Derek Gow the Radical?

By happenstance I stumbled upon the Radio 4 program ‘Radical’ this week. It is not a show that I have been aware of in the past, but this week’s subject piqued my interest. ‘Radical’ is a twice weekly BBC radio (Sounds) podcast which highlights "pioneering thinkers, bold innovators and influential voices". The episode that caught my attention was an interview with Derek Gow. Many in the nature conservation world will know of this pioneer of rewilding but for those that don't here is a quick recap. Derek Gow is a UK farmer currently living in Devon, where he has diversified from traditional farming to become a reintroduction expert. He has been a significant player in the reintroduction of Beaver, Water Vole and White Stork back to the UK. He has written several books and is currently rewilding his 300-acre farm.

What makes Gow’s argument so compelling is not simply that rewilding works, but that it exposes a national contradiction, Britain loves the idea of nature while often resisting the practical disruption needed to restore it. That tension sits at the heart of the debate around beavers, reintroductions and landscape-scale recovery.

I first came across Derek when I was researching Water Voles and trying to establish possible habitat suitability values in the local area, but he is perhaps best known for his work on the reintroduction of Beavers. His appearance on ‘Radical’ was a thoughtful interview of Derek's goals, successes and failures. Most interesting was his critique of the bureaucracy inherent to the politics of modern nature conservation. His frustration at the roadblocks that are put in his way are palpable and I have some sympathy with him. I have a dream of rewilding part of my tiny patch or at least do same habitat creation, but the number of permits and permissions needed not to say anything of the money required can be disheartening. Derek however has been very successful and has some very clear goals and ideas in mind.

The discussion in the podcast was wide ranging, and I encourage anyone interested to take a listen. The interviewer, obviously a non-specialist asked pertinent question and had done their homework. Derek quite succinctly describes the nature depleted landscape in which we inhabit today and explained some of the reasons. In essence it all boils down to two seismic shifts in human evolution, the agrarian revolution 10000 BCE and the Industrial revolution of the 18th and 19ᵗʰ Centuries. Both events substantially changed the way in which humans lived, affording them greater survivability and secondly the ability to enjoy down time to follow pursuits outside of just survival, the side effect of this was an immense impact on the flora and fauna of the planet.

When looking at such epic scales, it is worth remembering that we are still so close to the Industrial Revolution that we cannot yet see the wood for the trees, pardon the pun. Ecosystems are still responding to changes that took place very recently in evolutionary terms, and in many places, they are being denied the space and time needed to settle into any new dynamic equilibrium. Perhaps it is our short life spans that make the current situation feel uniquely terminal. Or perhaps the real problem is not that nature cannot recover, but that the scale and speed of the changes we have imposed have made recovery far harder than it needs to be.

It is interesting to note that on a global history scale nature will be okay, it will be different but barring the total annihilation of the planet life will find a way. Do not forget we are part of nature and it us, 55% of our bodies cellular mass is composed of bacterial cells, many living in symbiosis with us. We can trace our lineage back to the same cells or protocells that created every organism on the planet. However, trusting to the norms of galactic time in our short lives is not very human. So, I will move away from the grand philosophy to the examine the smaller scale of nature conservation.

The first point to explore is the contradiction in Britain today. Britain is unusual in the strength of its public affection for the outdoors, national parks, Sunday walks, public footpaths and large conservation memberships are all part of the national self-image. The RSPB alone has around 1.2 million members and the Wildlife Trusts around 940,000. With so much public interest, why are we still so nature depleted? The 2023 State of Nature report states that monitored wildlife has declined by 19% since 1970, and that the UK now sits in the bottom 10% globally for remaining biodiversity.

We will raise money for an animal hospital in Africa or criticise poorer countries for failing to protect their environments, while doing too little on our own doorstep. Take deforestation, for example. I remember growing up being told that an area the size of Wales was cut down every year in the Amazon, and that this was a crime against the planet. Yet we too exploited our own resources long ago, and in the UK, we have lost large areas of woodland and ancient habitat. We should be saying, learn from us, look at the problems deforestation and agricultural intensification caused here, and do not repeat our mistakes. Instead, too often, we lecture and berate. The rapid climate change we are facing is inseparable from the Industrial Revolution, in which Britain was a prime mover. This is still broader and more grandiose than Derek Gow’s point, but I think it adds context to the difficulties he and other conservationists face. For a nation of animal lovers, we can be strangely reluctant to love our own wildlife with the same intensity that we reserve for nature in more exotic places.

The second area to explore is the controversy in Gow’s work, not the ambition itself, but the method and the precedent it can set. His work is backed by strong evidence-based science, but do his successes encourage less well-thought-out ideas to take root? Some wild beaver populations began through illegal or accidental releases. Natural England monitors reintroduction and rewilding projects for good reason, but is the regulatory noose too tight, stifling people like Gow who have the science, money and willingness to make meaningful change?

This is the necessary point that the bureaucracy steps in, who decides which species are reintroduced and which are removed, what are the criteria? This is a prudent, safe approach, we do not want another disaster like the release of North American Mink into the countryside by ill-informed well-wishers. Britain is already awash with invaders mostly invited in with open arms. I don’t mean the Grey Squirrels, Deer or Gamebirds released but I refer to gardens. There are an estimated 2.8 million gardens in the UK and they account for 4.8% of the land cover and the majority are full of non-native species. So, in what way can we say that one species belongs and another doesn't, the answer is balance, does a species fit into an ecosystem, does it fill a niche without removing another species. I think this is a pretty good standard.

