goats, goats, goats

Further to my earlier blog, does any one know how much money has been raised in the past two years for buying goats, and how many goats have actually been bought? And does anyone know what the impact on the environment of all these extra goats will be? I saw somewhere that last year (2004) Oxfam raised enough money for 30,000 extra goats. A scary thought.

Blog takes off

For the first year or so, I wrote my blog on a fairly regular basis, but got little or no feed back. However, recently this has all changed. There appear to be real, live readers out there. YOU must be one. Several have emailed me at the World Land Trust, while a few have actually posted responses to my blogs. This is great. I don't write just to make a point, I also write to try and stimulate discussion. It is all too easy to assume that the way conservation has been carried out in the past is the right way, and to get stuck in ruts. But situations change, and so must we.

As an example, I grew up in an era when it was always assumed that the 'noble savage' lived in harmony with his natural environment. I was one of the first wildlife specialists to work for Friends of the Earth, back in the 1960s. FoE quoted the famous speech by Chief Seattle, on how nature and men are brothers, or something along those lines. It doesn't matter what was quoted, because the whole speech was a fake. Written in the 1950s, by an ex-Disney script-writer. And so is the 'Noble Savage' a fake. Humans have a nasty habit of living at the limits of their technology. Give a Stone Age tribe guns, and they will extirminate wildlife with zeal (and probably the nearby tribes as well). But the concept of the 'Noble Savage' living in harmony with nature is what underpins many peoples' views of the indigenes living in the rainforests. To me 'native rights' are not what we should be concerned with. We, as conservationists, should be concerned with the rights of local people, regardless of how long they have been there. What does it matter if an area was colonised by your grandfather, or colonised 2000 years ago? Why on earth should the fact that your great-great-great-great grandfather moved in and squatted on land give you greater rights than somone who only arrived three generations ago? In the UK we have abolished the hereditary rights of peers of the realm to govern. Because someone's ancestor was mates with William the Conqueror, it no long gives him or her the right to govern England. So why should some one who's ancestors arrived in the tropical forests a few generations back, have rights to exploit them in an uncontrolled manner?

Just a thought. I am not sure. But some views, from either side would be useful. So far the land acquired with WLT funding has never had to confront these issues; and it is always owned by a local organisation. But in the future it may need consider the rights of indigenes, so the views of supporters and readers would be most welcome. In fact I am considering designing a questionnaire -- so suggestions for the questions that need to be addressed would also be useful.

Paraguay -- the Gran Chaco -- a Legacy for the Future

I have just returned from a highly successful visit to the Chaco and Pantanal of Paraguay. I was there to take the representatives of Sid Templer's family to look at an estancia that was available to be bought as a permanent memorial to Sid ( a Halesworth resident who sadly died two years ago), and turned into Paraguay's first Pantanal Nature Reserve. It was an incredible journey, that involved nine hours in the pouring rain, in an open boat, mostly after darkness had fallen, navigating by the reflection of Caimans' eyes along the banks. When the rains stopped and the sun came out temperatures soared to over 30 degrees celcius, and mosquitos the size of a jumbo jet descended (that's a slight exaggeration). But what a place. Teeming with wildlife.

Capybaras abounded on the river banks, and as well as Yacare Caiman we saw anaconda, myriads of birds, including the massive Jabiru storks. We didn't see Jaguars, Giant Armadillos, Giant Anteaters, or Giant Otters -- all of which occur there. But we did see South American River Otters, which are far more difficult to see than the Giant species.

The World Land Trust's Partner, Guyra Paraguay has a first rate track record, and with the funds provided through the WLT, we feel confident they will establish a world class nature reserve. It not only protects a sample of the Pantanal habitat, which is rare in Paraguay, but also a mosaic of palm savvanah and chaco.

