Blogs

Friends of the Earth's Executive Director Andy Atkins said earlier this evening that an area three times the size of Wales of rainforest is destroyed each year.

I said that an area of one and a half acres of rainforest is destroyed every second.

Are we talking the same language?

One and a half acres per second is 1.5 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 = 47, 304, 000 acres each year.

The area of Wales is 20, 780 square kilometres = 2, 078, 000ha each year = 5, 134, 849 acres per year

So, three Wales are 15, 404, 549 acres each year.

So we aren't talking the same language! My figure (which might well be wrong!) is three times higher than Andy's (which might well be wrong too!).

Neither of us has actually measured the amount of rainforest disappearing.  It's always wise to take people's statistics with a pinch of salt - but it's also well worth noticing that if either of us is even vaguely right then there is an awful lot of rainforest destruction going on!  On that we agree!

And if anyone would kindly check my maths then I'd be happy to correct any mistakes!  And if anyone has the 'real' figure for the rate of rainforest destruction then please let me know - I bet there are an awful lot of different estimates out there!

Another evening, another fringe event - and another opportunity to share a platform with Secretary of State, Hilary Benn.

This evening's event was organised by Friends of the Earth and was about deforestation and agriculture.

My speech was along these lines:

Two hundred years ago about 14% of the Earth was covered with rainforest, now this fantastic habitat only covers c6% - we have wrought huge and dramatic changes on the face of the Earth.  That loss of rainforest continues at a rate of about one and a half acres each second and is the main source of c20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  But also the source of an estimated 50, 000 species extinctions each year.  That is an astounding figure.

Imagine now, that you are in charge of the management of the world - you are in charge.  I think you'd want to stop the destruction of rainforest because of the greenhouse gas emissions that affect the global climate, because of the erosion of soils that results, because of the increased flood risk that follows, because of the loss of water quality that accompanies forest loss and because you wouldn't want to lose all those species. 

And you would be right!  But it isn't that simple because the decision to stop rainforest destruction will be the subject of negotiation by scores of governments in Copenhagen this December.  That's a very difficult forum for making sensible decisions and so we must wish Hilary Benn, Ed Miliband and Gordon Brown the best of luck in trying to reach a meaningful deal.

We've heard from other speakers that global agriculture is probably responsible for about 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  And we need to make 80% reductions, globally, to put our emissions on a sustainable basis.  80% - that's an awful lot.  And clearly it means that agricultural emissions must be cut too.  And yet we may have 50% more people on the planet in four or five decades time so that if we continue with business as usual then those emissions will rise.

We surely need a low-carbon agriculture - globally and in the UK.  So am I going to tell you what that agriculture will look like? I'm afraid not - because I don't know.  Am I going to make the cheap point that the Secretary of State should know? No, I am not because I don't think anyone does know - yet.  But we need to know.

Will a low-carbon agriculture be GM agriculture?  It might be, but I have yet to see practical proposals for GM crops that will stack up as wildlife-friendly and sustainable crops.  They may be out there, I hope they are, but let's see them please.

Will a low-carbon agriculture be organic agriculture?  It might be, and in many ways I hope it will be as organic agriculture has real benefits for wildlife in the UK, but I can't be sure.

Perhaps what we need, is to concentrate on resource-efficient agriculture - an agriculture that uses fewer of the world's resources, produces lots of safe food but results in fewer harmful pollutants.  That is clearly a big ask - but one to which we ought to put the best brains and scientists to deliver part of the solution to feeding the world in ways that do not destroy it and can be maintained indefinitely.  But that new low-carbon agriculture cannot be business as usual.

I started the day in Brighton, headed up to London for an RSPB Council meeting and then back down to Brighton for a fringe meeting jointly organised by SERA and the RSPB.

Also speaking were Hilary Benn (the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - that's one SoS!), Frances O'Grady  (Deputy General Secretary of the TUC), Ed Miliband (Secretary of State for Energy, and Climate Change - that's the second SoS!) and me!

This is the gist of what I said:

A year ago I sat next to Ed Miliband at a SERA fringe in Manchester and felt I got his attention from the moment I mentioned the fact that the RSPB has 1,057,000 members - we now have 1,060,000!