Rewilding needs to happen at scale, and that is difficult to achieve. Gow’s land is 300 acres, while Knepp covers a staggering 3,500 acres, yet even these places are small when set against the scale of Britain’s depleted landscapes. To be truly effective, rewilding has to move beyond isolated reserves and private estates into connected habitats, river catchments and whole landscapes. Otherwise, we risk creating impressive pockets of recovery that remain ecologically fragile because they are surrounded by the same pressures that caused the damage in the first place.

That old reserve-design debate, single large or several small, still matters. In the UK we have often relied on the second model: a patchwork of small reserves managed by organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the National Trust. Those places are invaluable, but they cannot carry the entire burden of nature recovery on their own. If rewilding is to move from inspiring example to national strategy, it needs cooperation across farms, estates, councils, conservation bodies and communities. The question is not just whether Britain cares about nature. The question is whether we care enough to make room for it.

Perhaps that is where the Radical interview left me, impressed by Gow’s impatience, drive and diligence, sympathetic to the need for safeguards, and convinced that the larger question is not whether rewilding is possible but whether we are prepared to tolerate the messiness of it. Nature recovery will not always look tidy, convenient or bureaucratically comfortable. If we want beavers, storks, water voles and richer landscapes back, we need more than admiration for pioneers. We need the courage to let some of their ideas shape the mainstream. Is Derek Gow a radical, maybe but he is the kind of radical we need now to move nature conservation forward and challenge modern conventions.

 

The General Election - A time for real change for the environment?

 

I was first able to vote in a general election in 1997, it was my first year of university and I was quite naively optimistic about exercising my democratic vote, things can only get better, right. I remember then that my vote was for the Conservatives, mainly because having grown up in the 80’s they were all I had ever known, and I came from a conservative leaning household. I think most of my friends see me as a Conservative, but my political affiliations change and are focused on the issues, the parties I vote for in general elections are often very different to those in local elections. As I have grown and matured, I have learned to examine the issues and weigh the pros and cons. As such since 1997 in the various votes that have been held, I have voted Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green Party, Plaid Cymru and Independent. I give this piece of personal background as a prelude to the rest of the post to try and illustrate that I try to be impartial in most matters.

In the past 5 or 6 general election campaigns I have attempted to place the environment on the agenda for consideration. I am probably one of the few who actually read the manifesto and weigh the pros and cons of the various policies. This analysis has in some years been very detailed and I have looked at tangential policies that may affect the environment but this time in a wave of apathy I do not think I have the strength to do the same. In previous elections I have written to the local candidates and asked them to extol their environmental policies and publicize them in the local press.

I have been involved in green politics for many years and I am now incredibly disillusioned. Politicians make the right sounds but rarely follow through when elected. I understand the difficulties of running the country and the competing time and interests but time after time the position of climate change and nature conservation are treated with very little respect.

This apathy had led me not to bother to comment on this election thus far which looks like the end point for Prime Minister Sunak and the appointment of Keir Starmer. The talking points about the election seem to be focused mainly on the economy and immigration, and then I remembered that I still had to vote and thought I at least had to make the effort to address the field and its runners and riders. So here we are, more of an essay than an analysis of the main parties’ environmental policies, I have only chosen to look at the three main parties as it is obvious that the Green Party has the best policies and Reform has very few.

The saddest part of the manifesto trawl was that the two main parties did not have specific sections of the environment instead drawing the issues into the ones surrounding energy and climate change. The Conservatives have sections on “affordable and pragmatic transition to net zero” and “supporting our rural way of life and enhance our environment”, whilst Labour’s “Make Britain and clean superpower” has sections including nature, clean water and animal welfare. The Liberal Democrats have sections on climate change and energy, and the natural environment.

On energy and climate change, Labour and the Conservatives have similar approaches, both push the development of nuclear power with new small modular reactors, a drive to invest in carbon capture and an expansion of renewable energies. The Conservatives wish to build new gas power stations whilst Labour wish to stop issuing any new licences for any oil, gas and coal exploration. The Liberals are more specific with very detailed ideas on committing to net zero by 2045 and investing in renewables so that they make up 90% of provision by 2030.

Given the recent travesty of the pollution of our rivers all three parties express a desire to act upon the water companies. The Conservatives wish to increase fines on the water companies and use those fines to pay for river restoration. Labour and the Liberals suggest new water authorities, regulatory bodies and greater legislative powers.

Specifically on biodiversity and the wider environment the Conservatives had very little more to add with a commitment to more tree planting and peat land protection, cutting red tape for tree planting and the designation of an 11^th National Park with improvement to the existing ones.

Labour plans to ban fracking, eradicate TB to end the badger cull (although they do not state how), ban trail hunting and ban hunting trophies. The Liberal Democrats go the furthest desiring to double the size of protected areas by 2050, plant 60 million trees a year, increase funding for the Environment Agency and Natural England (and by extension I guess CCCW and SNH), ensure new developments result in significant net gain for biodiversity and the protection of peatlands and temperate rainforests and a real network of marine protection areas.

So, where does this leave us. I think it is fair to say that on the balance of things that the effort made to combat the issues of Biodiversity in the UK is pretty dismal, I think it accurate to say that the environment will not be addressed in the press , husting or any TV debates. The manifestos spend very little time on the issue at all. The Liberal Democrats have the most detailed plan and cover a much wider range of the core environmental issues. The two big hitters have just rolled the whole cause of conservation into climate change and the energy crisis.

Now this may all seem very demoralizing, and a general election is about policies wider than just the environment, global security and the economy are very important, but I hope that every voter at least takes the time to consider it. I would urge every reader not to take my word on matters and that they themselves take the time to browse through the manifestos and reach their own judgement and make their decision on the 4^th July from a position of understanding and knowledge. Who will I vote for? I leave that to the sanctity of the voting booth. I have always voted with my head, perhaps its time I listen to my heart.

