Skip to content

“Simon Says” – Is growth the main conservation issue?

September 8, 2017

Dogfish © Wikipedia

(Above) A mountain of dogfish on a trawler

Concerned scientists

Recently I was sent an email from the Union of Concerned Scientists offering me the opportunity to sign a petition in the form of a declaration from scientists calling on humanity to curb environmental destruction.  I tend not to sign up to such petitions that have the risk of being either so bland and all-encompassing, or so depressing and negative that they do not gain the support they are seeking.  This declaration was a little different in that it spelt out in very general terms what the problems were, but also provided a raft of solutions.  As a result, though it wasn’t word perfect and rather US-centric, I signed up.  I was one of 7,000 scientists from 135 countries at the time.

Reasons for the lack of progress of humanity becoming more sustainable and less damaging to wildlife are of course well known and include: climate change, fossil fuels, deforestation, agricultural production, and over-consumption, but lying behind this was a common root cause – unceasing economic and population growth.  This has an impact from global systems to Dorset species.

Talking about growth

Too many people on this planet as a whole, and in particular areas, massively increase the pressure on the natural environment causing the damage and problems listed above.  Why then is this wildlife-impacting issue not talked about and more importantly, tackled?  I even wondered whether I should write this, but the impacts in Dorset alone are huge, so I took a chance and took finger to keyboard.

A recent paper in Science (Crist et. al 2017) lists a number of reasons for the lack of focus on this as a primary cause of biodiversity loss: lack of agreement on the scale of the risk; the desperate dependence on the need for continued economic growth which requires an ever-increasing workforce and productivity; increased food production hiding the problem; and concerns that anyone talking about limiting populations may be talking about either eugenics, limiting migration, or taking away human, in particular women’s, rights.  I believe though that we must look at the continued dependence on economic growth and the explosion in our population if we have a hope of reversing the loss of species and habitats, from Patagonia to Purbeck.  Even in comments from reviewers of this article I see this can be a minefield, because care must be taken not to blame developing country populations and economies for what we have been through, that many answers have in the past been deeply flawed especially by undermining human rights, and that misinterpretation of actions needed could lead to, at worst racist views, and at best an insular approach, for example in relation to immigration.  I attempt to confine myself to issues related to wildlife rather than to propose economic and demographic solutions here.  Surely though such issues should be raised even though we don’t have all the answers?

Wildlife and food production

It was thought that populations would be kept in check by limits to food production, but the green revolution has allowed continued expansion.  Sustainable intensification, i.e. the application of culture (in developed and developing countries) appropriate technology may prevent more land being converted to agriculture and limit chemicals used, thus protecting biodiversity.  In Britain and Dorset how will the pace of technological advance in agriculture protect wildlife post-Brexit?  If we are decreasing domestic food production to feed our increasing population, because subsidies decline, then are we just shifting our natural environment impacts abroad?  Ice-free land used for agriculture has reached 40% of the Earth’s surface area.  How much more can we lose?

Dorset housing

In Dorset, housing development is a serious issue as the UK population increased by 538,000 last year to 65.6 million.  Bournemouth and Poole alone require tens of thousands of new homes, yet are limited by sea, heathland and green belt amongst many other things. I live by the sea and as I walk along the cliffs at dusk and see the lights in houses and flats I roughly estimate around two-thirds are second homes and lived in for only a very few weeks per year.  It is not just the physical impact of new housing potentially displacing wildlife that is a concern, but also the impact of many more people on sensitive habitats such as heathlands and boats on sea grass beds.  As economic growth continues the increased demand for energy is also taking land away from food production and wildlife with solar farms and bio-fuel crops becoming more common in our countryside.

The growth-based economic system we currently have requires that an aging population needs younger workers to pay for the older people who have already made their contribution to society.  This forces governments into a cycle of encouraging fertility rate despite having less space to put people and less resources to feed and maintain them.  We need an approach to maintain and enhance the productive capacity of nature to supply us with the services that are vital for our survival, from pollinators to cereal crops and clean water.

Upton Heath walkers © Tony Bates

People walking on Upton Heath, Dorset © Tony Bates, MBE

Tackling the problem

That though leads us to another underlying reason why I believe this has not been tackled.  Improved education, more widespread contraception technology and better reproductive health services are then nature conservation issues, as are the drivers addicted to economic growth.  As a conservationist, I have no competence in these issues and am willing to bet the reverse is the case.  This needs to be solved holistically at a level way above individual silos of competence.  Often, I have facilitated workshops where groups of conservationists are planning how to address conservation challenges.  Often an underlying cause of the challenge to wildlife is some element of economic growth or over-population, e.g. housing and infrastructure development, intensive food production, over-fishing, or visitor disturbance to name just a few.  We always put growth in the ‘too hard’ box and leave it to someone else.  But who?  Also, economic growth in some countries can help population growth rates to fall, but then there needs to be a return to sustainability.

