Total de visualizações de página

quarta-feira, 12 de fevereiro de 2014

SALMON ITINERANT LIFECYCLE: MORTALITY RATES INCREASING AT SEA WITH ANOMALOUS HIGH TEMPERATURES

Wild salmon starve at sea as North Atlantic warms

Chris Todd

[From The Ecologist, 8th February 2014]

The migrations of wild salmon over thousands of kilometres are an enduring mystery, writes Chris Todd - as are the reasons for a steep and alarming decline in salmon weight, fat and overall condition.

For us to effectively conserve salmon stocks for the future it is critical to fully understand why our salmon are currently suffering so, in rivers and at sea.

It is an enduring mystery how juvenile salmon, at 12cm long and weighing perhaps only 20g, can leave a Scottish river in springtime, undertake a sojourn of thousands of kilometres around the North Atlantic, and return between one and four years later to their rivers to spawn.

This is for good reason. A returning salmon, known as a grilse, will have grown 100-fold in size from the rich feeding to be found at sea.

But the journey is not without risk. Between 80-90% of grilse, and fewer still multi-winter fish, will not survive their journey.

Salmon mortality at sea has risen sharply

But the serious problems wild salmon now face at sea go beyond the hardships of their itinerant lifecycle. These have been intensively researched throughout Europe and North America, and it's clear that in recent decades salmon mortality rates at sea have increased enormously.

While possible causes include natural predation, disease and parasites, or being caught up in fishery by-catch, the truth is we just don't know.

My research, in collaboration with Marine Scotland Science, has focused not on mortality rates and population decline, but on the changes in size and quality of salmon returning to Scottish rivers over the past 50 years.

This variation seems to stem from the effects of climate change on the ocean, and theanomalously high temperatures salmon find in the North Atlantic.

And the salmon are getting smaller

In 2008 we published a study of quality, or condition factor, of adult salmon returning to Scotland between 1993-2006. This was measured by dividing the observed weight by the expected weight for a fish of that length.

The skinny fish, top, is less than its expected weight by more than a quarter (26%), while the bottom fish is illustrative of the long-term norm, being only 4% underweight for its length.

 

The plankton diet isn't working for them. Photo: Chris Todd

Some individual salmon return in spectacularly good condition, perhaps by chance finding areas of rich feeding. But far more common in recent years are less well nourished salmon showing poor growth.

Examining extensive salmon records dating back to 1963, we can see the long-term pattern.

Since 2006, condition poor and little improvement

Between 1963-1993 there was nothing unusual. During the late 1990s the average condition increased to a high in 1997, but then fell precipitously until 2006.

Salmon anglers in Scotland recall 2006 as the "year of skinny grilse" - understandably so, because that year's salmon were not only in poor condition but also unusually short.

Since 2006 the average salmon length of salmon has increased slightly but the average condition factor is consistently low, fluctuating around at least 7% below average.

The data up to 2013 show no signs of improvement. For example, between 1997-2010 the average weight of grilse returning to the River North Esk in east Scotland fell by 29% from 2.35kg to 1.67kg.

And for summer-returning salmon that stayed at sea for two winters the average has plummeted from 6.18kg to only 3.63kg.

Rising ocean temperatures and fat loss

Clearly, salmon are currently having a tough time of it at sea. Warming of the North Atlantic is exerting an indirect effect on the fish, as rising temperatures change the abundance and quality of the plankton salmon feed upon.

These major, climate-related shifts in oceanic plankton are well documented throughout the North Atlantic.

But this is more problematic still for salmon, as they stop feeding before re-entering the river and then starve themselves while swimming upstream, relying entirely on stored fats to survive the months ahead before their autumn spawning.

We've found that, at the point the re-entry to the river, the skinniest salmon, as much as a third underweight, have up to 80% less fat reserves than the norm, with obvious implications for their chance of survival and reproduction.

A dismal prospect for wild salmon

Taken together, this presents a rather dismal prospect for wild salmon. Many fish are returning smaller, skinnier and with lower fat reserves than in the past. Smaller fish produce fewer eggs, and their lack of fat reserves probably means they are of poorer quality.

The next generation of juvenile smolts that arise from spawnings migrate to sea and encounter North Atlantic waters that are persistently warmer and food-poor.

The concern is that this might comprise a downward spiral for wild salmon.

