Aggregator

By Suzy Friedman

Thanks to GPS and the Internet, many farmers have been collecting data about their farms – water usage, inputs, crop yields – for over 20 years. Only in recent years has the term “big data” taken on a new meaning, given the plethora of new tools and technologies available today to help farmers collect and analyze data on all aspects of their farm operations.

This week also marks the launch of the first-ever Big Data Roundtable Series, an annual event that brings together experts from across the agricultural arena to discuss how major retailers can leverage data to improve business sustainability, and how growers can utilize measurement tools and analyze data to use fertilizer more efficiently and save on input costs.

Here, I ask Kristin Weeks Duncanson, a crop and livestock operator and member of the AGree advisory committee, to explain the value of collecting data for farm operations and the environment and why many farmers are still hesitant to collect data.

What are the benefits of measuring farm practices with the technologies available today?

There are four major benefits for farmers who embrace the use of data tools:

1. Measurement data can help farmers better manage their operations – the more information they have, the more they can make decisions that are tailored to their farm’s specific needs.
2. The information obtained can help farmers identify efficiencies that lead to higher productivity and profitability, lower input costs, and optimized fertilizer use.
3. The more a farmer knows about his or her farm, the better their opportunities to strengthen supply chain relationships. Data help farmers eliminate volatility and risk which is beneficial not just to the grower but also to the supplier – so the supplier is more apt to work with that farmer on a long-term basis. At the same time, the data allows the producer to work with the supply chain to help companies and retailers increase the transparency of their ingredients.
4. Data collection allows for farmers to approach conservation at a landscape-scale, versus at the farm or even the county level. The more information growers have, the better the opportunities to work together with others at a watershed-scale to make informed decisions about conservation priorities.

What does big data and measurement have to do with sustainability?

While the vast majority of farmers and ranchers have done great work maintaining or increasing soil health using conservation practices alone, measurement tools will be instrumental for ensuring a sustainable farming future. In order to maintain yields and meet the food demands of a growing population while also protecting natural resources, we will need to make additional changes – and data tools can help us determine what these changes should be.

For example, we need to measure not just bushels or pounds grown but also what happened to the soil, water and air to get that production level. For example, high levels of organic matter in the soil often lead to better yields, and fertilizer optimization can improve water quality.

What kinds of data management tools are available to farmers?

Recently, one of our suppliers came to our farm offering a data measurement tool that records hundreds of data points at a premium cost, and the results can be integrated into our financial records. I think the supplier could tell by the look on my face that I was overwhelmed by how we could use and analyze that amount of information. There are only so many days in the year and so much money in the budget, but I am so excited by the limitless possibilities to analyze farm operations and improve the health of our environment.

There isn’t a week that goes by that we don’t have a new measurement or data collection tool at our disposal. Data tools are being developed at astonishing rates – and this is a great thing. These new tools provide us with a good opportunity to take a step back and examine what sustainable farming goals we want to achieve.

What are the barriers to embracing the use of measurement tools?

The number of tools and technologies available is overwhelming – this can be daunting for farmers interested in measuring farm practices. What’s really important is for growers to think about what they want to accomplish when making choices about tools and technologies. Measurements can certainly add to productivity and efficiency, but growers need to think critically through which tools can help them achieve particular outcomes. Then, tools and measurements can be matched to help meet environmental and business outcomes.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Chandler Von Schroeder for Green Diva’s:

Who doesn’t want to keep warm in the winter?

You may have heard the words “polar vortex” coming from weather forecasters all over the country, and sure enough, people are now waking up to frost on the grass, ice on the windshield and boilers running full blast. Winter has officially arrived.

Heating homes takes a huge bite out of your energy bill, which is why now is the time to do the simple, easy checks to reduce energy waste, and make sure your home keeps you warm and cozy this winter.

I talked to Green Diva Meg with some ENERGY STAR tips for keeping warm and energy efficient this winter. Some tips GD Meg had never heard about! Listen to this Green Divas at Home podcast segment then read on for more information.

Insulating your attic.

First off, insulating your attic is a great way to reduce energy use, lower utility bills and increase comfort in the winter. So ENERGY STAR has some great tips on how to check your insulation level today, to see if you have enough insulation. Not sure how? Just Rule Your Attic! Here are the basic steps:

1. Grab a tape measure or ruler and a flashlight. (You can also bring your cell phone.)
2. Carefully climb up your attic stairs or ladder and raise the attic hatch or door.
3. Reach out and stick the ruler into the insulation and measure the depth in inches. Jot down the number or take a picture with your cell phone to record the measurement.

Then, check the national map and find out whether you fall below the recommended levels of insulation. If your levels are good, relax and have a cup of hot cider. If you’re below the recommended levels, don’t sweat it. It’s not too late to make an improvement and lower your annual energy bills by up to 10 percent by sealing air leaks and adding insulation to your home.

Check out these ENERGY STAR tips to help you lower your energy bills and increase comfort for this winter:

1. Keep the cold out and the warm in — Seal up leaks with caulking and weather stripping
2. Heat your home efficiently — Maintain your HVAC system by cleaning your air filter and sealing and insulating ducts
3. Program for savings — Use a programmable thermostat
4. Make “bright” choices for lighting—ENERGY STAR certified LED blubs deliver the energy efficiency and performance you expect
5. Save energy while enjoying the football season — Look for the ENERGY STAR label on electronics for the latest features and great energy efficiency

For more information, visit energystar.gov/heating.

