaptability given their dynamic practices of conserving, adapting, and enhancing in-situ agro-biodiversity, which create resiliency in withstanding impacts of climate change.

In addition, the Parties, in line with a stronger collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should be encouraged to invite researches highlighting and involving local communities adaptation mechanisms and measures, which can be assessed and included in mainstreaming adaptive management systems for climate change. Suggested recommendations (particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 of Document No. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/137) should thus include farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples, in recognition of their rights to participation in all these processes.

Ocean Nourishment:
Sacrificing the Marine Environment for Profits
and the Need for SBSTTA 13 to Take a Stand

Global warming is undoubtedly the defining environmental problem today and in the near future. The unfolding catastrophes and dangers associated with global warming has made efforts at finding solutions and mitigating the problem a primary priority. However, there are solutions that help to fix the problem and there are purported ones that only make the situation worse. Ocean nourishment belongs to the latter category.

Late last year, the Sulu Sea in the Philippines became the subject of global attention when it was learned that an Australian company, the Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC), was preparing to dump hundreds of tons of urea fertilizers in those waters as part of its patented carbon sequestration technology called ocean nourishment. Ocean nourishment involves the release of urea or nitrogen fertilizers into seawaters to induce massive growths of phytoplanktons that could absorb atmospheric carbon doxide before trapping them into deep ocean. This carbon sequestration technology supposedly would lessen carbon dioxide presence in the atmosphere and therefore help reduce global warming.

Ocean nourishment has been roundly criticized by scientists and environmentalists as an unproven and environmentally hazardous technology. It has not been shown that carbon can be sequestered effectively and permanently in this manner. On the contrary, there is scientific concern that the opposite may happen, that the massive concentrations of phytoplankton will increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of increased numbers of carbon-respiring plankton predators. Moreover, large phytoplankton concentrations will likely cause major ecological imbalances such as harmful algal blooms that are destructive to marine life and fisheries. Not only will marine biodiversity be adversely affected by fertilization but local economies dependent on fisheries would suffer tremendously. The Sulu Sea is an especially vulnerable area since it consists of major fishing grounds, is host to one of the richest marine biodiversity on earth and is where the UNESCO world heritage site, the Tubbataha Reef, is located.

If not for the ruckus raised by Philippine environmentalists and civil society organizations, ONC's Sulu Sea fertilization plan would have been allowed by government to be carried out despite the absence of environmental impact assessment and public consultations. In fact, there was already initial government approval for the project but protests forced government to step back. Since then, scientists, local and national government officials, and communities have all expressed opposition to ocean nourishment and questioned ONC's work in the Philippines. Ocean nourishment has been put on hold in the Philippines.

What has become clear though is that ocean nourishment is no solution to global warming but is really another attempt to exploit the global warming problem by getting into the lucrative carbon trading market. ONC has made no secret of its plan to sell its technology on the carbon market. Such barefaced attampts to sacrifice the environment for profits in the name of mitigating global warming must be opposed and denounced. It is not only the Sulu Sea that's being threatened but there are also other ocean fertilization activities and plans in other parts of the world's seas.

The London Convention on Marine Dumping has expressed grave concern over the ecological risk of ocean fertilization and sounded the need for oversight on these technologies due to their large-scale impacts on the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted that “ocean fertilization remains largely speculative, and many environmental side effects have yet to be assessed”. We believe the 13th SBSTTA, which has mandate on marine biodiversity issues, is in a position to lend its voice to growing global concerns about the impact of ocean nourishment to marine biodiversity. We therefore call on the SBSTTA to make recommendations for the COP to adopt precautionary approach measures on ocean nourishment initiatives, limiting any experiments on this technology to laboratory conditions whilst scientific issues are debated and resolved. Moreover, SBSTTA can make similar recommendation towards international oversight mechanisms to regulate such technologies including other so-called geo-engineering initiatives whether they take place in national and international territories due to their possible wider and long-term global impact. We hope and believe that the 13th SBSTTA can contribute towards this goal of protecting the world's biodiversity.

13th SBSTTA, 19 February 2008

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
18 February – 22 February, 2008, Rome, Italy


The SOUTHEAST ASIA REGIONAL INITIATIVES FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT (SEARICE), a regional Non-governmental Organization working with farmers and farming communities in the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao PDR and Bhutan, working on the promotion and strengthening of farmer-led conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-biodiversity at the field level and in local and national policy actions, welcomes the report on Biodiversity and Climate Change identifying options for mutually supportive activities for the Secretariats of the Rio Conventions and for parties and relevant organizations.

SEARICE raises the following observations and recommendations that the Parties present should consider to recommend that the Conference of the Parties to the Convenion on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting:

1. On Ocean Nourishment and Fertilization, SEARICE welcomes and commends interventions from various Parties to the 13th Meeting of the SBSTTA which have expressed grave concern on ocean nourishment and geo-engineering, by taking a stand in recommending the adoption of precautionary approach measures and the establishment of an Ad-Hoc Technical Expert Working Group on this.

We likewise put emphasis to the concerns raised during the London Convention on Marine Dumping, where Parties to that Convention have already expressed grave concern over the ecological risks of ocean fertilization and expressed the need for oversight on these technologies due to their large-scale impact on the environment, and, in addition, on its potential impact on local communities that rely on resources in target areas of these technologies.

2. SEARICE also recommends for the Parties to take the precautionary approach on large-scale climate-change mitigation activities and endeavors, especially large-scale agrofuels production, that will in large part compromise health, food security, food safety, and the agricultural biodiversity being conserved and utilized sustainably by farmers, local communites and indigenous peoples.

