By Verena Schälter
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 13 2011 (IPS)

The health of the world’s oceans is much worse than is widely believed, but it is not too late to change tack and help this critical ecosystem recover, at least in part, experts say.

Alex David Rogers Credit: Courtesy of Alex David Rogers

Marine scientists from all over the world recently came together at Oxford University to review new research under the auspices of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Their results, outlined in a report released in June, came to an alarming conclusion: If the current course of damage continues, marine species are at high risk of entering a phase of extinction unprecedented in human history.

Professor Alex David Rogers, IPSO’s scientific director, spoke to IPS about the reasons for the disastrous situation and what actions must be taken to avoid the worst. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: The report warns that the “worst-case scenario” is more or less imminent. What would it look like? A. It is difficult to predict exactly what the future will look like but the report highlights some of the things we may expect over the short to medium term and then over longer time frames.

We are already seeing major shifts in the distribution of many marine organisms and this will continue into the future.

Modelling the effects of climate change, particularly temperature, on marine communities suggests that species may shift in their distribution towards the poles or into deeper water. There are likely to be extinctions at both the tropics and in polar ecosystems.

We will also continue to see the spread of “dead zones”, areas of the oceans where agricultural and other runoff cause high levels of algal production in coastal waters that in turn trigger high levels of bacterial activity, using up oxygen in the water column.

Other effects of this are the increased occurrence of harmful algal blooms, increased incidence of pathogens in coastal waters and an increased likelihood of plagues of gelatinous zooplankton.

This will be happening against a background of increasing reliance on animal protein from aquatic systems by humans because of population growth.

There is also likely to be an increased frequency of increasing storm events and sea level rise to contend with.

Q: What are the main causes? A: One of the central themes of the meeting we had was the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems. Many people think about this as something that will happen in the future. But we are already seeing the effects of climate change in many ecosystems mainly caused by elevated sea surface temperatures.

These include mass coral bleaching and changes in the distribution of marine species.

The cause is mainly elevated CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activities. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it causes warming of the atmosphere and therefore also the oceans.

We have recently become aware of another phenomenon associated with CO2 emissions, ocean acidification. The oceans absorb about a third of our CO2 emissions, where it forms carbonic acid, reducing the pH of the oceans.

An effect of this is to reduce the concentration of carbonate in seawater, a major component of the skeletons and shells of many types of marine organisms including reef-forming corals. Studies of natural CO2 vents, usually associated with volcanic areas, suggests that this will negatively impact many organisms, including corals and molluscs.

Q: The die-off of coral reefs is often mentioned as a prime example of the ocean’s disastrous condition. What is special about coral reefs? A: Coral reefs are the most diverse ecosystems in the ocean. We do not know how many species are associated with them – a sad reflection on our state of knowledge of these and many other marine ecosystems – but there are estimates between 0.5 and nine million.

However, these ecosystems are also extremely important in socioeconomic terms. About 30 million people are completely dependent on reefs for their livelihoods; perhaps 500 million derive goods and services from them.

It has been estimated that reefs may be worth up to 375 billion dollars per annum, with goods and services including the provision of fish, coastal protection, tourism and other less tangible services.

Q: What else has a negative impact on the ocean’s ecosystems? A: Overfishing has had a major impact on marine ecosystems. Serious depletion of marine resources has occurred in many instances and the latest figures from the U.N. FAO with regards to the state of the world’s fish stocks show that these problems continue to worsen, not improve.

Overfishing has many knock-on effects on marine ecosystems, often known as cascade effects, where the removal of target species effects the abundance of other species in the ecosystem.

Q: What would be the consequences for humankind? A: That is very hard to predict and depends on where in the world you live.

The impacts of depletion of fish stocks, shifts in fisheries resources resulting from climate change effects, destruction of fish habitat, increasing frequency of powerful cyclones and sea level rise are likely to all be worse in parts of the developing world.

Here, populations have a greater dependence on fish for animal protein and for the livelihoods of large numbers of people, so there is naturally a higher vulnerability to impacts on fish stocks.

In the longer term the oceans are critical parts of the Earth system.

There are likely to be important feedback effects of climate change on the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2, something that will accelerate climate change.

Q: Is there a way to stop this development? A: There are many levels of action that can be taken.

