Tag Archives: Wildlife

Rallying for wildlife – we need a Nature and Wellbeing Act Updated for 2026





400 people who love and care about wildlife are (with a squirrel called Bob) taking part in a rally in London today.

They will come from all parts of England and will visit the House of Commons to urge their MP to include strong commitments to nature in their 2015 election manifestos.

The event is being organised by the RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, the League Against Cruel Sports (90 years old this year – happy birthday!), and my predecessor, Dr Mark Avery. It is also supported by Butterfly Conservation, the Mammal Society and the Ramblers.

I’m looking forward to it. I expect it’s going to be cold, but I am sure that won’t stop folk using their voice for nature. The call for action is compelling …

The declining state of Britain’s nature

Last week’s Defra biodiversity indicators report showed that nearly two-thirds of England’s finest wildlife sites are not in favourable condition. There has been a decline in the area of these sites in favourable condition from 44% in 2003 to 37.5% in April 2014.

The trend since 2010 does not look too rosy and the Government’s target of reaching 50% in favourable condition by 2020 looks a long way off.

The State of Nature report, published in 2013, showed that 60% of species (for which we have trend data) have declined in my lifetime and one in ten UK species is at risk of extinction. And if the dramatic cuts in public spending heralded by the Chancellor’s announcements last week fall in the wrong place it could be at the cost of nature. 

Unless the value of nature is fully accounted in decision-making, we fear the situation will become even worse. The prominence of housing and infrastructure development in the Chancellor’s autumn statement risks casting a long shadow over the future of many of our finest wildlife sites.

These include Lodge Hill (here) in Kent, where housing threatens to destroy the only protected site for nightingales in the UK.

Politicians must take our ecological deficit seriously

The threats are real and challenging: habitat destruction, over-exploitation, pollution (especially climate change) and the invasive non-native species. These are being driven by a growing population, consuming more and a failure of the economic system to capture the value of nature in decision-making.

Despite the growing evidence of the link between a healthy environment and our own prosperity, politicians seem increasingly preoccupied by other factors that might affect our economy.

I do not see the same energy being invested in tackling the ecological deficit as is the case with the economic deficit. We are in danger of passing on our natural environment to our children in a depleted state. This needs to change which is why people have taken to the streets outside Westminster.

We have made it simple for our politicians and have come up with three priorities. We want action to protect and restore wildlife – and here’s how.

1. Celebrate and defend the wildlife laws we have

We must fight any weakening or dilution of the laws we have, such as the EU Birds and Habitats Directives which provide the foundation for nature conservation in this country.

In September 2014, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker asked new Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella to consider merging the two directives into a modern piece of legislation.

The context of this announcement was an aggressively deregulatory and pro-growth agenda and therefore it is clear that ‘merge’ is code for ‘weaken’. This would be a disaster for nature conservation ambitions in this country and across Europe.

The Directives were established on the principle that no Member State should gain competitive advantage by trashing their environment. And this principle is respected by many businesses today. For example, Cemex, a global cement company recently said in defence of the directive

“These create a level playing field, and give our stakeholders confidence that we are operating to high standards.”

Despite what some may think, they do not act as a block to development. The 2012 Defra review of the Habitat Regulations designed to implement the directives in England showed that the main problems facing developers was a failure of implementation.

And, most importantly for any politician that wants to help nature, they work: research conducted by RSPB scientist showed that the Birds Directive has successfully protected those species considered to be at most risk and in need of most urgent protection across the EU – and has made a significant difference in protecting many of Europe’s birds from further decline.

2. Fully implement the laws – and clamp down on wildlife crime!

We must demand that the law as it is is fully implemented, ending wildlife crime so that threatened species like the hen harrier are able to fly free from harm.

This year’s Birdcrime report documented 164 incidents of shooting and destruction of birds of prey. We believe that these published figures represent only a fraction of the total number of incidents, as many crimes remain undetected and unreported, particularly those that occur in remote areas.

The hen harrier population, in particular, continues to reflect this persecution. In 2013, there were no successful breeding pairs left in England despite there being enough habitat to support over 300 breeding pairs.

We need politicians to wake up to the fact that without action, this bird could be lost from the English countryside. And action must start with cracking down on illegal killing.

3. A Nature & Wellbeing Act

We need a secure legal underpinning nature’s recovery by establishing a Nature and Wellbeing Act to mainstream nature in decision making, to establish long-term targets and powers to help meet them.

