Green and pleasant land?

Returning to blog again after a long break whilst I sat my finals I will start with a late blog regarding the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony.

It was recently revealed that Danny Boyle has designed a huge British ‘countryside’ set to celebrate the ‘green and pleasant land’ of the UK.  His notion of the countryside and the implication that he is celebrating (fairly) wild nature is an indictment of our relationship with nature in my opinion. 

Firstly it is worth considering the phrase ‘green and pleasant land’, first penned by William Blake in the verse

‘And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!’

Here Blake used the phrase to complain that England’s ‘green and pleasant lands’ had been lost to the industrial revolution at the start of the 19^th century.  So when Blake used the phrase he was complaining about the state of wild nature in the UK.  Since then agriculture has been revolutionised such that the farms are now struggling to support wild ‘farmland’ birds.  Yet somehow Danny Boyle is celebrating the current state of English wild nature, using the term ‘the green and pleasant land’, which has been largely lost to industrialised agriculture since Blake used the term to complain that the industrial revolution had damaged nature.

Essentially, our concept of wild nature has shifted over time as cities and industrial farms have replaced more wild landscapes.  Hence it is hugely important that people are aware of what is wild and just what nature looks like when people don’t interfere too much.  Otherwise, successive generations grow up believing that the farmlands they see represent ‘nature’.  This problem has been termed the ‘falling baseline syndrome’ and has been neatly demonstrated with respect to fish stocks by showing that successive generations of sport fishermen have considered successively smaller fish to constitute a ‘big catch’.

If Danny Boyle is aware of the changes which have occurred to the English landscape over the past 200 years and still wishes to celebrate the British countryside then that is fine but I believe that he has a responsibility to communicate that to his audience.  I believe that there is still a lot to be celebrated in our dramatic coastline and protected areas however I do not agree that we should romanticise ignorantly over a countryside which largely doesn’t exist.

Moreover, the whole set strikes a chord with me in the way in which it aims to take control of nature by selecting a certain number of sheep and other animals, bringing them into the stadium and showing them off to the rest of the world.  If Danny Boyle wanted to celebrate our landscapes then I would far prefer it if he sent everyone to walk along the Welsh coastal path or the London WWT so that they could experience nature as people instead of spectators.  Nature should not be paraded we should be encouraged to go and explore it for ourselves.

Therefore I am sad that a largely false and romantic idea of the British countryside will be paraded in front of a stadium of spectators in the Olympic ceremony.  Yet perhaps some publicity is better than none.  I just wonder what Blake would say?

Finding beauty in nature

A surfer will tell you that they find intrinsic beauty in a clean, well shaped wave.  They will have gained an appreciation of waves over many hours spent among them.  Similarly a climber will be able to point out to you a challenging rock face and with their eyes will be able to trace a possible route of assent, a skill they were not born with.  My point is this: we can all, with experience, find beauty in nature and by nature I do not only mean that which is alive.

Forests of pines, or intensively farmed fields, fairly poor in terms of biodiversity can hold a beauty.  Whilst you may argue that a tropical forest or biodiverse meadow is more beautiful because it has more species and there is more to appreciate, we are unlikely to appreciate this beauty without exposure, without a chance to learn to enjoy it. 

As we become accustomed to habitats impoverished of biodiversity we learn to love these habitats, the habitats we grow up with.  Conservationists, therefore, may sometimes face a challenge in convincing people that the felling of a pine forest to restore an area to a more natural and biodiverse state such as a heathland is a good idea.  It is not an easy issue to solve and in my opinion it requires a combination of good clear communication (in two directions) between conservationists and members of the local community as well as encouragement for local people to spend time enjoying the new habitat.  Ultimately, individuals will favour conservation where they have a strong, personal appreciation for the landscape, probably not because they 

believe a world with more species is better per se.

Ecological snobbery clearly is not the way forward.  The National Trust has, over the past few years, made a great push to get more people from more backgrounds involved.  Some people are of the opinion that this has resulted, in some way, in a lowering of the naturalist ‘quality’ of the members.  Organisations such as the National Trust need not concern themselves soley with those that appreciate nature but should direct their efforts, as they do, at involving those who value nature less.

