The influence of environmental factors on Covid-19: towards a research agenda

Considerable attention was paid in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic to its spatial distribution in the hope that environmental factors might be found to play a key role in influencing its spread in two ways: by restricting it to a narrow band of countries with specific environmental factors; and hoping that a rise in temperature in the summer would kill it off.

• Researchers at Maryland University (Sajadi, M.M. et al., 2020) thus used maps of the early stages of Covid-19 to suggest that it spreads more easily in cold, damp climates, and that its highest incidence would be between latitudes 30-50 N.  At the time, I suggested on 3rd April that there were too many anomalies for this to be valid, that it was only based on limited data (where the coronavirus had spread by early March 2020) and that it was necessary to understand better the actual physical processes involved.  However, the idea that there might be environmental factors that will control Covid-19 still persists.
• Likewise, in the early days of the pandemic there was much optimism that the new coronavirus might act in similar ways to some of its predecessors and be seasonal in character, waning in the summer months when it gets warmer.  Again, this was in part based on the timing of its outbreak (in China in December 2019 ) and its rapid spread through Europe with an approximately similar timing to seasonal flu.  However, many experts were cautious about this possible scenario (see Jon Cohen in Science, 13th March 2020, and Alvin Powell in the Harvard Gazette, 14th April 2020).

Nevertheless, the much more rapid spread of Covid-19 in Europe and North America than in Africa and South Asia has led some to continue to argue that the devastating impact of lockdown in countries nearer the equator, particularly on the lives of some of the poorest people living there, may be un-necessary if this pattern can indeed be explained by environmental factors.  The lockdown has already been partially rolled back, for example, in countries such as Pakistan (with some factories reopening on 12th April , and congregational prayers at mosques durong Ramadan being permitted from 21st April) and South Africa (with initial steps being taken to reopen the economy on 1st May).  Clearly, the rate and distribution of the spread of Covid-19 is influenced by many factors, including government policies (with the UK performing especially badly, see my recent post),  demographic characteristics (with the elderly being particularly vulnerable), population distribution (spreading slower in sparsely settled areas), characteristics of the several strains and mutations of the Sars-Cov-2 coronavirus (summary in EMCrit), and the inaccuracy and unreliability of reported data about infections and deaths (see my comments here).

The role of environmental factors remains uncertain, despite a considerable amount of research (see systematic review by Mecenas, P. et al., 2020 – thanks to Serge Stinckwich for sharing this) which has sought to draw conclusions from the distribution of cases in parts of the world with different climates, and has suggested that cold and dry conditions helped the spread of the virus whereas warm and wet climates seem to reduce its spread.  A more recent study by Jüni et al. (8th May 2020) has claimed that epidemic growth has little or no association with latitude and temperature, although it has weak negative associations with relative and absolute humidity.  Unfortunately, very few studies have yet sought to do experimental research that actually measures the survivability and ease of spread of Sars-Cov-2 under different real-world environmental conditions.  Moreover, if as appears likely, most infections actually occur indoors, it is not the external climatic conditions that will influence rates of infection but rather the artifical environments created indoors through heating and ventlaltion systems that will be of most significance in influencing its spread.

Two related approaches to this challenge are necessary: identifying its survivabililty in a range of different environments (and surfaces), and analysis of the effect of different environments on the distance that it can be spread by infected people.

Research on the survivability of Sars-Cov-2 in different contexts

Several reported studies have explored the stability of the new coronavirus on different surfaces.  In a widely cited study, van Doremalen et al. (13th  March 2020) suggested that the stability of HCov-19 (Sars-Cov-2) was very similar to that of Sars-Cov-1 (the SARS outbreak in 2003), and that viable virus could be detected as follows:

• in aerosols up to 3 hours after aerosolization
• up to 4 hours on copper
• up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to 47-72 hours on plastic and stainless steel.