Defra’s biodiversity indicators are a timely reminder that we cannot rely on good will and an ever-dwindling pot of money to restore nature. We hope our proposed legislation will drive nature’s recovery in the same way that the Climate Change Act (2008) has begun to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK.

We know that action cannot be achieved by governments alone. Real change will also come from changes from other parts of society especially from developers, farmers, the grouse shooting community and other land managers.

But despite the state of the nation’s finances, government can still and must play its part. And that’s why people are coming to London to see their elected representatives. Thousands of people that are unable to attend have already written to their MP to urge them to take action for wildlife.

Civil society is united in its desire for a more positive relationship between people and wildlife.

We want 2015 to be the year that we take nature seriously and we expect politicians to recognise that in their election manifestos.

 


 

Support our Act for Nature campaign, asking your MP to back the Nature & Wellbeing Act.

Martin Harper is Conservation Director of RSPB. He blogs on the RSPB website, where this article was first published.

 




387901

Far Updated for 2026

Eriophorum in its environment

In a previous post, the photographing ecologist explained the importance of getting low to get the interesting and catchy pictures of your scientific subjects. As you can imagine the extra effort this would ask from your knees, I here want to highlight one more reason why it is certainly worth the effort: it creates the chance to display your subject in its wider environment.

Invasion of red clover along Norwegian fjord

Invasion of red clover along Norwegian fjord

This wider environment is an important factor. As scientists, we have the habit to focus too much on the details. From our first steps in the PhD, we dive too deep in our own little niche. And as we get closer and closer to our subjects, it might become difficult to communicate to uninformed outsiders about the broad picture.

Exotic dandelion in the mountains

Non-native dandelion in the mountains

A good picture could be the rescue here. It provides a non-scientific public immediately with a lot of useful information about your study object and its environment. Especially when you took into account the ‘Low’ and ‘Far’ strategies…

Experiment with its background view

Experiment in the Swedish mountains with its background view

When you dare to ignore the common urge to take a frame-filling picture of your subject, you improve your chances of explaining the details to your audience. A well-designed picture in which attention has been paid to the background, starts telling its own story. A story about the world in which your study object lives, the ecological framework in which everything is situated. Although you loose small-scale details if you refrain from close-up images, you get a large amount of information in return that broadens the view.

Herd of reindeer in their typical environment: roaming the tundra with the Lapporten mountains in the background

Herd of reindeer in their typical environment: roaming the tundra with the Lapporten mountains in the background

Taking some steps back might also help to get a simpler image, one that is easier to understand. Keep an eye out for distinct lines and shapes in the landscape, as they can provide a pause for the eye of the viewer. This will make the true subject of the picture to stand out.

With this close-up of a dead lemming in the Scandinavian mountains, for example, you can see the details of the gruesome torture that happened to this poor animal.

Dead lemming in close-up

But I also love the next overview, as it adds an extra dimension to the story. How the little fellow was probably left behind on that rock by a bird of prey. How the hunter was chased away from his favourite look-out on the valley by an unwanted visitor halfway its meal.

Lemming with valley overview

 

So, going ‘far’ from your subject turns out to be an interesting way to tell ecological stories. I experienced the trick to work for people as well. A picture of an ecologist in action in the middle of his ’natural habitat’ emits a lot more power than any detailed close-up will ever get.

Hiking towards the field site

Hiking through the Scandinavian mountains in search for an experimental plot

 

 

November 6, 2014

Ebola: don’t blame the bats! Updated for 2026





In an era flush with vaccines and antibiotics, when the greatest health risks in the developed world ride on the back of fried fish and hamburgers, it is easy to forget that infectious diseases still account for a quarter of all human deaths worldwide.

Although this is a burden largely carried by more impoverished nations, the unfolding Ebola outbreak is a dramatic reminder that infectious diseases, and the dangers they pose, have no respect for country borders.

Making the leap from animal to human

One of the greatest global health threats lies in emerging diseases, which have never been seen before in humans or – as with Ebola – appear sporadically in new locations.

Most emerging diseases are zoonoses, meaning they are caused by pathogens that can jump from animals into people. Out of more than 300 emerging infections identified since 1940, over 60% are zoonotic, and of these, 72% originate in wildlife.

Whereas some zoonotic infections, such as rabies, cannot be transmitted between human patients, others can spread across populations and borders: in 2003, SARS, a coronavirus linked to bats, spread to several continents within a few weeks before it was eliminated, while HIV has become, over several decades, a persistent pandemic.

