Conservation With Kate: 2020

Photo by Keiran White (@keirancwhite)

There is a lot of talk around Christmas about what to do and what not to do - especially this year with COVID-19 and discussions over whether it's okay to see people, what regulations to follow, etc. etc. Equally, reducing waste and greenhouse gas emissions around a time of excessive eating and hyper-consumerism is hard to get your head around.

Stuff like global pandemics and existential crises (e.g. climate change) aren't super festive, and are not really what you want to focus on at this time of year. So I have written out some really simple steps to have a more sustainable Christmas:

Recyclable wrapping paper and sellotape (or at least remove your sellotape before recycling the paper)
Sustainable crackers! Apparently Christmas crackers are a British thing and we do love them, but they're not very sustainable. Not only are they single use, but they are often filled with plastic toys you never use or even see again after 25th December. My mum's solution to this was pouches - she filled them and so put things in we'd actually want (we kept the jokes, and had chocolate instead of a toy). You can also get recyclable crackers.
Sustainable presents! Buy your loved ones things they can use and keep for life, and products that will reduce their waste - e.g. water bottles, coffee cups, make up removing cloths, refillable deodorants, shampoo bars, or high quality sustainable made clothes made to LAST
Support local businesses for your Christmas shopping! Shopping local reduces emissions from transport.
Get organised (she says, publishing on 13th December...) BUT next day delivery is a massive emitter of greenhouse gases. The rush to deliver things in time for Christmas means even more vans, planes, ships transporting products around. If you are organised and there's no rush for your products to get to you, we wouldn't need this surge in transport leading to extra vehicles on the roads and even more emissions.

I have purposefully not delved into some of the bigger topics around a green Christmas (e.g. the meal and the tree) because I wanted to keep this simple and light hearted - something we all deserve nearing the end of a tough year.
If you want to read more about having an eco-Christmas, I recommend this article by Fi Watters for SheSapiens.

2 comments

** This is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **

If you take only one things from this article, let it be the title: shark nets kill sharks.

When I say shark nets, what I referring to are nets that are deployed across stretches of coastline near popular beaches in order to keep water users safe from being bitten by a shark. Marketed as a necessity, shark nets are plugged to the public as a something to keep people safe from dangerous, human-eating sharks. It is assumed that without these nets, hungry sharks would have easy access to vulnerable swimmers and we’d either not be able to go in the water, or go in at our peril. This is a lie.

Shark nets do not prevent sharks from getting close to beaches. Firstly, they do not form a barrier to sharks. They are suspended in the water column, and there is a gap above them, below them, and between them on both sides. Sharks can literally go over, under, or around the nets if they want to. What’s even more interesting is that in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, the majority of the sharks caught in the nets are caught on the shoreward side. Therefore, the sharks had made it past the nets and were caught in between the beach and the net when swimming back out to sea (away from swimmers). Secondly, the design of nets is not to act as a barrier, but to entangle, catch and kill large sharks.

Calling these lethal devices shark nets is the first big marketing win. They are actually gill nets. As in, fishing nets. Gill nets are used by commercial fishermen, and shark nets are the same nets: just on bigger scale for a bigger fish, like a great white shark. If beaches that have shark nets advertised that they have gill nets, we would avoid a lot of misconception (i.e. that these nets form a barrier).

Source: Cape Town SharkSpotters

Another important point to touch on is the non-target nature of gill nets. By this what I mean is, non-target species are also often caught in the net. This is known as by-catch: when you catch something that you didn’t intend to. Turtles, whales, dolphins and smaller sharks all get caught and die in these nets. These are animals that pose no threat to human life. Their only mistake is living in the ocean and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some critically endangered and endangered species have fallen victim to shark nets, such as the humpback dolphin in Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa (Atkins et al. 2016).

One of the biggest issues surrounding shark nets is that people are largely unaware this is happening. However, the managers of beaches that sign off on these nets are not technically lying to us. If you look for the correct information about shark nets – i.e. they’re are designed to catch and kill sharks, do not form a barrier to shark, and the majority of sharks are caught swimming back out to sea – you’ll find it. But you have to look. You have to be deliberately searching for this information, and so you basically have to already know it to find it. They may not be lying, but they are not forthcoming with the truth.

I think this is deliberate. It’s not exactly a good look for them to promote that they kill sharks, along with lots of other species. But this omission of truth means that the public opposition that I imagine would be there, is missing. Campaigns to end this culling, and to promote human safety AND shark conservation, a coexistence of both, are either not there or not loud enough to be heard.

Conservation-wise, the biggest issue with these shark nets is that they violate internationally agreed responsibility to protect endangered species. In Australia, the use of these nets goes against the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act. Several species of so-called ‘dangerous’ sharks are endangered, and much of the by-catch is too. Furthermore, sharks carry out critical ecosystem functions as apex predators. Removing them from the system could have cascading consequences for marine life and ecosystem services (natural processes that directly or indirectly benefit humans).

BALANCING HUMAN SAFETY WITH SHARK CONSERVATION

You might be reading this and be conflicted. Yes, killing sharks for just existing in their natural space seems harsh, but if people want to continue recreationally using the water in areas these sharks exist, which encourages tourism and thus has huge direct and indirect economic benefits, then we do need to do something to keep people safe.

So what can we do?

Firstly, it’s important to understand that sharks do not attack people. Sharks bite people sometimes, but incredibly rarely. And these bites are not a calculated malicious attack. The primary theory of why this happens is curiosity on behalf of the shark. Sharks cannot come up and ask us what we are, or touch us to figure it out. Their way of identifying objects or creatures is to bite them and see. There is also a theory that sharks mistake humans (often on surf boards in wetsuits) for seals. That’s why humans are rarely eaten by sharks: they bite us, realise we are not at all what they wanted, and leave. It’s just unfortunate for us that the force of a curious bite from a great white shark could take your leg off.