Keeping your home warm has a big energy and environmental impact — taking up the biggest portion of your annual utility bill. Energy used in the average home results in 24,100 pounds of CO2 emissions per year, costing you more than $2,000.

So even though the weather outside may be “frightful,” rest assured that you now have everything you need to save energy and money this winter.

Chandler Von Schroeder has been in the energy efficiency industry since 1981, primarily in the Washington DC metro area. For the past 12 years Chandler has worked for EPA promoting energy efficiency best practices in the HVAC, Home Performance and Remodeling industries, was the national manager of the HPwES activities and now leads ENERGY STAR Quality Installation program.

The Green Divas share low-stress ways to live a deeper shade of green through a weekly radio show, podcasts, videos and blog posts… and now the first green and healthy living global radio network, GDGD Radio. Working with the best shows in this category and other talented partners and credible sources, the Green Divas produce and share content on a variety of topics relating to a healthy green lifestyle. Visit The Green Divas website to learn more and tune in to GDGD Radio for 24/7 programming, and get social with The Green Divas on Facebook & Twitter too!

JOIN MCAF

By Jason Mathers

Did you know that, as the energy demand for passenger vehicles declines steadily over the next 25 years, the fuel demand for commercial transportation is predicted to increase 40 percent over current levels?

That’s a difference of well over 10 million oil-equivalent barrels per day.

Most of that demand will come from heavy-duty trucks, which account for 57 percent of all logistics-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 16 percent of total corporate GHGs.

As a society, our appetite for goods of all kinds—food, electronics, apparel, housewares – is growing. As the population grows, demand grows, and so does the number of trucks on the road.

But the predicted rise in CO2 emissions from Class-8 trucks is just that.  A prediction.  One that assumes the logistics community will not take aggressive action to adopt more sustainable freight management practices.

The fact is progress can be made, and is being made.  Companies are recognizing the enormous potential of greener freight strategies to reduce GHGs and, at the same time, drive down costs.  And it’s this marriage of business and environmental benefits that’s driving even the most bottom-line oriented companies to think green when it comes to shipping their products to market.

What are these companies doing to become greener, AND more profitable?  Many of these success stories are documented in EDF’s Green Freight Handbook.  Download the Handbook for a practical guide to the strategies companies are using to cinch their GHG waistline, and their freight budget. The handbook includes some practical tools for assessing strategies and calculating freight emissions, as well as advice from some of the world’s top green freight practitioners.

Compelling scientific assessments of climate change make it clear that society must dramatically cut greenhouse gases.  Logistics and transportation professionals can play a critical role in addressing this global imperative and reducing freight’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Has your company’s logistics operation made greener freight practices and CO2 emissions reduction a priority? If not, there’s a good chance your competitors have, and are reaping the financial benefits as a result.

Go ahead, make a resolution.  Start your green freight journey today.

Did you know that, as the energy demand for passenger vehicles declines steadily over the next 25 years, the fuel demand for commercial transportation is predicted to increase 40 percent over current levels?

That’s a difference of well over 10 million oil-equivalent barrels per day.

Most of that demand will come from heavy-duty trucks, which account for 57 percent of all logistics-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and 16 percent of total corporate GHGs.

As a society, our appetite for goods of all kinds—food, electronics, apparel, housewares – is growing. As the population grows, demand grows, and so does the number of trucks on the road.

But the predicted rise in CO2 emissions from Class-8 trucks is just that.  A prediction.  One that assumes the logistics community will not take aggressive action to adopt more sustainable freight management practices.

The fact is progress can be made, and is being made.  Companies are recognizing the enormous potential of greener freight strategies to reduce GHGs and, at the same time, drive down costs.  And it’s this marriage of business and environmental benefits that’s driving even the most bottom-line oriented companies to think green when it comes to shipping their products to market.

What are these companies doing to become greener, AND more profitable?  Many of these success stories are documented in EDF’s Green Freight Handbook.  Download the Handbook for a practical guide to the strategies companies are using to cinch their GHG waistline, and their freight budget. The handbook includes some practical tools for assessing strategies and calculating freight emissions, as well as advice from some of the world’s top green freight practitioners.

Compelling scientific assessments of climate change make it clear that society must dramatically cut greenhouse gases.  Logistics and transportation professionals can play a critical role in addressing this global imperative and reducing freight’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Has your company’s logistics operation made greener freight practices and CO2 emissions reduction a priority? If not, there’s a good chance your competitors have, and are reaping the financial benefits as a result.

Go ahead, make a resolution.  Start your green freight journey today.

Written by Ronnie Citron-Fink


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





I went to Washington, DC to participate in EPA’s public hearing on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. Here is the testimony I delivered:

Good afternoon, my name is Ronnie Citron-Fink. I’ve traveled from New York to speak as a mom, a teacher, and a representative for Moms Clean Air Force — a community of over 400,000 parents who believe children are the biggest stakeholders in the fight for clean air.

I meet many parents, and overwhelmingly, I hear a resounding, “Nobody wants sick kids who can’t breathe.”

When we started MCAF almost four years ago, I felt similar — I would do anything to keep my family healthy. Since then, I’ve delved deep into stacks and stacks of clean air reports, regulations, and cost analysis associated with childhood asthma, lung disease, cancer, infant mortality, and I’ve kept a close eye on the insane politics of those who seek to block clean air progress by putting powerful industry over people.

It was almost enough to leave me paralyzed with parental fear.

