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:

How to stop overfishing

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

I read a short item in The Ecologist this month (October issue) about Greenpeace dumping 3 tonne blocks of granite in the German North Sea to foul the fishing tackle of bottom trawlers. It struck me as a very neat way of enforcing fishing controls, and one that governments could do well to endorse. Dumping large objects in the sea could be a very simple way of enforcing no fishing zones -- at least as far as the highly destructive bottom trawlers are concerned. It reminds me of the proposal to decontaminate the decommissioned North Sea oil platforms, and sink them. This would have been far cheaper for the oil companies than towing them back to land for dismantling, but was unfortunately opposed by Greenpeace and other environmentalists at the time.

Labels: International Conservation Issues, Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, September 30, 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

New Naturalists

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

The Collins New Naturalist series has in recent years been the subject of a hyper inflationary price rise. Collectors have been snapping them up, and there has appeared a group of obsessive collectors, who must have first editions, complete with mint dust wrappers. Now to a naturalist such as myself, this is plain daft. In some cases the second editions are of course more use, because any typos and other errors have been dealt with. And a dust wrapper (very attractive in the case of most New Nat's) is only a piece of easily reproduced paper. In fact I am sure there are a significant number of fakes floating around, since modern photocopies make it very easy, and there are plenty of suckers who will pay a huge premium for one of the rarer volumes if it has a near mint dust-wrapper. And one of the rarer volumes is also the one on Ants, which was actually withdrawn by the publishers (making it rare). Therefore, it is a collectors market, not a naturalists demand that has pushed the prices up. So it was with great delight I noticed that the market appears to be becoming saturated, and confidence is declining. One can now go on to eBay and buy many of the titles at significantly less than their apparent "market value". And even at these greatly reduced prices, they are not actually selling -- perhaps because the dealers are not snapping them up any more. This can only be a good thing for the book buying naturalists. The New Naturalist books are without question some of the finest publications available, but they need to be used. Not put in some collectors cabinet to form a set.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, June 03, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

A bit more on awards

Friday, April 25, 2008

This is the time of the year when the nominations for charity awards are trawled. I have already had a gripe about the charity awards (see UK Charity Awards 2007 and Ripping off Charities with awards?) and that moan got quite a lot of positive feedback, from a wide range of sources, not just on the WLT website, but was picked up on other sites.

Coincidentally with this years Charity Awards, I also got notification of the Annual Whitley Awards for Conservation. Now I am considerably more ambivalent about these awards -- not surprisingly because anything that helps conserve wildlife must, per se, be a good thing. However, even here I do have serious reservations. The awards are given to individuals, on the grounds that charismatic leaders are what really move conservation forward. But is this true? In the short term, it probably is true, but in the long term, I think it is certainly rarely so, except in the case of world shattering leaders. Clearly people like Sir David Attenborough, Sir Peter Scott, Aldo Leopold, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, Jacques Cousteau -- to name but a few -- had massive and long-lasting impacts. But they certainly didn't need awards to tell them or the rest of the world so. But when I look at the list of the winners of the Whitley Awards, past and present, it is a pretty random selection.

Unfortunately awards will also always tend to operate under Darwinian rules of 'natural selection', in that those with access to publicity media will come to the forefront, those with big egos will float to the top, and those who cultivate a wide network of contacts will gravitate to the centre.

Now I have supported applicants to the Whitley Awards in the past, and will no doubt do so in the future -- there's cash in it for conservation. But giving the prize to individuals simply feeds the all pervasive cult of the celeb'. We have already seen wildlife films debased by gung-ho figures such as Steve Irwin. And the argument is that it brings it to a wider audience - am not particularly anti even those presentations. And last summer a string of 'celebs' were flown around the world for the BBC's Saving Planet Earth series, again, justified on the grounds that it brought the issues to a wider audience. But is this all worth the sell-out? I am not taking a particular stance, but I do have concerns. Inside knowledge is potentially a dangerous thing -- I know many of the persons involved at all levels -- from selections committees to winners. And I know that a few of the winners represent totally unsustainable projects, that are dependent on one or two individuals. But does this negate the benefits of such awards?

Who thinks what?

Labels: General Conservation/Charity Issues, Miscellaneous

Posted by John Friday, April 25, 2008
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Putting the Con in Conservation.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Marwell Zoo, in Hampshire England, is the most recent in a long line of perpetrators of a myth.

A folder used by their Markettng and Education Departments, is beautifully produced, and contains the following quotation:

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from great loneliness of spirit, for whatever happens to the beast also happens to man." Chief Seattle, 1855.

As anyone who knows anything about North American Indians, this is one of the great 20th century frauds. The speech was actually written by a scripwriter who worked for Disney, in the 1950s. There never was a "Chief Seattle". But it sounds plausible, perpetrates the myth of the noble savage, and Friends of the Earth are also among the numerous conservation bodies who have been conned by it.

If you don't believe me, try typing "Chief Seattle fraud" into google.....

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Saturday, December 01, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (3) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Green Consumerism -- an oxymoron

Thursday, August 09, 2007

I get pretty fed up with the sort of environmentalist who thinks that switching of a light bulb or two is going to save the planet. While I do agree that the individual could do a lot more to make the world a better place, unfortunately the real action has to come from higher up the food chain. Switching off a light bulb is where I started, so I will carry on. All over the world, visible from outer space, lights are illuminating the night sky. Flying anywhere in the world, from 40,000 feet above the earth, street lights are visible. Thousands of megawatts of energy are pumped into the night sky. And if we aren't worried about this enormous waste of energy, then we should worry about the impact on biodiversity.

Fifty years ago, I remember moths and other night-flying insects being a real problem if a window was left open at night in suburban London where I grew up. Insects flew around street lights, which were generally switched off around midnight.

Now there are tens of thousands more street lights, every little village seems to have them, and intercity motorways even have them, and they burn continuously throughout the hours of darkness. Why? After about midnight, in most places there are few if any pedestrians. Is it a primeval fear of darkness asserting itself in the 21st century? Is it really so dangerous to walk in darkness? Is the world so much more dangerous than it was in 1890?

There has been a huge amount published about the effects of street lighting on wildlife, and I have blogged about it before. My point here is that we should all be doing more to force government, at every level from the parish, city, borough, district, county, state, national level -- wherever appropriate -- to tackle the real issues. A 10p tax on plastic bags; realistic public transport fares, that don't simply encourage pointless journeys, penalise retailers that encourage overpackaging (why is it that organic food is among the most overpackaged, and often comes with airmiles as well?).

Then we should tackle green consumerism. An oxymoron if ever there was one.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, August 09, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (5) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Sir David Attenborough in Netherlands

Monday, August 06, 2007

James Randi, the indeftigable exposer of fakers and frauds has an excellent website, and a supporter of the WLT in Belgium, brough to my attentions an article about Sir David Attenborough.

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-08/080307conjuror.html

I cannot believe that Sir David will be very pleased, and the BBC are currently investigating.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Monday, August 06, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (2) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Waste and more waste

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Our IT consultants (locally produced), sent me this:



We have been told it is illegal for us to take cardboard etc to the local tip for recycling (at our expense) as it is trade waste.

Thinking that we would like to continue being environmentally friendly, I rang Suffolk coastal and asked if we could have a trade waste bin for rubbish and another one for cardboard recycling. They say that we they won't do this and we will have to put our cardboard in with our general rubbish

You would have thought rather than wasting time on putting hundreds of bins on the street they would concentrate on businesses that generate far more recyclable rubbish!

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, July 19, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Our new web site

Thursday, July 05, 2007

We need feed back.

The new donations pages appears to be giving donors a lot of problems. In our quest to make things simpler, we appear to have made donating more complex.

So feedback please. Part of the problem appears to involve the need to register -- but this is a process common to most shopping sites. But if anyone dwelling in cyberspace has ideas of how we could simplify our donation process, please let us know. And conversely, if anyone likes the new donation pages, let us know as well.

We always try to be responsive, and listen to our supporters needs. But to do this we need feedback. So over to you, in the big blue yonder.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, July 05, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

The Rape of East Anglia

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The weekend before last was one of glorious sunshine, with evenings almost as warm as June. But I and thousands of others could not really totally enjoy it without resorting to drugs.

This is because East Anglia (and many other parts of the UK for all I know) is awash with oilseed rape. And this gives me severe respiratory problesms, as I am a chronic hayfever sufferer. So I have to take expensive, prescription drugs. So what is the real cost of this subsidised crop?

The Government is encouraging and subsidising farmers to grow huge quantities, in order to promote 'renewable' sources of energy -- biodiesel. But what are the true energy costs of growing and processing oilseed rape? The huge quantities of pesticides, and herbicides associated with growing the vast monocultures that now sweep across the landscape. The loss of biodiversity, already reduced to less than that of a supermerket car park; both are relatively easy to measure. And should be.

But what are the health costs? And is it right that I, and thousands of others, should have to resort to taking drugs, in order to be able to carry out a normal day's work, so that agri-business can ruin even more of the countryside?

It is claimed that rape does not actually cause hayfever, but only affects those with multiple sensitivity. Like me. But whereas normally I suffer from hayfever in a relatively mild form, come the season of the rape flowering, I am suffering from breathing difficulties and streaming eyes, and have to dose myself with steroids in order to work.

I have seen papers demonstrating that biofuels, such as biodiesel from rape, are energy efficient -- but these never take into account the fact that in order to grow them, land has to be taken out of food production, and that the food then has to be produced in other parts of the world and imported, with all the associated energy costs.

Any other thoughts?

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, May 15, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (6) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

What have Jam doughnuts, Global Warming and Tourists got in Common?

Thursday, March 22, 2007

"Ich bin ein Berliner" was famously said by President Kennedy during the cold War, while visiting the then divided city. Which of course really meant he identified with the people of Berlin. But was much the same as saying "I am a sausage" (Frankfurter) or "I'm a Big Mac" (Hamburger). Because to a German, a Berliner is also a jam doughnut. Tricky thing language, you have to be so careful with these fine nuances.

IUCN -- the International Union for Conservation of Nature is, as its name suggests international, and works in many languages. Always a problem. And no doubt some of these problems arise from the fact that many people are not working in their first language. And this does give rise to some humour. I recently received a CD entitled "Climate Change Resource Kit". Innocuous enough, though not too clear what it was for. But the sub-text made it quite clear it was an "Information pack for planners and practitioners of Climate Change". Ho, ho, ho. For those of you reading this who are not native English speakers, I should explain that this implies it is aimed at people intending to make climate change happen, and those who are actually making it happen. An even more entertaining title was "Hunting Tourists in Tanzania"; a title which came to mind when our web manager brought back the attached snap from Barcelona last week.



Makes a change from my usual rants.....

But there is a more serious aspect to getting language absolutely correct. Anyone who is familiar with the history of CITES will know the problems of the translations of "bred in captivity", which was translated into the equivalent of "raised in captivity" in the French version (elevé) -- this had profound effects on the interpretation as to whether or not turtle eggs could be gathered in the wild.

Labels: General Conservation/Charity Issues, Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, March 22, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Why force democracy on the world?

Thursday, March 08, 2007

It is not normal for wildlife conservationists to get involved in politics, but deep down, many of us are probably actually highly political. Of course there are the green politicians, but even these often have widely diverging approaches to politics, being united only in their concern for environmental issues.

My political concerns at present centre around the world's obsession with so-called democracy, and the west's enthusiasm for ramming it down the throats of all and sundry. The USA (aided and abetted by Britain) is forcing countries that have manged to govern themselves for many centuries, to adopt American-style democracy. In reality this is of course currently a plutocracy, a country run by the excessively rich for the benefit of the rich, with scant regard for environmental issues, particularly if environmental issues stand in the path of profit. I have seen first hand the devastation caused by the American bombing by proxy of southern Lebanon. And I have seen the results of the support of right wing governments in many parts of Central and South America. The problem is that there is democracy and there is democracy. Swedish, French, and New Zealand democracies are all very different to each other and to US democracy. The US likes democracies, such as the Mexican democracy, that bow to America, but tries to topple those of Venezuela, that don't like America. And none of this is good for the environment.

