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.
Showing posts with label Rainforest Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rainforest Issues. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Brazilian hardwoods
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.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Letter to the Guardian in response to The Great Land Grab
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
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
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
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.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Threats to Woodlark Island
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.
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.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Carbon and Hot Air
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.
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.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
There's a lot of dodgy greenwash out there
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.
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.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
The big green con
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.
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.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
Cool Earth and Green Imperialism
It's happened again.
Multi-millionaire Johan Eliasch who, according to The Independent (12 September 2007), "is advising the Government on deforestation" [sic] wrote yesterday about "unique model for reducing tropical deforestation" created by Cool Earth. Cool Earth "grew from a meeting of minds between Frank Field and Johan Eliasch"
But, as so many of our supporters have pointed out this so-called "unique model" seems to be precisely what the World Land Trust and its partners have been doing since 1989. It's great that others are joining in, but still rather galling to find all the hard work of our partners, in Brazil, Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Argentina, Paraguay, India, Mexico and the Philippines all being ignored. And there are other similar initiatives being supported by our colleagues in Netherlands IUCN.
And it's difficult to for Cool Earth to claim they didn't know about these activities since if you type "buy an acre of rainforest" into Google, the World Land Trust comes up top, or thereabouts. Cool Earth has to have a paid advert to get seen on the Google searches' first page.
Small national NGOs need all the support and recognition they can get. For a brand new British NGO to claim that they are the first, could lead to accusations of green imperialism.
Multi-millionaire Johan Eliasch who, according to The Independent (12 September 2007), "is advising the Government on deforestation" [sic] wrote yesterday about "unique model for reducing tropical deforestation" created by Cool Earth. Cool Earth "grew from a meeting of minds between Frank Field and Johan Eliasch"
But, as so many of our supporters have pointed out this so-called "unique model" seems to be precisely what the World Land Trust and its partners have been doing since 1989. It's great that others are joining in, but still rather galling to find all the hard work of our partners, in Brazil, Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Argentina, Paraguay, India, Mexico and the Philippines all being ignored. And there are other similar initiatives being supported by our colleagues in Netherlands IUCN.
And it's difficult to for Cool Earth to claim they didn't know about these activities since if you type "buy an acre of rainforest" into Google, the World Land Trust comes up top, or thereabouts. Cool Earth has to have a paid advert to get seen on the Google searches' first page.
Small national NGOs need all the support and recognition they can get. For a brand new British NGO to claim that they are the first, could lead to accusations of green imperialism.
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Cool Earth -- Frank Field's new idea
The Internet is now littered with articles about Frank Field's brilliant new idea for saving the rainforests. An idea that the World Land Trust has actually been implementing for over 17 years. There is one major difference. We are working entirely by supporting local NGOs, and have a lot of carefully established experience. Unfortunately the massive publicity generated by the Cool Earth and Frank Field has led to a backlash of criticism, claiming that it is a form of green imperialism; I hope and doubt this is true, but only time will tell how effective the organisation is. And this is an issue which we at the WLT have been very aware of, and over the years have made sure that it is a criticism that cannot be levelled at our activities. But our main concern is that bad publicity can often rub off on others.
Over 10 years ago criticisms of Sting's Rainforest Foundation led to a massive decline in donations to our work, despite the fact that our approach was radically different. Criticisms of Tomkins and other multi-millionaire businessmen buying up wilderness have a knock on effect on our work. Fortunately, the World Land Trust is now well enough known to survive most of these problems, but land purchase is always going to be a sensitive issue. It is a vital tool in the bid to save biodiversity, provided it is done with the support of local people at all levels, from the communities to the governments concerned. Finally a major issue is that publicity-seeking high profile projects can often have very negative effects by inflating land prices. This is bad for conservation, and bad for local people. This is an issue we have to grapple with constantly
Over 10 years ago criticisms of Sting's Rainforest Foundation led to a massive decline in donations to our work, despite the fact that our approach was radically different. Criticisms of Tomkins and other multi-millionaire businessmen buying up wilderness have a knock on effect on our work. Fortunately, the World Land Trust is now well enough known to survive most of these problems, but land purchase is always going to be a sensitive issue. It is a vital tool in the bid to save biodiversity, provided it is done with the support of local people at all levels, from the communities to the governments concerned. Finally a major issue is that publicity-seeking high profile projects can often have very negative effects by inflating land prices. This is bad for conservation, and bad for local people. This is an issue we have to grapple with constantly
Sunday, 7 January 2007
Buying rainforest IS the best way of preserving it
Trawling the internet for sites dealing with rainforest issues a few months ago I came across the following site www.rainforestheroes.com
And in their 'kids corner' there was a Q & A, and among the questions and answers the following:
Q: Why not buy rainforest land instead? Isn't that better?
