Home

Ecosystem

(b) Monitoring of presence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the air: Information on POPs; Booklet on POPs. With climate change POPs are being

released from melting glaciers. The POPs sampler of the Project is one of several deployed in the Baker basin under the EULA-Chile (Concepcion) research project. Part of a broader programme including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru.

(c) Studies of tourism impact on the valley’s biotopes.

(d) Testing heavy metals and other pollutants in the waters within the area.

(e) Analysis of power supply management and other operational issues.

II. 3 Active Nature-friendly projects on Biotic factors:

(a) Most important: scientific aspects of reforestation and ecosystem restoration, in particular Nature-friendly planting protocols.

(b) Monitoring  of climatic conditions in the valley: weather station of the project. Important for monitoring of weather and climate conditions for reforestation and tree growth, weather records of the last 17 years, and in future.

100. (c)Monitoring of living conditions and good food chains of wildlife and identification of present species with sensor cameras, wildlife marks studies, footprints and scanners, in cooperation with local Conaf.
     

(d) Identifying the age of trees burned in 1939. (e) Homeopathic treatments of trees.

“Nature is the source of all true knowledge. It has its own logic, its own laws. It has no effect without cause,

and no invention without necessity”,

“Nature is full of infinite causes that experience has never demonstrated”,

Leonardo da Vinci

1. ✓The easiest and least expensive expedition would be to evaluate the biodiversity of species whose specimens are stored in museums. Samples that have not been described were collected between a few months ago and 140 years ago. It takes an average of 9 years for a specimen to be described and published.
   

2. ✓“The risk of amnesia can be engendered in the scientific world by the immediate availability of the most recent part of the scientific literature. This induces a form of laziness which means that the researcher does not always return to the sources”,  Antoine Danchin, Pasteur Institute.
   

3. ✓ “Like parrots, we repeat the story that nature reserves are created for science, and in order to love nature, we need to study it (no one believes it any longer), and at the same time we are embarrassed or afraid to confess our feel of wilderness as of a sacred space”,  a land steward of a strict nature reserve, 2000.
   

✓ Great comic re: science - Rat Park

1. ✓It is necessary to preserve the information, not to dig or unearth, or to dissect. That's how we preserve cultures and nature - belief of the peoples of Altai.
   

✓ "... locking himself in a narrow specialty, which avoids the lively and multi-stream course of life and develops in its possessor an indifferent and even contemptuous attitude to everything that lies outside his area. Under the influence of all this, interest in the past and faith in future are lost ”, A lawyer, XIX century.

1. ✓ The film "Ocean" was shown in a European country, it was made by oceanologists and was meant to show the beauty of oceans and endangered fish species in order to protect them. The day after the projection people started asking in their fish shops why they did not sell the fish shown in the film.
   

2. ✓“Ignorance should be classified as one of the most immoral phenomena”, Ilya Metchnikov, French biologist.
   

3. ✓ “Culture in its deepest essence ... is a greatest failure. Philosophy and science are failures in the creative knowledge of the truth ... "N. Berdyaev, French philosopher and writer.

4. IV.1. Many aspects of modern earth sciences and “life” sciences have proven to be problematic for it use for reforestation or nature protection, such as:
   

(a) Modern ecology is a crisis discipline, which means that action needs to be taken immediately, without knowing the full complexity of the damage.

(b) Proliferation of fake and “adjusted” research data; race for publications taking precedence over professional responsibility; absence of follow-up of the application of the results of the research; changes in societal effects of produced data; placement of science above any judgement thus compromising its responsibility towards the objects of research; ever increasing infiltration of post-truth into the scientific world; obsession with innovations, abandoning fundamental knowledge.

Systematic fraud in science.pdf ; 1400 articles withdrawn every year; A massive database of retracted papers

In some countries - up to 90%.pdf ; EU regulations on post-truth.

(c) Logical empiricism has enslaved ethics to science: “We do not know what the world is, but we can explain what the science of the world is”.

(d) Modern science has a reduced level of responsibility, it justifies a lot by itself, without providing a clear definition of the term “science”.

(e) Modern life sciences are seldom interested in private and personal nature protection, even though private landowners can provide long-term care, so needed for successful reforestation and nature recovery, Science Knowing But Not Doing.pdf .