This important study has subsequently been used as the standard estimate for the survivability of the coronavirus.  However, it was undertaken in the USA under very specific relatively humidity (for aerosols at 65%; for surfaces at 40%) and temperature conditions (for both at 21-23^o C) (See also more recently, van Doremalen et al. 16 April 2020).  A rapid expert review of Sars-Cov-2’s survivability under different conditions (Fineberg, 7th April 2020) notes that the number of experimental studies remains small, but that elevated temperatures seem to reduce its survivability, and that this varies for diffferent materials.  Nevertheless, Fineberg emphasises that laboratory conditions do not necessarily accurately reflect real-world conditions.  In referrring to natural history studies, he also emphasises, as noted above, that conflicting results have emerged because such studies are “hampered by poor quaity data, confounding factors, and insufficient time since the beginning of the pandemix from which to draw conclusions” (p.4).

If a better understanding of Sars-Cov-2’s survivability in different parts of the world is to be gained, it is therefore essential urgently to undertake real world studies of its viability on similar surfaces in various places with different temperature and humidity profiles.

The dispersal distance of Sars-Cov-2

The standard advice across many countries of the world is that people should maintain a minimum distance of 2 m (in some countries 1.5 m) between each other to limit the spread of Covid-19 (see, for example, Public Health England).  This is double the WHO’s advice for the public, which is to “Maintain at least 1 metre (3 feet) distance between yourself and others. Why? When someone coughs, sneezes, or speaks they spray small liquid droplets from their nose or mouth which may contain virus. If you are too close, you can breathe in the droplets, including the COVID-19 virus if the person has the disease“.  The 2 m figure was adopted early by some CDCs, and appears to be more of an approximate early guess (based on the previous Sars-Cov-1 outbreak) that has taken root, rather than an accurate scientifically based figure.

Since then, more rigorous research has been undertaken, much of which suggests that 2 m may not be enough. Setti et al. (23rd April) thus note that Sars-Cov-2 has higher aerosol survivability than did its predecessor, and that a growing body of literature supports a view that “it is plausible that small particles containing the virus may diffuse in indoor environments covering distances up to 10 m from the emission sources”.  They also conclude that “The inter-personal distance of 2 m can be reasonably considered as an effective protection only if everybody wears face masks in daily life activities”. A particularly interesting laboratory based study a month previously by Bourouiba (26th March 2020) provides strong evidence that the turbulent gas clouds formed by sneezes and coughs provide conditions that enable the coronavirus to survive for much longer at greater distances: “The locally moist and warm atmosphere within the turbulent gas cloud allows the contained droplets to evade evaporation for much longer than occurs with isolated droplets“.  She concludes that the “gas cloud and its payload of pathogen-bearing droplets of all sizes can travel 23 to 27 feet (7-8 m)”.  Furthermore, another study by Blocken et al. (9th April) noted that the 1.5 m – 2 m distance was based on people who were standing still, and that there could be a potential aerodynamic effect for people cycling and running.  For someone running at 14.4 km/hr the social distance in the slipstream might be nearer 10 m.

Such studies have been controversial (for a summary, see Eric Niiler in Wired, 14th April), but they highlight that in practice:

• the “safe’ distance between people is unknown;
• there is little strong scientific evidence for the 1 m – 2 m recommendations for social distancing; and
• this distance is highly likely to vary in different environmental contexts.

Not enough conclusive reseach has yet been undertaken on the extent to which environmental factors, such as humidity, pressure, altitude, wind and temperature actually affect how far Sars-Cov-2 will disperse, and at what infectious dose (see Linda Geddes, NewScientist, 27th March 2020, where viral load is also discussed; see also ECDC, 25th March 2020).  It seems likely, though, that dispersal will indeed vary in different conditions, and thus in different parts of the world.  We just don’t yet know how great such variability is.

The latest systematic review published in The Lancet, and cited in The Guardian (2nd June 2020) sugggests that distance does matter, and that not only is 2 m safer than less than 1 m, but also that face masks can indeed reduce substantuially the risk of infection.

Towards a research agenda

This post has emphasised that we actually know remarkably little with certainty about how Sars-Cov-2 physically survives and disperses in different environmental contexts.  This has hugely important ramifications for the spread of Covid-19 in different parts of the world, and thus the mitigating policies and actions that need to be taken.  If, for example, Covid-19 does not survive in hot humid conditions, and is also dispersed over shorter distances in such circumstances, then it might be possible for governments of countries where such conditions prevail not to have to impose such stringent social distancing requirements as those that have been put in place in Europe.