But knowing that our children are the human-toll of air pollution, I couldn’t ignore the science. Paul Billings, a senior vice president of the American Lung Association says, “Ozone is the most pervasive and widespread pollutant in the country,” and William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies adds, “Ozone is not only killing people, but causing tens of millions of people to get sick every day”

So what’s a parent to do?

We look to our leaders in Washington to do what’s right because, well frankly, nobody wants sick kids who can’t breathe. And when nearly one in every 10 schoolchildren in our country has asthma, we have a serious breathing problem. On the EPA website it states, “Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure.”

Not only does smog contribute heavily to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, hundreds of thousands of otherwise avoidable hospitalizations and emergency room visits could be eliminated with stronger ozone regulation. This would save parents from taking time off from work, which in turn, saves money…and most importantly, peace of mind…because no parent wants to see their child gasping for life-sustaining clean air.

The proposed new standard would reduce the level of allowable ozone in the atmosphere from the current 75 parts per billion — a weak standard in place since 2008 — to a range of 65 and 70 parts per billion. It is a critical that the EPA move forward and set the smog standard at 60 parts per billion – which is more stringent than the proposed standard.

Please take the burden of getting sick from smog pollution off our kids backs and put it where it belongs – in the hands of regulating an industry that must be held accountable for polluting America’s citizens.

Let’s set an example to the rest of the world that we value and protect what is most important — our precious children.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.


TELL EPA TO PROTECT LITTLE LUNGS FROM SMOG





When it comes to climate action, it’s a good thing that smart people keep building scenarios for cleaning up global energy production.

By Steven Hamburg

Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate system to counteract the impact that pollutants are having on our climate. The proposals sound like the stuff of science fiction – spraying particles in the upper atmosphere to deflect some sunlight, for instance – and EDF’s experts have been following the topic with concern.

Most of the focus on climate change has been about transitioning our economy to clean, renewable energy – removing the cause of the malady. But some are worried that won’t happen fast enough and that a more radical intervention may be necessary. Indeed, a 2014 report from the International Panel on Climate Change indicated that the world may require some form of climate engineering in order to stay within a hoped for two-degree limit to global temperature rise. But these proposals raise a serious risk of unintended consequences.

Geoengineering is in the news because of the release of a new report from the National Academy of Sciences. It’s the first study commissioned by the U.S. government that explains our current understanding of the science, ethics, and governance issues presented by geoengineering technologies. I was a member of the panel that drafted the NAS report, and its release is also meaningful for me — and for my colleagues here at EDF — because of our involvement with the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI).

Specifically, NAS was asked to conduct a technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques, including albedo modification and carbon dioxide removal. The new report comments on the potential impacts of these technologies.

What is Albedo Modification?

Albedo modification (AM), also known as “solar radiation management,” describes a controversial set of theoretical proposals for cooling the Earth by reflecting a small amount of inbound solar energy back into space.

These techniques have attracted attention because they could — in theory — reduce global temperatures quickly and relatively cheaply. BUT – these techniques would have unknown adverse impacts.

The new NAS report makes clear that AM is not an alternative to deep reductions in carbon pollution.

AM does not address ocean acidification and other non-temperature-related climate change impacts. It can at most serve as a temporary tool to reduce temperatures while lowering the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases.

AM technologies have potentially serious and uncertain environmental, political, and social risks. The distribution and balance of benefits and risks are currently unknown.

AM research will require governance mechanisms to ensure that if research is undertaken, it is done transparently, safely, and with international agreement.

Unlike the NAS report just released, EDF has not called for small-scale AM research. We are in favor of accelerated discussion and development of a governance framework that would cover any potential geoengineering research.  

Why should research governance involve a global conversation?

The scientific, ethical, political, and social implications of AM research could be global. That means discussions about AM research governance should be global as well. To date, however, most discussions on the governance of AM research have taken place in developed countries — even though people in developing countries are those most vulnerable, both to climate change and to any potential efforts to respond to it.

In recognition of that fact, the Royal Society, EDF and TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences) launched SRMGI in 2010. SRMGI is an international NGO-driven initiative to expand international discussions on AM, particularly to developing countries.

SRMGI promotes early and sustained dialogue among diverse stakeholders around the world, informed by the best available science, in order to increase the chances of any AM research, should it be undertaken, being managed responsibly, transparently, and cooperatively.

The new NAS report offers an important opportunity to expand that dialogue.

It’s critical that we aim for transnational cooperation and information exchange on climate engineering research governance. That’s because even low-risk climate engineering research presents controversy.

AM’s potentially cheap deployment and quick effect on global temperatures could lead to the rapid and unilateral development of AM research programs, which could engender international tension and conflict.

Furthermore, deployment of AM would not benefit all populations equally.

And, while discussions about geoengineering are necessary, they cannot be considered as a substitute for reducing carbon pollution. The billions of tons of carbon pollution we put into our atmosphere every year are causing dangerous changes to our climate, and we must rapidly and consistently reduce that pollution. No climate engineering technology we can conceive of could keep up with the impacts of rapidly accelerating emissions.

What Comes Next?

The new NAS report should spur the U.S. and other governments to take the governance challenges of research into AM technologies seriously. An important next step is to foster wider international dialogue, including developing countries, on how to responsibly manage AM research.

It’s a dialogue that we at SRMGI, and at EDF, welcome. And the new NAS report is a welcome contribution to this dialogue.

By Steven Hamburg

Geoengineering is the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate system to counteract the impact that pollutants are having on our climate. The proposals sound like the stuff of science fiction – spraying particles in the upper atmosphere to deflect some sunlight, for instance – and EDF’s experts have been following the topic with concern.

Most of the focus on climate change has been about transitioning our economy to clean, renewable energy – removing the cause of the malady. But some are worried that won’t happen fast enough and that a more radical intervention may be necessary. Indeed, a 2014 report from the International Panel on Climate Change indicated that the world may require some form of climate engineering in order to stay within a hoped for two-degree limit to global temperature rise. But these proposals raise a serious risk of unintended consequences.

Geoengineering is in the news because of the release of a new report from the National Academy of Sciences. It’s the first study commissioned by the U.S. government that explains our current understanding of the science, ethics, and governance issues presented by geoengineering technologies. I was a member of the panel that drafted the NAS report, and its release is also meaningful for me — and for my colleagues here at EDF — because of our involvement with the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI).

Specifically, NAS was asked to conduct a technical evaluation of a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques, including albedo modification and carbon dioxide removal. The new report comments on the potential impacts of these technologies.

What is Albedo Modification?

Albedo modification (AM), also known as “solar radiation management,” describes a controversial set of theoretical proposals for cooling the Earth by reflecting a small amount of inbound solar energy back into space.

These techniques have attracted attention because they could — in theory — reduce global temperatures quickly and relatively cheaply. BUT – these techniques would have unknown adverse impacts.

The new NAS report makes clear that AM is not an alternative to deep reductions in carbon pollution.

AM does not address ocean acidification and other non-temperature-related climate change impacts. It can at most serve as a temporary tool to reduce temperatures while lowering the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases.

AM technologies have potentially serious and uncertain environmental, political, and social risks. The distribution and balance of benefits and risks are currently unknown.

AM research will require governance mechanisms to ensure that if research is undertaken, it is done transparently, safely, and with international agreement.

Unlike the NAS report just released, EDF has not called for small-scale AM research. We are in favor of accelerated discussion and development of a governance framework that would cover any potential geoengineering research.  

Why should research governance involve a global conversation?

The scientific, ethical, political, and social implications of AM research could be global. That means discussions about AM research governance should be global as well. To date, however, most discussions on the governance of AM research have taken place in developed countries — even though people in developing countries are those most vulnerable, both to climate change and to any potential efforts to respond to it.

In recognition of that fact, the Royal Society, EDF and TWAS (The World Academy of Sciences) launched SRMGI in 2010. SRMGI is an international NGO-driven initiative to expand international discussions on AM, particularly to developing countries.

SRMGI promotes early and sustained dialogue among diverse stakeholders around the world, informed by the best available science, in order to increase the chances of any AM research, should it be undertaken, being managed responsibly, transparently, and cooperatively.

The new NAS report offers an important opportunity to expand that dialogue.

It’s critical that we aim for transnational cooperation and information exchange on climate engineering research governance. That’s because even low-risk climate engineering research presents controversy.

AM’s potentially cheap deployment and quick effect on global temperatures could lead to the rapid and unilateral development of AM research programs, which could engender international tension and conflict.

Furthermore, deployment of AM would not benefit all populations equally.

And, while discussions about geoengineering are necessary, they cannot be considered as a substitute for reducing carbon pollution. The billions of tons of carbon pollution we put into our atmosphere every year are causing dangerous changes to our climate, and we must rapidly and consistently reduce that pollution. No climate engineering technology we can conceive of could keep up with the impacts of rapidly accelerating emissions.

What Comes Next?

The new NAS report should spur the U.S. and other governments to take the governance challenges of research into AM technologies seriously. An important next step is to foster wider international dialogue, including developing countries, on how to responsibly manage AM research.

It’s a dialogue that we at SRMGI, and at EDF, welcome. And the new NAS report is a welcome contribution to this dialogue.

By Peter Zalzal

Scientists David Lyon and Ramón Alvarez contributed to this post

Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.

In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.

The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).

The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments.  In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed.  Here are some of the findings:

• The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.

• Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants.  Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.

• In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.

All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.

The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W).  In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.

It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.

By Peter Zalzal

Scientists David Lyon and Ramón Alvarez contributed to this post

Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.

In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.

The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).

The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments.  In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed.  Here are some of the findings:

• The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.

• Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants.  Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.

• In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.

All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.

The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W).  In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.

It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.

By Peter Zalzal

Scientists David Lyon and Ramón Alvarez contributed to this post

Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.

In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.

The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).

The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments.  In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed.  Here are some of the findings:

• The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.

• Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants.  Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.

• In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.

All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.

The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W).  In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.

It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.

By Peter Zalzal

Scientists David Lyon and Ramón Alvarez contributed to this post

Two studies released today in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology provide new insights into methane emissions from significant sources in the oil and natural gas sector and underscore the urgency of taking action to address pollution from these sources. The studies—focusing on the gathering and processing segment and the transmission and storage segment—were led by researchers at Colorado State and Carnegie Mellon universities and Aerodyne Research, and included collaboration with EDF and companies in each of these segments.

In the gathering and processing study, researchers measured 130 gathering and processing facilities, finding emissions at gathering facilities ranging from 0.6 to 600 standard cubic feet of methane leaking per minute (scf/m). For the transmission and storage study, a different team led by CSU also collected extensive on-site and downwind measurements of methane at 45 transmission and storage sites. Site-level methane measurements ranged from 2 to 880 scf/m, with an average measurement of 70 scf/m. Of all the facilities measured for these studies, data suggests the natural gas emitted was worth about $25 million and had the 20-year climate impact equal to the emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles.

The Administration has recently announced a goal of reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025—actions that will help prevent this needless waste. The announcement indicates that new standards will build on the technologies EPA evaluated in a set of five peer-reviewed, technical white papers (including technologies to find and fix leaks and to address emissions from compressors).

The studies released today underscore the importance of strong federal actions to reduce emissions from sources in the gathering and processing and transmission and storage segments.  In particular, measurements from both of the studies show that equipment leaks are an important source of emissions that can be addressed.  Here are some of the findings:

• The gathering and processing study found substantial venting from liquids storage tanks at approximately 20 percent of sampled gathering facilities. Emission rates at these facilities were on average four times higher than rates observed at other facilities, and at some of these sites with substantial emissions, the authors found that company representatives made adjustments resulting in immediate reductions in emissions.

• Researchers found that processing plants leaked at much lower rates than gathering facilities, attributing this discrepancy in part to regulations requiring comprehensive leak detection and repair at processing plants.  Moreover, the authors found that 19 of the 25 facilities with the lowest average emission rate were staffed by full time operators.

• In the transmission and storage study, the two sites with very significant emissions were both due to leaks or venting at isolation valves. The study also found that leaks were a major source of emissions across sources, concluding that measured emissions are larger than would be estimated by the emission factors used in EPA’s reporting program.

All of these findings suggest that equipment leaks are an important source of emission and that strong, comprehensive leak detection and repair requirements could help to find and fix these leaks.

The studies also underscore the importance of EPA’s proposed action to strengthen methane reporting requirements for the oil and gas sector (known as Subpart W).  In particular, EPA has proposed to require reporting from sources in the gathering and boosting sector, which is critical because there are thousands of these sources across the country and they are not currently required to measure and report their emissions data to EPA.

It is critical that we address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the two studies released today provide additional insights on several important emission sources. As the administration has announced it will take actions to begin to address methane emissions, we must begin working together to deploy commonsense, highly-cost effective technologies to reduce this pollution and minimize waste—solutions that leading states and companies have deployed and that are urgently needed to ensure a level playing field and protect communities across the country.

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

“The canary in the coal mine.” That phrase has become part of the lexicon as a warning for danger.

Now birds are cautioning humans about the imminent threat of climate change — and the news is not good. This from a report based on seven years of research by the National Audubon Society. I checked out their website, which featured material on environmental events — both national and international. I learned that the Baltimore Oriole may no longer be in Maryland by the end of the century and that coastal species, like the sandpiper, were imperiled by rising sea levels.

I reached out to Gary Langham, Audubon’s “chief scientist,” to learn more. Langham has a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Cornell University. We discussed a wide range of topics, and he passionately delivered his insights and concerns.

Langham explained that at Audubon, “Activism is part of the story.” The organization was founded 105 years ago by people alarmed by the slaughter of egrets being killed in order to supply women’s hats with “plumes.” Audubon spearheaded the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the first American law to protect birds from indiscriminate hunting. “Concerned citizen interface has always be part of the Audubon agenda,” Langham related. “All our conservation work to protect birds and nature is based on science, policy, advocacy, and education.” He paused, “So is standing up and doing the right thing.”

Walking me through the top points of the study, Langham detailed that 588 species were examined within the context of how climate change would impact them in 2020, 2050, and 2080. Taking into account the consequences of greenhouse gases, 314 species are going to be highly impacted unless, as Langham emphasized, “we recalibrate how we consume and generate energy.”

Having the longest running animal census in the world (since 1900), Audubon is strategically positioned to contribute to the conversation. Langham discussed “habitat shifts” that evolved as a result of a changed landscape over the past century and a half — an outcome of humans “converting land use to their own ends.” Alarmingly, in the past forty years, “even common birds have declined by 40 to 70 percent due to habitat shift.”

Langham underscored, “Birds have an urgent message.” The reason they are on the move is due to climate change. In the past two decades, more than 200 species of birds have moved their “habitat range” substantially north in order to achieve comparable living conditions. This migration then impacts the ecosystem where they resettle. Langham stressed, “All this disruption is not good. Birds are an excellent indicator of nature overall. What impacts them will impact us. As the birds go, so do we.”

On the bright side Langham assured me, “When you give nature half a chance, it can respond in a positive way.” The bottom line is, “Restorative measures are the key. If we take concerted actions, the birds can recover.” He gave the example of the country’s national emblem, the Bald Eagle, which was brought back from the brink after being devastated by the effects of DDT.

Commenting on the newly elected representatives in Congress, Langham observed that the “fingerprints of big oil and gas” were clearly evident. “Climate change shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” he insisted. “It’s about doing the right thing for future generations. It’s about protecting nature and our children.”

When I asked Langham about the XL Pipeline, he was unequivocal in his response. Audubon is officially opposed to it because of the inherent risks and disruptions from spills. Regarding fracking, Langham pointed to the challenges facing birds that nest in the Bakken Shale area of North Dakota. He said succinctly, “Unregulated chemicals used in fracking are the wild card. What’s being pumped into the ground cannot be good for birds or people.”

Langham was clear. “Most of the opposition comes from the extractive industries. They just use nature for their own purposes. They cut it, burn it, or extract it. They want the fewest regulations with the most profits.” For Audubon, supporting renewable energy is a core belief, as is reducing emissions via legislation and public policy.