Pragmatically, there is not a great deal that fishery managers can do to alleviate the salmon's problems at sea. And in fairness salmon anglers are increasingly aware of conservation needs; catch and release is widely practiced on most salmon rivers in Scotland.

Salmon rescue starts in the river

But we can manage freshwater habitats to maximise survival and spawning success of those salmon that do return to our rivers, and of juveniles prior to their journey to sea.

As an ecologist, I am endlessly curious as to how salmon are able to migrate such distances across the ocean, with no prior experience, parental guidance or SatNav - although part of me actually hopes we never do unravel this intriguing migration mystery.

But for us to effectively conserve salmon stocks for the future it is critical to fully understand why our salmon are currently suffering so, in rivers and at sea, and to do all we can to maximise the production of juveniles.

This approach might be considered as 'lambs to the slaughter', but over millions of years salmon have survived ice ages and eras of global warming. Helping salmon populations recover naturally is clearly a better strategy than rearing them artificially.

 


Chris Todd is Professor of Marine Ecology at University of St Andrews. He receives funding from the European Commission, the Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards for Scotland, and the Fishmongers Company.

The ConversationThis article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

 


domingo, 9 de fevereiro de 2014

PREVENTION ON LEADING WITH FLOOD: IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE, EVEN IN THE "FIRST WORLD"!!!

The inconvenient truth: houses built on floodplains could flood

Karen Potter

4th February 2014

Somerset is experiencing its most significant flooding in decades. As the political right calls for ever more dredging, Karen Potter trawls Defra's archives ... and finds a shocking history of sound policy sacrificed to short term political expediency.

Ministers should be applauded for recognising that there's simply no way we could tell the thousands desperate for a decent home, that we can't build any more new homes because of concerns about flood plains.

Commentators fixate on dredging rivers, or more sustainablyplanting trees, orreintroducing beavers as the solution to prevent more homes from being flooded.

But those with longer memories may cast them back to 2007, when much of central and southwestern England was underwater from some of the worst flooding in living memory.

Communities Minister Eric Pickles might like to consider the inconvenient truth of his own words in 2007 while in opposition. Following the floods, he said in response to Labour's housing strategy that:

"if you build houses on flood plains it increases the likelihood that people will be flooded".

A flood of water and bad ideas

As the still-beleaguered residents of the Somerset levels will recall, the floods of 2007 followed the wettest May, June and July since records began in 1766.

The airwaves and newspapers were similarly awash with opinion in response to the government's ambitious plans to build 3 million new homes by 2020. Inevitably, it was said, so long as the proper defences were in place, some of these new homes would be built on floodplains.

David Orr of the National Housing Federation lavished praise on the policy on BBC News: 

"Ministers should be applauded for recognising that there's simply no way we could tell the thousands of key workers and low income families, desperate for a decent home, that we can't build any more new homes because of concerns about flood plains."

The cost - $3 billion top insurers alone

The cost of 2007's wettest-ever summer? 7,000 businesses and 48,000 homes were flooded in the South West, Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, prompting 120,000 household insurance claims, 27,000 commercial claims at a £3bn overall cost to insurers.

The subsequent inquiry led by Sir Michael Pitt published its review the following summer. It found that around 10% of properties in England were located on floodplains, with 11% of new homes since 2000 built in flood hazard areas, and 16,000 dwellings since 2006 built in high flood risk areas.

Roughly a quarter of properties flooded in summer 2007 had been built in the last 25 years. This, the review pointed out, emphasised the vital importance of strong planning controls and well-informed planning decisions.

Turquoise belts - a great idea but where are they?

Realising there needed to be a balance between development needs and flood risk, the idea of "environmental limits" was discussed within Defra.

In putting "the green back into the Green Belt" as then environment secretary David Miliband said, this stressed the importance of the ecosystems approach.

For example, planting urban woodland improves biodiversity and wildlife, provides a degree of flood control, renewable wood to offset climate change, and attractive environments for exercise and recreation.

Strips of planted green space alongside city river banks are cheaper than expensive concrete barriers, and provide a fall-back area, a 'turquoise belt', that could be flooded without great risk or expense, and also provide for leisure and biodiversity at the same time.

Recommendations made

Of the 90 recommendations in Pitt's review, two clearly stated there should be a presumption against building in high risk areas. This was in accordance with the government's planning policy on flood risk, known as PPS25.

The review also called for the effectiveness of PPS25 and the Environment Agency's powers to challenge development to be kept under review, and strengthened if necessary.

