Cats. Betes Noir & Wildlife

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

Burton's Biomass Extinction theory

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.

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

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.

chiffchaffs and Spaniards

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......

A Voice from the past

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.

Good news for tigers

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.

500 million people in India without toilets

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.

Too Many Orang-utans

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.

Disappearing wildlife

I have on many occasions, both in books and in my blogs mentioned the dramatic decreases in wildlife. Unfortunately TV and other media, don't like doom and gloom, so often only emphasise the good news stories -- and I suppose the WLT is also guilty of this as well. We might publicise the fact that we have helped save 10,000 acres of dry chaco -- but probably don't give equal prominence to the fact that the Mennonites have cleared tens of thousands of acres, and turned it into farmland.

But the scale of the devastation of wildlife is truly alarming and rarely faced up to. I grew up in England in the 1950s, when flower rich meadows still existed on the outskirts of London. When common lizards were found in the suburbs. When colonies of yellow wagtails nested on a suburban sewage farm, alongside redshanks, lapwing and a large colony of tree sparrows. All gone. Red-backed shrikes and wrynecks nested in southern England. Now quite extinct. Bats darkened the sky over Godstone pond just outside London -- now you will be lucky to see a couple of dozen in an evening. When I first started using mist nets as a bird ringer, cockchafers and other large beetles were a problem in the early evening -- now a rarity. Stag beetles were common in the South London suburb of Streatham. Jackdaws nested in Hyde Park. And go back a little further and read W H Hudson's accounts of birds at the end of the nineteenth century, and you will get an idea of abundance of species such as wheatears.

To explain many of these declines we only have to look at what is happening in Africa, to our summer visitors. Just as the north American songbirds are crashing because of the loss of rainforests in Central and South America, so European migrants are going because of the devastation of Africa's natural habitats.

About 20 years ago it dawned on me that saving a few charismatic species such as tigers and orang utans was possibly not the best way of conserving biodiversity (though at the time the word was not really in use). And twenty ears on I am even more convinced that it is only by conserving large tracts of land that does wildlife have a chance. It's not just that the other methods, such as 'education', or 'sustainable development' are not that effective, it's more that without somewhere to live, wildlife doesn't stand a chance. And also, over the years I have seen a huge amount of money poured in to 'research' of various sorts, as well as 'education' and all the other unquantifiable methods of conserving wildlife. It has certainly provided a lot of jobs for a lot of people from the developed world --and done very little to actually preserve wildlife or habitats.

The great thing about acquiring land is that it is there. Even if there are problems managing it, at least it is there, and demonstrably there. If half the funds spent on research, education and report writing over the past half century had been spent on acquiring land for nature reserves, I am quite certain, a lot less wildlife would be threatened than at present.

And to return to my starting point, it is not just the biodiversity we should be worrying about, it is the biomass. But 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 per acre, then its the wildlife biomass that getting squeezed. And if the population 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.

Jenga Theory and Biodiversity

A couple of years ago I developed my concepts of ecological collapse, and drafted an explanation based on jenga. The has lain in my computer files, until cleaning up the backlog of filing I decided to put it in my blog, to see if anyone had any comments.

Biodiversity and the Jenga Principle -- a review
by John A Burton

Biodiversity is a term apparently first used in 1985 and Sir Martin Holdgate the former Director of IUCN defined it as the 'Total sum of life's variety on Earth, expressed at the genetic, species and ecosystem level' . In fact the term has entered into common parlance as a synonym for species diversity, and is in consequence, often misleading. Areas that are important for biodiversity are indeed often species rich, but an over-emphasis on species-rich, so-called 'biodiversity hotspots' can not only be misleading but, on occasion, detrimental to conservation.

One of the objects of 'hotspots' was to prioritise conservation action, but such prioritisation is a gross simplification, and fraught with problems. First and foremost there is the issue of the reliability of the data it is based on. It is not uncommon for birds to be used as indicator' species. This is because it is claimed that birds are among the best-studied taxa, with relatively few new taxa to be described. This claim is not entirely justified, since recent years have actually seen an upsurge in new taxa being recognised. There is also the question as to whether or not one group of taxa can be used to reflect species richness in others. BirdLife published such comparisons but the results were very disappointing, and showed very little convergence between the distribution of mammalian, reptilian and amphibian narrow endemics with birds or with each other.