When I asked Langham how he would convey his concern to the average citizen, he said, “Birds often represent or symbolize places in ways that are meaningful to people. The Common Loon is a familiar bird for people out fishing or swimming in the 10,000 lakes of Minnesota. Our Climate Report suggests that loons may no longer be in Minnesota by the end of the century. The idea that one cannot share the call of the loon with kids or grandkids is troubling because it foreshadows not just the loss of the loon, but of one’s sense of place.”

Langham concluded, “Climate change threatens everyone’s sense of place by introducing ecological disruption on a scale never seen before.”


TELL EPA TO PROTECT OUR FAMILIES FROM FRACKING POLLUTION





By Pam Ruiter

Photo: Pseudopanax at English Wikipedia

By: Raul Garcia Rodriguez, WWF Spain, and Pam Ruiter, EDF EU Oceans

Raul Garcia is WWF Spain’s Fisheries Officer and Pam Ruiter is a Project Manager for EDF’s EU Oceans team based in Spain, where EDF and WWF are collaborating on a project working with coastal fisheries.

Shared by fishermen from Spain and Portugal, the octopus fishery in the waters off the coast of the Iberian Peninsula is economically important and complex. In late January, we attended the International Forum on Octopus Management in the Iberian Peninsula held in Santiago de Compostela, Spain to discuss management challenges in the fishery.

The forum was organised by WWF Spain, WWF UK and the EU GAP2 project, and included a group of 70 stakeholders including members of the fishing sector, management and civil society from across Spain, as well as representatives from Portugal.

Contributing to the complexity of managing the fishery, biologically octopuses are a short lived species – living only 1-2 years – which already makes scientifically estimating their status challenging. Additionally, information gaps regarding early life phases and recruitment, as well as the fact that its annual abundance is also affected by different climatological or oceanographic factors, make the species particularly challenging to manage. The fishery is also highly important to the local economy; it is fished by one third of the small scale vessels in Galicia.

Octopus traps and fishing gear. Cofradía de Bueu, Spain.

A key element in the design of this forum was the facilitation of participative and constructive dialogue. Stakeholders worked together to construct a shared vision of the current status of the Octopus fishery and recommendations for the future. Participants split into three smaller working groups in order to rotate and share experiences and knowledge centered on three topics: Management, Science and Research and Commercialisation of Markets.

After working through ideas within the three topics over the course of the two days, we came together as a larger group to find consensus on our main recommendations. A few ideas from each group include:

Management:

• There should be a multiannual joint benchmark for Octopus management in the region that takes the localised reality for the fleet into account, while allowing for more coordination amongst neighboring authorities.
• The plan should incorporate elements to monitor, enforce, and evaluate its implementation; while looking at both biological and socioeconomic factors and including all stakeholders– fishing sector, administration, scientific bodies, and civil society.
• Sector participation and dialogue in between various actors should be improved and strengthened.
• The biological assessment of the resource must be improved to facilitate more effective management.

Science and research:

• We need to design management systems that are more proactive, dynamic, and based on scientific criteria, sector participation and co-management.
• Work needs to be done to further identify and protect areas that are important for the biological cycle of the octopus. We identified several lines of research that need expansion such as population genetics of the stocks and the identification of essential habitats.
• Multidirectional communication between stakeholders should be improved, namely between the science and fishing sector. Examples include: Fishermen participation in the development of research plans and incorporation of traditional knowledge. Results should be communicated to fishermen in an effective way.
• Simple technology to assist in georeferenced data collection should be employed.

Marketing and Commercialisation:

• We should create groups that meet periodically to continue the work done within the forum and further the work to incorporate the commercialisation dimension of the fishery.
• A strategic marketing plan that considers the current value chain, the end consumer, and dimensions that allow for the responsible consumption of Octopus should be developed.
• We should guarantee clear information for the consumer by incorporating elements of traceability.

One major conclusion that came through from every group was a strongly felt need to improve and strengthen the dialogue between actors from the fishing sector, management, and scientific bodies.

We have facilitated many workshops with the fishing sector and other stakeholders in Spain; but this one was the most challenging so far given the number of participants, participatory approach, size and importance of the fishery and potential high tensions between octopus fishers and the Administration in Galicia. We know that these types of fora are essential and participants really appreciate the opportunity to share their knowledge, experiences and aspirations towards the common goals of environmental and socio-economic sustainability.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of holding this kind of forum is seeing boundaries break down amongst groups who typically do not have the opportunity to communicate about shared challenges and collaborative solutions. Fishermen, scientists, academics and government officials had honest conversations about what hasn’t worked in the past and what could be done better in the future. One fisherman expressed the view that he had never taken part in an inter-sector discussion quite like this, where he felt that the industry perspective was truly listened to and his input valued. It’s conversations like these that lay the foundations for real change.

We especially value the fact that the fishing sector recognises the need for avoiding individualistic behavior, and ensuring coordination and cooperation for shared benefits. Further, the Administration recognizes the need for true participation from the fishing sector, not just their representatives, in discussions and agreements. The new EU Common Fisheries Policy and European Maritime Fisheries Fund encourage multi-stakeholder participation, transparency and accountability and therefore the legal and financial basis exists to support participatory design and implementation of Multiannual Plans.