Another recommendation stated that Defra, the Environment Agency, and Natural England should establish through Catchment Flood Management Plans a programme that would find a way of working with, rather than against, natural processes.

No backsliding? If only ...

These approaches, which included setting back river defences and relocating buildings if necessary, were considered particularly important in the face of the predicted increase in river flow levels.

Flood risk had to be managed co-operatively between local authorities, the Environment Agency and developers, in a more sustainable way and also as a means to provide more attractive places to live.

Newspaper editorials at the time called for there to be "no backsliding on commitments to be better prepared in future" and that there should be "no cherry-picking of the Pitt recommendations for quick political gain in the run-up to a general election."

Recommendations ignored

But a general election later, in 2012, prime minister David Cameron is pledging to "cut through the dither" that is holding Britain in "paralysis".

Moreover he has brought forward by contentious measures to relax rules on planning applications with an eye to boosting growth, and providing 75,000 new homes.

The National Planning Policy Framework is proclaimed "simple", and had reduced planning policy from more than 1,000 pages to under 100 - said to pave the way for swifter, clearer decisions.

Not such good news for the insurers

Otto Thoresen, director-general of the The Association of British Insurers, expressed immediate concern that the framework could lead to greater inappropriate development in flood risk areas, something that the current "rigorous planning system" was a bulwark against.

The result, he predicted, would not be the "stimulation of the economy", but "misery for people when their homes are flooded".

The National Flood Forum's chairman, Charles Tucker, similarly argued that the new framework "has, at a stroke, scrapped the carefully constructed raft of technical guidance, context and definitions built up over years" for flood protection.

Dredging - the fixation continues

Dredging as a solution was raised following the Cumbria floods of 2009, to whichProfessor Colin Thorne, fluvial geomorphologist at the University of Nottingham, responded that floods caused by a huge amounts of rainfall cannot be entirely prevented.

Constantly dredging rivers and clearing vegetation to do so would be unsustainably expensive, financially, socially and in terms of biodiversity and habitat loss.

It is clear to see, reflecting back on the floods of 2007 (and those in 2005 and 2009), the lack of integration and disjointed policy across the two central government departments has still not been resolved seven years later.

The fixation with dredging continues, and David Cameron has called for dredging to startas soon as possible, reversing previous statements that it would be little help.

The answer lies in the archives

Perhaps instead if the media turned their attention to dredging the Defra archives, they'd find the 'inconvenient truth' of floodplain development - that houses built on floodplains could flood - a truth currently lying buried in the sediments of their own filing cabinets.

 


 

Karen Potter is a Lecturer in Planning at University of Liverpool. She receives funding from the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), Welsh Government and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 

Previous Articles...

quinta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2014

"GMO" INTENDED TO REDUCE THE USE OF PESTICIDES... IT IS NOT HAPPENING EXACTLY THIS!!!

GM crops are driving genocide and ecocide - keep them out of the EU!

[Reproduced from The Ecologist]




Helena Paul

5th February 2014

The unfolding human and ecological disaster of GM agriculture in the Americas must send the EU a powerful message, writes Helena Paul. We don't want it here, and we should stop buying the products of GM-driven genocide and ecocide abroad.

Repression and displacement, often violent, of remaining rural populations, illness, falling local food production have all featured in this picture.

We currently face a desperate, almost farcical push for GM crops in the UK and Europe, characterised by hyperbolic and inaccurate claims.

So rather than taking those claims on trust, let's look at the impacts of GM crops in countries that have adopted them. That means North and South America, where GM crops were first launched in 1996.

Argentina and Paraguay

The cultivation of herbicide tolerant crops in Argentina began in 1996 with GM soya and spread swiftly through the country. As Argentina's Grupo Reflexion Rural (GRR) wrote to the Vatican in April 2013, 

"The model was based on the political decision that Argentina, which had once been the grain basket of the world and a producer of healthy and high-quality foods, would be transformed into a producer of animal forage, firstly, to provide fodder for European livestock, and then for livestock in China."

At first, herbicide tolerant crops seemed to simplify the farming process, especially for larger mechanised farms. Instead of skillful weed management, farmers applied large quantities of the herbicide glyphosate, mainly from the air.

Small farmers driven to the slums

Powerful groups of investors helped drive GM soya production. Small farmers could not compete and many have left or been driven off their land, often into urban slums.