Many of those members will have approved of Hilary Benn's conference speech yesterday where he talked with conviction and enthusiasm about natural beauty - the importance of the natural world in our lives.

And the RSPB welcomes Hilary's announcement that he is setting up a review of the adequacy of the ecological network that exists for wildlife.  The RSPB would like to play a full part in helping that review reach its conclusions as both a conservation practitioner and an organisation that has helped to shape current thinking on this subject.

 At heart, many of the problems we face are environmental problems  - and they are connected.

Take UK food security - this is the legitimate, domestic manifestation of the global food crisis.  You can look at it as a problem caused by too high a human population but it is essentially a problem of how we harvest and harness environmental productivity sustainability. 

Similarly, UK energy security is the legitimate, domestic manfestation of the global problem of climate change - how we produce our energy has implications on the whole planet - an environmental issue.

And our work to preserve more of the UK'sdomestic wildlife has to be seen as a contribution to reducing the magnitude of the Earth's sixth extinction crisis.

So what we do at home has, inevitably, consequences on these global issues.

But also these issues are all interlinked domestically and globally.  How we feed the world has implications for biodiversity and greenhouse gases - more rainforest destruction to grow crops will affect greenhouse gas levels and the rate at which species go extinct.  

Obviously we need to take account of the environmental consequences of all our actions.  We need to find ways to feed the world and fuel the world without wrecking the world.

I won't attempt to summarise the other speakers' wise words but the evening was a good-natured one with the two SoSs pleading for access to the RSPB's large membership through our magazine!  You RSPB voters out there - the politicians want to woo you!  Make sure, whoever gets your vote, that they will do a good job for the environment and that they understand the environmental consequences of all their policies.  Sounds like a Letter to the Future moment!

Here is an extract from Hilary Benn's speech to the Labour Party conference.  This is a man who 'gets' nature.  Few politicians, there are some others sprinkled across the political parties, talk about beauty, and natural beauty, as being important in our lives.

Many of us who came down to Brighton by train would have caught a wonderful glimpse of the South Downs.

Formed over millions of years by nature’s hand, the glorious western Weald and the chalk hills are one reason why Clem Attlee’s Labour government did something unique in our history.

From the ashes of World War Two, they founded the National Health Service, created the Welfare State, and built new homes and towns amid the rubble of the old. But they also had the vision to legislate to preserve beauty.

Drawing inspiration from William Blake, the Kinder Trespassers and many others, they passed the National Parks Act into law 60 years ago this year.

And as we commemorate what that Labour government did two generations ago, so this spring were many able to celebrate – after a long, hard campaign – our decision that the South Downs will now become our fifteenth and newest National Park.

We made a political choice to preserve and protect this landscape for future generations.

For everyone.     For ever.

And why?  Because we know that the quality of our lives, our health, our happiness are shaped not just by our families and the work we do, but also by the places in which we live and by how we treat each other.

It was this Labour Government that has opened up the countryside for everyone to enjoy with the right to roam.  We’ve passed the first all-embracing animal welfare act for a century, and in just over two years’ time battery cages for chickens will be no more.

And we will now preserve and protect our seas and coastlines with the Marine and Coastal Access Bill. The first stretch of the new Coastal Path around England will open at Weymouth Bay  – site of the 2012 sailing competition – in time for the lighting of the Olympic flame.

But now that we’ve fulfilled the original dream of the National Parks’ creators, our next task is to enrich and link together more wonderful places where wildlife, bees, flowers and trees can flourish, and we can enjoy them as they do.

So I will now ask a group of people passionate about our countryside to come up with a plan to do just that so that we can realise another long-held dream of all those who care about our wild places.

So, not much detail here on how this next task, linking together wild places so that wildlife can thrive, will be taken forward. But it goes without saying that the RSPB will enthusiastically engage with this process.  Our wildlife needs to be given the ability to spread across the country in response to climate change and that means providing a green infrastructure to encourage and enable that movement.  That's the type of approach which we have championed to government for many years - perhaps somewhat similar to what the Netherlands government is already doing.  But the RSPB has also led the way in recreating habitat on a landscape scale (although our friends in other NGOs have been active too!) - we don't just talk about it we are doing it too.

