There is the increasing urgency for innovation across the agricultural sector. If successful, this will not only address food security issues and climate change, but will enable the increase of food availability across the globe. 

The need for innovating comes at a time when major obstacles – including climate change, land degradation and loss of agricultural land, due to the expansion of cities – are already making it difficult to maintain our current food production, particularly with the threat of an agricultural crisis very much a reality across the globe.

Crippling costs, poor weather conditions and disease outbreaks have hit landscapes, farmers and businesses hard over the years and the potential impacts can be tenfold. These issues are not only prevalent in the world’s more vulnerable regions, but also in the most developed nations. 

Improving practice 

The UK has recently suffered from record high temperatures, and is also in the midst of an uncertain trading future as Brexit looms. In Africa, where water conservation issues, malnutrition and hunger are still pertinent, climate change is one of the principal causes.

The agricultural industry is a volatile one, from either ends of the globe. We are continuing to experience the struggle to meet the growing demands of the consumer, to combat the fluctuation in supply, the instability of markets and the lack of investment in the agriculture industry in many nations.

Today, countries across the globe have achieved industrial and technological revolution, with achievements and decisions being made based on data driven insights. Open Data has developed alongside these technological advancements, but has rarely been considered in its potential to tackle food issues such as food insecurity.

Not only can Open Data allow the wider access to historical and usable data that would enable farmers to develop their farming and production practices for the better, but also its efficiency in monitoring water supplies, anticipating changes in the weather and also sharing crucial information across country borders so that nations can learn best practices from each other and prosper.

Through the use of satellite data, remote sensing and mapping, farmers, businesses and consumers in the agricultural industry can harness the most relevant and useful information to improve and adapt practices, make better decisions and ensure sustainability.

Increasing access

Increasing access to a wider net of data will trigger innovations and will bring both agriculture and nutrition to the next, higher level of impact, improving efficiency, yields, competitiveness, tackle issues related to climate change and ultimately increasing food security across the world. 

For example, in Africa, initiatives like the Ghana-based organisation, Esoko, illustrate the benefits of Open Data access through mobile technology. The organisation allows farmers and their buyers to access data collected on a national scale through shared feedback. This data consists of anything from pricing of products, to market data, in order to encourage fairer pricing.

Through this initiative, the technology solution TradeNet was born. The solution collects data obtained through existing channels, such as weather data channels, along with other basic technology, and alert customers and farmers with relevant and daily updates through SMS.

Those using the technology can both collect and input data, such as the selling price of basic commodities and the prices of seeds and fertilizers. Thus, the farmers can determine their input costs, increasing their selling profit by utilizing the information made available to them.

This self-sustainable model, combining data from farmers, customers, markets, dealers and phone companies on an open system, allowed the cross-fertilization of relevant and useful industry data to benefit the livelihoods of thousands in not only the immediate community, but to the wider nation. To date, over 350,000 people have joined the Esoko platform in over 10 countries in Africa and it is still growing. 

Collaboration and accountability

With increased Open Data access, the potential to combat not only agricultural issues, but also increase food security and enable innovations to tackle climate change will rise significantly. This would include the increased access to data relating to tracked temperate changes, real-time biodiversity logging, deforestation mapping and also logging fluctuations in ocean levels across the globe.

Having access to such relevant data will allow for innovation, collaboration and create a sense of accountability through hard hitting statistics, will accelerate the progress in tackling such issues. 

There is still a long way to go before Open Data access is globally accepted and utilised. The drive and determination for it to be a success needs to be welcomed by respective governments and organisations across the globe and pushed to the top of the agenda. 

A good start would be the establishment of smart open data policies through cross-collaboration between all relevant bodies, whether in public/ private sector organisations or government to share relevant information for implementation and planning.

This open-access environment will enable farmers and food producers to make more informed decisions and help ensure smart practices in food production. With improved Open Data access, farmers will be at a position to access vital information such as historic weather patterns, soil information and food consumption data to maximize crop production and improve the livelihoods of thousands.

Developing economies

Much like a smart investment banker, a farmer can also be better equipped and prepared to handle risk – by pricing in factors such as drought or floods – and subsequently adjust his farming cycle.

With the correct approach and implementation methods in place, Open Data can have a high economic and social return on investment for countries all over the globe and in all stages of development.

Areas in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe have already demonstrated how increased access to data can help develop economies and farming practices, taking significant strides towards achieving sustainability and taking one step solving the hunger crisis. 

This Author

André Laperrière joined the Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN) initiative as its first executive director, in September 2015. During his career, Mr. Laperrière has led/managed numerous projects on behalf of large Private Corporations and subsequently, within the United Nations and the World Bank.

The conservation group Conservation Force is funded by hunting interests and has gained access to CITES meetings, sat on key IUCN committees, and influenced a number of major decisions affecting threatened wildlife.

Lawyers acting for Conservation Force have successfully challenged a ban on elephant trophy imports from southern African countries, and helped defeat an international proposal against lion hunting.

The group is currently opposing moves to protect endangered giraffes. It has previously lobbied for polar bear trophies to be allowed, and defends the continued hunting of leopards and a rare species of zebra.