These range from our actions as individuals, whether that is reducing our own CO2 emissions, choosing only fish from sustainable sources, getting involved in conservation action for the marine environment or making ourselves aware of these issues and writing to policy makers to ask for action.

At the level of national and international policy urgent action on the reduction of CO2 emissions is critical.

The longer this is left, the worse the impacts will be on marine ecosystems and the more expensive will be the measures to reduce our CO2 emissions and take remedial action on the environment.

Some of these issues, such as overfishing, are clear and the answers to them relatively straightforward although they appear to be politically difficult.

Excerpt:

As the debt crisis drains the purses of European countries, EU members are trying to alleviate the economic downturn, in part with the aid of Chinese investments.

For European politicians and economic leaders, Christmas appeared to arrive early this year. In the role of Santa Claus is Wen Jiabao, Premier of the People’s Republic of China, bearing possibilities of multi-billion-dollar trade agreements and deals.

Europe is China’s largest trade partner, so it was not for nothing that Wen returned to the continent last month to visit Hungary, Germany and Britain only months after he visited France, Portugal and Spain.

A policy brief by the think tank European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) analyses the challenges accompanying the Chinese “Scramble for Europe”. IPS was given access to the brief, to be released Monday.

“A kind of ‘scramble for Europe’ is now taking place as China purchases European government debt, invests in European companies and exploits Europe’s open market for public procurement,” said the ECFR brief.

When Premier Wen met Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán a few days ago, 12 economic agreements were signed. According to Orbán, Chinese and Hungarian companies now have agreements on new investments in the chemical industry amounting to one billion dollars.

The bilateral trade volume should more than double between now and 2015, to reach an annual total of 20 billion dollars.

Wen said China wants Hungary to be its new “logistics platform” in Central Europe, while Orbán called China a “strategic partner” and welcomed the bonds deal as “historic aid” from China.

The next stop on the Chinese Euro-tour was the U.K, where both countries also agreed on new trade deals worth about 2.2 billion dollars. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced the U.K. wants to double trade with China to reach 100 billion dollars by 2015.

Later that same day Wen, accompanied by 13 other ministers, arrived in Germany. By the end of the visit, Germany and China concluded trade deals worth more than 15 billion dollars and cooperative agreements on research, agriculture and renewable energies.

Germany’s Federal Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said trade with China offers an “enormous chance for the German economy”.

A Continent for Sale?

China is buying up Europe. According to the ECFR policy brief, the process involves three steps. The first is the so-called “bond diplomacy”, where China purchases bonds from financially unstable European countries like Spain and Greece.

The next step is direct investment in European countries. According to the ECFR, five years ago, China’s total investment in Europe was about 1.3 billion dollars. From October 2010 to March 2011, Chinese firms and banks have committed 64 billion dollars – more than half of the total investment and trade facilitation flows in Europe since early 2008.

The third and last step is Europe’s procedure of public procurement, where European taxpayers subsidise Chinese companies entering into contracts in Europe to build roads, railroads and public buildings funded by the European Union.

In an example of “bond diplomacy”, China bought Greek bonds “as a quid pro quo for a 35-year lease on Piraeus harbour”, the report said, as well as a deal to finance the purchase of Chinese ships in June 2010.

Despite enthusiastic responses from European leaders and evidence of the positive opportunities China’s involvement in European finances offers countries, it is very difficult to say how much China actually supports Europe in its debt crisis.

After China’s announcement that it would buy Spanish bonds one month later, market confidence in Spain completely turned around, although afterwards it was estimated that China eventually bought only around 725 million dollars worth.

China also signalled to other countries – Portugal, Ireland, and again to Spain – that it would buy bonds in 2011. During his recent visit to Germany, UK and Hungary, Wen underscored that stabilising the Euro zone was “vitally important” for China.

“The Chinese Renminbi is pegged to the dollar, so they have to keep continuing buying a large amount of dollars to stabilise capital inflows,” Jonas Parello-Plesner, one of the authors of the ECFR report, told IPS.

Additional Risks

According to the German Financial Times, China has, until now, only paid around 431 million dollars to the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), created by member states of the European Union to safeguard financial stability in Europe.

But Europe does not have a system to publish aggregate or coordinated data on foreign purchasers of public debt, the way the U.S. does, for example.

According to the brief, “if the extent of Chinese purchases of European government bonds in 2010 has been overestimated… there is simply no way of knowing whether China holds 25 percent of its reserves in euros, as is often repeated in the media.”