Gorillas and Deer - Habituation as a tool for conservation

 This post is an amalgamation of two previous posts one on habituation and one on Virunga. Virunga was a powerful 2014 British documentary directed by Orlando Von Einsiedel that focused on the work of park rangers in Congos Virunga National Park and in particular the struggle to protect mountain gorillas. The habituation post related to my gradual acceptance of my present by the resident Doe and her two young females that have developed this year. Today I had my most intimate and relaxed encounter with them. They allowed me to sit some 40 metres away and grazed naturally mostly at ease, exhibiting natural behaviour. These two disparate things coalesce when considering another recent documentary, Silverback.

Silverback is a documentary by wildlife cameraman, Vianet Djenguet. The explores the themes surrounding the work of conservationists in the Kahuzi-Biega National Park in the Congo and their aim to habituate eastern lowland gorillas for tourism.

Through Vianet we are introduced to the dedicated rangers on the ground, the scientist managers, and the gorillas themselves. Conservation in Africa is difficult and complex, no one can deny the pressures on the local Congolese people living in a war-torn country and often this brings them into conflict with the local wildlife, poaching, and the bush meat trade are particularly disturbing but as a country develops most damaging is the loss of primary forest to make way for cattle, crops and development. The plan, which is already in action, is to habituate gorilla families so that tourists can safely be taken to view them. This tourist trade would provide valuable revenue to fund conservation measures like protecting land and show the local people the value of conserving wildlife around them.

Vianet joins the rangers for 3 months, during which they spent each day with a family of gorillas led by a Silverback called Mpungwe. Vianet started off wholly engaged in the project but slowly came to doubt the merits of the initiative as the knowing doubt that was in the back of my mind the whole time came to the fore.

There is considerable merit in the concept of involving local people in the management of their natural resources and given that all the people shown were from Congo exemplified this and removed any suggestion of the ‘white west’ dictating what the former colonies now do in their own country, but that is a whole other kettle of fish and a debate best saved for another time and place.

Mpungwe was a somewhat aggressive gorilla, but perhaps no more so than would be expected from someone who had lost his parents violently and is disturbed each day by a camera crew, and, here is the crux of habituation, the individual needs to be receptive and have the correct temperament. Mpungwe was not the first gorilla to be habituated, there had been successes elsewhere in the Congo but he seemed wholly unpredictable and unsettled by the whole affair for the techniques to be effective. Whilst there did seem to be some progress, a begrudging tolerance perhaps, Mpungwe seemed unable or perhaps more accurately unwilling to totally accept the presence of humans around his family.

To persevere with the attempts at habituation, which is where the programme left us, risks causing Mpungwe more stress. Doctors live by the Hippocratic Oath, to first do no harm something that Ecologists and scientists should also live by even if it isn't codified in the same way.

Towards the end of the film Vianet seemed to be having second doubts, he acknowledged Mpungwe's discomfort and wondered if this was too high a price to pay. It's a valid point just as the technique of habituation is for tourism, but there is certainly an ethical line that needs to be explored. All of us need to rationalise how far we should go to safeguard a species. How far is too far and who decides?

I am uncomfortable with the concept of habituation, for me, it leads to a change in natural behaviour and desensitising a creature to man can be dangerous, this is less of a problem in this country with my deer per se but where active hunting is a problem then it could be deadly.  For my deer I want them to remain wild, and whilst some habituation makes it possible for me to observe them closer and get some great pictures anymore would be unjust and unfair, for Mpungwe it is much more complex, the rangers of Kahuzi-Beiga are trying to save a species and in the modern world that requires compromise. 

The General Election and the Environment

With just 11 days until Election Day I thought it was about time I had a look at the environmental policies of the three main parties.  I went through each manifesto and tried to extract the relevant policies and statements. The Labour manifesto was the easiest to read with their whole first section entitled 'A Green Industrial Revolution', this was a promising start and laid down an early marker, very few parties put the environment so high on their agenda.

The Liberal party had the most environmental policies and whilst the Conservative manifesto was harder to decipher had some very good policies. Interestingly there are several points on which two or more parties agreed. Some of the policy areas are bold statements of legislation or action but many are vague notions of hopes and wishes and we all know what they can turn into.

I have laid out the findings in the grid pictured below:

Overall this hasn't made my decision of who to vote for any easier. Only labour categorically plans to cancel the Badger Cull and no party talks of rescinding HS2 both of my two big policy areas. The Conservatives mention reviewing the HS2 but early details show that HS2 will continue. The Liberals have good biodiversity plans and labour is better on Climate with the Conservatives better on Plastics and Marine protection.

I know the environment will not be the only policy area of interest to most people but it is important that it is considered. With Brexit possible there is a massive opportunity to strengthen our environmental laws and equally as big of a risk of them being watered down or lost.

Take time to read the manifestos and take time to look at the environmental policies. We need action now and our government whatever colour it maybe needs to act. They have all laid out their plans for us to see and now it comes down to reading, understanding them and forcing them to enact them when elected. The last sombre point I will make is trust, many parties renege on their manifesto pledges, we should not allow this, we should hold them to account. The time of faith in our politicians seems to be over and so evaluating which party is to be trusted to work for our environment and planet is up to each individual.

Good luck in your deliberations and I hope this analysis helps you in small way. Take your time, think and vote intelligently.

State of Nature - Is there a disconnect in nature conservation?