‘Satisfying’ hunt

In the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion, Conservation Force sued Delta Airways for refusing to carry hunting trophies. It also sued the state of New Jersey for refusing to allow hunting trophies to come in through its ports.

Conservation Force is led by John Jackson, a former President of Safari Club International – the world’s biggest hunting lobby group – who has himself been on dozens of ‘big game’ hunts.

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has unearthed interviews in which Jackson says killing elephants is “the most intimate, real relationship one can have with elephant. Nothing else in life is more satisfying than an elephant hunt”.

Jackson has also described shooting lions: “I can plainly see the African lion that has leaped into the air the moment its head snaps backward and explodes with smoke from my bullet.”

Deregulating conservation 

Eduardo Gonçalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “Hunting lobbyists are presenting themselves as conservationists. It is part of a concerted effort by the industry to peddle the lie that shooting animals for ‘sport’ is ‘conservation’.

“Conservation Force lobbies and litigates to block, strip and reduce protections for animals that hunters like to shoot. It has filed over a dozen legal challenges to conservation laws, and is demanding that the status of vulnerable wildlife be downgraded to make it easier for hunters to kill them and bring the trophies home.

“It wants to deregulate conservation and liberalise laws that protect wildlife. It wants the number of animals that can be hunted, and the places they can be hunted, to increase. To do this it promotes the supposed ‘conservation benefits’ of trophy hunting of lions, leopards, zebras, and rhinos.

“Conservation Force’s board includes leading trophy hunters. Their sponsors are firms connected with the trophy hunting industry. Their donors include hunting groups whose interests Conservation Force has promoted at CITES meetings.

“The group’s leader, John Jackson, has been on dozens of big game hunts, shot multiple elephants, and has a personal trophy room filled with stuffed zebras, giraffes, bears, and cougars.”

Extinction emergency 

Gonçalves continued: “He has travelled the world giving talks to pro-hunting audiences on how to build ‘public acceptance’ for ‘sustainable use of wildlife’.

“Conservation Force’s agenda has nothing to do with conservation. In the era of supposed ‘fake news’, Conservation Force is the ultimate Orwellian misnomer. It’s mission is to defend hunters’ so-called “rights”.

“Institutions and individuals who have succumbed to its charms need to wake up. There are serious questions to be answered by CITES and IUCN about how trophy hunting interests have been allowed to work their way into the heart of decision-making processes affecting vulnerable wildlife. Organisations like Conservation Force should be barred, not feted.

“We’re facing a global extinction emergency with up to a million species under threat. They include some of the hunting world’s favourite targets. Thanks to the industry’s lobbying efforts – and the naivety of officials at CITES and IUCN – a cruel colonial pastime has successfully persisted to the present day and is compounding the crisis facing endangered animals.

“If trophy hunters really are interested in conservation, they should forfeit the huge amounts of money they pay to go on luxury hunting Safaris to kill animals for entertainment and instead donate that money directly to genuine conservation work”.

Critically endangered 

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has published figures showing that CITES has permitted international trade in trophies of tigers, black rhinos and animals that have gone extinct in the wild such as the scimitar-horned oryx and the Arabian oryx, which was wiped out by hunters in 1972. British trophy hunters are among those who have shot these endangered animals for trophies.

It is prohibited under CITES to trade ‘Appendix I’ listed species unless there are exceptional circumstances. However these restrictions do not apply to trophy hunters as trophy hunting is considered by CITES to be a non-commercial ‘sport’ and is therefore exempted.

There has been a surge in popularity in trophy hunting of some critically endangered species. Records of black rhino hunting trophies show 11 were taken in the 1980s, two in the 1990s, 26 in the 2000s, and 81 from 2010 to 2017.

Black rhino trophies included feet, bodies, skins and genitalia, as well as horns. British trophy hunters were among those to have hunted black rhino.

Hunting

Despite tigers’ status as one of the most endangered mammals on earth, CITES records show tiger trophies being traded with CITES’ permission as recently as 2016. At least two of the tigers shot for sport had been bred in captivity in South Africa.

The IUCN responded in a statement: “Trophy hunting is badly run in some sites by some unscrupulous individuals and has caused problems, and this poor practice requires urgent action and reform, but trying to ‘demonise’ hunting diverts much needed attention from real conservation problems.”​​​​​​

“Conservation Force has not ‘worked its way into the heart of decision-making processes’ in IUCN. Conservation Force is one of more than 1,000 IUCN members and does not have disproportionately any more influence than other organisations – a number of prominent animal welfare organisations are also members of IUCN.”

A spokesperson for Conservation Force provided the following statement: “Most of this article is a shotgun attack against Conservation Force. Of course, the force is a conservation organisation. It is a registered public charitable foundation with published wildlife, habitat and associated rural community missions and purposes.

“The second negative insinuation is that Conservation Force is somehow not up front about it’s connection with hunting. To the contrary, we are proud hunters and broadcast the fact. Regulated hunting is the force for conservation underlying the name Conservation Force.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

The conservation group Conservation Force is funded by hunting interests and has gained access to CITES meetings, sat on key IUCN committees, and influenced a number of major decisions affecting threatened wildlife.