A colleague I gave a draft of this blog to disagreed with most of what I have written here.  His view is that it is how we live rather than how many of us there are, and that sharing wealth around the globe is the best way to reduce family size and defuse the population time-bomb.  Another colleague was worried that this issue would cause readers to draw arrogant or inappropriate conclusions about population control.  That is not my intention with this short, simple article purely aimed at raising the difficult issue of growth impacting biodiversity.  What do you think?  Please send in your thoughts to our Facebook page or Twitter.  These are though only my personal thoughts, not the policy of DWT.

I believe that Dorset, the UK and the world need to develop and implement ways to decrease our economic reliance on growth which in the long run must be unsustainable.  The study of economics and population growth is huge and complex so I don’t have the answers, but evidence does point to growth as a major driver of biodiversity loss.

Further reading

Crist, E., Mora, C. & Engelman, R. (2017). The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection. Science 356, (6355), 260-264.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/260.full

http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/

https://www.populationmatters.org/resources/articles-reports-papers/environment/

Simon Cripps, DWT Chief Executive

Advertisements

“Simon Says” – Stepping Stones

August 1, 2017

Stepping stones

On this small island of ours where the population continues to increase, space is becoming increasingly limited and areas of protection are getting squeezed and isolated.  What would you say if I offered the UK a further 432,964 ha (over 1 million acres) of protected area potentially available to wildlife?  That’s a fifth of the size of Wales, or more than 1.5 times the size of Dorset.  Of course, we would all jump at the chance of getting hold of that much land if it could be wildlife friendly.  In fact, that is what we do have in the form of the 22.7 million gardens in the country.  What an amazing resource.

Of course, many of those gardens will be far from wildlife friendly, but pretty much all of them have a contribution to make, not just in the total area available to nature, but in forming stepping stones for wildlife criss-crossing the country.  In another sense they may also be stepping stones for people to entice them out into their natural environment.

Wildlife gardening is becoming quite a craze because it has so many aspects of interest to so many people.  It provides a beautiful location just out of the back or front door, somewhere to relax or play, exercise in the form of gardening or games, a hobby tending it, and to many the opportunity to get up-close and personal with a wide range of animals and plants.  The health & wellbeing benefits of gardens are well known, let alone the hike in house price.  For the same reason that I admit to liking zoos, I also think a garden helps people to relate to nature by giving them some ownership of the issue and some relevant knowledge.

Whatever your motivation

That, from the people’s perspective, is the point here.  You don’t need to be a knowledgeable entomologist or a budding (pun intended) botanist, able to identify and conjure up the Latin names of various species.  You can enjoy nature for your own reasons: from football with the kids to somewhere to drink a cup of tea in peace.  Whatever you do in your garden, as long as there is some nature, it isn’t important from the wildlife point of view what your motivation is.

For some ‘real’ wildlife gardeners there can be a little snobiness about decking, artificial grass, even outdoor sofas in the garden. Imagine that!  As far as I’m concerned if making the garden into another room of your home helps get someone out and interested in the green bits, then that’s a success, as long as it has something of use to wildlife.  However, like some agricultural land that looks green but is just a huge monoculture, even the prettiest of gardens can be barren because of a lack of the right infrastructure, poor choice of plants and use of chemicals.

DWT has a great wildlife gardening scheme.  The prize-giving element is supported by a premier group of garden centres The Gardens Group.  The number of people on the scheme and getting plaques is spiralling.  So why isn’t everyone on-board?  Recently I attended a talk by gardening writer Kate Bradbury who showed how she made a beautiful and useful wildlife garden out of a 5m2 mess of rubble and ugly terrace. If she can make an oasis for wildlife in the middle of Brighton then we can all do something, whatever our motivation is.

A wildlife garden border © Simon Cripps (Image at top of page: The wildlife garden at the Kingcombe Centre. © Simon Cripps)

So what’s stopping you?