A glance at any of the maps of the so-called biodiversity hotspots shows that there is a huge concentration in the tropical regions, but hardly any of these regions have been studied anything like as well as Europe or North America, where new species still continue to be described every year. Other concentrations occur where there is large altitudinal variation in a relative small area, such as the Eastern Mediterranean. Whereas areas such as Patagonia, the Putsa, Gobi Desert are ignored despite having many interesting and unique species, including endemics. I believe that concentrating on 'biodiversity hot spots' is extremely dangerous for conservation, because it allows politicians and would be developers to set aside very small areas (which are species rich) at the expense of very large areas (which may be species poor). All my experience in nature conservation points to the fact that size matters. Fragment large, seemingly uniform habitats, and species will become extinct. A fact that has been demonstrated experimentally, as well as being observed on islands.

And this is where Jenga comes in. Most readers will know that Jenga is a simple game of manual dexterity. A tower of wood blocks is created, and then the contestants take it in turns to remove blocks without causing the tower to collapse, but leaving the top layer intact. If a large tower is created, clearly under normal circumstances, more pieces can be removed before it collapses, than from a small tower. If the blocks are used to represent species within an ecosystem, the analogy works pretty well. A simple ecosystem, (pampas) is formed from large blocks (species) but relatively few of them, to create the entire tower (biomass). As a tower it is relatively stable, but as soon as one or two blocks are removed near the base, the slightest jolt will lead it to collapse (other species become extinct). A complex ecosystem (rainforest) is not even a single tower, but a complex series of towers, more like a pyramid, comprising hundreds of blocks. Lots of blocks can be removed before serious damage occurs to the structure, even from near the base.

These are the extremes, and I am sure the analogy can be developed further -- it would also make an interesting and marketable game. But it is in the less clearly defined habitats -- those of the temperate regions, the concept is most likely to be useful.

What we should be looking at are habitats that are likely to cease to operate as ecosystems (Jenga towers) and concentrate on conserving those. Using this approach, I believe it is possible to prioritise conservation action. Madagascar, which is clearly comprised of a tower of unique blocks, has already lost most of its base layers, and so compared with the Amazon or Congo, is much nearer to collapse.

And applying the concept to Europe it is apparent that the whole region is in serious danger. In the past 50 years so much of what was at least partially able to support an ecosystem (farmland) has undergone 'desertification', that it is unlikely that the rest of the ecosystems can survive. The disappearance of birds such as the house sparrow, may even be a symptom of an imminent total collapse.

Previous experience has led me to always question the basis of setting priorities. In 1988 I was involved with the creation of the Programme for Belize, a conservation initiative to acquire land in Central America. Several international conservation bodies were approached for support, but the World Wildlife Fund in the UK declined to put its name to the project at the time, because it was not a 'priority' area. 15 years on, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now state that that area is part of the largest remaining continuous tract of forest in the whole of northern Central America. It is one of the few forests capable of sustaining viable populations of species such as Jaguar and Puma, as well as providing habitat for a wide range of other species. The problem with most of the prioritisation systems that have been used recently, is that they have usually been developed by biologists and scientists, and priorities do not only involve science -- even though scientists might argue they take other factors into account. Counting numbers of species, and degrees of rarity is only part of the equation, and in some cases a relatively unimportant part. Other factors that need to be taken into account include the following:

Economic considerations: What is the cost of buying or protecting the land?
Can it generate income? Can it be self sustaining? What subsidies are needed?

Political considerations: Is there a local will to conserve it? What happens if outsiders become involved?. NIMBYism and the reverse.

And there are many, many other considerations that need to be taken into account.

Spatial considerations: How big is the area? Can it be protected? How near is it to other protected areas? How does it relate to the economic geography of the surrounding country?

The conclusion many conservationists would reach after considering all the above, as well as the huge range of factors normally considered when evaluating endangered species, is that each case needs to be treated on its own merits, and that the world is in such a state of crisis that ALL remaining natural habitats are under threat of some sort and need protection and conservation.