Lawyers acting for Conservation Force have successfully challenged a ban on elephant trophy imports from southern African countries, and helped defeat an international proposal against lion hunting.

The group is currently opposing moves to protect endangered giraffes. It has previously lobbied for polar bear trophies to be allowed, and defends the continued hunting of leopards and a rare species of zebra.

‘Satisfying’ hunt

In the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion, Conservation Force sued Delta Airways for refusing to carry hunting trophies. It also sued the state of New Jersey for refusing to allow hunting trophies to come in through its ports.

Conservation Force is led by John Jackson, a former President of Safari Club International – the world’s biggest hunting lobby group – who has himself been on dozens of ‘big game’ hunts.

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has unearthed interviews in which Jackson says killing elephants is “the most intimate, real relationship one can have with elephant. Nothing else in life is more satisfying than an elephant hunt”.

Jackson has also described shooting lions: “I can plainly see the African lion that has leaped into the air the moment its head snaps backward and explodes with smoke from my bullet.”

Deregulating conservation 

Eduardo Gonçalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “Hunting lobbyists are presenting themselves as conservationists. It is part of a concerted effort by the industry to peddle the lie that shooting animals for ‘sport’ is ‘conservation’.

“Conservation Force lobbies and litigates to block, strip and reduce protections for animals that hunters like to shoot. It has filed over a dozen legal challenges to conservation laws, and is demanding that the status of vulnerable wildlife be downgraded to make it easier for hunters to kill them and bring the trophies home.

“It wants to deregulate conservation and liberalise laws that protect wildlife. It wants the number of animals that can be hunted, and the places they can be hunted, to increase. To do this it promotes the supposed ‘conservation benefits’ of trophy hunting of lions, leopards, zebras, and rhinos.

“Conservation Force’s board includes leading trophy hunters. Their sponsors are firms connected with the trophy hunting industry. Their donors include hunting groups whose interests Conservation Force has promoted at CITES meetings.

“The group’s leader, John Jackson, has been on dozens of big game hunts, shot multiple elephants, and has a personal trophy room filled with stuffed zebras, giraffes, bears, and cougars.”

Extinction emergency 

Gonçalves continued: “He has travelled the world giving talks to pro-hunting audiences on how to build ‘public acceptance’ for ‘sustainable use of wildlife’.

“Conservation Force’s agenda has nothing to do with conservation. In the era of supposed ‘fake news’, Conservation Force is the ultimate Orwellian misnomer. It’s mission is to defend hunters’ so-called “rights”.

“Institutions and individuals who have succumbed to its charms need to wake up. There are serious questions to be answered by CITES and IUCN about how trophy hunting interests have been allowed to work their way into the heart of decision-making processes affecting vulnerable wildlife. Organisations like Conservation Force should be barred, not feted.

“We’re facing a global extinction emergency with up to a million species under threat. They include some of the hunting world’s favourite targets. Thanks to the industry’s lobbying efforts – and the naivety of officials at CITES and IUCN – a cruel colonial pastime has successfully persisted to the present day and is compounding the crisis facing endangered animals.

“If trophy hunters really are interested in conservation, they should forfeit the huge amounts of money they pay to go on luxury hunting Safaris to kill animals for entertainment and instead donate that money directly to genuine conservation work”.

Critically endangered 

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has published figures showing that CITES has permitted international trade in trophies of tigers, black rhinos and animals that have gone extinct in the wild such as the scimitar-horned oryx and the Arabian oryx, which was wiped out by hunters in 1972. British trophy hunters are among those who have shot these endangered animals for trophies.

It is prohibited under CITES to trade ‘Appendix I’ listed species unless there are exceptional circumstances. However these restrictions do not apply to trophy hunters as trophy hunting is considered by CITES to be a non-commercial ‘sport’ and is therefore exempted.

There has been a surge in popularity in trophy hunting of some critically endangered species. Records of black rhino hunting trophies show 11 were taken in the 1980s, two in the 1990s, 26 in the 2000s, and 81 from 2010 to 2017.

Black rhino trophies included feet, bodies, skins and genitalia, as well as horns. British trophy hunters were among those to have hunted black rhino.

Hunting

Despite tigers’ status as one of the most endangered mammals on earth, CITES records show tiger trophies being traded with CITES’ permission as recently as 2016. At least two of the tigers shot for sport had been bred in captivity in South Africa.

The IUCN responded in a statement: “Trophy hunting is badly run in some sites by some unscrupulous individuals and has caused problems, and this poor practice requires urgent action and reform, but trying to ‘demonise’ hunting diverts much needed attention from real conservation problems.”​​​​​​

“Conservation Force has not ‘worked its way into the heart of decision-making processes’ in IUCN. Conservation Force is one of more than 1,000 IUCN members and does not have disproportionately any more influence than other organisations – a number of prominent animal welfare organisations are also members of IUCN.”

A spokesperson for Conservation Force provided the following statement: “Most of this article is a shotgun attack against Conservation Force. Of course, the force is a conservation organisation. It is a registered public charitable foundation with published wildlife, habitat and associated rural community missions and purposes.