We are looking forward to hearing the details of this scheme to encourage habitat restoration to be announced by Hilary Benn this week - I guess, today.

The RSPB has been a major proponent of restoring and re-creating habitats for many years.  Our Futurescapes document started setting the scene for landscape scale habitat re-creation back in 2001.

We are working to put back habitats that will be great in themselves, but will also provide stepping stones for wildlife changing where it lives in response to climate change.  Examples of habitat creation on RSPB nature reserves include Wallasea Island, the Flow Country, Otmoor, Freiston Shore, Hesketh Out Marsh and woodland restoration at Abernethy - but there are many, many more.

And it's certainly not just about nature reserves - although they can play a very large part - land managers everywhere can put nature back into the countryside and they need the backing of government (money certainly helps - but advice and encouragement are important too) if their efforts are to have the greatest impact.

Let's see what Hilary Benn has to say!

Since I started this blog in May I've had lots of face-to-face comments on it - mostly positive.  Thank you!

I'm trying to write about what I think and believe, rather than what I'm doing, because I hope that is more interesting.  In fact, you might get the impression from this blog that I do no work at all!

I've been asked how many people are reading this blog - and the answer is that we don't really know because the system is on the blink!  But some of these posts get well over 400 reads (and it might be a lot more - we aren't sure!).  But the readership certainly includes government Ministers and other politicians, civil servants, journalists, RSPB supporters, the National Farmers' Union, RSPB detractors, Natural England staff, RSPB staff, Environment Agency staff, quite a few birdwatchers and someone who calls themselves Sooty!

Apart from my reader called Sooty - who has posted many comments here - I'm not getting many comments posted by you, our readers!  If you do want to comment on the posts then you do have to register first (so that we can ban you if you try to be too rude!) and then you are very welcome to comment.  I'd like to see a few more comments if you have them.

If you are a new reader then I've tagged my favourite 10 posts so that you can see the range of subjects that I write about.  It's a mixture of very bird-related subjects and more general environmental comments - because, after all, all government and business actions affect the wildlife around us for good or ill.

And if you haven't had enough of me (I guess you have!) - if you'd like to link up on Facebook then you'll find me as Mark Ian Avery - send a message that you read my blog and we can link up as friends there.

I'm hoping to meet up with Huw Irranca-Davies, who is the Defra Minister covering biodiversity and a range of other issues of importance to the RSPB,  in Brighton.

And If I do, then I'll thank him for his hard work in helping with scrub clearance on the RSPB nature reserve at Farnham Heath - although it looked as though he enjoyed it!

I'll be heading down to Brighton later today to attend the Labour Party Conference and try to lobby for the importance of the natural environment in our lives.  Last week we were in Bournemouth with the Lib Dems and next week it will be Manchester and the Tories.  The party conferences give NGOs like the RSPB the opportunity to be on platforms with senior politicians and to hear their views, and put across our own, on how government policies can help the natural world.

I'll be blogging from Brighton to let you know how we get on - and how high a profile nature gets in Labour's thinking.

I see in the papers today that David Miliband is talking about future being the most important word in politics.  Well, whatever coded message this might be to Gordon Brown it certainly chimes with the RSPB's thinking.  We believe that the spending cuts that are heading our way, whichever political party is in power, should take full account of what type of future we are trying to create for future generations.  will it be a future with bluebells and sparrows? rainforests and albatrosses?  Please sign our Letter to the Future if you'd like to help us make the case to politicians that nature needs a future too - even when money is tight.

The debate rages over UK deforestation - well, no, actually it doesn't!

The Confederation of Forest Industries is on the warpath over our call for a gradual and measured return to heathland of some land currently covered with conifer crops.  Our ask is not that we fell ancient native woodland (that would be daft!), nor that the area of woodland in the UK should decline (we'd like it to increase providing the trees go in sensible places) but that when conifer crops come to their natural felling age (and many thousands of hectares will over the next decade), then if they are in areas of former heathland (most won't be!) a proportion of that land should be returned to heaths to benefit threatened wildlife and to help achieve government habitat targets.  I'm sorry that isn't very revolutionary but we are quite modest, probably too modest, in our ambitions.