I wonder if what is stopping yet more progress are a number of preconceptions:

  1. I don’t want a scruffy garden.  Wildlife gardens aren’t just the scruffy bits you don’t look after.  They can be filled with a range of beautiful plants that perform tasks such as shelter, pollination or food.  Also, if you do leave anything scruffy you can always blame it on the wildlife.
  2. I don’t have green fingers.  Many wildlife garden plants can be thought of as weeds in another context.  Easier to grow than some exotic prima donnas.  Impress friends and neighbours with the minimum of knowledge.
  3. 3. I don’t have time for gardening. A wildflower mini-meadow only needs cutting twice per year.  More time for a glass of Pino and a good book to the backdrop of tweets and buzzes.
  4. I don’t have space.  Anything can help, from buckets to baskets and the right sort of hedges.  Provide it and they will come.  A foxglove sticking out of a broken watering can makes you look very artistic.
  5. I don’t want the garden covered in vermin such as rats or slugs. Hopefully you will get more mammals such as hedgehogs or foxes – jewels in your crown.  Make sure you leave gaps in your fence for them.  You should get less pests because the ecosystem will be far more balanced.  A sort of miniature Serengeti out of your window.

Making a difference

I like the idea of stepping stones to join up the countryside again.  On a landscape scale we need to be linking nature reserves and protected areas together.  Towns, roads, monoculture agriculture, all help to isolate pockets of wildlife so that they are more at risk of collapse.  Conservationists need to be working far more with different groups of people and different types of land (and sea) to increase connectivity.  For us at DWT that already includes churchyards, schools, businesses, property developers, farmers and road verges.  What have we missed?  Are there more groups that support the natural environment, possibly without even knowing it?

Nature is too important to just be left to conservationists – professional or otherwise.  Nature and our natural environment is something upon which we all depend.  We all need to play a part in its restoration, whatever our motivations might be.  Your garden / yard / business property can all make a huge difference as we become squeezed into less and less place.

If you think your garden is wildlife friendly, why not send us some photos and you could get one of our “Wildlife Friendly Garden” plaques. Read more here.

“Simon Says” – Is Brexit good for the marine environment?

July 6, 2017

pot caught spider crab velvet crab dive picked scallops rod and line caught bass by E Rance

(Above – pot caught spider crab, velvet crab, dive picked scallops and  rod and line caught bass by E Rance)

Gove’s announcement

You will surely have seen the recent announcement by new Environment Minister Michael Gove that as part of the Brexit process the UK will be taking back access to our waters for fishing.  Many commercial fishermen’s groups have been rubbing their hands with glee because this could mean sole access for British fishermen to our waters, unencumbered by EU laws, restrictions and rights.  However, is this a good thing for the health of our seas and therefore for the fishing industry, including here, in Dorset?

As you can imagine this isn’t as simple as kicking foreigners out of our waters so we can fish them ourselves.  There are issues of rights, different agreements and management.  These must be sorted out if we are to move our fisheries onto a more sustainable basis.

The current situation

There are four main legal regimes or agreements which complicate matters.  From 0 – 6 nm (nautical miles) off our shoreline the living marine resources including fish, shellfish and algae (let’s call them fish stocks for short) are exclusively fished by UK fishermen and managed, usually very well, by the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO).  In Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight we have the Southern IFCA.  They were set-up under domestic legislation through the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act.

Our Southern IFCA is particularly effective and, despite limited resources, is doing a sterling job of balancing the socio-economic needs of commercial fishermen with trying to restore and protect the health of the marine environment on which their livelihoods are dependant.  They set-up regulations based on good science and consultations, and are overseen by local ‘boards’ comprised of people from a wide range of groups and interests.  I for example sit on their board.  So far so good for 0 – 6 nm.

From 6 – 12 nm fishing is managed by the MMO.  Access to fish foolish enough to stray further out than 6nm is governed by the 1964 London Convention which allows fishing boats from France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland to fish our waters in return for access for our boats to fishing grounds in other countries.  These countries are estimated to catch about 10,000 tonnes of fish per year.  Issues such as overfishing, bycatch and habitat damage still occur in this zone.  Gove is proposing that we leave this agreement.

From 12 – 200 nm is our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which is in practice rather less than exclusive as it is governed by the once infamous Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).  However, in recent years the CFP has had some success in curbing some of the more damaging excesses of the fishing industry for example by setting catch limits and tackling bycatch.

We should also not forget the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).  It states that countries which share stocks need to collaborate on their conservation.  That is relevant for the UK because many fish species wander around without the slightest regard for national boundaries or Brexit.

(Above – Anchor scars on the seabed at Lyme Bay © Peter Tinsley)

Is Brexit good for the marine environment?