(f) Commodification, depersonalisation and mechanisation of Nature, ignoring the infinite complexity of Nature and of the inherent interactions in its ecosystems.

(g) Modern conservation science is experiencing a series of crises, mainly due to the huge gap between the laboratory and nature, a crisis of baselines, for example.

(h) Experimental science (dominant trend) tends to be statistical ("There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”), leaving little scientific certitude for individual projects.

“A scientific vision of the world is hardly anything more than

a psychologically biased narrow view, which does not encompass

all those far from secondary aspects that defy the statistical

method of research”, Gustav Jung.

(i) Modern, mainly experimental, science is reductionist by merely sampling Nature, using the experiment and its artificially constructed quality as the dominant instrument of scientific production.  Move research from quantity to quality.pdf

(j) Modern science is in particular tough on wildlife: research is invasive and painful, using methods involving sedation of animals, radio collars or implants; an average of 1 out of 10 animals die in the procedure, in ungulates the figure is higher; those who do not die are quite often disoriented and vulnerable, the process can be cruel to animals; collars do not fall at times and kill the animal in a long and painful way; animals with collars are less efficient in hunting, the weight of the collar allowed being 10% of the weight of the animal; poachers often trap game using collars; many countries do not allow the use of this type of torturing methods of research.                                                   Long-term side-effects of abdominal implants.pdf

“In putting conservation into practice, we often cause great suffering to animals”, Marc Bekoff.

Wildlife field studies open ways to the previously undisturbed wildlife, for hunters and poachers.

As researchers and conservationists gather data on animals, other people might use it to harm them.

IV. 2. Some personal conclusions

(a) We should always check what scientists did with the previously acquired knowledge.

(b) It is not necessary to listen to scientists, it is better to watch how and what they do.

100. (c)Investments in science of the recent years failed to prevent the global ecocide of life on Earth.
     

(d) In many cases the funds used for research and for efforts to separate “wild” animals from social

  structures could have been better used to feed and protect these animals, whose house we occupied,

  or to buy land in order to protect it.

(e) Total protection of nature is quite often inconsistent with the concerns of scientific research.

(f) There is no need to further accumulate scientific proof of the obvious, well proven and clearly visible

in the area, like man-made nature degradation, climate change, pollution.

(g) The project cannot count on active help of currently accessible scientific institutions and biosciences.

(h) Personal polymathic research, personal experiences and qualifications, learning from Nature as the main partner, are essential for the success of the project.

(i) The lack of interest of the local scientific community in this private project has not prevented high survival rate in reforestation.

(j) Reductionist sampling science often does not provide the right answer and is likely to hamper restoration efforts at ecosystem level, which requires a holistic approach.

(k) Clear difference shall be made between  experimental and observational/learning from Nature approaches, with clear preference for the second.

(l) Research can be effectively done by practitioners, foresters or landowners, in particular by observing nature and valuation of non-classified events, non-computable and one-time observations, without engaging into the primitiveness of statistics,  thus ensuring holistic caring approach.

(m) In the valley of the project the level of degradation defies restoration science, it’s almost impossible to imagine the original natural path of the ecosystem.

(n) Live Nature does not deserve to be treated like a mere object of scientific research, any piece of life has the right to be free from experiments. If you live with the land you protect, you cannot treat it as an object of research, you study together with it.

(o) Ethics of respect for nature shall be integral part of science.

(p) Natural law shall be the basis for scientific investigations.

18. (r)“Citizens science” should be avoided, it can be dangerous for nature.              Biology must generate ideas as well as data

II. 4. Project that had to be terminated:

Good contacts established with Universities and interested students, in particular with the university of Santiago and Coyhaique, allowed a financially and logistically supported by the project programme of field internships, in order to compile elements for the design of restoration activities:  works of interns.