Unlike bar-politicians, I don't have a ready solution. But I do know that US style democracy will not help the solve the problems of the world. And certainly will not help the natural environment or biodiversity.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, March 08, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (4) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Pheasants, poultry and Bird Flu

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Last year there was a furore in the British Press when it was discovered that pop singer Madonna was importing pheasants from France, to release for shooting on her estate on the Wiltshire/Dorset border in southern England. In addition to the 1000 pheasants imported from France, she and her husband had also imported another 31,000 from Wales. But this is nothing to the 39 million chicks of various poultry imported into Britain in 1999, or the 11 million adult birds imported in 1998 (Hansard June 2000). And, in answer to a Parliamentary Question from Roger Williams MP, in 2003, 2004, 2005 the imports were around 1 million a year from France alone(figures from Hansard March 2006). But unfortunately the UK government does not actually distinguish between 'poultry' such as pheasants and partridges which are destined for release into the countryside, and those designed for batteries and sheds. A quick check of the government website for trade statistics seems to suggest that trade statics for live poultry are currently being suppressed.

With birds being imported and deliberately released into the countryside, to me the surprise is not that Avian flu is a threat, but that there are not far more diseases in our wild birds and poultry flocks. Local livestock markets have mostly closed, and slaughterhouses have been 'rationalised'. All this means more and more animals are being shipped around the countryside. Combine that with imports, add it to the factory farm conditions many of them are kept under, plus the cocktails of antibiotics and food supplements they are fed (including ground up animal protein), and it is no wonder that we have problems with bovine TB, bird flu, BSE etc etc etc.

Time to take stock and re-evaluate.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Wednesday, February 28, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Bird 'flu and turkey factories

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The World Land Trust has its HQ in Halesworth, which is walking distance from the airfield at Upper Holton, where the Bernard Matthews turkey factory is situated. It does annoy me how the TV and press keep describing it as a Turkey FARM. That is an insult to farmers. The site is completely enclosed, which makes it quite outrageous how DEFRA and the media immediately started implicate wild birds. While they should not be ruled out, it seem quite incomprehensible as to why everyone jumps to the conclusion it must be wild birds. If the outbreak was in the DEFRA HQ or the Houses of Parliament there would probably me a greater liklihood of contact with wild birds, than there ever would be in the highly controlled environment of a turkey factory.

Perhaps we should be looking at the way poultry are kept. These intensive batteries, barns and so forth are hothouses for disease. And even so-called organic and 'free-range' eggs and chickens often come from 'farms' almost as intensive as batteries. Intensive animal husbandry has a lot to answer for, both in terms of animal welfare and also environmental damage. Hormones are pumped into the animals, together with a nauseous cocktail of antibiotics and other drugs, many of which end up in the environment. And, as WLT supporter Simon Barnes, of The Times, has pointed out they don't even taste good.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, February 06, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (5) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Sir Peter Scott's Legacy

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

In 1984, when I was the chief executive of the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (now Fauna & Flora International, FFI), I edited a book published for the National Trust -- The National Trust Book of British Wild Animals. And the foreword to this volume was written by Sir Peter Scott, the eminent naturalist, conservationist and broadcaster, who at that time was Chairman of the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society.

Sir Peter Scott concluded his foreword with the following paragraph:

"As the world's tropical forests disappear to become chipboard or make way for the grazing of beef cattle, one can only regret that the National Trust does not have an international counterpart.... At this time the importance of land acquisition, and preservation, and the power to declare it 'inalienable' is vitally important if we are to pass on to our children the still significant richness of wildlife we inherited from our parents."

Five years later I had left the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society and was starting what was to become the World Land Trust, but in 1989 when Sir Peter died, it was only a single project, fundraising for Programme for Belize. I can only think now how delighted Sir Peter would have been to see the World Land Trust really develop into what it is today. Throughout my early days in international conservation he had always been a source of encouragement and inspiration, and Vivien Burton worked as his Conservation Assistant at the Wildfowl Trust (now the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust)in Slimbridge, before finally moving to Suffolk after we married in 1980.

It was only when skimming through the National Trust book, that I was reminded of Sir Peter Scott's support for the concept of land acquisition -- support that Lady Philippa Scott has continued, and Sir Peter has indeed supported posthumously through his foundation.

It is slightly depressing to me to find that many of the younger generation no longer relise the huge contribution made to conservation by Sir Peter Scott and his generation. His name, together with Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson, and a dozen more being almost unknown to the generation emerging from university today. There is a lot to learn from history. Particularly natural history.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, January 30, 2007
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

US$1 MILLION ALCAN PRIZE FOR SUSTAINABILITY 2006 SHORTLIST ANNOUNCED

Friday, October 13, 2006

According to their website "Alcan created the Alcan Prize for Sustainability to recognize outstanding contributions to the goal of economic, environmental, and social sustainability by not-for-profit, non-governmental, and civil society organizations." On the surface this appears a worthy cause, and Chairman of the Adjudication Panel is Dave Runnalls, a widely respected environmentalist. So imagine my surprise when I saw that among the finalists was the Mennonite Economic Development Associates (MEDA), from Canada. I checked their website to see if these particular Mennonites were trying to change the ways of their brother and sister Mennonites but there was no obvious evidence of that. Now Mennonites are well known as peaceful, rather introsective, deeply religious farmers (the Amish are among the best-known sects). But in places like Belize and Paraguay, they are also known as among the most efficient destroyers of natural habitats. Many of the the lands around the Rio Bravo Conservation and Management Area (RBCMA) in Belize (which the WLT helped save) were cleared by Mennonites, and they are still actively clearing the Gran Chaco of Paraguay. There is no question that they are efficient farmers, but in terms of wildlife and the natural environment, they are a disaster in many parts of the world.

I emailed both Alcan and Dave Runnals asking how they justified this shortlisting -- but answer came there none..... It would be interesting to know just how many thousands of acres of rainforests and other habitats the Mennonites have destroyed over the years. Does anyone out there in cyberspace have any data? I have no objection to Mennonites farming or buying land -- but why can't they buy existing farmlands, why do they have to destroy the world's last remaining wilderness? And why should such a sect deserve a prize for sustainability? Answers by email or on the usual postcard please.....

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Friday, October 13, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Labour party research.......