So back to the original question, “is this a good thing for the health of our seas and therefore for the fishing industry?”  If it is to be good for marine conservation and thus for our fishing industry then several things need to be in place.  The CFP has brought order out of chaos, particularly in recent years, and is slowly dragging fisheries back in the direction of sustainability.  Some way to go yet though.  It is extremely important that CFP regulations are translated into domestic legislation post-Brexit.  Regulations that govern: fishing effort (number, size and power of boats); bycatch limits (hopefully catch rather than landing limits); catches (species, size and quantity); and protected areas.  If these aren’t put in place extremely promptly after Brexit and enforcement put into place, such as fisheries protection vessels, then there will likely be a Klondike and our fish populations could be decimated for years to come if not forever.  Many such as bass and cod are teetering on the brink as it is, so we need to use the opportunity of setting up specific, targeted, relevant regulations.  I believe the fishing industry needs to take a long-term view and accept lower, safer, more reliably sustained catches in order that we can build up our populations again rather than fish them to the very limits.  Healthy seas are productive seas.  Brexit provides us with both an opportunity to take our destiny and marine environment into our own hands, but also to damage even what we have if the industry isn’t adequately regulated from day 1.

lobster Julie Hatcher Dorset WTsmaller

(Above – Lobster © Julie Hatcher)

Possible changes

Further, the IFCAs are doing a pretty good job of managing marine resources and the environment.  Their remit could be extended out to 12nm from the current 6nm, as long as they receive sufficient resources to do the job.  Combining this with an extension of the exclusion of large trawlers out from the current 6nm to 12nm could be a useful way forward.

I don’t know the figures, but if we exclude countries from our waters, our fishermen will be excluded from others.  Knowing what an aggressive fishing nation the UK is, that could mean a net loss of income for our industry, but perhaps that will reduce the impact of fishing on other waters and thus improve the environment there.  What will though happen if the big industrial fishing boats of the UK offshore fleet come back to fish in our EEZ?

Looking forward

Brexit could then be good for the marine environment, but only if adequate legislation and good management are introduced here to take over from lost CFP and London Convention regulations.  This is a great opportunity to get our shared marine environment back on a sustainable footing.  Let’s grab that chance and not be side-tracked by political pressure around nationalism and a misunderstanding about what is good for coastal communities.  Sustainability and a healthy marine environment is what we all need.

Kimmeridge Bay by Emma Rance (5)

(Above – Fishing boat in Kimmeridge Bay)

“Simon Says” – Keep calm and carry on from Paris

June 5, 2017

The issue

This month is proving yet another critical time for the planet as the world looked nervously on to see if the USA pulls out of the Paris climate agreement and what will happen when they eventually did.  Few people and almost no reputable scientists, doubt the serious impacts that climate change will have on our environment, nature, society and economies.  Few also doubt that it is a primarily man-made phenomenon.

Even as a scientist myself I think of climate change in pretty emotive terms.  I recently watched a documentary on BBC4 about the Russian space programme.  Nothing to do with climate change.  But seeing pictures, as people were seeing for the first time back in the 1960s, of the vanishingly small, almost two-dimensional strip of fabulous life in an unimaginably large sea of completely inhospitable blackness of space made me, as it has most astronauts, reflect on how we have no choice but to look after our environment.  The Paris Accord, that has been so much in the news lately, is one such step to safeguard our future.

A_colorful_view_of_airglow_layers_at_Earth's_horizon

Figure 1: Life exists in a small sliver of space. 

What is the Paris agreement?

Thrashed out in Paris in 2015, 194 countries agreed to a range of environmental pledges.  This was a landmark agreement, both because of the number of countries adopting the proposals, as well as the extent to which the proposals sought to address climate change.  To achieve their aim of keeping global average temperature rises to below 2°C and preferably below 1.5°C, governments effectively agreed to keep net (i.e. emitted minus removed carbon) emissions at zero. If they could keep to 1.5°C this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.  Ahead of the Paris summit and not to be further negotiated, nations made pledges to limit greenhouse gas emissions covering 90% of all such emissions.  It committed countries to have a plan of action and to take steps to carry out those plans.  Whilst there was a commitment to achieve the targets, they are not legally binding and subject to international sanctions.  These commitments, though a significant step forward, would only limit global warming to 2.7°C this century – still way too high, so they all have to make new pledges and show how they plan to reduce emissions still further.