3. It is important that Parties recommend engagement with and active involvement of farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples on concerns regarding climate change, in consideration of the crucial role that they play on adaptation and adaptability given their dynamic practices of conserving, adapting, and enhancing in-situ agro-biodiversity, which create resiliency in withstanding impacts of climate change.

In addition, the Parties, in line with a stronger collaboration with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), should be encouraged to invite researches highlighting and involving local communities adaptation mechanisms and measures, which can be assessed and included in mainstreaming adaptive management systems for climate change. Suggested recommendations (particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 of Document No. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/137) should thus include farmers, local communities and indigenous peoples, in recognition of their rights to participation in all these processes.

STATEMENT ON INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

13th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA 13)
Rome, Italy


The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment or SEARICE is a regional NGO working on agricultural biodiversity, specifically plant genetic resources conservation, development and use, in the Philippines, Thailand, Lao PDR, Vietnam and Bhutan. We commend the Secretariat in presenting to us the document at hand, and we would like to put forth four points that we believe would matter in the discussion of invasive alien species as it relates and impacts on agricultural biodiversity.



1. We urge the Parties to continue taking on the precautionary and preventive approach as regards invasive alien species.

2. There is concern and also a need to address invasive alien species that have already been introduced. In this regard, the parties should consider assessment, monitoring and reduction of the continued impact of already introduced alien species, which include introduced crops for biofuels which displace agricultural crops.

3. The parties should also recognize present initiatives and practices of farmers and local communities in addressing and reducing the threats and risks already presented by invasive species that have been introduced in affecting present agricultural biodiversity.

4. Finally, we put forth the need to monitor the introduction of invasive alien species intended to “improve” genetic traits of agricultural animals and crops that may enter through trade, noting that this should also be a matter of concern under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

Filipino farmers reject adoption of Bt corn
Thursday, February 14, 2008
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/feb/14/yehey/metro/20080214met5.html



FILIPINO farmers do not favor planting the Bacillus thuri ngiensis (Bt) corn after trying it for the first time during the period of 2003 to 2006, the Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment (Searice) said on Wednesday.

“The overwhelming majority chose to plant non-Bt corn varieties, a trend that amounts to market rejection of Bt corn technology,” said Agnes Lintao, Searice Policy Officer who spearheaded the research.

Lintao belied the claim of International Service for the Acquisition of Agricultural Biotech Application (ISAAA) that 200,000 hectares of corn production areas nationwide were planted with Bt corn in 2006.

Out of the 790 farmers surveyed in three provinces, only 3 percent planted Bt corn during the first cropping season of May to September of 2006. The same study also showed that none of the respondents replanted Bt corn after using it for the first time.

“Most of the farmers interviewed in the three provinces were not convinced of its claimed benefits of higher yields and pest resistance,” said Lintao.

The group’s survey showed that in Isabela, the highest corn-producing province, a mere 6 percent of farmer-respondents planted Bt corn.

In Bukidnon, the second highest corn-producing province, there was an adoption rate of less than 1 percent. In North Cotabato, the fourth largest corn-producing province, there was barely 3 percent farmers’ adoption, the survey showed.

“High cost was the top most reason cited by the farmers for their non-adoption including those who chose not to repeat the planting of Bt corn during the period 2003 to 2006. Despite the hype mounted for this biotech crop, farmers remain unconvinced,” Lintao said.

Lintao also said that ISAAA has been misleading the public about the real status of Bt corn adoption in the country, and even called the Philippines as one of the “mega biotech” countries in the world where Bt corn is being widely used.

“Their figure is highly misleading because this is not even the actual sales they achieved. There is no way to verify the actual volume of sales of Bt corn seeds since the DA-BPI [Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Plant Industry] does not require the companies to produce this report. However, DA-BPI never tried to correct the erroneous and misleading use of data,” Lintao said.

ISAAA is set to present the Philippines’ successful adoption of genetically modified corn in Brussels today.
--Ira Karen Apanay

Privilege Speech
Representative Nur G. Jaafar
House of Representatives
November 27, 2007

RECKLESSLY TAMPERING WITH OUR ECOSYSTEM

Honorable Speaker and Distinguished members of the House:

With a great burden in my mind and heart, allow me to echo the cries of the people of Tawi-Tawi against the impending threat to their lives and future from the dumping of 300 tons of toxic urea and 43 tons of triple super-phosphate into the Sulu Sea by an Australian-based company. The Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) claims to have secured a go-signal from the Philippine government to conduct a large-scale field experiment on its patented urea fertilization technology in the Sulu Sea that traverses the Island province of Tawi-Tawi. While I respect the scientific zeal with which the United Nations tackle the global warming issue, a little known very risky experiment that will cover South-Western Philippines sends fear among the people in the Sulu Archipelago with Tawi-Tawi at the receiving end whose lifeline belongs to the sea.

Ostensibly, the dumping of urea granules will stimulate the growth of phytoplankton which would eventually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But local communities and scientists are wary that this unproven claim may cause more harm than good:

• Consider, for instance, that the experiment produces harmful algal blooms that cause Red Tide, as well as other unknown disastrous effects on the ocean floors. A phenomenon traced to toxic chemical fertilizers that are carried by water runoff that pollute our waterways, starve our fishermen, and create scare among consumers. The hiatus when our fishermen wait for months on end before red tide subsides to venture anew to the seas.