Urgent experimental research is therefore required in real-world environments on:

• the survivabililty of Sars-Cov-2 in a range of different physical environments (and surfaces), and
• the effects of different environments on the distance that it can be spread by infected people.

A standard protocol and methodology for such research should be created that could then be used collaboratively by scientists working in different parts of the world to address these crucial issues.  Contrasting environments that would warrant the earliest such research (given the high number of economically poor countries therein) would include: high altitude savanna (as in the Bogotá savanna, and the much lower montane Savanna of the Angolan scarp), tropical and subtropical savanna (as in parts of Brazil and Kenya), tropical rainforests (as in Indonesia and Brazil), semi-arid and arid landscapes (as in much of northern and south-west Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and parts of South Asia).  It is also very important to undertake such resaerch both in urban and rural areas, and indoors as well as outside.  If scientists can indeed co-operate to provide a swift answer to the questions raised in this post, then it would be possible to provide much more tailored advice to governments concerning the mitigating measures (including the use of masks) that they should be taking to protect the highest number of people while also maintaing essential economic activity.

[Updated 8th May, 12th May, 30th May 2020 and 2nd June]

On the Geography of Wine

It is many years since I wrote substantively about the historical geography of viticulture, but I have nevertheless retained a keen theoretical and practical interest in wine and the vine ever since.  It was therefore with very great pleasure that I  accepted an invitation from an old friend, Barney Warf (well-known for his paper on the historical geography of cannabis) to contribute an annotated bibliography on the geography of wine to the series of geographical bibliographies that he is editing for Oxford University Press.

I hope that this annotated bibliography will be of use to all those with an interest in the geography of wine.  This is how the introduction begins:

“Wine has fascinated geographers since Antiquity. Greek and Roman geographers wrote extensively about wine and grape growing, drawing on earlier texts, most of which have not survived. In the early 20th century, geographers in wine-making regions of the world, especially France, began to develop a distinctive style of wine writing that placed viticulture as a central element of many European landscapes and geographies. However, it was not until the 1980s that professional geographers in the English-speaking world turned in any numbers to research and publication about wine. Geography is central to understanding grape growing and wine making, regardless of how the discipline is defined: wine is one of the most sensitive of agricultural products to variations in the physical environment; landscapes of the vine and wine reflect deep cultural resonances about the relationships between humans and the places in which they live; and the spatial distribution of wine production and wine styles vary significantly across the globe. This centrality of geography to wine means that there are few books about viticulture and wine making that do not contain some mention of geography, which makes it challenging to compile a comprehensive annotated bibliography on the subject. Almost every descriptive account of a wine region refers to its geography, usually focusing on its physical environment, and the influence that this has on the character of the wines. Moreover, important publications by archaeologists, historians, and economists, alongside many others, frequently refer to aspects of geography in their understandings of wine, often in terms of its role in international trade, its spatial variability, or the significance of the environment in shaping the distribution of grape growing and wine production. This article focuses primarily on the works of writers who call themselves geographers, or who write in geographical publications, but it also includes important publications written by those from other disciplines where they contribute significantly to what might be called a “geographical understanding” of wine. Attention concentrates on more recent geographical material published on wine, but classic texts and important earlier research and writing that shaped the field are also included, where of particular significance. The bibliography seeks to illustrate the breadth of geographical work primarily in the English language, and where authors have written several papers on a similar subject, only the most detailed, or accessible, are usually cited. It also seeks to provide examples of the research by geographers in many different parts of the world, drawing on evidence from Europe, Asia, the Pacific, Africa, and both North and South America.”

