John's Green Issues

Gno to the gnostics - Third Sector

2010-02-19T15:06:00.001Z

http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/Article/980738/Gno-gnostics/
by Rosamund McCarthy

This is an article in Third Sector Magazine of 2nd February. I find it a compelling argument, rational, and very elegantly written. Anyone who despairs of understanding how evangelical missionaries etc can be deemed charitable should read. It's relevant to conservation, when the amount of charitable giving to conservation is compared with the amount given to faith organisation. Worth a read.

The God Delusion

2009-12-30T11:52:00.005Z

Over a Christmas drink one of my neighbours, stimulated by seeing the faithful going to church on Christmas eve, made an interesting point, which distinguished 'believers' from 'non-believers'.

Non-believers often have very fulfilling lives, and at the end of their life can look back and think they may or may not have done something useful, creative or productive. But what about all those believers, from the pope downwards, who devote their lives to the service of what many of us think of as a delusion? If we are right and they are wrong, then a large part of their entire life has been wasted on a futile gesture (Even one hour a week in church adds up to the equivalent of about a year of ones life). At least the non-believers don't have this worry; doesn't this every bother them? And perhaps this is a major hindrance to wildlife conservation, and also why so many conservationists are non-believers (I include atheists, agnostics and anti-theists in this category). A Non-believer cannot just sit and pray that god will sort it all out, a non-believer is more likely to think that he or she must get on and do something. It would be an interesting area for reasearch.

Christmas is coming and the Goat is getting fat

2009-12-02T15:48:00.002Z

Regular readers will know my views on goats, and will also know that there has been a massive drought and die off of domestic lo]ivestock in East Africa. Any details of what is happening, plus your views will be very welcome, as I am planning to write more on this subject.

Another week goes by....

2009-12-02T15:45:00.001Z

My blogs are getting fewer and fewer. And for those that read them my apologies. However, the reason is that the World Land Trust is getting busier and busier. Despite the recession, we are getting more and more companies wanting to support us. I have mentioned this several times already, but it is still true. The current interest is clearly influence by the up and coming discussions in Copenhagen relating to Climate Change, and carbon offsetting. However, I think we are all missing one major issue, which is only faintly heard in the background. The 'elephant in the room' is the human population. Recent predictions indicate that the UK's population is going to grow to an unsustainable 70 million or more. But this is insignificant compared with the predictions for other parts of the world.

As far as I am concerned there are two over-riding priorities for conservation: first save as much of the world's natural habitats as possible, and second support any initiative that addresses the human population crisis. Everything else pales into insignificance by comparison. This is not to say that the myriad other conservation activities are not worthwhile, but without natural habitat in the future, captive breeding, research etc are all futile.

Copehagen and human population

2009-11-16T14:21:00.004Z

The Copenhagen meetings did not focus on the one issue that drives our demand for fossil fuels and results in all the CO2. That is human population growth.

If I was trying to be controversial, I might suggest that far from trying to conserve energy and trying to develop renewable sources of energy we should be opposing these changes. Why? Because increasing the energy supply and keeping prices down will simply allow the human population to carry on increasing. How? Because cheap energy allows food to be grown in an otherwise unsustainable way, and that in turn will slow down the rate of human mortality from malnutrition (one estimate I read was that 18 million deaths a year are related to malnutrition, and that figure is probably rising). A cynical view, perhaps. But realistic from a biological perspective. Read Malthus if you are not convinced

However one looks at it, the human population cannot continue to increase indefinitely. Nor can economic growth be sustained indefinitely. History is bound to repeat itself, and in the past numerous civilizations have over-reached their resources, and crashed. It is bound to happen again. To me that is as certain as death and taxes. For millennia famine, disease and war have been a natural part of the human population control mechanism. And if they are repressed for too long then eventually they re-appear with catastrophic results. History teaches that very basic lesson, which Malthus understood all too clearly. And it will happen again, unless an alternative method of population control is implemented.

Britain is set to have a population of over 70 million, all squezzed into an area of less than 94,000 square miles, or just over 60 million acres. With large areas unsuitable for farming, and with so much of the prime agricultural land now covered with roads, buildings and other infrastructure, there is considerably less than a quarter of an acre per person for growing food. Clearly unsustainable -- and yet this is presumably the lifestyle that is being advocated for the so called less developed countries.

It is time for a wake-up call. The British government still subsidises children, millions of pounds are spent on infertility treatments, at a time when a significant decrease in the human population is essential in the medium term, if not in the short term. And in the long term, without population control, nature will intervene.

Meanwhile, every 11 seconds another person (net) is added to the population of the USA -- one of the most energy hungry nations in the world. That's nearly 3 million a year, all demanding economic growth and masses of cheap energy.

The politicians were certainly fiddling while Copehagen was burning.....

Water, water everywhere

2009-10-29T10:22:00.003Z

The Fourth plinth in London's Trafalgar Square was used by a student from Ipswich to highlight water awareness. Dressed as a toilet, he carried a placard stating that "water and sanitation are human rights". PR from Water Aid, the charity backing him claimed that 2.5 billion people lack basic sanitation. Presumably this implies that everyone has a right to a flush toilet.

A great idea, But has anyone actually given any thought as to where all the water for this human right will come from? Or where all the toilet paper that will be flushed down these toilets will come from? Or where all the effluent will go? Like so many of the quick fix solutions to world poverty being inflicted on the less developed world, virtually no thought is given to the environmental impacts. I have tried to gather data on this topic, and would be really interested to see copies of any correspondence relating to EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments]; I know for a fact that many aid charities do not carry them out, so it is always worth writing to charities to find out if they carry them out, and with what results. What is the Environmental impact of changing traditional farming methods to 'improved' western technology? What is the environmental impact of using artificial fertilisers, pesticides? What is the environmental impact of deep boreholes for water?

I do not have a problem with emergency aid, following natural or even man-made disasters, but long-term, so called development aid, is often ill thought out, with little or no thought about the long-term environmental consequences. And providing water for everyone to use with western style profligacy is one of the biggest potential disasters I can think of. Meanwhile, we at the World Land Trust are working with several of our partner NGOs, to conserve watersheds. They are just as important as the tropical forests that often grow around them.

Is a flush toilet a basic human right or is it a luxury?

Cats. Betes Noir & Wildlife

2009-10-09T15:39:00.000+01:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29angi.html?_r=1&ref=science

This says it all.

And the current issue of the American Bird Conservancy magazine says a bit more

Population press release

2009-10-02T09:11:00.001+01:00

For this blog, I have simply pasted a press release from the Optimum Population Trust. The World Land Trust and OPT share the same Patron (Sir David Attenborough) and I believe that the activities of OPT are every bit as important as anything the WLT does. Politicians still avoid the P word, but human Populations are the only real threat to the planet. Read on.......

CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGYFamily planning cheapest way to combat climate change
Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change, according to research published today (Wednesday, September 9).
Each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a tonne. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32 (£19). The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics*, concludes that “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions”, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies. It says family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction.
Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 – equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total.
Roger Martin, chair of OPT, said the findings vindicated OPT’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too.

“The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.** This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face – the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis.

“All of these would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more. Meanwhile each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone’s share of the planet’s dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries. The taboo on discussing this is no longer defensible.”
The study, based on the principle that “fewer people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide”, models the consequences of meeting all “unmet need” for family planning, defined as the number of women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception.*** One recent estimate put this figure at 200 million. UN data suggest that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050 12 billion fewer “people-years” would be lived – 326 billion against 338 billion under current projections.

The 34 gigatonnes of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion – roughly $7 a tonne. However, the same CO2 saving would cost over $1trillion if low-carbon technologies were used.

The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles.

However, the study may understate the CO2 savings available because the estimates of unmet need are based on married women alone, yet some studies suggest up to 40 per cent of young unmarried women have had unwanted pregnancies.

Mr Martin added: “The potential for tackling climate change by addressing population growth through better family planning, alongside the conventional approach, is clearly enormous and we shall be urging all those involved in the Copenhagen process to take it fully on board.”
NOTES:
*Available at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf
**In a statement issued last month, OPT called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change. Family planning programmes in poorer countries should be treated as legitimate candidates for climate change funding. The statement was endorsed by OPT patrons including Sir David Attenborough, Dr. James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt. See: www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/climatechange09.pdf.
***A recent study by Oregon State University concluded: “A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with [their] day-to-day activities when assessing [their] ultimate impact on the global environment.” See Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals, by Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax, College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences/Department of Statistics, available on sciencedirect.com. The authors calculate that in the US each child adds 9,441 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, equivalent to 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. See also: A Population-Based Climate Strategy (OPT Research Briefing) at http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/opt.sub.briefing.climate.population.May07.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
See www.optimumpopulation.org or telephone 020 8123 9116

Professional Fundraisers

2009-07-13T16:51:00.000+01:00

As readers of my past blogs will realise, I have little time for professional fundraisers, and I have explained previously why the WLT has not signed up to the FundRaising Standards Board. Some time back, I read in the May issue of Professional Fundraising, that "more than a third of Fundraising Standards Board members have failed to submit obligatory complaints figures to the regulator".
And while I am writing about complaints, a couple of days ago Vivien received a massive envelope from the Red Cross, all very personalised, with cards, address labels and a pen, and a lapel badge -- it must have cost quite a bit to produce, and clearly the intention is to embarrass recipients into donating to the Red Cross. But only a couple of days previously we happened to have been to a local Red Cross Fundraiser in our village hall. So my immediate reaction is very negative indeed towards the Red Cross. I have always disliked giving 'free gifts' as an incentive for charitable donations, and like organisations that indulge in 'chugging' immediately put them on a black list for donations. And I wonder how many other people react in the same way. The problems is that these forms of fundraising do produce some results, and they are often fairly immediate, which is why professional fundraisers like them. But how many legacies and big donations are lost by the organisations indulging in such techniques? Any one else got views or experiences?

Green colonialism?

2009-05-17T16:30:00.001+01:00

I picked up a leaflet about a scientific symposium being organised by the Zoological Society of London. The Title was Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation:Bridging the Gaps Between Global Commitment and Local Action. A very worthy concept. But interestingly the list of contributors seems to be composed completely of representatives of the Big NGOs (BINGOs) and university and other institutions from the developed world. The views of those actually doing the action, implementing conservation, carrying out the monitoring do not seem to be involved. I recognise that this is not a symposium that will have any real executive functions, but it does seem a bit odd that so few (none?) of those at the sharp end are involved. The WLT is involved in a lot of programmes that involve monitoring -- to ensure the actions we are taking are effective, and most of this involves biodiversity in some way or other (or at least species diversity monitoring), but one thing we are certain of, is that unless the local conservationists are actively involved in all initiatives, there is a good chance that the conservation actions will not be sustainable. The ZSL has a reputation for being a bit reactionary, but one might have hoped that with over 20 speakers giving presentations, one or two might have been from organisations based in the less developed parts of the world, actually involved in the monitoring long-term; there are quite a lot of them.

more awards for conservation and charity

2009-05-16T16:57:00.000+01:00

I have written about my dislike for awards in the past. Such as the Charity Times awards for 'Best charity'. In particular I dislike awards which require an entry fee, and even worse, often a large payment to attend the awards ceremony. And most of the people I have discussed this with agree with me.

But there are other awards, where agreement is rarer. And that is awards for individuals. There are a number of prizes that are given to individuals who are deemed to be significant in some way or other. But I also have serious reservations about giving awards to individuals, for a number of reasons. First, it is always very difficult to decide who deserves an award. Very often it is the pushiest person, as modesty is rarely rewarded. Second, awards frequently contain an element of political correctness. And third they feed the contemporary obsession with celebrity culture. But the backers for awards just love giving them to individuals, largely because of this latter reason -- they can generate more publicity. The reality is that while the charismatic individual can achieve a lot, ultimately it is organisations that make the real, sustainable, long lasting difference. The really good charismatic individuals do not need awards, but the organisations they represent and work for often struggle to get funds and recognition.

It was some while back that I began to have doubts about the value of rewarding individuals with conservation 'Oscars' when helping BBC Wildlife Magazine draw up a list of the most influential conservationists. And this list did not have prize money attached to it. The problem was, that even with a long list of only British conservationists, that it was a little bit like competitive team sports -- someone had to lose, and it did not mean that the losers were any worse, or the winners were any better. But we only ever hear about the elation of the winners. What about the depression of the losers? At least when it's an organisation it is not so dependent on an individual's ego, or presentation abilities. And at least with an organisation it stands a better chance of having a lasting effect.

New Naturalists hit by recession?

2009-05-14T14:27:00.004+01:00

I happened to look at Collins' New Naturalists on sale on ebay, and it seems that they have been hit by the recession, as prices seem to be in free fall. The market for this remarkable series has seen incrdible prices paid for the rarer editions, but it has also seen many of the volumes changing hands among 'collectors' who are not actaully that interested in the contents, buit more interested in the condition of the dust-wrapper.m The advantage of this (to my mind, silly) market, is that it has enabled HarperCollins to publish many more volumes in the series than would otherwise have been possible. It is a great pity that a similar collectors' market did not develop for the World Naturalist series of Weidenfield and Nicolson. An equally important series in my vbiew, never surpassed, but alas, no longer being published.

Monitoring mega-expenditure of NGOs

2009-05-11T14:52:00.000+01:00

My regular readers will know that I am a critic of foreign aid, and I am also a critic of Oxfam. I also monitor many websites of charities, mostly to see how they present themselves, and to ensure that any criticisms that might be made do not apply to the World land Trust. A major problem with any large charity is that it almost impossible to understand what really goes on when reading their accounts. When a charity the size of Oxfam presents its accounts, it is done in round millions, and it is almost impossible to know what these figure concern. The charity can give away as much or as little information as it likes. But it does lead to an enormous potential for misunderstanding. I am sure there are very good explanations, for example, on the Oxfam website it indicates that grants paid to overseas recipients in FYE 2008 totalled £16 million going to 50 organisations. Yet in the same annual rport it is stated that the UK payroll cost £93 million, with 25 staff earning over £60,000 p.a. As I wrote above, I am sure there is a perfectly good reason for these figures, but what it does show is how difficult it is to undertand accounts when they are hidden in fiogures with 6 noughts on the end.

One of the more obviousreasons can be found by looking at the sources of income, and since a huge amount comes from governments, it is likely that this is expected to be spent on UK staff so that it stays at home to be taxed, and therefore returned to sender....

Environmentally disastrous public transport

2009-05-07T15:42:00.002+01:00

I have just been looking at the local railway service's website. There's an amazing array of special offers encouraging people to travel by train. And very environmentally friendly one might think. But is it? The answer is a resounding NO. Most of the journeys being made using these astounding special offers are undoubtedly not essential. An in many cases it is not a case of going by train instead of by car. It is simply encouraging people to travel more and more. And if the trains from Norwich are only half full with people making essential journeys, it makes economic sense to fill the rest of the train with cheap travellers. And that way the rail service is not only profitable, but it can justify itself.

Unfortunately this has been taken to new limits in London. Here, travel cards allow a cap to be put on the cost of traveling each day on the London Underground. However many journeys you make, it gets no more expensive. The upshot of this is almost certainly many people use their card for journeys of one or two stops, making the underground even more unpleasantly overcrowded, but at the same time allowing the operators to claim that public transport is incredibly popular.

I think a fact that most environmentalists promoting public transport have failed to grasp, is that public transport can only really be environmentally friendly, in a centrally controlled political system, such as once operated in the Communist world. I recall visiting Czechoslovakia in the 1960s when train travel was dirt cheap, car travel only for a few, bus travel more expensive than trains, and air travel too expensive for most people. With central controls, then all fares can be regulated to ensure the right balance is achieved. But with the type of free-for-all we now have, with subsidised fuel for air travellers, and all travel actually responsible to shareholders (which means there is a legal obligation to maximise profit above all other considerations), there is virtually no prospect of an environmentally friendly public transport system. And while I am at it, I will remind everyone, that air travel is now de facto part of public transport, and often much more fuel efficient than the average rural bus service. But of course there is a difference, in that most air travel is non essential. {Having written that, I realse that many rural bus services are now packed with pensioners swanning around on their passes, making them most of free travel.

More people travelling more and more. That's the real problem. And everyone wanting more of everything, and wanting it cheaper than before. Thereby driving the manufacture of goods overseas where environmental controls are less stringent, the production of food overseas where welfare standards are lower etc etc etc. Depressing. Perhaps a positive aspect of the economic downturn is that we are all realizing how much 'stuff' we all buy that we don't really need. Perhaps some politicians may even realise that continued economic growth is simply not sustainable if it is dependent on constantly expanding human populations.

Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo

2009-05-05T14:28:00.000+01:00

Dead Aid is a brilliant summary of some of the views I have been espousing for many years. The Authoress, unlike me, can back it all up with facts; she is a Zambian, who has worked in the World Bank, and her book is a devastating indictment of foreign aid in Africa. I am sure all the government aid agencies will dismiss it -- they would wouldn't they? And I am sure Oxfam, Christian Aid, St Geldorf and all the others trying to 'Wipe out Poverty in Africa' will dismiss it. And I am sure not every little detail is interpreted exactly right. But I am also sure that the overall thesis has hit the nail on the head.

Foreign aid is the cause of corruption and poverty in most of Africa. And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this book. Before giving another cent or Penny read it.

Emergency aid is one thing, and will always be needed, but so-called 'development aid' is quite a different matter, and this is the aid that actually helps prevent real development, and feeds corruption. And it also has often huge benefits to the donors. In fact after reading Moyo's account it seems that these are the only real long term beneficiaries: pop-stars, politicians and donors get a real feelgood kick out of it, meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.

As she points out, governments seem all to eager to listen to Bono and Geldorf -- but how often do they listen to those who actually live and try to work in Sub-Saharan Africa? Why should a pop-star know more than them?

I would actually go slightly further than Moyo, as I see elements of cultural imperialism in most aid programmes. Pushing cows that produce more milk into African economies, where the majority of the inhabitants are lactose intolerant is a classic example. I would also argue that there is little difference between the cultural imperialism of the 21st century and the Missionary zeal of the 19th century. The end results are not dissimilar: a form of ethnicide.

Volunteer Travellers

2009-05-02T09:50:00.000+01:00

In the course of work today I had cause to look at a couple of websites for volunteer travellers -- those going abroad to do good works. In fact while the intentions are often very good, I do have serious reservations about how much real good most of these young travellers do, For a start they can often be taking away employment from locals. The average trip will cost the volunteer something around £1500-£3000 for a month's 'holiday' -- often a year's employment for a local. But more important is the lack of transparency of many of the companies involved. Most of the young altruistic volunteers assume that the companies are also philanthropic. But a quick look at the websites reveals...... very little. Unlike charities, they do not have to publish their accounts, nor reveal who is paid what.

Whenever I am asked about gap year volunteering, or 'expeditions' I always say 'caveat emptor'. Earthwatch and a few (relatively few, I am afraid) do a great job, but there are a lot of others who are little more than travel companies with the profits going to the shareholders or ownwers -- even when they appear altruistic.

IUCN in retreat

2009-04-30T12:12:00.000+01:00

IUCN -- the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-- has just had a retreat. So I read in their newsletter today. And I always find the concept faintly worrying. To start with the idea of being in retreat has a distinctly negative connotation. And even if I sweep that aside, it then has a rather austere, monastic inference. Neither appeals to me. And while it might be a useful function, for the staff and board members to get together, I am not sure it is something that deserves publicity. Cynics in the conservation world have suggested that IUCN stands for International Union for Conversation about Nature, or even worse, I Used to Conserve Nature. The fact remains that too many meetings, with too many delegates are what IUCN has become known for. We need fewer conferences, fewer meetings, less research and more action. Much more action.

Needless to say there was no mention of the most serious of all conservation issues: human populations. IUCN seems to avoid this much of the time. But I was glad to hear over the weekend, that Sir David Attenborough has beome patron of the Optimum Population Trust.

Flying off to Sicily

2009-04-29T09:51:00.000+01:00

Last Thursday I flew off to Sicily for a long weekend. Recharging of batteries etc. It was one of the best times of the year for seeing orchids, and we saw loads of them, together with masses of other wild flowers, plus migrating birds of prey. But of course many people then criticise trips like this -- flying and all that carbon footprint. How do I justify it? The answer is, I don't really have any logical justification. It does have a carbon footprint, but since on the whole I lead a relatively low-carbon life, I suppose I feel, a little bit of indulgence is justified. Furthermore, my raison d'etre for conserving wildlife, is my own personal enjoyment of it. But while flying, I did feel that the best way of reducing the amount of carbon is to ensure that fair and realistic prices are paid for air travel. And certainly it is getting much more expensive, and there were fewer people on the plane. But it's a dilemma which is not easily solved. What do others who fly a lot feel about this?