• The Tubbataha Reefs, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a RAMSAR Wetlands Site, and the first Philippine National Marine Park in Palawan, part of which is Bancauan Island that is in Tawi-Tawi Province, is a critical biodiversity area in the Sulu-Sulawesi Sea that must be protected; and

Thousands and thousands of people all scattered through out the Sulu Archipelago, particularly in the eleven (11) island municipalities of Tawi-Tawi including the coastal areas in Sabah, Malaysia and Kalimantan Utara of Indonesia depends so much on the sea; nourished by food coming from marine life that abound in the area. Which ever site the dumping may occur in the Sulu Sea, water undercurrents could extend far and wide that could virtually spare not one community from risky algal bloom or Red Tide that may lead to dead zones of depleted oxygen like those in the Gulf of Mexico, a consequence of toxic substance spilled through the Mississippi river.

According to the U.P Marine Science Institute in Diliman, current and wind direction on site may speed up dispersal of nutrient-rich water up to critical reef areas. Corals do not thrive in nutrient-rich water, thus, destroying the ecology. The irony of the field experiment is the idea of sea nourishment that exists in the hypothetical growth of phytoplankton that will sequester and eliminate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

How can we forget and ignore that the same urea that reaches the waterways causes algal blooms, e.g., red tide which is a bane that scares us from ingesting any fish, crustacean or any sea product?

How can we claim to nourish the sea when we fail to preserve its resources that nourish our own people?

How can we mitigate hunger aggravated by increase in population when the sea, which is the only lifeline of the people of Tawi-Tawi to avert malnutrition, is being threatened?

Why Tawi-Tawi and the whole of my people?

Let me point out that Tawi-Tawi boasts of an academic community of oceanographers in Mindanao State University – Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and Oceanography (MSU-TCTO) whose scientific endeavors will never veer away from the very mission of harnessing the ocean for the sake of the people. An experiment of gigantic proportions of 300 tons of urea and triple super-phosphate dumping is a contemptible diabolical idea presented in the subtlety of modern scientific jargon and the toxicity of human greed and vested interests.

It grieves me, Mr. Speaker, that a predominantly Muslim academic community like MSU-TCTO was not even given the courtesy of information from the College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas (Miagao, Iloilo) through its Research on Ocean Nourishment Demonstration Project about the experiment. U.P Visayas tie-up with University of Sydney, Australia to be funded by another Australian Firm, Climate Research Ltd. has ventured into ocean fertilization experiments that are both dangerous and unacceptable even by our government agencies. They are joined by Borneo Marine Science Institute, Taytay sa Kauswagan (TSKI Iloilo City, Ocean Nourishment Foundation Ltd. (ONF) and Discovery Channel. No less than Dean Romeo D. Fortes of U.P Visayas sought from the Environment Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC) for the project.

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) whose initial reaction is to welcome the U.P Visayas proposal, even cautioned about a harmful algal bloom as what occurred in Western Samar in January 2005 and further advised a close monitoring on dominant plankton cell density as well as presence of harmful species and that in an unlikely event, the process should be immediately suspended. Not even a copy of the project proposal was ever submitted to their office.

Ladies and gentlemen, are we pointing again to a scenario of decimating, in the guise of scientific progress, the Muslim people as specimens; by heroically playing host to an unproven experiment to avert climate change? This is betraying the destiny of our people to global patronage and its pretension to human welfare and progress.

My thoughts on this matter of sacrificing Muslims and fellow Filipinos find an ally in the daring recommendation of the esteemed academicians at the UP Diliman’s Marine Science Institute: …”before an Australian company conducts large scale experiments on ocean fertilization in Philippine waters, it should demonstrate their efficacy in Australian waters, such as the Gulf of Capentaria in their Northern Territories, a tropical one.” The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is courageously calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilization experiments and calls for the conduct of international oversight; some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they are commercialized.

ONC Managing Director Jim Ridley was quoted that one ton urea was already dumped into the Sulu Sea and may inject another one ton in the next month. A big quantity is intended to be dumped again in succeeding months when the northeast monsoon or “Amihan” will intensify which will certainly bring catastrophic effects on the islands and islets reefs of the Sulu Sea Archipelago and may even reach the Sulawesi. Most likely the one (1) ton of urea already dumped has already destroyed Tawi-Tawi seaweeds which are observed to be whitening (locals call it “ice-ice”).

Before seaweed farming was introduced to other parts of the Philippines, Tawi-Tawi enjoyed almost a monopoly of the product, at one time providing more or less 90% of the raw harvests. Tens of thousands seaweeds farmers along the shore depend on Sulu Sea, what more of hundreds of thousands of other Tawi-Tawi fishermen who venture out to the sea? How about those coming from other provinces? Multifold; three hundred (300) tons of urea and 43 tons of triple super-phosphate, indeed pose human misery; and in serious disregard of laws and scientific advisory bodies:

1. The Fisheries Code of the Philippines and the Presidential Decree No. 600 as revised by P.D. 979 known as Marine Pollution Decree of 1976 are declarations of policy to prevent and control of the pollution of seas by the dumping of wastes and other matter which create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life, damage amenities, or interfere with the legitimate uses of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Among the prohibited acts are: discharge, dump of oil, noxious gaseous substances and other harmful substances xxx by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and inland navigable waters of the Philippines.

Tawi-Tawi is already hostage to surreptitious dumping of toxic waste in the guise of Innocent Passage of ocean going vessels passing through the Sibutu-Bongao channel from South China Sea and exiting to Sunda Strait towards the Indian Ocean and vice versa. Congress must consider passing a measure to ensure that vessels comply with our environmental laws and/or pay-up for damage to our ecosystem.