A: Rainforest Action Network believes that, in most cases, buying rainforest land is not the best way to protect it. Most "buy-an-acre" programs ignore the fact that there are people who live in and depend upon the forest. We believe that the best way to protect rainforest land in the long run is to allow the indigenous peoples who live there to control what happens to their own land. Because indigenous peoples depend on the rainforest for their survival, they often do the best job of protecting it. Besides, it would take a lot more money to buy fifteen thousand acres of rainforest land than it would to protect it through the Protect-an-Acre program.
Now I am afraid this is simply NOT TRUE. The World Land Trust is one of the relatively few organisations involved in land purchase, and 'most' buy an acre programs do NOT ignore the fact that there are people who live in and depend on the forest. In fact I don't know any organisations that ignore this so-called fact. So in May 2006 I challenged the authors of this text to identify the projects which have bought land inhabited by people. And also justify all their other claims. Another fact is that huge areas of forest are not inhabited by indigenous peoples, or anyone else.
The WLT is currently investigating two major land purchases in South America, with our local partners. Both these areas have populations of indigenes living in or around them, and it is of critical importance that their needs and aspirations are taken into account when developing a strategy for managing these forests. However, since the lands are already privately owned, there are very real problems that have to be addressed.
However, the Rainforest Action Network have never responded to my emails -- and I strongly suspect that this is because they cannot find any evidence to justify their claims. However, I don't see any point in arguing about the pros and cons of purchase versus lease because, in fact, both have their place.
And in their 'kids corner' there was a Q & A, and among the questions and answers the following:
Q: Why not buy rainforest land instead? Isn't that better?
A: Rainforest Action Network believes that, in most cases, buying rainforest land is not the best way to protect it. Most "buy-an-acre" programs ignore the fact that there are people who live in and depend upon the forest. We believe that the best way to protect rainforest land in the long run is to allow the indigenous peoples who live there to control what happens to their own land. Because indigenous peoples depend on the rainforest for their survival, they often do the best job of protecting it. Besides, it would take a lot more money to buy fifteen thousand acres of rainforest land than it would to protect it through the Protect-an-Acre program.
Now I am afraid this is simply NOT TRUE. The World Land Trust is one of the relatively few organisations involved in land purchase, and 'most' buy an acre programs do NOT ignore the fact that there are people who live in and depend on the forest. In fact I don't know any organisations that ignore this so-called fact. So in May 2006 I challenged the authors of this text to identify the projects which have bought land inhabited by people. And also justify all their other claims. Another fact is that huge areas of forest are not inhabited by indigenous peoples, or anyone else.
The WLT is currently investigating two major land purchases in South America, with our local partners. Both these areas have populations of indigenes living in or around them, and it is of critical importance that their needs and aspirations are taken into account when developing a strategy for managing these forests. However, since the lands are already privately owned, there are very real problems that have to be addressed.
However, the Rainforest Action Network have never responded to my emails -- and I strongly suspect that this is because they cannot find any evidence to justify their claims. However, I don't see any point in arguing about the pros and cons of purchase versus lease because, in fact, both have their place.
Thursday, 17 February 2005
More about real rainforests vs. imitations
In 1996 the World Land Trust was donated an indoor rainforest in Berkshire - Wyld Court Rainforest - as a visitor centre. The World Land Trust managed the centre until 2000, when the trustees decided to dispose of it; it has since become an independent charity and now known as the Living Rainforest.