This week saw the start of another one of the BBC Natural History departments flagship programmes helmed by our national treasure, Sir David Attenborough. ‘Seven Worlds, One Planet’ looks at the planet’s natural resources continent by continent with the BBCs usual blended of stunning cinematography, ecological measures and dramatic storytelling. These programmes are something we in this country do well and Sir David himself has done so much to spread the word of what is happening to our planet.

Common Darter

Here at home however things are not as rosy as they seem. Earlier this month the annual State of Nature Report was published. This yearly stocktake of our own natural capital paints a mixed picture and raises an interesting question, why are things still so bad in this country.

The report highlights some staggering results, species abundance has fallen by 13%, 41% of terrestrial and freshwater species show decreases. Of species classified as critically endangered 111 vertebrates, 440 fish, 232 fungi and lichens and 405 invertebrates are at risk of extinction. Our protected spaces do not all have favourable conditions, and many are not managed exclusively for nature. Whilst pollution has declined the effects of climate change are not being mitigated. Woodland cover is increasing but management is not keeping track. We have lost 1000 hectares of wetland between 2006 and 2012 although some there has been some great post-mineral extraction remediation. As for invasive species 10-12 non-native species are establishing in the UK each year of which 10-20% cause serious adverse impacts.

If we look at the Aichi Targets, the measures we have committed to on the international level and should meet by 2020 however the UK government has assessed that as a country we are only on track to meet 5 of the 20 targets.

These are gloomy statistics many of which most conservationists are more than aware of. Day to day those on the frontline see the changes in fortune for all our species, and there are a lot of conservationists out there. The UK has a strong tradition of voluntary support for nature conservation and the public invest large amounts in conservation charities. The RSPB has 18,000 volunteers and more than a million members, the National Trust has 5.6 million members and the Wildlife Trusts have a combined membership of over 800,000. There may be a degree of overlap between the organisation, but this is a substantial voting and lobbying block. The report shows that volunteering has increased by 46% since 2000 which is also reflected in the rise in entries to the National Biodiversity Network. Financially the public sector has seen a decline in spending in the UK but over the same period spending on international biodiversity has increased by 111%.

What does this all say? To me it says there is a fundamental disconnect in the way we view nature in this country. The BBC flagship programmes give us a vital understanding of the nature of the world and their spectacular sights force us to address the problems that we see. Perhaps we view those problems a little imperialistically, many of the countries with the richest biodiversity and most in need are the poorest and our donations ‘help’ them make the right decision, whereas we as a rich country have nothing to fear from our perhaps less eye catching wildlife. Its easier to sell a majestic lion or magnificent elephant than the elusive pine marten or humble hedgehog. I am not saying supporting world biodiversity is wrong nor that the BBC has the wrong focus, just that our ability to translate this into local action. Volunteering is increasing and membership is blossoming, but nature is still declining. We need to use this State of Nature report as a wake-up call, cull out the dry statistics and try and convert it into a call for action. Saving the rain forests is important but so are lowland wetlands in the UK. This is not an either-or situation, local and international need to work in tandem. The challenge for all conservationists is to convert this public culture of involvement and support into actual action, action at the ground level and at the governmental level. Balanced with this we need to extol the positives to avoid the negative becoming too overwhelming and promoting green fatigue.

The State of Natures is sombre reading and Seven Planets, One world is a marvel lets use both to inspire and motivate all to turn things around.

Global Warming – Are we missing the point?

Global Warming – Are we missing the point?

As a conservationist for nearly 30 years, the issue of global warming despite its topicality has often faded into the background. When I was growing up in the 80’s and 90’s whilst global warming was a looming threat the danger to the ozone layer was more imminent. Ironically ozone is a part of the complex picture that global warming presents but with the ban on CFC’s the crisis was averted something that cannot be said for global warming.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.jpg

Global Warming is a contentious and occasionally divisive issue. It is a complex issue with a multitude of intricate physical and chemical interactions that feed into one another. As a biologist, I am well aware of my limitations with regards to chemistry and physics and have been content to align my views with those of the majority in the scientific community, up until now. With global warming continuing to be mired in the debate over the causes I decided it was time I did a deeper dive on the issue and get educated. To do this I have begun a course on Coursera called Global Warming 1: The science and modelling of climate change by Professor David Archer of the University of Chicago.

The course is exceptionally well put together and informative even if it is operating right at the limits of my understanding. The units are well arranged and help you build up an understanding of how climates are regulated and modified, this new found knowledge, however, has not changed my fundamental viewpoint that even after all this time we are missing the point about global warming.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

For years scientists have clashed with pseudo-scientists, industrialists and deniers and despite a worldwide consensus between the majority of scientists and reputable scientific bodies that global warming is occurring and is caused by man, it is this second fact that has caught the current debate in a thick syrupy trap. Few would disagree that the climate is warming, nor that we are still coming out of an ice age. We are already seeing changes in species distribution, loss of some glaciers and the defrosting of permafrosts. These things are happening now and are measurable. The practical among us would say that we need to be looking at are strategies to mitigate climate change and/or to reverse it but this is not going to happen at the appropriate scale until we shutdown the deniers and end the current debate, and this is the way to do it.

For many, the controversial point is the belief that global warming is not man-made and therefore we should not concern ourselves with our production of carbon dioxide and methane. Alternatively, deniers point to the fact that the climate naturally shifts over time and this is normal, that sun cycles, and sunspots account for the rise, the earth’s eccentric orbit, natural carbon dioxide release from volcanoes and so on. You can counter each of these points scientifically to show how they fit into climate models but the average man on the street is never going to understand the complexity of the models.