My personal conclusion is that the only way of implementing a realistic prioritisation is opportunistically. Too many of the world's conservation bodies are sitting on piles of cash and/or carrying out yet more research. There are too many so-called conservationists sitting at desks and in labs, writing about it, researching it, but not actually doing anything. Truly a case of fiddling when Rome is nearly burned to the ground. It would be interesting to have some PhD students carry out research into the economics of conservation research, to look at what has been spent on endangered species research over the past 40 years, and compare that with other uses of the money, such as land acquisition. How many millions of dollars have been spent on researching elephants, rhinos tigers and gorillas? How many reserves could have been bought and protected with that money?

Saving Planet Earth & the BBC Wildlife Fund

Saving Planet Earth & the BBC Wildlife Fund

I was very honoured to asked to be a Trustee of the BBC Wildlife Fund, which is the recipient of the funds raised by the Saving Planet Earth season on BBC TV over the past two weeks. As I write it has raised over £1,200,000. Which I suppose puts into perspective most people's views on the (un)importance of Saving Planet Earth. It's remarkably little, compared with Comic Relief. But we always knew that most people put the short term as much more important than the long term. And it is probable that the majority of the inhabitants of Britain, still think that climate change, the disappearance of rainforests and loss of biodiversty are all issues that won't affect them personally. How wrong they will probably prove to be.

Over the past few weeks there has been a lot written about ways of saving the planet -- magazines including BBC Wildlife, Radio Times and the Independent on Saturday -- have all proffered their advice. But not one of them have mentioned reducing family size. Switching off a few lightbulbs, recycling a newspaper or two, and cycling to work, all have negligible effects compared with not having any children. It may be politically incorrect to even mention the subject (certainly it seemed to be under the reproductively prolific Blair leadership), but it's an incontrovertible fact that it is the single most effective way of combating global climate change, preserving wildlife habitats, and preserving biodiversity. The burgeoning human populations in all parts of the world are unsustainable, and until politicians (and aid agencies) face up to that fact, the world is in dire straits.

But back to Saving Planet Earth. The season culminated in a concert in Kew Gardens, which was broadcast throughout Friday evening with various celeb's in attendance. Certainly not my idea of entertainment -- but it is argued it's a way of attracting an entirely new audience, and making them aware of the problems facing the planet. Only time will tell if this was worthwhile. I personally have a fairly low opinion of the average Sun reader (one of the areas where Saving Planet Earth was promoted), and would argue in favour of sticking to the normal target audience of Grauniad/Times/Indie readership. The argument against being that we would be preaching to the converted. But then aren't the converted are more likely to reach deeper into their pockets? Aren't they more likely to be policy makers? The readers of the Sun may have disposable income, but are they likely to respond? I'd put my money on the Opera-going, Royal Academy members, and Courtauld visiting public any day. But I make absolutely no claims to be a pundit on any of these issues -- which is why I would be interested to hear alternative views. How important is mass opinion? If the Iraqui war is anything to go by, not much. And that is probably a related issue......

But back to Saving Planet Earth. I was very encouraged by the fact that Sir David Attenborough did bring the human population issue into the picture, right at the begining in the very first broadcast of the season. Let's hope that moves it up the agenda.

BBC Saving Planet Earth; Ramblings on the Ethiopian wolf

Last Monday's film of Graham Norton in the Ethiopian Highlands looked at the plight of the Ethiopian Wolf (aka: Simien Fox, Simien Wolf, Ethiopian Fox). Apart from the fact that Norton made a first rate, and serious presenter, it was a good illustration of the the real problems facing wildlife. HUMANS. The erosion of the wolf's habitat by the rapidly increasing human population, gradually creeping into the more remote and inaccessible habitats, such as that occupied by the wolf.

And with the humans come their domestic animals which carry rabies, distemper and other canine diseases fatal to the wild wolves. The solution: a massive vaccination campaign. Expensive, but effective. But meanwhile the human population continues to grow.