The unpredictable nature and novelty of zoonotic pathogens make them incredibly difficult to defend against and respond to. But that does not mean we are helpless in the face of emerging ones.

Because we know that the majority of zoonoses pass from wildlife, we can start to identify high-risk points for transmission by determining which wildlife species may pose the greatest risk.

Searching for suspects

Of all wildlife species, bats in particular pose complex questions. The second most diverse group of mammals after rodents, they host more than 65 known human pathogens, including Ebola virus, coronavirus (the cause of SARS), henipaviruses (which can cause deadly encephalitis in humans) and rabies.

But they are also one of the mammalian groups most vulnerable to overhunting and habitat destruction, while providing indispensable ecological functions such as pest control by bats that eat insects, pollination and seed dispersal.

Whether eating their body weights in insects every night, or dispersing seeds from fruit trees across large areas, bats provide services to local economies worth billions of dollars across the world.

The loss of bats, whether from hunting or for disease control almost certainly would have far-reaching and long-lasting ecological and economic consequences.

This much we know, and yet the details of how zoonoses spill over from bats into people are vastly understudied. Understanding how humans and bats interact had, until recently, never been examined in West Africa, and only peripherally probed elsewhere in the world.

Uncovering behaviour that brings humans into contact with bats and other wildlife, and exposes people to zoonoses, could provide invaluable clues for preventing zoonotic outbreaks.

To address these questions, we put together an international network of collaborators, led in the UK by the Zoological Society of London and the University of Cambridge.

From Malaysia to Ghana, from Australia to Peru, bats are coming into contact with humans more and more frequently as people are expanding into previously virgin territories.

Bats as bushmeat – they didn’t ask us to eat them!

Fruit bats are also often attracted to orchards and gardens planted on the edge of their territories. But another human behaviour contributes significantly to the risk of zoonotic spillover from all wildlife species: hunting.

The consumption of bushmeat, or wild animal meat, is a global phenomenon on a massive scale – estimates of the combined bushmeat consumption in Central Africa and the Amazon Basin exceed 1 billion kilograms annually.

In Ghana, where fruit bats have tested positive for antibodies to henipaviruses and Ebola virus, the status of bats as bushmeat was essentially unknown until we began our investigation five years ago.

In two recent studies carried out in Ghana, we reported how many people hunt bats for both food and money. We estimated that more than 100,000 fruit bats, specifically the straw coloured fruit bat, are harvested every year.

Bat meat likely provides an important secondary source of protein for the hunters and their families, especially when other sources such as fish or antelope are scarce. Bat meat also fetches a fairly high price at markets, supplementing a hunter’s often inconsistent income.

Some people also depend on bat meat, and other bushmeat, for both their survival and livelihoods. Bushmeat hunting often occurs in remote or impoverished places, where little infrastructure exists to support alternative livelihoods or even enforcement of hunting laws.

But hunters and those who prepare bat meat for sale or consumption also place themselves at risk of exposure to bat-borne zoonotic pathogens. Such pathogens can pass through blood, scratches, bites, and urine.

Bat hunters handle live, often wounded bats and freshly killed bats, putting them into direct contact with bat blood and at risk of being bitten and scratched. Despite this, hunters are largely unaware of the risks they run.

The risks of zoonoses can be managed – but never eliminated

Understanding what risks bats pose, as little as we know, is only the beginning of the challenge. Reducing the risk of zoonoses is not simple or easy, and certainly not a simple question of stopping hunting or culling reservoir hosts.

Reducing risk sustainably and equitably will therefore likely need a combination of interventions, encompassing developmental approaches to strengthen local economies, expand job opportunities, and increase the supply of safer alternative protein sources in order to reduce the need to hunt wildlife – together with education to promote safer hunting practices.

Communities may have to change how they use land, and limit bushmeat hunting and human expansion activities to minimise the risks of spillover. At the same time, we need advances in medical technology and surveillance systems to monitor and swiftly respond when outbreaks do occur.

Such interventions can be complex and costly, but are essential. While the 2014 Ebola outbreak is the biggest to date, there will almost certainly be many zoonotic disease outbreaks in the future.

By bringing together expertise from ecology, epidemiology and social sciences, and concentrating on long-term management of risks, we hope to help communities maintain a safe and mutually beneficial relationship with their natural environment.