It also warns, “The consequence of not having a common or even coordinated public borrowing policy is that member states compete against one another in securing foreign creditors.”

While Chinese companies can invest almost without limit in Europe, China’s capital market is still closed in the sectors the government considers important for its economic development strategy.

“In a nutshell, this means that China’s Geely can buy Sweden’s Volvo, but Chinese regulations block the reverse,” said the policy brief. European companies are still excluded from public procurement in China.

The report pointed out that Europe would be weakened from the inside if single member states seek immediate bargains with China and support China’s policies for short-term financial aid.

“On a range of issues from global financial reform and international governance to environmental norms and human rights, it will pay the price,” it warned.

By Verena Schälter
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 7 2011 (IPS)

The United Nations has largely overlooked the plight of indigenous peoples in developed countries, says Crystal Lee, a Native American activist from the Navajo tribe.

Crystal Lee speaks at UNICEF during the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in May. Credit: Courtesy of Crystal Lee

Many indigenous people in South America, Africa and elsewhere stand to lose their land because of land grabbing or mega development projects. Without their land, they lose their basis of existence.

In the United States, Native Americans have legal control over the lands that have been designated as reservations, but they face other entrenched socioeconomic problems.

A lack of education is one reason why poverty among indigenous people in the world’s richer countries is still very much in evidence, says Lee, who managed to escape this vicious circle through sheer determination and the support of her family.

Growing up on a reservation in the U.S. southwest, she went to Arizona State University where she graduated in communications and microbiology. After earning her master’s degree in public health from the University of Nevada, she is now working there towards a Ph.D. in public health.

Lee serves as a North American Focal Point for the United Nations Indigenous Youth Caucus, and was at the United Nations late last month to participate in the 10-day meeting of the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How would you describe your path toward becoming a well-educated Native American?

A: Where I grew up, education is not really important. A lot of my friends became pregnant during high school. But I was fortunate because my father was a real exception in our community. He is a lawyer and to him education is very important. He was one reason why I was able to go to college.

The other reason was basketball. In high school, I played basketball and got a scholarship so I could finance my study.

But even today it is sometimes really hard in school. Sometimes I still struggle with things I struggled with in the undergrad. The academic environment is completely different than everything I had before I left the reservation to go to university. This is not because of the work. It is more in terms of the belonging and the different perception of the world.

Q: What do you think are the main reasons why Native Americans often do not go to high school?

A: First of all there is the material issue. When I came to university, I realised the lack of educational resources. High schools in the reservation are very far behind. We did not even have computers at school.

But this is not the only problem. As I told you before, in my reservation people do not give weight to education.

One reason for this is that there were no role models. That means you do not really see people who are educated. To give you an example, all the doctors and teachers were white. So I never could imagine becoming a doctor or teacher. This is the reason why I developed an online mentoring programme that is called United Natives. Therewith I want to help Native American undergrad students in every capacity.

We do also motivational speaking to younger Natives at junior high and talk to the kids about self-respect, culture and education.

Q: As a member of United Nations Indigenous Youth Caucus, you attended the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). What did you expect from it and did it live up to your expectations?

A: When I first attended the UNPFII last year, I had no clue about the process so I expected it to perform at a quicker rate. However, I currently realised it is a slow and bureaucratic process and it serves as a platform to discuss issues with no guarantee that your issues will be addressed or even supported.

I think raising awareness is needed, which the UNPFII can do. But at a community and national level it is up to us to make change happen that can be more efficient and effective versus us discussing issues. Both in combination in terms of raising awareness and implementing and applying programmes is definitely needed.

Q: Do you think there should be more support from the national and the international community, particularly the U.S. government and the United Nations?

A: I think the U.S. government should just honour all the treaties they have made. Because all of these treaties address what issues in the communities are.

The U.S. government has broken every treaty that has been made between tribal governments. It is not the fact that the U.S. government should do more, it is the fact that they should honour what was agreed upon.

The U.N. overlooks indigenous people in developed countries. They should pay more attention on this. Even in the United States of America, the living conditions for Natives are often extremely bad. Just to give you two examples. The Sioux-Tribe has one of the highest poverty rates in the world. And the Tohono O’odham-Tribe has the highest rate of diabetes in the world.

These are definitely issues the U.N. should address and not overlook.

Excerpt: