Partenariat Lever - SOS Loire vivante
pour la protecion du saumon et la qualité de l'eau
En 1998, LEVER France et SOS Loire Vivante ont signé un accord de
coopération sur plusieurs années pour agir en faveur de la protection
de l'environnement. Ce partenariat est notamment axé sur l'amélioration
de la qualité de l'eau et de la sauvegarde du saumon atlantique.
Cette convention prévoit en particulier un soutien financier de LEVER
en faveur de la campagne " Sauvons le Saumon " qui consiste à :
- A développer une campagne d'information et de sensibilisation
sur le thème du saumon et de sa sauvegarde.
- A renforcer nos actions visant à rendre accessible aux saumons les
frayères de la Loire et de ses affluents.
- A effectuer des études scientifiques pour déterminer les sites potentiels
de reproductions de saumons.
- A acquérir ces frayères et les berges adjacentes.
Pour plus d'information sur le partenariat
Pour plus d'information sur le groupe LEVER:
http://www.skip.tm.fr (en français) ou
http://www.unilever.com (en anglais).
LEVER - SOS LOIRE VIVANTE : A partnership
for the consevation of the salmon and the improvement of water quality
In 1998, LEVER and SOS LOIRE VIVANTE have concluded an agreement
on a long-term cooperation concerning nature conservation. The main
goals of this partnership are the improvement of water quality and
the conservation of the atlantic Salmon.
The agreement is particulary consisting in a LEVER financial support
of the " Save the Salmon " campaign led by SOS Loire Vivante which
aims at :
- Developing an information campaign to grow public awareness.
- Carrying out scientific studies to determine potential reproduction
areas for salmons.
- Purchasing these spawning grounds and the adjacent banks.
- Reinforcing our actions aimed at making spawning grounds accessible
to salmons.
For more Information on the cooperation
For further information on LEVER :
http://www.unilever.com or
http://www.skip.tm.fr (in french)
SOS LOIRE VIVANTE und LEVER - Die Partnerschaft
für Wasserqualität und den Schutz des Lachses
Im Jahr 1998 haben LEVER France und SOS Loire Vivante eine Vereinbarung
unterzeichnet, welche die mehrjährige Zusammenarbeit im Umweltschutz
vorsieht. Diese Partnerschaft bezieht sich insbesondere auf die Verbesserung
der Wasserqualität und den Schutz des Atlantiklachses. Dieses Abkommen
sieht insbesondere die finanzielle Unterstützung der Kampagne „Rettet
den Lachs" durch LEVER vor.
Das Projekt besteht aus folgenden Punkten:
- Die Entwicklung einer Informationskampagne und die Bewußtmachung
des Themas Lachs und der Erhaltung seiner Art.
- Die Unterstützung unserer Bestrebungen, dem Lachs seine Laichgründe
in der Loire und ihren Nebenflüssen zugänglich zu machen.
- Die Erstellung wissenschaftlicher Studien zur Ermittlung potentieller
Laichplätze des Lachses.
- Der Erwerb der ermittelten Laichgründe und der benachbarten Ufer.
Mehr Infos zur Kooperation
Weitere Informationen zur LEVER-Gruppe unter:
http://www.skip.tm.fr (in französischer
Sprache) oder
http://www.unilever.com (in englischer Sprache).
13.09.00 : ADFG worries about
farm fish in wild, GMO Salomon ready for sale,teach-in planned for
Seattle
The Associated Press reported on 28 August that the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADFG) is raising concerns about
the possible impact escaped Atlantic salmon from British Columbia
aquaculture operations will have on native Alaska stocks. To date,
commercial fishermen in Southeast Alaska have caught more than 20
Atlantic salmon, raising concerns that the farmed salmon will spread
disease to wild species. All the Atlantic salmon were caught south
of Ketchikan. Last week, Canadian gillnetters caught thousands of
Atlantics during a sockeye opening following a massive escape of the
farmed fish off Johnston Strait (see Sublegals 2:08/03, 2:07/09).