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

If you type "Buy Rainforest" into Google, at the top, or near the top, the World Land Trust website pops up. Yet Frank Field has apparently persuaded David Miliband, Secretary for Environment, that what is needed is a new initiative to "promote the idea of a worldwide trust which would allow individuals and companies to buy up chunks of tropical rainforest and save it from destruction" (Guardian, 2 October).

According to the Telegraph (2 Oct)"The plan is the brainchild of Frank Field, the Labour MP and former minister. It appeals to the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband, according to their officials, because it would "capture the imagination of the world" and "bring the international community together".

But both emphasise the idea is at an early stage and admit that there would be "sovereignty issues" involving the government of Brazil, which is home to almost all the Amazon rainforest."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/01/namazon01.xml

Perhaps someone who knows messrs Miliband or Field could point out that the WLT has been doing just what they propose for 17 years, and are only hampered by lack of funding. And even the sovereignty issues have been sorted by the WLT.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, October 03, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (7) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Water, water everywhere, even in a drought

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The heat wave in Britain is bringing to the forefront, again, the issue of water supplies. I have never understood the supposed benefits of privatising Britain's water supply. One of the theoretical arguments in favour of privatisation was that it encouraged competition, and kept prices down. Call me stupid, but I fail to see how that occurs in an industry which has monopolies, and which pays out huge profits to investors instead of ploughing it all back in to its infrastructure. I have absolutely no choice in who I buy my water from. And I can see no earthly reason for conserving it when the profit-motivated company urges me to use less. Why should I not use it to water my garden? If they have not improved the infrastructure and prevented the millions of gallons/litres leaking away, why should my garden suffer? We are made to feel selfish if we do not conserve water, but the only people who will really suffer will be the shareholders, if the water supplies run out, and the companies fail to supply their customers. Unlike petrol or gas, water is a renewable resource, so there is no need for us to feel guilty or profligate if we use lots of it. Millions of gallons are used wastefully by industry, millions of gallons are polluted, so why should the individual feel guilty when watering their vegetable patch? Answers on a postcard., etc.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Wednesday, August 16, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (2) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Peer review and good science

Thursday, June 29, 2006

One of the great benefits of the internet, it that it can promote openess and transparency. A good example of this is in the field of scientific publications. It has been a fundamental of scientific practice that peer reviewed papers are an essential part of the process. But numerous questions remain unanswered. In particular, confidential peer review means that someone with ulterior motives can damn a paper, without the author knowing who is blocking it. It also means that plagiarism is possible. I have known of cases of both occurring to colleagues. [Fortunately I am not a scientist, and not bothered by peer reviews]. When I have asked why no one makes a fuss, the response is generally that there is no point. In fact it is slightly worse -- most scientists are scared of making a fuss about anonymous reviewers in case they happen to be more senior acadmemics, who may block promotion, election to the Royal Society or some similar issue.

Initiatives such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS) are to be particularly welcomed, as although still subject to some of the constraints of peer review, certainly promote more transparency. And, more importantly, it allows access to anyone with a computer -- breaking some of the monopolies held by very expensive journals, which make information virtually inaccessible to anyone outside academia in the developed world.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, June 29, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Honours scandal

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

There has been a lot of fuss in the UK Press recently about the way honours and peerages are distributed. And horror of all horrors, it has even been suggested that money is involved.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. This sort of selection has been used for a couple of hundred years by nearly all clubs and societies as standard practice. You can't join most clubs or societies unless you pay a subscription. Some clubs and societies are open to anyone who pays the sub, while others have additional qualifications.

A few examples: provided you pay £31 a year you can join the RSPB. If you pay £45 a year, and can show a genuine interest in Natural history, and get two existing members to sign your application, you can become a Fellow of the Linnean Society of London, and put FLS after your name. To become a Fellow of the Institute of Biology (and be able to put FIBiol after your name) you need to be able to fill out a complex form demonstrating your professional qualifications and experience (see http://www.iob.org/downloads/851.pdf) and then pay £132 a year. All these are transparent and straightforward.

And surely that is where the honours systems fall down -- they are not open, transparent, or straight forward. If getting a peerage required a degree, x years experience, and payment of £500,000 to a good cause, and £500,000 to a political party, there would be no problem, we would all know what was involved; the cost of an OBE, MBE etc would all be pro rata, and some would involve no financial commitment. If a fellowship of the Royal Society required a PhD and 50 published papers and a payment of y thousand pounds, again , I see no problem. But when both systems are limited by numbers, subject to political bias, political correctness, and numerous other unquantifiable, secretive biases, there are bound to be problems. While all honours are currently handed out on the basis of unquantified personal judgements, there is bound to be disquiet, disgruntlement and dissatisfaction.

In fact, when the systems were created they were much more open and transparent. You knew that if you lent a medieval king a few thousand ducats, or killed a few of his enemies, you might get a knighthood or even a dukedom, and when the Royal Society was created, virtually anyone with a reasonable scientific background could become a member (provided they came from the right social background.)

Within the WLT we practice this in a minor way -- anyone can become a Partner, by donating a minimum of £5 a month, and we will name a reserve for a donation of £5000 or more. Yes, it is buying prestige perhaps, but at least it is totally open and transparent.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, May 30, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Researching species to extinction

Thursday, May 11, 2006

The is an old adage, that success breeds success. And it certainly appears to be true in the case of the World Land Trust. 2005 was one of the Trust's most successful years for fundraising, with more members of the public supporting us than in any previous year. This has continued into 2006, and in addition, the Trust has been in receipt of several larger donations.

Buying land vs. funding research

It is relatively easy to understand the reasons for this, which in my view are entirely justified. The Trust has been around for over a decade, and now has a proven track record and, is becoming far better known. The fact that several well-known naturalists and conservationists are associated with the Trust certainly enhances its credibility as well. But I think another important factor is that members of the public are increasingly disillusioned with the way that overseas aid appears to being poured into bottomless pits. The World Land Trust projects all have tangible and very obvious results: LAND. Land is acquired, protected and is there for everyone to see. I personally believe that far too many conservation charities waste valuable and limited resources on research. Scientific research is costly, and generally speaking not the highest priority when it becomes to conservation.

