Being more like the Kingdom of Bhutan

I like to look at how other countries and how they have taken on the challenge of looking after their environment.  It seems all the more important now that Britain has voted to 'stand alone' in the EU Referendum and we may have to determine our own environmental policies to protect our natural world and fight climate change as a whole. 

One of the countries I have been most interested in has been the Kingdom of Bhutan. Bhutan is a relatively small country nestled in between India and China, with a population of only around 750,000, a GDP of just 1.78 billion USD, and is still classified as a 'least developed country'. You would expect then they would be racing to catch up with the Western world (the apparent benchmark everyone aspires to), destroying all their natural resources and greatly increasing their carbon footprint in the process. But they haven't. Instead they have taken a very different route.


Firstly, one of the most obvious things is that they have chosen to rule their progress not by the western GDP (Gross Domestic Produce) but by GNH (Gross National Happiness), apparently based on the Buddhist spiritual values.  First coined in 1972, this may appear to have nothing to do with being environmentally friendly, the four pillars of GNH are:

• Sustainable development
• Preservation and promotion of cultural values
• Conservation of the natural environment
• Establishment of good governance

This not only puts sustainability and conservation at the heart of anything they do, but also removes money as the only goal to aim for.

Since then Bhutan has signed the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and produced a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan which has lead to them being viewed as a model for proactive conservation initiatives.  In this strategy they have promised to maintain at least 60% of their land under forest cover, designate more than 40% territory as national parks, reserves, and other protected areas, and, most recently, identify a further 9% of land as biodiversity corridors linking these protected areas allowing migration throughout the country.  They have also implemented an insurance scheme and set up solar powered alarm fences, watchtowers and search lights to protect crops and livestock, as well as providing food and salt licks outside of human settlements to reduce conflict between humans and protected wildlife.  The Bhutan Government has made it clear that, while their natural heritage is largely intact, it cannot be taken for granted and conserving it must be one of the challenges to be addressed in years to come.

This protection of their wildlife has meant that the Kingdom of Bhutan currently has the net greenhouse gas emission of zero, with the small amount of pollution they produce being absorbed by the forests covering Bhutan.  On top of this, they have also implemented a number of (to us) progressive environmental policies, such as promoting the purchase of electric cars and ensuring that most of their energy is obtained from hydroelectric, which will ensure that their carbon footprint will always remain relatively low.

Perhaps the most striking difference between the Bhutan government's attitude to environmental conservation against the UK's is that it has not been treated as a separate sector, that is usually ignored, but has been placed at the core of the nation's development strategy and can be found as a running theme throughout all the sections of Government.

Now I'm not saying the Kingdom of Bhutan is perfect (there was the forced expulsion of the ethnic minority group of Hindu Lhotshampa), but their treatment and attitude towards the natural world is definitely something we can learn from.

Incidentally, I thought I would add another video here that will show you how measuring GDP alone will not necessarily help a nation develop into a happy, healthy, and sustainable nation.

The EU Referendum - from the environmental point of view

So in one more day those of us living in the UK will need to vote whether or not we want to stay in the EU.  Over the last few weeks we have heard a lot about immigration, money and jobs, but pretty much nothing about the one thing that will have the largest effect on our lives - the environment.

I've been scouring the internet for any information I can find on how either outcome would affect the environment and wildlife in the UK and the planet as a whole, and I thought I would write a quick blog on which websites I found most useful in making my decision.  (I did think about writing my own opinions on this but these sites are much better written and give you a much more rounded view).

My favourite site by far has been The Wildlife Trust's 'The EU Referendum and Wildlife'. This site covers the EU laws and funding that affects wildlife and the environment now, case studies, and (the part I found most interesting) have published the report commissioned by The Wildlife Trust, WWF, and RSPB from the Institute of European Environmental Policy about the possible outcome of the EU referendum.

The next in another report I'm afraid, this time by The UK in a Changing Europe on The EU Referendum and the UK Environment.  This is quite a dry report, but is factual and to the point without much emotion, allowing you to make a more informed decision.

The last site I'm going to talk about is actually Friends of the Earth (a site I actually don't spend that much time on).  More specifically two reports they have published: The Implications of UK Environmental Policy of a Vote to Exit the EU and The EU Referendum and the Environment.  These reports do lean more on the stay side of things, but still look at all areas and I actually found them quite informative on all viewpoints.  Their web-page covers everything from bees to air quality, energy to fishing.  

At the end of the day what you vote depends on who hands our environment is most safe in, the UK on it's own or the EU as a whole.