The Atlantic salmon pose a threat to Pacific salmon because of competition
for food in the open ocean, and they also carry a threat of disease
from viruses and external parasites. It was once believed that Atlantic
salmon would not venture into freshwater, but several pen-reared salmon
have been found in fresh water streams. In 1998, an Atlantic salmon
was recovered north of Ketchikan at Ward Creek. The Atlantic salmon
was sexually mature and had a mate that eluded capture. On 25 August,
National Fisherman reported Massachusetts-based A/F Protein, an international
biotech corporation, is close to presenting a farm-raised product
that could wind up in supermarket seafood cases in the near future,
as well as in the wild if the fish escape their net pens like other
farmed salmon have done. A/F Protein developed a genetically modified
strain of Atlantic salmon that, as the result of an introduction of
a gene that promotes growth year round, can reach market size in 18
months. Currently, it takes three years to raise a typical Atlantic
salmon. The company says it has orders for 15 million eggs it has
been raising on Canada's Prince Edward Island. The transgenic or "GMO"
(Genetically Modified Organism) fish still need to get government
approval before they can reach U.S. supermarkets. Currently, a White
House panel is attempting to decide which federal agency should have
jurisdiction over the concept of genetically modified fish; the Food
& Drug Administration (FDA), NMFS or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
For more information visit National Fisherman's website
at: http://www.nationalfisherman.com/ondeck/news/news.html .
A teach-in, meanwhile, is scheduled for Wednesday,
13 September, in Seattle, titled "Genetically Engineered Salmon --
Threatening Our Oceans, Fisheries and Food Supply." The session is
in response to the U.S. Government's pending action to grant the world's
first commercial permit for transgenic salmon and is intended to inform
fishermen, conservation groups and the public about the risks and
what actions they can take. The teach-in will be held at the Pike
Street Market, Atrium Room, Suite 307, at 1900 HRS on the 13th.
For more information, contact Kimberly Wilson at:
kimberly.wilson@sfo.greenpeace.org
13.09.00 : California
dam fixing and removal bill
While the City of Seattle was endorsing the removal
of the four lower Snake River dams, the California Legislature sat
on SB 1540 by State Senator Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) that would have
established a state program to study and recommend dams for removal
or fixing (see Sublegals 9 Jun 00, 31 Mar 00, 18 Feb 00). Even after
all significant opposition to SB 1540 was effectively neutralized
by a series of compromises made with critics, the bill died in the
final hours of the 1999-2000 Legislative session Thursday night. The
measure apparently fell victim to backroom political infighting that
had nothing to do with the bill itself, and was held without a vote
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 1540, introduced as the River Restoration & Dam
Study Act and renamed the Marc Reisner Memorial River Restoration
Act of 2000, sought to compile a statewide inventory of dams, and
study which could be modified or removed without a loss of essential
benefits in order to revive fisheries threatened with extinction.
It was sponsored by Friends of the River, the South Yuba River Citizen's
League, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA). The deadline for bills to pass out of the Legislature and
move to the Governor's desk was Thursday at midnight. Significantly,
in the later hours of the session, Governor Gray Davis' office stepped
in and supported the bill.
For more information on the bill contact Kathie Schmiechen
at: kathie@friendsoftheriver.org.
13.09.00
: City of Seattle endorses snake dam removal
REMOVAL:
On 21 August, the City of Seattle voted unanimously to support bypassing
the four lower Snake River dams as a necessary and scientifically
credible step in salmon recovery efforts in the Columbia, noting that
the minor loss of energy could be replaced by renewable energy and
conservation. Seattle is not only the most populous city in the Northwest,
but owns and manages the region's largest public utility (Seattle
City Light), and is therefore a major player in the Northwest energy
debate, including the fate of salmon regionally. The measure is Resolution
30230. For more information see: http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/dam242.shtml.
Text of the official Resolution is available via: http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~public/whatsnew.htm
under the key words "Snake River."
11.09.00 : USA
: Governors Demand Back-to-Nature Salmon Plan and Council Obliges
In 1980, Congress punted fish and wildlife management
questions raised by operation of dams in the Columbia River Basin
to the Northwest Power Planning Council, a four-state interstate compact
formed by Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho. Congress charged
the Council to develop a fish and wildlife program consisting of specific
"measures to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected
by the development, operation and management" of hydroelectric projects
on the Columbia River and its tributaries, and declared that federal
agencies should follow the Council's program.