“The second negative insinuation is that Conservation Force is somehow not up front about it’s connection with hunting. To the contrary, we are proud hunters and broadcast the fact. Regulated hunting is the force for conservation underlying the name Conservation Force.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

The conservation group Conservation Force is funded by hunting interests and has gained access to CITES meetings, sat on key IUCN committees, and influenced a number of major decisions affecting threatened wildlife.

Lawyers acting for Conservation Force have successfully challenged a ban on elephant trophy imports from southern African countries, and helped defeat an international proposal against lion hunting.

The group is currently opposing moves to protect endangered giraffes. It has previously lobbied for polar bear trophies to be allowed, and defends the continued hunting of leopards and a rare species of zebra.

‘Satisfying’ hunt

In the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion, Conservation Force sued Delta Airways for refusing to carry hunting trophies. It also sued the state of New Jersey for refusing to allow hunting trophies to come in through its ports.

Conservation Force is led by John Jackson, a former President of Safari Club International – the world’s biggest hunting lobby group – who has himself been on dozens of ‘big game’ hunts.

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has unearthed interviews in which Jackson says killing elephants is “the most intimate, real relationship one can have with elephant. Nothing else in life is more satisfying than an elephant hunt”.

Jackson has also described shooting lions: “I can plainly see the African lion that has leaped into the air the moment its head snaps backward and explodes with smoke from my bullet.”

Deregulating conservation 

Eduardo Gonçalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “Hunting lobbyists are presenting themselves as conservationists. It is part of a concerted effort by the industry to peddle the lie that shooting animals for ‘sport’ is ‘conservation’.

“Conservation Force lobbies and litigates to block, strip and reduce protections for animals that hunters like to shoot. It has filed over a dozen legal challenges to conservation laws, and is demanding that the status of vulnerable wildlife be downgraded to make it easier for hunters to kill them and bring the trophies home.

“It wants to deregulate conservation and liberalise laws that protect wildlife. It wants the number of animals that can be hunted, and the places they can be hunted, to increase. To do this it promotes the supposed ‘conservation benefits’ of trophy hunting of lions, leopards, zebras, and rhinos.

“Conservation Force’s board includes leading trophy hunters. Their sponsors are firms connected with the trophy hunting industry. Their donors include hunting groups whose interests Conservation Force has promoted at CITES meetings.

“The group’s leader, John Jackson, has been on dozens of big game hunts, shot multiple elephants, and has a personal trophy room filled with stuffed zebras, giraffes, bears, and cougars.”

Extinction emergency 

Gonçalves continued: “He has travelled the world giving talks to pro-hunting audiences on how to build ‘public acceptance’ for ‘sustainable use of wildlife’.

“Conservation Force’s agenda has nothing to do with conservation. In the era of supposed ‘fake news’, Conservation Force is the ultimate Orwellian misnomer. It’s mission is to defend hunters’ so-called “rights”.

“Institutions and individuals who have succumbed to its charms need to wake up. There are serious questions to be answered by CITES and IUCN about how trophy hunting interests have been allowed to work their way into the heart of decision-making processes affecting vulnerable wildlife. Organisations like Conservation Force should be barred, not feted.

“We’re facing a global extinction emergency with up to a million species under threat. They include some of the hunting world’s favourite targets. Thanks to the industry’s lobbying efforts – and the naivety of officials at CITES and IUCN – a cruel colonial pastime has successfully persisted to the present day and is compounding the crisis facing endangered animals.

“If trophy hunters really are interested in conservation, they should forfeit the huge amounts of money they pay to go on luxury hunting Safaris to kill animals for entertainment and instead donate that money directly to genuine conservation work”.

Critically endangered 

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has published figures showing that CITES has permitted international trade in trophies of tigers, black rhinos and animals that have gone extinct in the wild such as the scimitar-horned oryx and the Arabian oryx, which was wiped out by hunters in 1972. British trophy hunters are among those who have shot these endangered animals for trophies.

It is prohibited under CITES to trade ‘Appendix I’ listed species unless there are exceptional circumstances. However these restrictions do not apply to trophy hunters as trophy hunting is considered by CITES to be a non-commercial ‘sport’ and is therefore exempted.

There has been a surge in popularity in trophy hunting of some critically endangered species. Records of black rhino hunting trophies show 11 were taken in the 1980s, two in the 1990s, 26 in the 2000s, and 81 from 2010 to 2017.

Black rhino trophies included feet, bodies, skins and genitalia, as well as horns. British trophy hunters were among those to have hunted black rhino.

Hunting

Despite tigers’ status as one of the most endangered mammals on earth, CITES records show tiger trophies being traded with CITES’ permission as recently as 2016. At least two of the tigers shot for sport had been bred in captivity in South Africa.

The IUCN responded in a statement: “Trophy hunting is badly run in some sites by some unscrupulous individuals and has caused problems, and this poor practice requires urgent action and reform, but trying to ‘demonise’ hunting diverts much needed attention from real conservation problems.”​​​​​​

“Conservation Force has not ‘worked its way into the heart of decision-making processes’ in IUCN. Conservation Force is one of more than 1,000 IUCN members and does not have disproportionately any more influence than other organisations – a number of prominent animal welfare organisations are also members of IUCN.”

