To start off my quest for the most inappropriate wildlife gifts here are a few websites for you to evaluate. What do readers think of them? Do they do more harm than good? Is this a good way of raising funds? Should the World Land Trust develop a similar range of gifts for sale (I have already made up my mind!).
http://www.wildlifegifts.com/about.lasso
http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_sale_gifts
http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_ladies_gifts
http://shop.wwf.org.uk/wwf_kitchen_products
http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/rspb/76533/1/1
http://shopping.rspb.org.uk/mall/departmentpage.cfm/rspb/76539/1/1
http://www.puckator.co.uk/index.php?page_id=9060
https://www.manateegiftsgalore.com/cgi-bin/eDatCat/MGGstore.cgi?user_action=link&link=mainpage
http://www.theflyingfox.co.uk/
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Fundamentalist religion and conservation
Conservative religion and conservation are rarely sympathetic. As the rest of the world becomes more and more enlightened, it often appears that the USA becomes more deeply entrenched in pandering to the fundamentalist wing of Christianity -- none of the presidential candidates seem prepared to speak out against what is a significant minority of voters. Not all conservative Christians are right-wing bigots of course, and some are even perceived as rather benign isolated, peace-loving outsiders. The Amish (Mennonites) for instance.
But the Mennonites in general, while avowedly peace-loving, are also a major threat to wildlife and the natural environment. They are a priori farmers, often living on the edges of the modern world. Often ultra conservative in both their dress, and their way of life, as well as their farming methods, but they can destroy nature on a grand scale. The last desert-dwelling population of the Aplomado Falcon, in the grasslands of Chihuahua is threatened by Mennonites plowing up their habitat. In N Belize, it is the Mennonite famers that have cut down the rainforest surrounding those protected by the Programme for Belize, while in Paraguay, they are spreading into the Dry Chaco, one of the world's most fragile habitats. Mennonites have large families - often very large - and nearly all their children want to have land. And they are very efficient at clearing wilderness. And they are great pioneers of the untamed frontiers -- do we really want to see those last untamed frontiers disappear under the plow......?
But the Mennonites in general, while avowedly peace-loving, are also a major threat to wildlife and the natural environment. They are a priori farmers, often living on the edges of the modern world. Often ultra conservative in both their dress, and their way of life, as well as their farming methods, but they can destroy nature on a grand scale. The last desert-dwelling population of the Aplomado Falcon, in the grasslands of Chihuahua is threatened by Mennonites plowing up their habitat. In N Belize, it is the Mennonite famers that have cut down the rainforest surrounding those protected by the Programme for Belize, while in Paraguay, they are spreading into the Dry Chaco, one of the world's most fragile habitats. Mennonites have large families - often very large - and nearly all their children want to have land. And they are very efficient at clearing wilderness. And they are great pioneers of the untamed frontiers -- do we really want to see those last untamed frontiers disappear under the plow......?
Any suggestions.....?
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Poverty: What does it mean?
One of my (many) criticisms of charities aiming to "make poverty history" in Africa, is that they never define what they mean by poverty. Try and find a definition on Christian Aid's website, or any of the other charities -- or try writing to them and you will see what I mean.
The UK Charity Commision have really helped muddy the waters now to the point of 100% turbidity. According to a Third Secor report: 'poverty', in charity law "means people who are financially disadvantaged"..... It continues 'in developing countries the phrase could mean those "who lack even the most basic essential to sustain life, such as clean water, food or shelter. But in the UK, it could refer to those "living on less than 60 per cent of the average income, or below the level of income support." Talk about all people being equal, but some being more equal than others...." Either way, it remains to be seen how any of the organisations aiming to raise the entire human population of Africa out of poverty, intend to do it. While it may be a noble aim, I would suggest that it is an impossibility, and that they are misleading the public by suggesting it can be done. Worse still some of the methods being used could actually be creating long-term poverty. Goats for eaxample, to cite my bete noir....
The UK Charity Commision have really helped muddy the waters now to the point of 100% turbidity. According to a Third Secor report: 'poverty', in charity law "means people who are financially disadvantaged"..... It continues 'in developing countries the phrase could mean those "who lack even the most basic essential to sustain life, such as clean water, food or shelter. But in the UK, it could refer to those "living on less than 60 per cent of the average income, or below the level of income support." Talk about all people being equal, but some being more equal than others...." Either way, it remains to be seen how any of the organisations aiming to raise the entire human population of Africa out of poverty, intend to do it. While it may be a noble aim, I would suggest that it is an impossibility, and that they are misleading the public by suggesting it can be done. Worse still some of the methods being used could actually be creating long-term poverty. Goats for eaxample, to cite my bete noir....
World Land Trust in India and an old quoteation.
Just after Christmas, I returned from visiting India, and seeing what the Wildlife rust of India has been doing over the past few months. And very exciting it is too. The elephant corridors are a great success, with not only elephants using them, but lots of other wildlife including tigers.
