Search Results

Dr Mark Nicholson The short answer is no. I make my living by identifying and planting East African plants and shrubs. In 2000 we started a forest and ecological restoration project in the Kenyan highlands at Brackenhurst, north of Nairobi. The purpose was to convert back into native forest what was cleared 100 years ago to make tea and eucalyptus (known here as ‘gums’) plantations. Gums were planted to dry the tea: every four acres of tea requires one acre of gums. We estimated we would achieve complete restoration by 2030. In the UK there are 60 native tree species. In East Africa there are over 10,000 ‘higher’ plant species (i.e. flowering plants covering everything from daisies to huge trees), about one percent of which have English names. So, I have to deal with (and learn) Latin names that roll off the tongue like Pseudolachnostylis maprouneifolia. Many trees have local names but we have over 200 languages in East Africa and Ethiopia so it is not very easy getting to grips with the numerous vernacular names for any one species. Let me start by dispelling one of the great environmental myths. The Amazon forests are not the “lungs of the earth”. Mature tropical forests are more or less carbon neutral. Yes, green plants give out oxygen and small amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) by day but at night they give out only CO2. Animals and decomposing leaves also produce CO2 all the time. If any forest biome could be called the lungs of the earth it is the boreal forests of Russia, North America and Scandinavia. In the summer they photosynthesize for 20 hours a day producing oxygen as the by-product, and in winter they shut down and therefore produce almost no CO2. The boreal forests are also twice the size of the Amazon forests. However, their tree biodiversity is very low, probably around 20 species, whereas the official tree species’ tally for the Amazon forest is 6000. Don’t you believe it. 3 years ago, during a collection trip on the Rio Negro, upstream of Manaus in the Amazon forest, we found unknown species almost every day. Mike Hopkins, the British curator of the Manaus Herbarium, showed us over 100,000 undescribed specimens in cupboards and reckoned the real total is in excess of 20,000 tree species. The danger of biodiversity loss is this: plants and other organisms are rapidly going extinct during the current Anthropocene extinction; so we risk losing the cure for Alzheimer's or other diseases if a plant becomes extinct before we know what it is good for. The importance of the Amazon region and other tropical forests is both their biodiversity value and the ecosystem services they provide, such as rainfall and carbon sequestration (storage). Climate change is a minor cause of biodiversity loss. Kenya has lost 90% of its large mammalian fauna in the last 50 years owing to land use change, land degradation and human population rise. Even so, the total mammalian biomass in Kenya has probably not changed at all; as non-human mammalian biomass has crashed, human population has soared. In the richer ‘West’, biodiversity has fallen for other reasons such as pollution, the use of toxic agrochemicals, urban expansion and monoculture. So yes, if the Amazon forests were felled there would be a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 as wood was burned and the fertile organic matter (leaf litter) in the soil oxidized by sunlight. Evapotranspiration from trees produces local rainfall, and the tree canopy protects the soil. Removing the trees would leave bare, mineral-poor soils and semi-arid conditions. How does tree planting affect global warming? Put simply, photosynthesis converts CO2 into glucose, which in turn is slowly converted into complex carbohydrates, ending as lignin (otherwise known as wood). But if the wood is chopped down and turned into firewood, charcoal or paper it will all go back to CO2 when they are burned. But if Mr. Chippendale turns the wood into a chair, then CO2 will be sequestered in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the word ‘carbon’ in modern pseudo-science parlance is equated with CO2. When reporters and commentators talk about the emission of one tonne of ‘carbon’, they mean one tonne of CO2. Carbon is found everywhere in all life forms as well as in rocks, from chalk to diamonds. Equally annoying is the frequent use of ton/short ton (907kg) instead of the metric tonne (1000kg). I will use the latter (or t) and stick with CO2. So let’s look at some figures: a growing tree will sequester about 20kg of CO2 in its first five years. A tropical seedling in a high rainfall area will sequester more because the growing season will be much longer. Once it becomes a mature tree, the amount of wood manufactured each year is much lower and leaf-fall much higher, hence its carbon neutral status. If a tree sequesters 4 kg of CO2 per year, then a million trees will sequester 4 million kg (or 4000 t), and a trillion trees (1012) 4 billion t per year. That is a significant contribution but a long way from annual carbon emissions arising out of humankind’s activities. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions (i.e. those resulting from the influence of human beings on the environment) are now roughly 40 billion t per year. The BBC website reported on 26 January that someone had come up with the “10 golden rules of tree planting” - Scientists address myths over large-scale tree planting - BBC News. As a tree-planter myself I was not hugely impressed. 1. Protect existing forests first Sensible advice but no need for ‘first’. Protecting existing forests maintains the status quo by keeping sequestered carbon in situ but planting trees will increase CO2 stocks. 2. Put local people at the heart of tree-planting projects Studies show that getting local communities on board is key to the success of tree-planting projects. It is often local people who have most to gain from looking after the forest in the future. I disagree. The really large projects need to be carried out by philanthropists, governments or big corporations such as Wilmar International, Unilever and the other monocultural behemoths. Only they can revert large areas of oil palm or tea back to forests. 3. Maximise biodiversity recovery to meet multiple goals Reforestation should be about several goals, including guarding against climate change, improving conservation and providing economic and cultural benefits. Here biodiversity recovery is conflated with climate change, which is a separate issue. 4. Select the right area for reforestation Plant trees in areas that were historically forested but have become degraded, rather than using other natural habitats such as grasslands or wetlands. 5. Use natural forest regrowth wherever possible Letting trees grow back naturally can be cheaper and more efficient than planting trees. Certainly not more efficient. In most forest sites, ‘passive’ restoration leads to a massive infestation by invasive species - plants from elsewhere that are aggressive and will eventually take over if allowed to. One-third of our budget in the last 20 years has been used to control invasive species. 6. Select the right tree species that can maximise biodiversity Where tree planting is needed, picking the right trees is crucial. Scientists advise a mixture of tree species naturally found in the local area, including some rare species and trees of economic importance, but avoiding trees that might become invasive. Yes, horses for courses. If we had used Kenya coastal species at our altitude of 2000 metres, 95 percent of them would have died. Above all, avoid monocultures of eucalyptus (‘gums’) etc, except in Australasia, where they originate. 7. Make sure the trees are resilient to adapt to a changing climate Use tree seeds that are suitable for the local climate and how that might change in the future. Apart from this not being very good English, we do not know how much the climate will change so we do not yet know which species are most resilient 8. Plan ahead Plan how to source seeds or trees, working with local people. Whether one works with local people or not it can be very difficult to find seed. 9. Learn by doing We all try to do that. 10. Make it pay The sustainability of tree re-planting rests on a source of income for all stakeholders, including the poorest. Not necessarily. The main benefit of tree planting on vast areas is carbon sequestration which provides no direct income but huge indirect benefit to humanity So let me add two Golden rules and two Golden questions. 11. Don’t imagine for one moment that tree planting will get us out of the hideous environmental disaster heading our way. 12. It’s not about tree planting; it’s about tree growing. For us, the initial five years is about weeding, removing and replacing dead trees, and controlling invasive species. Many donor- or corporate-funded projects fail because whilst they trumpet that they have planted, say, a million trees, only 100,000 survive the ravages of livestock, people, weeds and wildlife. Two Golden Questions: Who is going to pay? Local people that we work with are poor, land-poor and hungry. If you think they are going to devote a substantial part of their farms to tree planting, have another think. Our modest 40 ha. forest of 140,000 trees and shrubs on private land has cost US$1million over 20 years. We were lucky enough to have international funders; most are not so lucky. Where will the land come from? We are part of the optimistically-named Trillion Tree Campaign. Well, a trillion mature trees at 400/ha would require 2,500 million hectares. That’s 25 million km2. Russia is just over 17 million km2. If we planted trees in the density normally found in plantations (1000/ha), 10 million km2 would be needed. That’s the size of Canada and larger than China. So, plant one tree or plant a million, it all helps. But what is really important is to answer this question: will tree planting save the planet? The Center for International Forestry Research, The Global Landscapes Forum and other large international institutions might say Yes but most scientists say No unless there is a global and concomitant reduction in the use of fossil fuels. This will be the subject of my next article: “Glasgow 2021 and the fallacy of Net Zero”.