A spokesperson for Conservation Force provided the following statement: “Most of this article is a shotgun attack against Conservation Force. Of course, the force is a conservation organisation. It is a registered public charitable foundation with published wildlife, habitat and associated rural community missions and purposes.

“The second negative insinuation is that Conservation Force is somehow not up front about it’s connection with hunting. To the contrary, we are proud hunters and broadcast the fact. Regulated hunting is the force for conservation underlying the name Conservation Force.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

The conservation group Conservation Force is funded by hunting interests and has gained access to CITES meetings, sat on key IUCN committees, and influenced a number of major decisions affecting threatened wildlife.

Lawyers acting for Conservation Force have successfully challenged a ban on elephant trophy imports from southern African countries, and helped defeat an international proposal against lion hunting.

The group is currently opposing moves to protect endangered giraffes. It has previously lobbied for polar bear trophies to be allowed, and defends the continued hunting of leopards and a rare species of zebra.

‘Satisfying’ hunt

In the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion, Conservation Force sued Delta Airways for refusing to carry hunting trophies. It also sued the state of New Jersey for refusing to allow hunting trophies to come in through its ports.

Conservation Force is led by John Jackson, a former President of Safari Club International – the world’s biggest hunting lobby group – who has himself been on dozens of ‘big game’ hunts.

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has unearthed interviews in which Jackson says killing elephants is “the most intimate, real relationship one can have with elephant. Nothing else in life is more satisfying than an elephant hunt”.

Jackson has also described shooting lions: “I can plainly see the African lion that has leaped into the air the moment its head snaps backward and explodes with smoke from my bullet.”

Deregulating conservation 

Eduardo Gonçalves, founder of the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, said: “Hunting lobbyists are presenting themselves as conservationists. It is part of a concerted effort by the industry to peddle the lie that shooting animals for ‘sport’ is ‘conservation’.

“Conservation Force lobbies and litigates to block, strip and reduce protections for animals that hunters like to shoot. It has filed over a dozen legal challenges to conservation laws, and is demanding that the status of vulnerable wildlife be downgraded to make it easier for hunters to kill them and bring the trophies home.

“It wants to deregulate conservation and liberalise laws that protect wildlife. It wants the number of animals that can be hunted, and the places they can be hunted, to increase. To do this it promotes the supposed ‘conservation benefits’ of trophy hunting of lions, leopards, zebras, and rhinos.

“Conservation Force’s board includes leading trophy hunters. Their sponsors are firms connected with the trophy hunting industry. Their donors include hunting groups whose interests Conservation Force has promoted at CITES meetings.

“The group’s leader, John Jackson, has been on dozens of big game hunts, shot multiple elephants, and has a personal trophy room filled with stuffed zebras, giraffes, bears, and cougars.”

Extinction emergency 

Gonçalves continued: “He has travelled the world giving talks to pro-hunting audiences on how to build ‘public acceptance’ for ‘sustainable use of wildlife’.

“Conservation Force’s agenda has nothing to do with conservation. In the era of supposed ‘fake news’, Conservation Force is the ultimate Orwellian misnomer. It’s mission is to defend hunters’ so-called “rights”.

“Institutions and individuals who have succumbed to its charms need to wake up. There are serious questions to be answered by CITES and IUCN about how trophy hunting interests have been allowed to work their way into the heart of decision-making processes affecting vulnerable wildlife. Organisations like Conservation Force should be barred, not feted.

“We’re facing a global extinction emergency with up to a million species under threat. They include some of the hunting world’s favourite targets. Thanks to the industry’s lobbying efforts – and the naivety of officials at CITES and IUCN – a cruel colonial pastime has successfully persisted to the present day and is compounding the crisis facing endangered animals.

“If trophy hunters really are interested in conservation, they should forfeit the huge amounts of money they pay to go on luxury hunting Safaris to kill animals for entertainment and instead donate that money directly to genuine conservation work”.

Critically endangered 

The Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting has published figures showing that CITES has permitted international trade in trophies of tigers, black rhinos and animals that have gone extinct in the wild such as the scimitar-horned oryx and the Arabian oryx, which was wiped out by hunters in 1972. British trophy hunters are among those who have shot these endangered animals for trophies.

It is prohibited under CITES to trade ‘Appendix I’ listed species unless there are exceptional circumstances. However these restrictions do not apply to trophy hunters as trophy hunting is considered by CITES to be a non-commercial ‘sport’ and is therefore exempted.

There has been a surge in popularity in trophy hunting of some critically endangered species. Records of black rhino hunting trophies show 11 were taken in the 1980s, two in the 1990s, 26 in the 2000s, and 81 from 2010 to 2017.

Black rhino trophies included feet, bodies, skins and genitalia, as well as horns. British trophy hunters were among those to have hunted black rhino.

Hunting

Despite tigers’ status as one of the most endangered mammals on earth, CITES records show tiger trophies being traded with CITES’ permission as recently as 2016. At least two of the tigers shot for sport had been bred in captivity in South Africa.

The IUCN responded in a statement: “Trophy hunting is badly run in some sites by some unscrupulous individuals and has caused problems, and this poor practice requires urgent action and reform, but trying to ‘demonise’ hunting diverts much needed attention from real conservation problems.”​​​​​​

“Conservation Force has not ‘worked its way into the heart of decision-making processes’ in IUCN. Conservation Force is one of more than 1,000 IUCN members and does not have disproportionately any more influence than other organisations – a number of prominent animal welfare organisations are also members of IUCN.”