Heads of delegations at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Figure 2: Heads of delegations at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

When I was working for WWF at the UN in New York we were trying to get tiny commitments to ocean governance to protect ecosystems and fish stocks, but it was incredibly hard to get any changes because every country had a wide range of agendas it had to consider and didn’t want to upset the delicate balance with more or different international agreements.  Confidential deals between countries on issues completely unrelated to ocean management frequently scuppered what we thought was good progress.  So what was achieved at Paris was astonishing and indicated the severity of the situation climate change puts us all in.

Why governments and business should sign up

Governments realised they needed to do something about climate change because every one of the 194 are effected, some with significant economic, social and environmental effects.  Extremes of flooding and drought, such as we see in Dorset, will increase.  Drinking water, even here in Dorset will become scarcer and less reliable.  Fish stocks which we rely on for food will change and move, let alone the loss of coral reefs and the livelihoods that go with them.  Sea levels will rise inundating coastal areas and destroying some island communities. Food crops will change and be more at risk.  Insurance costs will increase, disaster provision needed will be greater, national security threatened. The list goes on and on.

River Frome flooding from Poundbury Fort, Dorchester © Sally Welbourn

Figure 3. The flooded river Frome in 2014 © Sally Welbourn

By making this such a multilateral attempt to reduce carbon emissions this should be less threatening to business.  Industries in different countries are therefore on far more of a level playing field.  Opportunities for access to low carbon technologies and services will be more readily available.  In most cases customer expectations can be met without losing a competitive edge.

The effect of the US pulling out

I believe that President Trump’s announcement to withdraw from the Accord will, at least for the time being, do little to harm our efforts.  As a campaign pledge many of his rank and file voters were holding him to, it isn’t surprising he made the announcement.  In fact The US cannot withdraw from the Accord for a further 3 years (until after the next presidential election), and the Accord was non-binding in any case.  So little will change, especially as so many US cities, states and companies have pledged to stay with the agreement in any case.  In making this announcement he both pleases his voters and does little of substance to change US participation.  The main concern is probably the threat to withdraw US financial support to help developing countries achieve their targets.  It remains to be seen if countries such as China, India, Canada and the EU step in to offer support in place of the US as that would also make good business sense for them.  China leads solar technology for example.

I believe those parts of the US that don’t continue to support climate change mitigation will become isolated and lose their competitive edge in the fast-developing global non-carbon economy.  Corporate evolution will mean they will wither and die.  Those elements that do support the Paris Accord, even in the US, will prosper.

Shareholder power

Can we do anything in Dorset?  I believe there is a lot we can do.  As individuals we can use our buying power to choose carefully what we purchase and from where.  As shareholders and investors we can either only invest in companies that are taking steps to reduce their emissions in line with Paris Accord targets, or use our voting power at AGMs to cause change.  Recently 62% of eligible voters (including the Church of England) required Exxon to assess the risks of climate change.  A great step forward and one that was reflected by the Exxon CEO’s criticism of the US decision.  We must also do our bit, no matter how small on the global scale, to use renewable energy and be as economical and efficient as we can by cutting down our energy consumption.  What is good for the planet is good for our pockets and good for Dorset.

Conclusions

As a conservationist I need to be an optimist. I firmly believe that far from damaging the world’s efforts to combat man-made climate change, the US decision has focussed attention on one, if not THE, most important issue facing our planet today.  It has strengthened resolve and informed or inspired all but the most hardened climate sceptics.  Let’s not panic, but rather stay calm and carry on saving this fabulous planet and county of ours.  After all, it’s all we’ve got.

 

“Simon Says” – Election: Don’t forget the environment

May 3, 2017

Election, what election?

As far as central government is concerned the Wildlife Trusts and our colleagues in other organisations have had our hands full lobbying for environment to be considered in the Brexit process – if not the actual negotiations to leave the EU, then at least in the laws that relate to environment and wildlife that will need to be enacted in British legislation.

On top of all of this comes a snap election which nobody seemed to be expecting.  We all have until the 8th June to listen to the debates, weigh up the promises and policies and then make our decision.  Unlike any election I’ve encountered before, election fever doesn’t seem to be the top news item on many days.  Reporting seems to centre on the personalities of the main protagonists rather than their policies.  Perhaps the public are tired of politics and politicians.

That though is a dangerous position to be in for our natural environment.  Well down the pecking-order long after healthcare, taxes and the economy, we always have to fight for a voice for wildlife.  Is the election a challenging distraction from the real business of ensuring Britain retains its environmental regulations?  Hopefully not.  The election gives us more of an open door with candidates who have to be nice to their constituents and appear to be listening – at least up until polling day.  We need therefore to make the most of this opportunity – within the bounds of lobbying regulations of course.