The bibliography then covers the following main topics:

• Introduction
• General Overviews and Texts on the Geography of Wine
  • French Wine Geographies
  • Wine Geographies in the English language
• Geography, Environment and Terroir
  • Wine and Climate
• Geography and Wine in Antiquity
• Geography in the History of Wine
• Geography of Wine Appellations and Demarcation
• The Economic Geography of Wine
  • Wine Tourism
• Spatial Distribution of Wine and Geographical Accounts of Wine Regions

Do please suggest additions or alterations that I can make to enhance the value of this resource

Prolegomena on Human Rights and Responsibilities

Waking early after yesterday’s flight to Port of Spain, and sitting above the Gulf of Paria, watching the swallows sweeping past my window, has given me time to reflect on something I have been meaning to write for ages.  I have long argued that both the notion of “Universal Human Rights”, and its acceptance as being a default position in much international discourse, has been hugely damaging for poor and marginalised peoples, and should be replaced by a Human Responsibilities agenda.  I first articulated elements of this argument in my 2010 paper on “ICTs, citizens, and the state: moral philosophy and development practices“, and also shared some thoughts on this at the Stockholm Internet Forum in 2013, but have never had the time to develop this into a more formal account (see also my pieces on balancing democracies and DFID’s approach to development aid).   Suffice it to say, that I still don’t have the time to do this in the detail it warrants, but I want to take the opportunity to share the outline of the argument here.  One day, I will craft the more formal account!

Caveats
Lest I am misunderstood, I want to begin by highlighting three important caveats that underlie what follows:

1. In my earlier accounts, I argued strongly that we should disband the notion of Human Rights altogether. I now accept that making such an absolute and dogmatic approach is too antagonistic because the notion of Human Rights is too heavily embedded in global thinking and policy making.  Hence, my present position suggests that the Human Rights agenda needs to be balanced by a Human Responsibilities Agenda.
2. Most of those who advocate a “responsibilities” approach to these matters do so from a neo-liberal or broadly “right-wing” stance; I very much want to distance myself from such a position, and instead see my arguments as being profoundly radical.  Indeed, as I hope to show below, I see the Human Rights approach being one that largely reinforces the status quo, in the interests of those in power.
3. I also want to be very clear that I am not in any way suggesting that we should not put in place some kind of mechanisms to prevent the almost unimaginable horrors that have been, and continue to be, committed all too often across the world by some people on others.  As I write, the ongoing massacres of Yazidis and Christians by the so-called Islamic State/Caliphate are an all too shocking reminder of the continual savagery, and what some would decry as evil, that can be found across the world today.  However, I do not think that a Human Rights agenda actually prevents such atrocities; if it did, would they still be promulgated?

The fundamental premise
The fundamental premise that I seek to illustrate through the arguments that follow is that the Universal Declaration on Human Rights has supported the legitimacy of a particular kind of social formation, often called capitalism, that has a tendency to lead to greater inequality in the world rather than substantially improving the lives of the poorest, most marginalised and most vulnerable.  I argue, that this must be balanced by a Human Responsibilities agenda that places at least as much emphasis on the responsibilities of states and of individuals to the least advantaged in our societies.  It is insufficient simply to say they have rights; we all have responsibilities to act.

Strands in the argument
The various strands of my argument need fully qualifying, referencing, and linking together more cogently, but more or less in chronological order they are as follows:

1. The idea that humans have rights is a relatively recent one in human evolution.  There is much debate about the origins of ideas associated with human rights, but I suggest that it is actually very recent.  Far too often, advocates of human rights agendas seek to identify obscure elements of past legal texts as the precursors of modern thinking on the subject, as with elements of the Cyrus cylinder dating from the 6th century BC (see for example United for Human Rights).  However, it is very difficult to sustain such arguments, and many are based on ex post facto reasoning.  One of the most interesting things about the human rights agenda is that most of the world’s religions have little if anything to say actually about human rights. For humanists, who reject the project of religions, human rights can be interpreted as part of human emancipation from the darkness of religion. However, for those who hold to the beliefs of religions such as Christianity and Islam, although they are very much concerned with what being human really means, and they challenge many of the perceived evils of the societies in which they were formed, there is actually remarkably little if anything in them about the precise idea of humans having rights.  Magna Carta, the great charter agreed between the Barons and King John in England in 1215, is often seen as providing the initial framework for the modern concept of human rights through its inclusion of the clause that “No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right”.  It was in the 17th century, though, in the writing of Hobbes and Locke that a more formal concept of human rights can be seen as having evolved in the context of the emergent Enlightenment and social contract theory.  The essence of their argument was that in seeking to resolve their conflicting desires for peace and power, people cede some of their rights to the sovereign in return for protection.  This notion lies at the heart of social contract theory that was developed further in the 18th century by authors such as Rousseau, and reached political fruition in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789.
2. There is nothing universal about human rights. Point (1) above emphasises that the notion of human rights has evolved; it has not therefore been universally accepted throughout history.  A counter to this particular logic is, of course, the different logic that there has always been a universal, and it is only now becoming increasingly revealed and understood over time.  These two logics need resolution, but it is not only a matter of time and history.  Space and geography matter!  Different cultures have evolved different belief systems and ontologies, and there have been many contrasting arguments about universals.  Having long reflected on this, my overwhelming conclusion is that about the only widely accepted moral position is the Golden Rule of “do as you would be done by”.  I have always been challenged, for example, by the rights of cannibalism.  For a cannibal, it is her or his right to eat someone; for the person being eaten, it is clearly her or his right to remain alive. There are also clearly ongoing debates as to what should be included in human rights agendas, some of which are discussed further below, but the fact that there is little universal agreement across cultures on exactly what should be considered a human right is itself an illustration of the suggestion that there are few if any universals.
3. Instead, human rights should be seen as a means through which a dominant ideology is imposed on others. To understand human rights, it is essential to understand where (the geography) and when (the history) of its emergence.  It is no coincidence that modern thinking on human rights emerged in 17th century Europe.  It did not emerge in Africa, Asia or the Americas.  It emerged hand in hand with the rise of individualism, in contrast with what was seen as the cloying hand of communal practices.  Enclosure provided the opportunity for individual profit from the land, instead of the traditional common and open field systems.  This was essential for the emergence of capitalism, vested fundamentally in private property rights, through which individuals could generate profit.  It was likewise no coincidence that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the UN in 1948 in the immediate aftermath of the 1939-45 war.  To be sure, it was in part a response to the horrors of the holocaust, but it must be asked, for example, why there was not the creation of a similar declaration after the very different kind of horror of the 1914-18 war?  It is also no coincidence that the drafting committee was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of the US President.  Although its nine members did indeed include representatives from Chile, China, Lebanon and the USSR, the dominant voice was that of the capitalist “West”, represented by Australia, Canada, France, the UK and the USA.  The vast populations and cultures of Africa and South Asia were omitted and ignored.  The case I develop below is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thus become a vehicle through which global capitalism has sought to impose a universal hegemony on what is seen as being right. It is, though, not actually in the interests of the poor and marginalised, but rather serves the interests of the rich and powerful.  To develop a new world order, we must therefore abandon the declaration, and replace it with an agenda that stresses the importance of communal traditions.  Interestingly, such traditions are often seen to be grounded in many African practices, that were all too clearly ignored by the drafting committee.
4. The human rights agenda has failed to save those who have suffered at the hands of violent people who have no belief in human rights.  It may be that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has indeed reduced the amount of horror and violence meted out in the world over the last 66 years.  Unfortunately, though, we have no means of measuring this; there are no counterfactuals.  We take it on trust.  However, it is very clear that unimaginable violence – from Rwanda to Syria and Iraq – has continued, regardless of the declaration.  Let us never forget the horror and violence that men and women commit against each other, but let us ask whether the human rights approach is indeed the most powerful vehicle we can have to challenge this.
5. The human rights agenda has become devalued and all-inclusive. One of the prime drivers for the Universal Declaration was undoubtedly the experiences of Allied troops who discovered the atrocities committed by Axis powers during and at the end of the 1939-45 war.  This found expression in Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.  Yet, look at the hypocrisy even with the comment that “everyone has the right to life”: some states in Eleanor Roosevelt’s own country , the USA, still regularly take the lives of their citizens executed as the result of the passing of a death sentence, let alone taking the lives of innocent people killed elsewhere in the “war against terror”.  Even more important than this, though, is the point that far too many things that are much less important than “life” are now considered to be human rights.  Taken to the extreme, this has found expression in arguments that access to ICTs should be seen as a human right. Simplifying, this argument in essence is based on the logic that (1) education is a human right, (2) access to the Internet is crucial for education, and therefore (3) access to the internet is also a human right.  As I have argued elsewhere, it is arrant nonsense to argue in such a way, but to understand why this is happening one needs to understand the interests underlying such arguments, because they are indeed powerful.
6. The interests underlying a human rights agenda.  Capitalism, especially as practised and promoted in the USA, is fundamentally driven by the need for people to be “free”.  It is this freedom as a right that lies at the heart of the human rights agenda.  It is not for nothing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with the statement that “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world” (my emphasis).  In a Marxist interpretation, freedom is essential for two simple things that capitalism is reliant upon: the freedom of individuals to sell their labour power (the essential source through which profit is created for the capitalist), and the freedom of individuals to purchase products (the mechanism through which such profit is realised).  This was why it was so important for capitalism to overthrow “unfree” communism: so that a vast number of new labourers and consumers would be created, who were free to choose where and how they worked, and what they purchased.  Individual-ism had to replace communal-ism.  This was where the great con (even better and more subtle than that in The Sting) was played; it was largely done in the name of freedom.  To revert to the example of access to the Internet as being a human right, it can readily be seen that this argument is driven fundamentally by those who will benefit from the Internet being made available to everyone, be they corporations selling the technology, to educationalists eager to promote/sell their ideas through the Internet.  Yet how free are we?  Some may think they are free to search all human knowledge on the Internet, but in reality they are paying, and usually giving far more information away about themselves than actually they are gaining; that is the source of profit of the global search engine and social media corporations.  Are we not becoming mere appendages of the machines in front of which so many of us sit day in, day out, answering e-mails and losing our humanity?

