Another Covid negative

I was going to try and not mention the dreaded C-word (coronavirus) too much, if at all, in my posts, if I possibly could.

However, like many people, I have been dwelling quite a bit on it - probably far too much - how it is affecting people directly (those with COVID and those self-isolating) and indirectly (those who have lost their jobs, both temporarily and permanently, because their company or site has shut down); how it is affecting our general way of life (shopping, entertainment, visiting family and friends); and also, how we are going to finally get out of this situation - the so-called exit strategy.

The short-term response that has slowly been adopted around the world - that of isolating as many people as possible, for as much of the time as possible - is clearly the best solution to stop the spread of the virus for now and limit the number of deaths.

And in that short-term, people are generally reacting and coping fairly well with this, let's be honest, massive curtailing of our normal societal liberties. We are mostly managing to put on that brave face, stiff upper lip, call it what you will - that we will do our bit and come out the other side in one piece, albeit a bit shaken and disturbed by it all.

There have been many positive stories emerging out of this global crisis; there is the selfless work of NHS staff and other critical workers; but there are also those going out of their way to help others - whether that be chatting to someone stuck on their own, going shopping for an elderly relative or neighbour, running some kind of free online tuition to keep people engaged / exercised / learning.

There is another side to all of this though and it is one that is only just starting to be mentioned out loud - and that is because it is a dark place we usually don't like to visit in public.

Mental health.

For all the impetus and campaigning that has gone on over the last few years by businesses and government alike on the subject, talking about your mental health is still something of a taboo subject.

But phase two of the crisis, as we hopefully start to plateau in terms of new COVID cases, will start to focus around how and when we return to some form of normality. 

There is much uncertainty about what format this will take (it may well be very different in every country, depending on their experiences with the virus to date) - and this uncertainty all adds to the mental health picture.

That's because people crave certainty in their lives. If you told people that they had to isolate for two weeks, four weeks, maybe even six weeks - but at the end of that period all would be well and we could return to normal - most people would be fine with that. That scenario offers a defined ending, which means you can plan how you will cope, both mentally and financially.

But the messages are mixed. We may have to do this for three weeks (initially in the UK - 12 weeks for those in 'at-risk' categories) - but then that may be extended for another indeterminate period, or, the restrictions may get even more severe. Who knows?

How do we get out of it? Do we have to continue like this to some degree for a year or more until a vaccine is ready? Will we come out of this for a few months and have to do it all over again in the autumn / winter? Will warmer summer weather negate some of the worst impacts of the spread of the virus?

All we have is questions and so few answers yet. This is all bad for our mental health - this lack of certainty feeds anxiety, which can feed depression.

What if you own a small (or large) business whose doors are closed for this indeterminate amount of time - or you lost your job as the restrictions took effect - or a pay-cut - or an undefined period of unpaid leave (I am on a pay cut for at least 3 months as a result of this - but at least I still have a job to go to)?

The stark fact seems to be that when we get major hits to the economy (both national and global), these mental health concerns grow. And when they grow, so does that other dark topic - suicide.

I have yet to hear anyone much talk about this in public - but we should. For despite everything that the UK government (and other governments around the world) is doing to protect businesses and individuals as much as they can through all of this, we will still fall into recession and many businesses will not re-open their doors when the time comes.

This means, potentially tens of thousands of people in the UK looking for work, and hundreds or thousands of business owners picking up the shattered pieces of all they worked and sacrificed so much to build.

Even without all this, the suicide rate in the UK had hit a 16-year high in 2018 (at 6,507). Three-quarters of those were men and there was a rising trend in the under-25 category (up almost 25%), although the 45-49 year old range remains the highest rate. I'm sure not all of these were related to unemployment and financial issues, but I bet plenty were.

The Samaritans issued a report on 'Men and Suicide; why it's a social issue' in 2012, which looked at some of the traits that are factors;

• Personality traits
• Masculinity - taking risks to react to stressful situations
• Relationship breakdowns - which are more likely to negatively affect men
• Mid-life issues - the highest rate of poor mental health
• Emotional illiteracy - men are more likely to have a negative view of therapy
• Socio-economic factors - like unemployment

Suicides are two or three times more likely in a time of recession and men in the most deprived areas of the country are ten times more at risk than the highest social classes!