2. The London Convention on the prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes, to which the Philippines is a signatory, has shown “grave concern for the ecological risk of ocean fertilization.”

3. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, also said that the technology is largely speculative and environmental side effects have yet to be assessed.

4. Environmental groups including Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), based in Quezon City, Erosion Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) from Ottawa, Third World Network in Malaysia (TWN, Greenpeace International, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Kilusang Mangingisda (a fisherfolk organization) have petitioned against the ocean nourishment project.

5. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development (PCAMRD), U.P Diliman’s Marines Science Institute and Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of DENR also expressed concerns over the project’s repercussions.

6. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilization experiments and calls for the conduct of international oversight; some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they are commercialized.

The foregoing considered, acceding to the experiment in the name of science is to thread on dangerous waters because there are online data that points to pecuniary interests of those involved in the project particularly Ocean Nourishment Corporation Pty Limited (ONC), a geo-engineering firm based in Sydney, Australia which intends to win carbon credits and earn revenue by licensing its technology. It is also reportedly vying for the US$25 million Virgin Earth Prize to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. It is noted that another controversial firm, Planktons, a San Francisco-based company is also set to experiment off the Galapagos Islands in Mexico.

Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues, yes… we are all for measures to avert climate change and mitigate global warming through proven and safe methods like mangrove reforestation, tree planting etc. But we will never allow our people to be sacrificed in this contemplated experiment. The experiment of people’s lives by exposing them to the unpredictable consequences of dumping 300 tons of toxic urea into their idyllic sea environment and life line ecosystem that God has given our people as an everlasting evidence of His Greatness and Love of our people.

Why should their future be sacrificed?

And for what? And for whose gain?

Are we citizens of this country or not?

We have a right to demand from our government protection from an experiment that could destroy our future.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, like those who clamored against the dumping of toxic wastes in Subic Bay and those who called for opposition to the pending entry of Japanese wastes into the country, I call for the proactive response of my distinguished colleagues in this Chamber to join me and the people of the Sulu Archipelago against the dire consequences of dumping toxic urea and phosphate into the Sulu Sea. Indeed, we call upon the government to give this serious threat to marine life and survival of our country’s Southern Frontier, the attention it critically deserves. We call no less than H.E President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to take immediate steps to protect our people against the impending danger to their lives and future.

Thank you for your kind indulgence and attention.


Rep. Nur G. Jaafar

 

FARMERS’ RIGHTS AND THE MINDANAO

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENDA

Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)

Statement on the 1st Mindanao Agriculture Forum 

November 21-23, 2007

 

 

It is not possible to conceive of an agenda for agricultural development without conceiving of an agenda for farmers and farmers' rights.

 

SEARICE has been working in Mindanao since 1992 when we started the Community Based Native Seeds Research Center (CONSERVE) in Pres. Roxas, Cotabato. CONSERVE itself was built from the local farmers' movement in Cotabato, which in turn had been nurtured mainly by the Church from the time of the anti-Marcos dictatorship struggles. We simply inherited and continued what had been started by local farmers as their struggle for a better life and for a fuller realization of their rights, politically, economically, culturally and socially.

 

Even then, when we started CONSERVE, we did not come with a full agenda for local agricultural development nor did we aspire to achieve one. We still don't claim to have one now. We came in with quite a simple idea: seeds. Yet even from that seemingly simple idea of seeds our years of work with farmers have taught us and eventually led us to a better appreciation of something broader than what we started out, and that is, farmers' rights. And this appreciation come through years of lessons, wisdom and struggles imparted to us by farmers themselves. Yet, we are not claiming expertise on the subject of farmers' rights. We do know enough however that there could not be an agenda for agriculture without farmers' and farmers' rights being central to the discussions.

 

What now appears to be obvious at this point in the 1^st Mindanao Agriculture Forum: that it suffers from a gaping hole in its heart, the heart of farmers' rights! We are not merely saying that Farmers' Rights is the missing element here because that is the terrain of advocacy that we happen to be working in. We are saying so because this terrain has become global in significance, which we especially Mindanawans may ignore only at our own loss.

 

Recently, the second meeting of the Governing Body of the International Treaty of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), of which the Philippines is a signatory, took place in Rome early this month. The Treaty, which took effect in 2004 is the foremost international instrument governing discussions and negotiations among Parties with regard to policies about Plant Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture. At the heart of the Treaty is Farmers' Rights, enshrined in Article 9.

 

It is an imperfect Treaty no doubt and the section on Farmers' Rights among its many imperfections. Farmers' movements themselves have criticized Farmers' Rights provision in the Treaty for, among others, the narrowness of its scope and to its being made subject to national legislation. Nevertheless, the Treaty remains the only one that explicitly recognizes Farmers’ Rights and calls upon countries to implement it. It is a historic Treaty and under ideal circumstances, is a work in progress.

 

For us at SEARICE, we came into the Rome meeting having conducted a series of consultations among farmers in Mindanao, Visayas and at the national level about Farmers' Rights. The objective of those consultations was to try to form a consensus among farmers about what they understand Farmers' Rights to be and the key issues that affect them.

 

What those consultations basically showed is that farmers consider Farmers' Rights as mainly a bundle of rights, or a collection of rights ranging from the economic to the political, from the social to the cultural. They are interlocking rights that define what a farmer is or what he or she ought to be in the eyes of society. Farmers regard their rights to land as a very basic right, hence the struggle for land reform, including in Mindanao, remains very much alive. The farmers from Sumilao, Bukidnon who are marching right now towards Malacanang are living proof of this struggle. But also important for farmers are their rights to seeds, i.e., unimpeded access to use, sell, share and market seeds. So too are rights to participation in government, to appropriate and safe technologies, to access to health care, to safe and nutritious food, to fair market access, among others. Indeed, what those consultations showed is that farmers do hold a holistic view of their rights and consequently of their role in society as a whole and in agriculture as a sector.

