It's the holiday season, the end of the year, and perhaps you're contemplating whether to get Uncle Harry a new terrycloth bathrobe to replace the one he's been wearing out for the past eight years - or you're worrying over whether Cousin Roberta will bring one of her infamous homemade twelve-pound fruitcakes to the family get-together. Also, you have probably been noticing a lot of solicitations from various conservation groups hoping for that one last donation before the tax year runs out. Ah, 'tis the season right?
Well, I don't mean to be cynical really. It's been a tough year for non-profit organizations. With the economy being hard on all of us, it makes it even more difficult for conservation groups to find the funding to continue their operations. If you're conservation-minded like I am, you would to donate to all of them. After all, their causes are just and by their continuance the collective good in conservation would be served. Right?
The harsh reality is that most of us can't be that charitable, and so we must be selective. But what will be your criteria in choosing a worthy organization? This would be a personal call and I wouldn't want to second-guess anyone's good intentions. It could be the size of the organization, the cause or the animal or animals served, or perhaps the scientists or celebrities affiliated with it, or what their future hoped-for goals and objectives are - it's totally your call.
I'll just say that, for me, I have always relied on one standard: Accomplishments. What the organization has quantitatively done to move the cause forward, some tangible measure of success - that is what I rely on. After all of the petitions, Facebook pages, rallies, and bake-offs - what has the organization done to truly change the future of this planet?
It would seem that with that kind of criteria, only the largest, most well-established of non-profits would have a chance of garnering my donation. There probably is a large measure of truth in that assessment. Large organizations are better able to speak to the policy and decision makers of the world with greater credibility and I do watch closely with what is happening in those circles either nationally or internationally.
But there is also great work being accomplished at the regional or local level. So, again, it's not necessarily the size of the organization or the extent of their reach. It's what they have done that counts.
There can always be a question as to whether the money you contribute is being well spent. Some organizations submit themselves to the scrutiny of an independent evaluator. Charity Navigator provides a complex rating system to show how much of each dollar goes to the actual cause as opposed to operational or administrative costs. A four-star designation represents its highest rating.
I would hope that all of you will consider making a donation of some kind to a non-profit environmental or conservation organization this season. Hopefully, you will review their literature or their website to see what their accomplishments are - if they have any, they should be proudly and prominently visible. In the end, our goal as donors is not to just soothe our conscience but to ensure that real progress is being made. That makes us as responsible as the organizations we support.
Read more about charity ratings or evaluators at the Huddle blog.
On Earth Day 2010, the famous Christie's auction house held an event to benefit several conservation organizations - Christie's Green Auction: a bid to save the Earth. With an auction to bid on a long list of luxury items ranging from a trip to the Galapagos Islands with National Geographic to lunch with Vera Wang, the well-heeled participated (with an additional silent auction that will conclude on May 6th) in support of Oceana, Conservation International, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Central Park Conservancy.
A little too rich for your blood? Only for the celebrities and upper-crust who only care about the environment if there's an opportunity to enjoy a day of sailing with the Rockefellers as a reward?
SO . . . WHAT!
Conservation and research groups around the world struggle for every bit of funding they can get. Whether it's scrambling for pennies or going for high society gold, it all ends up in the same place, with organizations who need funding to bring about public awareness and provide critical information for policy and decision-makers. So, if you're a down-in-the-trenches, scrounging-for-what-you-can-get kind of conservationist, please don't view these types of events with disdain.
Yeah, I too couldn't afford to bid on a pair of tickets to the pit suites at the Singapore Grand Prix or a walk in Central Park with Candice Bergen. Maybe next year . . . or many years after that. But in the meantime, according to a recent press release, the auction has raised $1,387,000USD, with more to come after the silent auction concludes.
Fundraising is as challenging in many ways as the environmental issues these organizations are confronting. As long as it is well spent (and that is a critical criteria: Is the organization accomplishing anything?), then VIP events for the well-to-do are just as valid as grass root campaigns.
It's Thursday, April 22nd . . . It's Earth Day.