People who remain in the countryside and small towns find themselves bombarded from the air with increasingly complex mixtures of chemicals intended to combat the problem of increasing weed and pest resistance.

Although GM crops were promoted as a means to reduce levels of pesticides used, pesticide use in Argentina has increased massively"from nine million gallons (34 million litres) in 1990 to more than 84 million gallons (317 million litres) today".

Stillbirths and birth defects

In 2010, following years of mounting harm and protests, the Faculty of Medical Sciences from the National University of Córdoba called a first meeting for doctors working in the crop-sprayed towns in several provinces of Argentina.

"The physicians stressed that they have been serving the same populations, in general, for over 25 years, but what they found in recent years was quite unusual and strictly linked to systemic sprayings of pesticides.

"For example, Dr. Rodolfo Páramo, a paediatrician and neonatologist at the public hospital of Malabrigo, a Northern city in Santa Fe, highlighted the alarm he experienced when he found 12 cases of birth defects in newborns, out of 200 births per year in 2006.

"This situation is analogous with the four cases of stillbirths due to birth defects in the small town of Rosario del Tala, in Entre Ríos, both areas characterised by massive pesticide spraying."

The evidence is building

Since that meeting, reports of illness caused by agrochemicals have continued to accumulate, along with evidence of failure to apply any rules about spraying, or to inform people about the dangers.

Meanwhile GM crops continue to expand in Argentina, covering around 24 million hectares, some two thirds of the total arable land available, according to GRR in this document. Paraguay has suffered similarly devastating impacts, starting a little later than Argentina.

Repression and displacement, often violent, of remaining rural populations, illness, falling local food production have all featured in this picture.

Indigenous communities have been displaced and reduced to living on the capital's rubbish dumps. This is a crime that we can rightly call genocide - the extinguishment of entire Peoples, their culture, their way of life and their environment.

Forest loss in Argentina and Paraguay

Paraguay has lost nearly a million hectares and Argentina nearly two million hectares of forest since 2004 alone, with GM soya considered to be a major driver.

The impacts include biodiversity loss, including many species found nowhere else, and displacement of indigenous peoples, some not previously contacted, plus impacts on soils and water, regional and local climate change and changes in rainfall.

This is shortsighted destruction driven by short-term profits. And it is criminal - ecocide and genocide rolled into one.

Brazil - the world's largest agrochemical user

Brazil, Uruguay and Bolivia have also been affected by the spread of GM soya. A Brazilian agronomist, Leonardo Melgarejo, who represents the Ministry of Agrarian Development at the country's GMO regulatory body, says that GM crops are weakening the social fabric that is essential if people are to be able to flourish in rural areas.

He also notes that Brazil, where GM crops are grown on 36 million hectares, has become the largest user of agrochemicals in the world. [Google translation into English]

It is leading to a vicious cycle of weed resistance requiring the use of ever more, and more toxic, herbicides. To address this, Brazil is now considering the introduction of a GM crop that tolerates 2,4-D (see below).

The US - more of the same

Here, 'RoundUp Ready' crops - resistant to Monsanto's proprietary herbicide based on glyphosate - were rapidly adopted because they provided farmers a "simple, flexible, and forgiving weed management system", as Charles Benbrook reports in 'Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US - the first sixteen years'.

As a result, herbicide use increased in the US by an estimated 239 million kilograms between 1996-2011, "with HR [herbicide resistant] soybeans accounting for 70% of the total increase across the three HR crops". That is, soya, maize, and oilseed rape/canola."Rising reliance on glyphosate accounted for most of this increase."

Gradually news of the appearance of several different kinds of weed resistant to glyphosate began to emerge, increasing year on year until now some 20-25 million hectares may be affected.

The response has been to use older and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D in tank mixes of agrotoxics and to develop new 'stacked' GM seeds with several traits for resistance to different herbicides.

Proposing 2,4-D resistant crops, 'stacked' crops and more

Generally known as '2,4-D', 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid was discovered through research during World War Two to identify biological warfare agents for destroying crops and first marketed in 1944 by Dow Chemical.

It was widely used in Vietnam as a component of the defoliant Agent Orange. Now Dow Agrosciences seeks to release genetically engineered soybean and corn resistant to 2,4-D in Brazil, Argentina and the US. 

Dow's proposed crops are stacked with traits for resistance to other herbicides as well, including glufosinate and glyphosate.

Hardly surprising perhaps, considering that there are already weeds in the US that are resistant to 2,4-D.