Dr. Jehad Al-Omari Reading an article on a recent archaeological discovery in Jordan from the 9th century BCE in what was then the Kingdom of Moab, I was struck by the words on a Canaanite engraving. It referred to King Sheet who is quoted “… and I came and I saw ....” with the rest of the text missing. It immediately reminded me of Julius Caesar’s famous saying “Veni, Vidi, Vici” (“I came; I saw; I conquered”). Living in Jordan and working across the Middle East I am so often reminded how old civilizations were interconnected and how they constantly borrowed from one another. Today we are the product of these many civilizations; yet some people insist on taking a monocultural view of our origins. As a Jordanian I find myself at the centre of the Old World from which so many civilizations have sprung. These are civilizations that predate the birth of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, yet were the origin of all three religions. The Moabites, like their contemporaries the Edomites and the Ammonites (whose main city is now present-day Amman, the capital of Jordan), peopled the three most well-known kingdoms that flourished in Jordan from around the 13th century BCE to, in Edom’s case, 125 BCE. They, in turn, were frequently overshadowed by the Nabateans, famous for their pink city of Petra, built possibly as early as the 5th century BCE. Coming from Jordan means that you are surrounded by history from north to south and east to west; you cannot escape it. The Decapolis, for example, was an alliance of 10 (or perhaps 12) Hellenistic cities established between 63 BCE and AD 106. 8 of these cities are in present-day Jordan. You simply cannot travel in Jordan without stumbling over an ancient city. You do not only sense, touch and feel history everywhere but smell it even in the Roman olive trees that still survive and are everywhere in mountainous north Jordan. On the 31st January, Jordanians celebrated the end of Marbaaniyya - the 40th - referring to the first 40 days of winter. It’s followed by Khamseeniyya - the 50th - the second 50 days of winter. Marbaaniyya is considered as one solid block. If it starts sunny it will largely remain so for 40 days but if it starts with rain, it will rain throughout. The second block of 50 days is divided into 4 distinctive periods, each lasting 12.5 days and each with its unique features. These are called the Saud days. The first period is supposed to be the coldest when dogs are too cold to bark; the second is a rainy one when the land will absorb all the rain; the third is when the twigs of the trees will begin to show life; and the final period is when snakes and other reptiles emerge, marking the traditional beginning of spring. As ancient as these weather forecasts are, they are still believed to be the most accurate and are celebrated yearly as an integral part of everyday life. These traditions are shared across the Levant and the western parts of Saudi Arabia, suggesting that they are of Canaanite origin, although we cannot rule out Mesopotamian origins (present-day Iraq). Mesopotamians are legendary for their pioneering work in Astronomy and Mathematics. The most famous Canaanites are the Phoenicians. They were a seafaring nation who at one time ruled the Mediterranean from Tyre in modern Lebanon to the shores of Iberia in present-day Spain, not forgetting their colony of Carthage in what is now Tunisia. Driving from the city of Ronda to Malaga some thirty years ago I enjoyed seeing miles after mile of olive tree groves, first introduced into the Iberian Peninsular by the Phoenicians. On this road to Malaga, I stopped by a roadside café to have a lunch of bread, olives and cheese and I could easily imagine myself in the mountains of northern Jordan. The name Malaga is believed to be of Phoenician origin. It means “Queen”, as also does the ancient Jordanian city of Malka. Not only that. It is said that in the initial days of the Arab conquest of Andalusia the first Arab tribes who settled in Malaga came from today’s Jordan. No wonder I felt so at home. Just as Arabs conquered half of the known old world in the 7th and 8th centuries AD, we were conquered by every Tom, Dick and Harry. There is a fallacy about who the Arabs are, particularly of the eastern Mediterranean. To suggest that we are racially pure, or even semi-pure, Arabs is to fly in the face of all historical records. We are the descendants and inheritors of many ancient races, civilizations and cultures that were either indigenous to the land or conquered it at one time or another. We are the ones who made it into the 21st century, despite all the diseases, ethnic cleansing and conquests, to inherit this land. The fact that we call ourselves Arabs (to the annoyance of some) only refers to our language and the commonalities we share with our neighbors on the Arabian Peninsula. Where I come from in the north of Jordan, to look at someone it is impossible to determine if the features are Arabic, European or African. Deep blue eyes coexist with dark features and frizzy hair in a mosaic that is not only true for north Jordan but the entire