The Lottery lottery

The whole county of Suffolk, which is where the World Land Trust is based, if it was worth an average of £2,500 an acre, (which even excluding building land is certainly well on the low side) would cost a little over £3 billion to buy. Yet if the World Land Trust was to buy nature reserves of this size in the most threatened parts of the tropics, it could save a similar sized area (around a million acres) for less than £24 million.



And £24 million is what the Wildlife Trusts have received from the Heritage Lottery Fund for land purchases over the past decade. Of course they have not been able to acquire a million acres – in fact less than 100,00 acres.



I am not decrying what the Wildlife Trusts have done -- I am a long-term supporter and will continue to be so. The problem is that if we want to save biodiversity – which after all has become a byword for 21st century conservation, then we have got to put our money where our mouth is. One of the largest single sources of funding for conservation in the UK is the National Lottery, but the amount it will give to international conservation is peanuts compared to what it puts into the UK. A total of £67,500,000 to the wildlife Trusts alone in the past decade. If the World Land Trust and its partners had access to that sort of money, not only could it have acquired an area the size of the whole of Suffolk it would also have been able to establish an endowment that would have provided enough income to provide for the permanent protection of the land so acquired.



So why doesn’t the World Land Trust get funding for its work from the National Lottery? The answer is very straightforward: It simply does not fulfil the criteria established for grants. The UK’s National Lottery grants are primarily designed to help people, and mostly to help projects in the UK. The relatively few international projects are nearly all geared to short-term, poverty alleviation and health care. A cynic could argue that many of the projects are actually exacerbating the problems of wildlife, since dealing with these human issues in isolation, and not taking into account the long-term problems of expanding human populations, is bound to have a disastrous effect on natural habitats and wildlife. The Lottery has given a little over £150 million to international causes out of a total of £16 billion distributed. – ie. Just over 0.1% goes to international causes. Of course the argument is that the money raised comes from British lottery players. And while this is true, it is also true that the wealth generated in Britain is often created by exploiting the very parts of the world which are most at risk from environmental degradation. In bald terms, it is a fact that much of the wealth of Britain is directly dependent on cheap resources from overseas, and on selling at vast profit to poorer nations things they do not need, such as tanks, fighter planes and other armaments, as well as loans at extortionate interest rates to buy these arms. It is time that priorities were rethought, if a commitment to so-called biodiversity conservation is to mean anything. There is little point in spending millions of pounds conserving a handful of species in Britain, if meanwhile we are allowing tens of thousands to become extinct, which could have been saved at a fraction of the cost.

The Trojans (Les Troyens) and wildlife?

Last weekI went to see the English National Opera company's production of Berlioz's The Trojans. It was a rare performance of the complete work, and by now I am sure you are wondering 'What on earth has a five and a half hour opera, got to do with conservation?' Read on, and you may find out.



The opera was performed impeccably -- the orchestra was superb, and there was magnificent singing. The hours slipped by. But what a production. A 'modern' reinterpretation. The characters were all in some sort of contemporary, or late 20th century, dress, which all looked a bit daft when they were singing about clashing armour, running around in the Royal Hunt with spears, the bloody ghost of Hector looming, and various naiads etc flitting around. And there was a hell of a lot of meaningless running about. Berlioz was a man who not only understood orchestration better than almost anyone before or since, he was also someone obsessed with theatricality. Consequently, although his operas are often accused of being rather static, there is absolutely no doubt he knew what he was doing. The oratorio-like narratives, combined with magnificent choruses, are interspersed with dramatic movement -- marches, and dance scenes -- giving a great sense of drama. Some of his 'stage' works are so static as to be often described as unperformable on stage. So when somone has the cast rushing around all the time, it rather destroys his original dramatic intent. Similarly, while some operas and plays tell timeless stories in a way that can transcend the period they were written in and for, The Trojans is a story so clearly rooted in history, that to have a bunch of modern day Greeks trudging round with boxes of household gods, and nuclear warheads is all a bit over the top, if not daft. The Trojans was designed by Berlioz to be an operatic spectacle, lavish costumes and all -- not trainers and shell-suits.



