Walking the dog last autumn I also gathered a bag of acorns for Richard, our pet pig. And while gathering them I pondered why there were so many acorns. A huge oak produces vast numbers of acorns year after year (does anyone know exactly how many?), and an oak may live for several hundred years. But in the grand scheme of life, all it really needs to do is reproduce itself. So why does it have so many acorns? One possible explanation is that it prevents a disease, such as Dutch Elm which devasted the largely clonal English Elms, from wiping the entire species out. But another idea which occurred to me is that it may be a mechanism for preserving a species over longer periods of time. Perhaps time on a geological scale. Is it possible, for instance that among those millions and millions of acorns that there is one that could grow into an oak that is adapted to tropical conditions? One that is not deciduous? One that is capable of surviving arctic conditions? One that can survive waterlogged soils? This seems highly probable. This means that over a period of centuries, when climate change becomes a reality, the odd oak would survive, to start new generations. Just a thought -- and not something it would be very easy to demonstrate experimentally.
There was a bumper acorn crop last year in Suffolk, and there was also a bumper crop of blackberries, which are now withered and dry on the bramble bushes. This latter is worrying -- where were all the birds that normally would have grown fat on the crop? A stretch of hedgerow that would have had perhaps 2 or 3 pairs of whitethroats, a pair of lesser whitethroats a blackap etc etc, had but a single pair of whithtroats nesting in it, and during the migration season no noticeable influx of birds. Where are all the birds? As I write, early in 2007 it is still noticeable how few birds there are around compared with previous years. But more worrying is if I think back over the 50 years I have been watching birds, there is a huge number of species, once abundant, now rarely seen, a huge number of birding localities disappeared under concrete. And that's without taking into account of the millions and millions of hectares of habitat that have disappeared in the wintering grounds of our summer migrants. In fact it's a miracle there are any summer migrants left.
Monday, 22 January 2007
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Buy More Land. Save More Rainforests
It is the begining of a New Year, (a happy New Year to all my readers), and a time for reflection on the past. Last year was a very successful year for the WLT. We raised more funds (thanks to you all) and helped our partners acquire some exciting new reserves. And 2007 could be even more exciting. We have already received a significant donation that will help buy a very important piece of rainforest in Argentina, and individual supporters are steadily increasing. It doesn't matter if a donation is £25 or £250,000, we have found that because the WLT produces tangible results, our supporters give according to their means. They don't feel that a £25 gift is meaningless, they know it makes a difference. And if they had got it, many of you have said you would give us £250,000; and some have. That is why I have high hopes for 2007.
Already donations are up on previous years', and we are planning to fund the acquisition of a large area of Atlantic rainforest in northern Argentina, more land in Brazil, even more in Paraguay. Dry chaco, humid chaco, pantanal, montane forests, Atlantic forest, elfin forests, are just a few of the habitats that the WLT is helping save.
Land prices have increased dramatically in the 17 years since the World Land Trust was founded, but because we are now helping such a wide range of projects, £25 is still a pretty good average. Some places it can be as little as $20 a hectare (£5.00 an acre, while others it is over $250 (£60.00 an acre). But the WLT is not looking at land in terms of a realisable future value -- we are concerned with its value for wildlife, and fortunately some of the really cheap land is also unbelievably important for wildlife.
So in 2007, please do keep the donations coming in, to quote Will Rogers (not Mark Twain as is often thought) "Buy land. God ain't makin' anymore of it".
Already donations are up on previous years', and we are planning to fund the acquisition of a large area of Atlantic rainforest in northern Argentina, more land in Brazil, even more in Paraguay. Dry chaco, humid chaco, pantanal, montane forests, Atlantic forest, elfin forests, are just a few of the habitats that the WLT is helping save.
Land prices have increased dramatically in the 17 years since the World Land Trust was founded, but because we are now helping such a wide range of projects, £25 is still a pretty good average. Some places it can be as little as $20 a hectare (£5.00 an acre, while others it is over $250 (£60.00 an acre). But the WLT is not looking at land in terms of a realisable future value -- we are concerned with its value for wildlife, and fortunately some of the really cheap land is also unbelievably important for wildlife.
So in 2007, please do keep the donations coming in, to quote Will Rogers (not Mark Twain as is often thought) "Buy land. God ain't makin' anymore of it".