Levant. Some can trace their roots as far as Yemen in southern Arabia, yet others to the Crusaders or to Russia. There is no limit to the racial variations within this region and the best of DNA testing will flounder in our part of the world. We are the sum total of the ancient world and we are proud of this. If only others would see it this way. Moreover, as I hope I’ve made clear, this racial mixture is not a recent phenomenon but dates back to ancient and pre-biblical times. As the biblical records, among many other sources, attest there were an astonishing number of intermarriages between those ancient kingdoms I mentioned at the beginning, from the time of Abraham through to that of David and Solomon. If ever there was an original Melting Pot in history, it was to be found in the Levant and Mesopotamia, thousands of years before the cosmopolitan cities of present-day America, Britain and France. Despite the instability of the Middle East today, there is so much we can demonstrate to the world in terms of coexistence versus dominance. Our current troubles stem from those who perceive their strategic interest lies in continuing to interfere in our affairs. The Paris Peace conference after the First World War that was supposed to produce a Peace to End all Wars remains the very conference that produced all the future wars that have afflicted the Middle East to this day. The heart of the matter is that this ancient land and its people have survived bigger calamities than it is facing today. Like the Phoenix it and they will rise from the Ashes to take their place under the sun.

Stoker Poor David Cameron. Not an expression which comes readily to mind. One of the mysteries of the book publishing world is the enormous advances paid to politicians for their memoirs. Fierce battles between publishing houses, no doubt three-way struggles between commissioning editor, finance director, and very happy writer’s agent, seem to produce marvellous sums of dosh. And for what? Harold MacMillan wrote a pretty turgid set of reminiscences in six volumes (he did own the publishing firm though). Anthony Eden restricted himself to three volumes, keeping his secrets by making them pretty unreadable. In mitigation, in great old age he wrote a slim volume, Another World, about his childhood and First World War service which is beautifully written, very moving, and showed a sensitive and fascinating man under that patrician crust. Margaret Thatcher managed to get her life into two volumes, the first one dealing with her period of high office, and the second starting from the famous Grantham grocer’s shop, but left it to Charles Moore in a further three volumes to tell the truth, whole and nothing but. Most surprisingly, Tony Blair dealt with his whole life in one quite slim volume, which though it reveals not much about his ministry, does tell a lot about the man himself – rather to his credit. To be fair, it is not easy as a senior cabinet minister to reveal all. The Cabinet Office does not like revelations – any revelations at all one suspects – and certainly likes to delete anything that might impact on current matters or policies or on persons now living if they might suffer disadvantage. That means proposed memoires, no matter how senior the autobiographer, must be submitted to those in Cabinet Office equipped with green, red, and thick black pencils. This, rumour has it, was a particular problem to David Cameron, who in spite of the comforts of country retreat, a shepherd’s hut and an alleged £800,000 advance, struggled to get finger to laptop, then to be bounced about on the pencils of Whitehall censorship. Alas, poor David. Not only is his book, For The Record, (just one volume), published only 16 months ago, already heavily discounted at Abe Books (down from £35 to around £8) (there’s an advance William Collins must be regretting), he was then considerably upstaged by the saucy volume of Lady Swire. Sasha Swire, a very well connected Tory and wife of junior minister, Hugo, was part of the Cameron inner circle. She was. She probably isn’t now. Her book told a few juicy tales about our former Prime Minister which do not improve his reputation but has certainly helped Lady Swire’s book fly off the shelves. And now DC is once again facing embarrassment from tales told out of school, and once again by a lady, indeed, a Lady. Lady Heywood of Whitehall. Not tittle tattle this time though, heavyweight revelations, and not about Lady Heywood’s distinguished career, which though is worth summarizing. She took degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge, was fast tracked into H.M. Treasury where she rose rapidly, leaving after only four years to join McKinsey and Company, rising to a partnership within ten years, and then into various senior and distinguished posts in the commercial and arts worlds. Her book though is about the even more astonishing career of her late husband, Jeremy Heywood, a man of modest background but great intellect, who also joined the Treasury, becoming at the age of only 30 Principal Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, and