The simple answer to me as to why we need to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like methane is linked to timescales and what is achievable. Regarding timescales, the issue is the short timeframe that these changes are occurring on. Yes, the climate changes, yes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shifts but these changes are usually on the tens of millions of years scale not like we have seen in the 300 or so years since the start of the industrial revolution. Such a short timeframe is insufficient to allow natural processes such as evolution in organisms to occur or for the planets own regulatory system to adjust to the change nor is there necessarily the time available to protect those nations under threat of higher tides or other devastating effects.

Achievability is the key. What can we do to avert the threats coming from a rise in temperatures; the obvious answer is to cut emissions before we reach brink points. The barriers are the people who believe that this is all natural. The bottom line is temperature is rising and this will have a drastic effect on human populations, but what can we have an effect on? Can we alter the sun cycle, move up the cooling period to counteract the rise? No. Can we change the sunspot cycle, global dimming, and volcanic eruptions? No, no and no. We only have control over the quantities of greenhouse gas we are pumping into the atmosphere. This is the way we should be focusing our arguments. We need practical approaches to mitigate and reduce the negative effects. Act on the issues we can control to counteract the ones we cannot.

We can’t all follow the science behind climate change and not everyone will trust the scientists who study this for a living. We need a smarter more nuanced approach to the climate debate to move outside of the arguments that are going round in circles and move onto a more constructive argument that concerns practicalities. My piece of advice to end on is keep on fighting and educate yourself.

Same old, same old

On Facebook this week the Zoological Society of London had a brief post with a fact that both astonished and saddened me. One Elephant is poached every 20 minutes in Africa.

This figure jumped out at me. The trade in ivory seems just as strong today as it was in my youth. It feels as if nothing has changed in the past 30 years. In the 1930’s there were an estimated Five million elephants in Africa today this is now just 600,000.

A quick google search has unveiled a range of infographics that help put the plight of the elephant into focus.

This infographic illustrates the decline of elephant populations in Tanzania. Where once poaching, habitat loss and human conflict resulted in losses up until 1989. Today however poaching is once more on the rise.

This infographic illustrates the steep rise in illegal killings most of which were to provide ivory for markets in the east.

This last infographic shows the route of the ivory trade. As you can see, even today and even with CITIES protection ivory is still traded to Great Britain.

Earlier this year China banned its domestic trade in ivory. This on the face of it would be excellent news but the fact is that this so far has not translated into a reduction in poaching. It is possible that the illegal markets are still viable economically or that people are stockpiling the ivory in the hope that they can control the trade for greater profit.

It all well and good castigating Africa and China for the ivory poaching. It's hard to deny an African man with a family to support the value a single tusk. An integrated approach is needed, not only must trade be curtailed by stopping the poachers but we need to address the socio-economic factors that make it more profitable for poachers to kill elephants to make money. We need to continue to reduce the market like China has by banning the use of ivory. But what about the UK, are we leading the way... far from it. We still allow certain trade in elephant ivory and plans to ban ivory sales were quietly dropped by Theresa May in the last Conservative Manifesto. This is still an important issue and it is possible that the African Elephant could still go extinct in my life-time, one of the last of this planets mega-fauna.

For anyone interested, they really should look up Hugh's Ivory War shown last year on BBC -Trailer

Unfortunately it is no longer available on I-player but there are links and clips.

Could Micheal Gove save conservation in the UK?

A little under a year ago I reported on this blog my response to a letter I sent to our new Secretary of the Environment Andrea Leadsom. Twelve months have passed and we now have a new Secretary Michael Gove. I have to admit to rolling my eyes when hearing about his appointment. I work in education and so am familiar with his work, I have also, however, been assured of his razor intellect and ability to focus on important issues.

Farming is Mr Gove's First Target

I had the feeling his appointment was nothing but a political move in order to get a possible ally or enemy into the cabinet to prop up a post election unstable government. I saw him as a stop gap and so decided not to write to him this time. This week, however, I have readjusted my view, could Gove actually achieve something for nature conservation?

Mr Gove made his first speech this week and some of what he said filled me with encouragement. I have talked about my apprehension about the loss of environmental protection during Brexit as well as my hope that this will be a new chance for improvement and this speech seems to suggest that the government might also think this way.

His speech outlined his plans for a ‘green brexit’ and he extolled the virtues farming in partnership with conservation and even commented on his ‘deep regret’ that America has pulled out of the Paris Climate Change Agreements.

The key thrust of Gove’s speech which he reiterated on Radio 4’s Today programme was a need to shift the emphasis of the subsidy programme to farmers. These subsidies come from the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Over the years this scheme has come under fire, yes it helped create some protection for the environment but it also led to problems with the execution of the subsidies where in fact many landowners could be compensated for doing very little.

Gove’s new plans suggest a more rigorous approach to ensure that pays to protect. This harks back to the old adage of the ‘polluter pays principle’. I m not against farming, they truly are the guardians of our countryside but as a total industry, they can be lacking. Farming is a hard job but by offering proper financial incentives to effective measures would be very beneficial. This is the perfect time to restructure the payment structures to link subsidies to the burgeoning field of ecosystem services and whilst I am yet to be fully sold on the commodification of the ecosystem a more focused system can only be good.

Mr Gove’s tenacious nature also bodes well, he pushed through reforms to standards in teaching against the large teaching unions and so his ability to get things done cannot be questioned the actual question is what do we want him to get done? As nature conservationists or concerned parties, we need to get in at the ground form so that other lobbies don’t change the path. Perhaps it is time for us all to write to Mr Gove and encourage him to pursue this ‘green brexit’ vision and to do so with the backing of the science behind.

Environment Secretary Response.

As you may recall I wrote a letter to our new Environment Secretary  well after some weeks I have got a reply.