Easter weekend

2009-04-14T14:51:00.001+01:00

A few days away from the office, and some glorious spring weather. Slow worms were under the sheets of corrugated iron that I have strewn around the garden to provide a hiding place for them. Also a common shrew and a bank vole were under the sheets as well. The dawn chorus seems a bit better than recent years with at least four singing male blackcaps. And I saw my first swallow on Saturday. And best of all, in our tiny patch of woodland, I found a nice crop of Morels -- a spring fruiting fungus, that is truly delicious.

And an interesting piece of behaviour. Over winter I have kept our five Japanese Quail in the greenhouse -- they hate the wet cold English winter, and seemed very happy, and became exceptionally tame. On Sunday, I decided to put some seed trays in the green house, and gave it a thorough wetting, and the quail also had a great time in the shower. Then next day their behaviour totally changed. They became very flighty -- they had only ever run around, never taking flight -- and very vocal. Did the shower I had given them, trigger a migration response? Unfortunately none of the books I have (including the Handbook of Birds of the World give any information that enlightens me on this. Any leads from my readers would be
welcome.

And so today, back to work, with a few donations resulting from Simon Barnes' article in the Times (fewer than I expected, probably because with the beautiful weekend weather, no one was reading their papers, they were all in the garden!)

Wildlife, rainforests and vegetarianism

2009-04-07T12:44:00.003+01:00

A few of WLT's supporters have suggested that being vegetarian is a way of saving wildlife and rainforests. As is so often the case, the answers are never that simple.

I was brought up a vegetarian (unusual in the 1940s and 50s), but changed in the 1960s to an omnivore diet. The fact is that while there is no question that we do not need to eat the vast quantities of meat that 'developed' (i.e. rich) societies eat, an omnivore diet actually makes as much sense as a vegetarian diet. Grazing sheep on upland pastures can be an efficient way of maintaining interesting habitats, and even in vegetarian areas of India cows are kept to provide manures.

More controversial is the fact that huge areas of rainforest have been devastated for the production of soya beans, which are among the mainstays of vegetarian and vegan foods. The more responsible soya producers only use organic soya, but even those do often get it from areas that were historically rainforest.

My personal belief is that the answer does not lie in vegetarianism per se, but in eating very limited amounts of high quality (organic, pesticide free, locally produced, cruelty free) meat, and locally produced vegetables when ever possible. But international trade is also important to benefit the poorer parts of the world, so ethically and environmentally friendly rice and other cereals etc should not be ignored.

Unfortunately there is no simple answer, other than simply reducing the size of the human population and its aspirations to ever increasing material wealth.

Stanley Johnson I presume

2009-03-26T19:11:00.001Z

A few days ago I read in London's Evening Standard a review of an autobiography of Stanley Johnson, father of London's Mayor Boris. I knew and worked with Stanley Johnson many, many years ago when he was one of the great advocates not only of whale conservation, but also the Mediterranean Monk Seal. As a very active European parliamentarian, Stanley was always a memorable raconteur as well, but one thing I had almost completely forgotten until I read the review of his autobiography was that he was also a leading advocate of the need to take human populations' seriously. If only the world had listened to him. Now, millions and millions of humans on the planet later, the problem is almost insoluble.

Africa, Goats, Oxfam, Christian Aid and impending disaster

2009-03-09T15:00:00.002Z

I have just returned from Africa for a series of meetings with local conservation groups, and the World Land Trust will probably be supporting some of the important initiatives by the NGO sector in both Kenya and Tanzania. Land is under considerable pressure, and one of the main reasons is the rapid spread of agriculture, and to a lesser degree the mechanisation of agriculture. Added to this the dramatic and almost out of control increase in the human population has meant that more and more land once being cultivated is taken over for housing, and other forms of urban ‘development’. All this means there is a significant decrease in the area of grasslands, open woodlands and other habitats where once domestic livestock as well as wildlife once grazed. Add to that the fact that in the past 50 years the numbers of domestic goats, sheep, cattle, camels and other grazing animals have increased even faster than the human population, and it is hardly surprising that overgrazing is widespread.

But still foreign aid charities sell the idea that having lots of goats or even camels, is a way out of poverty for Africa. Of course for the individual that gets a goat or a camel, it probably is. But since none of the donor organisations appear to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects, little is known about either the impact of all these animals or the impact of the message that is being delivered. I am more concerned about the latter. If the developed world aid charities go around pretending that goats can be bred in unlimited quantities as a solution to poverty, they should at least be able to produce some evidence. In most African pastoralist societies, goats and other livestock are a form of wealth, and accumulated. Camels could be considered as a ‘rolls royce’ symbol in some societies. So dishing out livestock to the poorer members of society may have social implications that the donors are unaware of. Certainly when I met with representatives of Oxfam (one of the few organisations even prepared to discuss the issue) they were unable to point me in the direction of any research into this area.

And my final criticism of the goat and cow brigade is the way they market the idea that they are often providing ‘improved’ breed. I.e ones that give higher milk yields. On my visit to East Africa, I saw very few Ankole cattle this time, but loads of the ‘Holstein’ types. Is it really a good idea to replace cattle that have co-evolved with their local herders, to be suitable for the local conditions, with those that have been evolved to suit the conditions of northern Europe? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that in Europe there is considerable concern of the loss of genetic diversity in domestic livestock, and societies have sprung up to conserve rare breeds. But rare breeds are being created even faster in Africa, with very little concern by the aid agencies. I also know that the introduction of modern veterinary practices also produces short term gains, but may also wipe out long term, much cheaper husbandry practices, as it has done in the north. As a simple example, and one of my hobby horses, in England good husbandry was used to largely control parasites in livestock, but since the introduction of ivermectin and other pesticides, it has been easy to ‘clean’ animals. But this does not take into account the fact that those pesticides also wipe out a huge swathe of other invertebrates, particularly scatophagous insects. Vultures are pretty well extinct in India, entirely because of veterinary medicines, soon to be used more widely in Africa perhaps. The only winners are the northern hemisphere drug companies.

I am not the first to criticise the aid agencies, and certainly won’t be the last. But my recent visit to Africa certainly confirmed my worst fears. Aid charities far from helping solve the issues of poverty, are probably exacerbating it, despite their good intentions. And I can list a few of the reasons why I believe this is the case

1. Most interventions do not appear to have a clear exit strategy
2. Most interventions rely on western, and often inappropriate, technology
3. Most interventions are designed to make the donors feel good, not deliver the maximum long term benefits to the recipient
4. Very little is being done to address the real cause of poverty, i.e the explosive growth in human populations.
5. Aid encourages corruption
6. Aid absolves governments of responsibility for their own populations
7. Many aid interventions make the recipients dependent on long-term support from the donor countries and create debt.

I realise that for many of the charities and charity gift catalogues, 'Buying a goat' is only a cynical way of playing on emotions to raise funds for worthy causes. I know, because the small print often says so. But what really concerns me is the message that is being spread across the Internet, that increasing the volume of livestock across Africa, will help solve the continents appalling problems. I asked all the African conservationists I met, and all agreed that the main cause of habitat degradation was over-grazing and the spread of agriculture into marginal lands. Both of which are being actively encouraged by aid charities. This is not simply a wildlife issue. It means that short-term gains are going to lead to even greater problems for humans in the not too distant future.

I urge my readers to ask as many of the aid charities as possible to publish their Environmental Impact Assessments, not just for goat projects but for all projects. I think you will be surprised how few actually exist.

Burton's Biomass Extinction theory

2009-02-16T11:07:00.002Z

Having just returned from Kenya, where the human population has pretty well doubled since I first visited, I was musing on the impact of this vast quantity of biomass.

When looking at endangered species and declining species, despite a huge number of factors being cited as direct causes or even indirect causes, one area that appears to have been generally overlooked (or at least unquantified) is the carrying capacity of habitats related to biomass. In general, any given habitat can support a certain biomass of plants and animal species. This biomass can be increased by removing predators, by introducing fertilisers, and various other methods of short-term production. Some habitats will also store biomass in the form of carbon (such as peat) but essentially most habitats probably exist in some sort of equilibrium as far as the biomass is concerned, even if there are short term fluctuations and cycles.

If any of my readers know of publications on this topic, I would welcome references. One of our recent students looked at the issue in relation to the increase in goats and cattle, and the displacement of antelope and other wildlife, but found very little published data. And since Oxfam, Christian Aid and others continue to market the idea that goats are a solution to the issues of poverty, this has direct relevance.

If we examine areas where human interventions have increased the biomass of humans, their domesticated livestock, and crops, it comes as no surprise to observe that the biomass of the species previously existing in those areas has decreased, and with the decrease in biomass, there is also a loss of diversity (the latter being the phenomenon most commonly described). However, most of this dramatic increase in biomass has only occurred in the last two centuries, and consequently the impact on species loss may not yet have had a major impact, as many species are fairly resilient. But my view is that many species, over a relatively short period of time will start to show rapid declines to the point of ecological extinction, as the simplified ecosystems created by the human-livestock-crop interrelationships, will encourage a few relics of the wild ecosystem to become dominant, with others careering towards extinction. The only way of reversing this trend is to allow the human-livestock-crop-wildlife relationship to become more complex (by encouraging more natural cropping systems, less use of pesticides and herbicides), and by reducing the overall biomass of humans and their livestock.

Compounded with the increase in the increase in human related biomass, there has also been a massive decrease in the area available for natural biomass to co-exist. Vast areas are now given over to urban developments and infrastructure, much of which involves the total replacement of natural vegetation and habitats with roads, housing and other solid materials. This is most clearly visible in a country such as England, where even once common species such as the house sparrow are declining, along with most birds found in arable farmlands. But it is also true in a country such as Kenya, where not only has the human population increased dramatically, but urban areas have spread, and the numbers of domestic livestock has increased even more dramatically than that of the human population. And at the same time, the areas available for grazing this huge biomass of domestic livestock has been significantly reduced by the spread of agriculture. This leads to overgrazing, depletion of the soils, so that agriculture becomes dependent on artificial fertilisers, in order to maintain the levels of plant biomass.

If the theory that biomass, as much as biodiversity is playing a role in the maintenance of ecosystems, then there is an even bigger catastrophe waiting in the wings, but because much of this is a very recent phenomenon - essentially post 1950 - it is too early to speculate on the scale of the extinction. However if this theory is correct, then we may be beginning to see a wave of extinctions that even the worst pessimists of the end of the 20th century couldn't have predicted.

Living in Balance with Nature. Is it possible?

2009-02-05T09:45:00.002Z

Re-reading my recent Anonymous critic, I noted the claim that "...in biblical times people had great respect for animals and their environment..." * This is a claim a bit like the one often trotted out that indigenous people live in harmony with nature -- the modern version of the Noble Savage from the age of enlightenment. It's a great and noble concept. Unfortunately there is very little empirical evidence to support the idea. Throughout history, humans have lived at the edge of their technology. The reason that most indigenous tribes in South America haven't exterminated the wildlife is they didn't have guns. The reason the forest was not felled is they didn't have chainsaws. And in 'biblical' times every effort was being made to wipe out lions, wolves and other wildlife that threatened humans or their crops. I firmly believe that it is essential to involve indigenous communities and all other local communities in conservation efforts. But I also believe they should not be seen through rose-coloured spectacles. One of the reasons that humans lived in balance in the past was because they had high mortality rates -- and not just from disease, it was often inter tribal warfare, geronticide, or infanticide. I don't believe there would be much support for encouraging a return to this as a way of achieving sustainability.

The WLT is helping fund projects in South America that involve indigenous communities and other local peoples in the decision-making process that conserves land and wildlife, because without local support the long term prospects will never be good. Hunters turned wardens are just one way of using local knowledge, but we believe it is even more important to involve all local people at as many levels as possible. Imposing conservation from the outside can only ever be effective in the short-term, and is likely to leave a legacy which does not help the long term.

I am about to travel to Kenya and Tanzania, to see if there is any way the WLT can assist local conservation initiatives -- and both countries have numerous examples of the problems caused by conservation being pushed from the top down, as a legacy of good intentions during the colonial era. It is not simply a case of bottom up initiatives, which can often result in simply creating a new and different problem. More a case of full participation with all the stakeholders (to use the pc jargon).

If any of my readers want to support conservation in Africa, now is your chance -- deatils to follow when I return, after 15 February.

*I am not sure when biblical times were. Presumably when people in the bible were alive or when the authors were alive, so up to about 300 AD?

God delusion and conservation

2009-02-04T11:40:00.002Z

A comment was left on my last blog, which for some reason seems to have got diverted in cyberspace, and never appeared as a comment. I wouldn't want the anonymous commentator to think we were censuring comment, so it it published below, together with my response

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The God delusion":

I have enjoyed "John's rant". What a new and refreshing idea that God doesn't exist. I love the claim that non-believers are rational thinkers hinting that anyone that dare think otherwise have somehow a lesser right to an opinion. I am a conservation scientist and a christian. I pride myself on researching all aspects of both the evolution theory and faith and through this I have come to a conclusion to what is true. This does not mean that the science is wrong as the World is a complex place with complex processes. But the truth is that how ever much I want to pretend that God is a fantasy creature developed by an over active imagination it's not true and believe that I would be wrong to turn by back on my faith however strong the pressure is for me to do so.

The one thing that shocks me is the claim that the destruction of the World's habitats is pinned on faith. During biblical times people had great respect for animals and their environment quite simply because they relied on it for their survival.We now live in World where children don't even know which animal bacon comes from. To blame global destruction on faith is shockingly short sighted and arrogant. The truth is that people have detached themselves from the environment. Maybe it is time we start to address this rather than waste time criticising other peoples faith without any clear knowledge or understanding.

Posted by Anonymous to Green Issues at 02 February, 2009 22:43

Response by John:

I think my Anonymous critic has not only missed the point, but has not actually read what I have written.

In particular, he or she should not try and put words into my mouth, since nowhere did I write that god per se does not exist; I simply rejected the concepts of certain types of god. Proving non-existence is slightly more difficult than proving existence. Anyone who has ever been involved with biological recording will know that it is relatively easy to prove that an animal or a plant occurs somewhere, but often far more difficult to prove that it doesn't. Just as proving a species have become extinct is often very difficult. Belief is simply that, belief. Existence is a different matter. The fact that I have materialist beliefs, based on the existence of evidence, does not mean I can prove the non-existence of god or anything else. But neither can believers in gods prove their existence, whether we are talking about Wotan, Zeus, Pan, Ganesh, Jehova or any other god. To the people that believe in a particular god, evidence is not needed. And to non-believer like myself, all appear to be about as worthy as each other in their diverse ways.

Nor did I write that non-believers are rational; in fact, I wrote the very reverse, that anyone who is rational, is a non-believer. A very different thing.

I watched Inherit the Wind on TV recently, and Anonymous and other theists would do well to watch that remarkable film if they have never seen it. They should be wary of attributing thoughts and beliefs which the agnostics, atheists and antitheists do not have. Nowhere did I claim that "the destruction of the world's habitats is pinned on faith". What I will say, and do stand by, is that no amount of praying will solve any of these problems. And if anyone can find one shred of scientific evidence of praying ever changing anything that does not involve the human mind, then I will stand corrected.

I would also add that if a fraction of the funds devoted to maintaining organised religions (most of which claim superiority over the others) was spent on glorifying and conserving the natural world, the world would certainly be a much better place.

Free Market economics

2009-01-30T10:41:00.002Z

As everyone probably knows, understanding economics is not my strong point. However, having survived being self-employed for over 40 years, and created a relatively successful organisation from next to nothing, I have learned a few things along the way. The first thing I would observe is that the idea that a totally free market is a good way of letting the world run its affairs is probably daft. It is difficult to pinpoint any period in history where it has actually worked. And the reality is that the current so-called 'free markets' like the 12th century in England, are actually far from free -- they are heavily skewed in favour of a select few, who make vast profits.

The second observation I would make, is that small may not be always beautiful, but huge is certainly disastrous. To me it is blindingly obvious that there are limits to growth, and that when corporations get absolutely huge, they are bound, at some point to collapse. The only reason for them getting so big appears to be in order to justify vast salaries for the people who run these behemoths. Does anyone think to ask how 'efficient' or sensible it is to have to spend vast millions sorting out the trail of problems left behind when these huge companies collapse? Surely the only huge corporations that should exist have to be state owned? That way vast profits cannot be creamed off into private pockets, but can be reinvested for the public good? And when the mega-corporations get so big, the whole argument about competition collapses anyway -- they become de-facto monopolies. There were very good reasons for nationalising railways, water companies and power companies with monopolies. And very flimsy, selfish reasons for privatising them. And not good for the environment either. Perhaps if capitalism is to survive, a limit to capital needs to be imposed. That way when collapses occur, then they will not bring down whole economies.

In the course of developing the World Land Trust, I have seen that there are important economies of scale. But as we grow, I also see a loss of flexibility, a loss of dexterity and innovation. The trick is to keep a balance. But I am certain that there is a limit to growth, beyond which the organisation loses sight of its original vision. A point at which the number-crunchers take over. As I have mentioned elsewhere, business methods are introduced, and 'efficiency' is measured in purely financial terms. Despite the spectacular growth of the World Land Trust in the past few years, so far we are keeping our enthusiasm and our vision. But stopping it becoming another 'corporate conservation organisation' is the challenge ahead.

The God delusion

2009-01-27T16:21:00.002Z

A recent article in the Guardian summed up a common misconception about Darwin (and indeed many other agnostics/atheists. It was stated that
In particular, what would have baffled Darwin is his recruitment as standard bearer for atheism in the 21st century. Darwin kept his pronouncements on religion to a minimum, partly out of respect for his Christian wife. Despite continuing claims that he was an atheist, most scholars acknowledge that he never went further than agnosticism
But what Darwin and most other non-believers would also say is that the concept of the Christaian god, or almost any other god worshipped by conventional religions, should be totally rejected. The idea that someone was once crucified and resurrected, the vengeful god of the Hebrews, these and many others are what all rational people reject. I say all, because you cannot be rational and believe in them. The belief itself is irrational, and unlike evolution, not supported by one shred of evidence. That is using evidence in the rational, scientific meaning of the word.
As a conservationist, I believe it is essential that humans take responsibility for their actions. No amount of praying to a god of any sort will solve the world's problems. As Sir David has pointed out there is enough suffering of the most inhuman kind to convince any rational person of the non-existence of a benign god. If a tiny fraction of the resources wasted on religion were spent on the environment, the world would be a much better place for everyone. And don't forget to watch Sir David's new series on Darwin.

Sir David Attenborough Speaks out on God

2009-01-27T11:17:00.002Z

Compulsory reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/david-attenborough-science

Sir David is very outspoken on his views about God -- views with which I personally entirely concur. I am often told that I should not let my views on religion be known as it can alienate those who have deep religious beliefs. But since I see religion as having a significant bearing on our attitude to wildlife and nature, this is simply not possible. The idea that man was given dominion over nature is an anathema to me. And almost all opposition to birth control (in its various forms) has a religious basis. I do not have any issue with those who have religious beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. For that matter I don't really mind if anyone wants to believe in ghosts, UFOs fairies or elves. They are all just about as rational as each other, and those that do believe in them often do so passionately. But that does not mean that they exist. Evolution is demonstrable. Climate change is demonstrable. Habitat destruction is demonstrable, and actions based on such demonstrable events are rational. That is not true of anything based on a belief alone. Such actions are irrational.

It is demonstrable that the world's human population cannot grow infinitely. It is demonstrable that the rapidly increasing population is responsible for the destruction of nature. QED if we want to do something about the destruction of nature we MUST do something about rising human populations. Less than one thousand years ago, i.e. in Medieval Times, the human population of the entire world was probably less than that of present day Europe. Until a few months ago there were of course people who believed that economic growth could continue indefinitely. An irrational Belief. And if anyone believes that the human population can continue to increase at its present rate, they too will find there is another 'crunch' on its way.