This kind of forum is also important for achieving conservation goals. Although there is some annual fluctuation due to factors outside of fishing, octopus fishermen saw their captures decrease by 50% in 2013 which rang alarm bells for stakeholders invested in this iconic species. Establishing a solid base of information to understand why these fluctuations happen, clear lines of communication between stakeholders, and dynamic management systems will ensure its sustainability both environmentally and for the communities dependent on the species.

Overall, the forum was a success. Participants seemed energised and eager to find opportunities to continue to participate in dialogue about fisheries management, to tackle the challenges head on and put their recommendations into action. In addition, lines of communication between Portuguese and Spanish stakeholders were identified to ensure coherence in management between both countries. This forum was an example of stakeholder engagement at its best and of the type of discussions needed to help drive a shift towards sustainable fisheries for coastal fisheries in Spain. The timing could not be better as it is essential that we take collective action now to help the long term sustainability of the fishery.

By Pam Ruiter

Photo: Pseudopanax at English Wikipedia

By: Raul Garcia Rodriguez, WWF Spain, and Pam Ruiter, EDF EU Oceans

Raul Garcia is WWF Spain’s Fisheries Officer and Pam Ruiter is a Project Manager for EDF’s EU Oceans team based in Spain, where EDF and WWF are collaborating on a project working with coastal fisheries.

Shared by fishermen from Spain and Portugal, the octopus fishery in the waters off the coast of the Iberian Peninsula is economically important and complex. In late January, we attended the International Forum on Octopus Management in the Iberian Peninsula held in Santiago de Compostela, Spain to discuss management challenges in the fishery.

The forum was organised by WWF Spain, WWF UK and the EU GAP2 project, and included a group of 70 stakeholders including members of the fishing sector, management and civil society from across Spain, as well as representatives from Portugal.

Contributing to the complexity of managing the fishery, biologically octopuses are a short lived species – living only 1-2 years – which already makes scientifically estimating their status challenging. Additionally, information gaps regarding early life phases and recruitment, as well as the fact that its annual abundance is also affected by different climatological or oceanographic factors, make the species particularly challenging to manage. The fishery is also highly important to the local economy; it is fished by one third of the small scale vessels in Galicia.

Octopus traps and fishing gear. Cofradía de Bueu, Spain.

A key element in the design of this forum was the facilitation of participative and constructive dialogue. Stakeholders worked together to construct a shared vision of the current status of the Octopus fishery and recommendations for the future. Participants split into three smaller working groups in order to rotate and share experiences and knowledge centered on three topics: Management, Science and Research and Commercialisation of Markets.

After working through ideas within the three topics over the course of the two days, we came together as a larger group to find consensus on our main recommendations. A few ideas from each group include:

Management:

• There should be a multiannual joint benchmark for Octopus management in the region that takes the localised reality for the fleet into account, while allowing for more coordination amongst neighboring authorities.
• The plan should incorporate elements to monitor, enforce, and evaluate its implementation; while looking at both biological and socioeconomic factors and including all stakeholders– fishing sector, administration, scientific bodies, and civil society.
• Sector participation and dialogue in between various actors should be improved and strengthened.
• The biological assessment of the resource must be improved to facilitate more effective management.

Science and research:

• We need to design management systems that are more proactive, dynamic, and based on scientific criteria, sector participation and co-management.
• Work needs to be done to further identify and protect areas that are important for the biological cycle of the octopus. We identified several lines of research that need expansion such as population genetics of the stocks and the identification of essential habitats.
• Multidirectional communication between stakeholders should be improved, namely between the science and fishing sector. Examples include: Fishermen participation in the development of research plans and incorporation of traditional knowledge. Results should be communicated to fishermen in an effective way.
• Simple technology to assist in georeferenced data collection should be employed.

Marketing and Commercialisation:

• We should create groups that meet periodically to continue the work done within the forum and further the work to incorporate the commercialisation dimension of the fishery.
• A strategic marketing plan that considers the current value chain, the end consumer, and dimensions that allow for the responsible consumption of Octopus should be developed.
• We should guarantee clear information for the consumer by incorporating elements of traceability.

One major conclusion that came through from every group was a strongly felt need to improve and strengthen the dialogue between actors from the fishing sector, management, and scientific bodies.

We have facilitated many workshops with the fishing sector and other stakeholders in Spain; but this one was the most challenging so far given the number of participants, participatory approach, size and importance of the fishery and potential high tensions between octopus fishers and the Administration in Galicia. We know that these types of fora are essential and participants really appreciate the opportunity to share their knowledge, experiences and aspirations towards the common goals of environmental and socio-economic sustainability.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of holding this kind of forum is seeing boundaries break down amongst groups who typically do not have the opportunity to communicate about shared challenges and collaborative solutions. Fishermen, scientists, academics and government officials had honest conversations about what hasn’t worked in the past and what could be done better in the future. One fisherman expressed the view that he had never taken part in an inter-sector discussion quite like this, where he felt that the industry perspective was truly listened to and his input valued. It’s conversations like these that lay the foundations for real change.

We especially value the fact that the fishing sector recognises the need for avoiding individualistic behavior, and ensuring coordination and cooperation for shared benefits. Further, the Administration recognizes the need for true participation from the fishing sector, not just their representatives, in discussions and agreements. The new EU Common Fisheries Policy and European Maritime Fisheries Fund encourage multi-stakeholder participation, transparency and accountability and therefore the legal and financial basis exists to support participatory design and implementation of Multiannual Plans.