One of the main reasons the Trustees of the WLT decided to relinquish the rainforest in Berkshire was that it was a huge drain on WLT resources - the income from visitors did not cover the running costs, and although the original donor had made a generous donation to subsidise the operations, these were running out. The only real benefit to the WLT was that raising funds to subsidise operations was relatively easy - a lottery grant of over £100,000 was just one of several. But the World Land Trust was established to conserve real rainforests, and eventually the difficult decision was taken, and the ownership handed over to a new board of directors.
Five years on the Living rainforest is flourishing, and in terms of education this is clearly a good thing, but from a conservation perspective it is also rather depressing. The national lottery has just given it nearly £1 million. To create an imitation rainforest of less than one acre. Meanwhile the World Land Trust is trying to raise a mere $8 million to buy over 150,000 acres of real rainforest. But neither the lottery, nor any other government agency will support such a purchase.
It reminds me of the old foreign aid trap: in the past most foreign aid was given to projects that mostly benefited the donor country - money to buy equipment only available from them, that needed expensive ongoing maintenance from the donor country. Now the lottery can claim to be helping rainforests, by developing education resources. But in reality it is only helping the economy of the countries doing the damage; if it spent the same amount on real rainforest it could save endangered species as well as thousands of acres.
One of the main reasons the Trustees of the WLT decided to relinquish the rainforest in Berkshire was that it was a huge drain on WLT resources - the income from visitors did not cover the running costs, and although the original donor had made a generous donation to subsidise the operations, these were running out. The only real benefit to the WLT was that raising funds to subsidise operations was relatively easy - a lottery grant of over £100,000 was just one of several. But the World Land Trust was established to conserve real rainforests, and eventually the difficult decision was taken, and the ownership handed over to a new board of directors.
Five years on the Living rainforest is flourishing, and in terms of education this is clearly a good thing, but from a conservation perspective it is also rather depressing. The national lottery has just given it nearly £1 million. To create an imitation rainforest of less than one acre. Meanwhile the World Land Trust is trying to raise a mere $8 million to buy over 150,000 acres of real rainforest. But neither the lottery, nor any other government agency will support such a purchase.
It reminds me of the old foreign aid trap: in the past most foreign aid was given to projects that mostly benefited the donor country - money to buy equipment only available from them, that needed expensive ongoing maintenance from the donor country. Now the lottery can claim to be helping rainforests, by developing education resources. But in reality it is only helping the economy of the countries doing the damage; if it spent the same amount on real rainforest it could save endangered species as well as thousands of acres.
Wednesday, 19 January 2005
Rainforests: Imitations or the real thing?
Paignton Zoo is building a new rainforest exhibit in Devon, England, and not so long ago the Eden Project opened at a cost of nearly £100,000,000. While these are very laudable efforts to show the public the importance of rainforests, they are also somewhat depressing to us at the World Land Trust.
Most of the rainforest exhibits in England (as well as other parts of the northern hemisphere) are funded at least partially with public money – grants from the Lottery, government and foundations, but the amount of money these funders are prepared to put to funding real rainforest is absolutely insignificant by comparison. For £100,000, 000 the WLT could save around 10 million acres of land. Eden Project costs £8million a year to run – that's another million acres that could be saved.
Obviously the money spent on Eden and other UK attractions – probably in excess of £50 million a year, is not available for land purchase, but it does put it all into some sort of perspective. If every pound that was spent on seeing these imitation rainforests was matched with a donation for the original thing, the WLT could achieve a lot. I can speak with some authority, as for several years the World Land Trust owned and managed Wyld Court Rainforest, near Newbury (now the Living Rainforest) and compared with raising money for the real thing, fund raising for a glass-house rainforest was a walkover.
Food for thought?
Most of the rainforest exhibits in England (as well as other parts of the northern hemisphere) are funded at least partially with public money – grants from the Lottery, government and foundations, but the amount of money these funders are prepared to put to funding real rainforest is absolutely insignificant by comparison. For £100,000, 000 the WLT could save around 10 million acres of land. Eden Project costs £8million a year to run – that's another million acres that could be saved.