 

Farmers from South-Central Mindanao during the consultations particularly articulated the core issues that impede them from realizing and asserting their basic socio-economic,cultural rights.  According to them, the so-called ‘development projects’ such as mining explorations and  the expansion of  agricultural plantations, in fact deduced farmers into mere tenants and/or daily laborers,  has not only contaminated their lands and water system but also showered their communities  with toxic sprays  and in the process, disregarded their efforts  to practice a more environment-friendly sustainable agriculture.  Underlying issues behind this are the absence of comprehensive information dissemination for farmers to have informed decision and the lack of  farmers’,  local communities’ and women’s voices in decision-making processes at all levels. 

 Farmers during the consultation also lamented the seemingly lack of recognition for their efforts in conservation and sustainable management of the agroecosystem from the formal sector.  On seeds/ plant genetic resources for example, farmer-partners of SEARICE in North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat during the span of 1994-2006 have developed and bred some 110 rice varieties from local and traditional varieties that are adaptable and suited to their specific local conditions. In second cropping in 2006, about 42.6 tons from these seeds have spread to some 328 hectares in 21 farming communities in North Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Bukidnon, in the process increasing the varietal diversity in lowland rice farming communities.  The Government thru the Department of Agriculture, however is bent on subsidizing and promoting only 5 varieties of hybrid seeds, further subjecting lowland agroecosystems more prone to disease and pest epidemics and also in promoting genetically modified crops whose long-term impacts to human and animal health and to the environment remains unknown. Moreover, these bias promotion of one-size fits all technologies undermines farmers’ conservation efforts and accordingly, further marginalizes their sector to become dependent and ‘tenants’ to what technology, inputs, seeds the scientists, government, traders, and seed companies prescribe and promote.

Albeit the lack of support, this did not hamper farmers from crafting their own development as forms of assertions of their rights – by organizing themselves into groups, networks and movements that freely exchange and share not only seeds and related knowledge, technologies and increasingly by engaging local government units and thru participation in special bodies at the community and local levels to protect and support their initiatives, among others. Farmers are showing the way, it is about time we let them lead the way to agricultural development.

Henceforth, we believe that Mindanao Agriculture Agenda should be defined by the farmers of Mindanao with active and diverse participation of different stakeholders particularly small farmers, indigenous peoples, rural youth and rural women.  It is our call and our challenge to develop a   Farmers’ Rights- based agenda for agricultural development  in Mindanao - with  Mindanawan farmers as central to the process of defining the agenda.

- End-

SEARICE Mindanao

Bautista Farms, Tacurong City

Sultan Kudarat 

Telefax:  +6364 477 0045; +632 922 6710

Email: searice@searice.org.ph, searice_mindanao@searice.org.ph  

Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron
or other nutrients to the ocean to cause large

algal blooms, has been proposed as a possible 

solution to global warming because the growing
algae absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.
(Credit: iStockphoto/Brett Hillyard)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/1 1/0711291
32753.htm

Web address:
http ://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/
071129 132753.htm

Ocean Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming
Discredited By New Research
ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2007) — Scientists have revealed an
important discovery that raises doubts concerning the viability of
plans to fertilize the ocean to solve global warming, a projected
$100 billion venture.

Research performed at Stanford and Oregon State Universities
suggests that ocean fertilization may not be an effective method of
reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a major contributor to
global warming. Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron or
other nutrients to the ocean to cause large algal blooms, has been
proposed as a possible solution to global warming because the
growing algae absorb carbon dioxide as they grow.

However, this process, which is analogous to adding fertilizer to a
lawn to help the grass grow, only reduces carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere if the carbon incorporated into the algae sinks to
deeper waters. This process, which scientists call the "Biological
Pump", has been thought to be dependent on the abundance of
algae in the top layers of the ocean. The more algae in a bloom,
the more carbon is transported, or "pumped", from the
atmosphere to the deep ocean.

To test this theory, researchers compared the abundance of algae in the surface waters of the world's oceans with
the amount of carbon actually sinking to deep water. They found clear seasonal patterns in both algal abundance
and carbon sinking rates. However, the relationship between the two was surprising: less carbon was transported to
deep water during a summertime bloom than during the rest of the year. This analysis has never been done before
and required designing specialized mathematical algorithms.

"By jumping a mathematical hurdle we found a new globally synchronous signal," said Dr. Lutz.
"This discovery is very surprising", said lead author Dr. Michael Lutz, now at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "If, during natural plankton blooms, less carbon actually sinks to deep
water than during the rest of the year, then it suggests that the Biological Pump leaks.

More material is recycled in shallow water and less sinks to depth, which makes sense if you consider how this
ecosystem has evolved in a way to minimize loss", said Lutz. "Ocean fertilization schemes, which resemble an
artificial summer, may not remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as has been suggested because they
ignore the natural processes revealed by this research."

This study closely follows a September Ocean Iron Fertilization symposium at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution (WHOI) attended by leading scientists, international lawyers, policy makers, and concerned
representatives from government, business, academia and environmental organizations.

Topics discussed included potential environmental dangers, economic implications, and the uncertain effectiveness
of ocean fertilization. To date none of the major ocean fertilization experiments have verified that a significant
amount of deep ocean carbon sequestration occurs. Some scientists have suggested that verification may require
more massive and more permanent experiments. Together with commercial operators they plan to go ahead with
large-scale and more permanent ocean fertilization experiments and note that potential negative environmental
consequences must be balanced against the harm expected due to ignoring climate change.