I do not fault them for taking time because it was the summer and parliament was suspended but the response didn't exactly fill me with confidence. As you can see from the picture below, it is polite and encouraging but does not very inspiring, given the current extension of the Badger culling against scientific advice and without publicising last year's results.

Letter to the Environment Secretary

As suggested in a previous post I have e-mailed our new Environment Secretary - Andrea Leadsom,
I would urge everyone to consider emailing her to champion the environment.

Here is what I sent:

Dear Mrs Leadsom,

Congratulations on your new cabinet post and for performing so well during the EU Referendum campaign. Having had a week or two to settle into your new role I felt it was time to ask you to consider the direction of DEFRA especially in the light of ‘Brexit’.

You have a real opportunity to have a positive impact on nature conservation in the UK, more so perhaps than any previous minister for this portfolio. The exit from the EU will need us to firmly take the reins of our own environmental policy and it is about time Britain became a world leader in this regard. I ask you to seriously consider the following points:

1. Retention of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Impact Assessment. The UK has had good Town and Country Planning legislation since 1949 and there is no reason for this to relaxed.

2. Abandon CAP and replace it with a system that marries nature conservation techniques with sustainable production. A stewardship scheme that rewards landowners for protecting wildlife whilst still allowing them to make a living.

3. Continue to lead the way in Climate Change policy and drive technology to combat it this is a way in which the environment and industry can both profit.

4. Maintain species protection with the Wildlife and Countryside Act and protect species under the Hunting with Dogs legislation.

5. Honour the designations and species protection outlined in Natura 2000 including SPA and SAC sites.

6. Maintain and strengthen existing UK designations such as SSSI's and plan wildlife sites on a landscape level as well as the local - expanding the living landscape efforts of the Wildlife Trusts. Link site protection with local interests and facilitate people’s ability to connect with nature.

7. Maintain existing Marine Protection Areas and expand them to partner with maintaining Fishing stocks for a buoyant and sustainable fishing fleet.

8. Take a sensible look at Re-wilding as a means of restoring ecological balance. A prime example is of how Pine Marten recovery has helped curtail Grey Squirrels and aid Red Squirrels or how Beavers act as ecosystem engineers.

9. Readdress the idea of using vaccination to control TB in the Cattle population. The science goes against the current Badger cull policy and yet it is still in place.

10. Continue to focus on Local Biodiversity Action Planning but emphasise real world application rather than just reporting and public relations/education campaigns.

 I know that much of what I write may seem revolutionary to some but I really do feel it is time DEFRA took the lead and that you could be just the minister to do this.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope some of it strikes a chord and  can be implemented into policy.

Regards

Our new environment secretary

With the change in leadership of the country following the Referendum we now have a new minister for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Ignoring that fact that I fundamentally disagree with the lumping together of the environment with food and rural affairs I thought I ought to take a moment to reflect on this new appointment.

We have had poor luck in this appointment in the past, the last two ministers  (Liz Truss and Owen Patterson) have presided over a department that maintained the status quo and it is hard to find any positive things they did for the environment, we all remember the introduction of the badger cull and the proposal to sell off the forests, the list goes on.

It lies with Andrea Leadsom to break this mold and shows us a minister who actually wants to improve the environment and not just watch it from the sidelines whilst drawing a pay check.
So who exactly is this Brexiteer conservative leader candidate.

She is a relatively new MP having only joined parliament in 2010. This inexperience is not something I hold against her. She was previously an Energy Minister which at least has some relation to environmental matters.

I decided to try and pick apart her voting record to look for pointers:

Voted in favour of a Green Investment Bank twice  
Voted against reducing carbon emissions to 20% of 1990 levels
Voted to reform the energy market to reduce carbon dioxide emissions twice
Voted not to exempt electricity generation plants using carbon storage from carbon emission limits
Voted against setting a target range for the amount of carbon dioxide per unit price of electricity generation
Voted to apply the climate change levy to electricity generated from renewable sources twice
Voted against charging 1st year vehicle tax based on emissions
Voted against a decarbonisation target
Voted not to reduce permitted carbon dioxide rates in new homes
Voted in favour of selling public forests in 2011
Voted for high taxes on planes 
Voted in favour of the Badger Cull twice
Voted against explicit need for environmental permits for fracking
Voted for a more extensive set of conditions to be put in place prior to fracking
Voted for more restrictions on fracking in National Parks and AONB's

This is quite a confusing list on the face of it, there seems to be significant good and bad votes here. This could mean that Andrea is open to constructive advice and that she at least considers matters before voting rather than sitting solidly behind an opinion and refusing to change her position. This could work both ways.

What does this mean for the environment..? To be honest I m not sure, Andrea however needs to be given the benefit of the doubt for now. The biggest thing I want Andrea to accept is the need to weigh scientific advice more highly than previous ministers have and to leave the economy to the business and treasury, her role is to safeguard the environment and the rural community.

I will be writing to Andrea this week to urge her to consider some matters, mostly those I have raised in previous blogs such as Brexit -what now for nature conservation?

I would like everyone that reads this blog to write to her and to get your friends to do likewise, lets make the department more environmentally aware again.

Brexit - What now for nature conservation?

Unless you have been under a rock the EU referendum result has been one of the most important national votes in a lifetime and will have a major impact on the world as we know it living in Britain.
There are multiple policy areas that need consideration and the environment and nature conservation whilst not necessarily high on everyone's agenda is vital.

The vote has been held and we are on our way out, whether it be full exit or just a Norway-like retention of the European Economic Area (EEA) lying in the future one clear fact is that nature conservation needs to be considered.