On August 18, 2000, the Council released its latest
draft fish and wildlife program, an amazing document that evidences
the final collapse of empirical science in the Region's planning efforts
for salmon. In place of biology, the Council adopts the emerging religion
that treats undisturbed Nature as the highest good, and its Holy Trinity:
more flow, more spill, and less transportation of salmon. The document
also represents a twisted sort of perfection in ultimate salmon process
and planning, in that it contains essentially no specific measures
with any concrete effects on fish and wildlife. It is best understood
as a spiritual document.
The Governors of Oregon, Idaho, Washington and Montana
propelled the Council down this path when they issued formal recommendations
to the Council in July. According to the Governors, "we prefer to
benefit salmon through strategies and actions that emphasize and build
upon natural processes". According to the Governors, this is "an important
policy decision that will . . . clarify the region's choice of strategies
and allow us to make most effective use of our finite financial resources".
The Governors are half right. The "back to Nature" strategy for salmon
recovery is an enormously important policy choice. It is a policy
choice so important that no one dares put it to a vote of the people,
because it would likely fail. Ordinary citizens would recognize that
the Governors are dead wrong: you can't "make most effective use of
our finite financial resources" by committing the Region to restoring
a state of Nature in the Northwest. But the Council has responded
to its masters (Council members are appointed by the Governors) with
what they want: the overarching strategy of this new fish and wildlife
plan is to "provide conditions in the hydrosystem for adult and juvenile
fish that most closely approximate natural physical and biological
conditions".
The Religious Commitment to More Spill Front and center
among the Council's recommendations is the idea that spill, wasting
the power of the Columbia by spilling it over the top of the dams,
"should be the baseline against which to measure the effectiveness
of other passage methods" for salmon. If the Council had any interest
in discharging its duties under law, it would recognize that the only
sensible baseline against which to measure efforts to mitigate the
effects of the dams is survival without the dams. But, as NMFS' recent
biological opinion demonstrates, survival through the dams (with transportation)
is already as high, if not higher, than a natural river.
An unbiased examination of the facts would suggest
that dam operators have nothing left to mitigate, as they are not
only producing very high survivals for migrating salmon, but also
mitigating lost habitat from upriver dams through hatchery programs.
Recognizing this, of course, would leave the Council with no mission,
other than the other task at which it fails miserably: power planning.
When Congress passed the Northwest Power Act, the
principal sponsor of the fish and wildlife provisions warned that
"the bill cannot and should not undo the power developments of the
past. Power and fish and wildlife can and should be compatible." Thus
Congress decreed that the Council use least cost fish and wildlife
measures, and directed the Council to assure that its fish and wildlife
program assured "the Pacific Northwest an adequate, efficient, economical
and reliable power supply".
Right now, energy-dependent Northwest industries are
closing their doors, and electricity prices are at all-time highs.
The Council's new program declares that this is not a problem: so
long as hydropower marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration
is cheaper than California electricity, the power is "economical".
And as long as we can keep the lights on by shutting down industry,
the power supply is "adequate" and "reliable". The statutory command
for "efficiency", put in question by wasting much of the power in
the river by spilling it over the top of the dams, is not discussed.
Since spill costs can exceed $2 million a fish, spill is obviously
not a "least cost" measure. But because there are no specific measures
in the plan, only aspirational statements in favor of spill, the Council
can duck the question of whether it has put "least cost" measures
in its plans.
The Religious Commitment to More Flow
According to the Governors, "stream and river reaches
throughout the Columbia River Basin have flow and water quality problems
that impede regional fish recovery efforts". What this really means
is that the Fish Recovery Empire has established impossible standards
(e.g., high-flowing cold rivers in August) that can never be met,
so that there are always more problems for Government to solve. The
Governors declare that "flow management in the Columbia and Snake
mainstems should continue"; perhaps recognizing the total failure
of proof of any benefits, they declare that "federal agencies must
document the benefits of flow augmentation". This is classic government
science: announce the conclusion and demand that the bureaucrats create
evidence to support it.
The Council members have hastened to oblige their
masters, adopting the back-to-Nature strategy of flow management so
that "patterns of flow tend more than at present toward the natural
hydrographic pattern". In a natural system, some of the highest salmon
mortality rates known come from spring floods washing out salmon redds
(nests); rivers regulated to avoid this phenomenon, like the Hanford
reach, show higher-than-natural returns. It's not about the fish.