Babylon at the British Museum

2009-01-07T17:14:00.003Z

Not my usual topic for a news blog, but one which may be of general interest. I went to the British Museum the other day to see their widely publicised exhibition on Babylon. And I was mightily disappointed. It followed a trend all to common in Museums these days. It was verbose and boring. There were relatively few objects (but some were spectacular), but massively long captions. Text is what a museum catalogue is for (and this catalogue was excellent. Words can be put in books. But objects can't. A museum should do what it, and only it can do, and that is show specimens, objects. It was good to see lots of paintings (and even a few of the Tower of Babel), but as far as I am concerned once you have seen one cuneiform tablet or cylinder, you have seen them all.

I speak as a former musem designer, as my first job was designing gallery exhibits in the Natural History Museum (a.k.a British Museum (Natural History))so I do have a bit of background. In this exhibition the catalogue is more impressive than the exhibition. Barring a few bits and pieces from the Berlin Museum,I came away feeling very disappointed. And then spent the next hour scouring the galleries of Ancient Egypt to see if I could find an image of a Siberian White Crane. Without success, though an image has recently been found, suggesting they were once much more widespread. But it's always interesting to go around museums looking for ancient images of wildlife -- it gives me a sense of purpose.

Buy land. Save wildlife. 27 years crying in the wilderness

2009-01-02T11:13:00.002Z

I was doing some filing over Christmas, and I came across some newspaper cuttings dating from September 1981. I had created a furore by giving a paper at the Annual Meeting of the British Association in which I pointed out that while millions of pounds were being spent on preserving post-Pleistocene relics such as the Giant Panda, thousands of species were going extinct in the rainforests.

According to a report in the Times of the 5th September 1981 I "called for a radical change in the approach of conservationists, and urged them to move away from funding research in favour of acquiring land to protect species...." At the time I was the Executive Secretary of the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (now Fauna & Flora International), and my comments on the fate of the Panda led to calls for my resignation.

However it was not until five years later that I left the FFPS, and soon after that I did put my money where my mouth was, and founded what has become the World Land Trust. But in the intervening quarter of a century the situation has continued to deteriorate, and we are still a voice in the wilderness (what is left of it). Economic crises have come and gone, the world's human population grows ever more out of control, poverty increases in Africa, more and more aid is poured in to poorer countries, arms flood the world. And millions of dollars, yen, pounds, euros etc, are still being spent on (often pointless) research into endangered species. All of this continues, but wilderness, wild places natural habitats also continue to disappear at an even more alarming rate.

So. Despite all the gloom and doom, if you are inclined to make New Year resolutions, can I urge all readers to spread the word? If we want to conserve wildlife for the future, there is only one way that is truly realistic: save habitats.

The World Land Trust has shown how it can be done. We can never do it on our own, but our world-wide network of small, dynamic NGOs is helping spread the word. Our target for 2009 is to raise at least £5 million. Next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if much of that comes from donations of £50 or £100, and if the rest comes from the corporate world, the multiplier effect is significant. And if it is spent through strong and integrated partnerships, then it is multiplied even further.

I was recently asked why the WLT had become so successful over the past few years. The answer is very simple: Because we are successful and transparent. Success breeds success, and we can demonstrate some of the most successful conservation projects , some of the the most cost effective projects, and some of the most sustainable projects. Others are now copying us, with varying degrees of success. But our model is certainly effective.

But PLEASE HELP 2009, OUR 20TH ANNIVERSARY, BE OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL YEAR SO FAR.

Going Corporate

2008-12-19T15:46:00.002Z

According to the annual report of WWF, in 2006 and again in 2007 the organisation spent £7.5 million on raising £12.3 million of unrestricted donations from individuals. Put another way, that for every £10 donated to WWF they will have spent £6.00 on raising that money. Of course not all the ratios are so bad. Overall they only (yes only) spent £11.5 million to raise £41 million, of which over £11 million came as legacies, and nearly £5 million as government grants, which only cost £0.75million to raise. The average salary paid was £34,800 p.a. and three members of staff earned between £80,000 and £120,000 a year in 2006. The figures for 2007 are much the same. And of course there are any number of interpretations that can be made of such figures.

I mention these figures, not to criticise WWF -- my readers can look at the Annual Reports of any NGO and draw their own conclusions -- positive or negative. I mention them to illustrate a more important point. That is that Conservationists and charities are often told to look to business for guidance, and to model their modus operandi on business models. I think that in general, this is bad advice. And business is a bad model for a conservation charity to copy. And I think WWF follows it too closely. And the danger here is that the public become distrustful of charities that spend a huge percentage of their income on raising those funds.

Having worked in and around both the charity sector and the business (publishing) sector for around 40 years, I feel confident in asserting that business has more to learn from the Charity sector than the other way round. At the WLT we take a 15% overhead, to cover non-project related management and fund-raising costs. Put it another way, we are making a 85% 'profit' to spend on our objectives. Not many businesses can claim that level of efficiency. Salaries in the charity sector (despite the above quoted figures) are generally significantly lower than business --but, research has shown, the employees are generally much happier, more loyal, have less time off for sickness etc etc etc. But realistically it is just as daft to say business should learn from charities as the other way round.

Both sectors should be using the models and methods that work best for achieving their objectives. Some charities (such as the Royal Opera House**) have used the business model, and pay huge salaries to senior staff, claiming they need to do this to attract the right people. I disagree. The right people will not be motivated by huge salaries, they will be motivated by a belief in the work of the charity. Even in the business world not everyone is obsessed by money. This is not to say that any staff should be underpaid, but once the salary becomes the main reason a person takes a job, it is increasingly difficult to assess their real worth. I am a critic of conservation bodies that become too 'corporate'. Large reception areas, all chrome and glass. It may be how big business operates, but it should not be how a conservation charity operates. Charities rely on voluntary donations, and donors do not like to think their well intentioned gifts are being spent on maintaining flashy offices, or funding an extravagant lifestyle for the staff.

** Much as I like opera, I cannot really see the justification for it being considered a charity.

Annual Goat Rant

2008-12-18T10:40:00.002Z

Several friends and colleagues have contacted me over my silence on goats this year. I am sorry, I simply have not had the time. It is very depressing to see Oxfam and the rest still flogging goats to Africa. If the world is led to believe that increasing the goat (and other livestock) population is going to solve the problems of poverty in Africa, we truly are in a mess. If the aid agencies continue short term 'solutions' without carrying out Environmental Impact Assessments, it is not unreasonable to accuse them of potentially creating the problems they are trying to solve.

With habitat degradation continuing apace in Africa, any programme that suggests that increasing the numbers of livestock should be very seriously questioned. And that is without taking into account the social aspects. Giving camels and other livestock away in communities where these are not so much a part of a subsistence economy, but part of the wealth bartering system, has serious ramifications, and I cannot find any analysis of this by the agencies concerned.

And finally, what happens to the huge flocks of goats that the agencies claim are being produced by giving a poor African a single animal, when a drought come along?

If anyone can find some respected environmental conservationists who believe that increasing the numbers of goats in Africa is a way out of poverty, I would be very interested to see what they have published. But every single conservationist I have spoken to thinks it is a mistake. A big mistake.

Stop Breeding more humans: Save wildlife.

2008-12-17T15:11:00.003Z

Those familiar with my regular rants about politicians who ignore the human population crisis will understand why I like this website: http://www.vhemt.org/

Those not familiar who like wildlife, think the planet's in a mess shopuld also take a look.

Credit cruch and good news

2008-12-17T09:36:00.002Z

While the worldwide credit crunch could undoubtedly have a serious impact on charities like the World Land Trust, there could be a silver lining. Ever since the beginning of 2008 there have apparently been declines in the value of real estate; and this means that the cash the WLT raises can potentially go a lot further. There is no better time than the present for the WLT to work with its ever increasing network of partners to spread its network of nature reserves. If it's all added up, between the WLT, WLT US and all our partners, there are probably somewhere in excess of five million acres under protection, that might otherwise have been lost. But even this huge number is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed. However, in the 20 years since the WLT first started to help buy land we have seen dozens of other groups start up, and seen governments take the issue more seriously. In many ways this is the really important benefit of saving land with the WLT: the fact that it sets a really good example. Our successes encourage others. It is, as one of Council Members, Simon Barnes, recently described, the leverage effect. Punching above our weight.

That is not to let governments off the hook for ignoring the real problem that is driving deforestation, carbon excess etc. Human population growth. And greed. Last night I watched a video of a BBC TV production of Anthony Trollope's The way we Live Now. So pertinent and up to date. And that rapacious greed, that is destroying the planet, also leads governments to allow expansion of airports such as Stanstead, not because Britain needs extra capacity, but simply to stop other European countries getting the traffic. Greed. Pure unadulterated greed, is unfortunately what seems to be the great motivator of the 21st century. Most people in the developed world have material wealth several orders of magnitude greater than the poorer parts of the world. But still we want more. And with our population still growing at an alarming rate, only a major pandemic of disease (or similar catastrophe) can reverse this, unless governments take the issue seriously -- really seriously and not just lip service. But there is absolutely no sign of it. And even the world's biggest conservation conference (IUCN in Barcelona 2008) did not exactly put it at the top of its agenda.

Credit Crunch and the bad news

2008-12-12T12:15:00.002Z

Overall the WLT has been very successful in 2008, and has been able to help its partners buy lots of land, with over $2 million sent for this purpose (and more sent from the USA). However, suddenly we are noticing a big dip in donations from individuals. Compared with last year fewer individuals are supporting conservation. This is a great pity, as the environmental crisis is probably even greater than the economic crisis.

Never has there been a greater need for protecting land. And while land prices are unlikely to crash in the way stocks and shares have, there is little doubt that it will generally be much cheaper over the coming months.

So please, if you can spare it make a donation, however small to the WLT's Action Fund, where the money can be used for any important opportunity as it arises. At the meeting of the WLT's Trustees last week exciting new initiatives in Venezuela, Guatemala and India were all given the go ahead. Our vital work in Paraguay continues with a project that could ultimately benefit around 10 million acres. The land the WLT helps buy and save for ever, but even more important is the knock-on effect of making governments and others aware of the international importance of local heritage.

Help make this a greener Christmas.

The endangered lion

2008-12-08T17:24:00.002Z

Lion numbers have plummetted from around 450,000 ca. 50 years ago to around 20,000. When I was the secretary for the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society some 20 years ago I suggested to the Council that the lion was in serious difficulty,and that the society (now known as Fauna and Flora International) should initiate a conservation programme -- a proposal that was turned down. I pointed out at the time that the lion together with the unicorn was on the royal coat of arms. In fact, one of the origins of the unicorn has been suggested as the Arabian or White Oryx -- a species saved from extinction by an initiative of the Fauna Preservation Society (as it was then).

But still lion numbers decline, and will continue to do so as more and more of their territory is taken over by humans and their ever expanding flocks of domestic livestock (particularly if charities continue to encourage more and more goats as Christmas presents). The fragmentation of their habitat is the real problem. While lions are not Territorial like most cats, they do need large numbers of prey, each time habitat is fragmented, the survival of lions is threatened. And because they are large predators, and both humans and cattle, as well as sheep and goats are all well within their natural prey range, conflict is inevitable. Lions were exterminated in Europe over 2000 years ago, and throughout much of the Levant and Middle East by the early 20th century. India has lost all but one tiny population. The Cape Lion has gone, and so has the North African population. The rest are pretty well doomed, unless we can create corridor ts between the fragmented patchwork of national parks and other protected areas. The World Land Trust is pioneering the creation of corridors, but as yet has not been able to do so in Africa. We probably need at least $2 million to kick start such work. Any Offers?

Population, human population. That's the problem

2008-10-22T09:07:00.002+01:00

Why, oh why do the politicians ignore it? The real problem behind all the crises facing the world is not a shortage of oil. It is not the credit crunch, it is not global warming. It is the thing that fuels all of these, It is the ever expanding human population and its ever increasing greed. The rich get richer, until many are what can only be described as obscenely rich, while the poor not only get poorer, but there are more of them. Governments and aid agencies pour millions into "poverty alleviation" in Africa, and meanwhile the population continues to grow, natural resources are further depleted, and wildlife disappears. Human population growth cannot continue indefinitely, so why not call a halt now?

Tackiest fundraising awards

2008-10-08T12:42:00.002+01:00

An opinion poll. I think this is one of the tackiest bits of fundraising for wildlife conservation, I have ever come across.

What do you think? Or is there something even tackier?

I have nothing against cuddly toys, but in this context, I do wonder if pursuing such blatant consumerism is the best way of saving wildlife.

Any ideas?

How to stop overfishing

2008-09-30T13:36:00.002+01:00

I read a short item in The Ecologist this month (October issue) about Greenpeace dumping 3 tonne blocks of granite in the German North Sea to foul the fishing tackle of bottom trawlers. It struck me as a very neat way of enforcing fishing controls, and one that governments could do well to endorse. Dumping large objects in the sea could be a very simple way of enforcing no fishing zones -- at least as far as the highly destructive bottom trawlers are concerned. It reminds me of the proposal to decontaminate the decommissioned North Sea oil platforms, and sink them. This would have been far cheaper for the oil companies than towing them back to land for dismantling, but was unfortunately opposed by Greenpeace and other environmentalists at the time.

Awards (again)

2008-09-18T16:30:00.002+01:00

It's that time of the year. One of the most useful magazines for me as the CEO of a charity is Third Sector. It is bang up to date and full of relevant news. BUT, it has awards for the most admired charity, the most admired ceo etc. And it smacks of the Eurovision song contest.
The winners are chosen from a list drawn up by 'a panel of the sector's leaders'. Three consecutive winners of the "Celebrity Charity Champion" were HRH princess Royal, Bob Geldorf, and HRH Prince of Wales. Beat that for originality. And Medecins sans Frontieres won two years running. And Actionaid was apparently the most innovative charity.

Only one of the so-called celebs listed for selection this year, have I actually heard of. The others, are all presumably minor TV actors

All goes to show something.

The goat season approaches

2008-09-18T15:04:00.002+01:00

Last year the Environment Funders Network published a report "Where the Green Grants Went". And I presume it represents the interests of the Trusts and Foundations that make up the Environment Funders Network. In this report, one of the more bizarre pieces of information I came across was that these environmental funders had given grants totalling £1.3 million over a three year period to Farm Africa, an organisation that specialises in promoting livestock use in Africa. And in particular 'sells' goats and other livestock as a way of fundraising. Now any reader of this column will know that I have railed against this for several years. Promoting livestock in Africa, is about as environmentally irresponsible as one can get. The number of goats, cows, sheep, camels and other livestock has spiralled over the past half century, and habitat degradation is a direct result. So the question is how is funding organisation that promotes expanding the keeping of livestock and green?

I will, once again, urge everyone to question the agencies involved, as to why they see fit to encourage more and more livestock in Africa, in the full knowledge that one of the main causes of environmental damage is overgrazing by livestock, and it has a direct correlation with poverty. And also ask all the agencies involved to produce the Environmental Impact Assessments they carried out before dishing out more livestock. Finally, they could be asked about the studies carried out as to the likely socio-economic perturbations caused by hand-outs of livestock.

I know the answer to some of these questions: very few environmental impact assessments have ever been carried out, and very little information about the social impacts of the hand outs has been published. The aid agencies and charities should be held to account.

The Population Bomb. And the causes of poverty. An update

2008-09-16T12:30:00.002+01:00

Readers of my blog, will be familiar with my rants about how we are ignoring the real issues that drive climate change, endanger species, destroy habitats: i.e. rapidly increasing human populations.

I have just returned from an extensive visit to South America, and unlike Africa, this is a part of the world that is experiencing rapid economic growth. Increasing prosperity. And even more rapid destruction of natural resources.

I was also able to see first hand the results of doing-good by aid charities and missionaries. Not a pleasant experience. And it reminded me of the response I got from one of the world's largest aid charities when I asked them what their policy on human populations was. Here it is, verbatim:

Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.

To me, it is utterly incomprehensible how an organisation delivering aid to human populations in the most impoverished areas of the world does not have a policy on something so indelibly linked with poverty. And of course, the root cause, which they claim to be tackling, is obviously unsustainable population growth.

And presumably the sustainable economies they are helping build, are based on the unsustainable market economies of the donor countries.

Collins New Naturalists

2008-08-31T16:55:00.002+01:00

The Collins New Naturalists are a British institution. Not only are they a particularly fine series of reference books on British wildlife and natural history, the series has become even better known as highly collectible. There is no question that the volumes contained within the series remain among the finest books available on the topics they cover, and even those that are out of date, still remain useful as historical documents. Some of the volumes have been completely rewritten and revised, but even in these cases, the original, long out of date volume, still remains useful.

But as collectors items, the series epitomises the stupidity of collectors, who collect for collecting's sake. The fanatical collector of new Naturalists must have the first printing of the first edition, complete with mint dust wrapper. And of course, this often means that the first printing of a first edition had minor printing errors, that were later corrected. And in many cases dust jackets were what they claimed to be: Covers to keep the book clean, before sale. In the case of the Collins NNs, however, the dust wrappers were beautifully designed, and deservedly became collectors items in their own right. However, because of the collectors' market, dust wrappers became valued beyond any real intrinsic worth, and of course are very easy indeed, with modern high quality photocopying facilities, to fake.

If ever you come across a New Naturalist collector (and many of them are genuinely interested in natural history as well, they will, like so many collectors tell you how much this and that is worth, and how their prized possessions are increasing in value. The reality is rather different. If you were to compare the price of many of the books with their original value when sold, they have declined. A book costing 30s in the 1940s, when a week's wage could be under £5.00, may still only fetch £20-£30 . And a quick search of the internet will show that many of the so-called rarer volumes can still be picked up for relatively modest sums. And of course, for the real naturalist, there is the advantage, that reprints and ex-library copies, usually under a fiver, abound. Allegedly, one of the rarest was a monograph on Ants, published in the 1950s, and apparently withdrawn from sale soon after publication. But if this was the case, there are still a remarkable number of even this, which should be the rarest of the rare, floating around.

I cannot take too seriously the collectors market, but it is gratifying in one way -- it means that HarperCollins have got a guaranteed market for new volumes, on almost any subject they like to publish, however specialised.

The World Land Trust builds on success

2008-08-22T12:23:00.002+01:00

By June this year, the WLT had already raised over £1 ($2) million in the UK alone, and is all set to at least double its 2007 income. And this is good news, as the increase in income is not matched by an increase in fundraising expenditure. This means that even more of the income goes to projects, and in particular buying land.

The downside is that land prices are escalating almost everywhere. As the world's population increases day by day, and there is a demand for more and more food, even marginal lands are being gobbled up. The WLT recognises that land often has even more important values -- water catchment, for one -- and that we must not allow short-term profits erode the world's natural heritage.

That's why the world Land Trust's approach to saving land has been so important. In the 20 years since we were founded (initially to support Programme for Belize) we have seen more and more organisations follow us. When we started, hardly any NGOs were funding land purchase internationally. Now its a veritable bandwagon, on which everyone wants to ride. And that has to be a good thing. But as as our partners know, there are significant differences in the way we operate, and we believe that the long term success of our projects is largely due to the strength of our partners. Fundacion Patagonia Natural, REGUA, Fundacion Jocotoco, Philippines Reef and Rainforest, Ecominga, Guyra Paraguay, and the Wildlife Trust of India are just a few of our project partners. But our partners are not just a group we give money to. We have long-lasting well-developed working relationships with them. I have just spent a 5 week sabbatical in Paraguay, and for the next three months a member of the Guyra Paraguay team will be working in the WLT Office, to ensure that we work closely together for the long-term success of conservation in Paraguay.

But all this needs funding, land is disappearing under the axe and the plough. So please make a regular commitment to the WLT The price of a bottle of wine a month is enough to save the area of a small vineyard every year!

chiffchaffs and Spaniards

2008-08-20T16:16:00.002+01:00

Biologists are currently going through a phase of species 'splitting'. That is to say that what were once considered variable, widespread species are now being split into two or more species. Little green warblers in Europe, lots of marmosets and monkeys in South America and numerous other species all over the world are suddenly being created. But some of the differences are so small that I wonder if these splits are justified. If an Iberian Chiffchaff has a slight difference in song, and some very minor plumage differences to those found in England does it really make it a different species? After all Spaniards sound different to Englishmen, sing different songs, and on average look darker. But they are certainly not a different species. They can (and often do) interbreed with English women. And so, I suspect, could the Iberian Chiffchaffs, interbreed with English ones, given a chance. Just like their human counterparts, language differences may make it difficult, but not impossible

In terms of taxonomy, it makes relatively little difference whether or not they are considered geographical races (subspecies) or allopatric species. It does however, have a conservation benefit, in as much as it can highlight declines more accurately, and it probably has increased the number of endangered species being identified. But is this a good thing? Or is it misleading? Answers please......