That was the good news. But travelling around India, it was hard not to be filled with a sense of foreboding. Every three years or so, the human population increases by the size of Britain's population -- that's an extra 60 million people. And the standard of living, for a large proportion of that population is galloping ahead. The almost grid-locked cities are a testament to the new prosperity.
But one has to ask, What is fuelling this economic growth? And the answer is, to a large extent, the west's demand for cheap, mass produced goods. And despite all the rhetoric about 'sustainable development', there is no question that this development is far from sustainable.
And while travelling, I read a book, published nearly 70 years ago. Before foreign aid, and organisations like Christian Aid were saving Africa. But the writing had an amazingly contemporary ring to it. But can any of my readers identify the source of the following passage?
"..... the most significant facts are these: the inhabitants of every civilized country are menaced; all desire passionately to be saved from impending disaster; the overwhelming majority refuse to change the habits of thought, feeling and action which are directly responsible for their present plight. In other words, they can't be helped, because they are not prepared to collaborate with any helper who proposes a rational and realistic course of action. In these circumstances, what ought the would-be helper to do?'
'He's got to do something'said Pete.
'Even if he thereby accelerates the process of destruction?'....Doing good on anything but the tiniest scale requires more intelligence than most people possess. They ought to be content with keeping out of mischief; it's easier and doesn't have such frightful results as trying to to do good in the wrong way. Twiddling the thumbs and having good manners are much more helpful, in most cases, than rushing around with good intentions, doing things..... Incidentally, the price measured in human terms, is enormously high. Though, of course, much lower than the price demanded by the nature of things from those who persist in behaving in the standard human way. Much lower than the price of war, for example -- particularly war with contemporary weapons'...'
I would make a strong case for this line of thinking being just as valid today, as it was before the outbreak of World War II, when it was written. Rushing around doing good by aid agencies has caused many of the problems they set out to solve, simply because they do mot deal with the underlying, real reasons for the problems. They treat symptoms, not causes.
But can any reader identify the source of this quotation? I'll happily send a copy of Endangered Mammals of the World -- now 20 years old, and one of my last remaining copies, to the first person to identify the quote.
That was the good news. But travelling around India, it was hard not to be filled with a sense of foreboding. Every three years or so, the human population increases by the size of Britain's population -- that's an extra 60 million people. And the standard of living, for a large proportion of that population is galloping ahead. The almost grid-locked cities are a testament to the new prosperity.
But one has to ask, What is fuelling this economic growth? And the answer is, to a large extent, the west's demand for cheap, mass produced goods. And despite all the rhetoric about 'sustainable development', there is no question that this development is far from sustainable.
And while travelling, I read a book, published nearly 70 years ago. Before foreign aid, and organisations like Christian Aid were saving Africa. But the writing had an amazingly contemporary ring to it. But can any of my readers identify the source of the following passage?
"..... the most significant facts are these: the inhabitants of every civilized country are menaced; all desire passionately to be saved from impending disaster; the overwhelming majority refuse to change the habits of thought, feeling and action which are directly responsible for their present plight. In other words, they can't be helped, because they are not prepared to collaborate with any helper who proposes a rational and realistic course of action. In these circumstances, what ought the would-be helper to do?'
'He's got to do something'said Pete.
'Even if he thereby accelerates the process of destruction?'....Doing good on anything but the tiniest scale requires more intelligence than most people possess. They ought to be content with keeping out of mischief; it's easier and doesn't have such frightful results as trying to to do good in the wrong way. Twiddling the thumbs and having good manners are much more helpful, in most cases, than rushing around with good intentions, doing things..... Incidentally, the price measured in human terms, is enormously high. Though, of course, much lower than the price demanded by the nature of things from those who persist in behaving in the standard human way. Much lower than the price of war, for example -- particularly war with contemporary weapons'...'
I would make a strong case for this line of thinking being just as valid today, as it was before the outbreak of World War II, when it was written. Rushing around doing good by aid agencies has caused many of the problems they set out to solve, simply because they do mot deal with the underlying, real reasons for the problems. They treat symptoms, not causes.
But can any reader identify the source of this quotation? I'll happily send a copy of Endangered Mammals of the World -- now 20 years old, and one of my last remaining copies, to the first person to identify the quote.
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
How to support a wildlife organisation and help destroy the world
http://nationalwildlife.stores.yahoo.net/for-the-home.html
Why do wildlife conservation organisations encourage blatant consumerism of tacky goods, many of which will be made in China, causing an accelleration of pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, etc etc etc.? It's too depressing for words.
I would be very interested to hear others' views on this. I make no claims to being a hair-shirted dark green conservationist, but I do think that some organisations have seriously lost the plot, when they use really tacky consumer goods. What are the worst examples you know of?
Why do wildlife conservation organisations encourage blatant consumerism of tacky goods, many of which will be made in China, causing an accelleration of pollution, depletion of fossil fuels, etc etc etc.? It's too depressing for words.
I would be very interested to hear others' views on this. I make no claims to being a hair-shirted dark green conservationist, but I do think that some organisations have seriously lost the plot, when they use really tacky consumer goods. What are the worst examples you know of?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