And this is the problem that seems to beset so much of humanknind. They cannot leave well alone. Wildlife is wonderful, but all too often we see it over-interpreted. Humans stamping their influence on a nature reserve -- 'improving' habitats. Deliberately removing certain species because they are 'exotic' and deliberately introducing others because they are 'native'. Of course there is often justification. Just as there is in opera. There would be little justification for going back to gaslight, and there is no reason to completely fossilise a production, but just as the performance of the music is usually to a certain extent sacrosanct, so should the composers intentions for the whole experience be treated with respect. And this concept should be applied to wildlife. Leave it as untouched as possible, and let the viewer make their own assessments. Interpretation is only a fashion, only ephemeral and temporal -- and generally speaking best left out of wildlife. Nature is best when totally untrammelled and untouched by humans -- if you want to see something artificial and man made -- then there is no substitute for opera -- which is probably why I enjoy it, it's such a contrast.

Latest news from Belize

Today, I returned from a flying visit to Belize -- in part literally flying, since we flew over the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA) -- the land owned and protected by the Programme for Belize, the WLT's local partner. The WLT was responsible for raising a large part of the $6.7 million originally needed to save the forests, and flying over them now, they looked in good shape. However the same could not be said for other parts of Belize.

The edge of the world - forest clearance goes right to the edge of the protected areas of Belize.

A great deal of publicity has been given to the construction of the Chalillo Dam, which will destroy some 1000 hectares of forest, and there has been a massive amount of mangrove cleared around Belize City. But I also flew over an area of forest adjacent to the Guatemalan border, an area of about 10,000ha, which was sold to Menonnite farmers about five years ago, and that is now almost totally destroyed.

Little by little the Menonnite farmers have been buying up Belize, and while most would agree that they are very good farmers, they also appear to have an almost pathological hatred of trees. And although some Menonnites eschew modern machinery and ride around in a horse and buggy, wearing traditional clothes, many of those in Belize use big machinery, that is capable of clearing forest and turning into productive farmland within 2-3 years.

Although superficially living outside the modern world, pacifists, without TV etc etc, the reality on the ground in Belize, is that these farmers are destroying some of the last remaining forests in Northern Belize, and whenever forest comes on the market, they are among those who have the cash to buy it. This is particularly alarming as Belize has recently introduced a 'Speculation Tax' on land holdings of over 300 acres. In theory a very fair and equitable type of tax, to prevent wealthy landowners holding on to large areas for purely speculative purposes. But a negative effect is that large areas of forest are likely to be broken up, and sold off in small parcels, which almost certainly mean they will be cleared for agriculture and short-term gain -- and the most likly buyers are Menonnites, who will avoid the speculation tax, by 'developing the land' i.e., chopping down the trees, and planting crops.

It is no good suggesting that the Government should step in -- Belize has one of the highest proportions of land under some form of government protection of any country in the world -- it is unrealistic for it to be expected to buy land on the open market.

It is equally unrealistic for conservationists to expect to be able to buy land and simply lock it away as 'protected'. Conservation, if it is to play a part in the future development of Belize must not only produce sustainable incomes, but it must also be seen to be benefitting the people of Belize as a whole. This was always the original aim of the Programme for Belize, and conservationists can play their role, by supporting those efforts -- go to Belize, stay at the RBCMA, travel around, go snorkelling on the reef.

Tourist dollars (and pounds and euros) are the best way of demonstrating to the people of Belize, that the wildlife they value, is also valued by the rest of the world. Otherwise, the Menonnites will soon isolate more and more of the remaining forests in northern Belize.

Is the Jaguar endangered or not?

Although the IUCN lists the Jaguar as NT (=near threatened), throughout its range it appears to be endangered, and it is difficult to understand how this classification was arrived at. Almost every country, province or other administrative unit in its range that has produced a Red Data Book or a Red List, includes the Jaguar as Endangered, and in a few cases it is listed as extinct. And earlier editions of the IUCN Red lists included it as threatened. Since there is little or no evidence that the species is getting any commoner (except in a few places such as Belize), it is even more difficult to understand IUCN's listing. There is little doubt among most naturalists within its range that it is seriously threatened. The same problem occurred with the African Lion, which was not listed as threatened for many years, despite disappearing from most of its range. Now when only an estimated 10,000 are left, in highly fragmented, often very small populations, is its possible extinction being considered.