There is considerable doom surrounding the result of the referendum but I try to remain optimistic. Perhaps now is an opportunity to build a nature conservation policy to be a flagship of the world.

Many organisations including large NGO's like the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts alongside think tanks and policy review boards have already began to address this issue. What will the environment be like post Brexit. In some cases things may look slightly worse, definitely in the short term but so much of it unfortunately hangs on the fate of our economy. Money conquers all even where wildlife is concerned.

So what do the experts of see? The UK and EU group at Kings College London have produced a Expert Review report  to examine some of the impacts and options. This hefty tome is a dense and thorough report and well worth a read in and of itself. I will distill some of its findings here before making some suggestions of my own.

Environmental Policy
The EU had a preventative approach to environmental policy and forced the UK to adopt many directives that have in no doubt aided the conservation movement. The following table taken from the report shows how the various laws would be affected if we entered into an EEA agreement. As you can see most of the important policy areas will be covered unfortunately the Birds and Habitats Directives are vital to nature conservation and will not be applicable regardless of the routes forward we take.

Climate Policy
The UK was a leader within the Union on emissions reductions and so it would make sense that this would not change in an independent Britain.

Energy Policy
Energy policy is closely linked to Climate policy. EU policy still allowed the development of individual policies in home nations which has led to the UK  being one of the few to develop shale as as an energy resource, however the UK led the way in market liberalisation of renewable energy in Europe.

Agricultural Policy
The biggest part of European agricultural policy is the Common Agricultural Policy which was more of an economic measure than an environmental one. In fact since its inception it has had an overall negative environmental impact, increasing water and air pollution and accelerating the decline of farmland birds. The inevitable economic troubles as a result of Brexit could increase intensification and thereby worsen the situation.

Fisheries Policy
Fishing is a key area of environmental policy in the UK and the Common Fisheries Policy has improved the UK's sustainability and Brexit will necessitate renegotiation of fishing rights.

So what do  I think we need and bear in mind that this may well be 'pie in the sky'

1. Retention of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Impact Assessment. The UK has had good Town and Country Planning legislation since 1949 and there is no reason for this to relaxed.

2. Abandon CAP and replace it with a system that marries nature conservation techniques with sustainable production. A stewardship scheme that rewards landowners for protecting wildlife whilst still allowing them to make a living.

3. Continue to lead the way in Climate Change policy and drive technology to combat it.

4. Maintain species protection with the Wildlife and Countryside Act

5. Honor the designations and species protection outlined in Natura 2000 including SPA and SAC sites.

6. Maintain and strengthen existing UK designations such as SSSI's and plan wildlife sites on a landscape level as well as the local - expanding the living landscape efforts of the Wildlife Trusts. Link site protection with local interests and people to connect people with nature.

7. Maintain existing Marine Protection Areas and expand them to partner with maintaining Fishing stocks for a buoyant and sustainable fishing fleet.

8. Take a sensible look at Re-wilding as a means of restoring ecological balance. A prime example is of how Pine Marten recovery has helped curtail Grey Squirrels and aid Red Squirrels or how Beavers act as ecosystem engineers.

9. Readdress the idea of using vaccination to control TB in the Cattle population.

Instead of Brexit being a disaster I see this as an opportunity. The various members of the NGO's such as the RSPB have huge memberships and currently the various political parties are in such throes of indecision that they will need all the support they can get to gain or retain power. The vote was just as much as challenge to the government and the political elite as it was to the EU and now is a chance for us to hold them to account.

This will not be easy. Money has always out fought conservation and it will be hard to persuade the city that the environment is an important asset.

Prepare for battle my friends for now we have the chance to remake environmental policy or see it destroyed in front of us.

Its all too much! What can little old me do?

This week I found myself getting a little overwhelmed and depressed. News in the environmental arena was grim. There were reports on the badger cull and horrifying statistics about the level of Elephant poaching in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I have been environmentally aware since I was quite young, in primary school in fact. I can remember making mini newsletters on wildlife like the Leatherback Turtle for the rest of my class. Back then childhood innocence made me think that all of these problems were easily solved  but sadly many of the issues I cared about then (Mid-1980's) are still a problem today. Only the ban on CFC's and the Dolphin friendly mark on Tuna were the significant wins.
With so much still wrong with world and issues seeming unsolvable by politicians and those in power it is hard not to feel despair and wonder how we mere mortals can make a difference.

Not everyone has the time or money to do much but as certain supermarkets say - 'Every little helps'. So to help you dispel some of the gloom here are 5 easy ways to help the conservation movement.

Raise money as you shop - http://www.easyfundraising.co.uk Easy fundraising allows you to buy from your favourite online shops and for every pound spent the company donates a percentage to the cause of your choice. When I began my palm oil campaign I signed up to raise money for Act For Wildlife. Over the past 6 months I have raised £12.83 for the charity just be shopping online and it didn't cost me an extra penny.

Write to your MP - We all have campaigns that are dear to our hearts so why not express them, Find out who your MP is and write them a letter asking them to support your cause in parliament.

Sign a Petition - In the UK the government have set up a public petition scheme whereby if a petition gets 10,000 signatures the government will respond to the petition and if it gets 100,000 signatures then the government will hold a debate in parliament. Following up on my palm oil campaign I have signed a petition calling for accurate labeling on foods.

Submit your sightings - Many organisations have online recording software that allows you to record your sightings, here are some of the best,
Birdtrack - the BTO's bird recording site
Mammal Tracker - The mammals society mammal recording site and app
iRecord - an app for recording butterflies

Start a Penny Jar - Put aside small change, tally it up and use that money to donate to the charity of your choice.