The last few decades of the 20th century saw millions of dollars being devoted to research into endangered species. It would be interesting to quantify some of these costs, but even without detail it is possible to make some interesting points. One popular 'theory' at the end of the century was that of 'biodiversity hotspots'. Numerous papers were written, by numerous well-funded scientists, and it was claimed that this research and the analyses would make conservation decisions easier and better. The definitions of endangered species were also refined, and detailed methodologies created.

In developing hotspots and other theories, large numbers of people were involved, mostly academics, many of which have little or no practical experience of implementing conservation. I was reminded of the early nineteenth century when pioneer naturalist and conservationist, Charles Waterton (among others) criticised the "closet naturalists". Those who studied wildlife in the libraries and museums, and barely knew what the living animals looked like.

Important decisions often not scentific

In my experience most conservationists can make perfectly good conservation decisions without the reams of academic papers that have been published. In fact many of those people having to make the decisions don't even have access to the publications. Furthermore, many of the important decisions that really affect conservation are not scientific anyway.

An unfortunate aspect of a lot of this type of research is that it is based on the available data, and in many cases the available data is not adequate, or irrelevant. In the recent case of the land purchase carried out by the WLT and its partner Guyra Paraguay, the most important factors involved were availability of funding, and availability of land for purchase. We can do the science later, without using conservation money.

So don't misinterpret what I am writing, I am not anti-science or scientific research. But I am anti using conservation funding for it. There are plenty of sources of money for scientific research, and in most cases, there are higher priorities for using conservation funds. Clearly I have a bias; I think land acquisition is the top priority. This is to state the obvious: without land, and without wildlife, research becomes purely academic. Interesting, but of very little conservation value. Personally i find much of the research into dodos, giant auks, moas, thylacines absolutely fascinating, and will read papers, and attend conferences -- but I certainly would not waste a single conservation cent on it.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, May 11, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (2) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Lighting up the darkness

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

If governments were really interested in conserving energy they could, to misuse an old expression, kill two birds with one stone and thereby save millions of birds from being killed. How? By making local councils switch off street lighting for most of the night, and controlling the unnecessary use of artificial light. Millions of birds are disorientated by street lights, and billions of insects die beneath them. Over all our major cities there hangs an appalling orange yellow glow of light pollution. The precise amount of environmental damage caused by this pollution is extremely difficult to quantify, but it must be enormous. Of course there are places where night time lighting reduces accidents, but there are plenty of places where there is no obvious benefit of lights being on at 2am. What is the point of governments exhorting us to switch of lights and appliances to save energy, while leaving millions of watts illuminating the night sky?

Anyone who has visited the Estancia la Esperanza in Patagonia will have experienced true darkness, and witnessed the enormity of the Milky Way. To anyone living in most of the industrialised Northern Hemisphere, the enormity of outer space cannot be contemplated. Looking up into the clear Patagonian sky, the millions and millions of stars that constitute the Milky Way becomes mind boggling. Governments have it in their power to limit light pollution -- but no action seems forthcoming.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, April 25, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Money laundering

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

In the years since the World Land Trust has been in existence, the amount of paperwork involved has increased dramatically. When the Trust was launched in 1989 PCs were in their infancy, and electronic communication was still something in the future, and the 'paperless office' was barely a concept. Now less than 20 years on, we are weighed down under a load of paperwork, albeit, often electronic paperwork. New rules and regulations make it increasingly difficult to transfer money to our projects, and this is usually explained by it being to 'prevent money laundering' But part of the problem seems to be that banks increasingly rely on systems, rather than people. Once upon a time, I went to a bank, and saw the manager, and sorted out a transfer. If a Trustee changed, we filled in a form, and added him or her to our bank signatories. But now, everything requires ID papers, copies of electricity bills, copies of passports, and other paperwork, all of which is easily forged. So the net result is that the honest majority now have an enormous amount of paperwork, while the would-be money launderer or criminal of any sort will probably still get away with their crimes, because the pieces of paper needed are easy enough to forge.

It is a situation analogous to the bureaucratic overload that the agricultural agencies such as the UK's DEFRA have introduced. Someone like myself with a handful of sheep, three llamas and a pig has to go through all the expenses of registration and movement orders, while being of minimal risk for animal disease issues, while the people who are most likely to cause the problems are also the ones most likely to ignore the regulations.

So when donors ask about admin costs of a charity, they should be aware of the vast amount of paperwork that we are now require to fill in -- not only that, it keeps changing from year to year. It has now reached such a level, that if a charity appears to have exceptionally low overheads you really need to question if it is complying with all the regulations. Are they registered with the Data protection Act, and in compliance? Are they SORP compliant? Just two areas which many charities fail on.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, March 28, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Supermarket baggage

Friday, March 24, 2006

Ireland brought in a tax on plastic bags in March 2002, and all shops and othersales outlets must charge customers 10p per plastic bag. Before the tax was introduced,about 1.2 billion plastic bags were given to customers annually. The levy has been a great success with a billion fewer non-recyclable plastic being and £2.25m raised for the new Environmental Fund. With whales, turles and other wildlife often dieing as a result of swallowing plastic bags, as well as the unsightly ltter they create, it is high time the British government introduced a similar measure, and started to demontrtate a real commitment to environmental issues.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Friday, March 24, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Recycled printer cartridges

Friday, February 03, 2006

Readers of this blog may be interested in this news story, published on edie.net yesterday (with quotes from the WLT's Viv Burton):

Court case tightens company's grip on its ink cartridges

Tokyo Canon Inc has won a court case over their claim that companies refilling empty Canon printer cartridges are breaching the manufacturer's patent rights. This could spell trouble for charities relying on recycling cartridges as a source of income. And more importantly, if printer cartridges can no longer be refilled and reused, the effect on the environment from using these products will be greater. Said Viv:

"If Canon aren't prepared to do let others refill them they should be encouraged to do it themselves."

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by Helena Akerlund Friday, February 03, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (3) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

New Year resolutions

Monday, January 02, 2006

The New Year is traditionally a time to reflect, and it has also become a time when TV has endless reviews of the past year. The past year has seen numerous natural and man-made disasters. Some claim this is a result of global warming. Others may see the hand of god. To me none of this is particularly relevant.