During the Ocean Iron Fertilization meeting Dr. Hauke Kite-Powell, of the Marine Policy Center at WHOI,
estimated the possible future value of ocean fertilization at $100 billion of the emerging international carbon trading
market, which has the goal of mitigating global warming. However, according to Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, an
expert in International Law and the Law of the Sea at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who also
attended the Woods Hole meeting, ocean fertilization projects are not currently approved under any carbon credit
regulatory scheme and the sale of offsets or credits from ocean fertilization on the unregulated voluntary markets is
basically nothing short of fraudulent.

'There are too many scientific uncertainties relating both to the efficacy of ocean fertilization and its possible
environmental side effects that need to be resolved before even larger experiments should be considered, let alone
the process commercialized,' Rayfuse says. 'All States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine
environment and to ensure that all activities carried out under their jurisdiction and control, including marine
scientific research and commercial ocean fertilization activities do not cause pollution.
Ocean fertilization is 'dumping' which is essentially prohibited under the law of the sea. There is no point trying to
ameliorate the effects of climate change by destroying the oceans -- the very cradle of life on earth. Simply doing
more and bigger of that which has already been demonstrated to be ineffective and potentially more harmful than
good is counter-intuitive at best.'

Indeed, the global study of Dr. Lutz and colleagues suggests that greatly enhanced carbon sequestration should not
be expected no matter the location or duration of proposed large-scale ocean fertilization experiments.
According to Dr Lutz "The limited duration of previous ocean fertilization experiments may not be why carbon
sequestration wasn't found during those artificial blooms. This apparent puzzle could actually reflect how marine
ecosystems naturally handle blooms and agrees with our findings. A bloom is like ringing the marine ecosystem
dinner bell. The microbial and food web dinner guests appear and consume most of the fresh algal food."
"Our study highlights the need to understand natural ecosystem processes, especially in a world where change is
occurring so rapidly," concluded Dr. Lutz.
The findings of Dr. Lutz and colleagues coincide with and affirm this month's decision of the London Convention
(the International Maritime Organization body that oversees the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea) to
regulate controversial commercial ocean fertilization schemes. This gathering of international maritime parties
advised that such schemes are currently not scientifically justified.

Strategies to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the enhancement of biological sinks through
processes such as ocean fertilization, will be considered by international governmental representatives during the
thirteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Bali next month.

This research was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Mi ami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science.
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science (2007, November 30). Ocean
Fertilization 'Fix' For Global Warming Discredited By New Research. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 30, 2007,
from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/1 1/071129132753 .htm

Businessmirror November 16, 2007
By Jennifer A. Ng Reporter

THE Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment
(Searice) is urging the Department of Agriculture (DA) to make its
evaluation process for a genetically modified (GM) rice variant "more
transparent."

Searice also called on the DA to reject Bayer Philippines' application
to commercially distribute its GM rice variant Liberty Link 62 (LL62).

"Allowing the importation of this GM rice requires transparency and
public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos' staple food," said Socrates
Lugasip, technical officer of Searice.

"The people need to know the reasons behind the government's rush to
allow this while this has not been grown commercially elsewhere, no
history of safe consumption by humans, much less by a population that
eats rice three times a day, whole-year round," Lugasip said.

The international nongovernment organization also posed serious
questions on the independence of the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP) from multinational firms producing GM products.

"We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of
the STRP and assure the public of the members' independence from any
GMO [GM organism] company's interest. It is the responsibility of the
DA officials to ensure that the people's staple food is not dictated
by the GMO companies' profit interests," said Lugasip.

Searice points to Administrative Order 8 issued by the DA which states
that the STRP shall be "composed of at least three reputable and
independent scientists.to evaluate the application, particularly the
risk- assessment studies conducted and actions taken by relevant
regulatory authorities in the country of origin, and submit its
report to the Bureau of Plant Industry within 30 days from its receipt
of the application."

The Searice official noted a recent Greenpeace report which alleged
that the STRP is composed mostly of experts who were commissioned by
multinational firms to do research on genetic-plant materials.

Meanwhile, a member of the STRP said he would dismiss the application
of Bayer for LL62 right away for "lack of merit."

"Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness,
lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger,
improve the health of the rice-eating Filipinos? These were the
justifications for the country to hitch a ride with the biotechnology
bandwagon in the early years of the GMO debate, but these are now
conveniently forgotten in the decision-making process," said Dr.
Emerlito Borromeo.

Borromeo also said the evaluation of GMO applications should not be
left to the STRP alone because their perspective is confined to
"technical aspects" only and could not defend the economic and
socio-cultural implications of a particular GMO product.

Advocates of GM products had earlier defended the country's regulatory
and approval process and said it can ensure that any GM product
screened and approved will be safe for human consumption.

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view_article.php?article_id=
101164
By Amy R. Remo
Posted date: November 15, 2007

An international nongovernmental organization has asked the government
to deny an application of pharmaceutical giant Bayer for commercial
distribution of its genetically modified rice, Liberty Link Rice 62,
on grounds that the evaluation process is "concealed from the public."

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiative for Community Empowerment
(SEARice) raised the alarm, saying the "concealment" also posed
serious questions on the independence of the government's Scientific
and Technical Review Panel from GMO-producing firms.

"We urge the Department of Agriculture to divulge the composition of
the STRP and assure the public of the members' independence from any
GMO firm's interest," said Socrates Lugasip, SEARice technical
officer.