Interestingly, the one solution not mentioned was captive breeding -- which in the case of the wolf is an obvious safeguard. Canids are all relatively easy to maintain in captivity, and there is no reason why the Ethiopian wolf should be an exception -- surely it would make sense to have a small self sustaining population? However, there is clearly a conflict of interest in operation since the Ethiopian Wolf project featured in the BBC film is funded largely by the Born Free Foundation. This foundation also funds Zoo Check, and according to their website "The Born Free Foundation believes that wild animals should not be kept in captivity".

This is clearly a simplistic approach, and while I personally agree that whenever possible it is best to maintain endangered species in the wild, sometimes captive breeding is an essential part of conservation. Furthermore there is little question in my mind that zoos can and often do play, a very important role in education. There are plenty of good reasons, in my view, why wild animals should continue to be kept in captivity. I recognise that hand-reared orphan animals, or injured animals have no real role in conservation, but whenever I am brought one, I try and rear it. From Bank Voles to herons, from foxes to rooks I have reared dozens. As did the inspiration behind Born Free, the late Joy Adamson. In most cases it is irresponsible to release those animals back into the wild, for a variety of reasons -- as indeed the Adamson's found out to their cost. So surely the best place for these animals is in a well run zoo, where they can educate another generation, who may never get the chance to see animals in the wild?

And as far as the Ethiopian wold is concerned, an ex situ breeding group is surely an essential part of any conservation strategy for the future.

BBC Saving Planet Earth

Today sees the launch, by our Patron, Sir David Attenborough, of the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series. And I was very pleased indeed to read Sir David's quotes in the Radio Times, giving emphasis to the human population problem.

The intention of the Saving Planet Earth series is to raise public awareness of worldwide conservation issues. But in addition, it will also be the first time that the BBC has used a series such as this to raise funds to support conservation. Using the precedents of Children in Need and Comic Relief, appeals will be broadcast in association with the transmission of programmes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/savingplanetearth/

I was honoured to be asked to be a Trustee of the new BBC Wildlife Fund, (http://www.bbc.co.uk/savingplanetearth/aboutus/thetrustees.shtml)
which has been established to gather the funds, and later to decide which projects to support. Of course we have no idea how much the BBC WF will raise, but it could be significant amounts of funds, which will enable us to give support to a wide range of projects. Interestingly the WLT is receiving more enquiries than ever from businesses wanting to support conservation through the World Land Trust. But as I emphasised at our Annual General Meeting, last week, it is the individual supporters that give the WLT its strength. All of you out there in cyberspace reading this blog, are important to us, whether or not you donate regularly, occasionally or never. If it is the latter, I hope you will spread the word.

Last week the Trustees agreed to fund several more land purchases -- one in the tropical forests of the Dry Chaco, and another parcel of land in the Paraguayan Pantanal, completing the first phase of the Three Giants Reserve. And Ocean Contract Cleaning donated £50,000 to our projects in Paraguay. The WLT is really begining to grow, but we still need more support -- forest continue to disappear at an alarming rate, so the more we can save, the better for the future of our planet.

Pollinators under threat and Jenga theory of biodiversity.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Bulletin, Highlights for 2006 includes a review of endangered species that are important as pollinators. The materialist justification for conserving wildlife -- for reasons such as production of medicines from rainforest plants -- is used commonly enough, but it is relatively unusual to see an article focusing on pollinators. And yet without pollinators hundreds of plant species might be endangered, including crops.

What is often not fully appreciated by the general public, is that many plants are reliant on only a very few species of insects, birds or mammals as pollinators; in some cases only a single species.

This brings me back to the Jenga theory of biodiversity conservation. Once you start removing the pieces from the Jenga tower of biodiversity, you can carry on removing individual pieces for quite a long time. And we have been doing so. But there comes a point where removing one more piece, even from somewhere near the top, can cause total collapse. And we don't know how near we are to that point. But I have little doubt, knowing how many of the pieces are missing, or rather now so rare as to be effectively missing, that collapse is a real prospect. In fact to take the analogy a step further, for every hundred or so pieces of biodiversity we remove from the Jenga tower, we are replacing them with a single piece made of lead, representing a load of extra humans, or cows. Or chickens. Or pigs. Or fields of oilseed rape etc etc etc. Thus making the Jenga tower incredibly unstable. The end result is unequivocally predictable.