Increases in herbicide volumes

Monsanto is also producing genetically engineered seed stacked with multiple traits, notably resistance to the herbicides dicamba and glufosinate.

It is estimated that releasing the 2,4-D products could increase the volume of herbicidesprayed, possibly by up to by 50%, and 2,4-D has negative impacts on crops, ecosystems, animals and people.

The same is true of dicamba. Both are also implicated in the growing number of cases of pesticide drift and destruction of other farmers' crops.

Why should Europe want to repeat the experience?

Faced with this accumulating evidence of severe harm, Europe has been wise to resist the pressure to adopt GM crops for cultivation except for a GM maize mainly grown in Spain.

In the face of the evidence from countries with experience of these crops, and their associated cocktails of agrotoxics, why should Europe be forced to consider another GM crop for cultivation?

But Europe should go further. The soya boom is driven by markets for animal feed, in the form of soya meal or cake, and biodiesel from soya oil. Vast quantities of both are imported into Europe, makiing it a major driver of South America's unfolding GM disaster.

The EU should surely stop importing GM animal feeds and oils from North and South America. 

Europe: for a rich and varied GM-free agriculture

Indeed Europe should change its whole approach to livestock and crop production to address human health impacts, biodiversity loss and climate change.

Far from being a "museum of world farming" as the UK's current environment minister, Owen Paterson, likes to claim, Europe could show the way to a rich and varied GM free agriculture that provides nutritious, healthy food and jobs.

It would at the same time address the profound degradation of soils and accelerating biodiversity loss, caused to a great extent by the industrial model of agriculture to which genetically engineered crops belong.

 


 

Helena Paul has worked for 25 years on issues including indigenous peoples' rights and tropical forests; oil exploitation in the tropics; biodiversity, including agricultural biodiversity; patents on life and genetic engineering (GE); and corporate power. She helped co-found GM Freeze and Genetic Engineering Network in 1999 and has been chair of the former ever since.

She has co-authored a number of papers on agriculture, climate change and biodiversity, and the book Hungry Corporations: Transnational Biotech Companies Colonise the Food Chain (Helena Paul and Ricarda Steinbrecher, Zed Books 2003).

This article is an extract from an essay written for a book of essays: The Chains of War - nuclear weapons, militarisation and their impact on society, edited by Angie Zelter, to be published by Luath in Spring 2014.

 

 

segunda-feira, 3 de fevereiro de 2014

NEW SPECIMENS OF GOLDEN LION TAMARIN FOUND IN ANGRA DOS REIS, RIO DE JANEIRO STATE


[Reported by  Sul do Rio e Costa Verde]


A large amount of golden lion tamarins were found on Thursday (30), on an island in the Bay of Ilha Grande, in Angra dos Reis, Costa Verde in Rio de Janeiro. The discovery was made during operation of State Environmental Institute (Inea). The goal was to preserve the species, which is threatened with extinction.

For safety reasons and to avoid the presence of onlookers, the local name cannot be revealed. In just over 10 minutes walk in the bush the team managed to get close to the animals. The experts used food to lure the Golden monkeys. The visit served to identify the species  with precision.

"The idea is to catch these animals, take them to the Centre of Primatology to do a full battery of tests from the point of view of health and also the genetic issue. Then, we will give a referral",  explained the Director of the Centre of Primatology of Inea, Alcides Pissinatti.

SOYA MORATORIUM: THE AMAZON WITHOUT DEFORESTATION (?)

Brazil extends Amazon protection from soy farms

[Reproduced from The Ecologist]

3rd January 2014

Amazon threat from soybean expansion delayed for a year - but 8 million hectares of unprotected forest at risk from 2015 pending new measures.

Over 8 million hectares are covered by forested lands suitable for soya cultivation, and lack any official protection.

A landmark moratorium on Brazilian soya that was set to end on the last day of February has been renewed for one last year. The initiative prevents major traders selling soya that may be linked to deforestation in the Amazon, which has recently been increasing.

The extension of the moratorium comes just a couple of months after the Brazilian government announced a 28% increase in Amazon deforestation rates.

This was the first official data on Amazon deforestation to come to light since Brazil controversially changed the Forest Code in 2012. This move, backed by the country's powerful farmers' lobby, weakened legislation on forest conservation and land use.