In 2009-11, during the last big global recession, there were over 10,000 more suicides across Europe and North America because of it!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or indeed a psychiatrist, to see that there is a second potential health crisis looming on the horizon - one that is even harder to manage, as it often remains so hidden.

So in these difficult times - watch out for each other, check on each other, be nice to each other - and most importantly look for signs of depression among your friends, family and neighbours;

• continuous low mood or sadness
• feeling hopeless and helpless
• having low self-esteem
• feeling tearful
• feeling guilt-ridden
• feeling irritable and intolerant of others
• having no motivation or interest in things
• finding it difficult to make decisions
• not getting any enjoyment out of life
• feeling anxious or worried
• having suicidal thoughts or thoughts of harming them/yourself

These signs won't always be on obvious display or shout themselves from the rooftop - so please be vigilant - and also, look after yourself!

Research:
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/middle-aged-men-suicide/
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/research-policy/suicide-facts-and-figures/ 
https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-suicide https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/clinical-depression/symptoms/

Is Bristol the greenest city in the UK?

Well, according to a report recently released by Good Move, Bristol is the greenest city in the UK for 2019.

How did it come to this verdict? 
Well the choices and criteria are not perhaps the best and most exhaustive list in the world, but let's not overly criticise and take a bit of a further look....

Firstly, Good Move only looked at ten UK cities to begin with, and those were selected based on the ten with the most green space within them - which may be assumed to give them a head-start over other possible cities. Once they had that list, it seems they looked at four key criteria to rank them;

• Carbon emissions from the city
• Recycling rates (average domestic rate)
• Gas consumption (average per capita) - but not electricity?
• Number of Green Party councillors!?! 
• (Surely this is more of a reflection of how good / bad the local Green Party are at canvassing in that area - and also implies that no other party cares about the environment [which may or may not be true])

Anyway, what result did this lead to? 
Well the post title has kind of given that bit away - it was, of course, Bristol. And it's not that this is a bad choice per se; it topped the charts of their calculations, with an average 47% domestic recycling rate amongst other things. 

To be fair, it has done much in recent years to up its green credentials - it became a Fair Trade City in 2005; by 2014/15 it had carbon reductions of 38% from a 2005 baseline, meaning it hit its 2020 target five years early; and also in 2015, it got the European Green Capital Award - the first British city to win - recognising it as a happy, healthy and more environmentally friendly place to live and work.

Bristol was also one of the first local authorities to commit to purchasing renewable energy in its mix. It had an initial target of reaching 15% renewables by 2010, which it did in part by switching all 34,000 of its streetlights to this from January 2007. The council also committed to investing £1.4 m in improving the energy efficiency of its council properties through the '90s and '00s.

How did the other cities fair?
So we can see that Bristol did at least have some claim to be justified in winning this accolade, but what did the other British cities do right, and wrong (besides not having enough green space to be considered in the first place), to get their place in the top ten?

Edinburgh did enough to impress their way into second place, based in large part around their impressive 49 hectares of green space in the city - the most in the country. But at the other end you have London in 9th place, predominantly dragged that low by its huge carbon footprint (actually seven times higher than the city that eventually came in 10th!).

And who came at the bottom end?
That honour went to Birmingham! And they may feel hard done by for several reasons. Firstly, as mentioned above - their carbon emission rate was actually around seven times better than that of London. Birmingham's undoing in this ranking was due to its very poor domestic recycling rate (22%) and relatively low levels of green space compared to the other contenders (only 24.6 hectares). 

The second reason for the city to feel a bit peeved is that the way that this has been reported would imply that they are the least environmentally friendly city in the UK, rather than the worst from a list of ten (and based on somewhat spurious criteria).

