Get Green Issues posts delivered to your desktop How does this work? » More WLT news feeds »

John Burton, CEO of the World Land Trust. Read John's biography

Green Issues

A weekly column on current issues by John A Burton of the World Land Trust. The views expressed are personal, and do not necessarily reflect those of the WLT. Feedback and comments are welcomed.

This page shows the most recent Green Issues posts, or a selection of posts in the same category. To read older posts, use the Green Issues archive in the navigation bar on this page. The newest posts can always be found at www.worldlandtrust.org/news/blog.htm.

Posts on this page:

The World Land Trust builds on success

Friday, August 22, 2008

By June this year, the WLT had already raised over £1 ($2) million in the UK alone, and is all set to at least double its 2007 income. And this is good news, as the increase in income is not matched by an increase in fundraising expenditure. This means that even more of the income goes to projects, and in particular buying land.

The downside is that land prices are escalating almost everywhere. As the world's population increases day by day, and there is a demand for more and more food, even marginal lands are being gobbled up. The WLT recognises that land often has even more important values -- water catchment, for one -- and that we must not allow short-term profits erode the world's natural heritage.

That's why the world Land Trust's approach to saving land has been so important. In the 20 years since we were founded (initially to support Programme for Belize) we have seen more and more organisations follow us. When we started, hardly any NGOs were funding land purchase internationally. Now its a veritable bandwagon, on which everyone wants to ride. And that has to be a good thing. But as as our partners know, there are significant differences in the way we operate, and we believe that the long term success of our projects is largely due to the strength of our partners. Fundacion Patagonia Natural, REGUA, Fundacion Jocotoco, Philippines Reef and Rainforest, Ecominga, Guyra Paraguay, and the Wildlife Trust of India are just a few of our project partners. But our partners are not just a group we give money to. We have long-lasting well-developed working relationships with them. I have just spent a 5 week sabbatical in Paraguay, and for the next three months a member of the Guyra Paraguay team will be working in the WLT Office, to ensure that we work closely together for the long-term success of conservation in Paraguay.

But all this needs funding, land is disappearing under the axe and the plough. So please make a regular commitment to the WLT The price of a bottle of wine a month is enough to save the area of a small vineyard every year!

Labels: General Conservation/Charity Issues

Posted by John Friday, August 22, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

chiffchaffs and Spaniards

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Biologists are currently going through a phase of species 'splitting'. That is to say that what were once considered variable, widespread species are now being split into two or more species. Little green warblers in Europe, lots of marmosets and monkeys in South America and numerous other species all over the world are suddenly being created. But some of the differences are so small that I wonder if these splits are justified. If an Iberian Chiffchaff has a slight difference in song, and some very minor plumage differences to those found in England does it really make it a different species? After all Spaniards sound different to Englishmen, sing different songs, and on average look darker. But they are certainly not a different species. They can (and often do) interbreed with English women. And so, I suspect, could the Iberian Chiffchaffs, interbreed with English ones, given a chance. Just like their human counterparts, language differences may make it difficult, but not impossible

In terms of taxonomy, it makes relatively little difference whether or not they are considered geographical races (subspecies) or allopatric species. It does however, have a conservation benefit, in as much as it can highlight declines more accurately, and it probably has increased the number of endangered species being identified. But is this a good thing? Or is it misleading? Answers please......

Labels: Endangered Species

Posted by John Wednesday, August 20, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Fuel and food myths

Monday, July 28, 2008

There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.

Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.

I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.

What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.

I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.

Labels: Energy and Renewable Energy Resources, Human Population Crisis, Miscellaneous

Posted by John Monday, July 28, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Should we call for an end to aid in Africa?

Thursday, July 10, 2008

I have written about the problems of foreign aid on many occasions, and am going to develop the theme I first put forward on 28/06/07. Does aid wipe out poverty? Thinking about it, raised another question in my mind. Does aid actually encourage poverty? I don't know the answer, and would welcome feedback, particularly from the agencies which promote it. But surely if aid agencies pump in millions of dollars worth of aid into a country, they are really taking away the responsibility for carrying out those vital humanitarian actions from the government of the country concerned. Many of the recipient countries have significant natural resources

Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military

According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actaully a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.

And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmacutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).

There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.

These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.

It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?

I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokeperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropcentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grndiose western-inspired 'development' schems, or worst of all, armaments.

Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.

And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should eveidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.

Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.

Labels: Human Population Crisis, International Aid, Problems Wildlife Faces in a Man-Made World

Posted by John Thursday, July 10, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Who is certifying the certifiers?

Monday, June 30, 2008

Guest blog by the World Land Trust's Special Projects Consultant, Mark Gruin

A recent article on the BBC News website (Carbon standard 'to renew trust') described a new Carbon Standard certification scheme launched by the Carbon Trust. While interesting, and arguably newsworthy, this news is more than a little frustrating and disconcerting. I have a basic mistrust of certification schemes, especially ones like this that make sweeping statements like this one that smear with a very broad brush, "...the new benchmark was in response to the public's growing mistrust of companies' claims to be cutting their greenhouse gas emissions."

The underlying motivation could be seen as noble, if it was not so limiting and frankly, blatantly self-serving. This new scheme specifically eliminates from ranking consideration companies that use a 'third party' to offset emissions on their behalf, in a supposed attempt to claim that only on in-house measures to reduce a company's emissions are worth certifying. (In the interest of full disclosure -- World Land Trust (WLT) does provide 'third party' offsets to businesses, but only if the company agrees to also pursue in-house emissions reduction programmes. www.carbonbalanced.org)

Mind you, making the effort to reduce emissions and putting in place systems to measure and account for the emissions reduction efforts is certainly a good thing. But why eliminate from consideration other sound and proven approaches? And, by not considering for this scheme companies that use a 'third party' - like WLT - to offset emissions on their behalf Carbon Trust could be seen to be aiming sideways criticism at not only those companies who do, but the providers as well.

