Conservation banks, a new hope for wildlife ?

The Tories have proposed to create conservation banks. But the Conservative Party hasn’t invented the concept. It already exists in the US. So why this plan raises so much questions ? After more or less successful conservation initiatives, this one could appear as another way of thinking to help protecting wildlife. The idea of making pay developers – those who build and consequently potentially destruct nature – seems to be reasonable. But the word “banks” gives a financial connotation to the thing. It’s thinking of wildlife in terms of money. And it might be why the idea disturbs. How to be sure that money raises by these banks will benefit and be redistributed to the nature ? In order to stop possible breaches, we can imagine that a body of control could be set up. If the banks are run by local communities or voluntary groups, it could be fair to explain to people how the money will be spent, what for. Moreover, developers, buying credits, would have a kind of right on these credits. So, some areas might depend on developers, although Nick Herbert, the shadow environment secretary of the Conservative party, denied. The idea of conservation banks has certainly a worth value but needs to be carefully defined in order to avoid nature becoming victim again.

See article related here.

Golf could become a green sport

The recent partnership between the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the R&A to manage habitats for wildlife and to make golfers aware of ecological issues, can be seen as a very good initiative. It benefits to birds but also to this sport, often accused of not being eco-friendly. But it can also change the public perception of golf players, often seen as rich people, far from all these green worries. However, with millions of golfers all around the world and thousands in the UK, there is still a lot of work to do even if things start changing. There has been a growing awareness over the past decade according to RSPB. Initiatives like RSPB’s could be seen as a beginning but need to be follow by more golf clubs. Each one has the potential to be a sanctuary for wildlife. Planting native plants like heather and creating reed beds and hay meadows as well as reducing pesticide and fertiliser use can make a huge difference. Golf is a sport close to the nature. What could be most pleasant hearing a bird singing while you’re playing ?

See article related here.

Wildlife in danger in Madagascar

The new political disorders in Madagascar haven’t only made the population suffering  – the two thirds of them live below the international poverty line – but also the wildlife, especially the lemurs. Madagascar has fantastic resources in terms of wildlife, home to 5% of the world’s plant and animal species, of which more than 80% are endemic to the island. The potential is huge, there are still new species being discovered. But today these resources are threatened and it will be no longer time before they disappear completely. Madagascar is an isolated island that we never hear about in the media. It gives the impression that everything can happen without causing a stir. Environmentalists try to warn that political troubles are reversing conservation gains of the recent years and put hundreds of species at risk of extinction. We can once again point the finger at the passivity of the international community about what occurs in the island. But if they deigne taking care about Madagascar, they would probably think that there are more urgent subjects than saving wildlife. Who could blame them for thinking that of this island, one of the poorest countries in the world ? But they could at least make pressure to make elected a constitutional governement and stop these gangs who pillage Madagascar’s resources and contribute to the disorders. Because only a political stability can help Madagascar to keep its head above water and consequently save wildlife.

See article related here.

Do we have to kill grey squirrels to save reds ?

Dr Kirsty Park, lecturer at the School of Biological and Environmental Sciences of the University of Stirling, said in this article that  the only mean to save red squirrels is to kill greys. Her arguments are that other solutions like finding a vaccine to the parapox virus or shipping grey squirrels back to England will cost too much money and make less money to conservation of red squirrels. Thinking of animal rights of grey squirrels when we are talking about disappearance of red squirrels cost also too much money and time according to her. I can understand that time is passing and the situation of red squirrels becomes more and more alarming each day. Other solutions can be found but take time. But grey squirrels are animals as well and got the same right to live as red squirrels. Why red squirrels would have better reasons to live than grey squirrels ? Because us Europeans have always known and seen red squirrels in our forests ? Because we feel like the grey squirrel was an intruder ? Because they are less cute and less pleasant to look at ? Eradicating a population of individuals to allow another population to live makes me think about one of the worst times of our history, even if we are talking about animals. We should not think about grey squirrels as they were parasites. Unfortunately, they are the ones who carry the pox. Is it their fault if they aren’t infected by this virus ? In my opinion, scientists should concentrate on finding a vaccine so that grey and red squirrels could coexisted. Killing grey squirrels could lead to drifts and, if this solution passes, grey squirrels may be in a few decades the ones who will be threatened with extinction. But perhaps nobody will care.