The Good Move Top Ten:

1. Bristol
2. Edinburgh
3. Manchester (targeting being zero-carbon by 2038)
4. Sheffield
5. Bradford
6. Liverpool
7. Glasgow (had the first Low Emission Zone in Scotland)
8. Leeds (aiming to be carbon neutral by 2030)
9. London
10. Birmingham

Another version:
To contrast with the Good Move list, in early 2019, First Mile (a waste management company) put together their own list of greenest cities. So what conclusions did they come up with?

Well firstly, their list of criteria certainly appears a little deeper; the looked at the number of Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCPs), Recycling per capita, amount of green space, Air Quality, pollution levels, efforts around reduction of plastic use and also fast-fashion consumption.

So, how does their list compare? 
First thing to note is that only six of the cities that made the Good Move top ten, make it in here - and, they show up in quite a different order. London didn't even make the top ten - coming in at #11 - largely owing to its horrific air quality problems! But for the record, this is how the First Mile top ten looked;

1. Edinburgh
2. Aberdeen
3. Glasgow
4. York
5. Oxford
6. Bristol
7. Newcastle
8. Leeds
9. Sheffield
10. Birmingham

An incredible Scottish 1-2-3! Given the emphasis that the Scottish government appears to be giving Scotland as the place to come for sustainable businesses (presumably at least partially with an eye to the future, as North Sea oil/gas starts to decline) and the pride it has in its fantastic natural landscapes, this verdict is possibly not so surprising.

Fairly obviously, some of this will always be subjective too. I could devise a list with a completely different set of criteria and weighting factors and end up with another version. I haven't visited all of the cities mentioned here, in recent times, so giving too much of a subjective opinion now would not be all that fair. Spending a lot of time in Birmingham for work, I could say - is that really a better place than London? But that would neglect that when I visit London or Birmingham, it tends to only be to certain parts, and these lists look at the cities as a whole.

What do you think? What cities would you like to see in a top ten - and what criteria do you think should be used to judge?

Research:
https://goodmove.co.uk/blog/how-bristol-became-uks-greenest-city/ 
https://goodmove.co.uk/britains-green-cities/
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uk-greenest-cities-scotland-top-three_uk_5c50392de4b0d9f9be69086e?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9Z29vZCttb3ZlK2dyZWVuZXN0K2NpdHkrdWsraHVmZitwb3N0JnFzPW4mZm9ybT1RQlJFJnNwPS0xJnBxPWdvb2QrbW92ZStncmVlbmVzdCtjaXR5K3VrK2h1ZmYrcG9zdCZzYz0xLTM2JnNrPSZjdmlkPUI3RTY1QjRENDE1MTQ5OTk4MDZDQTEwRjhERkZCNjQ5&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKhKmAkIFJSZOSOR_j1f773yloi3kDnJxIym-lTkgZjfdq8xKP89CW38ZEg3i0ZPUhaLfnUbbT6CKH3mp9ojEMslM1HL7Dd0U8P6bCXu95h7mlizo4zGTP6Dw-Jp8aU2YJ9rSeu7iVe_AstL8g29k8MZQ5XiVwFQMSjhdehddsi4

Hope for the Jaguar and other migratory species

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) has held the 13th Conference of Parties Wildlife Summit in Gandhinagar, Gujurat, India, this week.

One of the big headlines has been around an initiative to help strengthen protections for the Jaguar across the Americas. It ranges across an area stretching from the southern US border with Mexico, down through Central America and into South America, where it can be found as far down as Paraguay and northern Argentina.

It has seen about 40% of its habitat lost over the last hundred years, and while laws exist in each country it can be found in, it is hoped that new measures for migratory species will strengthen protection for it (and other species) as it goes across international borders. Threats include deforestation and poaching.

The CMS covers all migratory species, including the jaguar, and its existence can help bring about protection to vital habitats, and maintaining vital wildlife corridors that allow animals to move between areas. Without these, animals can become isolated - once isolated, the chances of them facing extinction grow....

Jaguar (image: Wikipedia)

Rebecca Regney, Deputy Director for the Human Society International, hopes that the CMS will create a vital legal framework. "This will provide increased incentives and funding opportunities for this work and that is crucial for curbing habitat destruction, maintaining key migratory corridors and addressing killings for retaliation and trafficking."