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
Taxonomy, and Endangered Taxonomists
I grew up in an era when natural history museums were populated with taxonomists, and the staff dealing with public galleries and exhibitions were a real minority. A situation now largely reversed. And at that time taxonomy was an essential part of botany and zoology 'A' level in schools, and later at university. Now hardly any British universities teach even the most rudimentary taxonomy. There has also been a decline in natural history in the form it used to exist -- primary schools now rarely have a nature table, and there are fewer natural history societies catering for the taxonomically minded -- partly because sticking pins in insects and squashing plants is not as popular as it once was.
However, the loss of taxonomists is becoming serious -- they are a vital link in the biodiversity chain. Without competent experts to identify wildlife how do we monitor its decline? How do we identify new species? While DNA and other advanced technological solutions will help, I can't help feeling that the oldfashioned naturalist -still has a major role to play. Afterall, they are often the ones who are passionate about an obscure group of arachnids or mosses. Lab-based taxonomy can never inspire that sort of enthusiasm, which is often so vital for conservation.
This year sees the tercentenary of the birth of Carl von Linné (more usually known as Linnaeus), the founding father of modern biological nomenclature. It is difficult now to realise how important the stabilisation of nomenclature was -- taxonomy and systematics both require as a prequisite stable nomencalture, and almost all other aspects of biological science, to a greater or lessser degree depend on it. Although Linnaeus did not nominate types for his species in the way modern scientists do, it is his collections, housed in a bomb-proof vault that provide the base-line collection for all museums throughout the world. If this is all new to you, have a look at http://www.linnean.org/
I have been a Fellow of the Linn.Soc. for over 35 years, and it is the hope of most Fellows that 2007 will see a resurgence of interest in classical taxomomy, as well as advanced taxonomy -- both have their place. And both are an integral part of the efforts to conserve biodiversity for the future. While the tercentenary will be looking back to the birth of Linnaeus, I and many other Fellows of the Linnean Society will be looking forward to see what we can save of the world's biodiversity.
For several years now, I have been advocating the use of taxonomy for helping fund conservation -- naming species after persons or institutions that have made significant contributions to conserving a species -- for instance by funding the purchase of a nature reserve. While there are plenty of precedents for this, it is truly amazing how this concept raises storms of protest, particularly from non-taxonomists. In many other fora I have argued the case and described the precedents, but to me it is such an obvious benefit, that I am still surprised when objections are raised. The main problem is that generally it is rather small and seemingly insignificant forms of life that are being described, and not many people are too keen on having a new species of snail or moss named after them, even if they have given £20,000 to save a huge area of habitat where it and other species are found. But birds and orchids would be a differnt matter.
In the year of the Linnean Tercentenary, it will be an interesting debate, and views are welcome from scientists, taxonomists and anyone else.
However, the loss of taxonomists is becoming serious -- they are a vital link in the biodiversity chain. Without competent experts to identify wildlife how do we monitor its decline? How do we identify new species? While DNA and other advanced technological solutions will help, I can't help feeling that the oldfashioned naturalist -still has a major role to play. Afterall, they are often the ones who are passionate about an obscure group of arachnids or mosses. Lab-based taxonomy can never inspire that sort of enthusiasm, which is often so vital for conservation.
This year sees the tercentenary of the birth of Carl von Linné (more usually known as Linnaeus), the founding father of modern biological nomenclature. It is difficult now to realise how important the stabilisation of nomenclature was -- taxonomy and systematics both require as a prequisite stable nomencalture, and almost all other aspects of biological science, to a greater or lessser degree depend on it. Although Linnaeus did not nominate types for his species in the way modern scientists do, it is his collections, housed in a bomb-proof vault that provide the base-line collection for all museums throughout the world. If this is all new to you, have a look at http://www.linnean.org/
I have been a Fellow of the Linn.Soc. for over 35 years, and it is the hope of most Fellows that 2007 will see a resurgence of interest in classical taxomomy, as well as advanced taxonomy -- both have their place. And both are an integral part of the efforts to conserve biodiversity for the future. While the tercentenary will be looking back to the birth of Linnaeus, I and many other Fellows of the Linnean Society will be looking forward to see what we can save of the world's biodiversity.
For several years now, I have been advocating the use of taxonomy for helping fund conservation -- naming species after persons or institutions that have made significant contributions to conserving a species -- for instance by funding the purchase of a nature reserve. While there are plenty of precedents for this, it is truly amazing how this concept raises storms of protest, particularly from non-taxonomists. In many other fora I have argued the case and described the precedents, but to me it is such an obvious benefit, that I am still surprised when objections are raised. The main problem is that generally it is rather small and seemingly insignificant forms of life that are being described, and not many people are too keen on having a new species of snail or moss named after them, even if they have given £20,000 to save a huge area of habitat where it and other species are found. But birds and orchids would be a differnt matter.