Obviously the money spent on Eden and other UK attractions – probably in excess of £50 million a year, is not available for land purchase, but it does put it all into some sort of perspective. If every pound that was spent on seeing these imitation rainforests was matched with a donation for the original thing, the WLT could achieve a lot. I can speak with some authority, as for several years the World Land Trust owned and managed Wyld Court Rainforest, near Newbury (now the Living Rainforest) and compared with raising money for the real thing, fund raising for a glass-house rainforest was a walkover.
Food for thought?
Thursday, 9 December 2004
Another two and a half million acres of rainforest lost
I was invited recently to go to the World Conservation Congress being held in Bangkok. I was invited to give a presentation on my work on the archives relating to conservation (an interest I regard as quite distinct from actual conservation -- a sort of armchair pursuit for the long winter evenings) I declined, mostly because I thought it would be an inappropriate use of conservation funds). And also my understanding was there would be about 3,500 people there, so the chances of meeting up with the right ones was fairly small. Imagine my horror when I was told there were nearer 6000 people present. How all these people justify traveling to a conservation congress is hard to imagine.
Back in 1975 I went to my first IUCN conference, held in Zaire, and there must have been about 700 people present, and at that one I recall several of us sitting in the bar one evening trying to cost the conference -- numbers of days, cost of airfares etc, plus the environmental impact of flying all the delegates around the world.
I would suggest that we can take the average cost of a delegate attending a conference as being $10,000. This is almost certainly on the low side, particularly if the opportunity costs are taken into account, bearing in mind that there are numerous consulants and senior governmental representatives earning well in excess of $100,000 a year. So even on such conservative estimates, and without the costs to the host country such a congress costs $60million. And with $60million, it would be very easy to buy at least 2.5 million acres (over 1million ha) of wilderness in some of the most threatened areas of the world. And that does not take into account the environmental impact of thousands of airmiles...
It's not as simple as all the above sounds. No doubt important things will emerge from the Congress. But I still cannot help feeling that there was a lot of hot air in all respects, and several thousand of the delegates would have done more good to the environment if they had stayed at home.
Back in 1975 I went to my first IUCN conference, held in Zaire, and there must have been about 700 people present, and at that one I recall several of us sitting in the bar one evening trying to cost the conference -- numbers of days, cost of airfares etc, plus the environmental impact of flying all the delegates around the world.
I would suggest that we can take the average cost of a delegate attending a conference as being $10,000. This is almost certainly on the low side, particularly if the opportunity costs are taken into account, bearing in mind that there are numerous consulants and senior governmental representatives earning well in excess of $100,000 a year. So even on such conservative estimates, and without the costs to the host country such a congress costs $60million. And with $60million, it would be very easy to buy at least 2.5 million acres (over 1million ha) of wilderness in some of the most threatened areas of the world. And that does not take into account the environmental impact of thousands of airmiles...
It's not as simple as all the above sounds. No doubt important things will emerge from the Congress. But I still cannot help feeling that there was a lot of hot air in all respects, and several thousand of the delegates would have done more good to the environment if they had stayed at home.
Friday, 9 July 2004
Why big trees?
I've been involved with conserving rainforests and other habitats or over 30 years, and it has always been the accepted wisdom that the big, mature tropical forest trees are paramount, and we must conserve virgin forest whenever possible. I am not disputing this, but I am intrigued to know what the science is to back it. After all, nearly all the forests of Europe are secondary forests, and so are those of much of Central America, and a large part of Asia. And there is plenty of species diversity.
In England, almost every naturalist will know that hedgerows are among the most species rich areas for nesting birds -- and these effectively mimic forest edge habitats. I recall that when I was first working in Belize, the best place for seeing as many bird species as possible in as short as time as possible, was in a derelict milpa (slash an burn farm). In fact this is true in almost all parts of the world that I have visited. Most of the large mammals of South East Asia, such as Kouprey, Banteng, Gaur, Deer and even rhinos, all prefer forest clearings, and avoid dense closed-canopy forest. Dynamic, regenerating forests with a mixture of trees of different ages, almost always seem to have the greatest species diversity.