Fuel and food myths

2008-07-28T10:57:00.002+01:00

There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.

Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.

I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.

What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.

I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.

Should we call for an end to aid in Africa?

2008-07-10T20:56:00.002+01:00

I have written about the problems of foreign aid on many occasions, and am going to develop the theme I first put forward on 28/06/07. Does aid wipe out poverty? Thinking about it, raised another question in my mind. Does aid actually encourage poverty? I don't know the answer, and would welcome feedback, particularly from the agencies which promote it. But surely if aid agencies pump in millions of dollars worth of aid into a country, they are really taking away the responsibility for carrying out those vital humanitarian actions from the government of the country concerned. Many of the recipient countries have significant natural resources

Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military

According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.

And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).

There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.

These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.

It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?

I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.

Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.

And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.

Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.

Who is certifying the certifiers?

2008-06-30T11:27:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by the World Land Trust's Special Projects Consultant, Mark Gruin

A recent article on the BBC News website (Carbon standard 'to renew trust') described a new Carbon Standard certification scheme launched by the Carbon Trust. While interesting, and arguably newsworthy, this news is more than a little frustrating and disconcerting. I have a basic mistrust of certification schemes, especially ones like this that make sweeping statements like this one that smear with a very broad brush, "...the new benchmark was in response to the public's growing mistrust of companies' claims to be cutting their greenhouse gas emissions."

The underlying motivation could be seen as noble, if it was not so limiting and frankly, blatantly self-serving. This new scheme specifically eliminates from ranking consideration companies that use a 'third party' to offset emissions on their behalf, in a supposed attempt to claim that only on in-house measures to reduce a company's emissions are worth certifying. (In the interest of full disclosure -- World Land Trust (WLT) does provide 'third party' offsets to businesses, but only if the company agrees to also pursue in-house emissions reduction programmes. www.carbonbalanced.org)

Mind you, making the effort to reduce emissions and putting in place systems to measure and account for the emissions reduction efforts is certainly a good thing. But why eliminate from consideration other sound and proven approaches? And, by not considering for this scheme companies that use a 'third party' - like WLT - to offset emissions on their behalf Carbon Trust could be seen to be aiming sideways criticism at not only those companies who do, but the providers as well.

What gnaws at me most is that the 'certifiers' often introduce schemes like this to try and scramble their way back into the picture. The field of emissions offsetting is maturing rapidly, is eminently verifiable, and recognised and both scientifically sound and beneficial. Furthermore, and this is always the icing on the cake, when the 'certifiers' start charging exorbitant prices just for the privilege of being certified that's where, in my mind, they really cross the line. It's bad enough that a small company, with annual energy expenditure of less than £50k, would need to spend £1,000 to submit an assessment form to be considered for certification; why would they have to, or want to pay an additional £700 to have Carbon Trust 'assist' them in completing the certification materials, then be evaluated by that same Carbon Trust to see if they met the standards? To be fully legitimate and transparent, certification should be prepared and submitted independent from the evaluator and grantor of the certification. How much faith in the standard is generated if the certifier is assisting in the preparation of the application, and is being paid to do so? That money could be much better spent applied to initiatives that prevent even more CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.

Eliminating from consideration for this 'Standard' companies that pursue dedicated in-house programmes to reduce their emissions and choose to offset their emissions with legitimate initiatives that provide credits for reforestation, assisted natural regeneration and avoided deforestation is at best counter-productive. Take for example Nikwax, one of WLT's carbon balanced companies: they do a stringent internal carbon reduction assessment and action plan, they offset their calculated current emissions with WLT, and they match that offset in order to offset what they've emitted 10 years back. Isn't this not only a sound approach, but one that seeks to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions by any legitimate means possible? Why should they be discounted from consideration, and not be properly recognised for their efforts and their leadership? Even worse, why remove the motivation to not only reduce but mitigate?

Certainly, businesses and consumers want to know that claims about emissions offsetting are valid. But they are not stupid, and should not be patronised or mislead by yet another supposedly authoritative certification standard. The information is out there, the public and the media are watching closely, and they are making their own informed decisions. (See Which? Magazine's April 2008 issue, highlighted on WLT's website.)

Maybe we should be asking who is certifying the certifiers, but we would rather spend our energy getting on with the hard work of providing legitimate and verifiable offsets that also benefit biodiversity conservation.

Oil Price hike great for conservation?

2008-06-23T14:05:00.002+01:00

With world leaders trying to bring down the price of oil, one thing seems to have been overlooked. The dramatic rise is probably the best thing that could have happened for the planet.

It is surely the swiftest way of curtailing the profligate use of energy. And in any case the high price of petrol is not actually related to the high price of a barrel of oil (at least in the UK,) it is largely related to the tax that is placed on it. It seems bizarre that the UK and other governments are trying to get everyone to reduce their dependence on a carbon economy, to reduce emissions, but as soon as a simple way of doing it comes along they cry "Foul." Not only does a hike in oil prices reduce demand for petrol etc, it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on a whole range of consumer products. So all in all, surely for the sake of the future of the planet, we should be welcoming a dramatic rise in oil prices, and hope for further increases. Or have I got something wrong?

More awards. Greenwash?

2008-06-17T14:28:00.002+01:00

We have just been sent an invitation to apply for a Green Award. Of course, any one who reads my blog will have a fair idea of my reaction. Go to the website and see just how green the event itself is! http://www.greenawards.co.uk/awards_night/the_venue

So why on earth would any green organisation want to enter such a competition? And why would any seriously green organisation want to pay £75 for the privilege of entering in the first place, and then go to the expense of paying to go to the Dinner?

Answers on a postcard, or by email

The Menace of the Cat

2008-06-05T15:00:00.002+01:00

The Menace of the Cat is the title of a leaflet I purchased on ebay recently, with a couple of other items all dating from 1922 and earlier. And it is an issue that has not gone away. My ebay purchases were all published in the USA, and despite all the evidence of the enormous damage that domestic and feral cats cause to wildlife, in almost all parts of the world, they are still allowed to roam free. In 1922 it was estimated that cats, in New York State alone, were responsible for killing at least 3.5 million birds, mostly songbirds.

These early pamphlets were all advocating licencing of cats, as a way of controlling their numbers. In fact, the spread of rabies has helped control cats in many parts of the US, as cat owners don't want their pets to come into contact with wild possums, raccoons and other species. But in Britain cats are probably more abundant than they have ever been. And almost every cat owner will defend their darling moggies claiming either 'They don't kill birds' or 'They only kill the occasional bird'

But even with a low estimate of the number of cats in Britain, of 10 million, back in 2003, the Mammal Society estimated that cats killed around 300 million mammals and birds a year. Another point to bear in mind is that cats often kill birds when they are at their most vulnerable -- when feeding young, and gathering food for nestlings. And cats do not always kill for food. They are often well fed, with cat food (another subject for the environmentally conscious), and consequently will kill to excess.

But it is a political hot potato, and I can't see the RSPB taking up the cudgels and lobbying for cat licensing, or a ban on cats roaming freely. Nor BirdLife International. The American Bird Conservancy, is one of the few major bird organisations that has really stood up and put its head above the parapet.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/

But unlike many of the other ways that wildlife is under attack, free roaming cats are something we could bring a halt to. Once upon a time dogs roamed the streets of England -- in my childhood I remember them being let out of an evening in suburban London -- and that is now a thing of the past. Time the same happened to cats?

New Naturalists

2008-06-03T14:20:00.002+01:00

The Collins New Naturalist series has in recent years been the subject of a hyper inflationary price rise. Collectors have been snapping them up, and there has appeared a group of obsessive collectors, who must have first editions, complete with mint dust wrappers. Now to a naturalist such as myself, this is plain daft. In some cases the second editions are of course more use, because any typos and other errors have been dealt with. And a dust wrapper (very attractive in the case of most New Nat's) is only a piece of easily reproduced paper. In fact I am sure there are a significant number of fakes floating around, since modern photocopies make it very easy, and there are plenty of suckers who will pay a huge premium for one of the rarer volumes if it has a near mint dust-wrapper. And one of the rarer volumes is also the one on Ants, which was actually withdrawn by the publishers (making it rare). Therefore, it is a collectors market, not a naturalists demand that has pushed the prices up. So it was with great delight I noticed that the market appears to be becoming saturated, and confidence is declining. One can now go on to eBay and buy many of the titles at significantly less than their apparent "market value". And even at these greatly reduced prices, they are not actually selling -- perhaps because the dealers are not snapping them up any more. This can only be a good thing for the book buying naturalists. The New Naturalist books are without question some of the finest publications available, but they need to be used. Not put in some collectors cabinet to form a set.

Brazilian hardwoods

2008-06-03T10:32:00.002+01:00

I have a large old shed covered with what I thought were very wide elm boards. And recently when remodelling the shed, we moved some of the boards around, and made a discovery. Stamped on one was 'Made in Brazil'. So they weren't elm at all. They were tropical hardwoods -- no wonder they were in such good condition after so long. There is no way I could feel guilty, they were old, dating from ca. 1984, if not before, they were being re-used when they were first put on the shed, and I was now re-using them again. And this is what is so important. Re-using is always better than recycling, and I am horrified at the vast quantities of perfectly good timber (mostly from pallets) that I see going into skips. It is perfectly re-usable. Pallets make extremely good compost bins. Four tied together creates a very good bin, which if bought custom made will cost £50 or more. So rather than just switching off a light, or the standby on the TV, why not re-use some timber? And help save the rainforests.

A Voice from the past

2008-05-08T10:47:00.002+01:00

While doing some filing I came across a paper I had written 27 years ago. It was presented at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and as I recall caused a considerable rumpus at the time. In fact the Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund contacted the Lord Craigton the Chairman of the Fauna Preservation Society (now FFI), and asked that I resign -- I was the Executive Secretary. It is difficult over a quarter of a century later to see what all the fuss was about, but it reached the columns of the Times newspaper, with conservationists joining in to defend my comments.

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/future-extinctions.pdf

What I found interesting re-reading this paper (and it should be borne in mind it was given to the Palaeontolgy section of the Conference)is that nearly a decade before we founded the World Land Trust, it was already becoming apparent that land purchase was going to be the best way of conserving wildlife.

And interestingly, at the time I was writing a new glacial period seemed more likely than he global warming we are now recording. Times change, but the number of endangered species continues to spiral out of control. And then as now, human population was the key issue. And it still remains unaddressed.

Lewis Wind Farm Refused Consent by the Scottish Government

2008-05-01T10:09:00.002+01:00

An update from WLT supporter, Deborah Kilner, on the proposed wind farm in Lewis.

When I wrote about the proposed Lewis wind farm (in 2004!), I never dreamt it would take until April 2008 to get a decision - thankfully, a full refusal of this inappropriate scheme put forward by AMEC and British Energy. The members of Moorland without Turbines (MWT) have continued to work tirelessly in defence of their much loved environment and they deserve sincere congratulations for their succesful campaign.

The Scottish Government's Energy Minister, Jim Mather, made the following quotes on why the scheme was rejected:

"I have considered this application very carefully. I have listened to representations from the applicant, taken the views of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Western Isles Council) and considered the 10,924 objections and 98 letters of support."

"The Lewis Wind Farm would have significant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated due to its high value for rare and endangered birds."

There is no doubt that the professional approach of the MWT volunteers in persisting with rallying local resistance to the AMEC/British Energy proposals was an absolutely pivotal factor in the decision to refuse planning permission.

Much though the decision has been greeted with relief, there is still an ongoing battle to oppose two other large schemes - the Eisgein proposal from multi-millionare Mr Nick Oppenheim, now much amended from his original scheme, and the other large proposal for the Pairc area.

It really has been a "David & Goliath" contest and it is not every day that ordinary people take on and beat large corporations like AMEC and British Energy.

Please take a moment to look at MWT's web site, if you are interested in finding out more: www.mwtlewis.org.uk

A bit more on awards

2008-04-25T09:10:00.002+01:00

This is the time of the year when the nominations for charity awards are trawled. I have already had a gripe about the charity awards (see UK Charity Awards 2007 and Ripping off Charities with awards?) and that moan got quite a lot of positive feedback, from a wide range of sources, not just on the WLT website, but was picked up on other sites.

Coincidentally with this years Charity Awards, I also got notification of the Annual Whitley Awards for Conservation. Now I am considerably more ambivalent about these awards -- not surprisingly because anything that helps conserve wildlife must, per se, be a good thing. However, even here I do have serious reservations. The awards are given to individuals, on the grounds that charismatic leaders are what really move conservation forward. But is this true? In the short term, it probably is true, but in the long term, I think it is certainly rarely so, except in the case of world shattering leaders. Clearly people like Sir David Attenborough, Sir Peter Scott, Aldo Leopold, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, Jacques Cousteau -- to name but a few -- had massive and long-lasting impacts. But they certainly didn't need awards to tell them or the rest of the world so. But when I look at the list of the winners of the Whitley Awards, past and present, it is a pretty random selection.

Unfortunately awards will also always tend to operate under Darwinian rules of 'natural selection', in that those with access to publicity media will come to the forefront, those with big egos will float to the top, and those who cultivate a wide network of contacts will gravitate to the centre.

Now I have supported applicants to the Whitley Awards in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future -- there's cash in it for conservation. But giving the prize to individuals simply feeds the all pervasive cult of the celeb'. We have already seen wildlife films debased by gung-ho figures such as Steve Irwin. And the argument is that it brings it to a wider audience - am not particularly anti even those presentations. And last summer a string of 'celebs' were flown around the world for the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series, again, justified on the grounds that it brought the issues to a wider audience. But is this all worth the sell-out? I am not taking a particular stance, but I do have concerns. Inside knowledge is potentially a dangerous thing -- I know many of the persons involved at all levels -- from selections committees to winners. And I know that a few of the winners represent totally unsustainable projects, that are dependent on one or two individuals. But does this negate the benefits of such awards?

Who thinks what?

Water, water everywhere, and lights everywhere as well

2008-04-15T14:00:00.002+01:00

850,000 litres of water were bought by the House of Commons, at a cost of £324,000, according to a recent article in London's Evening Standard newspaper. And this is a government allegedly committed to saving resources, reducing carbon etc etc. The company that delivers the bottled water clocked up some 70,000 miles delivering it, and each litre was packaged in a non-returnable glass bottle. According to the Evening standard Minister Phil Woolas claimed it 'Bordered on being morally unacceptable.' Perhaps an understatement.

Government twittering about energy, and everyone being exhorted to stop flying drive less, doesn't make a lot of sense, when you see huge amounts of waste. Bottled water must be one of the craziest of all -- shipping around the country a substance that it to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from what comes out of a tap, is a huge drain on energy and other resources.

And then there is my old gripe: street lighting. Light pollution is rife, with millions and millions of kilowatts blazing away into the night sky. Causing birds to get lost on migration, probably causing the extinction of many species of insects, and an aesthetically nauseating orange glow over much of the northern hemisphere. Before worrying about whether or not we have left the TV on standby, let's worry about the street lighting left on all night, the church towers floodlit, and all the other major forms of waste.

Indicator species

2008-04-09T15:01:00.002+01:00

I noticed that there is a workshop at the next BirdLife Conference on birds as indicator species for biodiversity. This is a concept that I find rather annoying -- birders love to suggest that their favourite organism is somehow a more important type of animal than others. There is an implication that the areas that are important for bird biodiversity are likely to be equally important for other forms of biodiversity. To start with, I really don't like using the term biodiversity, because you never really know what is meant. The majority of times it is being used as a synonym for species diversity, which is not really the same. It's a dangerous route -- rather like the hotspot concept. And like the latter does as much harm as good. Hotspots tend to be equated with species richness, but as any naturalist knows, deserts tend not to have as great a species richness as tropical rainforests. The only problem is that if you want to conserve desert species, conserving hotspots in the rainforest wont help a lot. And the same is true for bird biodiversity. The Galapagos islands are important for bird species diverssity, but to all intents and purposes irrelevant for terrestrial mammalian diversity -- just like New Zealand, with only two native mammals, both bats.

Trying to sell birds as biodiversity indicators is, to me, missing the point. Birds, and all wildlife deserve to be saved for a varity of very good reasons, but trying to kid someone that some taxa are more equal than others, smaks a little of two legs good, four legs bad.

I have nothing against materialist arguments for wildlife conservation, but I think if science is going to be used, we should be very careful that th arguments really stand up -- and when it comes to biodiversity, hotspots, species diversity, biomass etc etc., there is often not nearly enough known to justify some of the claims being made. All to often the species diversity has direct correlations with observer activity. It is very well known, that rare species of orchid, for example are likely to be discovered close to other rare species of orchids -- this is because botanists are more likely to go to those localaities. Just as bird reserves often have far longer bird lists than very similar habitat a half mile away, simply because that's where the birders go.

New Tribes Mission: a threat to the survival of traditional life-styles

2008-03-26T14:57:00.002Z

On a recent visit to Paraguay I was horrified to find out the Florida-based New Tribes Mission -- an extreme evangelist group -- were still active in Paraguay. They have been accused of collusion with the former Dictator Stroessner and there are many reports available on the internet detailing their extreme measures to obtain converts. Paraguay is home to some of the world's last remaining uncontacted tribes, and it is clear from their behaviors that they do not want contact with so-called civilization. Unfortunately evangelists such as the NTM are determined to contact them. Having seen some of the Indians that have been rounded up by the Missionaries and herded into villages all I can say is that it is very depressing to see these people, most of whom seem extremely depressed, with huge numbers of children and lots of health problems. Fortunately there are people trying to help the indigenous peoples of Paraguay, and also help those who want to escape from the Missionaries.

Venezuela is apparently expelling the Missionaries, a move that has been welcomed by the local Roman Catholic church. "Even Cardinal [Rosalio] Castillo Lara supported President Chavez's measure to remove New Tribes".
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/octoberweb-only/53.0a.html

And for more info check out the following
http://www.eco-action.org/mission/ntm.html
http://www.eco-action.org/mission/index.html
http://www.globalconnections.co.uk/joinus/listofmembers/members/NewTribesMissionBibleCollege.htm

People in third world countries have too many babies

2008-03-26T14:25:00.002Z

People in third world countries have too many babies
I was surprised to find this response put on the Oxfam website as a common myth.

And the paragraph below given as their response:

Rubbish! It really is time to get shot of this. First of all, in lots of poor countries, families are getting smaller, not bigger. This is because people have fewer children when they begin to prosper – which is good news, all round. And the bad news? Millions of kids are still born into poverty, and don't even make it past their fifth birthday

The problem with this claim is that it cannot be substantiated, and is actually contradicted by virtually all the published statistics. And not only do people in third world countries definitely have too many babies, so do many people in the developed world. The world population is growing at an alarming rate, and to deny it is on a par with denying climate change. And there is a strong linkage between the two. The fact that families are getting smaller, hides the more significant fact that the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate, and that the human populations of most parts of the world (including Britain) are not sustainable.

Making poverty history in these circumstances may be an admirable objective, but it is fundamentally completely unachievable -- which is probably why no one has ever shown a plan as to how it will be achieved. Apply crude animal population dynamic theories to any human populations and it is immediately obvious that the present rate of increase cannot be sustained. It therefore follows that there will be catastrophic declines from time to time, either from disease, natural disaster or warfare, or all three. I have yet to see any models that can demonstrate an alternative. And certainly none of the Aid agencies have any on their websites; it's an issue they conveniently ignore -- or as shown above are misleading. Interestingly the Charity Commission in the UK has recently revised definitions of poverty. In the developing countries it can mean "lacking basic essentials such as clean water, food and shelter", but in the UK "it could refer to those living on less than 60% of the average income". Now to me this certainly seems like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which definition do aid agencies use?

Community involvement and tourism as conservation aids in Paraguay (and a long list of birds!)

2008-03-14T20:33:00.002Z

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who spent some time in Paraguay last year volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

John will shortly return from a World Land Trust staff and supporter trip to Paraguay and will no doubt report on the journey here in Green Issues, perhaps including an account of having finally seen in the wild that most elusive of animals: The jaguar. I hope so, but if he still hasn't been lucky enough to spot one, let's hope none of the first-time visitors in the group did when John was looking the other way, or there will be no end to his grumbles!

In the meantime I thought I'd squeeze in the last and long overdue account of my visit to Paraguay - now a distant six months ago.