 


 

Alexandra Kamins is Research Analyst at the Colorado Hospital Association, and co-author of the paper ‘Uncovering the fruit bat bushmeat commodity chain and the true extent of fruit bat hunting in Ghana, West Africa’, funded by the University of Cambridge and the Gates Foundation. She works as a reacher for the Colorado Hospital Association.

Marcus Rowcliffe is Research Fellow at Zoological Society of London, and co-author of the paper ‘Uncovering the fruit bat bushmeat commodity chain and the true extent of fruit bat hunting in Ghana, West Africa’, funded by the University of Cambridge and the Gates Foundation.

Olivier Restif is Royal Society University Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge. He receives funding from the Royal Society, the BBSRC and US Federal Agencies.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




385794

Low Updated for 2026

Cotton grass on the shore of a lake

In a previous post, I wrote about the power of photography for ecologists. Now, it is time to provide some real tips for photographing ecologists. How to take home some pictures that will impress others, without – importantly – losing any working time?

Cotton grass on the shore of a lake

Most ecologists will take a camera into the field anyway. It is used to take pictures of their research site or subject, or record some important details for later. As you already have your camera in your hand, it will not cost you too much effort to take just one more picture.

Autumn seeds in Lapland

In that case, it might be a smart idea to get a little bit lower, up to the level of your study object, to check the world from its point of view.

Mountain mushroom

The combination of integrating your study object in the landscape and letting it stand out of the background results in more interesting images. It makes it possible for an observer to feel a connection with the subject and it makes the picture tell a much more interesting story.

Hiking in the Swedish mountains

Even if your study object is a dull bird or a boring plant, getting on its level will bring out the best in it and give it a soul.

House sparrow

If possible, try to include the horizon in the picture. It will ask a lot more of your knees, but the rewards are big. As the (obviously real) Lappish proverb goes: ‘A beautiful horizon can even make a dead lemming look poetic’.

Dead lemming on a rock

I did not invest too much time in getting a nice overview of my study species, the invasive plants in my plots. An awfully difficult subject for an artist, I have to admit, but by quickly spending two minutes as a photographer before you dive into the science, might have been rewarding even in this case.

Experimental plot

Take home message: low! Take your pictures from a low angle and give their stories a boost!

Achillea millefolium

 Want more from Jonas Lembrechts?

October 3, 2014

Human consumption driving wildlife loss Updated for 2026





Human pressure has halved the numbers of many of the Earth’s wild creatures in just four decades, the Worldwide Fund for Nature says.

While the main recorded threat to biodiversity comes from habitat loss and degradation, it found, climate change is a growing concern. Both are driven by unsustainable human consumption.

WWF’s Living Planet Report 2014 says that vertebrate wildlife populations have declined by an average of just over half, with freshwater species suffering a 76% decline, almost double the average loss of land and ocean species.

In a foreword the director-general of WWF International, Marco Lambertini, writes: “This latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-hearted.

“One key point that jumps out is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52% since 1970.

“Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half.”

The Report is based on the Index, a database maintained by the Zoological Society of London(ZSL).

Industrial-scale killing

According to WWF, the state of the world’s biodiversity “appears worse than ever.” But it is confident in the robustness of its findings:

“This is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously, as a result of a new methodology which aims to be more representative of global biodiversity.”

The authors calculated the decline by analysing 10,000 different populations of 3,000 vertebrates. This data was then, for the first time, used to create a representative Living Planet Index, reflecting the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates. The consequences, it shows, can be drastic.

Last week conservationists said that elephant poaching was now happening on an unprecedented and “industrialised” scale in Mozambique, after 22 of the animals were killed for their tusks in the first two weeks of September. Numbers of some marine turtles are estimated to have dropped by 80%.

Professor Ken Norris, director of science at the ZSL, said: “The scale of biodiversity loss, and damage to the very ecosystems that are essential to our existence is alarming. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live.”

There is wide disagreement about the number of species on Earth. In 2007, when the total was estimated by many scientists at around 1.5 m (it is now thought to be 8.7 m) the number of vertebrate species was put at about 60,000 in the IUCN Red List.

WWF says too that humans are using more resources than the Earth can continue to provide, felling trees more quickly than they can regrow, for example, catching fish faster than they can reproduce, emptying rivers and aquifers – and emitting too much carbon for natural systems to absorb.

Boundaries crossed

The Report devotes a section to the idea of the Ecological Footprint, the sum of the ecological services that people demand which compete for space. For more than 40 years, it says, humanity’s demand on nature has exceeded what the planet can replenish, principally through climate change.