Sometimes sharks are just aggressive, particularly juveniles. But again, it’s incredibly rare. If you consider how many people have encountered sharks and not been bitten, or the number of people who have swam at beaches where sharks frequent and not been bitten, you get some idea of just how unlikely being bitten is.

Finally, there are shark management strategies that are harmless to sharks, but keep people safe. The Shark Spotters Programme in Cape Town is the most notable and successful to date. A spotter sits at a high vantage point (Cape Town is ideal for this kind of programme with mountains situated adjacent to popular surfing beaches). They use a flag system to signify level of risk or shark activity. If a shark is spotted, the white flag is raised and an alarm goes off notifying everyone to get out of the water. The water is evacuated until the spotter deems it safe for people to return. The flag flying also indicates how recently a shark has been spotted, and how good the spotting conditions are.

There are other options too if you don’t have a conveniently placed mountain. New technologies are in the works, including cameras that detect movement in the water. They use machine learning technology to identify sharks based on how they move, so they would be able to tell if the motion they detect is a shark. There are wetsuits you can buy that are supposed to camouflage you into the water column based on a sharks visual system, and individual shark repellent devices you can attach to yourself.

There is also such thing as an exclusion net! A net that actually does form a barrier to sharks AND does not kill them! These nets form a complete barrier from the water surface to the sea floor, creating an enclosed space for swimmers which marine life cannot enter. The mesh of the net is small (45mmx45mm) and square which reduces entanglement risk. An example of this is also found in Cape Town, at Fish Hoek beach, where a section of the bay is enclosed from sharks. The net is retrieved every evening and deployed every morning, to minimise environmental impact.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Overall, it’s safe to say I do not agree with lethal shark management. I believe it is not only possible, but essential, to promote coexistence with sharks. These days there are ways to recreationally use the oceans and let sharks live. Some beaches, such as in Cape Town, lend themselves easily to shark spotters or exclusion nets. I acknowledge that this is not the case everywhere, and more work is needed to figure out universal solutions or technologies.

But, an ocean without sharks is no ocean at all, and to kill these animals for our own enjoyment of their home is senseless. It’s time to leave shark nets in the past.

No comments

** This post is a repost of a blog I wrote for SheSapiens **

There is a stigma of perfectionism around environmentalism which arguable does more harm than good. By definition, perfection is unattainable. Therefore, the concept of perfectionism is more alienating than it is inspiring. When it comes to environmentalism, this can be damaging.

CHOICES

It is impossible to live a zero impact life. Just by existing, you are exhibiting a carbon footprint. Equally, all products have a carbon footprint. But we need certain things to survive and so we have to engage in some level of consumerism. Therefore, we do inevitably buy things which contribute to our carbon footprint.

However, you can make “better” or “worse” choices. For example, most of us have to go to work. Let’s say you live 30 minutes away from work. You can either get the bus or drive yourself. The “better” choice here is the bus: the bus is driving the journey anyway and if you’re on it, then that’s one less car on the road.

That was a relatively simple example: choice 1 (bus) has a much lower carbon footprint than choice 2 (car). But the thing with environmentalism is, it’s inherently complex. What if the bus takes 1 hour and the car takes 30 minutes? Furthermore, what if the more obviously “greener” choice, isn’t what it seems?

Let’s say the zero waste store is a 30 minute drive from where you live, but a regular supermarket is a 5 minute walk. Do you drive to the zero waste store, your boot/trunk brimming with Tupperwares and tote bags, to avoid plastic packaging on your food; or do you walk to the supermarket and accept that your pasta and vegetables might be individually wrapped in plastic?

Environmentalism involves constant trade-offs like these, and it’s important not to beat yourself up for not being perfect. It’s also important not to be deterred from trying to make environmentally conscious choices. Just because you can’t be perfect, doesn’t mean you can’t help.

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTALISM?

Another added complication of environmentalism is, it’s an umbrella term for a lot of different stuff. Tackling climate change, preventing pollution, and conserving wildlife: all of these (massive) movements come under ‘environmentalism’. While they have similar overall objectives (a more sustainable and greener future), they are nuanced in their approaches and multifaceted in their aims. Balancing every branch of environmentalism in every decision you make is almost impossible. Balancing every branch of environmentalism overall in your lifestyle is much more achievable and much more beneficial.

THE ACHILLES HEEL

Convenience is the Achilles heel of most environmentalists. The ‘easy’ sustainable choices often do not have the biggest impact. Yes, it’s great you use your reusable coffee cup and don’t accept straws anymore, but neither of those things massively affect your carbon footprint or prevent the decline of endangered species. Plastic pollution and climate change are often conflated together, whereas their only real overlap is the carbon used in the manufacturing and distribution of plastic products. If you want to help tackle climate change, then you need to make choices that reduce your individual carbon emissions. If you want to tackle plastic pollution then you need to make choices than minimise how much single-use plastic you are using and dispose of plastic in a sustainable way so it doesn’t end up on land-fill. If you want to tackle the decline of biodiversity, then you need to make choices that conserve nature and wildlife.

Some sustainable choices are easier and cheaper than the alternative (e.g. reusable coffee cups or moon cups). But sometimes it’s quicker to jump in the car. It’s also ‘simpler’ to stick with what you know. Some people don’t want to learn to cook vegetarian food or stop buying from cheap well-known fast fashion giants over sustainable fashion brands. If you stick with the norm, you don’t have to do any research, go anywhere new, or try anything different. Many people don’t want to sacrifice convenience for sustainability, and until sustainability becomes the norm, this will continue to hinder the movement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Strive for progress, not perfectionism. Accept that you can never be the perfect environmentalist, and use this to motivate you to be the best you possibly can. Don’t worry that you cannot be 100% zero waste, flawlessly vegan, carbon neutral all the time or save every species yourself. Just worry about what you can do and inspiring others to do the same. In the words of Earthrise Studio:

“If you have to be perfect, we’d have a very small movement.”

We do not need a few perfect people: we need everyone to TRY.

Here’s some simple things anyone can do:

Minimise your single-use plastic waste. Reuse plastic before recycling it. Throw away as little as possible.
Minimise your carbon transport footprint: utilise public transport as much as you can (if/when it is safe to do so with the pandemic) and walk/cycle short journeys.
Minimise your meat consumption. Start by cutting down and gradually reduce it. Why not try going 4 or 5 days a week without meat?
Compost! 6.6million tonnes of food was wasted in the UK in 2018, 70% of which could have been eaten.
Buy second hand clothes.
Support local and sustainable businesses.
Support conservation efforts and organisations.
Only plant indigenous species in your gardens and homes. Avoid invasives or introduced species which could negatively impact local wildlife.

1 comments

One of the joys of social media is that you have control of the content you see. Therefore, aside from advertising space, your feed looks how you want it to. You can choose to fill it either with just your friends and family, with celebrities you admire, cooking channels, fitness videos or wildlife photography. There are communities on all social media platforms tailored to specific interests, and so you can find yours.

Overall, this is a great thing. It means you can remove toxic content from your feed at will and it means you are never forced into seeing something you don't want to. Equally, it means you can have direct access to what interests you most.

However, for scientists and conservationists, this can be an issue. Communication is a key aspect of research: informing relevant stakeholders and the public of your findings is a crucial aspect of the scientific process. Social media can be a great way to do this. Many scientists use social media as a tool to their advantage, myself included.

But when you look at who is following you, you often see you're in an echo chamber. The majority of your followers are fellow scientists or conservationists, or at least have a keen interest in your field. For conservation, this worries me. The people who don't care about the environment or climate change, or maybe even don't believe in it, are no where to be seen. Essentially, you're preaching to the choir.

Now this can be great. Meeting and interacting with like-minded people is incredible gratifying. I've definitely found it inspiring to know that there are lots of people out there just like me: who care deeply about these issues and wish to help. But these aren't the people who would benefit most from this content.

I started thinking about this when a friend said she loved my feed, but found it overwhelming and hard to understand sometimes. She's not a scientist and hasn't ever studied conservation or climate change. She has attended protests about climate change and I would count her as someone who cares about the future of this planet and her impact on it. But she self-admits not to understanding these issues. I would wager I'm the only conservationist she follows, and only because I am her friend.

As she is someone who cares about the issues, this isn't so bad. But what about all the people out there who don't? And not because they're bad or selfish people, but because they simply don't understand them? And maybe they don't understand them because they've never had access to the right information? Understanding how to fix this is one of sciences greatest challenges.

But the thing is: everyone does have access to the information, because it's all on social media. Of course, social media isn't peer reviewed. In fact there's no review process whatsoever and anyone can post something and claim it's true. But, there is a lot of accurate, clear scientific information shared on social media everyday. A lot of well known scientists are verified and share resources to back up their statements. Unfortunately, a lot of the time they're sharing this to someone who already knows, someone already converted, and not the people who need to hear it most.

Now, just because something is on social media does not mean everyone who could access it is choosing not to, for whatever reason. Algorithms are designed to show you what you want to see. So if you've never expressed an interest in climate change publicly online before, the algorithm is not going to point you in the direction of climate scientists of activists. The people we need to target are the people who know nothing about these issues already. But how do we reach them if they don't know who we are, and we don't know who they are? How to we break out of the echo chamber?

I honestly have no idea. I'm very open to suggestions. I always want this blog and my instagram to be somewhere anyone can come to learn about conservation. But I have no control on who clicks on my page. I can't force someone to read this, and the only people likely to click on it are people who already care, either about the topic or me. How do I access everyone else? How do we make people care about conservation?

It should be simple. If we don't tackle climate change, millions, if not billions, will die. Our lives will never be the same and we will all suffer the consequences. The science alone should prompt people to want to do everything they can to stop this from happening. But it's not. And we can't blame ordinary people for this. The gravity of the situation is not effectively communicated and when it is, it's easily dismissed. The actions of governments do not back up the words of science, and if the government isn't taking it seriously, why should you? This is the attitude of a lot of people, about more than just climate change, and I don't blame them for it. How can we?

But if we know this problem exists, how do we solve it?

No comments

At the beginning of the pandemic, there were a lot of parallels drawn to climate change. You can see why: disaster on a global scale, disproportionate impacts on those less privileged, both systematic and individual change necessary to combat the problem. Many environmentalists also took the opportunity to highlight the global panic around coronavirus contrasted with the startling lack of panic relating to climate change.

I think the more obvious parallel of the pandemic to a conservation issue is the spread of invasive species. Invasive species are species that occur outside of their native range AND cause negative impacts to the indigenous species or ecosystems in their new space. Grey squirrels in the UK are a classic example. Due to their introduction, for ornamental reasons by humans in the 1876, red squirrels have declined almost to the point of extinction. Grey squirrels are more generalist and so out-compete red squirrels for food and space, meaning reds have been pushed out. For example, red squirrels find tannins in acorns unpalatable, whereas greys can digest them fine. Another classic example of a successful invasion is of two lionfish species in the USA, Caribbean and Mediterranean. Lionfish are endemic to the Pacific (red lion fish; Pterois volitans) and Indian (devil filefish; Pterois miles) Oceans. It is thought their invasion into the Atlantic was a result of exotic pet owners dumping them when they realised they could not look after them (they're are predators and can be aggressive). A small number were thought to be released in the 1980s, and since their population has exploded. They have few predators in these new environments and their arrival has had severe implications on the native fish and coal reef systems.

The reason I link invasive species to COVID-19 is that invasive species and zoonotic diseases sometimes spread in similar ways. Just like a virus, invasive species do not pay attention to country borders or boundaries, and globalisation enables the spread of invasive species through travel - via airplanes, boats, or just carrying them on you (eg insects or bacteria). As with the grey squirrels and lion fish, humans are responsible for a significant number of cases where invasive species have been introduced. During the invasive species module in my CB masters, I drew the parallel that we spray planes for diseases, but not invasives. We are much more diligent of our impact on the planet when we are the victims. But our impact on the planet goes far beyond our own species. COVID-19 is showcasing to us how powerful nature is, and gives an insight into how easily things can spread around the shrinking world we’ve created.

Zoonotic diseases are diseases that spread from animals to humans and cause illness in humans. They are caused by harmful germs like bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses. They can spread from animals to humans in various ways: through both direct and indirect contact, through eating contaminated food or drinking contaminated water, or through vectors (e.g. ticks, mosquitoes). Scientists believe COVID-19 spread from animals to humans at a wet market in Wuhan, China.

The current way we treat the natural world is damaging. We know that we are polluting the planet and destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate. What this pandemic has done is show us how these actions are also incredibly harmful to us. We have been playing with fire, and now we've been burnt.

If the way we treat wildlife does not change, this will happen again. Professor Paula Cannon of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California said: "Humans are increasing the odds of diseases happening as we move into wild areas and catch wild animal.s We are creating the circumstance where it is only a matter of time when this was going to happen, and it will only be a matter of time before it happens again."

As we continue to encroach on wild space, continue to travel so much, and continue to disregard nature as we have been doing, the spread of zoonotic diseases and invasive species will persist. Every invasive species case is different, but there are simple ways to help minimise their spread:

In the same way you must wash your hands to avoid corona, wash your clothes when you visit new places.
Take all your rubbish with you (even biodegradable produce).
Never release your pets - re-home them if you don’t want them or can no longer look after them.
After leaving any water body (river, lake, ocean etc.) clean & dry everything thoroughly - from swimming stuff to surf boards to boats! The tiniest little creatures can remain if not and you might mistakenly transport them to a new home. Same goes for hiking gear: clean it thoroughly before entering a new system.
Keep your pets out of waterways where possible. They can act as a vector for invasive species.
Join removal efforts.
Report invasive species you find to local nature trusts/organisations. Take pictures and mark your location if you can.
If a species is classed as invasive, do not breed, buy, import, sell or keep this species as a pet.

And remember during this pandemic, many species are face their own version of COVID-19 everyday because of us.

No comments

Following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Artery and international outcry over police brutality in the US and systemic racism which plagues societies all over the world, many people have educated themselves on these issues more than ever before. Thus, for the first time, black women have topped the paperback charts for both fiction and non-fiction writing in the UK (Reni Eddo-Lodge, Why I'm No Longer Talking To White People About Race, and Bernardine Evaristo, Girl, Woman, Other), which prompted criticism of the publishing industry over why it's taken this long. Countless petitions have been circulated via https://petition.parliament.uk generating over 100,000 signatures so parliament has to debate them (links to which are at the end of this post). Protests have broken out, forcing communities to examine why we still have statues of slavers and colonisers, and anti-racism has been at the forefront of everyone's mind in the past couple of weeks.

Conservationists are no exception, and have been engaging in this global conversation. At most climate change protests, or really whenever climate change is mentioned, you often hear the phrase: there is no climate justice without social justice. Intersectional environmentalism advocates for both the protection of the planet, and of people, whereby social issues are valued as highly as environmental issues.

The human-element of conservation is as prevalent if not more than any other animal. While the term "wildlife conservation" emphasises the importance of wildlife, conservation as a discipline centres around people. The needs of people, the impacts of environmental issues on people, the reliance of people on the environment, and the promotion of cultural values and equality, are at the forefront of all conservation conundrums.

Leah Thomas wrote a beautiful article for Vogue entitled "Why Every Environmentalist Should Be Anti-Racist". In the article she explains how social justice can often be seen as an add-on to environmental justice campaigns, instead of a core element of those campaigns. To believe we can solve environmental issues without first tackling racism is a nonsense. The two issues are so deeply embedded within one another that to separate them is to deny such links between them, and to deny that is to deny the oppression of BAME people as a result of both environmental injustices and conservation actions.

For example, climate justice involves revolutionising our economies and infrastructure. This process will undoubtably create thousands of jobs. Who gets those jobs? Who benefits from a green economy? In the past, minority communities have been left out of these answers. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Furthermore, climate change impacts disadvantaged and minority communities more than it does anyone else. Black people are 3x more likely to die from asthma-related causes than white people (US data), 80% of people displaced by climate change are women, and 75,000 African Americans were displaced by hurricane Katrina. The impacts of that hurricane (2005) were disproportionately felt by the black community of New Orleans, and the population has not yet recovered. ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

Conservation historically has not been innocent of oppression and racism. The history of white conservationists in Africa, Asia and South America is an ugly one: "white saviours" telling local people what to do and how to do it. Conservation has historically followed a fortress model: acquire some land -> put a fence around it -> proclaim it a protected area for nature conservation. This has led to thousands of indigenous communities being pushed out of their homes; people who have unrivalled knowledge of the terrain and ecology have been deliberately excluded.

A vast majority of conservation efforts are still held by foreigners or descendants of colonial settlers. White foreigners often occupy higher paying jobs or managerial positions, over local people who often have greater local knowledge and experience of the land. Black voices in conservation are often lost in a sea of white, often male, voices who can shout the loudest because they're shouting from a raised platform of privilege. Recent years have seen a move towards more inclusive, community based management, which is essential and important and we need to see more of. I found this instagram post explained the white saviour problem in conservation well. This article is also well worth a read, detailing how young black Africans are often not offered the same opportunities as young, white foreigners. I am very aware that a lot of the experiences I have had in conservation in Africa would not have been available to me if I was African, and that's just wrong. I hope to do more to right this wrong.

Furthermore, treating environmentalism and racism as two separate entities is a luxury for white people that black people cannot afford. In this must-read article in the Washington Post by Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, "Racism derails our attempts to fight the climate crisis", she explains that not only do BAME communities experience disproportionate impacts due to climate change, but black conservationists and climate scientists cannot simply ignore racism and focus solely on the environment. Racism makes it harder for them to do their jobs. She wrote: "Even at its most benign, racism is incredibly time consuming." Without fully understanding the toll racism has on black people and addressing it, we are doing a disservice to black people within our industry. The article is so powerful and thought-provoking: please read it.

The reason social equality cannot be treated separately from climate change & conservation is because they have 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦, and they aren’t now.⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣

A lot of us are undergoing a process of unlearning the white story we have been told and replacing it with the truth. The history of racism, colonisation, slavery, and exclusion. The on-going suffering of BAME communities and structural racism present in every facet of society. The disproportionate impacts of the climate crisis on black communities.

Be critical of who you get your information from. I have been deeply disappointed in many white conservationists I admired in the past weeks, who have said either nothing, or very little on these issues. You cannot call yourself a conservationist if your brand of conservation only focusses on wildlife or white people.

I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read my blog. I put a lot of thought into my posts and I hope they are informative and enjoyable to read. However, I want to use this platform to amplify black voices. As a white person, it is easier for me to be seen and heard. But I can never fully understand what BAME people go through. Nor can I speak to these issues with the same authority as I am someone who learns about racism, rather than experiences it. All the articles I have linked throughout this blog post were written by black scientists/conservationists. Please, if you're reading this, read them. I am also going to link some social media accounts to follow.

We have a responsibility to be actively anti-racist, to continue supporting the BLM movement in its entirety and to educate ourselves. Thank you again for reading and supporting this blog.

Black conservationists to follow:

Dr Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: if you only follow one instagram account, let it be hers. She is an incredible scientist and powerful black, female voice in this field and we should all be listening to her: https://www.instagram.com/ayanaeliza/

Danni Washington was the first black woman science TV host and her feed is full of stunning photos and great information: https://www.instagram.com/danniwashington/

Leah Thomas, an activist who speaks so clearly on intersectional environmentalist: https://www.instagram.com/greengirlleah/

Dr Raychelle Burks. Chemistry academic with great tweets about being a scientist and science in general: https://twitter.com/DrRubidium

I could go on for ages but THIS POST links several accounts and so does THIS POST. Check them both out.

Petitions to sign:

Here are some petitions for UK citizens/residents to sign. They need over 100,000 for parliament to debate that but the more they have the better! So do sign even when they're over 100,000 already.

Teach Britain's Colonial Past as part of the UK's Compulsory Curriculum: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324092
Improve Maternal Mortality Rates and Health Care for Black Women in the UK: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/301079
Add education on diversity and racism to all school curriculums: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323808
Introduce Mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap Reporting: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300105
Condemn the US government for the use of force against its citizens: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323863
Create an independent investigatory commission to help protect ethnic minorities: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323867
Making the UK education curriculum more inclusive of BAME history: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/323961
Make is compulsory for Black and POC UK histories to be taught in the Welsh education curriculum: https://petitions.senedd.wales/petitions/200034
Suspend future sales of tear gas and other crowd control equipment to the USA: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/324208

If there are more that I have missed, please leave a link to them in the comments so everyone can access it. They take less than a minute to sign & confirm via email, and it really can make a difference.

No comments

Various national lockdowns as a result of COVID-19 have showcased the relationship between tourism and conservation: how dependent they are on one another, how fragile the relationship is, and how important.

In the absence of tourists, many conservation areas are severely under-funded. This applies to national parks and privately owned nature areas and wildlife reserves. Many of these places derive the majority of their income through tourism, whether it be a 5-star luxury lodge or simply through daily park entrance fees. Each year, approximately 950,000 tourists visit Kruger National Park, South Africa, every year, and over 400,000 visited India's Ranthambore National Park in 2019. In India's Ranthambore, an international tourist can spend up to £16/US$20 for one game drive. In Kruger, the daily entrance fee for South African citizens is R100 (~£4-5/US$5-6), and R400 (~£17/US$22) for internationals. Bottom line: the wildlife tourism industry can make a lot of money.

Travel bans mean no tourists. No tourists mean this entire sector of income for these businesses is reduced to nothing. Many now have to rely on donations, in a time where people all over the world are receiving lower incomes than usual or no income at all. Donations at the best of times are an unstable and unpredictable source of income.

The relationship

The relationship between tourism and conservation is not purely economic. There are other benefits. Enabling people to witness wildlife in its natural state often sets off a passion for said wildlife. People who have experienced the best of nature tend to leave caring more for it than when they arrived. This kind of relationship is priceless. Equally, sending people home with a greater understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the threats against it can empower them to help, whether that be through sharing their experience with others, educating people, or through donating themselves.

There are of course, also drawbacks. Inviting thousands of people annually into natural spaces is bound to have negative effects on those spaces and the wildlife inhabiting there. Noise, light, plastic, litter, and vehicle pollution are just some examples of how humans disrupt natural environments. Many tourists are considerate of their environment, but some aren't.
Invasive species is another major concern associated with tourism. International travel, like with the coronavirus, makes it easier than ever for species to move form one system to another. International travel by humans is a major contributor to the global invasive species problem. Tourists could transport bacteria or microorganisms into new natural systems they visit while on holiday, which could become invasive.
There is an also ethical question surrounding tourism and conservation. A lot of safari parks or national parks have strict guidelines regarding treatment of the area and the wildlife that are well enforced. But this is not always the case. Restrictions can include setting a minimum distance a vehicle can be to an animal, a maximum number of vehicles at one particular wildlife sighting, vehicle restrictions regarding noise, restricted opening times to create hours where the park is empty and the wildlife is free of cars. In some areas, breaches incur heavy fines, but these are often guidelines, or not universally enforced. Certain parks might adopt them, where other don't. Parks that allow self-drive safaris are particularly hard to police. I have sat in traffic in a national park before at a wildlife sighting. This should never be the case.

Overall, the benefits outweigh the costs for me. I think wildlife tourism is one of conservationists most valuable tools. I do believe many parks could do a lot better at enforcing more ethical practices and this is critical. But overall, without tourism, many conservation organisations wouldn't exist. Thousands would be left unemployed, and many reserves would be forced to close. What happens to the land and the wildlife then?

The impact of COVID-19

The coronavirus crisis has seen an unprecedented ban on international travel. Borders have closed, flights have been cancelled, and airlines are facing bankruptcy. While we can celebrate the grounding of flights from a carbon perspective, the impact of this complete halt on tourism on wildlife conservation in the developing world especially, is astronomical and dangerous.

If you want to help, look for reserves who need donations to keep their business alive, to keep their staff employed, and to keep their wildlife safe. Endangered Rhino Conservation is a good example: their donations help fund anti-poaching efforts for private game reserves in South Africa.

No comments

Fast fashion is defined as inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass-market retailers to meet demands of latest trends. The fashion market is constantly changing, and so brands have to keep up by continually producing new products for the mass market. This translates to roughly 80-100 billion items of clothing being produced annually. For all of those items to be homed, every single person in the world would need to buy 10-13 items every year. Maybe that doesn't sound like a lot to you, but think about the millions of people in the world who don't have access to clean water, let alone high street fashion. Because of this mass production, the fashion industry generates 4% of all global waste, 92 million tons. Furthermore, a report by the Global Fashion Agenda in 2017 found that the fashion industry is responsible for the emission of 1.715 millions tons of carbon dioxide, roughly 4.3% of global carbon emissions.

The ecological and carbon footprint of the fashion industry has been in the firing line in recent years. Many people were likely unaware of the impact this industry was having, as it is so far removed from your typical environmental discussion. Talks of climate change tend to focus on planes, cars, steaks, and oil, not dresses, labels, fabrics, and blazers. But anything and everything has a carbon footprint, and it just so happens that fashion has a big one.

Many of our favourite high street brands are guilty of centring their business around a model of fast fashion: mass production, quick turnarounds, high waste. H&M is a perfect example. Their business model involves producing high volumes of clothes, and moving them from the production table to the shop floor as quickly as possible. H&M outsources production to factories throughout Asia and Europe. In Bangladesh and Cambodia, they purchased 100% of their factory outputs for 5 years up front, making them the sole customer of those factories. This enables them to have a stronger grip on improving working conditions, but also maximising productivity. H&M also produces 20% of their products based on present day trends, whereas the other 80% is produced in advance based on expected trends. Using IT technology, they are able to produce that 20% on the go, and ship it out to their stores as and when. This reduces their lead times and posits them ahead of competitors on latest trends. This has been a key strategy for the success of the brand, but highlights how quickly the fashion industry can change. The fact that brands feel the need to be able to produce 20% of their products and have them in stores in real time shows that they believe people will not buy them later down the line. They have to have them now. This now-culture is what makes fast fashion such a problem environmentally.

We live in a consumerist society, where we can buy something we want today, and have it at our front door tomorrow. While these advances have arguably improved our daily lives and economies, they have allowed for a cultural shift in expectations. Living through COVID-19 strict lockdowns, where we can't always get the exact groceries we want, and we can't always have something delivered the next day, and the frustration and damage this is causing demonstrate how accustomed we have become. The carbon footprint of this now-culture is making waves, and more and more articles (like this one) are published expressing concern, and some even attacking industries like the fashion industry for their environmental impact. It's not the fashion industries fault; it's ours.

Successful business has always worked off basic principles of supply and demand. Technological advances have created a world where unreasonable and absurd demands have become the norm. You can consume as many products as you want, have them delivered the next day (or even the same day) without ever leaving your bed. Everything is literally a couple of clicks away. As long as this demand exists, businesses like H&M will supply products to feed it. And, why shouldn't they? Yes you could argue about the moral ramifications of manufacturing products when you know roughly 80% will eventually end up in landfill, or running a business which is polluting the atmosphere with CO2. But, you could make the same moral argument to every single one of their customers. If their business is thriving from their fast fashion now-culture model, how can we expect them to change? Money makes the world go round.

If we truly want to do anything about fast fashion and the wasteful nature of the fashion industry in general, we have to put our money where our mouth is. Stop investing in fast fashion. Don't give a single penny/cent of your money to an industry that knowingly dumps 10 million tons of clothes on landfills, where dyes can leach chemicals into the soil to be washed elsewhere and cause ecological damage.

Slow fashion
The slow fashion movement focusses on sustainability, and considers the impact of clothes before buying them, on people, animals, and the environment. Much of the slow fashion movement centres around the environment, but what is so great about it is the incorporation of the humanitarian aspect too. The fashion industry is sometimes known for appalling working conditions and unfair treatment of workers, particularly brands who produce their clothes in lesser developed countries. Their working conditions are often sub-standard (to put it nicely) and they often do not pay their workers anywhere near enough for the hours/work they do. This is often the appeal of locating factories in certain places, and explains why products can be priced so low. We absolutely should not be supporting brands that use such practises. The slow fashion movement takes into account the treatment of staff and thus, often the sustainable choice is the humanly ethical choice too.

We've all been guilty of supporting fast fashion in the past (if you can truly say you haven't - bravo). But there are really simple ways to ensure you don't ever have to again, and still have a bomb wardrobe.

Slow fashion dos:

Shop second hand; buy nothing new. Charity shops are stocked with gems and your money is going to a good place; apps like Depop have tons of great stuff and a lot of it is in perfect condition. If someone else has shopped from fast fashion brands but is now selling them on and you buy them second hand: that's slow fashion! You are preventing those items becoming waste and so it may be fast fashion brands, but its slow fashion!
Swap clothes with your friends/family, including younger generations when you outgrow something
Mend your broken clothes! Such an important element of the slow fashion movement is to upcycle: reusing materials what would otherwise be considered waste
If you are buying clothes, buy high quality items you will keep for years
Donate your old clothes: charity shops/shelters
Buy from ethical, sustainable brands. Some great examples are Patagonia and TALA (click here for more). It is also good to support local/small businesses/designers.
Shop local!! A major issue with the fashion industry is that the products are flown/shipped all over the world. The transport of clothing wracks up a major carbon footprint and so if something is local made, then it hasn't travelled far to get to you and so it's carbon footprint is substantially lower
Know your fabrics. Silk for example has a low carbon footprint; Denim and cotton are highly water intensive; wool is biodegradable but often sheep farming practises are damaging for the environment, but sustainable wool is a great choice. Understanding the materials helps you make smarter choices.

Fashion is something that is important to a lot of people. Many choose to express themselves through their clothes, perhaps through the colours they wear or the style they represent. Many consider it an interest or thousands make successful careers in this booming industry.

Whether you would say you're particularly interested in fashion, whether you follow the latest trends, have your token style, wear pink on Wednesdays, or live in activewear 24/7, we all wear clothes every single day. We are all stakeholders of some sort in the fashion industry.

If clothes are how you express yourself, then express yourself as someone who cares about the environment, people, and animals. Be a conscious consumer, and we can all slow down fast fashion.

No comments

My last post gave three examples of positive environmental outcomes of the COVID-19 global pandemic (available here). Social media has been crawling with shares over declining emissions and seeing lockdown as a rest bite for the planet. But is it all good news? Is a lockdown good for the planet?
I'm trying to balance my stance from the previous post. Yes, there are environmental wins due to Lockdown. But there are also losses, and potential for even greater losses in the future. I'm going to focus on three.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I think it is fair to say that the data will reflect that yes, lockdown is good for the planet regarding greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is potentially only going to be true in the short term. Following the end of lockdown, it is possible that things will either go back to normal, or get worse. Governments are likely to want to jump-start their economies again, and so we can expect an industrial boom. Following the 2008-9 financial crisis, emissions increased by 5% for the same reason.
More theoretically, I worry about what lockdown will do to people's attitudes regarding tackling climate change. The idea that this (lockdown, social distancing, isolation) is what it looks like to lower emissions does not sit well. State-mandated lockdown is not fun for anyone: it's affects people social lives, freedoms, and incomes. If this is what tackling climate change looks like, do we want it?

Of course this isn't what tackling climate change should look like or needs to look like, but I worry that the more we shout about how good this is for the planet, the greater negative association we build between our actions and benefitting the planet. Resentment thrives in such settings: why do we have to suffer for the environment to win?

Poaching
Many countries are currently in lockdown. Poachers, are not. The number of poaching incidents is expected to spike during this time. Some reserves may have less staff, as staff may have chosen to isolate with their families. Income for reserves will be dramatically lowered. A lot of reserves rely on visitors and tourism to make money, all of which will have ceased during lockdown. Therefore, they may not be able to afford to continue the same level of anti-poaching work and protection as they would normally. In general, lockdown is a silver platter presented to poachers to take full advantage of.
Meat poaching is bound to increase as people also have limited access to food during a lockdown. Stocks in stores globally are down, and shopping is limited. Poaching may be the only way, or the easiest way, for people to feed their families.
Poaching of endangered species, such as rhino of elephant, is also bound to spike with less security. This could have catastrophic impacts for these species, many of which do not have the numbers to survive a sudden decrease in their numbers.

Chinese Wet Markets
In my last post I said that China has banned wildlife trade due to the links found between Chinese wet markets and COVID-19. Many believe such markets in Wuhan are the origin of the virus. At these markets, thousands of animals are kept in cages, sold, and some are slaughtered there on site. Animals are sold for traditional medicine, for example lion bones, and for food. This is linked heavily to the poaching of endangered species discussed above. These animals are kept in close proximity to one another, and passed from human to human. Viruses thrive in such an environment, and can pass from species to species and cross the barrier to humans. It is likely this is what happened with the coronavirus, and that is why these markets were closed.
Just a month after closing these markets China has begun to re-open these markets, ignoring international pressure and pleas not to. Medical and conservation professionals worldwide are urging them not to stay closed. Reopening these markets is incredibly dangerous, and reflects a apathetic attitude by the Chinese government for the countries currently fighting with everything they have to beat this virus.
Conservation wise, closing these markets was a big win. This win lasted a month. If these markers cannot stay closed when human lives are in danger, how can we ever expect to keep them closed to protect wildlife?

My blog tends to look at things through an environmental lens because that's how I look at things. But it is impossible to look at anything these days purely from the perspective of the environment, because everything is intertwined to an irreversible extent. The impact, positive and negative, this virus is having on the environment shows us that: lions and rhinos in the most remote regions of Africa are being heavily impacted. Our shrinking and connected world means that everything we do trickles down to every corner of the earth and every creature in it. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as separated from nature.
Continuing the winners/losers metaphor, we shouldn't have to lose for the environment to win. In fact, I think effective policy and change to beat global warming and protect endangered species, is a win for us both. A lot of major changes necessary (e.g. switching to renewable energy, minimising global waste) will be positive steps for people too. Cleaner air, job creation, financial incentives: all these things help keep the environment thriving and keep us thriving too.
Coronavirus has demonstrated to the world a harsh reality: business as usual was not okay. The disregard we have for wildlife and the environment has come back to bite us on the arse. But we only care to do anything about this when we are in the firing line.
This cannot go on.
We cannot win while the environment continues to lose.

We either both win, or we both lose. Our choice.

No comments

The COVID-19 crisis has been plaguing the world for a few months now and the light at the end of the tunnel to most is being released from isolation and to be allowed in the same room as people not in your household. Going back to work seems like a luxury, let alone going out with your friends or hugging another human being.

But for the planet, the light at the end of a long tunnel of exploitation, pollution, degradation and destruction, is now. Albeit this is likely a fleeting light in the history of the earth, and one that will be diminished as soon as we find a way to deal with the virus. Even if it takes a year of semi-to-full lockdown, in the history of the planet, this is a very short time period. For our lives and our economies, it seems like forever, but for the planet this is barely a weekend.

COVID-19 is not a blessing for anyone. It could end up doing more harm than good to the planet, as I will discuss in another post. However in these uncertain and distressing times, it's hard not to notice that the environment is winning where we are all losing - possibly for the first time since the industrial revolution.

This does not mean COVID-19 is something to be celebrated. Celebrating COVID-19 is not only insensitive, but it's also illogical. However, that does not mean we cannot notice positive changes in the world as a direct or indirect result of the pandemic. And there are many. I'm going to focus on three.

1. Greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are down.

International air travel is a majorly guilty party contributing to global GHG emissions. Any situation in which air travel is limited will result in less GHG emissions, which can only be seen as a positive step when looking at the world through a purely environmental lens. Seeing so many cancelled flights, locked down borders, and travel bans means the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere during this period will be significantly lower. Anthropogenic (human-induced) GHG emissions cause climate change. Slowing the rate and reducing the quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere is essential for tackling climate change.

Reducing air travel globally will be necessary to keep global temperature from rising above 1.5°C, which has been accepted by scientists as the threshold before which we will have done irreversible damage to the planet. This pandemic has shown us we are capable of limiting our air travel, if we see how it can directly impact our lives. I hope we see how climate change will directly impact our lives before it's too late.
Air travel is not the only way emissions are down. Due to lockdown in China, which included factories and power plants, and meant less cars on the road, nitrogen dioxide emissions were down 40% in some cities, and were significantly reduced in Italy as well. Global energy and carbon emissions were down 25% and coal consumption by power plants fell 36% (data from the Centre for Research and Clean Air).

2. Bans on Wildlife Trade

Due to speculations over the origins of the coronavirus being from a range of wildlife meat products, China banned all wildlife trade. Whether the virus came from these products is unclear, but the trade in wildlife certainly enabled the early spread of the disease. Of course, this ban only relates to legal wildlife trade. The black markets are likely to continue. But, a ban does send a clear message. The government would not do this if they did not feel the wildlife trade posed a significant threat to human safety. Would you buy something if you thought it might give you coronavirus?

Obviously, the answer is a simple no. But unfortunately, the question is not that simple. Trade in certain wildlife products is not just food, it's traditional medicine. While we can sit here in the west and judge traditional medicines from the comfort of our living rooms, deciding it's nonsense, doesn't work, and is far inferior to our better, newer, shinier branch of medicine, that doesn't mean that people won't buy it. If you truly believe something works, you will continue to believe that. These beliefs are old, some older than Christianity, and deeply rooted in many communities. And, the placebo effect is a thing that does happen - when a patient is cured due to their belief in the treatment, rather than the treatment itself (usually due to inactive treatment).

So, if you have cancer and you truly believe a product will cure you, would you buy it even if it meant risking coronavirus? It's suddenly not so black and white.

However, China's ban on wildlife trade is a huge leap in the right direction. Reducing wildlife trade helps minimise risk for endangered species. Again, we only took this necessary action when we were at risk.

3. Lethal shark nets removed in SA

This smaller, localised example is close to my heart as my masters thesis centred around the use of lethal shark nets for bather protection. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa, and many other countries including Australia, lethal shark nets are used at popular beaches under the pretence of keeping water users safe. Most people think these nets are a non-lethal barrier: they are not. They are a fishing device designed to catch and kill large sharks, but do not discriminate and such kill whales, turtles, dolphins, and a plethora of other marine wildlife.

South Africa announced a 21-day lockdown of the country this week, in which people must stay home except to shop for food and for medical emergencies. As part of this lockdown, the nets have been removed for 21 days. This is because no one is allowed out to maintain or remove them.

The nets are supposed to go back up at the end of the lockdown. I hope they don't.

For the record, there is no evidence they keep people safer than non-lethal alternatives, they are incredibly damaging to marine ecosystems, and people do not support their use.

Overall, environmentally speaking, it's not all bad. However, it's not all good either (as I will discuss in a subsequent post). I understand it's annoying for some to hear conservationists discussing this virus in a positive way. I hope it is clear that's not the intention. These potential "wins" for the environment do not detract from the literal losses to everyone else.
I personally, wish this virus wasn't happening. I wish we were all carrying on our normal lives. I wish the healthcare service was not being pushed to its' limits, and I wish people weren't dying.
I also wish we could and would start to tackle climate change with effective policy, real lifestyle change, and a better understanding of what we are doing to the future of this planet and our own species by not. I wish we would do this because we know it's necessary, and not because we are scared we will get a virus if we don't.

No comments

Pages

BALANCING HUMAN SAFETY WITH SHARK CONSERVATION

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

CHOICES

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTALISM?

THE ACHILLES HEEL

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Here’s some simple things anyone can do:

Black conservationists to follow:

Petitions to sign:

The relationship

The impact of COVID-19

Blog Archive

Follow Me

Popular Posts

Instagram