But if I was to postulate not worrying about old growth forest, there are some obvious flaws in this argument. There are some species that are only found in large stands of old growth forest. The best known is perhaps the ivory-billed woodpecker -- alas now extinct, largely through loss of its habitat. But it would be right to ask the question: How many species are restricted to old-growth forests with really big trees? And in the 21st century with all the pressures on the forest can forests really be maintained for these few species? I ask the question, because the alternative might be to selectively log forest, thereby providing a sustainable income, and increasing the numbers of other species, most of which thrive.
Conservationists do not have the funds to buy every bit of remaining forest, and neither do governments have the resources to protect from exploitation all the resources they control. Logging out big valuable trees reduces the value of land, in commercial terms, but does it reduce its value for wildlife? If it doesn't, then it makes sense to save heavily logged, cheap land, rather than virgin forest which may be more expensive.
Any ideas?
In England, almost every naturalist will know that hedgerows are among the most species rich areas for nesting birds -- and these effectively mimic forest edge habitats. I recall that when I was first working in Belize, the best place for seeing as many bird species as possible in as short as time as possible, was in a derelict milpa (slash an burn farm). In fact this is true in almost all parts of the world that I have visited. Most of the large mammals of South East Asia, such as Kouprey, Banteng, Gaur, Deer and even rhinos, all prefer forest clearings, and avoid dense closed-canopy forest. Dynamic, regenerating forests with a mixture of trees of different ages, almost always seem to have the greatest species diversity.
But if I was to postulate not worrying about old growth forest, there are some obvious flaws in this argument. There are some species that are only found in large stands of old growth forest. The best known is perhaps the ivory-billed woodpecker -- alas now extinct, largely through loss of its habitat. But it would be right to ask the question: How many species are restricted to old-growth forests with really big trees? And in the 21st century with all the pressures on the forest can forests really be maintained for these few species? I ask the question, because the alternative might be to selectively log forest, thereby providing a sustainable income, and increasing the numbers of other species, most of which thrive.
Conservationists do not have the funds to buy every bit of remaining forest, and neither do governments have the resources to protect from exploitation all the resources they control. Logging out big valuable trees reduces the value of land, in commercial terms, but does it reduce its value for wildlife? If it doesn't, then it makes sense to save heavily logged, cheap land, rather than virgin forest which may be more expensive.
Any ideas?
Tuesday, 9 March 2004
Saving forest, acre by acre
Listening to the BBC this morning while dressing, I caught the item about the UK government's Chief Scientist, Sir David King, being silenced for speaking out on global warming -- go to this link for more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3545561.stm.
Sir David has pointed out that more people could die as a result of the consequences of global warming, than from international terrorism. While this is not a debate I intend to become involved in -- to me it so obviously true, his other statements are cause for serious alarm. Those concern the disastrous rates of forest destruction, which MUST be halted if the biodiversity (and species diversity) of the planet is to be conserved. And the UK, along with nearly all governments, but particularly the US are doing far too little, far too late.
But the WLT is trying to do its bit, acre by acre, supported by thousands of individuals.
I realise that our efforts are tiny, and could easily be dismissed as insignificant and inconsequential. But in the dozen or so years since the WLT was first established, several other organisations very similar, or direct copies have sprung up, and if you then start counting the number of individuals who have supported us over the years (certainly more than 20,000) and if schools and like mind family and friends are included then it soon multiplies up. Add all the environmental groups in the UK together, and it's a powerful political force, that politicians can ignore at their own peril. Buying an acre may be gesture politics in the big global picture. But for the Jocotoco Ant-Pitta, and several other endemics, it really was a life saving gesture. So buying an acre really does make a difference.
Sir David has pointed out that more people could die as a result of the consequences of global warming, than from international terrorism. While this is not a debate I intend to become involved in -- to me it so obviously true, his other statements are cause for serious alarm. Those concern the disastrous rates of forest destruction, which MUST be halted if the biodiversity (and species diversity) of the planet is to be conserved. And the UK, along with nearly all governments, but particularly the US are doing far too little, far too late.