The Eco Club: Ensuring the future of the Pantanal is in safe hands

"Los Exploradores" performing a song they had written themselves, complete with synchronised arm movements, which not everybody had mastered!

The Three Giants Lodge, the visitor facility at the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve in the north of Paraguay, was brand new when I was there, so our visit coincided with a dinner celebrating its opening. The local Eco Club and rangers attended and Guyra staff gave thanks to all who had helped realise the vision. (The work on the lodge is now completed and John and the others took part in its official grand opening last week.)

The Eco Club members are children and teenagers from the nearby community Bahía Negra, who, thanks to Guyra's involvement, are learning about reserve management and species identification. The idea is that responsibility for the management of the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve will soon lie completely with the local community, without the need for Guyra staff to travel quite so often between the capital and the reserve. For this to be achieved long-term it's essential to involve the younger generation. (Find out how you can support Guyra's community work in Bahía Negra here.)

Generally speaking not many local children stay in Bahía Negra when they grow up - there's simply not much there for them to do, and being located in a really isolated part of the country, the temptation to move south to the cities is great. The Eco Club provides some of the training needed to equip future reserve staff with key skills for managing the reserve and visitor facilities.

Most of my time in Paraguay was spent in the company of only a few people, so it was great to be able to meet with all the children of the Eco Club (who were very keen to practice their English) and witness their apparently endless enthusiasm for the club and the reserve.

Why visit Paraguay?

This image, taken from a plane by Pepe Cartes of Guyra Paraguay, shows just how isolated the Three Giants Lodge is. The lodge is the small white square on the riverside, and it's completely surrounded by the vastness of the Pantanal wetland, forest and palm savannah.

A few weeks ago I watched a TV programme about the (Brazilian) Pantanal and the giant otters living there. Seeing the floating lily leaves, the otters' heads bobbing up and down in the water and hearing the call of a Great Kiskadee and grunting of herons and jabirus, I was transported right back to the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve. If it wasn't for the distance and cost involved, I would not hesitate to make it my annual holiday destination!

The Pantanal is quite simply a fantastic place to go for a complete wilderness experience. The relatively high chance of seeing jaguars is a clear bonus! It's a heaven for birdwatchers too - as is the rest of the country. As John pointed out in an earlier blog post about visiting Paraguay: "Paraguay is at the cross-roads of several very important biogeographical regions. This makes it a very good place to go and see a huge range of species."

San Rafael, with its combination of forest and grassland, makes a perfect location for watching butterflies and birds - with the added bonus that it's relatively close to cities and airports. With a track running through the reserve it also makes it a tad more accessible to visitors who may not want to walk for miles along narrow forest trails.

Going to Paraguay also makes for a great conversation starter! If I had a penny for every person who asked me "Why Paraguay?"... Well, why not? The wildlife, the people, the cheap cost of getting around - and the fact that there weren't thousands of other tourists, made my trip thoroughly enjoyable.

For conservation projects to be successful in the long run, reducing the need for continuous donations and grants is an important factor. Tourism plays one part in the vision for making the Guyra reserves sustainable. This is a project still in its infancy, but I have no doubt that better facilities and services will be developed in the future, to make the reserves more attractive to the high-end of the market. (People like me, used to camping and bringing my own food to cut costs, just don't bring in that much money!)

In the meantime, adventurous travellers can get the best of two worlds: Intimate contact with nature, whilst sleeping in a comfortable bed!

More information about Paraguay and WLT's work there

Conservation projects updates from Paraguay
Project information and background
See the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve on Google Earth (Click on the blue dots to see images from the reserve)

See also the previous blog posts about my stay in Paraguay and some wildlife videos I made whilst in Paraguay, which can be seen on WLT's new multimedia website Wildlife Focus.

Jaguars in the Pantanl on TV

Jaguar in the Brazilian Pantanal © Bill Markham

WLT supporter Bill Markham kindly informed us of a project he has been working on, recording a series about the Pantanal (in Brazil) for Channel Five. Entitled Jaguar Adventure, the series starts 8th April at 7.30pm and from the synopsis it looks like it could be very interesting:

"The Pantanal - the world's biggest wetland, the size of Britain... and home to the planet's largest population of Jaguars. These big cats are notoriously hard to find, let alone film. But when Tigress Productions heard of a location where they were being sighted regularly, Nigel Marven couldn't wait to get there."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Becoming a birder... (Birds in Paraguay)

I knew very little about birds before going to Paraguay - not because I wasn't interested, but because I never had anyone to teach me, and always had a slight fear of binoculars (don't ask). Now, on the other hand, I feel as if I know more about birds in South America than I do about European birds, and have also managed to identify some species here in the UK that were previously unknown to me, based on their similarities to their South American cousins.

This list is in no way complete. Although my knowledge improved exponentially, thanks to the help from Guyra staff and knowledgeable rangers, I have a notebook full of scribbles and questionmarks that I have am unable to add. Still, I hope it will give some sort of idea of the birds that can be seen in the Pantanal, Chaco and Atlantic Forest. (I will gradually edit the list to include links to the photos I took of some of these birds, so if you are interested in seeing these, check back in a couple of weeks.)

Latin name	English name
Tapera naevia	Striped Cuckoo
Mita jaryi	Great Kiskadee
Colaptes campestris	Field Flicker
Milvago chimachima	Yellow-headed Caracara
Pseudoleistes guirahuro	Yellow-rumped Marshbird
Vanellus chilensis	Southern Lapwing
Tyrannus savana	Fork-tailed Flycatcher
Coragyps atratus	Black Vulture
Progne chalybea	Gray-breasted Martin
Falco sparvenius	American kestrel
Pardirallus nigricanus	Blackish Rail
Buteogallus meridionalis	Savannah Hawk
Barypthengus ruficapillus	Roufus-capped Motmot
Synallaxis ruficapilla	Roufus-capped Spinetail
Chlorostilbon aureoventris	Glittering-bellied Emerald
Hylocharis sapphirina	Roufus-throated Sapphire
Pionopsitta pileata	Red-capped Parrot
Milvago chimango	Chimango Caracara
Ceryle torquata	Ringed Kingfisher
Trogon surrucura	Surucura Trogon
Rhea americana	Greater Rhea
Rhynchotus rufescens	Red-winged Tinamou
Nothura maculosa	Spotted Nothura
Sturnella superciliaris	White-browned Blackbird
Xanthopsar flavus	Saffron-cowled Blackbird
Buteo albicaudatus	White-tailed Hawk
Polystrictus pectoralis	Bearded tachuri
Ammodramus humeralis	Grassland Sparrow
Glaucidium brasilianum	Ferruginous Pygmy Owl
Donacospiza albifons	Long-tailed Reed-finch
Coryphaspiza melanolis	Black-masked Finch
Elothoeptus anomalus	Sickle-winged Nightjar
Athene cunicularia	Burrowing Owl
Circus buffoni	Long-winged Harrier
Pyrocephalus rubinus	Vermilion Flycatcher
Jacana jacana	Wattled jacana
Phalacrocorax brasilicus	Neotropical Cormorant
Anhinga anhinga	Anhinga
Arunolinicola leucocephala	White-headed marsh-tyrant
Amblyramphus holosericeus	Scarlet-headed Blackbird
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis	Southern Rough-winged Swallow

Platalea ajaja	Roseate Spoonbill
Himantopus melanurus	South American Stilt
Asio clamator	Striped Owl
Busarellus nigricollis	Black-collared Hawk
Sorophilia collaris	Rushy-collared Seedeater
Hydropsalis torquata	Scissor-tailed Nightjar
Nyctibius griseus	Common Potoo
Otus choliba	Tropical Screech-owl
Synalaxis albescens	Pale-breasted Spinetail
Gubernetes yetapa	Streamer-tailed Tyrant
Geothlypis aequinoctialis	Masked Yellow-throat
Agelaius cyanopus	Unicoloured Blackbird
Elaenia flavogaster	Yellow-bellied Elaenia
Coryphospingus cucullatus	Red-breasted Finch
Rynchops niger	Black Skimmer
Phaetusa simplex	Large-billed Tern
Sterna superciliaris	Yellow-billed Tern
Caracara plancus	Southern Crested-caracara
Cranioleuca obsoleta	Olive Spinetail
Sittasomus griseicapillus	Olivaceous Woodcreeper
Cacicus chrysopterus	Golden-winged cacique
Synallaxis albescens	Pale-breasted Spinetail
Cranioleuca obsoleta	Olive Spinetail
Syndactyla rufosuperciliata	Buff-browned Foliage-gleaner
Thamnophilus caerulescens	Variable Antshrike
Caicus solitaris	Solitary Black Cacique
Piaya cayana	Squirrel Cuckoo
Dromococcyx phasiarellus	Pheasant Cuckoo
Platyrinchus mystaceus	White-throated Spadebill
Cyanocompsa brissonii	Cyanocompsa brissonii
Tachycineta albiventer	White-winged Swallow
Guira guita	Guira Cuckoo
Ardea alba	Great Egret
Ergetta thula	Snowy Egret
Botaurus pinnatus	Pinnated Bittern
Ardea cocoi	White-necked Heron
Tigresoma lineatum	Rufescent Tiger-heron
Nycticorax nycticorax	Black-crowned Night-heron
Mycteria americana	American Woodstork
Ciconia maguari	Maguari Stork
Jabiru mycteria	Jabiru
Theristicus caerulescens	Plumbeous Ibis
Phimosus infuscatus	Bare-faced Ibis
Dendrocygna autumnalis	Black-bellied Whistling-duck
Butorides striatus	Striated heron
Calindris melanotos	Pectorial Sandpiper
Aramus juarauna	Limkin
Chloroceyle amazona	Amazon Kingfisher
Verniliornis passerinus	Little Woodpecker
Lepidocolaptes angustostris	Narrow-billed Woodcreeper
Melanerpes candidus	White Woodpecker
Paroaria capilata	Yellow-billed Cardinal
Fluvicola albiventer	Black-backed Water-tyreant
Buteo gallus	Great Black-hawk
Picoides mixtus	Checkered Woodpecker
Colaptes melanochloros	Green-barred Woodpecker
Piculus chrysochloros	Golden-green Woodpecker
Ramphastos toco	Toco Toucan
Heliomaster furicifer	Blue-tufted Starthroat

(Many thanks to Pepe, Roberto, Rionaldo, Juan, Arne and Silvia for help with identification. Any errors in this list are entirely my own and most likely due to difficult to interpret handwriting and clumsy typing. Please do let me know if you spot any!)

Finally, a massive thank you to everybody at Guyra for having me, showing me around and making me speak Spanish (mostly), despite not being very good at it!

Letter to the Guardian in response to The Great Land Grab

2008-02-26T12:19:00.002Z

Last week, John Vidal published an article in the Guardian, The Great Land Grab, which was very critical of land purchase as a method of conservation. World Land Trust Patron, Sir David Attenborough, responded on the Trust's behalf in Buying land can save the world's wilderness areas and a discussion sprung up on the WLT's group page on Facebook. Below is a letter to the Guardian in response to Vidal's article, from Dr. Michael S. Roy of Conservation through Research Education and Action, providing a voice from the 'front line' of conservation, which we thought our readers would find informative.

Dear Editor

In his article "The Great Green Land Grab" of 13th February (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/conservation) John Vidal raises our awareness of the current trend of land purchasing by environmental charities in order to save critical and highly threatened habitats across the world. He also brings to our attention the failures of some of those purchases but does not provide full details as to why they failed. The article offers little hope only nightmarish scenarios of conservation groups cheating indigenous people out of their birth right, but fails wholly to identify the complexity and ultimate causes of both the conservation crisis nor the plight of indigenous peoples.

In my first point I would like to set the record straight since John Vidal paints a very disturbing picture of environmental NGOs, the great majority of which are standing against the tidal wave of planetary change using justice and peace as their core weapons. As our last wilderness areas with high biodiversity come under the axe, the developing world, where most of these areas are, have been incapable of thwarting the pressure to give up their natural resources by large corporations and western governments. To work with local people and hope for internal change through aid incentives and education is a necessary but long term approach to conservation. Sometimes however, these simply do not work as stand alone strategies in the face of governments with huge foreign debts to first world nations that will bend over backwards to attract international investment. In these cases natural resources may be a long term necessity but are often seen as a short term luxury. We simply don't have time to wait in many critical areas of the globe and as many learned reports show (eg Millenium Ecosystem Report), conservation is losing the battle. It has therefore been reasoned by many conservation groups that the best and most lasting way to conserve what is left is to buy or rent land, before developers can irreversibly extract the natural resources from them, and provide education and develop sustainable livelihoods for local people during and after the process. Buying land to advance conservation and social ideals is a valid and acceptable practice that has brought prosperity and sustainability to many poor rural communities.

In my second point, Mr Vidal cites conservation as a major player in the social upheaval of indigenous people in the developing world, coining the phrase eco-colonists. However this is very far from the truth in my experience. In many countries again root causes stem from indebted or corrupt governments and multi-national business. It is these that pose the greatest concern for indigenous groups, from eviction from badly planned national parks by national governments (as Mr. Vidal correctly identifies), to mining, petroleum and logging. In Panama, a tropical country rich in biodiversity, indigenous peoples are not being evicted from their land, they are just totally neglected in land use planning. In one case a multiple hydroelectric scheme to be built and operated by the US firm AES will flood part of the Amistad National Park, a World Heritage Site, and drown the homes and livelihoods of the indigenous Teribe people whose ancestral home is the watershed. These dams will also cause the very likely extinction of at least 9 fish species representing about 75% of the river biomass and food source for local people. Many conservation organisations, local and international, are rushing to the aid of the indigneous people and helping them with their legal battle against the government who gave away the concession without the consent of the tribe.

Along the Caribbean coast the Panamanian government has given a 13,000 ha concession to the Canadian Petaquilla mining company, that will devastate this Atlantic primary forest and make it an huge toxic open cast gold and copper mine. This region is part of the Meso-American Biological corridor, a supposed conservation region that has cost millions of dollars to implement (a large part paid for by the European Union) and has included rural development projects to aid local communities achieve their conservation goals. Conservation and social justice groups in Panama are joining forces to condemn this project due the impact that it will have on the local people and the environment.

It is of course necessary to take indigenous and rural communities into full consideration and even hand over control of natural resources to them but this must also be done with caution and good planning. Indigenous people in Panama remain the poorest group with high infant mortality, low life expectancy and chronic malnutrition. Under this situation even indigenous people can fall into the natural resource sell off trap for short term profit. The Ngobe-Bugle of Panama have laid waste to their forest habitat as a result of selling off their timber and adopting western farming techniques but still remain the poorest of the indigenous groups in Panama. The Kuna of Madungandi are currently selling their forests (albeit unwillingly) to logging companies and trucks laden with trees hundreds of years old are often seen in long convoys along the Pan-American highway to saw mills outside the city. The Kuna remain desperately poor and many live in squalor. Through the responsible buying, renting or shared ownership of land and the provision of post purchase development aid that trains communities for sustainable livelihoods which can include sustainable natural resource extraction, conservation groups can and do deliver conservation and development goals at the same time.

Conservation is a crisis discipline and adaptive management is its core philosophy. Conservation in practice is highly complex and requires teams with diverse skills in diplomacy, anthropology, biology, economics, marketing, agriculture, natural resource management, law and politics to name a few, that must deal with the specific cultural, religious and political nuances of each human society. But true conservation respects all biological diversity including the diversity of people and for this reason conservation is an all encompassing movement and the people involved in this field deserve much better than that article written by Mr Vidal.

Dr. Michael S. Roy
Executive Director and Chief Scientist of
Conservation through Research Education and Action
www.crea-panama.org

Good news for tigers

2008-02-19T17:33:00.002Z

We hear a lot about the depressing fate of tigers in India and elsewhere. Numbers continue to fall, and last year they were declared extinct in Sariska National Park. However, it is not all doom and gloom.

When I was in India over Christmas I visited Nagahole National Park and was told that tigers are doing well there, and that they were also increasing in Corbett National Park. A depressing fact is that a worryingly large proportion of the money spent on tiger conservation over the past 40 years or so, has probably been watsed. Tigers now only survive in viable populations inside National Parks and other protected areas.

Huge amounts of money have been spent on public education, and protecting tigers outside the protected area network. But if all that money had been spent on ensuring the integrity of the best reserves, with the largest populations, and if money had been spent on corridors between protected areas, the tiger population would probably be in far better shape now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but what is now apparent to me, and everyone else at the WLT, is that our approach is certainly one of the approaches most likely to succeed in conserving wildlife. Over the 20 brief years that the WLT has been in existence, we have evolved an approach, which seems to have a very high chance of success -- building on and strengthening existing successful local NGOs, and expanding protected areas, based on biodiversity, and creating networks and corridors.

One of the corridors our Indian partners, the Wildlife Trust of India, have created for elephants, has already been used by tigers. Corridors are expensive, as the land needed is often expensive, but in the long-term, it is a very cost effective way of conserving endangered species. Donate now, and ear-mark it for corridor projects. We can't predict the land will be £25 an acre (sometimes is may be £2500 an acre or more) but we can predict that even a small corridor will have disproportionate benefits to the wildlife.

Tacky gifts

2008-02-07T11:27:00.002Z

To start off my quest for the most inappropriate wildlife gifts here are a few websites for you to evaluate. What do readers think of them? Do they do more harm than good? Is this a good way of raising funds? Should the World Land Trust develop a similar range of gifts for sale (I have already made up my mind!).

http://www.wildlifegifts.com/about.lasso

http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_sale_gifts

http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_ladies_gifts

http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_kitchen_products

http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/rspb/76533/1/1

http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/rspb/76539/1/1

http://www.puckator.co.uk/index.php?page_id=9060

https://www.manateegiftsgalore.com/cgi-bin/eDatCat/MGGstore.cgi?user_action=link&link=mainpage

http://www.theflyingfox.co.uk/

Fundamentalist religion and conservation

2008-02-07T09:51:00.002Z

Conservative religion and conservation are rarely sympathetic. As the rest of the world becomes more and more enlightened, it often appears that the USA becomes more deeply entrenched in pandering to the fundamentalist wing of Christianity -- none of the presidential candidates seem prepared to speak out against what is a significant minority of voters. Not all conservative Christians are right-wing bigots of course, and some are even perceived as rather benign isolated, peace-loving outsiders. The Amish (Mennonites) for instance.

But the Mennonites in general, while avowedly peace-loving, are also a major threat to wildlife and the natural environment. They are a priori farmers, often living on the edges of the modern world. Often ultra conservative in both their dress, and their way of life, as well as their farming methods, but they can destroy nature on a grand scale. The last desert-dwelling population of the Aplomado Falcon, in the grasslands of Chihuahua is threatened by Mennonites plowing up their habitat. In N Belize, it is the Mennonite famers that have cut down the rainforest surrounding those protected by the Programme for Belize, while in Paraguay, they are spreading into the Dry Chaco, one of the world's most fragile habitats. Mennonites have large families - often very large - and nearly all their children want to have land. And they are very efficient at clearing wilderness. And they are great pioneers of the untamed frontiers -- do we really want to see those last untamed frontiers disappear under the plow......?

Any suggestions.....?

Poverty: What does it mean?

2008-02-06T14:41:00.002Z

One of my (many) criticisms of charities aiming to "make poverty history" in Africa, is that they never define what they mean by poverty. Try and find a definition on Christian Aid's website, or any of the other charities -- or try writing to them and you will see what I mean.

The UK Charity Commision have really helped muddy the waters now to the point of 100% turbidity. According to a Third Secor report: 'poverty', in charity law "means people who are financially disadvantaged"..... It continues 'in developing countries the phrase could mean those "who lack even the most basic essential to sustain life, such as clean water, food or shelter. But in the UK, it could refer to those "living on less than 60 per cent of the average income, or below the level of income support." Talk about all people being equal, but some being more equal than others...." Either way, it remains to be seen how any of the organisations aiming to raise the entire human population of Africa out of poverty, intend to do it. While it may be a noble aim, I would suggest that it is an impossibility, and that they are misleading the public by suggesting it can be done. Worse still some of the methods being used could actually be creating long-term poverty. Goats for eaxample, to cite my bete noir....

World Land Trust in India and an old quoteation.

2008-02-06T09:28:00.002Z

Just after Christmas, I returned from visiting India, and seeing what the Wildlife rust of India has been doing over the past few months. And very exciting it is too. The elephant corridors are a great success, with not only elephants using them, but lots of other wildlife including tigers.