“Carbon from burning fossil fuels has been the dominant component of humanity’s Ecological Footprint for more than half a century, and remains on an upward trend. In 1961, carbon was 36% of our total Footprint; by 2010, it comprised 53%.”

WWF urges respect for “planetary boundaries” beyond which humanity will “enter a danger zone where abrupt negative changes are likely to occur.”

It says “three planetary boundaries appear to have already been transgressed: biodiversity loss, and changes to the climate and nitrogen cycle, with already visible impacts on the well-being of human health and our demands on food, water and energy.”

The Report argues for the diversion of investment away from the causes of environmental problems and towards solutions, and for “ecologically informed” choices about how we manage resources.

Next year world leaders are due to conclude two critical global agreements: the post-2015 development framework, which will include Sustainable Development Goals intended to be met by all countries by 2030; and a UN treaty leading to effective action to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 


 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Alex Kirby writes for Climate News Network.

Also on The Ecologist

 




384780

Five ways to stop the world’s wildlife vanishing Updated for 2026





Full marks to colleagues at the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London for the Living Planet Report 2014 and its headline message which one hopes ought to shock the world out of its complacency: a 52% decline of wildlife populations in the past 40 years.

Over the summer I re-read Fairfield Osborne’s 1948 classic Our Plundered Planet – the first mass-readership environmental book that detailed the scale of the damage humanity wrought on nature.

Faced with the figures in this report it is easy to slip into despondency and to blame others. But this would be a mistake. At the time, Osborne’s report must have been equally alarming, but the eclectic conservation movement of which he was part responded with confidence, hope and vision.

Their achievements were huge: the creation of a reserve network that forestalled the extinction of African creatures such as the elephant and rhino; the creation of a nature conservation agency, the International Union for Conservation of Nature) (IUCN) within the UN; and a raft of international wildlife agreements.

But what can we do now?

Today, conservation-minded people will probably be wondering what can be done to reverse wildlife declines.

For me the question is: how can today’s conservationists leave a wildlife legacy for the 21st century? I think there are five ways we can change conservation to better fit the circumstances we face.

1. Decentralise and diversify

The effort to ensure that nature conservation became a policy area of the UN necessitated developing a strong international conservation regime.

This has served us well, but the world has changed: centralised authority has given way to messy, networked governance organised across many levels.

If the Balinese want to restore Bali Starling populations in coconut plantations I say applaud their vision and learn from their innovation.

What matters is that wildlife populations flourish, not that some institutionalised notion of a ‘wild species’ gains global consensus. It is time to nurture diversity in conservation practice.

2. View wildlife as an asset

Since the 1990s conservation has become overly technocratic, with nature framed as a natural resource and stock of capital available for human economic development. Given human self-interest this just leads to arguments over who gets what share.

I suggest a better way to frame environmental policy is in terms of natural assets – places, attributes and processes that while representing forms of value to invest in, are also at risk of being eroded and must be protected.

We’ve done this before – think of great national parks where wildlife conservation, natural beautification and outdoor recreation combine for the benefit of wildlife, while also emphasising regional or national identity, health and cultural and economic worth.

3. Embrace re-wilding

Re-wilding is gaining traction. I see re-wilding as an opening, an opportunity for creative thinking and action that will affect the future.

A key theme is restoration of trophic levels – in which the missing large animals at the top of the food chain are reintroduced, allowing natural ecosystem processes to reassert themselves.

We might ask whether today’s reported declines in wildlife are a symptom of the ecosystem becoming more simple and, if so, whether re-wilding will lead to more abundant wildlife. Ecological intuition suggests the latter but in truth we don’t know.

In my view we need large-scale, publicly-financed re-wilding experiments to explore and develop new ways of rebuilding wildlife populations as an asset for society.

4. Harness new technologies

It’s clear that wildlife conservation is moving from being a data-poor to a data-rich science. The methods that underpin the Living Planet Report are state-of-the art, but even so we have yet to capture the analytical potential of ‘big data’.

Recent rapid developments in sensor technologies look set to bring about a step change in environmental research and monitoring.

In ten year’s time, I predict that the challenge for indexing the planet will shift from searching out and compiling data sets to working out how to deal with an environmental ‘data deluge’.

Despite this, wildlife conservation lacks a coherent vision and strategy. There are plenty of interesting technological innovations, but they are fragmented and individualistic in nature. We need leadership and investment to better harness them.