But the WLT is trying to do its bit, acre by acre, supported by thousands of individuals.
I realise that our efforts are tiny, and could easily be dismissed as insignificant and inconsequential. But in the dozen or so years since the WLT was first established, several other organisations very similar, or direct copies have sprung up, and if you then start counting the number of individuals who have supported us over the years (certainly more than 20,000) and if schools and like mind family and friends are included then it soon multiplies up. Add all the environmental groups in the UK together, and it's a powerful political force, that politicians can ignore at their own peril. Buying an acre may be gesture politics in the big global picture. But for the Jocotoco Ant-Pitta, and several other endemics, it really was a life saving gesture. So buying an acre really does make a difference.
Thursday, 12 February 2004
Rainforest proves popular gift
WLT Success continues in 2004
After a bumper Christmas, with more people than ever giving 'gift acres', the New Year has continued to bring more and more visitors to the WLT website. And right now, we are deluged with requests for 'Valentine Acres'. But we are not complaining. It shows that the public is keen on using the land purchase of WLT to solve its gift problems, and at the same time do something really positive to help save wildlife.
While most people want to save rainforests -- and quite right too, since there is so much species diversity in the rainforests, a significant number of our supporters also back our efforst in the steppes of Patagonia -- where there is still an on-going need. Our Elephant Corridor Project is innovative, and we have just made the first transfer of funds, allowing our partners, the Wildlife Trust of India, to make a start.
Other recent news:
A consignment of wool products -- woven from the Merino wool of the sheep on Estancia La Esperanza -- arrived in the UK, and a local shop in Halesworth Focus Organics is putting on a display in their window, in order to gauge interest. Later, we hope to assist the local community in marketting their knitware and weaving. This is all part of our programme to demonstrate that wildlife and sheep can be compatible, and that it is possible for the local community to make a living without destroying wildlife -- even predators such as pumas.
Post grad's for Belize
Two Master's degree students from University of East Anglia are now completing their plans to go to Belize, where they will carry out research in the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area, under the auspices of Programme for Belize. With financial support from Jaguar cars, this project is part of the WLT's ongoing programme of training and research being developed with UEA (Norwich University). The WLT's intern programme has received widespread acclaim, and we are hoping that in the near future it will attract sponsorship. By training the conservationists of the future, the WLT is making best use of the years of experience of its staff, Trustees and associates.
After a bumper Christmas, with more people than ever giving 'gift acres', the New Year has continued to bring more and more visitors to the WLT website. And right now, we are deluged with requests for 'Valentine Acres'. But we are not complaining. It shows that the public is keen on using the land purchase of WLT to solve its gift problems, and at the same time do something really positive to help save wildlife.
While most people want to save rainforests -- and quite right too, since there is so much species diversity in the rainforests, a significant number of our supporters also back our efforst in the steppes of Patagonia -- where there is still an on-going need. Our Elephant Corridor Project is innovative, and we have just made the first transfer of funds, allowing our partners, the Wildlife Trust of India, to make a start.
Other recent news:
A consignment of wool products -- woven from the Merino wool of the sheep on Estancia La Esperanza -- arrived in the UK, and a local shop in Halesworth Focus Organics is putting on a display in their window, in order to gauge interest. Later, we hope to assist the local community in marketting their knitware and weaving. This is all part of our programme to demonstrate that wildlife and sheep can be compatible, and that it is possible for the local community to make a living without destroying wildlife -- even predators such as pumas.
Post grad's for Belize
Two Master's degree students from University of East Anglia are now completing their plans to go to Belize, where they will carry out research in the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area, under the auspices of Programme for Belize. With financial support from Jaguar cars, this project is part of the WLT's ongoing programme of training and research being developed with UEA (Norwich University). The WLT's intern programme has received widespread acclaim, and we are hoping that in the near future it will attract sponsorship. By training the conservationists of the future, the WLT is making best use of the years of experience of its staff, Trustees and associates.