And the human population, and its demand for increased animal production, is barely mentioned; and many of the aid agencies trying to wipe out poverty in the tropics don't even have policies on birth control.

Captive Breeding endangered species

All over the world zoos use captive breeding of endangered species as one of the justifications for keeping animals in captivity. Personally I do not have any great objections to animals in captivity, provided they are well housed, and kept humanely. I believe that seeing animals in zoos can have very positive educational benefits. I certainly had my love of wildlife greatly encouraged by regular visits to zoos, and by keeping animals myself. But for over a quarter of a century, I have been questioning the validity of captive breeding as a justification for zoos.

During my last visit to India I visited the Madras Crocodile Bank, and here was a clear demonstration of the dilemma that faces those involved in captive breeding. The Crocodile Bank has been so successful in breeding almost all the species it keeps, that most are now separated into single sex enclosures to prevent further breeding. There simply is nowhere else to release them into the wild. Surplus animals are sent to other zoos, and no doubt some of those zoos keeping endangered crocodiles will use them to justify themselves. But clearly there is no need for them to be kept on conservation grounds. What conservation really needs is some more habitat to be purchased and conserved.

One of the areas the WLT is hoping to assist the Wildlife Trust of India is in the purchase of mangroves and regeneration of mangroves in coastal areas. It would be very nice to be able to acquire a large enough area to reintroduce crocodiles -- but somehow I doubt we will be able to. Crocodiles are, unfortunately large predators, and humans often form part of their natural prey, so a very large are of habitat would be needed if they are not to come into conflict with human population. But if someone gave us a couple of hundred thousand pounds or more -- it could be done, as the land is available, and the crocodiles are waiting.

And more to the point, this is one of the reasons the WLT is working closely with the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums -- our Wild Spaces programme will compliment the work of zoos, providing opportunities for in situ conservation.

Endangered Jaguars

The IUCN Red List continues to list the Jaguar as simply "Near Threatened". Not Vulnerable, not Endangered, simply "Near Threatened". To my mind this makes a mockery of the whole classification of degrees of threat. The species is completely extinct in many countries within its range, and even in those countries where it still exists, it is almost always listed as Endangered or Vulnerable. While there is little statistical data, there is ample anecdotal information, almost all of which points to ongoing declines. So why are conservationists so "conservative"?

Back in the early 1980s I suggested that the African Lion ought to be considered for inclusion in the Red Lists, but was laughed at. In 2004, it was included as Vulnerable. All big cats are incompatible with human populations, which are expanding everywhere. So how can the Jaguar, considered Vulnerable and continuing to decline throughout the 1970s, 80s, and 90s now be considered only Low Risk/Near Threatened?

To quote the IUCN Red List itself: "Its stronghold is in the rainforest of the Amazon Basin , but it is declining in most other habitats. The Jaguar has been virtually eliminated from much of the drier northern parts of its range, as well as the pampas scrub grasslands of Argentina and throughout Uruguay. The most urgent conservation problem for the Jaguar throughout much of its range is the current intolerance of ranchers. The vulnerability of the Jaguar to persecution is demonstrated by its disappearance in the mid-1900s from the southwestern US and northern Mexico".

If its stronghold, the Amazon basin was not disappearing at an alarming rate there might be some justification for IUCN's assessment, but it and the Jaguar are disappearing. By not highlighting the threatened nature of Jaguars, we are fiddling while the Amazon burns.

A Letter to Nature

The Letter in Nature (vol 436/18 August 2005) by Orme et al.: "Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat" demonstrates the proposition that "hotspots" and many of the interpretations of the importance of "biodiversity" are potentially misleading when applied to the implementation of conservation policies for endangered species -- or at least that is the interpretation I inferred.

The paper deals almost exclusively with birds, which are generally accepted as one of the better-studied taxa. However, even these taxa demonstrate the failings of the hotspot concept. A glance at the maps immediately demonstrates one of my fundamental criticisms: all hot spot concepts, as currently used, have an automatic bias towards the tropics. Tundra, steppe, temperate woodlands and all other species-poor habitats are absent from any of the hotspot maps.

