Ocean Nourishment: Sacrificing the Marine Environment for Profits and the Need for SBSTTA13 to Take a Stand

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

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.

SEARICE RECOMMENDATIONS on BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE DURING THE 13TH SBSSTA MEETING

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

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

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 of Rep. Nur G. Jaafar on Urea Dumping in the Sulu Seas

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