This now one of several major reserves created as memorials and funded through the WLT -- what better way of remembering someone, than with a nature reserve? And we know there are more to come because many of our supporters have already told us that they have made a legacy to the WLT in their will. And if you want to know more about creating your 'own' reserve do contact me. If you have £5000 or more to spare there are many parts of the world where this will create a reserve of real significance -- either by adding critaical pieces to an existing reserve, or starting a completely new one

UK Government funding for projects

Over the years we (the WLT, that is) have made a number of applications to various grant giving departments of the UK Government. It is always very soul-destroying as making the application takes a huge amount of work, with many hurdles to be jumped, masses of background information required, and the net result is invariably the same -- refusal; rejection. I have no objections to applications being turned down, but in two of the cases I am referring to it is quite clear from the reasons given that the applications were not read thoroughly -- because if they had been read, then they could only have been rejected for different reasons, as those given did not apply. The problem is that in most cases the final decision is in the hands of unpaid "experts" who may only spend a few minutes glancing over the application. Very depressing for the applicants who have probably spent a week or more writing it. I know more than a ittle about the processing of grants, having been on the other side in the past, but Government funding actually seems more arbitrary than almost all other forms. The experiences of others would be interesting.

Getting my goat

Put your head around these statistics. In 1965, at a time when states were becoming independent, there were some 95 million goats in the developing countries of Africa (FAO statistics), and relatively little poverty. By 2004 , with poverty widespread, there were some 225 million goats; that's nearly two and a half times as many. Is there a connection? And if so why are Oxfam, Farm Africa and other charities suggesting increasing the goat population?

In fact the increase is not uniform, and in some countries the goat population has actually declined. But a detailed look shows that those countries that have seen the largest increases in goats are also among those where poverty is rife. Zimbabwe's rose from 700,000 to nearly 3 million, Sudan from 6.8 million to a massive 42 million. And in Mauritania, which is one of the countries least suitable for massive goat populations, the goat population has doubled from 2.7 to 5.6 million. A quick glance at any other statistics shows that desertification increased, human populations increased, and in general it would be safe to say that quality of life decreased for large numbers of people.

Conservationists have known for as far back as I can remember (and that's over 50 years) that goats are a major cause of environmental degradation, particularly in arid climates. So why are charities advocating and subsidising a massive increase in an already disastrously high goat population? It is surely an extreme example of a short-term, quick-fix, to make a load of donors feel good for Xmas, but funding a long term environmental disaster which is looming around the corner.

I quote the text from Oxfam:
No if's or butts a goat is a great gift. Even the kids can get involved. You start with one and end up with a herd. They can then be sold to raise cash for school fees, or tools and start to reduce poverty. Best of all, the first female kid is given to another family and the process starts all over again. So why not invest in a goat?
How this gift helps
"As for the goats we received from Oxfam...I consider them a gift from the sky. Giving animals to people like us is very important. It gave me confidence and increased my family'’s security because we now had assets." Aiche Mint Imizine, Mauritania

Nowhere on the site is any indication as to what these goats will feed on. Or when this boom in goats will be halted. YOU START WITH ONE AND END UP WITH A HERD!

And you start with a fragile ecosystem in subsahelian Africa and end up with a desert.

I would emphasise, this is a personal opinion, but I have heard so many friends and colleagues express horror at the idea of even more goats in Africa, felt I had to write something.


Finally, I recommend that my readers also go to the Shell Foundation website, and read Kurt Hoffman's writings.

Conserving energy, biofuels and other myths

At long last some serious, sensible questions are being asked. In an earlier blog, the Chairman of the World Land Trust, Prof. Renton Righelato pointed out some of the problems engendered by biofuels - in particular the areas that would be needed to be cleared of agricultural production, or of forest. However, more recently I have been pondering the issues surrounding reduction in carbon emissions.