We can learn to love any aspect of nature.  Scientists may be said to have a slightly unfortunate role in as much as, when conducting research etc, they must act logically to provide high quality information to ensure that the information required to protect the planet is available.

Please take a few minutes to watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1swPZzxv0tI by a surf photographer Mickey Smith who is better than most at conveying his love for the natural world.

On criticism of scientists and their work

After reading the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2012/mar/26/climate-change-oceans  and the comments left regarding it, I wish to consider the role of climate scientists as well as their public perception.

Climate scientists’ work seems to be the subject of some of the most fierce criticism aimed at any scientific work.  Intelligent scientific criticism can only be a positive force, encouraging improvements.  Climate predictions are based on models and models contain uncertainty.  However much of the criticism climate scientists receive regards not the parameters used in their model (criticisms which, if correct could lead to an improvement of the model), but more general criticism.  They are accused of being alarmist for reporting worst case scenarios (as well as best case scenarios) or flat out dismissed on the basis that members of the public have no confidence in scientist’s ability to model future climate change or accurately incorporate their uncertainty into their model.

In the face of this criticism I feel it is important to reflect upon the role of climate modelling.  I maintain that it is the role of conservation scientists (including climate modellers) to inform policy makers such that better informed decisions can be made.  For example, the article to which I have posted a link above refers to a paper yet to be published.  Based on the article the authors have, in my opinion, attempted to answer a very relevant question: based on current knowledge and understanding what is the projected cost of not reducing CO₂ emissions?  Their answer appears to be 2 Trillion Dollars per year by 2100 (worst case scenario).  Next they ask another relevant question: what would be the benefit of reducing CO₂ emissions (to a quantified lower level)?  Their answer is 1.3 Trillion Dollars per year by 2100.  With these two pieces of information (particularly the later) as well as the costs of reducing CO₂ emissions (which I hope will be included in the full paper) policy makers are in a better position to decide whether, from a purely economic perspective, investments in reducing global CO₂ emissions are economically viable.  As a result, I feel that this paper will only contribute to our understanding of the potential costs and benefits of mitigating CO₂ emissions.

paper will be peer reviewed before being published and once published is open to scientific criticism.  The authors themselves acknowledge that ‘much is still unknown and uncertain’ and have only quantified the costs of changes to the 5 best understood components of the oceans yet it has still be fiercely by members of the public (please see comment section of above link).  On another point, the costs of climate change considered do not take into accounts the costs of damage to terrestrial ecosystems and changes in rainfall pattern etc.  This is not a flaw of the paper and the paper should not be criticised as being incomplete because of it.  In a similar way, many papers which promote land sparing (intensive agriculture coupled with preserved ‘pristine’ habitat) are criticised as not taking into account whether ‘pristine’ habitats will be preserved or socio-economic impacts of intensive agriculture.  I also believe that these criticisms, which may be correct, are misguided.  A scientific paper should be assessed on its responce to the question it attempts to answer.  Stating that it considers the wrong question may be helpful for further research but each paper should be assessed on its attempt to answer the question which was considered. 

Food and Biodiversity

The food and biodiversity crises are and will continue to be the biggest problems facing the world for the next 100 years at least.  Currently, of the 7 billion humans on the planet roughly 1 billion live in food poverty, malnourished.  At the same time, over the past 100 years the greatest cause of extinctions has been the conversion of natural habitats for human uses, the most important human use being agriculture.  Our current system of food production and distribution has the potential to be greatly improved without large damages to biodiversity however, with the population predicted to rise to around 9 billion by 2050 and as individuals across the world demand a higher quality diet consisting of more meat, improvements to the current system will be insufficient to prevent more damage to the world’s biodiversity.  The question which scientists should help answer is ‘how to produce a set yield at the lowest possible cost to biodiversity?’.