 Palace_of_Westminster,_London_-_Feb_2007

          Sunset for EU regulations?  Above, Westminster, London.

A Greener UK

To that aim the 13 major environmental organisations* in the country, with a combined membership of nearly 8 million people, have come together to agree a common set of principles and policies and a joint approach towards government.  This is a powerful approach to present a united front, common messages and a unified strategy.  The website under a unified banner of Greener UK is well worth a visit: http://greeneruk.org/resources/Greener_UK_Manifesto.pdf .  In particular they have come up with some simple, understandable messages around farming and land use, fisheries, climate change and legislation.

Now is the time to get these messages across to our parliamentary candidates.  To do this in the south-west, the 7 SW Wildlife Trusts, including of course Dorset have teamed up with primarily RSPB and the National Trust to take a joint approach to lobbying candidates.  With your help we need to be saying’ “Don’t forget the environment.”

fdfda

Getting it wrong

If you want to look at a country which has forgotten the environment and is getting it all wrong look no further than the US, where federal pollution regulations are being rewritten or not enforced, funding for national parks is under threat, protections for publicly-owned lands are being weakened, and webpages related to climate change are being removed from government agency websites.  Such a shame when the US has been such a leader in the past.  This serves as a warning that even the best of laws and regulations are never permanent, and vigilance is always warranted.  As the Great Repeal Bill is passed withdrawing us from EU legislation, new laws will be needed, replacing them with British domestic regulations.  Whilst civil servants will be very busy with these replacements there is an understandable wish by government to use the opportunity to review them and make them more fit for purpose.  Our concern is that environmental legislation which can be (wrongly) seen as a limitation to economic development, might be left off the statute books or weakened.

When I was young, before we joined the EU and its environmental standards, I remember, even at that tender age, how polluted the UK was.  I remember swimming off the beach in Poole as sizeable fragments of sewage floated past.  I remember the layers of thick oil there was stratified in the sands of that same beach as I dug to make sandcastles.  I also remember how dirty and polluted the air was in London when we travelled there for school trips.  You had to wash it off your skin and clothes when you returned home.  Those are just memories of pollution.  Add to that the value of the EU for the stewardship of the countryside, the protection of key species, and the establishment of protected areas on land and at sea, so important for our health and wellbeing.  The list goes on.

S. Winterbourne before © Sarah Williams

South Winterbourne new channel © Sarah Williams

(Above) South Winterbourne Channel before and after conservation work.  Who doesn’t want cleaner rivers, more otters and drinking water?  (Photos Sarah Williams)

A vote for nature is a vote for you

Whether you like the EU and believe we should be a part of it or not, there is little doubt that the standards that have been applied have been hugely beneficial to wildlife, nature and our own health.  Of course they haven’t been perfect as we are still seeing a decline in wildlife and natural places, but Brexit gives us an opportunity to build on this and make our country an even more healthy, productive and enjoyable place to live in.

We need our next intake of politicians to realise this and ensure that environment is considered important, that they don’t think of it as a barrier to economic development, and that they ensure our living standards are maintained with new domestic environmental legislation that protects our way of life and our nature.  To that end we will be asking candidates of the main parties what their view of environment is.  We will publish their responses for you to read.  You can then make up your minds and may also feel inclined to follow-up yourselves by contacting them.  We will not of course be suggesting which way you should vote.

Now is an important crossroads for wildlife, nature and the wider environment.  We need to stand up and be counted and ensure our political leaders know how important environment is for our prosperity and wellbeing, let alone that of wildlife.  Support us in the Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and National Trust in particular to safeguard standards as we leave the EU, and ensure we have strong food, fisheries and farming strategies for the next decade.

* Campaign for Better Transport, ClientEarth, Campaign to Protect Rural England, E3G, Friends of the Earth, Green Alliance, Greenpeace, National Trust, RSPB, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust and WWF.