Tuesday, 6 January 2004
Rainforests to be saved thanks to WLT supporters
The World Land Trust has been inundated with donations over the Christmas period. Hundreds of people from all over the world have made on line donations, and in the days running up to Christmas our phones hardly stopped ringing. It's an old adage that success breeds success, but it certainly seems true. As the WLT has demonstrated its ability to help purchase and protect endangered habitats, so has the public support for our initiatives.
During the busiest periods I often helped answer telephone enquiries, and it was particularly interesting to get direct feedback. In particular, I was interested in the supporters who have been making regular donations -- they really felt that their contribution made a difference, and were also really encouraged by the newsletters and ebulletins keeping them up to date.
The only downside to all this is that we are still dealing with a huge backlog of donations -- When we returned on January 5th, after the holiday, there were several hundred donations waiting to be processed. But this is very positive.
This wekend I am travelling to Ecuador, where I will stay on the Tapichlalaca reserve, and visit the Christopher Parsons Reserve -- bought with support from the WLT. But the main purpose of my visit will be to meet with the Jocotoco Foundation and discuss the next purchases -- within the next few months we should be able to purchase at least another two square miles of forests. And we also have sponsors who are interested in supporting the purchase of tracts of a few hundred acres to be named after the sponsor.
Finally a big 'Thank You' to all our supporters, and best wishes for the New Year.
John A Burton
During the busiest periods I often helped answer telephone enquiries, and it was particularly interesting to get direct feedback. In particular, I was interested in the supporters who have been making regular donations -- they really felt that their contribution made a difference, and were also really encouraged by the newsletters and ebulletins keeping them up to date.
The only downside to all this is that we are still dealing with a huge backlog of donations -- When we returned on January 5th, after the holiday, there were several hundred donations waiting to be processed. But this is very positive.
This wekend I am travelling to Ecuador, where I will stay on the Tapichlalaca reserve, and visit the Christopher Parsons Reserve -- bought with support from the WLT. But the main purpose of my visit will be to meet with the Jocotoco Foundation and discuss the next purchases -- within the next few months we should be able to purchase at least another two square miles of forests. And we also have sponsors who are interested in supporting the purchase of tracts of a few hundred acres to be named after the sponsor.
Finally a big 'Thank You' to all our supporters, and best wishes for the New Year.
John A Burton
Thursday, 18 December 2003
Copycats saving an acre of rainforest
I am regularly asked what I think of the various other groups that are buying rainforest in the same way that the World Land Trust has been doing since 1989. One answer is that plagiarism is a form of flattery. But more seriously, if the other organisations are doing an effective job, then the more the merrier; and it would be invidious for me to comment on how effective some of the other organisations are. The World Land Trust has cooperated very closely with The Nature Conservacy (TNC) over the Programme of Belize, and the World Parks Endowment works alongside in fundraising for Ecuador and elsewhere. Without the financial clout of these US organisations, we would never have achieved nearly as much.
The World Land Trust and Massachusetts Audubon Society were among the very first organisations to embark on an international campaign to save rainforest through direct purchase, and involving the public. This led to the purchase of the first 110,000 acres of forest in Belize. We have gone on to raise funds for thousands more acres, and have developed partnerships in many other countries. We have attracted a wide range of support from many well-known conservationists, writers, wildlife broadcasters and scientists, and we believe that our network is unparalleled.
The World Land Trust is still comparatively small, with most of our partners employing many more staff than we do -- and that's how it should be. We also have a very strong philosophy of empowering our partners, and not sending out managers from the UK to run projects. This latter is common in many of the larger organisations, and is a form of green colonialism -- sending out an eco-Governor General to show developing countries how to run a project. For projects to be sustainable, the local organisations must have responsibility, and be empowered. There are plenty of good local conservationists, who can do a first rate job -- and they have the local knowledge, not just of wildlife, but also socio-economics and politics.