A consideration of the current situation reveals that there is potential for the relief of food poverty without damage to biodiversity.  Food is not equally distributed throughout the world and, whilst 1 billion people live in food poverty, another billion suffer from obesity.  It is therefore clear that a more fair or ‘equitable’ distribution of the food produced by the world could help alleviate food poverty.  Secondly, much of the food we produce we do not eat.  I am not only talking about food waste through supermarket discard or food lost due to lack of infrastructure in developing countries (e.g. food which expires before consumption due to lack of good storage and distribution infrastructure).  I also refer to food crops which are fed to animals for the production of meat for example, 7 kilograms of grain are required to produce 1 kilogram of beef.  As a result, 7 times more land is needed to produce the grain to feed people on meat than on grain directly.  Analogously, any potential food crops, or land which could be used to grow food crops, which are used for biofuels instead of human consumption should be expected to result in increased land conversion as land elsewhere is converted to fill the gap of foregone food production.  Therefore, if the whole world ate a vegetarian diet and if food equity was greatly increased then it would be possible to feed the current population without further land conversion.

The food demand of the planet is the product of the world population and the per capita (or individual) food demand.  Unfortunately both of these are set to rise as the world population approaches 9 billion and Eastern countries approach a Western, meat rich diet.  As a result conservationists are left to inform policy makers how this increasing world demand can be met at least harm to biodiversity.  Recently this has given rise to a debate which highlights interesting aspects of our attitude towards science.  The debate revolves around the following question: is it better to farm at a lower intensity, producing less food per hectare but maintaining more biodiversity on-farm and using more land or is it better to farm at a higher intensity, preserving less on-farm biodiversity but using less land (therefore sparing more ‘pristine’ habitat)?  If I were to ask you whether it would be best to farm less land intensively or more land in a wildlife friendly way to produce the same yield then what would you say?  There can only be one correct answer: I need more information.  The answer to this question depends on how much biodiversity survives on wildlife friendly farms and how the yield differs between these farms.  So far, work in Ghana and India has supported the idea that farming some land intensively and sparing other natural land is best.  Many people, including scientists, have objected to this finding for many reasons, none of which are, in my opinion, good reasons.  People look at a monoculture of coffee and cannot believe that this is better for biodiversity than coffee grown organically amongst native trees which are preserved.  This is precisely where science excels, to show not what ‘feels’ right but what is right.  So far, as I have stated, the answer appears to be land sparing.

Considering how to use the agricultural tools available (see above) is one issue.  Another is deciding which agricultural tools to use.  More specifically, should GM crops be used  After attending a debate regarding the future of GM crops I was surprised by the reaction of many members of the audience, it was one of fear, fear that GM crops will turn out to be a dangerous mistake.  I believe it is the role of conservation scientists (I include agricultural geneticists in this category) to explain, in a way in which the general public are happy with, why, in their scientific opinion, GM crops are safe.

In conclusion, feeding the world and saving all species will be incompatible.  Conservation scientists have the important role of conducting good quality research addressing the relevant problems such that policy makers can make better informed decisions

For a brief review of the land sparing and wildlife friendly farming debate see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/sep/02/farming-biodiversity-conservation-nature-reserves.

Considering 'Extinction'

The ultimate end point of every species is extinction.  Irreversible and permanent extinction.  This is a natural process, it has been happening for as long as evolution, why then should conservationists and members of the public be worried about current extinctions?  The reason is simple, although extinctions are natural, the rate of extinctions over the past 30,000 years is 100 to 1,000 times the natural rate.  Put another way, the world is currently in the midst of a mass extinction, possibly the biggest ever mass extinction.  It could take millions of years for the World’s biodiversity to recover from our actions over the next few hundred years.

Confronted with statements like this it can be hard to process them, to fully grasp the message.  This blog will present different ways to think about extinction, to make it more real, something you can relate to.