III. 2. With the objectives of:

(a) Recording the experience, its pros and cons;

2. (b)Recognise and use the uniqueness of the location for glaciological research (because of its proximity to the ice field) and atmospheric monitoring, as well as other potential studies of inert matter for the sake of live nature;
   

(c) Continuing developing and using nature-friendly restoration protocols for all types of local biotopes;

(d) Imposing the “learn from nature” method of research;

(e) Protecting nature and wildlife from modern science, by minimising or preventing any science-induced stress and export of benefits of scientific business with no benefits for nature;                                 Conservation and compassion: First do no harm

(f) Work on defining nature-friendly science, respectful of plants and animals, helping them to cope with change and habitat disappearance, and survive decently, designing help for wildlife (gardens, winter support, etc.);

7. (g)Setting-up long-term monitoring of the experience through case studies and effectiveness evaluations;
   

8. (h)Making science work for nature, plants and animals, not for publications.
   

Trip financed by CIEP, National Geographic and Patagonia:

“in the habitat I am exploring the human is not welcome.

How can I prevent people from going here and destroy everything?”

III. 3. Applying the following rules and methods to studies of live nature and beings :

(a) Scientific investigations in private settings are subject to specific legal requirements:

(i) Any research or study shall be conducted under formal, explicit and signed agreement with the land owner or the land steward. This agreement will specify legal aspects such as: respective responsibilities of both parties; conditions of access; investigation methods; aspects of intellectual property such as copyright, patents, or trademarks registered; financial issues; insurances; use of the right to the image; etc. A sample agreement can be provided.

(ii) The agreement regulates the conditions of use of any resulting findings and publications, and the way the project and its location is mentioned there; any publication shall be reviewed by the project before publishing.

(iii) Any finding or registered data will be first made available to the project for its use free of charge.

(iv) The work would be conducted in a private area, which is not covered by the same legal settings as public areas, with relevant legal and operational consequences.

(v) In no case and under no circumstances any GPS route within the project can be published on any shared web platforms (2 legal cases against such publications filed by the project).

(vi) The project is located in a privately owned valley, has no public access, any authorisation of external activity using the shared between landowners resource (private access) would require the agreement of all the landowners to use their parts of access.

(vii) Under no circumstances and at no time any type of scientific tourism activity can be developed within the territory of the project or facilitated by the research.

9. (ix)In case of non-compliance civil liability and legal contractual responsibility can be engaged.
   

(b) (i) Any research shall respond to the question: “What would it give to the land and how would it help Nature?”. This “Why?” of the research is crucial, research is justified only if it produces clear benefits to the piece of Nature it affects.

(ii) Any application shall indicate how the previously produced knowledge was used by the applicant, the effectiveness of the previous findings for Nature.

(iii) For observations such as wildlife or reforestation monitoring minor cooperation agreements can be concluded.

(iv) Priority will be given to integrated, non-innovative, long-term monitoring applied studies.

(v) Preferential use of science with macro results, problems are global.

(vi) No work on additional proof of evident matters, such as climate change, or other duplicative work (in the EU, for example, 30% of scientific research is conducted on subjects that have been studied with the same methods) would be accepted.

(vii) No invasive or intrusive research of wildlife is authorised by the project. Results of previous invasive wildlife research are not used by the project (method vs. result).

(viii) Only research method authorised - observation, learn from nature, preferential use of one-time non classified observations, single observations and holistic approach are considered most valuable.

(ix) No paths shall be opened for research - worldwide experience shows that research in nature opens damaging access to all species of plants and animals. Yet more evidence has emerged of researchers harming the animals they study in the wild: wildlife research uses the same animals several times, mums loose their cubs, tests are invasive, hibernating animals are disturbed and thus exposed to death. Non-invasive methods open the way to poachers and animal traffickers to access wild animals.

(x) No research that could lead to mass wild plants or fruits collection would be authorised, protocols for seed collection for reforestation shall be designed for an ethical and harmless collection. Research in wild plants quite often leads to patents the profit from which are in no way shared with the ecosystem of origin or the communities taking care of it.

“In nature there is a constant dialogue,

an exchange of information, and our task is to learn

to understand the language of nature, and not to consider

it as a dumb object of exploitation”

Galina Shatalova, Russian doctor                                                                                                                

III. 1. Development of site-specific rules, based on personal experience and personal collection, analysis and amalgam of knowledge by:

(a) Reaching out to data and studies, needed for the implementation of the project, privileging polymathic approach, moving gradually from trials and errors to experience- and evidence-based decisions and projections into the future;

2. (b)Developing live nature observations, as the ultimate method of collecting knowledge about nature, protective of the rights of nature, helping developing protocols that can be used to help it;
   

100. (c)Analysing available scientific, natural history and hands-on information in the light of personal experience, a lot of which has been provided by national institutions (forest engineer who designed the planting of native forest, INIA, Regional SAG, Conaf), in order to frame better the restorative and nature protective activities, as well as for the assessment of the level of nature destruction;
     

(d) Cooperating with the international nature restoration community on: (i) the exchange of information on achievements in reforestation/restoration, in particular on high survival rate of planted native trees; (ii) social sciences on advantages of private land conservation; (iii) the UN decade of ecosystem restoration (2021-2030); (iv) relevant comparative studies which have shown that data from other countries, regions and epochs turned out to be most helpful;

(e) Focusing on legal science, in this case on:

    (i) Legal regulation of scientific activities, scientific industry, scientific tourism;

    (ii) Civil liability of investigations and investigators;

    (iii) Legal aspects of nature restoration; nature restoration law vs. climate mitigation law;

    (iv) Precautionary principle, as legal principle;

1. (v) Applied philosophy of natural law, enforcement of the rights and personhood of nature;
   

2. (vi) Intelligence of forms of life, in particular non-human species, intelligence of Nature,
   

3. plants and animals who share the Earth;
   

    (vii) Sociology of personal relation to land in present times;

    (viii) Separating truth from post-truth.

1. (ix) Quantum base of Nature, impossibility of experiment, probability vs. verification and prediction.

Helpful scientific findings:

- Ecology is a science of crisis, no further proof needed to start urgent action.

- We spend millions on research which is then ignored.

II. 1. The above led to :      

(a) Rethinking the relations with the scientific entrepreneurship of the area;

2. (b)The decision to avoid local cooperation on the issues of geomorphology and other earth sciences, with
   

  the exception of some recognised international and regional programmes, personally validated (below); 

(c) The termination of the field internships’ programme, with regrets but no other choice;

(d) Being more careful with anthropically bound science;

(e) Initiation of resource-consuming civil and other legal liability procedures.

6. (f)Continue work with international trustful scientific institutions with a good histories
   

   of legal coherence, long-term monitoring and useful for the project:

I. 2. Active Nature-friendly projects on abiotic factors :

(a) The Geodesy and Geodynamics Group at Ohio State University in the USA has been using GPS geodesy to measure crustal displacements in Chilean Patagonia since 1994. Their partners in this project include the Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile, the Universidad de Concepción, and the University of Memphis which works mostly in Argentine Patagonia with local partners. The main focus of this geophysical project is to infer present and past changes in ice mass within the Patagonian Icefields and so study climate change over a range of timescales. Contemporary ice mass changes driven by modern climate change produce instantaneous elastic deformation of the solid earth, and by measuring this 'elastic rebound' they can, in effect, weigh the ice sheets. This investigation is pursued using a limited number of continuously operating GPS stations, such as that in Leones valley, and larger numbers of survey GPS stations visited perhaps once every three years for a few days at a time.  On the western side of the Patagonian ice fields much of the fieldwork is performed using boats. The research group performs similar climate change/crustal motion research in Greenland and Antarctica.

It’s one of more than a dozen marks in Chilean Patagonia that are measured by IGM. They show that all the stations close to the ice are moving upwards. It is believed that this is the sign of solid earth 'rebounding' as ice loads decrease.

1. I.1. The 17 years’ experience (as of 2022) with the local scientific institutions and related groupings has been rather traumatic for the project development, with no real benefit for the objectives specific to the project, because of:
   

(a) Their disregard of: (i) the legal regulations of scientific activities, an evolved branch of modern law; (ii) legal requirements for scientific investigations, and (iii) consecutive responsibility  for settling resulting legal issues, implying civil and contractual liability in scientific investigations;

2. (b)Legal issues involved in: (i) mainly, geomorphology and inert matter exploration within the property without necessary legal arrangements or contrary to the agreed contractual arrangements; (ii)  selling results of investigation to industry, in particular mining and tourism industries; (iii) locally led expeditions of different types entering into the area of the project without notice, permission or conclusion of obligatory agreements, breaking land property rights; (iv) non observance of intellectual property rights; (v) collection of data for the purposes which are contrary to the project’s objectives;  An example of an investigation which did not observe the above-mentioned requirements: proglacial lake geosite. It also affected the effectiveness of monitoring of a sensitive area with high biodiversity, and was subject to a legal complaint;
   