I too have spent the Christmas break pondering the grave issues that threaten the planet. I have watched the recap of the earthquake disaster in the Himalayas, watched the films of the tsunami, and heard the rhetoric about making poverty history in Africa. I have also reviewed my 'blogs' for the past year or so. And perhaps more importantly, I have looked at the replies posted to my blogs, or sent to me by email. What is perhaps surprising is that there seems to be a remarkable consensus out there in cyberspace. Despite my attacks on poverty relief, buying goats etc, almost without exception I am getting positive feedback. I interpret this very simply: Anyone who gives more than a superficial thought to the claims of politicians and rock stars, and some of the aid agencies, can see the falsity of the claims that poverty can be eliminated. Blair, Geldorf and all the rest should be given copies of Malthus to read. It was a turning point in Darwin's thinking, and it is as relevant today as when it was written in 1798. Buying goats will never solve the problem -- particularly since in many cases they created it. Throwing aid at Africa has demonstrably exacerbated the problem.

But my Christmas ponderings took me two steps further: There are only two issues that need to be addressed if the planet is going to have a future. The first is the human population issue must be addressed. And that means everywhere. It is not a third world issue. The average Asian consumes only a fraction of the resources consumed by the average European, which is considerably less than the average North American. There is absolutely no way can the world's population attain the standard of living considered acceptable and out of poverty in Britain, without a huge amount of environmental deterioration.

Which brings me to my second step: We must save as much as possible of what is left. That is why, when I am asked why I am not doing more to reduce energy dependence, recycling, or any other of the myriad seemingly important issues, my response is always the same. While these are all important, without remnants of natural habitat and wilderness to repopulate the world, there is little point in any of the other activities.

I certainly agree that dealing with the human population issue is paramount. Unfortunately, I have little expertise or experience in this field. Which is why I put my effort into conserving land. For over 40 years I have been working as a wildlife professional in various guises, and I do now have some experience and knowledge of wildlife conservation and habitat protection. I believe it is up to all of us to do what little we can, and to the best of our ability.

So my message for 2006 for those who wish to help ensure that planet earth survives for a few more years, for what ever their reasons, and whatever their personal beliefs is as follows.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Monday, January 02, 2006
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Blog takes off

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

For the first year or so, I wrote my blog on a fairly regular basis, but got little or no feed back. However, recently this has all changed. There appear to be real, live readers out there. YOU must be one. Several have emailed me at the World Land Trust, while a few have actually posted responses to my blogs. This is great. I don't write just to make a point, I also write to try and stimulate discussion. It is all too easy to assume that the way conservation has been carried out in the past is the right way, and to get stuck in ruts. But situations change, and so must we.

As an example, I grew up in an era when it was always assumed that the 'noble savage' lived in harmony with his natural environment. I was one of the first wildlife specialists to work for Friends of the Earth, back in the 1960s. FoE quoted the famous speech by Chief Seattle, on how nature and men are brothers, or something along those lines. It doesn't matter what was quoted, because the whole speech was a fake. Written in the 1950s, by an ex-Disney script-writer. And so is the 'Noble Savage' a fake. Humans have a nasty habit of living at the limits of their technology. Give a Stone Age tribe guns, and they will extirminate wildlife with zeal (and probably the nearby tribes as well). But the concept of the 'Noble Savage' living in harmony with nature is what underpins many peoples' views of the indigenes living in the rainforests. To me 'native rights' are not what we should be concerned with. We, as conservationists, should be concerned with the rights of local people, regardless of how long they have been there. What does it matter if an area was colonised by your grandfather, or colonised 2000 years ago? Why on earth should the fact that your great-great-great-great grandfather moved in and squatted on land give you greater rights than somone who only arrived three generations ago? In the UK we have abolished the hereditary rights of peers of the realm to govern. Because someone's ancestor was mates with William the Conqueror, it no long gives him or her the right to govern England. So why should some one who's ancestors arrived in the tropical forests a few generations back, have rights to exploit them in an uncontrolled manner?

Just a thought. I am not sure. But some views, from either side would be useful. So far the land acquired with WLT funding has never had to confront these issues; and it is always owned by a local organisation. But in the future it may need consider the rights of indigenes, so the views of supporters and readers would be most welcome. In fact I am considering designing a questionnaire -- so suggestions for the questions that need to be addressed would also be useful.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, December 20, 2005
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Water, water everywhere. Bottles, bottles everywhere

Friday, October 21, 2005

In the USA alone, 30 million bottles are thrown away because of the developed world's obsession with bottled water. Some are plastic, some are glass. Some go to landfill, some are accumulated as litter by the roadside. Even those that are recycled (virtually none are reused) use huge amounts of energy in the recycling process. And there is no evidence that most of this water is any healthier than the water that comes out of a tap (or faucet for that matter). In fact some of it is quite possibly less healthy.

Oh, and I forgot to say, that figure of 30 million, is per day. Which equates to 10,950,000,000 a year. And that in the USA alone. Surely this must equate to one of the biggest environmental disasters of the 21st century. Millions of those people buying those millions of bottles of water worldwide must be claiming to be environmentally friendly; they must be making donations to green organisations. How can they justify supporting an industry that is helping destroy the planet as surely as any other energy-dependent industry? Pause and think of all the energy used in making the bottles, filling them, transporting them, disposing of them. And all for a commodity that comes almost free out of a tap.

I was horrified to see in the wake of the tsunami, earthquake and other disasters, relief organisations shipping pallet loads of small bottles of water. Compounding natural disasters with man-made disasters ? when water can be shipped (as it was in the past) in reusable tanks.