Migration of Swifts

Last night, just after 7 pm there were several hundred swifts moving west, just above the height of the trees. It was a very clear and visble movement in one direction, lasting for between 10 and 15 minutes. The weather had been wet for most off the day, but cleared up around 7 pm, and I presume the insects on which Swifts feed had been brough low by the weather. Over 40 years ago I had been an avid bird ringer in the suburbs of South london, and each year we caught and ringed several hundred Swifts over Beddington Sewage Farm. And it was then that I first became enthralled by Swifts. These amazing birds are among the world longest living (for a small bird) -- surviving for 20 years or more, and they fly to Central Africa and beyond each year. One of the birds we captured at Beddington was later killed by a boy with a catapult in the Congo. And the nestlings can go torpid during bad weather when the parents fail to bring food. And perhaps the most remarkable of all is that once the young leave the nest, they may well fly to Africa and back, not actually breeding until they are four years old, and sleeping on the wing, never settling. Remarkable birds.

Splitting hares and other species

In the last couple of decades numerous species have been 'split'. That is to say, what was once thought to be a single species has been split into several. The European Brown Hare, which was once thought to be a single species spreading all over Europe, and over most of Africa and Asia, is now believed to comprise at least three species, possibly more, in Europe, and the classification of the hares of Africa and Asia is still being worked out. In South America the situation is even more dynamic, with numerous new species of primate being separated. The reason for these new classifications is largely the advances in DNA studies, but also for some species studies of behaviour such as song and calls. Important as these studies are in demonstrating the existence of discrete populations, I do have some worries, that we are over-emphasising these differences, and that they may not actually represent separate species. Afterall what happens if, just because a bird that is virtually identical in all other respects to another species, but has a diferent song or call and is considered a separate species? Should we apply the same criteria to humans? This would mean that someone speaking a different language would become a different species. And the differences in the DNA of some of the primates, may be no greater than the extremes found in human populations. Language in humans is often a perfectly good barrier to interbreeding, particularly when combined with other cultural separators, but it still does not make the Otrthodox Greeks a separate species from the Muslim Turks. In the rush to split species, we are in danger of losing sightt of the most important factor in conservation, and that is the ecological integrity of an area. Does it matter if two allopatric populations have slightly different DNA, if either one of them will fulfill the same role in an ecosystem? There is talk of splitting the White Wagtail and the Pied Wagtail into two different species -- but if one or the other disappeared, the one remaining would fill the niche in the ecosystem perfectly well. Or am I missing something?

Islands for sale update

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about an island in Belize. This week I have found an island of over 2000 hectares for sale in Argentina for $580,000. That works out at around £60 an acre or $100 an acre. It is being advertised as ideal for hunting, and is situated in the middle of a river in the more tropical part of Argentina, and no doubt teeming with wildlife.



It is very frustrating, since all the time we are hearing of beautiful unspoiled pieces of land, in all parts of the world, but we lack resources to acquire them. Many of our supporters write in suggesting places, while others suggest we put pressure on governments to do something. The reality is that very often there is little or nothing governments can do -- in most poorer countries they lack the resources to protect existing parks and reserves adeqately. And in many cases the land is privately owned. The only solution is for the land to be acquired by a conservation body. However, funding for the purposes of land acquisition is difficult. International agencies and government agencies rarely support land acquisition -- presumably because of fears of being accused of colonialism. Aid agencies will fund research and training (which usually benefits the donor country more than the recipient), but not the actual acquisition. So this is where the public come in. This is why public support for the work of the WLT is so vital. If the public can help us buy land, we can set up the infrastructure for a local non-government organisation (NGO) to manage the land, and then aid agencies will usually support the management costs of looking after the land.



But the WLT is too small. We need to grow. We need to have in hand enough capital to make purchases when they come on the market. Unlike many other conservation activities, land acquisition usually has to move very fast, otherwise speculators and devlopers will move in, particularly when we are trying to buy the land as cheaply as posssible. The cost of a single tank used in Iraq would solve the WLT's problems......



The WLT is cost effective, and proportionately it has achieved more than many much bigger organisations, but there is little doubt we could do a lot more. Biodiversity is the buzz word of the 21st century, and the WLT's projects conserve biodiversity as one of their prime objectives. The WLT's network of partners conserve over 300,000 acres of land for wildlife -- that's significantly more than the RSPB, which has over a million supporters. Not a particularly fair comparison, but nontheless, acre for acre, the WLT's projects conserve many times more species, many more endangered species, at a fraction of the cost. Ideally we would like to create a large endowment fund, so that we had enough funds to run day to day activities, and then all efforts could be devoted to land acquisition. But where is the wealthy donor who will estblish such a fund? For the super rich of the world, whether it is a Bill Gates or a David Beckham, $10 or $15 million is insignificant. But it could make a huge difference to the future of wildlife.