Win euro millions 150 million, what would you do with the money for Irish wildlife?

Capercaillie

Answer?

OpenYourEyes

I think I'd spend the majority on buying land tbh, with the rest put away for management of those lands in at least the short and medium term then, as well as research. I'd base it on individual species present, overall community diversity, and vulnerability of the site too. Just off the top of my head I think places like Great Saltee, the South Slob in Wexford, and I'm sure large tracts of land in Mayo and Donegal all have a lot of potential, as well as maybe some of the callows in the midlands.

I'm a big advocate of land-sharing and agri-environment schemes, but I think there'll always be an onus on the government to provide them, so I don't think I'd spend my money on that. By buying land I think there could be a few 'fortresses' for red and amber listed species to expand out from, and ideally lead by example in terms of management. You could always expand outwards then by either buying up neighbouring land or getting neighbouring landowners to parttake in management that provides for the species in those areas you've bought.

While I might try and encourage new/former species to re-colonise (e.g. providing nest platforms for Ospreys) I don't think I'd spend it on any actual re-introduction projects, I think I'd rather look after what we've got now (before its too late!).

Del.Monte

Float Ireland over to the UK mainland and pay the RSPB to take over conservation management here.

Jayzesake

Even though the question focuses on Irish wildlife, I'd spend a large proportion of it on habitat conservation in the tropics. Like OYE, if I had to spend it in Ireland, I'd also buy land (actually, I have done that), but the minimum you'll pay here is probably about €3k/acre, while buying an acre of rainforest for a local conservation group can cost $50-100, or less.

So straight away you're getting far more bang for your buck. But even more importantly, tropical regions are much, much, MUCH, richer biologically than temperate zones, in the sense that you will probably find more variety in an average acre of tropical rainforest than the whole island of Ireland. And that's not just more variety of tree species, insects, birds, etc., but of trophic levels; so that means you're going to have megafauna such as Jaguars, for example, as part of the ecological equation.

The natural world is all interconnected globally, and it's all equally part of our inheritance (to look at it from a certain point of view), whether it's in Mayo or the Congo. That doesn't mean nothing should be spent on wildlife here, just that there should be some awareness of the fact that vastly more can be achieved, i.e. protected, with the same amounts overseas.

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

I think I'd spend the majority on buying land tbh, with the rest put away for management of those lands in at least the short and medium term then, as well as research. I'd base it on individual species present, overall community diversity, and vulnerability of the site too. Just off the top of my head I think places like Great Saltee, the South Slob in Wexford, and I'm sure large tracts of land in Mayo and Donegal all have a lot of potential, as well as maybe some of the callows in the midlands.

I'm a big advocate of land-sharing and agri-environment schemes, but I think there'll always be an onus on the government to provide them, so I don't think I'd spend my money on that. By buying land I think there could be a few 'fortresses' for red and amber listed species to expand out from, and ideally lead by example in terms of management. You could always expand outwards then by either buying up neighbouring land or getting neighbouring landowners to parttake in management that provides for the species in those areas you've bought.

While I might try and encourage new/former species to re-colonise (e.g. providing nest platforms for Ospreys) I don't think I'd spend it on any actual re-introduction projects, I think I'd rather look after what we've got now (before its too late!).

Buying up land would be my way as well. Would manage the land myself with help from hard working knowledgeable people who have a real interest in conservation. Would not trust any eNGO to manage it.

Keplar240B

How much would a NEW national park cost?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I always imagined buying a mass of land and planting a large mixed native wood.

Capercaillie

Keplar240B wrote: »

How much would a NEW national park cost?

Depends on the land type. You could buy 250 Ha of a lowland National Park and manage it correctly and you would safeguard the Irish Corncrake.

magicbastarder

Emmanuel Tiny Palm wrote: »

I always imagined buying a mass of land and planting a large mixed native wood.

similar, but i've often pondered where the balance lies between planting and native regeneration.

Manach

Buying of land to preserve the eco-system is a good idea, but the 149M (I'm keeping one BTW) might be as well directed to some of the NGOs for advocacy purposes to ensure a proper public education regime in place.

OpenYourEyes

Manach wrote: »

Buying of land to preserve the eco-system is a good idea, but the 149M (I'm keeping one BTW) might be as well directed to some of the NGOs for advocacy purposes to ensure a proper public education regime in place.

While education is important, it doesn't have the effect most people think it does. Having a few large reserves where nature thrives, and visitors get to see and experience nature thriving, would have more benefit than any education programme.

(though obviously you could have an education programme that brings children and adults to places like that..)

Capercaillie

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

While education is important, it doesn't have the effect most people think it does. Having a few large reserves where nature thrives, and visitors get to see and experience nature thriving, would have more benefit than any education programme.

(though obviously you could have an education programme that brings children and adults to places like that..)