“Simon Says” – The failures to turn around climate change

March 31, 2017

Europe’s biggest glacier

During a rest day on a skiing holiday to Chamonix in France this spring my family and I visited the famous glacier at the back of Mont Blanc – the Mer de Glace (sea of ice).  To get to it you travel up the mountain-side in a rack-and-pinion railway.  Once there you are blessed with panoramic views of France’s biggest glacier.  To continue down to the surface of the glacier you descend from the train station by cable-car built in the 1960s.  Imagine my surprise to learn that to get to the glacier itself you have to descend (and then climb on your return) 430 further steps down a hundred or so metres.  How incompetent of the engineers to build a cable car that stopped so far short of its destination.Mer du glass 1

As I climbed down all those steps it soon became evident it was not the engineers who were incompetent.  At regular intervals, I passed signs that indicated the height of the glacier during different years.  Even since I lived in the area 10 years ago there has been a huge retreat in the length and height of this fabulous feature.  From glacier looking up

The 1990 sign, just a quarter of a century ago, was a great height above the current glacier level (note the size of the people walking on the glacier).

In my lifetime this imposing, fabulous natural wonder has become a shadow of its former self.  The reason of course is climate change.  Never before have I seen climate change at such a personal, visceral level and it is pretty shocking. Glacier steps 1990 level

Backsliding on climate

This started me thinking about why we aren’t making more progress with combatting climate change.  We have known about the concept for several decades.  Science has, in recent years, been amassing more and more evidence that the cause is man-made – by burning fossil fuels at a hugely faster rate than they were originally laid down.  This “inconvenient truth” is therefore beyond reasonable doubt, as is the likely damaging effects on nature, our environment, people’s health and business.  The Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015) agreements marked important steps to protecting our planet and our own place within it. Since then though there has been considerable backsliding to the point where a US Republican government is actively rolling back Obama’s climate change actions.  In our own country, development funding is being hurled at projects with only the scantest of regards for climate change mitigation (reducing emissions).  Where climate or carbon footprints are actually mentioned, they tend to be entangled in cost savings for business rather than emissions reduction.

Why are we failing?

I have a, perhaps controversial, theory as to why we are losing ground, and it goes like this.  Reducing our carbon footprint so that climate change impacts are reduced permeates all aspects of our modern life.  We use energy or resources, which also consume energy, in almost everything we do.  Therefore if we are to make significant, meaningful changes to our carbon use that will bring global temperature changes below the desired 1.5°C change, we have to make significant, meaningful changes to the way we go about our lives and our businesses.

This is where I believe at least one problem arises.  Climate campaigners have in the past been too worthy and too aggressive.  Not all of course, but during recent years people and businesses have been made to feel increasingly guilty for living their lives.  Now admittedly most of us live well outside of anything that could be considered sustainable.  There is then no arguing with the need for us and our businesses to greatly reduce our carbon footprints in as many ways as possible, but I believe the climate campaigning has been too harassing and unrealistic.  If a goal appears unachievable then people give up.  Worse still, as we are currently seeing, business and some governments seek other theories and may even work to undermine climate change mitigation.  Environmentalism gets a bad name if it becomes too strident and this can cause the sort of backlash we are seeing at the moment.

4175525_0027f308

Working with climate not against it

We need a balanced and reasoned approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation just as we do for so many other environmental issues.  We must find ever more innovative ways for working with communities and business rather than just campaigning against them.  The same end needs to be achieved, but we have a better chance of success if we look for overlapping aims and priorities.

Not all of this is bad because carbon emissions are inexorably linked to efficiency, which in turn is linked to cost savings.  Climate change mitigation is the smart commercial thing to do because it makes your company more efficient and competitive.  Working, as now to make available measures of success in reducing our carbon footprints and technology to do so, such as greater access to renewable energy and reductions in waste, is the way forward, not purely strident, guilt-laden criticism.

Playing nice won’t always get us there

The key is to provide the right incentives and disincentives to push industry and commerce in the right direction. In the case of market failure, where the invisible hand of the market fails to provide and protect public goods, such as a stable climate and oceans, there is still a need for government and the public to push it in the right direction. Much of it will be collaborative, but where the costs to specific industries (i.e. fossil fuel industries, transportation) and the profits being made, are too high, playing nice won’t get us there. The measures will have to be more drastic.  We the public can therefore make small individual contributions to reducing our own emissions, but the real power of working with individuals is harnessing public demand for change in industry so that they want to pursue the benefits of a more sustainable approach.

That French glacier may only be a highly visible symptom of the problem, but we must ensure we hand on glaciers to our children.  I don’t want to lose them on my shift.

DWT Chief Executive, Simon Cripps.