It has often been claimed that wars of the 21st century would be fought over water ? and seeing the profligate waste of water and the overpackaging of it, I cannot but think that the poorer half of the world must think the richer half is completely mad. And yet such is the power of advertising and marketing, I will also bet that the purveyors of bottled water are now looking to the impoverished countries of the world to expand their markets.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Friday, October 21, 2005
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Mumbo jumbo

Sunday, September 11, 2005

I noted that last week an extensive piece of research in Switzerland into homeopathy concluded that there was no effect greater than that of the placebo effect. In other words, homeopathy has absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever, despite the scientific mumbo jumbo that its proponents dress it up in. Like the so-called Bach remedies and countless other 'alternative' medicines or 'complimentary' treatments, they use what appears to be scientific terminology, but when subjected to scientific scrutiny fail. While all science and medicine has its failings, and fashions and theories change, at least these can be tried and tested. The problem with homeopathy and many related alternatives, is either they cannot be tested, or when tested produce results that re easily explained by placebo effect. Thought about rationally, even some of the more plausible become difficult to accept. aromatherapy -- if the oils did indeed perform the extraordinary feats attributed to them, would presumably cause havoc in the bodies of the masseur or masseuses. Of the more bizarre claims, reflexology takes some beating for irrationality -- tickling the feet to affect the head and shoulders. But the millions of pounds spent each year by the gullible public is simply an indication of conspicuous consumption -- as described in that often overlooked masterpiece by Thorstein Vebelin, written over a century ago, The Theory of the Leisure Class. We will spend millions on perfumes, cosmetics, bottled water, and quack medicines, while allowing the environment to deteriorate. It's a paradox, easily explained by the fact that business has yet to find a way of exploiting the natural environment that is as profitable as bottled water, quack medicines and costmetics. That's the challenge for the future.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Sunday, September 11, 2005
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Water, water every where, and only in a bottle to drink?

Monday, August 15, 2005

The great con' at the begining of the 21st century, and one of the worst enviromental messes, is water. While a huge proportion of the world have no access to clean drinking water, almost the entire delevoped world, flushes much of its clean drinking water down lavatories, or washes in it, and then buys water in glass or plastic bottles to drink. The latter is shipped around the world, using vast amounts of energy, conferring no measurable benefits (other than psychological ones) on the consumers. It is one of the world's largest and most profitable industries.

Howls of protests from the drinkers of bottled water. Claims that they really can tell the difference. To which I retort "Bunkum".

I have on occasion resorted to blind tastings. If the consumer is presented with a wide range of bottled and tap waters, it is doubtful if more than an insignificant number of them can identify the various waters. What I have found is that fresh tap water, when it is highly chlorinated can be recognised -- but let it stand, and the chlorine goes -- and that a few highly mineralised waters have a distinctive taste. But most bottled water is no more mineralised than tap water. In fact, the majority of bottled waters have no taste, and some indeed come from the same sources as tap water. The most important factor in taste seems to be temperature. Give a person chilled tap water, and they will probably like it better than luke-warm bottled water.

But it is the chattering classes, so often environmentally aware, that are the most prone and gullible in the water market. Just as they are the most likely to buy homeopathic medicines -- another form of bottled water with no quantifiable differences that distinguish it from distilled water.

If those who buy bottled water, were to give the equivalent amount to conservation of wildlerness (which often plays a very significant role in protecting watersheds, and water supplies), think how much land we could save.

The average European now drinks over 17 cases of bottled water a year, and the average cost of that water, per litre, is around the same, or more than petrol!

The following website shows just how we're all being led by the marketting:
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=88

And this one gives some more sources
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/NaomiSaintJean.shtml

So next time you drink bottled water, why not donate the equivalent amount to the WLT, and think how much more good you are doing for the planet

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Monday, August 15, 2005
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Charity being stung by railway company

Friday, April 15, 2005

Readers may be interested to know the sort of day to day trials and tribulations that a small charity such as the World Land Trust has to contend with. The following is a letter I sent today and is largely self explanatory. After it I have appended some other notes, which may be interesting to anyone living in East Anglia, or perhaps other parts of Britain.


Commercial Manager
ONE Railways
Burrell Rd
Ipswich IP2 8AL 14 April, 2005


Dear Sirs,

I wish to make a serious complaint about the 'One' ticketing Wednesday 13 April I travelled to London accompanied by two members of staff. We travelled on the 09.30 from Halesworth to London, purchasing saver returns (enclosed). We returned, on the 16.30 from London as is often the case, changing at Ipswich. We were aware that if we had travelled on the 17.00, which is the connection to Halesworth, this would have been subject to a surcharge, which is why we travelled on the 16.30. The ticket inspector checked tickets just before 17.00 hours and informed me that we were subject to a surcharge as we were travelling on saver tickets. I argued that this had never previously been the case, and the conductor seemed very confused, spent many minutes consulting his handbook before finally contacting a colleague by phone. He was then insistent that a surcharge was payable. So I paid. I asked for a leaflet showing the charges and availability of tickets, but was told he did not carry any. On alighting at Ipswich I went to the ticket counter and showed the salesman my tickets and the surcharge vouchers, and was informed quite simply 'You've been diddled'. I asked for a leaflet outlining the ticketing, but was informed none existed. I have several serious concerns which I would like addressed:

1. The lack of printed information concerning the availability of tickets.

2. The conductor identified the Train as the 17.06. There is no such train, this was the time he took payment from me.

3. I have wasted a considerable amount of time dealing with this matter, which were it not for the fact that I am a regular traveller, and well informed, would have gone unquestioned.

4. I, and my colleagues travelling that day, work for a small charity, which can ill afford to pay charges which are not appropriate.

5. As I am about to travel abroad you may wish to phone and speak to me today about this matter.


Yours sincerely,


John A Burton
Chief Executive, WLT


In fact the little information available (on the 'One' website) is quite confusing. It states that the return portions of saver tickets are not valid on trains departing between 17.00 and 19.00 hours, and after talking with colleagues it appears that different conductors have different interpretations of this. It is not clear if travel is permitted on either the 17.00 or the 19.00 hour departures, or both (think about it, it has to be at least one of them). And despite a clear statement on the 'One' website that the close-out period does not start until 17.00 it is frequently broadcast on the train that travelling on a saver is not permitted on the 16.30.

How many people have been ripped off by 'One'? How many people have got off the train and wasted time waiting at Liverpool St station until 19.00 pm?

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Friday, April 15, 2005
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (3) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

The Trojans (Les Troyens) and wildlife?

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Last weekI went to see the English National Opera company's production of Berlioz's The Trojans. It was a rare performance of the complete work, and by now I am sure you are wondering 'What on earth has a five and a half hour opera, got to do with conservation?' Read on, and you may find out.