This is just a sample of the things you could try and I m sure many of you will have other ideas, feel free to add them to the comments list.

Badgers and TB

The topic of Badgers and TB is an emotive and explosive one. It will come to no surprise to me that I am opposed to the culling of badgers to reduce bTB in cattle.

There are facts and counter facts banded about by all sides. Sadly even the government does not seem able to focus on the science and data being revealed in the UK.

I decided to put down quickly some facts about the issue in the form of an infographic and here is the result:

The infographic is by no means a complete picture and I have tried to be as objective as possible in presenting the information. Anyone looking into this issue will find a wealth of information on the government websites and many farming and wildlife sites like wise have reams of information. I have restricted my information to government information or papers presented in peer reviewed journals.

Next I am interested to investigate the results of the Welsh approach to controlling the disease that seems to have resulted in a significant reduction of the disease without the use of culling.

And so it begins...

The election is now well and truly underway and so far nothing environmental has been mentioned and sadly I doubt it will.

For the last two elections I have challenged my local candidates to come out and state their case and this election is no different. The emails went off this week and now I am just waiting for replies. The letter I sent was:

Dear Candidate

I write to you in this lead up to the General Election to urge you to consider the environment during your campaign. Environmental issues often play second fiddle to wider policies especially in times of economic uncertainty. In February I surveyed the websites of all main parties and found an appalling lack of information on this matter.

As a prospective candidate for Member of Parliament I would like you to answer 2 questions,

1.      How will your party improve the environment in the national and international arena?

2.      What are your specific environmental concerns/policy for the constituency?

In answer to these questions I want you and your party’s views, do not use it to have a bash at the other parties or what others have done wrong. It would be nice to have a positive approach to campaigning.

If you’re struggling for inspiration here are my top ten ideas:

1. Ensure that 80% of SSSI's are in favourable or better condition by 2020
2. Reduce bTB using scientific advice involving the deployment of vaccines and bio security rather than culling.
3. To reduce the risk of flooding invest in the reforestation of headwaters and on unprofitable/nonviable farmland beside rivers create wetlands and reed beds to soak up excess water.
4. Ideally scrap HS2 and if not to ensure that a wildlife corridor at least as wide is created along its length.
5. Seriously examine the reintroduction of certain species such a Lynx and Beaver to act as ecosystem engineers in re wilding projects.
6. Designate all of the 127 marine conservation zones that were proposed.
7. Ensure biodiversity offsetting does not just become 'greenwash'. Regulate to ensure replacements are like for like and that they are protected from further development.
8. Develop a new designation of No-build Zones to stop urban sprawl and the conglomeration of towns and villages.
9. Untie the hands of English Nature, SNH and CCW and Environment Agency to do their job more independently of central government.
10. Lastly and most importantly listen to the scientific advice given by the NGO's and government bodies consulted.

Thank you for your time and I hope your responses will help me to decide which party to vote for.

Yours Sincerely

Feel free to use this as a template to challenge your own candidates.


If like me your undecided then take a moment to consider the environmental factors. Aprils issue of the BBC Wildlife Magazine has an excellent feature on what the parties plan for British Wildlife. I have analysed this information and drawn it up into a table showing what I think this means.

	Conservatives	Green Party	Labour	Liberals	UKIP
Tackling bovine TB	Culling focused with cattle movement restriction and vaccine development.	Stop culling. Use vaccination, cattle testing and cattle movement restrictions.	Stop culling. Use vaccination, cattle testing and cattle movement restrictions.	Allow culls to continue alongside vaccine development.	Doesn’t explicitly state a continuance of culling but does call for vaccination around edge zones.
Controlling Development	No new efforts described just reference to the National Planning Policy Framework.	Opposition to developments damaging Habitats Directive and Ramsar sites. Against Biodiversity Offsetting	More control to local communities but nothing specific on safeguarding wildlife	Proposition of new Nature Act to halt biodiversity declines and impose duty on local authority.	Defend Green Belt and AONB and greater prioritisation of brown field sites.
Neonicotinoid ban	Support	Support	Support	Want to examine science	Only ban after definitive scientific proof
Farming Incentives	£3billion investment in agri-environmental schemes.	Support subsidies  to promote biodiversity and soil health	No definitive policy.	No definitive policy	Introduction of new Single Payment Farm system based on ELS.
Marine Protection	No policy statement just description of what they have done.	Increase Sea Reserves to 30% and end over fishing by 2018 and enforce a deep sea trawling ban.	No policy statement just complaining of government only creating 27 MCZ’s.	Proposition of marine protection in the proposed Nature Act.	Leave the EU to run our own fish stocks outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Hunting Ban	Free vote on repealing the Hunting Act 2004	Extension of the 1911 Protection of Animals Act to include shooting and coursing.	No policy on improving the legislation or expanding it but against a repealing of the act.	No policy.	No policy.
Reintroduction of species	No policy, willing to allow Natural England to manage it.	Support	No policy.	No policy.	Against reintroduction programmes.
Raptor Persecution	No policy but against it.	Policy for every rural police force to have a Wildlife and Animal Crimes Unit.	No policy.	No policy but highlights current action.	No policy other than enforcing existing laws.

Obviously the Green Party have the best policies. Surprisingly UKIP have some good ideas followed by the Liberals. The Conservatives and Labour Party seem to be level pegging, although the refusal to stop the Badger Cull and the free vote on the Hunting Act. The most exciting thing on the whole list to me is the Liberals proposal for a Nature Act. It has been awhile since we have had major nature conservation legislation and this promises to be interesting. Obviously the act needs to have a solid framework and actually have solid laws but its the most promisingics  piece of politics I have heard for a long time.