Photos (in order):

  • France’s Mer de Glace glacier © Simon Cripps
  • View from the glacier © Simon Cripps
  • Height of the glacier in 1990 © Simon Cripps
  • Climate change demonstration

 

“Simon Says” – Junk food

March 1, 2017

Something fishy

The tipper truck drove down the dirt track to a pretty typical municipal dump.  This one was in New Zealand.  As usual it reversed up to the edge of the ever increasing pile of waste and started to raise its huge carrier.  Immediately the seagulls got excited as the red waste started to slide out of the rear.  They moved in for scraps, but this time it was a Klondike for gulls.  Tonne upon tonne of fresh prime fish, thousands in number, slithered onto the dump site.  This was a sight that has stayed with me for years.  Not just because this was a wicked waste of limited natural resources, but worse than that it was a species of fish called orange roughy which can live for 150 years.  What had happened was a trawler had completely fished out a seamount in the Indian Ocean, taken the catch home, but had been unable to find a market.  The seamount may never be repopulated.  A shocking depletion of a natural resource that ended up as waste.

orange-roughy-2

At the other end of the scale, we’ve all been guilty of throwing out food that is probably good but past its sell by date.  There are similar, if not so harrowing, stories of food waste from developed countries around the world – tomatoes, carrots, milk, the list goes on.  We’ve all seen farmers in front of piles of carrots too ugly to sell, or skips behind supermarkets filled with fine food a millisecond out of date.

Massive quantities

The quantities of food wasted are shocking:  40% of all food in the US, and 88 million tonnes per year in the EU worth 143 billion euros.  The UK is at the top of waste dump in the EU with 15 million tonnes of food wasted per year, 7.3 million tonnes  of which going to landfill.  The social implications of this huge waste are well publicised: 8.4 million UK families struggle to put food on the table, and we pay the higher prices that this waste maintains.  There is a strong correlation between income and waste with poorer households letting less go to waste.

But what about the environment?

The impacts on our environment are less publicised but are profound in Dorset and across the world.  Perhaps most obviously there is the waste of land that this causes.  Worldwide about one-third of farm land area is used to grow food that is wasted. Within Dorset that average may well be different, but the principle is the same.  A huge amount of land that could be used for nature and wildlife, either in whole blocks, or within current farming systems, has been lost because of the over-production necessitated by food waste.

dsc02049

Then there’s the resources that go into food production that are also wasted.  It takes about 15,400 litres of water to produce 1 kg of beef and 1,600 litres to produce just 1 kg of bread.  Unbelievable!  Worldwide some boffin has estimated that 550 billion cubic metres of water are wasted on crops we never eat.  In this time of ever decreasing water resources at home and abroad, this has to be reduced.  Food that goes to landfill is not only a serious waste of a diminishing landfill resource especially in the UK, but is also a major climate change driver.  The lack of oxygen in a landfill causes gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and the greenhouse gas methane.  We have to do all we can to reduce such gases.  Think also of the energy that goes into food that is wasted in the form of fuel for tractors, electricity etc.

harvesting_maize_-_geograph-org-uk_-_589410

From compost heaps to mashed potatoes

The solutions are well documented but hard to achieve.  They need to be at all stages in the food chain from production on the farm, through retail, to disposal.  The French government banned supermarkets from destroying unsold food, obliging them to give it to charities or for other uses such as animal feed.  We have a lot more work to do to accept produce that does not look perfect.  Why waste a mountain of carrots because they aren’t a standard shape?  Many Councils including Dorset (9,300 tonnes per quarter) and Bournemouth (8.4 tonnes per day) separately collect food waste and Poole collects garden waste only, all of which greatly reduces the quantity of landfill, but that isn’t the norm in England, though it is in Wales which has a far better record.

I feel in Dorset and the UK, perhaps controversially, that this is a symptom that we don’t value or pay enough for food which does not reflect the environmental cost of production.  Farmers need to be better rewarded for their work and some of that reward passed on to protect the health of the environment from which the food is derived.  Conversely I don’t have much sympathy for a farmer stood in front of a huge pile of root vegetables to be wasted because they are the wrong shape.  We all have to get better at innovating and using other products such as diced or mashed veg, thus also value-adding the product.

Let’s beat this

Wasted food is a social, economic and environmental scourge of our modern society.  In these days of spiralling populations, greater competition for land, wildlife being squashed to the margins, and an ever more noticeably changing climate, this is one issue with big impacts for conservation that we all as individuals can do something about.

By DWT Chief Executive, Simon Cripps.

Top photo – Orange roughy being dumped in New Zealand; middle photo – the Gussage stream (© DWT) surrounded with fields in Dorset; bottom photo – maize being harvested.