Help for the Asian elephants - and more:

The CMS also provides hope for many other migratory species, including the Asian elephant. It too has faced loss of habitat, poaching, poisoning and disruption of its habitats, such as blockages by rail lines and the like.

India hosts around 60% of the remaining numbers of the species, but cross-border migration occurs with some of its neighbours, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar and Nepal. Mark Simmonds, also of the Humane Society International says of the CMS, "The highly migratory Asian elephant for example, is endangered throughout much of its substantial range, trying to survive in continually shrinking, degraded and fragmented habitats."

Representatives of 130 nations have signed the CMS, which will increase the conservation status of many species, including;

• Oceanic whitetip shark - now one of the most endangered shark species
• Great Indian bustard
• Antipodean albatross

Getting giraffes off the endangered list:

A century ago, there were over one million giraffes in sub-Saharan Africa. They used to roam at least 28 countries, but are now extinct in at least seven of them (Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria and Senegal). There are now estimated to only be around 100,000 left, and they are generally in fragmented populations.

This massive decline, 40% in just the last 30 years, has seen the species as a whole labelled as 'vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. Two sub-species, the Nubian and Kordofan giraffes, are now 'critically endangered'; while two more, the Reticulated and Masai giraffes, are 'endangered'.

Nubian giraffe (image: Wikipedia)

What is the IUCN Red List?

Established in 1964, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species has evolved to become the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global conservation status of animal, fungus and plant species.

The IUCN Red List is a critical indicator of the health of the world’s biodiversity. Far more than a list of species and their status, it is a powerful tool to inform and catalyze action for biodiversity conservation and policy change, critical to protecting the natural resources we need to survive. It provides information about range, population size, habitat and ecology, use and/or trade, threats, and conservation actions that will help inform necessary conservation decisions.

As part of an effort to halt this decline, conservation measures have been submitted by six of the countries where giraffes can still be found; Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. They cite a number of issues faced by giraffes across their range:

• Fragmentation of habitat - roads, railways, power lines etc. all hinder their migration.
• Habitat loss - wildfires, livestock encroachment and human spread all increase this issue.
• Poaching / snaring - for bushmeat, skins and traditional medicine.

These issues are all further exacerbated by factors like disease, war and a lack of awareness and knowledge of the issues. The 'Concerted Action for the Giraffe' is calling for an Africa-wide strategy, with much more trans-boundary collaboration, better exchange of information and the creation of an international database. This, it is hoped, will lead to better legal protection, more research and ultimately a raising of awareness around the issues, which in itself may help to push it up the priority list for various governments.

Other stories from the Convention:

There is a commitment to evaluate the impacts of climate changes on migration, specifically through the lens of some focal species and ecosystems. It is hoped this will help animals adapt to a warming world, especially as January was the hottest one globally on record. This year it reached a point where it was 1.14°C above the global average for the twentieth century.

Ethiopia this week signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey in Africa and Eurasia (luckily more commonly known as the Raptors MOU). It was signed on behalf of the Ethiopian government by Kumara Wakjira, the Director General of the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority - bringing the total number of signatories to 61.

Wakjira said, on his country signing, "The country is a staging post for migratory birds, including raptors. Most species are coming from Europe and Asia for wintering. Nonetheless, due to growing habitat threats, the distribution and status of raptor species is declining. Ethiopia is thus pleased to sign the Raptors MOU to strengthen the protection of raptors."

Ethiopia is indeed a strategically important country for this, especially as it is located on the East African flyway, a significant route for millions of migrating birds of prey. 40 of the 93 species featured in the MOU can be found in Ethiopia, including the Steppe eagle, Sakar falcon and Egyptian vulture.

Research:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51561697 

https://www.cms.int/en/news 

https://www.cms.int/en/news/africa-wide-conservation-strategy-giraffe 

https://www.cms.int/en/news/cms-raptors-mou-welcomes-ethiopia-signatory 

https://www.iucnredlist.org/about/background-history