A spokesperson for Conservation Force provided the following statement: “Most of this article is a shotgun attack against Conservation Force. Of course, the force is a conservation organisation. It is a registered public charitable foundation with published wildlife, habitat and associated rural community missions and purposes.

“The second negative insinuation is that Conservation Force is somehow not up front about it’s connection with hunting. To the contrary, we are proud hunters and broadcast the fact. Regulated hunting is the force for conservation underlying the name Conservation Force.”

This Article 

This article is based on a press release from the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting.

Air pollution and climate change are considered to be the greatest environmental risks to health, according to World Health Organisation (WHO), with nine out of ten people breathing polluted air every day.

WHO Secretary-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, warned: “We cannot sleepwalk through this health emergency any longer.”

The evidence is clear that climate change is already having a serious impact on human lives and health. It threatens the essential ingredients of good health – clean air, safe drinking water, nutritious food supply, and safe shelter – and will undermine decades of progress in global health.

Direct impacts

Climate change is translated into human suffering and deaths. Looking at just four health risks that increase with climate change – heat exposure, diarrhoea, malaria, and undernutrition – WHO determined an additional quarter million people a year will die from these causes between 2030 and 2050.

The true cost of climate change is felt in our hospitals. And increasingly, hospitals are insufficiently equipped to deal with the threat.

From the tropics to the arctic, climate and weather have powerful direct and indirect impacts on human life. Everybody will be affected by a changing climate, but  the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and poor populations will suffer the most.

With climate change comes rising food and water insecurity, higher food prices, loss of income and livelihood opportunities, negative health effects, and population displacement, threatening to undo the global progress in sustainable development that has been made in the last decades.

By acting as a poverty multiplier, climate change further widens the global inequality gap that persist today.

Premature deaths

The same human activities that are destabilizing the Earth’s climate also contribute directly to poor health.

The fossil fuel combustion that is largely driving climate change also is a major source of air pollution, leading to 7 million premature deaths worldwide every year. This is equivalent to the combined total population of Ireland and Wales.

Phasing out fossil fuel use will both limit global heating and reduce air pollution, providing citizens with clean air. Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about one million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through the reductions in air pollution alone.

The health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.

Steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have both immediate and long-term positive health effects.

Public transport

Promoting the safe use of public transportation and active movement – such as biking or walking as alternatives to using private vehicles – reduces both carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution. It can also reduce traffic related injuries and increase levels of physical activity which in turn helps prevent diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Improved public transport will even help improve access for vulnerable groups, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and lower wage earners, enhancing health equity.

Climate action also brings in large economic co-benefits: actions to meet the Paris goals would cost around 1 percent of global GDP, while around 10 percent of global GDP is currently spend on health.

Acting on climate will reduce the health burden and its cost. When health is taken into account, climate change mitigation is an opportunity, not a cost.

More than half the world’s population now lives in cities, and many of the necessary actions to reduce carbon emissions, improve health and increase resilience will be within urban environments.

Political support

Local and city governments are well-placed to see this necessary transformation through. The local authorities are often wholly or partly responsible for services including energy provision, transport, water, sanitation, and health.

City governments can more easily gain strong political support to make local changes and are ideally placed to involve a broad range of actors to implement those changes.

In many regards, the future of transformative climate action and the future health of citizens will depend on cities.

To boost global ambition and accelerate actions to implement the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, UN Secretary-General António Guterres will host a Climate Action Summit on 23 September to meet the climate challenge.

The Summit hopes to showcase a leap in collective national political ambition by demonstrating massive movements towards a more sustainable economy.

WHO and a coalition of countries and institutions are building momentum towards the September summit by encouraging governments and financial institutions to commit to actions that both reduce carbon emissions and bring positive benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, such as by reducing air pollution or investing in climate action.

Acting on climate will lead us to a world where everyone can enjoy health and well-being. We can not afford the alternative.

This Author

Arthur Wyns is a climate change researcher at the World Health Organization. He writes in a personal capacity, his views do not necessarily represent WHO or any of its member states.

Game Of Thrones star Iwan Rheon – who played Ramsay Bolton – has warned about the “urgent” threat of wildlife decline caused by climate change.

The Olivier award-winning Welsh actor said an ecological crisis could see birds, plants and animals at risk of extinction within 20 years if more is not done to halt the decline of numbers.

Rheon has starred in E4’s Misfits, BBC One’s Our Girl, and appeared in hit show Game Of Thrones, spoke on Wednesday from the Senedd, home of the Welsh Assembly, on World Environment Day.

Frightening

Rheon joined the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to urge the Welsh and UK governments to do more to tackle climate change and make sure it retained and expanded on EU environment protection even after Brexit.

Rheon told the Press Association: “It’s very urgent now we protect wildlife in Wales and all over the world. Every species is in danger.

“We’re seeing loads of species that are in danger of being extinct forever and it’s important for the future generations to be able to enjoy nature and the beautiful wildlife we have here in Wales, in Britain and all over the world.”