The opera was performed impeccably -- the orchestra was superb, and there was magnificent singing. The hours slipped by. But what a production. A 'modern' reinterpretation. The characters were all in some sort of contemporary, or late 20th century, dress, which all looked a bit daft when they were singing about clashing armour, running around in the Royal Hunt with spears, the bloody ghost of Hector looming, and various naiads etc flitting around. And there was a hell of a lot of meaningless running about. Berlioz was a man who not only understood orchestration better than almost anyone before or since, he was also someone obsessed with theatricality. Consequently, although his operas are often accused of being rather static, there is absolutely no doubt he knew what he was doing. The oratorio-like narratives, combined with magnificent choruses, are interspersed with dramatic movement -- marches, and dance scenes -- giving a great sense of drama. Some of his 'stage' works are so static as to be often described as unperformable on stage. So when somone has the cast rushing around all the time, it rather destroys his original dramatic intent. Similarly, while some operas and plays tell timeless stories in a way that can transcend the period they were written in and for, The Trojans is a story so clearly rooted in history, that to have a bunch of modern day Greeks trudging round with boxes of household gods, and nuclear warheads is all a bit over the top, if not daft. The Trojans was designed by Berlioz to be an operatic spectacle, lavish costumes and all -- not trainers and shell-suits.

And this is the problem that seems to beset so much of humanknind. They cannot leave well alone. Wildlife is wonderful, but all too often we see it over-interpreted. Humans stamping their influence on a nature reserve -- 'improving' habitats. Deliberately removing certain species because they are 'exotic' and deliberately introducing others because they are 'native'. Of course there is often justification. Just as there is in opera. There would be little justification for going back to gaslight, and there is no reason to completely fossilise a production, but just as the performance of the music is usually to a certain extent sacrosanct, so should the composers intentions for the whole experience be treated with respect. And this concept should be applied to wildlife. Leave it as untouched as possible, and let the viewer make their own assessments. Interpretation is only a fashion, only ephemeral and temporal -- and generally speaking best left out of wildlife. Nature is best when totally untrammelled and untouched by humans -- if you want to see something artificial and man made -- then there is no substitute for opera -- which is probably why I enjoy it, it's such a contrast.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, September 30, 2004
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (0) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

Big Cats in England?

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

My recent visit to Patagonia further confirmed my incredulity at the idea of big cats living wild in England. I spent several days on the Estancia La Esperanza, the ranch owned and managed by the WLT?s partner, the Fundación Patagonia Natural. Each day I went out with the reserve?s manager, Gustavo Zamora. He knows the ranch well. Very well indeed, and each day we found footprints of puma, and we also located a recent puma kill of a guanaco (wild llama). He finds a kill of guanaco or sheep almost every week, and can find fresh footprints and scats any day. But still, after three years living and working on the ranch has yet to see a living puma. There are also several scientists studying the guanaco, who spend hours and hours most days watching the guanacos and other wildlife, but they have never seen the pumas.

So it is bizarre how in England sightings of these beasts are more common than the other evidence they leave behind. And the habitat in Patagonia is extremely open -- low bushy steppe and desert, with few places to hide, unlike most of the places in England where these alleged pumas are reported. But the Beasts o Exmoor, Bodmin and Surrey live on, just like their ancestors, the Hound of the Baskervilles and the Black Dog of Bungay -- rural myths to compete with the Alligators of the New York Sewers.

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Tuesday, November 25, 2003
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (3) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends

50 things to do before you die

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Last night BBC TV showed a programme entitled 50 Things to do before you die. Several were things I certainly intend avoiding, for a variety of reasons. Climbing Everest for instance, mostly because I am not fit enough, and never likely to be, but also because the mountain has been spoiled by the debris of so many visitors.

It was interesting that many of these things to do were concerned with wildlife. Nothing really cultural - like reading a book, seeing the Mona Lisa, or seeing a film. And several of the the things listed I have been fortunate enough to do: see tigers in the wild, trek through a rainforest, visit a paradise island, see gorillas in the wild, fly over an active volcano, all of which were in the list. I can also think of a few more things considerably more exhilarating than some of those listed: SCUBA diving on a coral reef for one, I would prefer any day to Disney World.

But the interesting point of the list is that so many of the experiences relate to wildlife. That is another reason why supporting the work of the World Land Trust is so important. In Patagonia you can go whale watching, and have Right Whales a few feet away. In Ecuador you can trek through elfin forest and rainforest. In Belize you can trek through the forest in search of the elusive Jaguar, and then relax on the Barrier Reef. And Danjugan really is a paradise island. You can keep bungee jumping, paragliding, riding a Harley Davidson, and playing golf -- it's wildlife every time for me.

Here are my 25 things to do before you die, that come with a personal recommendation for 15, and 10 that I'?ve yet to do, but would like to (not in any particular order). I could easily come up with a few dozen more. Do any readers have other suggestions? Please email me at jab*AT*worldlandtrust.org (replace *at* with the symbol @ in your email address field.)

Things to do before you die ? personal recommendation:

1. See a tiger in the wild
2. See an active volcano
3. Visit a large seabird colony in the breeding season
4. Visit a bat cave with thousands of bats
5. See Mountain Gorillas in the wild
6. See Whales close to
7. Spend a night in a desert
8. Climb on a glacier
9. SCUBA dive on the Belize Barrier Reef
10. Hear gibbons calling in the wild
11. See the game parks of East Africa
12. Go spotlighting for owls in South Africa
13. Look for Salamanders in the Appalachians
14. Visit a flamingo colony
15. See giant redwoods

Still to do:

16. See a Jaguar in the wild
17. Visit the Australian Barrier Reef
18. See a giant ant eater in the wild
19. Visit the Kimberlies in Australia
20. Visit the Galapagos islands
21. See a Maned wolf in the Wild
22. Visit the Cape when the flowers are blooming
23. See a wild yak
24. See Rafflesia growing in the wild
25. See lemurs in the wild in Madagascar

Labels: Miscellaneous

Posted by John Thursday, September 18, 2003
| Permanent location of this post | Post a Comment | Read comments (1) | Links to this post |

Share this post with your friends