I would love to see a live wild giant sloth or a 12 foot tall Moa bird or a woolly mammoth.  I wont because they are extinct.  I can see their skeletons on the internet or in museums but I will never see a live Moa.  Moas lived in New Zealand until around 800 years ago when the first human settlers arrived and killed them.  They had not been exposed to any land predators before and would walk up to humans who would kill them with ease.  Perhaps you to think the world would be a better place if these, and other, species were still alive today?  Looking at this issue in another way we can ask what species humanity will miss 200, 500 or 1,000 years from now.  What will the humans of the future hold against us as our greatest ecological crimes.  What species will they blame us for depriving them off?  Will they inherit a world without hawksbill sea turtles, Sumatran Tigers or European eels?  Perhaps you don’t care if we lose hawksbill turtles so long as we preserve some other turtles or perhaps you really don’t care because you are never going to see them anyway.  I cannot argue with these personal valuations, we are all entitled to feel however we like about species.

I have already mentioned museums and I think that it is interesting to consider how exposure to extinct species changes how we view these extinctions.  We don’t care about the extinction of species we have never heard about, how could we?  Therefore, zoos can argue that the keeping of species which they know will never be returned to the wild can be justified in terms of their educational value.  What about videos.  If you type in ‘lyre bird’ you can watch as the bird sings elaborate songs including imitating a chainsaw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y). Having seen this video how would we feel if this species was threatened with extinction: more concerned that it should be conserved or unconcerned as it has been captured on camera and will therefore be preserved for future generations.  I would argue that the value of this bird to all who ever hear or see it in the wild (and therefore to the world as a whole) is greater than that of any video recording.

Alternatively a more moral consideration of extinction may prove interesting.  You were born onto a planet populated with millions of species, each of which is the result of many millions of years of evolution.  Each of these paths will never be replicated or repeated, no species which is forced to extinction will ever be recreated by evolution.  Therefore, every single extinction represents the loss of a valuable and irreplaceable piece of the world’s history.  Moreover, many of these species won’t end up in museums, species are being lost before they have even been found, perhaps before they have even been seen by humans.

Ultimately, biodiversity is not a luxury but a necessity.  When we force species, which provide the world with services we rely on, to extinction, we have to pay the price.  If we, as a world, make an informed decision that we would rather pay that price and lose species instead of paying an equal or smaller amount to preserve species then conservation scientists can say that they have done their best.  There is still much work to be done to reach that point of species valuation.

An economic valuation of nature

‘In the kingdom of ends’ wrote Kant, ‘everything has either a price or a dignity.  What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity’.

Historically, nature has been viewed as having a dignity, as priceless.  Though I believe that biodiversity should be preserved for its own sake, that it is an end in itself and therefore has a dignity, I also believe this attitude has been partly responsible for the overexploitation of nature.  Businesses are fundamentally concerned with profits.  They weigh up costs and benefits of potential actions and chose those which yield the highest benefits at the smallest costs.  When a mangrove forest (for example) is felled and replaced by aquaculture conservationists could protest that a ‘priceless’ habitat is lost.  This approach does not help inform business’ decisions; accountants can only enter this cost into their calculations as £0.  As a result, when weighing up the costs and benefits of a business decision, the costs of ecological damage are not taken into account.  There are two possible solutions to this problem: change the world economic system so that objects of dignity are protected at all costs, or quantify the economic costs of ecological damage so that businesses can take them into account when weighing up potential costs and benefits.  The first option is not viable, even human life is not protected at all costs (otherwise the NHS would be extremely costly).  This leaves us with the second option.  It is an option which many people are uncomfortable with for reasons I will explore.  First I will start with an example.

Take the example of the felling of a mangrove forest to replace it with aquaculture.  Not taking ecological costs into account, a business may generate a profit from converting to aquaculture and growing shrimp.  However, this does not take into the account the costs of felling a mangrove forest.  These costs include the services the intact mangrove forest provides humanity with such as: flood prevention, timber production and a habitat to species which can be sustainably exploited as food.  Having taken this information into account it is more likely that a business will choose to maintain the mangrove forest in its pristine form to sustainably harvest timber.  Alternatively there are benefits which are shared between people who do not own the resource such as flood prevention.  If the benefits of flood prevention are made clear to the government then they will have the option to pay a business not to cut down the mangrove and to protect it instead, saving themselves the costs of dealing with flood damage.