According to the DA, the STRP is composed of at least three "reputable
and independent scientists ... to evaluate the application,
particularly the risk assessment studies conducted and actions taken
by relevant regulatory authorities in the country of origin."

Lugasip said allowing the importation of this GM rice required
transparency and public knowledge as rice is the Filipinos' staple
food.

"The people need to know the reasons behind the government's rush to
allow this, despite the fact that the rice has not been grown
commercially elsewhere nor does it have any history of safe
consumption by humans," Lugasip said.

Bayer, for its part, said it could not issue an official statement due
to a pending case on the commercialization of the LLRICE62.

Greenpeace filed this year a petition against the use of Bayer's
LLRice62 for food, animal feed and processing.

SEARice said a member of the STRP had said he would dismiss the
application of LLRICE62 for lack of merit.

"Would it enhance agricultural productivity, global competitiveness,
lower the price of rice in the market, alleviate poverty and hunger,
improve the health of the rice-eating Filipinos?" said STRP member
Emerlito Borromeo.

Borromeo added that the evaluation of GMO applications should not be
left to STRP alone because the panel's perspective was confined only
to technical aspects, and does not cover the economic and
sociocultural implications of a particular GMO.

Saturday, November 17, 2007
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/nov/17/yehey/metro/20071117met3.html
BY Chino Leyco Researcher

The Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (Searice) urged the Department of Agriculture to heed the petition of farmers to stop the importation of genetically modified (GM) rice, codenamed as LLRICE 62.

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Arthur C. Yap, the farmers raised alarm over the possible contamination of local rice varieties in case LLRICE 62 is accidentally mixed with the farmers' traditional varieties in the market.

The farmers also warned that importing LLRICE 62 may signal the start of the planting of GM rice that will pose a greater danger of contaminating the local rice fields, especially those that have switched to organic rice.

About 200 rice farmers from Bohol and Mindanao individually wrote their letter to Yap, asking him to deny the application of Bayer CropScience to import LLRICE 62.

Socrates Lugasip, Searice technical officer, said that the lack of transparency in the application and approval process of GM food and crops has denied the farmers with the venue for redress, especially on rice that embodies their life and tradition.

"This is the heart of the petition filed before the court seeking to declare the DA Administrative Order No. 8 as unconstitutional. It denies the people of their constitutional right to information, health and balanced and healthful ecology," Lugasip said.

In August, the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 101 issued a 20-day temporary restraining order against the Bureau of Plant Industry, an attached agency of the DA, prohibiting them from approving Bayer's GM rice application until the case is being heard.

This artist's rendition of an Ocean Nourishment Corporation plant shows how the company would pump urea into the ocean to stimulate plankton growth. Photo credit: Courtesy of Ocean Nourishment Corporation.

Science : Planet Earth
Enviros Challenge Dumping Urea in Ocean to Sink Carbon
By Brandon Keim 11.07.07 | 5:00 PM
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/urea_dumping

An Australian company is injecting urea into the ocean, hoping to sequester greenhouse-gas pollution and cash in on carbon credits.
If all goes according to plan, oceanic plankton will thrive on the nitrogen-rich urea broth and absorb carbon dioxide. When the plankton die, they'll sink to the bottom of the sea taking the carbon dioxide with them. The business plan: Companies licensing the technology can sell carbon offsets.
But some scientists worry the technique hasn't been rigorously studied. The nitrogen injections, they say, could feed toxic algae, disrupt poorly understood ecosystems and ultimately release more carbon dioxide than is deep-sixed.
"If we're going to entertain such massive measures, they need to be informed by scientific fact and experimentation, and less by opinion and profit motivations," said ocean fertilization researcher Kenneth Coale, director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories in California.
The scheme, conceived by Sydney-based Ocean Nourishment Corporation and slated for large-scale testing off the coast of the Philippines next year, captures the Wild West reality of climate engineering in the 21st century. Scientists and entrepreneurs hoping to cash in on global warming concerns have proposed everything from iron seeding to orbital mirrors to reflect the sun. Meanwhile, these practices are governed only by a skimpy patchwork of laws.
Ocean Nourishment recently dumped one ton of urea into the Sulu Sea. Researchers haven't finished evaluating that data, said managing director Jim Ridley, but noted that early analysis supports claims of plankton nourishment and subsequent carbon-dioxide sequestration.
In the next several months, the company will conduct another one-ton Sulu Sea experiment, this time monitoring the effects more closely. Over three weeks, researchers will track plankton blooms with satellites, combine samples taken directly from the water with geographic information, and observe how the area evolves.
Critics aren't worried about the risks of these early tests. A ton of urea affects just a few hundred square meters of ocean. But depending on the next set of test results, Ridley said, the company could conduct a 500-ton experiment early next year. If that goes well, he said, ONC will start licensing its technology.
At that scale, unintended consequences, such as toxic algal blooms and food-chain disruptions, could be more profound -- and scientists worry that the company might not notice.
"To date, none of the iron-enrichment experiments have been designed to test these unintended consequences, and none of the urea-enrichment studies are designed to do that, either," Coale said.
Apart from the often-destructive aquatic effects of nitrogen runoff from industrial farms, only Ocean Nourishment has studied the effects of urea fertilization.
"It's the early days," Ridley said. "We're still very much in the R&D phase."
Nevertheless, the company's website implies that the technology is well-understood. The site already offers licenses for sale (.pdf). Developing countries from "all over the world" have shown interest, Ridley said.
Critics are skeptical of Ocean Nourishment's ability to measure, much less sell, the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by this process.
"Nobody has a way of measuring how much carbon is sinking into the lower levels of the ocean," said Jim Thomas, a research-program manager at the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based environmental advocacy organization.
To produce urea, the company would need to build natural-gas-burning factories. Whether plankton blooms would offset the carbon dioxide released by those factories is unknown. Ocean Nourishment factors urea production into its carbon equations, but commercial pressures threaten the integrity of companies pursuing climate modification, Coale said.
He said that people pursuing climate-engineering projects for profit need to be separated from those who decide whether the projects are a good idea. "Right now, they're the same."
Asked whether the company's marketing has outpaced its science, Ridley said, "You might read it that way, but it's not the case."
Edwina Tanner, an oceanographer with Ocean Nourishment's research partner, Earth Ocean & Space, said the company's findings will be submitted to scientific journals in coming years, minimizing the chance of mistakes.
"The scientific community is really overseeing this," Tanner said.
To better regulate geo-engineering, Coale recommends establishing an organization like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to regulate ocean fertilization. Thomas wants the International Maritime Organization to handle the job. Even Ridley agrees that oversight is sorely needed.
"You hear concern from the scientists: What might happen to the oceans? We don't know that yet," he said. "It's inevitable that there will be some kind of United Nations control over these technologies, especially when they're commercialized. I think there has to be."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/09/2087099.htm