3. (c)No responsibility shown for: (i) the damaging effects, for the project and for nature, of self-imposing scientific tourism, developed in complete contradiction with the objectives of the project and acknowledged agreements;  (ii) the tourism law in developing scientific tourism business; (iii) the adverse illicit public exposure of the project by local scientific business and scientific tourism industry. An example: an attempt of cooperation with a local scientific institution on geology issues ended up in advertising of a part of the project as a public tourist destination and selling the results to the mining industry, both absolutely contrary to the agreed conditions of the research and. In this case legal liability claims are to be addressed to the mandating institution: CIEP.
   

4. (d)Quasi total disinterest in nature restoration and native reforestation (main objectives of the project), quite successful in the site though: assisting nature in recuperating could have resulted in the best help to the nature and to the climate change adaptation of the site and of the area. Why not contribute to developing nature-friendly planting protocols for native reforestation, for example, the best solution for local climate change mitigation ?
   

    Science works in mysterious ways.                            Scientists in Support for an Ambitious EU Nature Restoration Law

5. (e)Absence of: (i) long-term assessments of the application of the results of the research;  (ii) legal accountability for the use of results of investigations; (iii) evaluation of scientific performance and performance indicators, effectiveness evaluation in the long-term use of findings.  Academia cannot fund long-term applications of their short-term research and projects;
   

6. (f)Lack of interest in: (i) the ancient and not so ancient natural history of the area; (ii) the consequences of the ecocide; (iii) the collapse of the local ecosystem; (iv) combating ecological amnesia and its importance for the land and the nature that lived on it;                                                                            Communicating useful results from restoration ecology research
   

7. (g)Omission to disseminate information on the damage to nature, forest and wildlife of proposed climate change adaptation solutions, such as: (i) use of pellets for heating (one of the main reasons for old forests deforestation); (ii) large wind energy (calamity for bats and birds, in particular migrating); (iii) large solar energy farms (also seriously contributing to deforestation by clearcuts); (iv) ecosystem restoration cases that led to problems for ecosystems. 
   

                                                                            SER appeal to protect nature in climate change adaptation, point 12

8. (h)“Grants’ hunting” approach, using in this case the land and property of others;
   

9. (i)Difficulty to tell the difference between legitimate conferences and publications, and predatory conferences and publications. The local institutions are not sell protected from the later.

Data of 2021: the ground is rising very fast: about 22.48 mm per year !

This rapid rise is due to ice loss. The weight of the ice is decreasing and the ground is rising in response. The station has moved from about negative 4 cm to positive 7 cm in 7.33 years. That's an average velocity of about 13.6 mm/year in the up direction. The station is also moving NE: East (2.7 mm/year) and North (10.9 mm/year). The annual cycle, most evident in the up direction, the general trend is up; there is evidence that it is rising faster since about 2016.

Bear poop

Studies of animal excrements and environmental DNA testing: a non-invasive form of investigation, when found on a walking trails for people.

He who would study organic existence,

First drives out the soul with rigid persistence;

Then the parts in his hand he may hold and class,

But the spiritual link is lost, alas!

                Mephistopheles, “Faust”, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe.

     PHOTOS

I. 2. Other legal issues of concern:

(a) Non recognition of: (i) the rights of live nature; (ii) animals’ and plants’ welfare; (iii) accountability of science to live nature; (iv) responsibility for the respect of the rights of nature; (v) responsibility of science with regard to the object of its study;

(b) Level of compliance with legal regulations of scientific research and organisational functioning, such as: (i) observance of proprietary and other rights of different types of land status; (ii) non-disclosure of the end-goal and end-recipient of the research; (iii) patent and other intellectual rights;

(c) Social responsibility of science and scientific business on local level, for instance application of PES (payment for ecosystem services) principle for the ecosystem services ensured by local communities for scientific institutions and investigations.

(d) Lack of correlation of proactive planned research and use of its results and projected changes in ecosystems;

(e) Legally acceptable definition of “science”.

lace monitor poop