talent spotted in 1997 into the Prime Minister’s Office by Tony Blair, becoming his Principal Private Secretary in 1999. He had a career blip by becoming embroiled in the David Kelly affair in 2003, resigned to go into commerce, but returned to the Civil Service in 2007; rising through various senior and highly sensitive jobs to become Cabinet Secretary in 2012, and then Head of the Home Civil Service in 2014. It was a career path that placed him in some of the most sensitive seats in the senior civil service, made him a close and much relied upon confidante of leading politicians at crucial points in British history, and enabled him to develop a reputation as an exceptionally safe and talented pair of hands. His later career was dogged by ill-health, and he died in late 2017 just after taking early retirement and being created a peer by Theresa May. During his last months of life he worked closely with his wife to draft a book about his life and career, and it is that which has just been published*. According to Lady H, the book had been largely written by her husband before his death and although completed by her, and published under her name, is essentially his and as he would have wished it. Which is interesting, as under current Civil Service rules regarding staff publishing material about their careers, he would be unlikely to have received consent for parts of the book; the more interesting parts, it has to be said. In this case there is in practice little that could be done to stop publication, it being carefully positioned as a biography, not a memoire, and there is no evidence that any attempt was made. Lady Heywood has hinted that David Cameron did at least try to hold it up until after his own volume was published, though whether so as to get his version of events on the street first or so as not to damage his sales is not made clear. Neither Lord and Lady Heywood were part of the traditional British establishment. Lady Heywood was mostly home-educated on a modest yacht sailing the Pacific, and Lord H was schooled at a Quaker boarding school. They have a degree of modest radicalism about their careers and lives, always happy to consider new ways of doing things – no harm in that. They were not over-modest – the title which Jeremy Heywood took, Heywood of Whitehall, raised an eyebrow or two, and the new book’s title - “What Does Jeremy Think?” - suggests a level of deferral to an advisor which might be better modestly played down. The book itself does reveal a lot more than is traditional about the relationships between senior politicians and their advisors, and as to how government works at that rarefied level. You may again be thinking; “well, no harm in that either”. But is there? Let us return briefly to Jeremy’s career misstep in 2003. The cause of his departure from Whitehall to the much more richly rewarded pastures of Morgan Stanley and merchant banking, was a breach of Civil Service rules. He was in various meetings regarding the death of David Kelly, the scientist embroiled in the Iraq weapons of mass destruction claims. Heywood however did not minute parts of those meetings. It seems unlikely that he took that decision off his own bat, but that is why there are Civil Service rules on minute-taking, and lots of other matters; so that politicians may be held to account in the future. It shows, as do other elements of his life, a degree of somewhat headstrong independence. He seems to have been perhaps more assertive in his advice and views than most Sir Humphrey’s have traditionally regarded as entirely wise; albeit many political leaders perhaps welcomed greater directness from their advisors. The problem, one might argue, is not the detail, but the implication. There are no great ground-shaking revelations about dangerous events or things said in this book, but what is unusual is that it has been published now, still so close to the happenings that Heywood was advising on; Iraq and Brexit in particular are still in play. He was very central to both those matters, and the impression is that he played a more crucial role than some civil servants – and observers of that institution – would find usual. It also rather gives the impression that Jeremy was not a team man, but that matters were concentrated into his own hands, leaving a void that proved difficult to fill. Certainly he went on working, even from his bed, until very shortly before his death. Equally certainly, Sir Mark Sedwill and Simon Case, his successors as Head of the Civil Service, have maintained a much lower profile. Lord Heywood was a highly distinguished, hard working, and loyal servant of the crown. His wife has recorded a life devoted to his country and its values. It is a book that will be of great interest to political observers and scholars. But like royalty, sometimes it is better that magic cannot be seen, at least until some time after the illusion has passed, and one cannot help but wonder if publication of this work might have been more prudently delayed for a few more years. *“What Does Jeremy Think?” Suzanne Heywood, published by Harper Collins, c.£25