That was the good news. But travelling around India, it was hard not to be filled with a sense of foreboding. Every three years or so, the human population increases by the size of Britain's population -- that's an extra 60 million people. And the standard of living, for a large proportion of that population is galloping ahead. The almost grid-locked cities are a testament to the new prosperity.

But one has to ask, What is fuelling this economic growth? And the answer is, to a large extent, the west's demand for cheap, mass produced goods. And despite all the rhetoric about 'sustainable development', there is no question that this development is far from sustainable.
And while travelling, I read a book, published nearly 70 years ago. Before foreign aid, and organisations like Christian Aid were saving Africa. But the writing had an amazingly contemporary ring to it. But can any of my readers identify the source of the following passage?

"..... the most significant facts are these: the inhabitants of every civilized country are menaced; all desire passionately to be saved from impending disaster; the overwhelming majority refuse to change the habits of thought, feeling and action which are directly responsible for their present plight. In other words, they can't be helped, because they are not prepared to collaborate with any helper who proposes a rational and realistic course of action. In these circumstances, what ought the would-be helper to do?'
'He's got to do something'said Pete.
'Even if he thereby accelerates the process of destruction?'....Doing good on anything but the tiniest scale requires more intelligence than most people possess. They ought to be content with keeping out of mischief; it's easier and doesn't have such frightful results as trying to to do good in the wrong way. Twiddling the thumbs and having good manners are much more helpful, in most cases, than rushing around with good intentions, doing things..... Incidentally, the price measured in human terms, is enormously high. Though, of course, much lower than the price demanded by the nature of things from those who persist in behaving in the standard human way. Much lower than the price of war, for example -- particularly war with contemporary weapons'...'

I would make a strong case for this line of thinking being just as valid today, as it was before the outbreak of World War II, when it was written. Rushing around doing good by aid agencies has caused many of the problems they set out to solve, simply because they do mot deal with the underlying, real reasons for the problems. They treat symptoms, not causes.

But can any reader identify the source of this quotation? I'll happily send a copy of Endangered Mammals of the World -- now 20 years old, and one of my last remaining copies, to the first person to identify the quote.

How to support a wildlife organisation and help destroy the world

2008-02-05T13:24:00.002Z

http://nationalwildlife.stores.yahoo.net/for-the-home.html

Why do wildlife conservation organisations encourage blatant consumerism of tacky goods, many of which will be made in China, causing an accelleration of pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, etc etc etc.? It's too depressing for words.

I would be very interested to hear others' views on this. I make no claims to being a hair-shirted dark green conservationist, but I do think that some organisations have seriously lost the plot, when they use really tacky consumer goods. What are the worst examples you know of?

Threats to Woodlark Island

2008-01-10T13:18:00.002Z

Kelly Jacobs, the WLT's new Education and Training Officer sent me the following, which I thought I would share with my readers:

I was shocked and saddened to hear the news that 70% of the rainforest on a single small island is to be destroyed for palm oil plantation.

The government of Papua New Guinea has granted a permit to Vitroplant Ltd., a Malaysian biofuel company, to convert 60,000 hectares of the 80,000 hectare Woodlark Island into palm oil plantation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly the villagers inhabiting the island were largely unaware of the project until after its approval. Although they oppose the development they feel helpless against a giant corporation. Short term benefits of improved infrastructure and jobs are far outweighed by the massive impact this development will have on the culture and lifestyles of the 6,000 islanders.

I can't help feeling angry at the low regard in which the government holds the islander's claims to the land. The local culture of gardening, low impact cultivation, hunting and fishing will eventually be devastated by, not only the initial deforestation but also, the continuing environmental impact of monoculture plantations on the biodiversity and likely ongoing pollution to the land, water supplies and coral reefs surrounding the island.

With at least 20 endemic species found on the island, ranging from the Woodlark Cuscus to damselflies, it is likely that the deforestation and ensuing pollution of the habitat that will arise from the plantations will result in the endangerment and possibly extinction of certain species.

Dr Chris Norris, a zoologist and palaeontologist, and Dr Kristopher Helgen, a mammalogist, have both commented on the strong possibility that there are more endemic plants and animals yet to be named, described or even discovered. If the clearance of 70% of the island for monoculture palm oil trees goes ahead, these species could go extinct without ever being discovered. In this enlightened age we all feel not only an emotional connection to threatened habitats and wildlife, but also share the knowledge that once a species is extinct it is gone forever and once a forest has been cleared it can never be restored exactly (and the release of carbon, with the forest being felled, cannot be 'undone').

100 of the 6,000 Woodlark Islanders travelled to the capital of Milne Bay Province, Alotau, to protest against the biofuel industry taking precedence over native rights. But this disregard for local communities is by no means a one off. In January 2008 the news came that a Penan chieftain who long campaigned against logging in Borneo had been found dead, believed to have been killed by loggers - and he wasn't the first (http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0103-borneo_hance.html).
Suddenly it seems a much bigger issue than saving a single, though highly significant, island. It seems to me that the freedoms we enjoy in our comparably cosy lives are such that the people living in rainforests and trying to protect them can never imagine. No wonder they are calling for international aid and awareness raising. Threatened and bullied by giant corporations that are inevitably headed by wealthy developers these people on the front line will eventually be cowed into submission and all we will do from afar is lament the loss of the forests and wildlife.

We shouldn't think that there is nothing that we can do and just shrug our shoulders. There are governments to write to, petitions to sign and that age old adage of 'voting with your feet' to employ. Sign the Earth Action petition to the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and add your voice to the more than 2,600 others from 71 countries for saving Woodlark Island. It takes less than 5 minutes; surely you can spare that, sat in your chair at your computer? I'm not holding a gun to your head, beating you with a stick or threatening to run you down with an excavator. Put yourself on the front line for a moment - I bet in your head, you run back home pretty quick!

If, like me, you are outraged by this news, read more about it at http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1213-woodlark.html and sign a petition to the PNG government at http://www.ecoearth.info/alerts/send.asp?id=png_woodlark.

Thanks Kelly for bringing this to my attention, and I hope some of our readers will respond.

Carbon and Hot Air

2008-01-02T09:58:00.002Z

Variations on a theme of previous gripes.

Thousands of delegates attended the Conference in Bali, discussing the impact of climate change, carbon sequestration and all that goes with it. An estimated 15,000 people will have taken part in this jamboree -- and if we estimate an average cost of $10,000 per person (which is actually ridiculously low even as an average), then the total (excluding infrastructure costs)is over $150 million for delegates. Now as anyone who supports the World Land Trust knows, that could buy around 1,500,000 hectares of rainforest (that's 150,000 sq kms, or an area bigger than Bulgaria, Iceland, or Greece)

And while politicians wittered on in broadcast after broadcast about reducing emissions they all seem to miss the point that emissions are totally dependent on a free market based around consumerism, and that in turn is linked to expanding economies, in turn based on rapidly growing human populations. And then phrases (or rather oxymorons), like sustainable development are thrown in for good measure, together with wiping out poverty in Africa. Does anyone ever think these things through? If the standard of living in Africa was to be raised to the basic 'poverty' level of Europe, where would the resources come from? How much energy would be needed, and how much water would be needed and where would that even more scarce mineral come from? What would be the global impacts of all the carbon emissions? Before aid agencies tell us they are going to wipe out poverty, perhaps they should develop a 10 year plan, which answers some of these key issues? Personally, I don't believe it is possible, given the accepted rates of human population growth in the region.

Billions of pounds and dollars have been poured into aid schemes, which while they have undoubtedly benefited the economies of the developed world, except on a small scale they have done little or nothing to prevent the descent into poverty of millions, or prevent the spread of civil wars. Of course we don't know what would have happened without these interventions, but it is difficult to see how the situation could be a lot worse.

Conferences on global warming, climate change, and greenhouse gases have a very high risk of being nothing more than hot air, and do little or nothing about the root causes of environmental problems. As far as I am concerned there are two fundamental issues that need addressing: We need to save what little is left of the world's wild places (and all the biodiversity they contain), and we need to curtail the increase in human population.

If we don't, the planet is not threatened, but we all are. Very seriously threatened.

A Record Year for the World Land Trust

2007-12-14T12:30:00.002Z

2007 has already surpassed all previous years in the World Land Trust's history. Records have been broken for both funds raised, and funds sent overseas for land purchase. This has also meant that there have been modest increases in the WLT's staff so that we can handle all the enquiries, and meet with all the potential corporate sponsors. But we must emphasise, that despite corporate donors giving £100,000 or even $1million donations, it is still the individual supporters, and in particular our regularly donating Partners that are the strength of the Trust. Donating £5 a month, plus the government's contribution of gift aid means we can plan ahead.

Christmas is a time for giving so do help us build on the success of 2007. We are close to raising a total of £2 million, which added to the $1 million plus raised in the USA will make a total of well over $5 million. This means we can make a real difference to the future of the world's wildlife.

So why not add a few more gift acres or hectares to your Christmas list? And if you haven't done so already, consider signing up as a regular Partner, donating £5 (a bottle of table wine) a month? It will help save, and manage at least a hectare of land in the course of the year.

Since we started less than 20 years ago, the WLT and its partners have already saved more land than the RSPB and the County naturalists' trusts put together. And because it's mostly in the tropics, the species diversity is huge. So how about saving another acre?

500 million people in India without toilets

2007-12-14T12:00:00.002Z

It was recently reported that the Indian government has pledged $225 million to build toilets for the country's poor, and ensure everyone has toilets by 2012.

The implications of this are quite startling. Just think about it. 500,000,000 people do not have toilets at present. How much water, and how much paper will be needed. Scary? But why should we deny people access to facilities we all enjoy?

There are 1.2 billion people in India, and the standard of living is rising rapidly. Wildlife is being squeezed on all sides. We have to face the facts that land for wildlife is becoming an ever more restricted feature, and ever more valuable. It has to 'compete' on the open market -- and this means it can cost as much as £5000 an acre -- that's getting on for $25,000 a hectare. But that's the issue -- the more important the land is, the more expensive it will be. The more threatened it is, the higher the price. We have to bite the bullet and face these facts. We may be able to buy rainforest in South America at $100 an acre -- but it is remote and relatively inaccessible. So to any readers who are concerned about some of the most threatened species of all, you just have to be realistic, and know that £5000 or $10,000 may not buy a huge area, but it may be life or death to tigers and other threatened Asian wildlife.

There's a lot of dodgy greenwash out there

2007-12-12T13:07:00.002Z

Over the past few months, the WLT has been approached by several businesses, that after doing extensive research, came to the WLT because they decided that many other organisations were just not transparent enough. They also came to us because it was clear that some of the carbon offsetting organisations were simply in the business of making money. With major financial institutions, such as Allied Irish Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers and others choosing to support the World Land Trust we know we are on the right track.

When I look at other websites, I am always astounded how difficult it often is to actually find out anything about the organisation itself. Who are the staff, what do they do? Who are the Trustees, what is their expertise? Who are they endorsed by? And the Annual Report and Accounts. And last, but not least, what are their real achievements?

We also make a point of being available, so that when a donor, whether it is for £25 or £250,000, phones or emails they are dealt with by someone who is knowledgeable, and can answer most of their questions.

But at present, it is certainly caveat emptor -- there are too many organisations saving forests, offsetting carbon, without any real substance behind them. It's actually quite difficult to do it properly -- long term monitoring is not easy to set up. Which is why we are confident that we provide a 5* service. But monitoring reforestation for 20 years, ensuring that the ownership is secure is complex and time consuming, requiring first rate partners, with extensive experience.

We do not claim it is easy -- we know, it is nothing like as easy as it is often made out to be. We do not claim to be the cheapest, in fact we don't really like doing carbon offsets at all. We like saving biodiversity -- avoided deforestation. It's not only cheaper to buy existing forests, it's a much more effective way of reducing greenhouse gases. And this is not bandwagon jumping -- we were doing all these things six years ago, before it became trendy. And we will still be doing it when it is no longer fashionable. The only problem with the current vogue, is that it has allowed a lot of operations to raise a lot of money, with no guarantee that in 20 years time their forests will still be in existence.

scary

2007-12-11T11:52:00.002Z

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

I don't think I need to comment further

Putting the Con in Conservation.

2007-12-01T17:18:00.002Z

Marwell Zoo, in Hampshire England, is the most recent in a long line of perpetrators of a myth.

A folder used by their Markettng and Education Departments, is beautifully produced, and contains the following quotation:

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to man." Chief Seattle, 1855.

As anyone who knows anything about North American Indians, this is one of the great 20th century frauds. The speech was actually written by a scripwriter who worked for Disney, in the 1950s. There never was a "Chief Seattle". But it sounds plausible, perpetrates the myth of the noble savage, and Friends of the Earth are also among the numerous conservation bodies who have been conned by it.

If you don't believe me, try typing "Chief Seattle fraud" into google.....

Stuff and more Stuff (or Doom and Gloom)

2007-11-21T14:30:00.002Z

Early in October I wrote about the futility of switching off the odd light and TV to save energy. It becomes more and more apparent to me that the whole issue of consumerism is being blatantly ignored by politicians paying lip-service to environmental concerns. It is perfectly obvious, that all these measures are doing is redistributing our spending. And almost everything we spend on has a huge resource implication. However, watching a TV programme on modern art made me think: Perhaps if millions of dollars/pounds/euros are spent on a piece of modern art (however that is defined) that at least does not have massive implications for the environment. After all a $5million painting only requires very few resources compared with a $5million ocean going boat. Trouble is, that the artist or dealer getting the $5million may well spend it on cars, intercontinental travel etc etc.

Which brings me full circle. While we have a free market, where commodities have to be as cheap as possible, there is little hope. Energy will be wasted, goods will continue to become increasingly disposable, and we will all make more and more unnecessary journeys, and commute longer and longer distances. And if at the same time the population continues to increase, there is only one possible result.

However, I was interested to read a geologist pointing out that this does not mean the planet will be destroyed -- it's not a case of saving planet earth -- it simply means that humans and a few hundred (or perhaps thousands) other species will go. The planet will survive, and so will enough of the other species to start the whole process over again. Over the millennia, catastrophes have wiped out large percentages of life. More recently human civilizations have regularly collapsed. The current 'civilization' has not been around very long, and probably won't be around much longer. But the planet shouldn't worry. But any person under 50 probably should worry. A lot.

Old Growth Logging in Tasmania

2007-11-20T12:00:00.002Z

Guest blog: A letter received by the World Land Trust on behalf of Sir David Attenborough, and posted with his permission.

Dear Sir David Attenborough,

I urge you to campaign to protect beautiful Tasmania from the ravages of an unscrupulous logging industry which clear-fells ancient old-growth hardwood forests with impunity and is planning a new pulp mill to further accelerate forest destruction. I enclose an article by Richard Flanagan, recently published in The Telegraph in the UK, which eloquently expresses the plight of Tasmania.

The devastation wrought by clear-felling is total - nothing is spared. Many of the mightiest eucalypts are worthless being hollow and ridden with rot. These are bulldozed and burnt along with rare, slow- growing rainforest species such as myrtle, celery-top pine and sassafras. An acquaintance said walking the Tasmanian Trail (a north-south route) was one of the most depressing things she had experienced: 4m diameter tree stumps lay smouldering in wastelands of ash and starving animals were given handfuls of corn from the back of trucks. Gum seedlings, to be planted by hand as part of the 'regeneration' process, are left unplanted in piles by the roadside.

Every day the main road near us is clogged with countless trucks loaded with logs destined to be wood chips and ultimately newspapers in Japan and elsewhere. While the government claims the credit for reserving a large percentage of Tasmania's forests, the reserves mostly contain inaccessible and alpine forest that could not be economically logged. There is widespread use of 1080 bait and atrazine in forestry plantations. Tasmania's unique mammalian population is threatened since most cannot live successfully in new-growth forest, requiring old hollow trees in which to shelter. Tasmania's forests are also home to the majestic wedge-tailed eagle and rare swift parrot.

The logging industry is led by a single, voracious company called Gunns, that is the real power in Tasmania. Their interests spread into all walks of life. The state government seems to exist only to support their interests rather than those of the populace at large. A process was set up to review the viability and environmental credentials of Gunns' proposed new pulp mill, however the commission entrusted with this review started asking too many questions. The state government promptly changed the law to take them out of the process - a process that is in fact a sham, a farce with a guaranteed outcome. A sawmiller that spoke out against old-growth logging was virtually bankrupted by Gunns before being targeted for takeover.

Living here is like living in a feudal, oppressed state. No one dare speak out for fear of a 'red-neck' in a truck coming around to smash up one's place. The state and federal governments doggedly support a marginal industry - already being out-competed by plantation timber from elsewhere in the world - which employs a tiny percentage of Tasmanians, makes a handful of people very rich and denies Tasmanians the tourist wealth it could be reaping.

Because Australia is a western, democratic nation, the world thinks we exaggerate and turns a blind eye, but the destruction and corruption here is as bad as any in the third world. I believe the only way our forests can be saved is by greater international exposure of what is happening. That would surely lead to general vilification from all right-thinking nations. My plea is an urgent one as our forests are disappearing rapidly and the pulp mill is due for approval in August of this year. I thank you for your attention and hope you can help us save our land.

Yours sincerely
Mrs Jenny Cambers-Smith

The newspaper article referred to in this letter can be found at:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/06/28/eatas128.xml

The Goat and Cow season is upon us

2007-11-16T09:21:00.002Z

My attacks on the misguided philanthropy that involves 'sending' cows, goats and other domestic animals to Africa, has had an impact. One very positive outcome has been that Oxfam entered a dialogue with the World Land Trust, and recently assured me that they were starting to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments for their projects. This is clearly a good thing, as it appears that Christian Aid, Send a Cow and many of the others are still not carrying out EIAs. All they seem to do is produce statements from the recipients saying how grateful they are. Well they would, wouldn't they?

My criticisms were very fundamental: overgrazing by domestic animals is one of the most significant causes of habitat degradation in Africa, and hence one of the causes of poverty. The numbers (published by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation -- FAO) speak for themselves. And the published literature on the subject is vast. In the past, whole cultures have disappeared as a result of desertification, in which goats are known to have played a significant role.

But beyond this basic flaw in the arguments for promoting programmes that increase the numbers of livestock in Africa, there are other issues which never seem to be openly addressed. In many parts of Africa, animals are a form of wealth and are often accumulated in numbers way above that needed for sustenance; indeed, animals such as camels, are often status symbols. Whenever there is a drought, (and as everyone knows, these are far from infrequent), hundreds of thousands of goats, sheep, cattle and other livestock, die. Each time there is a drought the numbers dieing increases, simply because more and more animals are being kept, with less and less pasture for them. From a wildlife perspective this is even more disastrous, because the domestic livestock are usually in direct competition with the wild antelope and other grazing animals. But whereas the wild animals are often adapted to cycles of drought, and each species has its own niche, the domestic animals simply turn the landscape to desert.

Of course the philanthropic organisations encouraging poor Africans to keep even more livestock are able to demonstrate that a few of the animals they distribute do no harm, but it is the fundamental principle that I am attacking: more livestock is not a solution to poverty in Africa. It is also a form of Aid Imperialism, often making the recipients dependent on imported veterinary supplies, and potentially creating welfare problems, as many of the animals will be kept in conditions that would not be tolerated by those donating the funds.

But perhaps the most bizarre response came from the International Director of Christian Aid, who seemed to imply that I should not criticise them because we were both charities, and it harmed all charities if I criticised them. The reality, of course was very different; last year we received overwhelming support for our stance against increasing livestock in Africa, with virtually no criticism at all. In fact it is almost impossible to find a conservation scientist who does not believe that the overpopulation of both humans and their domestic stock, is the single most serious cause of poverty in Africa.

Until aid agencies tackle these problems head on, there is little hope for either poverty-stricken humans or wildlife.

10 million more people in Britain?

2007-11-16T08:47:00.002Z

The Government have predicted that the population of Great Britain will grow by about another 10 million, in the next couple of decades. And this means that hundreds of thousands of new houses will be needed, and that in turn means that parts of the Green Belt will be ripped up, and thousands of acres of agricultural land, as well as wildlife habitats, will disappear under concrete and tarmac. Apart from the direct devastation, there will be indirect problems, such as increased flood risks, pollution etc etc.