A problem with the argument is that it ‘admits’ biodiversity has ‘equivalents’.  Thus, this approach can be used to rationalise and justify the loss of species.  However, these species will go extinct anyway with no value attached to them if they are only deemed priceless.  Therefore we have nothing to lose.

Another possible solution is to use markets, again many people are sceptical and distrustful of markets but first it is important to understand what markets are and what they are good at.  Markets facilitate the transfer of goods between people.  They ensure that those who value the good highest receive the good and the seller gains the highest possible price, thus markets create efficient solutions.  Markets can be applied to conservation where the benefits an ecosystem provides are shared over everyone in the world.  For example trees act as Carbon sinks, reducing the CO₂ in the atmosphere.  Deforestation releases this CO₂ into the atmosphere, a cost paid by everyone in the world.  A mechanism which is being considered and trialled is the payment for people to protect forests (REDD).  In this way a market is established in which money is paid for the protection of forests.

In conclusion, many are instinctively wary of attempts to put economic values on nature, however, until now nature has been given no value at all.  By giving it a value we have nothing to lose.

a

The importance of learning to connect with nature

‘More children are admitted to hospital with injuries resulting from falling out of beds than falling out of trees’ (https://twitter.com/#!/NTPressOffice).  The importance of learning to love nature

Firts of all let me start by stating that I agree with the sentiment that the world will be a better place if more children are exposed to, and emersed in, nature.  Let me also say that I would rather we did not all get hung up on the above statistic for two reasons: 1) statistics can be misleading and manipulated, it’s better to concentrate on the underlying message, 2) complaining that not enough children are admitted to hospital as a result of injuries sustained whilst enjoying wild nature is not the greatest piece of PR for the argument promoting a greater exposure to nature.

So what does it matter if kids don’t spend any time in trees anymore?

The future of biodiversity, of nature, depends largely upon how we value nature.  If the general public don’t enjoy trees, birds and bees then these species are less likely to be saved and are more likely to go extinct.  Moreover, developing an appreciation of nature helps us develop as people.  In a world of information overload, a world in which many kids are exposed to high levels of stimulation (e.g. television, facebook and twitter) children struggle to catch onto one idea and run with it before the next is presented to them.  Nature gives us an opportunity to slow down, to explore a whole idea and reflect upon it.  

Taking an analogy from my previous essay, I believe that we all have an innate ability, a predisposition, to enjoy nature (the Biophilia hypothesis).  But we cannot enjoy nature without practice (think of your own analogy).  So, if we are to value nature then we must be exposed to it, immersed in it.  If we are not, we will not learn to enjoy it, will miss out on the spiritual fulfilment it can offer us and miss out on opportunities to slow down and reflect.  Moreover, from the conservation perspective, if the children of today do not learn to value nature then the adults of today will not bother to conserve it. 

For the above reasons I believe that organisations such as zoos and the national trust have a hugely important role to play in the education and development of the next generation, especially as more and more people live in cities.  Also, taking this approach it is important not that those who enjoy nature encourage other likeminded people to get into nature.  Instead, efforts to engage people with nature should be prioritised, should be aimed at inner city children.  I acknowledge that it is difficult to create a tick list for the personal development of children, I appreciate that it is hard to quantify the extent to which children engage with nature.  More importantly though, I believe that the personal development of children and an appreciation of nature, upon which everyone one of us relies, deserves a proportion of education resources.  For this reason also, I would like to acknowledge the purposeful work of zoos and organisations working towards this end.

If you are interested in the Biophilia hypothesis then recommend W. O. Wilson’s ‘Biophilia, or some of the work of Andrew Balmford (which is more accessible) such as ‘http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1389192/Is-that-a-bee-a-bird-or-Pikachu.html’