Blogs

Tourism in Kenya is in the doldrums because of violence following December's election, according to the Financial Times.

Bad news anywhere in Kenya rebounds on visitor numbers, the FT reported on Friday, and this time the election crisis badly dented four successive years of tourism growth.

Sooner or later, visitors will return however, unable to resist the lure of Kenya's magnificent wildlife. And one site many would like to see is the Tana River Delta, home to lions, hippos, rare primates and almost 350 species of bird.

The Kenyan government could hasten the return of tourists by rejecting a proposal to grow biofuel crops on the Delta.

If sugarcane is allowed much of that wildlife is likely to go. With it will go the attraction for tourists, significantly slowing Kenya's economic recovery.

Economists say the value to Kenya of the Delta's wildlife tourism, fishing and farming is more than £30 million. Conservation group Nature Kenya believes the economic impact of this biofuels scheme would be horrific.

Nature Kenya and the RSPB are lobbying for parts of the Delta to be legally protected so that development does not harm wildlife or the farmers and fishermen dependent on the area for their livelihoods.

This form of protection would allow development elsewhere after the impacts of development plans were taken into account.

Biofuels have done severe damage to irreplaceable sites in other parts of the world. The Tana Delta has too much to offer to be allowed to go the same way.

We like hedges, lots of other people like hedges and wild birds particularly love a good, chunky hedge with lots of cover for spring nesting and berries for winter nosh.
 
But to suggest, as Radio 4 did yesterday, that a nice hedge is needed to justify crop production is nonsense.
 
The claim was construed from a report from the Royal Agricultural Society, which said that heavy machinery, dry summers and changing growing seasons had left England's soil in bad shape.
 
According to the BBC, the report also said that research into soil had lost out to study of the environment. It was noticeable that Professor Dick Godwin, author of the report, did not say this in his Today Programme interview.
 
Wildlife has been disappearing from farmland for about 50 years. New figures from Defra, due next week, will show whether some birds are declining even quicker than we thought. The loss of set-aside and delay in replicating its wildlife benefits will only make matters worse.
 
The RSPB has thoroughly researched wildlife losses and has offered numerous sturdy proposals for boosting up the populations of farmland birds.
 
Some suggestions have been adopted but others, even some of the simplest, are being taken up too slowly.
 
Skylark plots are one example. These 4x4 metre scrapes, left free of crop seed but otherwise treated like the field they're in, need only the press of a tractor button to get them established.
 
They need no maintenance, the effect on harvest is negligible and farmers are even paid to put them in their fields, yet only a handful have done so.
 
If more farmers took the cash available for green farming and soil conservation – farmers can be paid for ploughing less on steep slopes - wildlife would be doing much better with no sacrifice by farmers, healthier soil and more money in the pot to boot.
 
Hedges are good and so are skylark plots, ponds, wild flowers and narrow earth banks where insects can roam. But none are responsible for the condition of farmland soil. Do more research by all means, but don’t blame the birds and bees for the condition the soil is currently in.

Where might we be if a fraction of the money used to prop up London’s speculators had been spent on developing renewable forms of energy?
 
This was the question posed by the Guardian recently. An answer came last week when Ed Miliband, the new Climate Change Secretary, agreed that Britain should cut its carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The science, he said, now showed overwhelmingly that the government’s 60 per cent target was just not high enough.
 
Meeting even the lower of these goals will take a heck of a lot of money because huge investment will be needed in renewables, in measures to make our buildings, businesses and cars more efficient, and in connecting the many wind farms and hydro-electric schemes, now up and ready to run, to the national grid.
 
But it will take more than that and more, even, than big commitments from governments. It will take the willingness of all of us to take responsibility for cutting emissions as the credit crunch bares its sharpest teeth.
 
In Brussels last week, Germany, Italy, Poland, and other east European countries, failed water down EU plans to cut the continent’s emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. But there is another target, a 30 per cent cut, which is still up in the air. Those countries want that tougher target shelved.
 
Their business lobbies have been hard at work, claiming that these straightened times are leaving them too little cash to change their profligate ways.
 