Now celebrating its 40th year, Earth Day 2010 is a chance for all of us to take a proactive stance in protecting our natural resources, in protecting our environment - indeed, in protecting the planet.
So, today of all days, DO SOMETHING!
- Plant a tree or purchase some CFL or LED lightbulbs.
- Go to your local shoreline and do a little beach clean up.
- Make a contribution to your favorite conservation organization.
- Check the various conservation group web sites. Many of them have a shopping list of ideas.
- See Disneynature's Oceans. In its first week, Disney will make a contribution to coral reef protectection for each ticket sold.
You'll feel good about yourself. Trust me.
Sometimes the technologies developed for our own entertainment or amusement can also have additional benefits as well. As an example, computers have taken game simulator technology to a level that benefits science (NASA simulators) and the military (pilotless drones). And in the 1950's, a crazy movie experience came and went, with red and blue glasses that made monsters or native spears fly out of the movie screen at us.
Yes, the early days of 3D or "stereoscopy" was an interesting fad - and now, thanks to the success of movies live-action films like Avatar and many animation films like Up, it is back and could very well be here to stay.
I just returned from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) annual convention and trade show, held in Las Vegas. This is a BIG show, covering every aspect of broadcast technology, from cameras and support gear to broadcast production and distribution equipment. And this year, 3D was the hot item, with televisions, cameras, and all the toys for launching 3D-dedicated channels. Networks were lining up with Discovery, ESPN and DirectTV all dedicating future channels to this new viewing format.
But the underlining question was: Where is the content? And, secondly, what does this have to do with a nature & conservation blog?
Well, for one: nature documentaries, properly shot using the latest in 3D technology, can be absolutely stunning. The ability to enrich the viewer's experience can add immeasurably to the 
power of the message. The ability of 3D to draw you in, with that sense of "you are there," can help communicate to the viewer - whether or not they are a nature lover - the importance of ecosystems, be they on land or under the sea.
Now, this has been done successfully in movie theaters and large format venues like IMAX. But the new technologies are now focusing on the small screen: television. And this avenue has the means to make 3D ubiquitous and the next wave of technology that will simply become part of our everyday lives. That can empower conservation groups and filmmakers with the ability to provide content which can be more impactful, more meaningful to the average audience.
Scientific research can also benefit from 3D technology. 3D can provide details and subtleties to images from faraway Mars to the bottom of the sea that no 2D or conventional image could provide - particularly in situations where a manned presence would be prohibitive. At the NAB show, I attended one presentation on advanced scientific imagery and learned that many respected scientific organizations are now fully committed to 3D technology - regular 2D video is becoming yesterday's news.
But as with many steps forward, there will be a transition, not a simple "out with the old, in with the new." Many don't remember, it took more than a few years for color television - something we take for granted - to be adopted both by the industry and by the viewers themselves. There are plenty of challenges that must be dealt with - from optimal viewing (3D TVs without glasses are being developed) to replacing or modifying existing viewing platforms (TVs) to the quantity and quality of programming.
So, no one is suggesting you throw out that new high definition flat screen you just bought. But for those of us who work so hard at getting people to appreciate the magnificence of our natural resources - from the beauty of an Amazon forest, to the delicate explosion in color and variety of a coral reef, to the warm interplay between a family of threatened wolf cubs - there is another communication tool that is on the horizon for our disposal.
When discussing shark conservation, we typically focus on what could be called the "micro" or personal/public issues: shark finning, demand for shark fin soup and other shark products. These are important hot button issues that have emotional impact on the individual and can impact public demand. But there are also "macro" big picture issues that require action on the part of governments and/or commercial operations. Here are a few:
According to the Australian Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, illegal foreign fishing for sharks in Northern Australia has increased substantially over the last two decades. Not only has this affected the overall shark populations in the area, but it has possibly impacted the legal prawn, shark, and other fisheries due to altered predation patterns. Government intervention and enforcement is needed to protect both the sharks and the legal commercial fisheries.