He added: “We’re seeing some frightening statistics for a lot of species that look like they aren’t probably going to make it, here in Wales as well.

Protections

“We’ve got about 20 years I think to fix this problem otherwise it would have gone too far.”

Rheon said the public could undertake “small changes” to help including recycling and considering their use of single-use plastics, but called for pressure to be put onto governments to put restoration and protection of nature at the heart of future legislation.

He also called on politicians to ensure environmental protections were retained after the UK leaves the European Union, saying: “Once we’re not involved, if anyone can work out what to do about this, if we’re not part of EU, which has incredibly strict laws on the environment, we have to come up with our own laws.

“It’s important we put pressure on the government to think about everything through nature and ecological ways, and how we affect the environment around us and if we go too far now which we’re about to do, it will be too late and there won’t be any coming back.”

This Author

Adam Hale is a reporter with the Press Association.

ClientEarth is supporting a group of indigenous Australians as they battle to save the islands that have been home to their unique culture for thousands of years.

We’re helping the group to launch a world-first complaint against their government for failing to act on climate change. They’re pressing for immediate action: without it they’re at risk of becoming climate refugees in their own country.

The Torres Strait is a hidden jewel north of mainland Australia. It’s home to one of the world’s oldest living cultures but rising tides are already flooding homes, lands and cultural sites. The situation will continue to get worse as the effects of climate change ratchet up.

Devastating prospect

The people of the Torres Strait are facing the devastating prospect of their Islands disappearing beneath the waves.

With our support, a group of eight Torres Strait Islanders are taking legal steps to fight and save their idyllic island home.

A complaint has been submitted against the Australian government to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It alleges that the effects of Australia’s insufficient plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its failure to fund coastal defences constitute a violation of their human rights.

The Islanders hope that the case will force the Australian government to act. They need coastal defence measures to tackle the rising tides that are happening today. And they are urging politicians in Canberra to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and limit the impact in the future.

Unique culture

Tell Australia’s prime minister to act on climate change.

We are proud to be working with the group of Islanders in the battle to save their unique culture. In order to do that we have developed an approach that is legally ground-breaking.

Our hope is that as well as helping the people of the Torres Strait, it will also help others affected by climate change as they seek to hold their governments to account for their failure to act.

This  Author 

Sophie Marjanac is project lead for climate accountability and ClientEarth. 

Downpours of heavy rain can lead to flash floods, devastation, and outbreaks of waterborne disease.

The number of extreme downpours increased steadily between 1964 and 2013—a period when global warming also intensified, research published in the journal of Water Resources research shows.

The  frequency of ‘extreme precipitation events’ increased in parts of Canada, most of Europe, the Midwest and northeast region of the US, northern Australia, western Russia and parts of China.

Global warming 

Simon Papalexiou, a hydro-climatologist in USask’s College of Engineering, and an expert in hydroclimatic extremes and random processes, said: “By introducing a new approach to analyzing extremes, using thousands of rain records, we reveal a clear increase in the frequency extreme rain events over the recent 50 years when global warming accelerated.” 

Papalexiou, who led the research at the Global Institute for Water Security, added:  “This upward trend is highly unlikely to be explained by natural climatic variability. The probability of this happening is less than 0.3 percent under the model assumptions used.”

The USask study of over 8,700 daily rain records from 100,000 stations monitoring rain worldwide found the frequency of torrential rain between 1964 and 2013 increased as the decades progressed.

Between 2004 and 2013, there were seven percent more extreme bouts of heavy rain overall than expected globally.

Global warming can lead to increased precipitation because more heat in the atmosphere leads to more atmospheric water which, in turn, leads to rain.  

Robust records

Torrents of rain not only lead to flooding, but can threaten public health, overwhelming sewage treatment plants and increasing microbial contaminants of water. More than half a million deaths were caused by rain-induced floods between 1980 and 2009. 

Heavy rain can also cause landslides, damage crops, collapse buildings and bridges, wreck homes, and lead to chaos on roads and to transport, with huge financial losses.

Co-author Alberto Montanari, Professor of hydraulic works and hydrology at the University of Bologna and President of the European Geoscience Union, said: “Our results are in line with the assumption that the atmosphere retains more water under global warming.

“The fact that the frequency, rather the magnitude, of extreme precipitation is significantly increasing has relevant implications for climate adaptation. Human systems need to increase their capability to react to frequent shocks.”

The researchers screened data for quality and consistency, selecting the most robust and complete records from the 100,000 stations worldwide monitoring precipitation. Regions in South America and Africa were excluded from the study, as records for the study period were not complete or robust.

Government planning

Papalexiou said planning for more frequent ‘extreme’ rain should be a priority for governments, local authorities and emergency services. 

Papalexiou warned: “If global warming progresses as climate model projections predict, we had better plan  strategies for dealing with frequent heavy rain right now. Our study of records from around the globe shows that potentially devastating bouts of extreme rain are increasing decade by decade.

“We know that rainfall-induced floods can devastate communities, and that there are implications of increasing bouts of heavy rain for public health, agriculture, farmers’ livelihoods, the fishing industry and insurance – to name but a few.”       