But, even though I am no economist, as I have pointed out before now, it does not take a genius to work out that the other solution is to reduce the size of the population. At present the government subsidises children, and encourages those on lower incomes to have larger families. At a stroke, the housing crisis could be reversed simply by encouraging smaller families, or couples to remain childless (a decision I took voluntarily 30 years ago). Economists will often trot out the argument that we need a young, working population in order to support the aging, retired population. But this simply does not hold water. The first twenty years or so of a person's life are very expensive, in terms of healthcare, and education, and that person does no generate any wealth. In the last twenty years of a person's life, they generally have significant wealth, in the form of pensions, savings and property. The problem is, they want to hand this capital over to the next generation, rather than spend it. In historic terms, this is a relatively new phenomenon, and that is where the problem lies.

And until the governments of crowded countries like Britain, realise that continued population growth, and continued nation economic growth are unsustainable, there is little hope for the future of the planet. By allowing the population to decline, individual economic growth may be possible, but corporate profitability will almost certainly decline, and there is the nub of the problem. Policies – from environment to health -- of the world are all being driven by ultimately unsustainable economic growth. Call me old fashioned, but capitalism, as presently construed is clearly unsustainable, as it is concentrating more and more of the world’s wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. In order for this to continue, ever-expanding markets are needed to invest in, and this is seems to be what is driving the politicians to oppose any restrictions on population growth. But perhaps I am missing something?

The really wild side of Paraguay: A visit to the Chaco-Pantanal reserve

2007-11-13T18:33:00.002Z

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who recently returned from Paraguay, where she did some volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

The Chaco: Vast and harsh, but inhabited landscape

When we reached the Humid Chaco, the dry scrubland gave way to a series of ponds and bogs, and suddenly there were birds everywhere - these are Jabirus (Jabiru mycteria). Note the state of the road - it was like this for the full 400km journey!

If the San Rafael Reserve is relatively accessible, the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve certainly isn't. To get there is the opposite of straight forward! Located in the north-east of Paraguay, the reserve is accessible by boat (a one week journey on cargo boat from Concepción), plane (when the weather isn't too stormy) or car (when the roads don't become impassable due to rain.) We travelled in 4x4 trucks, a 900km journey that started with a five hour drive from Asunción on the Trans-Chaco route towards Bolivia. After a stop-over at a hotel in Los Pioneras, we turned off the tarmac road onto an unpaved track crossing more of the vast Chaco region until, after about nine hours (400km) of bumping around on the pot-hole ridden track, we finally reached Bahía Negra (The Black Bay), a small settlement neighbouring the reserve.

The long journey gave us the chance to really get a feel for the Chaco landscape, despite not actually stopping to experience it. In short, the Dry Chaco consists of scrubs, cacti and occasional trees, while in the Humid Chaco you'll see bogs and wetlands, surrounded by palm savannahs and forests. During the rainy season the road turns into little more than a pool of mud, and getting through is virtually impossible. Even outside of the rainy season a sudden downpour can make the journey hazardous, the road becoming more like a newly harrowed crop field: Once, Guyra Paraguay's Rodrigo Zárate with his then eight month pregnant wife Elizabeth Cabrera got stuck here en route to the reserve - for five days! Not an experience they would want to repeat...

Despite the harsh conditions in the Chaco, with temperatures in summer often reaching 45 degrees centigrade or more, there are people living here, and the road passes through several ranches and small settlements. At night the extensive fires lit up the dark sky and during the day we could see the many hundreds of cows grazing the barren fields. In contrast, the area north of Bahía Negra is truly wild, with virtually no settlements and only a few nomadic indigenous communities.

The Pantanal - true wilderness

Caimans (Caiman yacare) line the river edges and are fairly unfussed about the occasional boat going past.

From Bahía Negra, we reached the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve by a small motorboat; an hour-long journey up two rivers. First Río Paraguay, with Brazil to the east and then Río Negro, so named because of its silty, black water, surrounded by impenetrable jungle, with Paraguay on one side of the river and Bolivia on the other. With no official crossings, this is not a place you would come if you didn't have a good reason. The nearest doctor is in Bahía Negra and the nearest hospital more than 300km away in Concepción and if planes can't land to pick you up (which is often the case), you are pretty much on your own. Here I finally found real wilderness!

A sight for sore eyes! After a 15 hour journey, we finally arrived at the Three Giants Lodge.

This is the Pantanal, an area very different from the Chaco, and from any other ecoregion I had so far seen in Paraguay. Dry palm savannahs rub shoulders with incredibly dense forests, where the stunted trees are completely covered in parasitic climbers, clinging to and wrapping themselves around any stem or trunk available, in their search for light. Here, you don't get very far without a machete! When the Three Giants Lodge was built earlier this year, the workers also cleared the area surrounding the lodge. In fact, arriving to the reserve by boat, the first thing you notice is the clearing, with the dark, wooden lodge visible through the palm trees that line the river edge. This was the first significant gap in the vegetation for the entire boat trip! Luckily for visitors to the reserve, the workers have also cleared vegetation to form a network of nature trails. I felt very spoiled walking these trails, knowing how laborious they must have been to create - and maintain.

The Pantanal is also a vast wetland. Naturally the reserve is located on dry ground, but gazing up the river, you can see a smaller scale version of the wetland: The river sides are in places boggy, with large sheets of lilies, which occasionally come loose and float downstream like small islands. Here the caimans hide, only their eyes and nostrils visible above the water. And on top of and around the lily leaves are thousands of birds, each one with a territory seemingly less than a square metre large.

Wildlife in the Pantanal

Giant Otters (Pteronura brasiliensis) in the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve.

During our three days stay we didn't see a single boat go past, but we did spot the neighbours: A family of giant otters (Pteronura brasiliensis). We couldn't believe our luck when we saw the heads of two otters bobbing up and down in the river, but the following day we saw the whole family: eight adults and four cubs. The otters swim past the lodge at least twice a day on their journey between their holt (den) and feeding grounds, so if you keep your eyes on the river you're pretty much guaranteed to see them.

Then there was the resident jaguar (Panthera onca). Two of the Guyra staff, who travelled up the evening before the rest of the party, spotted the big cat wandering right past the Three Giants at midnight, and with its favourite claw-sharpening trees situated in the middle of the trails, no more than a few hundred yards from the lodge, we were hopeful of a sighting. But no such luck. Perhaps it was the cheer number of people that put it off (a group of teenagers from Bahía Negra were also visiting the lodge at the time), perhaps we were just unlucky. But it did make its presence known to us...

Walking along one of the trails, we suddenly heard a muffled growl, and stopped dead in our tracks. Not sure whether it was what we thought it was we listened, too alarmed to breathe. Then we heard it again, but this time from the other side of the trail! We now thought we were surrounded by two angry jaguars, and suddenly we weren't so sure we wanted to come face to face with the cat after all. We waited, hearts beating so hard we were sure the animals could hear them, but there were no more growls. Eventually we carried on, slightly more hesitantly than before, and made it back to the lodge safe. One of the guards ensured us that if the growl had sounded at all quiet it meant that the animal had been far away. I'm not so sure... Suffice to say that there are jaguars here, and that the guards built their hut on stilts just in case. (And we slept with the shutters facing the veranda closed, as we didn't fancy being woken up by a jaguar jumping in through the window...)

Staying in the Chaco-Pantanal Reserve is very much on nature's terms - but we wouldn't have wanted it any other way!

In my next and final post I'll talk about the enthusiastic, young explorers we met in the Chaco-Pantanal (which there wasn't enough space for here) and I'll outline why you should go visit the reserves in Paraguay too. (And perhaps I'll include the full list of birds I saw, for those serious birders who may be reading this!)

Too Many Orang-utans

2007-11-09T09:28:00.002Z

There are hundreds, if not thousands of orang-utans, gorillas, gibbons and other primates in rescue centres in Africa and Asia and elsewhere. There are so many that it is difficult to know what to do with them. Suggestions to release them back in the wild are given a luke-warm reception, at best, by conservationists. This is because releasing primates that have been in captivity back into the wild is fraught with problems, and can even have negative impacts. It is also rarely a cost effective method of conserving an endangered species -- spending the equivalent amount of money on conserving existing wild populations is invariably a far more cost effective way of helping a species.

But there is a huge welfare issue, with more and more of these animals accumulating, often in conditions that are not ideal. So what can be done with them? One thing I am fairly certain of, and that is that this is a welfare issue, not a conservation issue.

Meanwhile back in the northern hemisphere, zoos are struggling to breed orang-utans, gorillas and other primates, in order to create self sustaining populations, that do not create a drain on the wild -- often dressing it up as part of their conservation programmes.

Surely it would make sense for zoos to stop trying to breed orangs etc., and to put them on birth control pills, and to take in some of the hundreds of animals languishing in rescue centres? Or am I missing something? For someone who has spent a large part of his working life opposing the trade in wildlife, this is a pretty heretical concept. But when confronted with the sheer numbers of orangs in captivity, which still continue to grow, some radical rethinking is needed, which does not waste conservation money. Unfortunately, in the public's mind, separation is often very difficult indeed, and orangs are highly emotive. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are raised each year from a public who often mistakenly believe they are helping an endangered species survive. Those thousands of the dollars spent on rescue centres, would of course, if spent on conserving wild populations and their habitat have a much bigger impact.

But it would still leave a thousand or more orangs in captivity.

A quote from The Independent

2007-10-22T14:42:00.002+01:00

I hope Alan MacColl and the Editor of the Independent won't mind, but I could not resist this very eleoquent letter published today. The Indie has been at the forefront of environmental reporting (even if it does still promote its motoring supplements).

America is ploughing up the last remnants of the Great Plains grasslands to produce fuel for SUVs ("Victims of the ethanol rush", 19 October); old-growth forest in Canada is cut down for tissues and toilet paper; the ancient forest of Tasmania is being turned into woodchips for Japanese paper manufacturers. If supposedly advanced western democracies continue to promote such greedy and reckless behaviour, what hope is there of persuading weak or corrupt states like Brazil and Indonesia to adopt more rational and responsible policies towards their forests?
Alan MacColl

Hermitage, Berkshire

The Independent 22 October

Yacyretá: One reserve, lots of different habitats!

2007-10-21T23:59:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who has just returned from Paraguay, where she was volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

Now that I am back in the UK, the whole Paraguay experience is already starting to feel vaguely unreal, but there are still lots to tell, so here goes:

The darker side of Paraguay

Silvia Centron and Arne Lesterhuis of Guyra Paraguay putting up a mistnet in Yacyretá Reserve.

Prior to my second field trip with Guyra Pararguay I managed to nearly electrocute myself, met a money-hungry policeman and had to pretend to be American. I would love to tell all, but this is probably not the right place. Instead, let's just say that I have experienced a slightly darker side of Paraguay, with bureaucracy, corruption and somewhat dodgy wiring...

Yacyretá: Almost all the habitats of Paraguay in one location!

All troubles sorted, I went off to help with bird ringing in Yacyretá, a private nature reserve in south of Paraguay located on the border with Argentina. The Yacyretá reserve is owned by the company of the same name and situated around the dam built and managed by the company.

The area is a bit surreal: The whole town, or suburb rather, was built by the company to house its workers, so has a slightly artificial feel to it. While the construction of the dam invariably had an impact on the environment and local community, the company is now investigating in conservation and Guyra Paraguay is helping with among other things the monitoring of bird species in the reserve. And there are a lot of birds! The reserve features everything from dunes and wetlands, through scrub, grassland and palm savannahs to Atlantic forest, each habitat type with its own specific bird species.

Look for the red eyes...

Sickle-winged Nightjar (Eleothieptus anomalus) resting on the road side after having been measured and weighted.

We arrived at sunset after a five hour drive from Asunción and had no time to rest: Although our primary aim was to do some mist net trapping of two target species (more on this later), we were also going to undertake another bird monitoring project: Mark-release-recapture studies of the rare Sickle-winged Nightjar (Eleothieptus anomalus), which occurs as a small population at Yacyretá, and is active at dusk.

If mistnet trapping is the bird monitoring version of a beach holiday, with plenty of sitting around in the sun and the occasional stroll to coax birds towards the net, searching for the Sickle-winged Nightjar was more like an action-adventure trip for offroad junkies: In the light of the full moon, one person drove the 4x4 truck across the incredibly bumpy, sandy tracks of the savannah grasslands, with the other two standing on the back, holding on for dear life with one hand (well, I was anyway) and scanning the pitch-black fields with a torch in the other, hoping to catch the reflection of the birds' red eyes in the light. Not the easiest thing in the world, and I'm sure the health and safety obsessed UK volunteering organisations would disapprove, but it was great fun and very good exercise for both arms and legs. And since I was holding the binoculars at face height every day and the torch every night for five days consecutively, I'm convinced I ended up with toned biceps!

I'm not a real birdwatcher after all

Bearded Tachuri (Polystrictus pectoralis) being photographed before its release.

Apart from the Nightjar, we were on the lookout for two other rare birds: The Bearded Tachuri (Polystrictus pectoralis) and the Ochre-breasted Pipit (Anthus nattereri). Although we managed to coax a couple of the former into the mistnet, the latter was completely absent, and when we went for a walk across a field trying to find one, I proved that I'm not a proper birdwatcher after all: When we spotted some Howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya) in a nearby tree, I defected and ran off to take photographs of the monkeys instead...

I was completely overwhelmed with the number of birds we saw and the species list I was making was beginning to be so incomplete as to be completely worthless, but I carried on regardless - I wanted to get an idea of how many species you can expect to see without going into enormous trouble. Apart from birds and Howler monkeys we also saw otters, capivara, caimans, iguanas, deer, rabbit and what I would like to think was a Maned Wolf, but was probably a smaller fox or racoon.

Too close for comfort?

Howler monkey feeding on the flowers and shoots of a tree.

On our last day in the Reserve, we stumbled upon a whole family of Howler monkeys in the forest, right next to the trail, where we had previously just seen the odd individual and heard the howling of the rest of the group in the distance (which sounds just like the howling of the wind between the trees!). Amazed, we stopped to watch and photograph them as they moved effortlessly from tree to tree, grunting quietly and munching on petals and shoots. As we finally decided we'd seen enough and continued walking along the trail, the monkeys apparently decided that they too had had enough, and proceeded to throw faeces at us from the tree tops! Luckily we were out of range, but it was an interesting way to finish off our visit, and a reminder of who is in charge in the Atlantic Forest.

Next: In my final field trip, we spent an evening being entertained by enthusiastic explorers, found out who's in charge in the Pantanal and experienced a moment of pure, primal fear...

Want to scare yourself?

2007-10-16T17:18:00.002+01:00

Click here.

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

And now try and convince me that there is any other real problems other than the human population crisis.........

How to make an appeal with one's foot in one's mouth

2007-10-12T10:56:00.002+01:00

America's National Wildlife Federation - a widely respected body -- sent out "An Urgent Message today about Global Warming" urging its one million members to make a donation to the organisation. AND, "For $30 you'll get a handsome fleece vest." AND " for $50 ....you'll get the vest and an adorable penguin plush" I don't know what a 'penguin plush' is, but it looks a bit like a kids toy in the photo.

Now clearly Jeremy Symons, The Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation's Global Warming Campaign (who signed the appeal) has not made the connection between the overt consumerism of the USA and the causes of global warming. It does not take an enormous amount of brain-power to work out that the manufacture and distribution of one million 'fleeces' and a 'plushes' would actually be contributing to global warming.

There are far too many businesses jumping on the green bandwagon, but it is depressing to find a conservation group not thinking things through.

I know they will justify it by saying they are reaching out to new audiences etc etc etc. But frankly, I don't believe it; they are appealing to their existing one million supporters. And I doubt very much that any of them actually NEED a fleece or a plush penguin. To me it is simply a sympton of the consumerisim which is so deeply embedded in the cultures of the developed world, that it is almost impossible to erradicate -- and therein lies one of the fundamental causes of global warming. It would be nice if an organisation like the NWF promised to give away free family planning literature instead..... but therin lies another tale.

water water every where, and far too much to drink

2007-10-11T09:24:00.002+01:00

I would like to return to one of my old hobby horses. I go to London most weeks, and this week was no exception. I am a Trustee of the BBC Wildlife Fund, and we were assessing the applications for funds to be distributed from the £1.4 million raised in the summer.

But travelling across London on the underground I was aware of the number of travellers clutching plastic bottles of water. I have been travelling on the London underground for over 50 years, and this a relatively new phenomenon. Why?

It appears that there is a widespread belief that everyone needs to drink two litres of water a day. Presumably this is a rumour spread by the manufacturers of bottled water, because there is no scientific evidence for this. You need to drink water, when you feel thirsty -- the body self regulates.

But with all this talk about saving energy, banning the sale of bottled water ( or at least taxing it to the limit) would be an instant way of saving vast amounts of energy. Non-renewable resources and fossil fuels are involved at every stage of the manufacture and production. The bottles themselves, the collection of the water, the distribution, and the disposal of the waste bottles. And yet perfectly good, potable water comes out of taps (despite the arguments about it tasting of chlorine, etc, it is perfectly healthy and safe). In fact some of the bottled water has more nitrates, and more chemicals than tap water. In fact I saw on one website the claim that some bottled waters couldn't be supplied through the tap, since they wouldn't meet H & S regulations.

And surely bottled water wastes more energy than leaving a TV on standby? But do politicians ever mention it? No, they drink it at all their meetings.

Does any one have a figure for the embedded energy in a bottle of water (including distribution and disposal)?

carbon con's

2007-10-10T15:12:00.002+01:00

An article in The Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2610139.ece?Submitted=true

drew attention to a clampdown on fake and exaggerated green claims by the UK's ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY.

And high time too. The World Land Trust, through it's carbonbalanced programme is trying to do reforestation and ecological restoration to the highest possible standards. And we try to be accountable and transparent. But there are lots of businesses out there, some of which are not far short of a scam. So CAVEAT EMPTOR.

This conference
http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/carbonmarkets/voluntary_london07.html
has a large number of companies some of which seeem to be simply cashing in on carbon -- I don't know much about most of them so any info would be useful -- are any of them doing any serious ofsetting?

I would like to hear from anyone with problems.

And if you want to know more about our programme and why we think ours is the best --do contact us.

Environmental education and ecological restoration in the San Rafael reserve

2007-10-08T15:47:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who is currently visiting Paraguay, volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

The last day of my stay at San Rafael had a spectacular sunset - this alone made the visit worthwhile!

In a previous post about San Rafael Reserve I mentioned that Guyra Paraguay works very closely with local communities in the management of the land. Generally speaking, there is not much awareness of, or interest in environmental issues and conservation in the country, but hopefully this is changing with the help of Gurya and others: Various campaigns highlighting the plight of endangered species or the threats to the natural environment in general are advertised on big billboards in cities and along the roads, and TV adverts (albeit on special-interest channels) for Greenpeace encourage individuals to help protect jaguars and other threatened species in South America.

Guyra Paraguay, together with other non-governmental organisations, form the San Rafael Conservation Alliance, the goals of which is to by land to create a centre of conservation in the National Park. The surrounding, privately owned areas, will be offered incentives (including certification for the growth of organic crops) so that the land can be managed sustainably under various conservation schemes. For instance, Guyra is working with local farmers growing organic Yerba máte, the economically important tree that is used to make máte tea and "national drink" tereré (cold máte with ice). Yerba máte is a forest species and can therefore be sustainably harvested wild, or planted together with other native trees as part of a restoration scheme. (The organic yerba grown by the farmers in San Rafael is exported to the US and is said to have a milder, less sharp taste than the conventionally grown yerba.)

Education is vitally important in changing attitudes and Guyra are working with both young and old to spark an interest in conservation and wildlife. In San Rafael, this includes school trips to the reserve (which has a brilliant education room with books, games and posters) as well as visits to local schools by Guyra staff.

WLT's Mark Gruin and Guyra's Reinaldo Sánchez looking over the field where nature is being given a helping hand. (The larger trees/saplings are self-seeded, the smaller ones were planted last year as part of WLT's restoration ecology/carbon balancing programme.)

The local communities are directly involved in the practical conservation work, with training courses in how to manage the land, use GIS for monitoring and opportunities to assist with for example tree planting. In San Rafael we visited an open area where the forest was in the process of regenerating. Some trees have already established, including fruit trees grown from the seeds discarded by previous settlers. To help speed up the process of forest re-generation, Guyra is organising the planting of native species - and this is where WLT's Carbon Balanced programme is involved: Carbon offset funds are invested in this restoration ecology project, and it was great to se first hand how the area looks, and visualise the forest that will eventually be established.