When we think of Asian demand for shark products, we often think of Asian commercial fishing fleets supplying that demand. Not always so. Ecuador is one nation that meets the demand but the extant of its efforts have been seriously under-reported over the years (if reported at all), escaping the attention, until recently, of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A study in Environmental Sciences reconstructs Ecuador's shark catch from 1979 to 2004 and puts the total at an estimated 7000 tons per year or nearly 500,000 sharks - 3.6 times greater than the FAO reported for 1991 to 2004. Ecuador has been hiding a dirty little secret.
Pelagic longline fishing (PLL) has been roundly criticized by many conservation groups because of, among other things, its level of accidental bycatch - much of which can consist of sharks. In the U.S. Atlantic, PLL has a strong impact on blue shark populations along with other species. An article in Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries examined this situation and studied, among other issues, the negative economic and operational impacts of shark bycatch in the form of damage to fishing gear, bait, and complications in shark management. It was determined that it was in the best interest of all stakeholders in the Atlantic to explore methods to reduce shark bycatch. Once again, finding an economic advantage is often the best way to motivate government or commercial decision-makers to respond to conservation issues.
Promoting these macro issues is where many responsible NGOs come in - organizations like Oceana, Seaweb, Center for Biological Diversity, and others. Many of these groups are based in Washington D.C. and other worldwide centers of political power and influence where they focus their efforts and resources towards taking the fight right to the top.
Which do you think is the more common behavior: To want to be the first one on the block to install fluorescent light bulbs or to want to avoid being the last one?I was reading an interesting article by Michael Grunwald in the April 13th issue of TIME about the current administration's use of scientific behavioral research in facilitating societal change - a key component of President Obama's campaign. As I read, it struck me as to how this approach could be used in the conservation movement (nature, ocean, sharks, etc). One paragraph in particular summed up what could be another strategic arrow in our quiver:
"Which message would persuade homeowners to save electricity: a call to their environmental conscience, or an appeal to their wallet? [Psychologist Robert] Cialdini tested those approaches in a San Diego experiment, and the answer was neither. What worked was an appeal to conformity. Residents used less power when they were told their neighbors were using less power. We're a herdlike species, more likely to be obese if our peers are."
So, the rational arguments failed and what worked was the need to conform, to belong to a majority. Now can this be applied to many of the environmental and ecological causes we are so passionate about? Definitely yes - with a measure of subtlety, but yes.
Take shark conservation for instance. We would still want to cite all the facts and figures regarding declining populations of sharks, the cruelty of shark finning, and even the potential harm of mercury poisoning from shark meat. But we also need to add one more important element: that it's a growing movement. Although shark conservation springs from a strong negative base, we must accentuate the positives by mentioning organizations, governments, restaurants, and celebrities that support the cause, listing statistics that show growth in the movement, and anything else that subtly says to the individual: you will not be alone if you join us.
Sometimes this is what weakens the effectiveness of some of the more strident conservation groups. Despite the validity of their positions, they often are marginalized and perceived as a fringe group. And this impacts their broad acceptance by the general public.
Does this mean we soft soap the issues, that we water down the harsh realities? Absolutely not! Does this mean we profess a level of support that does not exist? Again, no! What it does say is that we need to find a balance between using empirical facts and understanding the behavioral response of those whose support we seek. Part of the public relations strategy of any successful movement is in making the participants feel that they are not alone in their support, that they are part of a greater whole for the common good. It's a subtle psychological nudge, but a very powerful one.
Read the entire article in Time.
It's the holiday season, the end of the year, and perhaps you're contemplating whether to get Uncle Harry a new terrycloth bathrobe to replace the one he's been wearing out for the past eight years - or you're worrying over whether Cousin Roberta will bring one of her infamous homemade twelve-pound fruitcakes to the family get-together. Also, you have probably been noticing a lot of solicitations from various conservation groups hoping for that one last donation before the tax year runs out. Ah, 'tis the season right?
There can always be a question as to whether the money you contribute is being well spent. Some organizations submit themselves to the scrutiny of an independent evaluator. Charity Navigator provides a complex rating system to show how much of each dollar goes to the actual cause as opposed to operational or administrative costs. A four-star designation represents its highest rating.