Overall, the forum was a success. Participants seemed energised and eager to find opportunities to continue to participate in dialogue about fisheries management, to tackle the challenges head on and put their recommendations into action. In addition, lines of communication between Portuguese and Spanish stakeholders were identified to ensure coherence in management between both countries. This forum was an example of stakeholder engagement at its best and of the type of discussions needed to help drive a shift towards sustainable fisheries for coastal fisheries in Spain. The timing could not be better as it is essential that we take collective action now to help the long term sustainability of the fishery.

By Pam Ruiter

Photo: Pseudopanax at English Wikipedia

By: Raul Garcia Rodriguez, WWF Spain, and Pam Ruiter, EDF EU Oceans

Raul Garcia is WWF Spain’s Fisheries Officer and Pam Ruiter is a Project Manager for EDF’s EU Oceans team based in Spain, where EDF and WWF are collaborating on a project working with coastal fisheries.

Shared by fishermen from Spain and Portugal, the octopus fishery in the waters off the coast of the Iberian Peninsula is economically important and complex. In late January, we attended the International Forum on Octopus Management in the Iberian Peninsula held in Santiago de Compostela, Spain to discuss management challenges in the fishery.

The forum was organised by WWF Spain, WWF UK and the EU GAP2 project, and included a group of 70 stakeholders including members of the fishing sector, management and civil society from across Spain, as well as representatives from Portugal.

Contributing to the complexity of managing the fishery, biologically octopuses are a short lived species – living only 1-2 years – which already makes scientifically estimating their status challenging. Additionally, information gaps regarding early life phases and recruitment, as well as the fact that its annual abundance is also affected by different climatological or oceanographic factors, make the species particularly challenging to manage. The fishery is also highly important to the local economy; it is fished by one third of the small scale vessels in Galicia.

Octopus traps and fishing gear. Cofradía de Bueu, Spain.

A key element in the design of this forum was the facilitation of participative and constructive dialogue. Stakeholders worked together to construct a shared vision of the current status of the Octopus fishery and recommendations for the future. Participants split into three smaller working groups in order to rotate and share experiences and knowledge centered on three topics: Management, Science and Research and Commercialisation of Markets.

After working through ideas within the three topics over the course of the two days, we came together as a larger group to find consensus on our main recommendations. A few ideas from each group include:

Management:

• There should be a multiannual joint benchmark for Octopus management in the region that takes the localised reality for the fleet into account, while allowing for more coordination amongst neighboring authorities.
• The plan should incorporate elements to monitor, enforce, and evaluate its implementation; while looking at both biological and socioeconomic factors and including all stakeholders– fishing sector, administration, scientific bodies, and civil society.
• Sector participation and dialogue in between various actors should be improved and strengthened.
• The biological assessment of the resource must be improved to facilitate more effective management.

Science and research:

• We need to design management systems that are more proactive, dynamic, and based on scientific criteria, sector participation and co-management.
• Work needs to be done to further identify and protect areas that are important for the biological cycle of the octopus. We identified several lines of research that need expansion such as population genetics of the stocks and the identification of essential habitats.
• Multidirectional communication between stakeholders should be improved, namely between the science and fishing sector. Examples include: Fishermen participation in the development of research plans and incorporation of traditional knowledge. Results should be communicated to fishermen in an effective way.
• Simple technology to assist in georeferenced data collection should be employed.

Marketing and Commercialisation:

• We should create groups that meet periodically to continue the work done within the forum and further the work to incorporate the commercialisation dimension of the fishery.
• A strategic marketing plan that considers the current value chain, the end consumer, and dimensions that allow for the responsible consumption of Octopus should be developed.
• We should guarantee clear information for the consumer by incorporating elements of traceability.

One major conclusion that came through from every group was a strongly felt need to improve and strengthen the dialogue between actors from the fishing sector, management, and scientific bodies.

We have facilitated many workshops with the fishing sector and other stakeholders in Spain; but this one was the most challenging so far given the number of participants, participatory approach, size and importance of the fishery and potential high tensions between octopus fishers and the Administration in Galicia. We know that these types of fora are essential and participants really appreciate the opportunity to share their knowledge, experiences and aspirations towards the common goals of environmental and socio-economic sustainability.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of holding this kind of forum is seeing boundaries break down amongst groups who typically do not have the opportunity to communicate about shared challenges and collaborative solutions. Fishermen, scientists, academics and government officials had honest conversations about what hasn’t worked in the past and what could be done better in the future. One fisherman expressed the view that he had never taken part in an inter-sector discussion quite like this, where he felt that the industry perspective was truly listened to and his input valued. It’s conversations like these that lay the foundations for real change.

We especially value the fact that the fishing sector recognises the need for avoiding individualistic behavior, and ensuring coordination and cooperation for shared benefits. Further, the Administration recognizes the need for true participation from the fishing sector, not just their representatives, in discussions and agreements. The new EU Common Fisheries Policy and European Maritime Fisheries Fund encourage multi-stakeholder participation, transparency and accountability and therefore the legal and financial basis exists to support participatory design and implementation of Multiannual Plans.

Overall, the forum was a success. Participants seemed energised and eager to find opportunities to continue to participate in dialogue about fisheries management, to tackle the challenges head on and put their recommendations into action. In addition, lines of communication between Portuguese and Spanish stakeholders were identified to ensure coherence in management between both countries. This forum was an example of stakeholder engagement at its best and of the type of discussions needed to help drive a shift towards sustainable fisheries for coastal fisheries in Spain. The timing could not be better as it is essential that we take collective action now to help the long term sustainability of the fishery.