Next: Bird monitoring & random animal encounters in Yacyreta - a nature reserve with a great variety of wildlife habitats, including forest, grassland, wetland and sand dunes.

Parochial issues

2007-10-05T18:25:00.002+01:00

After a gap of many years, a couple of years ago I resubscribed to BB (British Birds Magazine, to the non-British readers of this), and have found the content a delight to read. However, my reading is blighted by the ludicrous use of nomenclature. In this tercentenary year of the Birth of Linneaus, it is worth recalling that Scientific names were developed in order to provide stability, and to ensure that scientists knew precisely which species was being discussed. However, BB along with many county bird reports, now not only use latin names as if they were confetti, but also try and use 'international' standardised vernacular names. This, to me totally misses the point, and wastes a lot of space. Provided a standard nomenclature is used, there is absolutely no necessity to have both scientific and vernaculars, and, certainly no need, in a paper on British Birds to refer to Eurasian this and European that. If it is deemed essential to have latin names, then each issue could have an appendix at the back giving them. This would make papers a lot easier to read and save endless repition of latin names.

The reason this came to my attention was that not having kept up with recent taxonomic changes I came across this new species of bird, the Great and Blue Tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) (see Vol 100:528). Of course it dawned on me pretty quick, this was the Great Tit (Parus Major) and Blue Tit (P. caeruleus). But the thought of the Great and Blue Tit as a lifer has a certain appeal.

Changing Lightbulbs

2007-10-05T17:25:00.002+01:00

The suggestion that it is a huge environmental advance to make everyone change from incandescant lightbulbs to fluorescent bulbs leaves me utterly incredulous. This truly is an example of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. BUt this is what the politicians want us to believe is an important step forward.

Think about it. All over Britain there are tens of thousands of lightbulbs left switched on all night for no apparent purpose. Street lights. Lights in shops that are closed. Lights illuminating the outside of buildings.

There is only one way of making significant energy savings, and that is to increase the price dramatically, otherwise, energy saving will invariably increase the disposable income in someone's pockets, which they will spend on something that will almost certainly use energy and other resources. It's an old hobby horse of mine, but we really need to think a bit more strategically at the issues.

I spent a couple of days in London this week, and ended up utterly and completely depressed. For all the talk about environmental awareness, it is perfectly plain to me that 99% of the population do not really care -- they are obsessed with fashion, with far too many cheap electrical goods, too much 'stuff' everywhere. Cheap transport, cheap everything. And too many people, all aspiring to own more and more of it. Switching the TV off and changing to fluorescent lightbulbs (which I saw somewhere, have mercury in them) is not going to save the world. We need some big gestures, and big gestures only come from governments. But with virtually all governments totally committed to economic growth, making commodities as cheap as possible, what hope is there? Never was it truer, to state: "It's the economy, stupid." I hope someone can find a light at the end of the tunnel.

Part II: San Rafael - Birds, butterflies and coatis in the Atlantic Forest

2007-10-03T03:15:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who is currently visiting Paraguay, volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

Human impact in the National Park

Kanguery, the centre of administration at San Rafael, is named after this river, which flows through the reserve.

In my previous post about my visit to Paraguay, I mentioned the long drive to get to the San Rafael Reserve. The length of time it takes to get there is misleading in several ways: Firstly because the road conditions make it impossible to drive at normal speeds, making the distance from the capital seem greater than it actually is and secondly because the reserve location, although in the centre of the National Park, is surrounded by privately owned properties, where land owners continue to use the land for cattle, timber extraction or agriculture. Also nearby is a wedge of land which is not part of the National Park, but cuts right into the centre, making the protected area vulnerable to illegal logging and poaching. I knew this already, but for some reason I had imagined Kanguery, the reserve's centre of administration and visitor accommodation, to be in the middle of nowhere, a sanctury for wildlife away from human influence. This couldn't be further from the truth; the reserve is worryingly accessible. The road to it may be nothing more than a dirt track, but it goes right through the reserve and is still sometimes used as a route to the communities on the other side of the reserve, despite the existence of a newer road around the Park. I could see and hear human activities everywhere, from the fires burning on the neighbouring land and the white dots of the cows grazing in the distance, to the sound of motorbikes on the track and the litter left behind by those travelling through (drink and food cans, used nappies, discarded clothing etc.).

On our first day at the reserve, Mark Gruin, Head of Operations for WLT and Rodrigo Zárate, Reserves Manager for Guyra Paraguay, and I set off early in search of birds. There were regular interruptions from motorbikes and horses on the track but despite this there were plenty of birds to be seen - or heard at least, including some rarities: Whilst I was off taking photos of the forest Mark and Rodrigo spotted a woodpecker species not previously seen in San Rafael. Typical! Butterflies fluttered around in their hundreds and crickets (or whatever they were) turned the volume up and down as if on cue, but the continuous sounds of human activity kept reminding me that we weren't far from civilisation.

Kanguery is prefect for the lazy birdwatcher: It's possible to see lots of birds without even leaving the guest house, both around the centre itself and in the grasslands surrounding it. These are Field Flickers (Colaptes campestris).

Wildlife in the Atlantic Forest

Although the reserve isn't as remote as I imagined, it does a good job of protecting what is left of the forest, which is still big enough that it would be easy to lose oneself if venturing away from the tracks. The vegetation around Kanguery (like much of the rest of the park) is secondary forest: it was abandoned by the previous land owner after all the good wood had been removed and the land grazed by cattle for a while, but in 20 or so years the forest has recovered quite well. There are few really tall trees, but there is enough cover for it to "feel" like a forest and there is no shortage of wildlife: Apart from all the birds, mammals such as tapir, maned wolf, deer and monkeys are all found here - even jaguars, although you'd have to work hard to spot one.

Butterflies in masses, flocking to drink from the soil on the track.

On our first day of bird watching, we went for a late afternoon walk through a different part of the forest, away from the road. Nearly dusk, there wasn't much light under the canopy, and birds were hard to see. But the subtle waving of reserve guard Reinaldo Sánchez alterted us to something else moving amongst the trees: A group of coatis (Nasua nasua) making a hasty retreat. I would love to say that I'd seen them, but to be honest all I saw was some blurry shadows moving down the tree trunks at great speed before disappearing into the dark of the forest. But still - I hadn't expected to see any mammals at all, so was very pleased indeed.

With Guyra Paraguay in the process of securing more properties within the park, the future looks promising for the wildlife still surviving in the Atlantic Forest, and with their restoration ecology initiatives, the re-generation of the forest is being given a helping hand. More about this in my next post...

Thought for the Day

2007-10-01T15:42:00.002+01:00

It is not just biodiversity losses we should be worrying about, it is the biomass. Think about it: biomass is related to carrying capacity. If England's farmlands are producing "x" tonnes of oilseed rape per acre, when years ago it was only "y" tonnes of weed-laden oats per acre, then it's the wildlife biomass that getting squeezed, however much artificial fertilizer is being added, and however much pesticide is being sprayed..

And if the populations of goats in Africa have gone up by 20 times in the past half century, then the wild antelope, and other wildlife will have decreased by a similar amount. It's what known as ecological balance. And no amount of research or education will change it.

Depressing but true.

Splitting charities

2007-09-26T17:04:00.002+01:00

A recent article in Third Sector reflected much of my thinking on charities, when Nick Seddon questioned the fact that the Royal Opera House should be a charity. Apparently, like me, he likes opera. But also like me, doesn't think it should be a charity, when it is paying its CEO over £250,000 a year, and performers, pro rata get even more.

It is high time that charities were sectored. First and foremost, a sector for straightforward non-profit organisations could be created. The Royal Opera House could be one. So could various zoos, museums and similar organisation. It would sort out confusion. At present some zoos are charities, while others are not. How does the public distinguish them?

Next stage is create a hospital and health care sector. These have virtually nothing in common with a lot of other charities -- particularly those like the World Land Trust, WWF, RSPB. Health Trusts are partly (largely?) funded by government agencies, whereas most environmental charities rely on voluntary public support.

In fact, why not define a "Voluntary charitable organisation" as an organisation which has over 75% of its income comprising voluntary public donations, including corporate donations?

An organisation dependent on other foundations, and government agencies should be classified as a "Charitable Organisation", and the rest as simply Non-Profit Organisations.

Guidelines could be put in place which would set ceilings on the proportion of funds that should be spent on fundraising, admin etc.
It would certainly help the public decide which are genuinely charitable, and dependent on public support.

Just an idea.

Jackdaws on Dung

2007-09-26T15:28:00.002+01:00

This morning I saw a sight that I found very encouraging. There were jackdaws feeding on the heaps of llama dung in our garden. Ever since we aquired a few sheep and three llamas, I have become aware of the problems of worming of these animals. Many vetinarians, and farmers believe it is essential to worm livestock regularly (never mind the fact that until the 1950s, most farmers managed without such treatments. And the helminthicide often used is Ivermectin, which is very persistent, and survives in the dung, to kill or deform the invertebrates that feed on the dung.

I have never wormed our animals, which remain perfectly healthy, and so over the past year it has been encouraging to see various scatophagous flies and beetles around the dung heeaps (llamas are communal dungers). And then to see jackdays probing for grubs was just great. We are all aware of the loss of woodlands and forests, but in England at any rate, the loss of grasslands and all the associated ildlife is considerably more significant.

San Rafael - Birds, butterflies and coatis in the Atlantic Forest

2007-09-26T15:01:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by WLT's web manager, Helena Akerlund, who is currently visiting Paraguay, volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

San Rafael: Protecting the Atlantic Forest in Paraguay

Atlantic Forest in San Rafael.

San Rafael is a 6,200 ha reserve owned and protected by Guyra Paraguay, located within San Rafael National Park in the south east of the country. The area is identified by WWF as a hotspot for conservation and was designated an Important Bird Area (IBA) in 1997 - the first such area in Paraguay. I have just returned from spending five days at Kanguery, the field station and centre of administration for the reserve. I was there to help look for rare birds and eggs, but due to unforseen circumestances it turned into a bit of a holiday instead, which I honestly didn't mind much!

The National Park is about 6 hours drive from Asunción, capital of Paraguay, and covers 60,000 ha of forest in more or less good condition (the forest to the east is generally in better shape than in the west, where the cover is much more patchy). 11 globally threatened birds and 17 near threatened species rely on the Park for their survival and 7 indigenous communities also have their home within the Park boundaries. However, the Paraguayan government doesn't currently have the capacity or resources to purchase the land within the National Park, and most of it is therefore still in private ownership, making it difficult to protect. Enter Guyra Paraguay, which together with other conservation organisations is working to purchase all the central properties within the park (15,000 ha) and manage them for conservation, as well as implementing incentives for sustainable use of the land in the surrounding properties, working with local land owners, campesinos (farmers who don't own their own land) and indigenous people. Kanguery is located in one of the properties that Guyra currently own.

Getting to the reserve

Vast fields cover the land that was previously forest.

After a looong drive through endless fields of wheat, rice, eucalyptus (for paper manufacture in Chile), soya and other crops, most of which would have been originally covered by forest, we turned off the main road on to a smaller road that soon turned into an unpaved track, consisting of deep-red soil. At this point I though we were getting near the forest, but I couldn't have been more wrong! The journey continued through yet more fields, this time passing only a few villages and towns, but many small, scattered, homes of the campesinos looking after the fields on behalf of the land owners.

At the beginning of the last century this was all part of the interior Atlantic Forest. However, the Paraguayan government in the 1970s decided that this was land "used for nothing" and encouraged settlers from all over the world to come and utilise this untapped resource. As a result there are now colonies from Japan, Ukrain, Germany, the US and other countries making a living from the rich soil, which - in contrast to some other forest soils - converts very well to agricultural land without loss of nutrients and erosion. The '80s and '90s saw the worst deforestation rates the country had experienced and what is left of the Atlantic Forest today is just fragments, almost entirely made up of secondary forest: The primary (virgin) forest is long since gone.

The rough track leading through the forest to Kanguery.

Another few hours on an increasingly bumpy track and we finally reached the National Park, and edge of Guyra's reserve. The border couldn't have been more clearly marked if they had put up a fence: A razor sharp line divided the outside area from the reserve, the line being the edge of the forest, surrounded by crop fields. The track continued through the forest for another few miles before it suddenly ended as abruptly as it had started, and we entered an open area - but this time the transition was a natural one; the forest here is too sandy and poor for trees to establish successfully and instead a vast natural grassland (the designated IBA) stretched out before us. By now it was pitch black, but we did indeed see birds, including several nightjars resting on the path requiring a beep of the horn before they reluctantly flew off.

Rafaela, resident dog at Kanguery, with the grasslands and forest in the background.

A few minutes later the track started climbing and when we reached the top of the hill a dog appeared from the darkness, trying very hard to get run over. We had finally reached Kanguery and were being greeted by Rafaela, one of the resident dogs.

Situated on top of the expansive grassland, Kanguery (named after the nearby river) offers spectacular views over the area, with great opportunities to see birds, which is what we set out to do next - but we ended up getting more than we bargained for, getting a brief glimpse of some coatis as well! More in my next post...

salaries for saving the environment

2007-09-21T17:16:00.002+01:00

Third Sector Magazine, is probably the most important magazine for workers in the Charity sector. And the back of each magazine has all the current jobs going, particularly for CEOs and senior staff, such as fundraisers.

Out of idle curiosity I spent 20 minutes looking up the charities advertising for new CEOs, and seeing how the salaries compared with Income. What was interesting to me was that a large number of the charities seemed to be paying getting on for 10% of their income on the salary of the CEO. One with an income of £665,000 was paying its Director £50,000, while another with a turnover of under a million was paying £65,000 plus bonuses. The same magazine advertised quite a few jobs in the environment sector -- and there the salaries were noticeably lower. This bears out my experience. Conservationists are paid significantly lower than many other charity workers. But this doesn't bother me unduly (unless it is ridiculously low) since most people if asked, are much happier doing a job they believe in, for lower pay. Job satisfaction counts for a lot. Some of the larger environmental charities to pay 'commercial rates' for some of their jobs -- but the problem then is that you get people who just see the job as another career move. The argument is that you have to pay top dollar to get the best person -- but I am not sure I agree. It all depends how you define the best person. Motivated, enthusiastic and knowledgeable to me would mean best. Competitive, career orientated, driven, might get the job, but not get the same results. Who knows? Any ideas on this?

insider dealing with fundraisers

2007-09-19T15:18:00.002+01:00

One of the greatest experts on fundraising (and I had the pleasure of meeting him, and garnering useful advice many years ago) is Ken Burnett. But how does it look when his company is one of the sponsors of the Institute of Fundraisers Annual National Awards, and Ken Burnett is the winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award? I have made my position over these sorts of awards very clear in the past, and this simply confirms my cynicism. Like so many awards, (from peerages downwards) are they simply rewarding those who put up the cash? Don't get me wrong, Ken Burnett is a very clever guy, and his company undoubtedly does a very good job for those that can afford them. But is it right to reward your sponsors with awards?

The Institute of Fundraising National Awards are "championing best practice in fundraising". I could paraphrase that as scratching the backs of those that scratch their backs. Particularly as the whole selection process is based on proposing each other. No one is actually going out and searching for the best. Surely, even within the fundraising world, it is NOT best practice, to give awards to those that pay for your awards? Or am I just too cynical?

Edited:Turns out I was being too cynical - and wrong: The sponsors of the awards are Burnett Works, which is not Ken Burnett's company at all - that used to be Burnett Associates, although Ken sold his controlling interest in Burnett Associates in 1999 to a management buyout. And as Ken Burnett points out (below) Burnett Associates not only doesn't sponsor the Institute of Fundraising, it actually hasn't existed since 2001. My sincere apologies to Ken for this error on my part.

But my views on awards remain unchanged. You only have to look at history to see how often the award givers get it wrong. Just check out the number of great films that never got an oscar. And Darwin didn't get a knighthood.

The big green con

2007-09-19T11:24:00.002+01:00

It is high time we took a reality check on the 'green' credentials of the carbon offset business. I have looked at numerous websites, and my conclusion is that the overwhelming majority are cynical attempts to exploit a growing environmental awareness, that do little to help conserve the planet for the future. Most are for profit businesses, and while there may not be anything intrinsically wrong in this, in practice, it will rarely lead to long term benefits to the natural environment.

The World Land Trust got involved in carbon offsets, simply because we saw it as a mechanism for raising funds for carrying out activities which were in themselves incredibly important-- that is saving land that is important for biodiversity. The fact that it also locks up carbon, is an added bonus for us. But there are plenty of cynically exploitative businesses out there, planting trees almost randomly.

It is generally recognised that for tree planting to have a significant carbon offset, it needs to be in the tropics, and having carried out our own research, and having worked with experienced local partners, we now know that it is relatively expensive to do this properly -- in fact we reckon it costs £12-£15 a tonne, to do the job properly, and ensure long-term survival. Consequently, I am very suspicious when I see businesses (that also have to make a profit, unlike a charity)claiming they can do it for as little as £7.00 a tonne. It is perhaps time the Advertising Standards Authority took a close look at some of the claims.

Wildlife watching in Paraguay

2007-09-18T18:17:00.002+01:00

Guest blog by WLT´s web manager, Helena Akerlund, who is currently visiting Paraguay, volunteering with Guyra Paraguay.

I have been "ordered" by John to write a blog for the next month, so here we go: I'm in Paraguay, volunteering with GUYRA, WLT's partner organisation, which will involve visiting at least two of their reserves: San Rafael and Chaco-Pantanal.

Paraguay is a great destination for anyone intrested in seeing wildlife, as despite its relatively small area (roughly the size of Germany), the country provides several vastly different wildlife habitats, offering those on a limited budget - or those stretched for time - fantastic opportunities to see a lot without having to travel long distances.

Paraguay is still recovering from its many years of dictatorship and there is still relatively litte tourism (backpackers are virtually absent). Hopefully I'll inspire at least some people to come and volunteer or travel here!

The first destination: San Rafael. Leaving tomorrow morning, we'll be spending a few days recording rare birds. I'm very excited although slightly worried as I know nothing of Paraguayan birds (or any other birds for that matter!). Time to do some intensive studying of the bird guides! I'll report back when I return to the Guyra office in Asunción.

Doing Nothing

2007-09-18T11:15:00.002+01:00

Over a quarter of a century ago I attended my first big international conference on conservation. It was the IUCN General Assembly in Kinshasa, Zaire. Nothing like as big as the junkets nowadays, but I suppose there were getting on for 1000 delegates present. I recall sitting in the bar one evening and calculating how much it cost to organise a meeting of that scale. An exercises I mentally repeated when I heard that there were around 9000 delegates at a recent international conservation conference. Ignore the carbon foot print, and take a s a rough guesstimate that each delegate for a two-eek conference costs $5000, (in actual costs (air fares, hotel costs and salary -- this will be very much on the low side, and does not take into account opportunity costs, of being there). This could have bought outright somewhere between one and two million acres of rainforest.

But I have digressed already. It was in Kinshasa in 1975, that the World Conservation Strategy was born. And I was part of the whole consultative process. I recall, perhaps rather facetiously, suggesting that the scenario that was missing, when all the various strategies for long term conservation were being put forward, was doing nothing, or even encouraging the over-exploitation of natural resources.

And now a quarter of a century later I wonder if this might not have been good idea.
By slowly conserving natural resources, and eking out what's left, the day of collapse is simply postponed. And when it finally happens, there will be even less of the natural world left. And collapse, as Jared Diamond has eloquently argued, is certainly on the cards. His book of that name should be compulsory reading for all, particularly politicians. While it is certainly over simplistic, and certainly selective in the use of data and history, there is no doubt in my mind that the fundamental messages are correct. In relative terms, highly developed, highly sophisticated civilizations have collapsed, in many different parts of the world, and for different combinations of reasons. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the current oil/energy-dependent Americano/Euro-centric civilizations will be able to survive in the long term, or even the relatively short-term. It remains to be seen if it will be the direct results of climate change, the spread of pandemics or warfare -- all of which have been the causes of collapse both historically and prehistorically -- which will cause the collapse of the human population. But one thing I am personally sure of, is that collapse will come -- the planet cannot support a single species biomass the size of the human biomass indefinitely.

Meanwhile despite all the talk about climate change, virtually nothing of any significance is being done about the underlying cause. Too many people, with expectations of a totally unsustainable life-styles.

But perhaps a few more articles in the US Press like this one may make politicians take note: http://www.slate.com/id/2173458/