If they win the argument, a trick will have been missed and a lucrative one at that. And if rich countries further excuse themselves by investing in emissions cuts at home, rather than carbon credits abroad, then the green revolution our economies so badly need could be upon us in time to dodge the worst of climate change.
 
Now is the time to buy into, not cut back on, measures that combat environmental disaster. If we do that, many of the thousands who have lost jobs now could find themselves with new employment sooner than they think.

British Airways this week lambasted the Tory Party on aviation, claiming its policies were ‘all over the place’.

 

Today it seems it is Labour that most deserves to be slammed.

 

The government is allowing thousands more flights from Stansted, where councils and campaigners have joined forces to fight the airport’s expansion plan.

 

Stansted’s owner, BAA, will now increase the number of flights from 190,000 annually to 265,000 – a massive 40 per cent rise. BAA also wants an extra runway.

 

To our knowledge, no-one has worked out how many emissions those 75,000 extra flights will generate, or the damage of 50 per cent more flights from London City airport, an increase also sanctioned yesterday. Maybe someone should.

 

An Inuit politician told the Stansted public inquiry that  emissions from aircraft were already damaging his home, close to the Arctic’s precious ice.

 

We are keen to be told how the government plans to meet its target for cutting the UK’s carbon when Stansted gets and busier and possibly bigger too. Its 60 per cent goal will be out of the question, the 80 per cent recommendation from experts this week, which the RSPB strongly backs, will seem like a bad dream.

 

The world needs a leader brave and influential enough to direct action to combat climate change. Gordon Brown could be that man – he has hinted that 80 per cent could be the UK’s new target and has a new man in a new climate change ministry ready to act to achieve it.

 

But both the Prime Minister and Ed Miliband will be foiled if Stansted - and Heathrow - are allowed to expand any further. There’s no point being the globe’s business hub if global warming has scuppered the business.

 

Stansted to get busier

Tory policy ‘all over the place’

 

Vultures are ugly, there are no two ways about it. But does that mean we should let them go extinct? Marcel Berlins, writing in the Guardian yesterday, suggested that it does.
 
In India, vultures have declined catastrophically, by 99.9 per cent in 15 years. Their loss is affecting millions of people.

They are nature's best scavengers, picking clean roadside carcasses and reducing the chance of human disease. Bone collectors rely on the bones that remain for their livelihoods. The Parsi community uses vultures to dispose of their dead.
 
Or at least they did. There are so few vultures now that none of these roles is being fulfilled. Feral dogs roam carcass dumps threatening public health; bone collectors, and leather tanners, are out of work; sky burials are no longer an option for Parsis.

We don't save endangered wildlife species by species, but in their hundreds or thousands by protecting their habitats and their health.

When we do that, we help ourselves. Rainforests host majestic tigers and nasty, unnamed creepy crawlies but also store carbon and water - helping combat climate change and preventing flooding - and clean that water for human use.
 
Saving threatened wildlife is a big job but one that helps us too. Looking nice just doesn't come into it.

Read about the RSPB's work to save Asian vultures here  

 

The Conservative Party, or at least one influential member, may be at odds with us over a Thames Estuary airport. But we are wholly at one over children and the outdoors – we need more of it, a lot more, and soon.

Peter Ainsworth, the shadow minister, yesterday told his party conference colleagues what a great time he had had pond dipping at the RSPB’s Sandwell reserve close to the conference centre in Birmingham.

He described Sandwell as a wonderful oasis despite its proximity to this large city. The children’s activities at Sandwell were a fine example of youngsters enjoying and learning from their local environment, an illustration of another of the many benefits of green spaces in urban sites.

Mr Ainsworth’s words came just hours before the publication today of a report by Ofsted, which says that involvement in outdoor activities boosts children’s chances of doing well at school.

When outdoor learning is made part of the curriculum rather than merely a treat, children improve socially and become more innovative and creative, Ofsted says. Ed Balls, the schools secretary, is backing Ofsted’s call with the launch today of a £4.5 million plan to encourage outdoor learning.

The RSPB is backing the plan and is convinced that outdoor experiences are one sure way of bringing up youngsters who care for the environment, and keep caring as they get older.