5. Re-engage the powerful

Like it or not, the wildlife conservation movement was at its most influential – as a policy and cultural imperative – when it was filled with active members drawn from the political, aristocratic, business, scientific, artistic and bureaucratic elites.

This was between 1890 and 1970. Over the past 40 years conservation organisations have become more professional, building close working relations with bureaucrats, but approaching other elites simply as sources of patronage, funds and publicity.

Conservation organisations must open-up, loosen their corporate structures and let leaders from other walks of life actively contribute their opinion, insight and influence to the cause.

But above all, keep caring

These are five starting points for discussion rather than prescriptions. Perhaps the greatest asset we have is the deep-rooted sense of concern for wildlife found across cultures, professions and classes.

It’s time to open up the discussion, to put forward new ideas for debate, and to ask others to suggest new and novel ways to save wildlife.

 


 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Paul Jepson is Course Director, MSc Biodiversity, Conservation and Management at the University of Oxford. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Also on The Ecologist

 

The Conversation

 




384756

To save the world’s wildlife, first we must love it Updated for 2026





While the picky might point out flaws in the methodology, I cannot help but be impressed that large organisations like WWF and ZSL are willing to come out with a grand gesture.

Their report, perhaps ironically entitled ‘Living Planet‘ states that in the last 40 years the planet has lost over 50% of its animals.

Now, they are referring to vertebrates – and also admit that we do not know quite how many there are of most things … but … still this is a breathtaking figure, for anyone who has not been paying attention.

Hedgehogs – down 37% in 10 years

For those that have been paying attention, this sort of decline is already well-known. I have been studying hedgehogs since the mid 1980s – and the anecdotal observations have consistently been of a decline in their numbers.

It was only in 2011 that we (I work with the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species) were in a position to get the research done to give us a concrete answer to the scale of the decline.

And when we updated it last year, even I, so deeply involved, was horrified. There has been a 37% decline in hedgehogs in Britain in the last ten years.

That is a faster rate of decline than that being experienced by tigers in the wild.

Extinction is the end of long period of attrition

What most interests me about this report is that it is looking at the numbers of animals themselves. Too often the attention is focussed on the demise of a species. But the moment of extinction is really rather trivial compared to the decades before.

Thom van Dooren described this well in his book, Flight Ways. The loss of the last of a species is nothing compared to the loss of the mass of individuals before that one, which is nothing compared to the loss of functionality within the ecosystem and which is topped off by the evolutionary loss – the millions of years and individuals that have gone in to creating that one, last creature.

All of this is being wiped out by our violence. Van Dooren describes it as a “violence that is often rendered invisible … by its slowness.”

How can we stop that violence? The first thing is to become aware that it is going on – and this report is a valuable step in that direction. But we need to look deeper than a simple awareness as that will tend to give us a false sense of security.

Somehow, this was not worth asking the Prime Minister about

We will look back to what we remember as the golden era of bountiful wildlife – which will be within our lifetime – and hope to recreate such a scene.

But that was already a disastrously denuded landscape. This is the idea of ‘shifting baselines’ that is beginning to get the attention it should. We need to be more ambitious.

As the news of this report broke on Tuesday morning, some attention was paid. But it was treated almost as a light item to insert alongside the real news of economy and fear. The Prime Minister was interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. I was not surprised that no mention of this report was made – but I still fumed.

Satish Kumar once said that it is a madness that we concentrate so much on the economy and so little on the ecology – both words stem from the same root – oikos, meaning home.

And ecology means the study of our home – economy, management. To have one without the other is absurd. Having one without the other is why we are suffering such catastrophic loss.

Appreciate the wonder of life – and act to save it

At times the realisation of the extent of loss leaves me gasping – and I do think that there is a need to engage in a form of grieving for what has gone.

But we also need to create change. And for that we need to embrace the rather unscientific notion of love. As Stephen Jay Gould said, “We will not fight to save what we do not love.”

But loving the vulnerable sets you up for grief, so we hold back, erect walls, and numb ourselves with quick fixes. But without taking that risk of falling in love we will always remain removed from the reality of the problem and will never find the solution.

We may be going to hell in a handcart, but we are doing so surrounded by an awe-inspiring world – surrounded by, as Darwin said, “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful”.

And that includes the people – among whom I hope, so deeply, are already seeded the solutions which will pull us back from this brink.

 


 

The report: Living Planet Report 2014.

Hugh Warwick is an ecologist and author. For more information, articles etc, see his website: www.urchin.info.

Books by Hugh Warwick


Also on The Ecologist

 

 




384748