On Mallorca (Spain) there is a great wetland park which holds great species like Elenora's falcon, crested coot, marbled duck, moustached warbler. Every Primary school student has to visit the park once a year (school tour)!.

snowstreams

Jayzesake wrote: »

Even though the question focuses on Irish wildlife, I'd spend a large proportion of it on habitat conservation in the tropics. Like OYE, if I had to spend it in Ireland, I'd also buy land (actually, I have done that), but the minimum you'll pay here is probably about €3k/acre, while buying an acre of rainforest for a local conservation group can cost $50-100, or less.

At that price per acre, Mark Zuckerberg could buy an area three times the size of France in the Amazon!
Now that could really protect the world.
Maybe Amazon.com could afford to do it!

Jayzesake

snowstreams wrote: »

At that price per acre, Mark Zuckerberg could buy an area three times the size of France in the Amazon!
Now that could really protect the world.
Maybe Amazon.com could afford to do it!

A guy called Doug Tompkins, who founded 'North Face' as well as other successful outdoor clothing companies, sold off all his business empire a couple of decades ago and together with his wife (founder of Patagonia clobber co.) has devoted his life since then to doing what he can to protect the natural world. He's bought up over 2,000,000 acres of various types of rich habitat in Chile, and ultimately plans to hand it all over to the people of the country once it becomes a national park. And that's just one of many ways he's been making a difference.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/12/doug-tompkins-patagonia-conservation-environment-fashion-dan-mcdougall

Jayzesake

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

While education is important, it doesn't have the effect most people think it does. Having a few large reserves where nature thrives, and visitors get to see and experience nature thriving, would have more benefit than any education programme.

(though obviously you could have an education programme that brings children and adults to places like that..)

Though I agree with much of this, education or awareness-raising programmes does actually have a very important part to play. Here's an interesting article on the massive drop in demand for shark fin soup in China over the last few years:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/aug/08/sales-of-shark-fin-china-drop-70

The trade in shark fins, a symbol of wealth in China and other parts of Asia, has led to the decline in some shark populations by up to 98% in the last 15 years. An estimated 100 million sharks are killed each year with up to 73 million used for their fins.

According to the report, 85% of Chinese consumers surveyed online said they gave up shark fin soup within the past 3 years. They credit a large awareness campaign of the impact of the shark fin trade, headed by former basketball star Yao Ming, a popular figure in China. “The more people learn about the consequences of eating shark fin soup, the less they want to participate in the trade,” said Knights.

(Also bear in mind that sharks are keystone species in marine ecosystems.)

Keplar240B

Jayzesake wrote: »

A guy called Doug Tompkins, who founded 'North Face' as well as other successful outdoor clothing companies, sold off all his business empire a couple of decades ago and together with his wife (founder of Patagonia clobber co.) has devoted his life since then to doing what he can to protect the natural world. He's bought up over 2,000,000 acres of various types of rich habitat in Chile, and ultimately plans to hand it all over to the people of the country once it becomes a national park. And that's just one of many ways he's been making a difference.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/12/doug-tompkins-patagonia-conservation-environment-fashion-dan-mcdougall

He just died today 72 and kayacking in the highlands

US clothing billionaire Douglas Tompkins has died in a kayaking accident in southern Chile, aged 72.
The North Face and Esprit co-founder died of hypothermia after the kayaks he and five others were in capsized in strong waves, authorities said.
He was taken by helicopter to hospital in Coyhaique but had stopped breathing when he arrived, doctors said.
Mr Tompkins bought up large tracts of land in Chilean and Argentine Patagonia to keep them pristine.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35048095

the thing about buying land like that though is a government can come to power and in an emergency
just take it back.

snowstreams

Jayzesake wrote: »

A guy called Doug Tompkins, who founded 'North Face' as well as other successful outdoor clothing companies, sold off all his business empire a couple of decades ago and together with his wife (founder of Patagonia clobber co.) has devoted his life since then to doing what he can to protect the natural world. He's bought up over 2,000,000 acres of various types of rich habitat in Chile, and ultimately plans to hand it all over to the people of the country once it becomes a national park. And that's just one of many ways he's been making a difference.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/12/doug-tompkins-patagonia-conservation-environment-fashion-dan-mcdougall

I see he died today in Chile while kayaking in his protected area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-35048095

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

the thing about buying land like that though is a government can come to power and in an emergency just take it back.

There is always that risk, but what is the alternative? Leave habitat open to 'development' - i.e. destruction?

As a North American buying land for conservation in South American, Tompkins was already under enormous pressure from the regional equivalents of our gombeens, with open accusations of imperialism, colonialism and even off-the-wall claims that he was the spearpoint of some sort of Zionist conspiracy to take over (!). By determining to hand the land over to the people of Chile as a NP, those voices - whose only real interest was to profit by trashing those wild places - were more or less silenced, while as a NP the land would have the highest level of protection under national law.