The Religious Attack on Transportation
The Governors are forced to acknowledge what they
call "survival benefits from continuing to use fish transportation
as a transitional strategy". Thus a call to the Faith: "when [not
if] ongoing research affirms that survival of listed salmon populations
would increase from migration in an improved river environment, an
increasing number of juvenile salmon should then be allowed to migrate
inriver". Note that the Governors dare not acknowledge the inevitable
truth: transportation will always provide higher survival because
it enables the fish to avoid natural predators as well as dam-caused
mortality. Again, it's not about what's best for the fish: so long
as river conditions are good enough to improve populations, the Governors
say that the fish should be removed from barges even if the barges
would provide a higher survival rate.
The Council once again adopts the exact position demanded
by the Governors. One wonders why the Council even bothers to solicit
public comment on its fish and wildlife plans. Like every other salmon
recovery process I know of, public participation in the Council's
efforts is no more than a cruel charade that diverts citizens from
taking real action to promote salmon recovery.
The Irrelevancy of the Council
If the Governors had any interest in defending the
sovereign authority of their States, rather than kissing up to the
Empire, they would instruct the Council to challenge the abusive and
ever-increasing authority asserted by the federal government under
the Endangered Species Act. Instead, Council declares that the feds,
"acting under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, will be
prescribing detailed conditions for the improvement and operation
of the hydrosystem . . . Thus, this program does not contain specific
operating conditions . . ." The Council is an interstate compact created
precisely to control federal authority, but this Council has abandoned
that function.
Like the bully who collapses in the face of a courageous
opponent, and finds a weaker one to pick on, the Council shirks confrontation
with the feds and reaches downward to usurp state and local planning
authority through the primary innovation in this fish and wildlife
program: "subbasin planning". The Council announces yet another huge
and cumbersome process that will fool hundreds of localities throughout
the Pacific Northwest into believing that they might influence the
Empire's heavy hand upon their citizens, only to discover that "the
Council will require that subbasin plans demonstrate their relationship
to [Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act] requirements". In
the end, only what the Empire demands will matter.
Conclusion
Communist-style central planning never works. But
as long as the citizens of the Pacific Northwest continue to elect
the politicians who promote it, the Council will continue to produce
reams of planning documents that metastasize into abusive assertions
of authority by federal officials and their state and local quislings.
© James Buchal, September 7, 2000 http://www.buchal.com/
11.09.00
: Small Norway hydropower plan faces big opposition
NORWAY: September 8, 2000
OSLO - Norway's state utility Statkraft said yesterday
a political struggle over its plan to build a relatively small hydropower
plant in northern Norway could pose new problems, although work has
not yet been delayed.
Statkraft spokesman Bjoernar Olsen told Reuters the
situation was "not unproblematic" for its 66 megawatt hydroelectric
power station in the Beiarn watershed on the cusp of Saltfjellet-Svartisen
national park. Statkraft first received a required concession for
a wider-scale project in 1989 but had agreed to reduce it for both
financial and environmental reasons. The revised plan was approved
by authorities in May 2000. But a majority in parliament and environmentalists
still oppose the plan, demanding a new impact study be conducted for
its potential threat to food supply for reindeer and wild salmon in
the watercourse.
Due to sustained political pressure, Oil and Energy
Minister Olav Akselsen said he would try to resolve the conflict within
two weeks, Norwegian daily Aftenposten reported yesterday.
"I want to find a solution together with the parliament,
and we will find a solution," Akselsen said. Yet Akselsen recently
was quoted in local media stressing the difficulties of withdrawing
state-owned Statkraft's concession on the basis that existing rules
and regulations had to be upheld. Norway, which produces virtually
of its electricity from hydropower sources, has never taken back an
existing concession for this kind of energy project.
Preliminary ground work for the Beiarn project has
already started, with a timetable for completion of around three years.
The Beiarn concession further opens for two more Statkraft developments
in the area, which may also be threatened by the heated political
climate, Statkraft's Olsen said. "We sense that this might create
a precedent for the other two projects," he said.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
INTERNATIONAL NEWS 