Buying reserves, and offering the public an opportunity to participate was new and innovative when the World Land Trust Launched its first appeal 15 years ago. It is still a good idea, which is probably why it has been copied. But we're still brand leaders, striking out in new directions, forming new partnerships, and seeking innovative solutions to the ongoing problems of wildlife. We were particularly pleased that the Independent newspaper recognised the World Land Trust, by including us in its list of 50 Best Christmas Presents for 2003.
It's easy to feel powerless, but we believe that saving the wildlife, acre by acre is one way of doing something positive.
The World Land Trust and Massachusetts Audubon Society were among the very first organisations to embark on an international campaign to save rainforest through direct purchase, and involving the public. This led to the purchase of the first 110,000 acres of forest in Belize. We have gone on to raise funds for thousands more acres, and have developed partnerships in many other countries. We have attracted a wide range of support from many well-known conservationists, writers, wildlife broadcasters and scientists, and we believe that our network is unparalleled.
The World Land Trust is still comparatively small, with most of our partners employing many more staff than we do -- and that's how it should be. We also have a very strong philosophy of empowering our partners, and not sending out managers from the UK to run projects. This latter is common in many of the larger organisations, and is a form of green colonialism -- sending out an eco-Governor General to show developing countries how to run a project. For projects to be sustainable, the local organisations must have responsibility, and be empowered. There are plenty of good local conservationists, who can do a first rate job -- and they have the local knowledge, not just of wildlife, but also socio-economics and politics.
Buying reserves, and offering the public an opportunity to participate was new and innovative when the World Land Trust Launched its first appeal 15 years ago. It is still a good idea, which is probably why it has been copied. But we're still brand leaders, striking out in new directions, forming new partnerships, and seeking innovative solutions to the ongoing problems of wildlife. We were particularly pleased that the Independent newspaper recognised the World Land Trust, by including us in its list of 50 Best Christmas Presents for 2003.
It's easy to feel powerless, but we believe that saving the wildlife, acre by acre is one way of doing something positive.
Friday, 12 December 2003
Christmas Gift Acres a great success
The World Land Trust is buckling under its own success, but we're coping.
Following the inclusion of the World Land Trust's 'gift acres' in ther Independent's 50 Best Christmas Presents, the WLT has been inundated, with email donations via the secure server, and the phone ringing non-stop. Clearly after 15 years, the concept is still as popular as ever, and early in the new year, the funds raised will be used to acquire more forest in Ecuador. And the publicity has also helped the WLT's other projects -- the coastal steppe in Patagonia, and the elephant corridor in the Garo Hills of India.
On a completely different topic, Fauna & Flora International celebrated its 100th Anniversary this week. From 1975 to 1987 I was the chief executive of FFI (then known as the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society, and under its auspices I helped launch a number of projects which still survive -- TRAFFIC is perhaps the best known, but we also launched a Bat Conservation project, which has become the Bat Conservation Trust. It was also while working with the Fauna Preservation Society, that I began to realise the importance of land acquisition as a tool for conservation. And at that time there was no organisation in Britain dedicated to it overseas. So in 1988, the idea of the World Land Trust was born. ... and the rest is history.
Following the inclusion of the World Land Trust's 'gift acres' in ther Independent's 50 Best Christmas Presents, the WLT has been inundated, with email donations via the secure server, and the phone ringing non-stop. Clearly after 15 years, the concept is still as popular as ever, and early in the new year, the funds raised will be used to acquire more forest in Ecuador. And the publicity has also helped the WLT's other projects -- the coastal steppe in Patagonia, and the elephant corridor in the Garo Hills of India.
On a completely different topic, Fauna & Flora International celebrated its 100th Anniversary this week. From 1975 to 1987 I was the chief executive of FFI (then known as the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society, and under its auspices I helped launch a number of projects which still survive -- TRAFFIC is perhaps the best known, but we also launched a Bat Conservation project, which has become the Bat Conservation Trust. It was also while working with the Fauna Preservation Society, that I began to realise the importance of land acquisition as a tool for conservation. And at that time there was no organisation in Britain dedicated to it overseas. So in 1988, the idea of the World Land Trust was born. ... and the rest is history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