In the year of the Linnean Tercentenary, it will be an interesting debate, and views are welcome from scientists, taxonomists and anyone else.
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
Do Fundraisers raise funds?
This week's Third Sector magazine (10 Jan 2007) has an interesting edtorial by Nick Cater, which is highly critical of professional fundraisers. It led me to dig out an old draft of a blog I wrote, back last summer, but never published, so here it is:
A fundraiser is a person who raises funds, q.e.d. And very often the persons best able to do that are staff involved with programme implementation and delivery, as well as volunteers. In my experience -- which stretches back well over thirty years -- almost every pound spent on a professional fundraiser would have been more cost-effective if spent on PR. If what a charity is doing is worth while, provided your target audience knows about it (hence the PR) then the funds will generally come in. And as far as writing applications to foundations generally, with a modicum of training, the programme managers can do it far more effectively than a professional fundraiser .
Like all generalisations, this is of course far too simplistic. But within the charity fundraising world there an almost cultlike dependency on fundraisers. And now that it is institutionalised, barriers and regulations have been established to ensure the sustainability of the fundraising industry. While I am not saying that all fundraisers are a waste of money, I am saying that they are not always the most cost effective way of raising funds. In other word "caveat emptor" -- anyone seeking to raise funds should be aware that professional fundraisers have a vested interest in promoting their profession -- which is, like the Emperor's clothes, relatively new.
It is of course almost impossible to prove claims such as I have just made, one way or the other. But, certainly PR has always achieved far more than fundraisers for the WLT. And in other parts of the charity trade press there are some scary examples of how professional fundraisers have ripped off charities -- raising £800,000 but only £50,000 going to the charity for example.
A fundraiser is a person who raises funds, q.e.d. And very often the persons best able to do that are staff involved with programme implementation and delivery, as well as volunteers. In my experience -- which stretches back well over thirty years -- almost every pound spent on a professional fundraiser would have been more cost-effective if spent on PR. If what a charity is doing is worth while, provided your target audience knows about it (hence the PR) then the funds will generally come in. And as far as writing applications to foundations generally, with a modicum of training, the programme managers can do it far more effectively than a professional fundraiser .
Like all generalisations, this is of course far too simplistic. But within the charity fundraising world there an almost cultlike dependency on fundraisers. And now that it is institutionalised, barriers and regulations have been established to ensure the sustainability of the fundraising industry. While I am not saying that all fundraisers are a waste of money, I am saying that they are not always the most cost effective way of raising funds. In other word "caveat emptor" -- anyone seeking to raise funds should be aware that professional fundraisers have a vested interest in promoting their profession -- which is, like the Emperor's clothes, relatively new.
It is of course almost impossible to prove claims such as I have just made, one way or the other. But, certainly PR has always achieved far more than fundraisers for the WLT. And in other parts of the charity trade press there are some scary examples of how professional fundraisers have ripped off charities -- raising £800,000 but only £50,000 going to the charity for example.
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.
Friday, 5 January 2007
Science for the poor
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art28/
And another paper in this excellent on-line journal. This really does give food for thought, and one which I will be circulating widely. It deals with an issue, I believe the World Land Trust really needs to take to heart.
And another paper in this excellent on-line journal. This really does give food for thought, and one which I will be circulating widely. It deals with an issue, I believe the World Land Trust really needs to take to heart.
Corridors work!
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art1/
This contains an interesting article, for the more scientifically minded of my readers. It shows how effective wildlife corridors can be, in this case for wolves and elk (wapiti) in Canada. It is likely that the same effects will be observed in India with Wild Dog (dhole) and other carnivores, such as tigers. In places like india, where land is costly, corridors between protected areas can be a very cost-effective way of increasing the area of land available to populations of larger mammals.
This contains an interesting article, for the more scientifically minded of my readers. It shows how effective wildlife corridors can be, in this case for wolves and elk (wapiti) in Canada. It is likely that the same effects will be observed in India with Wild Dog (dhole) and other carnivores, such as tigers. In places like india, where land is costly, corridors between protected areas can be a very cost-effective way of increasing the area of land available to populations of larger mammals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