In order to understand the relative importance of locations for setting conservation priorities, hotspot concepts need to be allied in some way with the species diversity potential for an area; not treated as an absolute. There is absolutely no point in stating the obvious: almost all of Ecuador is bound to have a greater species diversity than an equivalent area of Patagonian steppe. However, this does not mean that from a conservation point of view a given area in Ecuador is more important than that of the Patagonian steppe, since however much of Ecuador is protected, it will not protect a single species of the Patagonian endemics.

If future researchers wish to develop the hotspot concept into something useful, then they must express data in proportion to the potential, not in absolute numbers. Furthermore, it is also essential to take into account the carrying capacity of a habitat; deserts and other species poor habitats usually need much larger reserves if they are to be effective. And finally the island effect needs to be taken into account when proposing conservation areas.

But meanwhile species continue to become extinct, and of greater interest to the present writer, would be evidence that the modelling and theorising has been subjected to a cost-benefit analysis, and been shown to actually conserve threatened species any better than the hunches of informed biologists and field workers. Huge amounts of money in the form of research grants are expended on developing these models, and even reputable conservation bodies give grants for such purposes, but is it justified? The trouble with most of the scientific models is that they are nearly always based on biology and science. Unfortunately, in the real world, politics and economics are invariably more important. I would far rather buy a piece of forest that is actually on the market and under threat, than spend money on working out which piece of forest has the theoretical greatest number of endemic species. As far as I am concerned the economics are relatively simple: In the US or Europe, it will cost around $100,000 a year to keep a single fairly junior scientist employed on researching these issues. That will buy at least 4000 acres of wilderness. Often enough to save more than one species from extinction, as Bob Ridgely, Nigel Simpson and others have demonstrated in Ecuador.

But this is not to say I am anti-science. It's just that I think conservation money should not normally be used for research -- it's a form of fiddling while Rome burns.

Clothes moths -- endangered species?

I have written about the decline of insects from time to time -- towns were once full of flies, so much so that everyone had net curtains to help keep them out. Nowadays nearly every city is virtually a fly-free zone. Even Delhi and Madras when I visited recently were not the fly-infested places of yesteryear. To me this is very scary, and I am constantly on the look out for hard data on the quantitative decline of insects. There's a lot on the qualitative declines and extinctions, but very little on numbers. I have put down the disappearance of species such as Red-backed Shrike in England, to the decline in large insects. I have noted how the commons of London were once crawling with grasshoppers in summer, but now thanks to pesticides and rotary mowers, grasshoppers are a rarity. anti parasite insecticides have poisoned cow pats, and so the list goes on. The latest to join my list is the clothes moth. As a child growing up in the 1940s and 50s, I remember clothes moth being a real problem when our woolly jumpers were put away for the summer. But now no one seems to worry. Is this just because so much of our clothing is synthetic, or are there other causes at work? The natural habitat of clothes moths is in birds nests among other places, and there are still plenty of birds nesting in towns. So where have the clothes moths gone?

Art and endangered species

I am considering signing up to the National Art Fund. This is because I think they do a great job in saving works of art for the nation, and more importantly I like their magazine. It also has a sobering effect on me, and puts the work of wildlife conservationists in perspective. To read that a painting by Sir Joshua Reynolds of Omai sold for over £10 million is a staggering thought. Omai was a Tahitian brought to England by Captain James Cook in 1773. At that time the islands of Tahiti, Hawaii and other parts of the Pacific contained dozens of species now extinct.

A medieval psalter was recently saved for the nation at a cost of £1.7.million and Damien Hirst's pickled shark sold for £7 million. All of these are 'unique pieces of art". But there is unique and unique. While these art forms can be copied, and these days copies can be made that are so close to the original that only scientific tests can tell them apart, the originals upon which they are based cannot be recreated. The Tahitians and their unique culture have been destroyed, the Medieval countryside teeming with wildlife, portrayed in the psalter has gone, and even Hirst's shark is diving towards extinction. And none of these can ever be recreated, or even simulated. Once they are gone, they are gone forever.