The research was funded by the Global Water Futures program at the University of Saskatchewan and the Italian Government’s “excellent department” grant to the Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Material Engineering at the University of Bologna.          

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from the Global Institute for Water Security.         

Image: Air babble, Flickr.                                              

We need to reinvent luxury. We need a better understanding of high quality. We need to treat ourselves, but treat ourselves well. Or to rediscover.

The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus was a hedonist, and spent a considerable amount of time pondering what made for a good life. When it came to food, he advised only bread and water which, he argued, always tasted sublime to a person experiencing real hunger.

This article was first published as the Foreword to Envirocidal: How Livestock Farming is Killing the Planet, published by Viva!

For hundreds of years meat has occupied the territory of luxury. The old kings of England used the country as a hunting ground and paintings of the era show feasts resplendent with dead animals.

Reinventing luxury

Indeed, the foundation myth of our origins as humans is that we were apes rolling around in the forest undergrowth eating leaves until the desertification of the Savanna. Then we became man, upstanding, a hunter, an eater of meat. There is actually no evidence to support this, the prevailing hypothesis about what makes us human.

And yet, if it is true, what does it tell us about ourselves? That we are a contented beast, a great animal surrounded by an abundance of food. The African forest contained all the wealth we early humans could possibly need – it was this environment rich in foods including plant proteins that allowed us to develop such a powerful mind.

The transition to meat was in fact the act of desperation. The effective suckling of goats and cows in this story does not seem luxurious but really quite grim. The bleeding of cattle, and eventually the slaughtering of our fellow living creatures seems utterly dreadful. Yet this is the myth that is supposed to make eating meat a natural part of who we are.

So what does this mean for us today? I think we need to evoke the deep emotional relationship we have with food in order to influence behaviours towards what is healthy for us as human beings and also what is sustainable for our planet. We need to celebrate plant food, and build customs and myths that place the beetroot and the potato at the centre of our celebrations, of our identities.

Luxury, when one really digs into its meaning, is simply that which is not affordable to everyone. We show off by eating meat. But meat is cheap, and dirty, and everywhere. Real luxury is organic foods, locally sourced foods, home grown foods, plant based food. These foods need to be rich with stories – grown by those we love, only for us, over time and with great care.

Comprehensive review

Meat in turn needs to be treated with disgust. As a journalist, I have seen the new mega farms spreading into British agriculture like mould. The cows are chained, clearly in pain, barely able to suffer the weight of their bloated udders. Thousands of them. Living within the rivers of slurry they produce. It’s not luxury, it is despair, and it is disgusting.

The publication of this second edition of the Envirocidal report could not be more timely.

Sir David Attenborough has finally taken the message to middle England that climate change is an existential threat. The inspiring and innovative manifestation of Extinction Rebellion, with more than a thousand people willing to be arrested peacefully protesting in London, and the direct actions simultaneously taking place in cities around the world, show that people of all ages are determined to act on climate change – and also biodiversity loss.

Veganism is becoming the new normal. I became vegan this year after holding a vote of readers of The Ecologist asking whether its editor could have a pescatarian diet without some level of hypocrisy. The answer was resounding.

And as this report makes clear, eating fish and foregoing other meat is not sufficient if we want to significantly reduce our personal climate impacts – and lead in our communities and in our countries on carbon reduction.

This report is most valuable because it provides a comprehensive review of the current scientific literature. While it is an appeal to emotion and identity that will influence behaviour, we really do need to be confident about our claims before we go into the world making demands of other people. We need to be clear about the rational arguments, as well as the emotional appeal.

Government action

This report sets out beyond reasonable doubt that continuing to eat meat is irrational, and dangerous. It reveals exactly how livestock farming is linked to all the main areas of concern including global warming and climate change, land and water use, overfishing, biodiversity loss, deforestation, desertification, air pollution, antibiotic resistance, world hunger and food waste.

Those of us who are already committed to environmentalism now have to face up to the fact that the vegan diet (perhaps peppered with the occasional supplement) is the only truly green diet.

The best solution to the compound crises of climate, biodiversity, soil depletion is to simply stop eating animals. A global switch to diets that rely less on meat, fish, dairy and eggs and more on fruit and vegetables could make a huge difference to us and future generations.

I am also encouraged that this report talks about government action. We can only do so much as individuals and fundamental change will come only through changes in how we eat, how we farm, how we produce at a national and international level. We need to lobby, transform and replace many of the institutions that form our civil society.

Our schools can no longer have any ethical authority while serving meat based meals to our children. Our hospitals cannot serve meat that, in time, will make patients sick. The government needs the Green Pea Marketing Board, sending free food into our schools just as when I was young we were given free milk.

Discovery

But ultimately, we need to change our feelings about food. Plants are healthy, rich, plentiful and tasty – they are luxurious.

Spice is very obviously the spice of life. Animals bring us tremendous joy especially as companion animals – but the idea that they should be minced and ground down to form part of our diets is macabre and grotesque.

This report explains the many benefits of moving to a plant-based diet. But this is not about sacrificing meat, it’s about discovering that we can and must do so much better.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article was first published as the Foreword to Envirocidal: How Livestock Farming is Killing the Planet, published by Viva!