Nonetheless, ConFor, which exists  '...to help build the market for timber, timber products and forest services, create a supportive policy environment for the forest industries and to help our members become more competitive and successful.', is actively lobbying against heathland re-creation.  Well, they would wouldn't they?  Stuart Goodall and I had a debate on Redio 5 Live yesterday afternoon but there's never enough time to get into the details on that type of opportunity. 

The ConFor line is that trees store carbon and help mitigate climate change (they do, but compared with tropical forests we are talking about very small amounts), that forestry provides jobs (it does - so does every money-earning activity - but then so does nature conservation!) and that forests have lots of wildlife too (they do, although conifer crops are a long way down the list for wildlife-richness and heathland is, in contrast, a diminished and internationally important habitat).

A few more words on trees - we like them!  We are planting and encouraging natural regeneration of native woodland on RSPB nature reserves such as Abernethy and Geltsdale, and we have some other fantastic woodland nature reserves (see for example the Gwenffrwd, Wood of Cree and  Ynys-Hir) but we are also removing conifer crops to create open wildlife habitats at a few of our nature reserves (see Tudely Woods, The Lodge, Farnham Heath and on a grand and spectacular scale at Forsinard.  On balance we create more woodland than we remove - but we make no apology for restoring some areas that have been damaged by commercial forestry to their former wildlife richness.

The RSPB is a voice for nature but ConFor is a voice for commercial forestry.  And the NFU is a voice for the farming industry (although I doubt that organic farmers think they get much of a voice from the NFU).  And there is a host of other trade associations that are lobbying  for their own commercial interests.  Is there any difference between a charity like us and a trade association?  Aren't both just arguing for a narrow interest?  I think not.  I don't earn more money if we are successful in our lobbying, and nor do the RSPB's over a million members!  The RSPB is not arguing from a vested interest - except the vested interest of the planet and wildlife! 

It's always the case that well-funded industries are active at lobbying government and other decision-makers.  At a time when the world is going through financial difficulties the danger is that the focus on money becomes even stronger - and Nature gets pushed aside.  If you would like to strengthen the RSPB's voice for nature then please sign our Letter to the Future - we will use your voice to add to ours to influence how governments spend money and to argue that nature is not badly harmed by public spending cuts.

Hats off to the Holkham Estate for matching the RSPB's £500 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for shooting a buzzard found on the estate in Norfolk in early August.

The move was also welcomed by responsible shooting organisations including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

Holkham Estate is the home of Lord Coke. 

Killing buzzards is illegal.  Please sign our bird of prey pledge and help put an end to wildlife crime.  You will be joining over 180,000 others. 

I'm off to an RSPB event at the Mall Galleries in London where the Society of Wildlife Artists have their annual exhibition.

I have lots of happy memories of this event and I'm sure this evening will be just as enjoyable.  Beautiful paintings and sculptures, a glass of wine and lots of friends of the RSPB makes a great combination.

- the environment was high up the agenda

- hardly a policeman in sight (maybe because they were disguised!?), it'll be so different in Brighton

- I'm glad I don't know the origin of that nasty stain on the carpet in our B&B

- RSPB got a name check in Martin Horwood's conference speech - thank you!

- actually, I did see some policemen, they were breaking into a house down the road from our B&B - how exciting!

- when I saw Nick Clegg getting into a taxi I couldn't remember whether it was Bournemouth where John Prescott got into trouble for going 200 yards (was it?) in a jag

- I enjoyed the RSPCA's beer and curry event

- sad about the whale that was washed up on the beach at Bournemouth

- I suggested turning off the air conditioning and the lights in a breakfast meeting and everyone agreed (and seemed relieved!)

- it's clear that the NFU are going to push greater intensive farming as a solution to food security and famine - I am sceptical that it would be a solution to either but also how does it fit with a low-carbon future for farming?

- a lady was sitting in the conference hall knitting away and apparently she had a big battle to get in last year because knitting needles coould be offensive weapons

- saw a man who is always protesting about something at each of the party conferences (meat-eating, smoking etc) - who is he? how does he make a living? will I see him in Brighton?