The best way for outside orgs. to protect land for wildlife in such places is to work with seriously committed local conservation orgs., providing capital to buy the land or otherwise protect it somehow, training, logistics, advice on which areas to target in terms of biodiversity value etc., and how to best protect it afterwards from logging, mining, and other damaging activities.

Absolutely the best way for us Joe/Joan Soaps to make a serious difference is to seek information on which international orgs. are doing the best work, and to put whatever funds we can spare in their direction.

And often the ultimate protection that can result from such efforts is either for the land to ultimately become a NP, as recently happened with the [EMAIL="https://www.rainforesttrust.org/sdd-media-fact-sheet/"]Sierra del Divisor[/EMAIL] in Peru (due to the combined efforts of national and international orgs.), or else for a local conservation trust or indigenous group to secure ownership. There is never an absolute guarantee that conservationists' efforts will protect a piece of land forever (forever is a long time), but it's still absolutely worth striving for. The alternative is to surrender all wilderness to destruction.

R.I.P. Doug Tompkins. You spent your life doing by far the most important work a person can ever hope to do in a lifetime, and should be an example to us all.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

The best way for outside orgs. to protect land for wildlife in such places is to work with seriously committed local conservation orgs., providing capital to buy the land or otherwise protect it somehow, training, logistics, advice on which areas to target in terms of biodiversity value etc., and how to best protect it afterwards from logging, mining, and other damaging activities.

Absolutely the best way for us Joe/Joan Soaps to make a serious difference is to seek information on which international orgs. are doing the best work, and to put whatever funds we can spare in their direction.
.

Hard to find a local organisation to trust.

R.I.P. Doug Tompkins. You spent your life doing by far the most important work a person can ever hope to do in a lifetime, and should be an example to us all

Legend!

Jayzesake

Capercaillie wrote: »

Hard to find a local organisation to trust.

I was only talking here about organisations working to conserve habitat in the tropics, rather than Ireland. Some of the former are doing outstanding work, and should be supported. Relatively small amounts of money can make a massive difference, although few donors will ever get to actually see that difference with their own eyes.

Keplar240B

Jayzesake wrote: »

Even though the question focuses on Irish wildlife, I'd spend a large proportion of it on habitat conservation in the tropics. Like OYE, if I had to spend it in Ireland, I'd also buy land (actually, I have done that), but the minimum you'll pay here is probably about €3k/acre, .....

150,000,000 / 3000

That's 50,000 acres or 20,234 Hectares or 202 km2

Wicklow mountains national park is 205 km2

You could at that price buy another national park or 0.2% of country

I don't know, I guess coillte would be the only landowner in country with a plot that big if at all.

Anyone got a map of what coillte own?

Do they even buy and sell land , I know they sold a big plot to that UK holiday forest resort company this year.

Jayzesake

Keplar240B wrote: »

150,000,000 / 3000

That's 50,000 acres or 20,234 Hectares or 202 km2

Wicklow mountains national park is 205 km2

You could at that price buy another national park or 0.2% of country

Or, you could help protect some of the richest, most biodiverse, habitat on the planet at $0.58 per acre (no, I didn't mistype that):

https://www.rainforesttrust.org/project/lomami/

Let's say roughly €1 per 2 acres, so 150,000,000 x 2

= 300,000,000 acres, or 1,214,000 km2

And remember that just 1 acre of the latter would probably contain far, far, more biodiversity than 50,000 acres of Coillte land.

Keplar240B wrote: »

I don't know, I guess coillte would be the only landowner in country with a plot that big if at all.

Anyone got a map of what coillte own?

Do they even buy and sell land , I know they sold a big plot to that UK holiday forest resort company this year.

Yes Coillte do sell land, usually parcels with plantations which are unviable to harvest.

Keplar240B

Well the OP did say Irish wildlife

There's zero national park in Northern Ireland, Why?

Only 6 in South. Two of them mini-parks.
5 of them along the west coast
the whole centre midlands and south of country none.

total NP of 635km2
Republic of Ireland/Area 70,273 km²


0.9% of Republic

All island 84,421 km²
A target of 4221km2 , 5% and 12 parks across all island should be set
for national parks. 3 per province

Alun

Keplar240B wrote: »

There's zero national park in Northern Ireland, Why?

There's currently a proposal to create one in the Mournes, but its being met with quite a lot of resistance from landowners and other residents within the proposed boundaries. There's a few AONB's though.

Jayzesake

Alun wrote: »

There's currently a proposal to create one in the Mournes, but its being met with quite a lot of resistance from landowners and other residents within the proposed boundaries. There's a few AONB's though.

If it does ever become a NP, unless some radical changes are made - extremely unlikely, given the furore from landowners - it will presumably be placed alongside the UK's 15 existing NPs in the IUCN's category V of protected areas.

Monbiot described category V as specially created to cater for those protected areas that are biologically only 'marginally better than a multi-storey car park'.