What gnaws at me most is that the 'certifiers' often introduce schemes like this to try and scramble their way back into the picture. The field of emissions offsetting is maturing rapidly, is eminently verifiable, and recognised and both scientifically sound and beneficial. Furthermore, and this is always the icing on the cake, when the 'certifiers' start charging exorbitant prices just for the privilege of being certified that's where, in my mind, they really cross the line. It's bad enough that a small company, with annual energy expenditure of less than £50k, would need to spend £1,000 to submit an assessment form to be considered for certification; why would they have to, or want to pay an additional £700 to have Carbon Trust 'assist' them in completing the certification materials, then be evaluated by that same Carbon Trust to see if they met the standards? To be fully legitimate and transparent, certification should be prepared and submitted independent from the evaluator and grantor of the certification. How much faith in the standard is generated if the certifier is assisting in the preparation of the application, and is being paid to do so? That money could be much better spent applied to initiatives that prevent even more CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.

Eliminating from consideration for this 'Standard' companies that pursue dedicated in-house programmes to reduce their emissions and choose to offset their emissions with legitimate initiatives that provide credits for reforestation, assisted natural regeneration and avoided deforestation is at best counter-productive. Take for example Nikwax, one of WLT's carbon balanced companies: they do a stringent internal carbon reduction assessment and action plan, they offset their calculated current emissions with WLT, and they match that offset in order to offset what they've emitted 10 years back. Isn't this not only a sound approach, but one that seeks to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions by any legitimate means possible? Why should they be discounted from consideration, and not be properly recognised for their efforts and their leadership? Even worse, why remove the motivation to not only reduce but mitigate?

Certainly, businesses and consumers want to know that claims about emissions offsetting are valid. But they are not stupid, and should not be patronised or mislead by yet another supposedly authoritative certification standard. The information is out there, the public and the media are watching closely, and they are making their own informed decisions. (See Which? Magazine's April 2008 issue, highlighted on WLT's website.)

Maybe we should be asking who is certifying the certifiers, but we would rather spend our energy getting on with the hard work of providing legitimate and verifiable offsets that also benefit biodiversity conservation.

Labels: Climate Change and Carbon

Posted by Helena Akerlund Monday, June 30, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Oil Price hike great for conservation?

Monday, June 23, 2008

With world leaders trying to bring down the price of oil, one thing seems to have been overlooked. The dramatic rise is probably the best thing that could have happened for the planet.

It is surely the swiftest way of curtailing the profligate use of energy. And in any case the high price of petrol is not actually related to the high price of a barrel of oil (at least in the UK,) it is largely related to the tax that is placed on it. It seems bizarre that the UK and other governments are trying to get everyone to reduce their dependence on a carbon economy, to reduce emissions, but as soon as a simple way of doing it comes along they cry "Foul." Not only does a hike in oil prices reduce demand for petrol etc, it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on a whole range of consumer products. So all in all, surely for the sake of the future of the planet, we should be welcoming a dramatic rise in oil prices, and hope for further increases. Or have I got something wrong?

Labels: Climate Change and Carbon, Energy and Renewable Energy Resources

Posted by John Monday, June 23, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (3) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

More awards. Greenwash?

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

We have just been sent an invitation to apply for a Green Award. Of course, any one who reads my blog will have a fair idea of my reaction. Go to the website and see just how green the event itself is! http://www.greenawards.co.uk/awards_night/the_venue

So why on earth would any green organisation want to enter such a competition? And why would any seriously green organisation want to pay £75 for the privilege of entering in the first place, and then go to the expense of paying to go to the Dinner?

Answers on a postcard, or by email

Labels: General Conservation/Charity Issues

Posted by John Tuesday, June 17, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (2) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

The Menace of the Cat

Thursday, June 05, 2008

The Menace of the Cat is the title of a leaflet I purchased on ebay recently, with a couple of other items all dating from 1922 and earlier. And it is an issue that has not gone away. My ebay purchases were all published in the USA, and despite all the evidence of the enormous damage that domestic and feral cats cause to wildlife, in almost all parts of the world, they are still allowed to roam free. In 1922 it was estimated that cats, in New York State alone, were responsible for killing at least 3.5 million birds, mostly songbirds.

These early pamphlets were all advocating licencing of cats, as a way of controlling their numbers. In fact, the spread of rabies has helped control cats in many parts of the US, as cat owners don't want their pets to come into contact with wild possums, raccoons and other species. But in Britain cats are probably more abundant than they have ever been. And almost every cat owner will defend their darling moggies claiming either 'They don't kill birds' or 'They only kill the occasional bird'

But even with a low estimate of the number of cats in Britain, of 10 million, back in 2003, the Mammal Society estimated that cats killed around 300 million mammals and birds a year. Another point to bear in mind is that cats often kill birds when they are at their most vulnerable -- when feeding young, and gathering food for nestlings. And cats do not always kill for food. They are often well fed, with cat food (another subject for the environmentally conscious), and consequently will kill to excess.

But it is a political hot potato, and I can't see the RSPB taking up the cudgels and lobbying for cat licensing, or a ban on cats roaming freely. Nor BirdLife International. The American Bird Conservancy, is one of the few major bird organisations that has really stood up and put its head above the parapet.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/

But unlike many of the other ways that wildlife is under attack, free roaming cats are something we could bring a halt to. Once upon a time dogs roamed the streets of England -- in my childhood I remember them being let out of an evening in suburban London -- and that is now a thing of the past. Time the same happened to cats?

Labels: Local Wildlife Issues and Gardening, Problems Wildlife Faces in a Man-Made World

Posted by John Thursday, June 05, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends