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:

1. In the same way you must wash your hands to avoid corona, wash your clothes when you visit new places. 
2. Take all your rubbish with you (even biodegradable produce). 
3. Never release your pets - re-home them if you don’t want them or can no longer look after them. 
4. 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.
5. Keep your pets out of waterways where possible. They can act as a vector for invasive species. 
6. Join removal efforts.
7. Report invasive species you find to local nature trusts/organisations. Take pictures and mark your location if you can. 
8. 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. 

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. 

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

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

Horn trimming has become a well practised and documented phenomenon across South African private game reserves. Horn trimming is the process of cutting a rhinos horn, like we cut our hair. The first time a rhino has their horn trimmed, the majority of the external horn is removed, and then subsequent procedures trim the remaining horn as it continues to grow. Most reserves do this on an annual or biannual basis. 

The most important thing to remember when discussing horn trimming is that rhino horn grows. Just like our hair, rhino horn continues to grow and so trimming does not leave rhinos without a horn permanently, and to keep the horn short will involve continuously trimming every year or so. This is a key argument in favour of legalising the rhino horn trade: you can sustainably harvest horn and continue to harvest horn from one rhino throughout its' entire life. Rhinos can live to be ~45 and horns can be trimmed every year, and so by horn trimming, you generate more product than if you left the horn alone. 

The second most important fact to bare in mind is that horn trimming is incredibly expensive. To horn trim a rhino you need a helicopter + fuel, at least one vet, tranquilliser and other drugs, vehicles + fuel, and a whole team of people to move and monitor the rhino, including a scientist on site to record and take measurements (necessary for permits but is also provides important data into growth rates etc.). Vets alone incur fees for their time and their drugs. Most reserves don't own their own helicopter, and so have to hire one, pay for fuel, and pay for the pilot. 

The main motivator for horn trimming rhinos is to act as a deterrent to poaching. Rhinos are poached specifically for their horns. Thus, a rhino with a trimmed horn is a much less valuable target than a rhino with a full horn. Is breaking onto a reserve, risking your life, and risking a life-sentence for rhino poaching worth it, for a horn maybe 1/4 of its original size? Ideally, we want the answer to be no to this question. The rhino poaching crisis in undeniably more complicated than that, but horn trimming does make rhinos a less desirable target.

If you're wondering why poachers kill rhinos when you can remove horns on a live animal, there are two primary reasons. Firstly, poachers often aren't qualified veterinarians with access to tranquillisers or dart guns (although corrupt vets have been implicated in rhino poaching in the past). Therefore, they shoot the animals and sometimes slash their spines to immobilise them. If they did not do this, the rhinos would either run away or charge at the poachers and potentially kill them. Secondly, poachers want to get as much horn as possible so they take the entire thing. The cut it out of the rhinos face to ensure they have every morsel of horn. This often happens while the rhino is still alive, and demonstrates the cruelty of this epidemic. This is why the rhino crisis sparks such emotion from people who work closely with these animals. It's human brutality in its ugliest form. 

There has been no evidence to imply that horn trimming has a negative impact on rhinos. Darting animals, especially wild animals, is stressful for them, but this day of stress has not been shown to evoke any long-term suffering or negative effects on the animals. Furthermore, their social interactions have not been negatively affected by the process. Rhinos do not need their horns to survive. Horns are used in fighting, but reserves that do horn trimming do so on all their rhinos, and so the playing field is levelled and the rhinos fight anyway. Horn trimming has not been shown to negatively impact rhinos in the wild.

National parks in South Africa do not horn trim their rhinos. There are a couple reasons for this. Firstly, the cost is immense. Most private reserves, while owning 45% of all white rhinos between them, individually have smaller populations. National parks have many more rhinos, and so the costs are exponentially higher. Secondly, national parks rely on tourism for their income. It is generally believed that tourists want to see rhinos with big horns. The bigger the horn the better. Many think tourists would be disappointed to see rhinos with trimmed horns. 

Personally, I think people would understand. If the guides and rangers could explain clearly why the rhinos have been de-horned, that it does not harm them or their social interactions, and use rhino sightings as an educational moment to enlighten tourists in the severity of the rhino crisis, then I think they would understand. It very much may be that your choice is a rhino with a trimmed horn, or no rhino at all. What would you choose?

I have seen people posting things like "because no one cares enough, I'm only hearing about this now" or "I'm sharing this because the news won't". Firstly, the news is. Secondly, this sort of stuff never makes headline news immediately, so I don't know why everyone is shocked. And thirdly, this is not the fault of individuals or news organisations not caring.

This is just a fundamental issue in today's society whereby the environment is not considered as important as other sectors and therefore not given as much press attention. It has nothing to do with the Amazon itself and it has nothing to do with the BBC or CNN or whoever you watch, not caring about the Amazon forest, indigenous people, or wildlife. And it certainly has nothing to do with members of the public not caring enough.

It is great that people are talking about these fires and the wider implications. But it is just talk. You can shout about it on social media all you want, and you can be angry that it took 3 weeks to reach you. That's a completely valid reaction, and definitely understandable. 

But this is a classic example of something that is today's news and forgotten tomorrow. Everyone is a conservationist when something bad happens. This isn't a criticism: I think it's wonderful how much people care, especially our generation. You do not have to dedicate your life/career to a cause to care about it.

But, your frustration is misdirected. The problem is not that no one knew about these fires from the offset: it's that these fires are happening in the first place at a record breaking rate and extent. 

There are loads of reasons the Amazon burns: deforestation, deliberate fires, wildlife, etc. When it comes to environmental problems, it's never straight forward. These issues are multifaceted and complex; and they're not going away. Not without top-down approaches (which is very relevant given the Brazilian presidents' relaxed attitude towards environmental policy), or normal people making sacrifices and compromises to their everyday life. 

We will have to drive less, fly less, and eat less meat. We might have to restrict our hours of electricity. We might have to restrict our water consumption. We might not be able to eat imported foods. These things aren't extreme: their likely realities if we want to prevent that 1.5 degree rise. 

Next time you share something to do with climate change/the environment, think: would I give up steak or avocado for this? Would I give up my car? Would I turn off my electric power?

Don't be angry you didn't know; be angry that the Amazon is on fire.

Because now the whole world knows, and our lungs are still on fire.