By Anna Salleh for ABC Science Online

Posted Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:38pm AEDT
Updated Fri Nov 9, 2007 7:03pm AEDT


A NASA satellite image of an enormous bloom of phytoplankton floating off the northern coast of Norway. (AFP: NASA)

Plans by an Australian company to sink hundreds of tonnes of urea into the ocean to combat climate change may backfire and exacerbate global warming, critics say.

Sydney-based company Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) is looking at using nitrogen-rich urea to boost the growth of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.

The idea, says the company, is for this form of carbon sequestration to lock up carbon in the oceans for thousands of years.

It says that encouraging the growth of more phytoplankton could also boost fish stocks.

But several scientists and civil society groups are worried about the lack of independent oversight of such private exploration of 'ocean fertilisation', which they say could trigger environmental problems rather than solve them.

ONC plans to develop this method of carbon sequestration to generate valuable carbon credits.

And it is using the research of Adjunct Professor Ian Jones at the University of Sydney's civil engineering department to do so.

Adjunct Professor Jones has conducted laboratory experiments to show that nitrogen is important in boosting the growth of phytoplankton in ocean samples.

ONC has taken the research out of the lab. Managing director John Ridley says the company has just completed an experiment involving one tonne of nitrogen in the Sulu Sea off the Philippines.

The company is now discussing with the Philippines Government plans to scale up the experiment to 1,000 tonnes of nitrogen over the next year.

Mr Ridley says the company is also talking to the Moroccan Government about similar experiments in the Atlantic Ocean.

Scientists' concerns
But scientists involved in publicly funded basic research into the role of nutrients including iron in the oceans are worried about the commercial imperative behind the latest experiments. Biogeochemist Dr Philip Boyd of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is one of them.

"This latest development in the Sulu Sea has all of our community concerned, as there doesn't appear to be any published evidence of how urea fertilisation impacts ocean biology and ecology," he said.

Dr Cliff Law of NIWA and others say independent scientific experts should oversee research by a growing number of private companies developing ocean fertilisation.

"At the end of the day we're dealing with companies that want to make money out of carbon credits," he said.

ONC says there is little publicly available material on the field experiments, partly because of the need to protect intellectual property.

It says the experiments are mimicking natural upwelling of nutrients that occur in productive ocean areas.

In a commercial plant this would involve using urea produced from natural gas to sequester 10 megatonnes of CO2 per year.

It also says each of its plants could provide 50 grams of marine protein per day for 38 million people.

But others say such moves could bring bad news as well as good.

Dr Law says natural upwelling of nutrients can trigger toxic algal blooms and the release of nitrous oxide - a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

ONC's Mr Ridley says the company will use ships to monitor phytoplankton growth and concentrations of nitrogen will not be allowed to go high enough to cause algal blooms.

"If we step the scale of this up we can actually track it by satellite," he said.

Dr Law is not impressed.

"That all sounds very neat. If only it was so easy," he said.

Sequestration's huge challenges
Dr Law says boosting phytoplankton for fish stocks will also keep carbon circulating in the ecosystem, which would therefore undermine any sequestration efforts.

In addition, he says one of the challenges to long-term sequestration is drawing the dead phytoplankton down deep into the ocean.

Dr Law says experiments seeding the ocean with iron have shown hardly any plankton sink below 100 metres, which means any carbon in them would be re-released within months.

Even if the plankton appear to sink, he says currents can bring them up again quite quickly.

Dr Law says verifying long-term ocean carbon sequestration is difficult and expensive and he wonders how ONC will do this.

London meeting
An international scientific group on ocean dumping, known as the London Convention, is understood to be discussing urea ocean fertilisation at a meeting in the UK this week.

Earlier this week a coalition of civil society groups urged the convention to stop urea experiments until their impacts had been properly assessed.

Earlier this year the convention cautioned against ocean fertilisation using iron.

Mr Ridley of ONC says the convention only has jurisdiction over experiments carried out in the high seas.

Instead, he says ONC will focus on territorial waters so it can be involved in carbon credit schemes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has labelled ocean fertilisation as a hypothetical solution to climate change, carrying unknown side-effects and economic costs.

Tags: environment, climate-change, oceans-and-reefs, science-and-technology, research, australia