- although it is a bit of a long shot that the Lib Dems will win the next general election (odds are over 100/1 with the bookmakers, so if you think that's a wrong estimation fill your boots!) I was reminded that the Lib Dems control many of the councils across England and so are in power already!

- politicians are basically nice people who are trying to make a difference to the world (I reserve the right to change that view at the end of the Party Conference season)

- everyone is blogging and tweeting

- Bournemouth wouldn't be a bad place for a short break one day

A quieter day today but a good fringe meeting this evening with Tim Farron, Andy Atkins and Tom MacMillan.  We discussed climate change, deforestation and agriculture.

Tim Farron spoke well and I warmed to him despite his enthusiasm for the NFU's election manifesto (see yesterday's blog from Bournemouth) - we'll look forward to working with him and many discussions in the future.  I invited Tim to Hope Farm and he said he would come and that he'd like to see what we'd done there. 

What would a low-carbon productive agriculture look like?  Is it more 'intensive' or less 'intensive' than current agriculture?

Surely we need a resource-efficient agriculture?  One that produces lots of food but uses less inputs and emits less pollution.  That's not going to be an easy circle to square.  One to sleep on.

It was nice to meet some RSPB members at the fringe - you get everywhere!

A few days back in the office before heading off to Brighton for the Labour Party Conference.

I recently saw this.  I commented a few months ago (blog of 28 July) on lead from shot or bullets affecting wildlife and even human health.

I think we will hear more about this.

Every lobby group under the sun turns up at the Party Conferences so they are great networking opportunities.

Our friends from the NFU are here in Bournemouth and I went to their fringe meeting yesterday evening.  It was hosted by Meurig Raymond, chaired by the always-amusing Lembit Opik and featured the Lib Dem Agriculture spokesperson Tim Farron.

The NFU have published their asks for the next General Election - have a look it's an interesting document.  As befits a Trade Union (which is what I think the NFU really is) it's a good read.  There's plenty in there about what the farming community apparently wants from all of us taxpayers - more money for research, more money for environment payments (hear hear to that!) but no cuts in the subsidy cheques that are now dressed up as single farm payments.

And what extra things does the NFU promise us we will get for our investment?  Not much really - we are supposed to expect less in the form of less regulation and less red tape.  As I said - just what you'd expect from a trade union but rather ambitious at a time when there are savage public spending cuts heading our way!  And, I have to say, not really catching the mood of the time when many are losing their jobs, facing financial problems and worrying about their pensions (or tuition fees!) and yet the farming union thinks all those people should give more of their reduced income to farmers!  

I was frankly disappointed that Tim Farron was so gushingly enthusiastic about the NFU document.  I know he is in a marginal constituency with lots of farmers but come on!  To describe the NFU document as 'the perfect blueprint for how the UK can move to a sustainable, secure supply of food while preserving a natural healthy environment.' is a bit over the top.  I found it difficult to find the promises to deliver amongst the long list of asks! And there is precious little in here about sustainability.  I can't see much in here that would be good news for farmland birds, water quality or reducing carbon emissions although we await with enthusiasm the launch of the Campaign for the Farmed Environment.  No wonder Meurig, whom I like a lot, was looking like the farmer's cat who had got the taxpayers' cream!

And I don't think that the NFU document chimes very well with the LibDems' own policies - for example on CAP reform the NFU demands no cuts in Pillar 1 (the old subsidy money) and increases in Pillar 2 (agri-environment money) whereas the LibDems want all farm payments to deliver public goods (which I interpret as meaning a shift fromPillar 1 to Pillar 2).  Likewise on coastal defence the NFU demands that productive farmland should be prioritised for protection when considering coastal erosion whereas the LibDems want local decison-making.  The public usually pays for the sea walls and the farmer gets the money from the farmland (I can see why a barley baron would want this but someone made unemployed in another industry might not be so keen on seeing public money spent in this way).  And the NFU are keen on biofuels grown in the UK neatly ignoring the knock-on impacts on food supply and extinctions elsewhere in the world that are likely to result.  The LibDems have criticised current government policy as 'crude and simplisic' but the NFU support it.  I'll stop there, but a more considered LibDem to agriculture is needed.