In its simplest form emissions reduction is being 'sold' to the public. Cut down on petrol consumption, save energy by switching off computers, TVs etc. This all appears to make sense. Switch to 'green', renewable energy, from hydro electricity, wind power, solar, etc. Again it appears to make sense. But does it really add up? Is there any evidence that the overall consumption of fossil fuels has declined anywhere in the world as a result of emissions reductions? And is there anywhere in the world where energy consumption per capita is declining? Or any country where total energy consumption is declining?

The facts are surely as follows: If we save energy, we generally save money. And the money we save is almost inevitably spent on something that consumes energy. If we generate renewable energy there are often enormous environmental impacts, such as the flooding of valleys and the building of industrial complexes for wind generation. And finally, however much the so-called developed world reduces emissions, the use of energy in countries such as India and China will continue to rise. In other words, the current proposals for emissions' reduction and the use of renewable energy will not have any significant effect on climate change, as the current policies do not actually encourage redeployment from once source to another, and from one country to another. The real issue that needs addressing, and is being steadfastedly ignored by Blair, Bush and other world leaders, is that of the expanding human population. I personally feel powerless to do anything about this issue (other than having not propagated myself), but there is one thing that all of us can do, and that is help preserve what little is left of the natural habitats on the planet.

I use the word preserve advisedly, since from the mid-1950s onwards the word conservation has steadily eroded the use of preservation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) was founded as the International Union for the PRESERVATION of Nature. Fauna and Flora International was once the Fauna and Flora PRESERVATION Society; BirdLife International was once the International Council for the PRESERVATION of Birds (ICBP). By the mid-1970s it was increasingly fashionable to ally conservation with sustainable use, development and ultimately exploitation. I believe it is time to realise that what is needed is a lot more PRESERVATION. Now, preservation need not be incompatible with preservation. Sustainable development is possible alongside preservation. That is precisely what is being demonstrated by the World Land Trust partners, in projects part-funded by the WLT. But key to all these projects, is the PRESERVATION of large tracts of land. The preservation and protection of the land is paramount. Having achieved that, then sustainable development can be considered. AND, to return to the beginning, with 20% of carbon released into the atmosphere coming from the destruction of forests and other natural habitats, preserving as much as possible, is the surest, cheapest and most efficient way of combating global climate change. And on top of that, it also preserves and protects biodiversity, and species richness.

Carbon sequestration and tree planting

Soon after the World Land Trust started taking an interest in carbon sequestration as a means of combatting global warming the critisisms started. The critics argue that planting trees and preserving forests is a "cop out" allowing the polluters to continue polluting. It was, they argued, far more important to reduce emissions and become more energy efficient. And I agreed.

However, over the past few months I have begun to seriously question the relative importance of emissions reduction versus preserving forests and reforestation. The latter is complex and controversial, since it depends on a variety of factors such as where the planting is taking place, the species used, and the ultimate use of the trees. But to me preserving standing forests is clear cut and conclusive. With something like 20% of carbon dioxide still resulting from forest clearance, forest fires amnd other destruction, anything that can be done to reduce this figure must be a benefit. That to me is demonstrable and self evident.

What is not so clear are the benefits of emissions reduction, and improved energy efficiency. As far as I can see, this will not actually lead to any overall reduction in the levels of non-renewable energy being consumed. It will simply change the patterns of use. A very simple model that I have used from time demonstrates on a local, domestic level what is involved internationally. If an ordinairy consumer reduces their energy consumption, uses an energy efficient car, cuts out pointless journeys, they can easily end up saving £500 or £1000 in the course of a year. So whoopee they can then spend that £1000, on what? A holiday in Sicily? Whoosh. All that energy in air travel etc. And even if it isn't spent on air travel, virtually everything we do and buy these days consumes energy. If Britain and the rest of Europe halved their imports of oil, it's all the more for China and India -- it won't be left in the ground for future generations.

That is why I now think the biggest single priority for the future of the planet is saving every last acre of forest, swamp and wilderness that we can. Acre, by acre, hectare by hectare, pound by pound, euro by euro and dollar by dollar.