But this ‘real world’ learning does even more than that; it boosts health and good neighbourliness and encourages social inclusion.

More than 60,000 youngsters aged from three to 18 visit RSPB reserves every year. Some of them will have been at Sandwell’s pond, sharing the fun Mr Ainsworth was having.

Fresh air, the wonder at a new discovery and the thrill of a new experience are amongst the long-standing benefits even the simplest of outdoor activities can provide.

They help shape young people into more rounded, open minded, caring and sharing individuals. Those we need more of, and soon.

Read about children’s activities on RSPB reserves here http://www.rspb.org.uk/school_visits/index.asp

And about the RSPB and education here http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/education/

The Ofsted report is here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/

And the Ed Balls’ plan here http://www.lotc.org.uk/

 

If you were a student, your landlord is unlikely to have been your best friend. Too much ventilation in winter and too little in summer could have been amongst your complaints, together with excessive rent despite all that discomfort.
 
But from yesterday, landlords in England and Wales are being forced to tackle two of these problems. The consequences for the third are less certain, but that’s for a different column in another place.
 
All rented properties with new tenants must now have energy performance certificates (EPCs) telling prospective residents how green their potential home will be.
 
Costs for heating, hot water and lighting will be shown on EPCs with tips for better energy efficiency. Top-notch certificates should make it easier to attract tenants and will reward action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Landlords could be fined if they have no certificate.
 
The introduction of EPCs is part of Europe-wide action to cut emissions from buildings. Domestic energy accounts for 27 per cent of UK carbon emissions and it’s not just rented properties that are spewing out this harmful gas.
 
The move coincides with UK legislation today requiring public buildings to be ranked for their energy efficiency. The RSPB believes better energy efficiency across the board would contribute much to efforts to combat climate change.

The government is currently aiming to cut UK emissions by 60 per cent but we believe only an 80 per cent cut will keep climate change within manageable limits. At last month’s Labour Party Conference, the Prime Minister suggested the government might soon agree.
 
Improved energy efficiency – using greener fridges and washing machines, turning down the thermostat – would boost our chances of hitting that target yet on BBC Radio yesterday, landlords criticised the new EPC scheme because it fined them for non-compliance without requiring remedial action.
 
We should not need sanctions to force us to cut our emissions. Climate change action is an obligation no matter how much or how little we care for the environment.
 
Read more on the RSPB’s energy policy here http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/policy/climatechange/solutions/makethecut.asp
 
And find out about energy performance certificates here http://www.residentiallandlord.co.uk/news1323.html

The Guardian reports on energy efficiency in public buildings here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/02/carbonemissions.greenbuilding 

The Independent made an astounding claim yesterday – that circumstances were favourable for airport provision.

From The Independent, which regularly reports the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, the statement came as quite a shock.

Excessive emissions are causing climate change, one of the greatest threats we face. Climate change is already harming the lives of millions of people across the world and more flights will increase emissions and raise temperatures more quickly.

The Independent’s leader was prompted by London Mayor Boris Johnson’s proposal that an airport be built on the Thames Estuary, described as a daydream by the Guardian today, an opinion echoed by the RSPB. The suggestion came before his Tory colleague, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers, mooted a new rail link into London replace third runway plans at Heathrow.

The Thames Gateway is earmarked for substantial development and green spaces on land, and the wildlife of the estuary itself, will be one of the selling points. Laws safeguard the estuary because it hosts up to 300,000 birds in winter, some of them rare species.

Those laws won’t just go away and neither will the birds. The threat of bird strike to planes could be huge; the re-creation of the estuary’s wildlife habitats elsewhere – a legal requirement if an airport were built – would be next to impossible. Where could you put them?

We have to reduce our emissions but if we allow flying to increase, what other cuts will we make? Rationing car fuel? Limiting our heating in the depths of winter? There was a proposal yesterday to ration meat and milk. Which of us is prepared to do that?

If we cover the natural world with concrete, we will have forced those sacrifices on future generations and destroyed their environment as well.

The Independent's leader is here

And the Guardian's comment here