With £5 million -- a quarter of the amount spent on these three art treasures -- the World Land Trust could save over 160,000 acres of tropical forests in Central America. Forests that are currently on the market and about to be sold into an unknown future. Countless species live in the forests, some of which may become lost for ever without even being known to humans. I am not such a Philistine as to suggest we stop preserving art and other aspects of human culture, but we should try and get a sense of perspective. Where are the wealthy collectors who will preserve the planet's heritage? Let's try and get some sort of ecological balance. It's a crazy world when a painting of an elephant by Stubbs (if one existed) could sell for more than the entire budget needed to create all 88 elephant corridors proposed for the Indian Elephant (Stubbs record at auction is over £3.2 million). And a single painting by Delacroix, famous for his lions and tigers has sold for over $9 million. Which is really worth more a painting, which can be copied, or a real living tiger and its descendants?

Fortunately, living artists are much more concerned than the collectors of art, and some of the most generous supporters of the World Land Trust have been painters -- and not just wildlife artists. And David Shepherd, famous for elephants and trains, has even created his own foundation, which funds conservation using income from his art. But compare the Getty Conservation Prize of $100,000 with the budget of the Getty Museum -- between July 2004 and March 2005 over half a million dollars were given as grants to interns alone. The total budget on art research, and the purchase of art objects is many hundreds of millions a year. Enough to make a sizeable dent on conservation problems of a large chunk of the world. And by a quirk of fate, it is the vast wealth of museums such as the Getty, that has sent art prices spiraling through the roof. If they were to change their remit, and treat wildlife as unique art treasures -- which, of course, they are -- perhaps there might be some hope for the future.

Tiger Conservation misses out on large donation

One of the great innovations of the last few years has been the Public Library of Science (PLOS) an on-line, Internet publication, of peer-reviewed scientific papers. A brilliant concept, giving ready access to a wide range of scientists, all over the world. The latest edition of the Biology section has an interesting paper on the classification of tigers authored by 22 scientists, using DNA analysis of living and dead specimens of tigers from all over their range. Interestingly, the analysis confirmed that most of the subspecies described in the past, are actually reflected in the DNA of the animals studied, and the DNA also suggested that another subspecies, not previously described, should be recognised from Malaya.



But what a missed opportunity. The scientists decided to name the subspecies Panthera tigris jacksoni in honour of Peter Jackson, the former chairman of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. An excellent choice, as few people have done more in the cause of conservation or tigers. But what a waste, as I am sure Peter would agree. Just think how much money could have been raised if the name had been auctioned. Someone may well have paid several thousands of dollars to have the honour of a tiger subspecies being named after them.



For many years now I have been trying to persuade scientists naming new species of animals to put the names up for auction and use the money for conserving endangered species. But there is a vogue for naming new species after fellow scientists, or after a geographical feature where the species is found. And many scientists seem to think this is the 'right' way of doing it, and it is wrong to use naming as a form of patronage. Of course this is not true – from the beginning of scientific nomenclature, whim came into it. Linnaeus – the great Swede who started it all -- named attractive flowers after his friends, his favourite plant after himself, and a few weeds after people he didn't like. Wealthy patrons of scientific collecting, such as Lord Rothschild ended up having numerous species named after them, as did the kings, queens and princes of Europe – most of whom seemed to have 'acquired' birds of paradise during the 19th century. And numerous naturalists named species after their wives and girlfriends. So what more fitting way of commemorating a substantial donation to conservation, than to name a new subspecies after the person who gives the most money? The only time I can recall this happening was in the case of the Lower Keys subspecies of the Cottontail Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris hefneri –named after Hugh Hefner, the owner of the Playboy Clubs and Bunnygirls.



If any taxonomist reads this and wants to try auctioning a name, to aid conservation, I would be pleased to assist. Obviously the bigger and prettier the animal or plant, the more likely it is to raise money. It might even raise enough money to buy a whole nature reserve -- what better commemoration of a donation. Esso could surely have afforded a few hundred thousand dollars to have it named Panthera tigris essoi -- a royalty on the image of the tiger that has successfully promoted their worldwide sales and enough to buy a reserve to conserve it.