Sanity prevails - for now

Paulo Adario, Senior Forest Advisor for Greenpeace International tentatively welcomed today's decision:

"By agreeing to extend the Soya Moratorium, traders are responding to their customers' demands for Brazilian soya without deforestation, as well as listening to the Brazilian government and civil society.

"Although they have committed to keep the upcoming soya harvest free from Amazon deforestation, the challenges ahead remain enormous as long term protection is still to be secured."

8 million hectares of forest at risk

The Soya Moratorium monitors 62 municipalities responsible for almost all of the soya produced in the Amazon. In this immense region, over 8 million hectares are covered by forested lands suitable for soya cultivation, and lack any official protection.

The moratorium has been keeping bulldozers away from here - an area three times the size of Belgium.

Central to Brazil's amended Forest Code is the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), which is still being developed. Fast-tracking this registration of rural properties is essential for bringing further governance to the Amazon and monitoring those responsible for deforestation.

The Soya Working Group (GTS) has agreed to design a mechanism to replace the moratorium once it expires. This is to be developed and tested over 2014 and will be focussed on the implementation of the Federal CAR (SiCAR).

Negotiations now under way will be critical

"Deforestation on the rise again and new soya export infrastructure is in the pipeline at the heart of the Amazon, so the discussions ahead are critical", said Adario.

"Today is the start of those negotiations. Only the talks - and the actual steps taken - over the next year will define how seriously the soya traders take their industry and clients. A new agreement must be even more robust than the current moratorium"

Greenpeace will continue to work to end deforestation as it strives to prevent catastrophic climate change - the two major threats to the planet's largest remaining rainforest.

Soya traders seeking solutions

In 2006 ABIOVE (Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industry) and ANEC (National Association of Cereals Exporters) announced a two-year moratorium on buying soya from newly deforested areas in the Amazon or from farmers using indentured or forced labourers.

ABIOVE and ANEC members, including major commodities giants Cargill, Bunge, ADM, Dreyfus and the Brazilian-based Ammagi are responsible for more than 90% of the Brazilian soya trade.

A Soya Working Group (GTS) including ABIOVE, ANEC, soya traders, NGOs and social organisations was also established in October 2006 to ensure the implementation of the moratorium. 

Big retailers pressure decisive

The moratorium has been renewed regularly since 2006, but doubts emerged over the latest renewal which has just taken place.

A European alliance of soya consumer companies called for the extension of the moratorium beyond January 2014 and were prepared to renew their commitment to remaining actively engaged in the GTS.

Led by McDonald's, the group also includes Carrefour, Nestle, Tesco, Ahold, Marks & Spencer, Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Asda.

The moratorium has helped - but not enough

The Soya Moratorium has helped reduce deforestation in the Amazon. Since 2006, over 700,000 hectares of forest has been cleared in the 62 soya-producing municipalities covered by the moratorium, which account for 97% of soya grown within the Amazon ecosystem.

Only 4% of the 700,000 hectares of labd cleared after 2006 were planted with soya in the soya planting season of 2012-13.

 

 

domingo, 2 de fevereiro de 2014

FEBRUARY 2nd: WORLD WETLAND DAY

[Reproduced from UNEP]

World Wetlands Day 2014: Wetlands and agriculture

2 February each year is World Wetlands Day, the Convention's annual campaign day.



Available materials:
Poster and stickerLeafletComic StripGamePowerPoint and PreziVine video competition;Reports of activities


Download the poster's low resolution [3.6 MB]
and print-ready [14.5 MB] files
Also available as a sticker [2 MB]

2014 is the UN International Year of Family Farming – so the Ramsar Convention chose Wetlands & Agriculture as the World Wetlands Day theme for 2014. And what a great theme for Ramsar, given that wetlands are so often intimately linked with agriculture. Our slogan? Wetlands and Agriculture: Partners for Growth, placing a focus on the need for the wetland and agricultural sectors (and the water sector too of course) to work together for the best shared outcomes.

Wetlands have often been seen as a barrier to agriculture, and they continue to be drained and reclaimed to make farming land available. But the essential role of wetlands in support of agriculture is becoming clearer and clearer, and there are successful agricultural practices which support healthy wetlands.




We hope these materials will help you to focus on wetlands and agriculture in your international, national or local situation and launch your own World Wetlands Day campaign.

This leaflet looks at different types and scales of agriculture, at the impacts of agriculture on wetlands, and at some of the successful methods used to reduce the negative impacts, sustain wetland health, and restore degraded wetlands in agricultural landscapes.