Towards an alternative: communal solutions and a responsibilities approach
The forces of capitalism are indeed powerful, and even if they were not necessarily consciously embedded in the foundation of the Universal Declaration, they have since usurped it and now drive forward the human rights agenda primarily as a means through which they can generate further surplus profit at the expense of the poor and the marginalised.  Make something a human right, someone is then expected to provide it, and this then becomes a business opportunity.  The trouble is that actually all too often no-one provides it.

[this was as far as I got in Trinidad; further reflections in the land of Serendib, and a most comfortable gentle flight home courtesy of Sri Lankan Airlines, enables me to continue]

Hence, I want to argue that at the very least we need to redress the balance by advocating for a human responsibilities agenda; deep down I would still prefer to have a responsibilites agenda replace the rights-based agenda, but as I note above too many people make too much money out of the rights agenda for this to be feasible in the short term.  Hence, I offer a compromise!

Elements in support of a radical responsibilities agenda go something like this:

1. Human rights have failed; we need an alternative.  As noted in (4) above, the notion of human rights seems neither to have had a significant impact on improving the lives of the poorest of the poor, nor on those who suffer from states and people determined to mutilate and massacre them.  Over the last 20 years, the world has become more unequal, fuelled in part by the uses made of new Information and Communication Technologies; violence and hatred are rife, fuelled by individualistic human greed.  Human rights, despite all the claims made for it has simply not delivered.  I come close to thinking that all war and killing is a crime (despite arguments that claim that there is indeed something called a “Just War”), and that to define some incidents as being war crimes, whereas others are not is hugely problematic (but this enters a different, albeit fascinating discussion of war – perhaps the topic of a future blog post!).  The fundamental point here is that the fear of retribution by the international community has seemed to have done little to limit the worst abuses conceivable by the minds of those dedicated to inflicting horror.  At least we must ask if there could just be an alternative.
2. Shifting the emphasis to communal traditions.  As will be clear from the above, I see the root of much of the ‘problem’ of human rights as being its fundamental emphasis on the rights of individuals.  Do we as individuals really have rights?  What makes humans have rights, other than their claim that they do?  Might this not be false ideology based on the views of a rich and powerful minority?  In many cultures, the value of the community has traditionally been seen as being higher than that of the individual.  Indeed, the self sacrifice of many individuals to protect their communities, can be seen as reflecting the species survival, and thus essentially communal, nature of humanity.  In particular, although there is much dispute over it, traditions such as Ubuntu in eastern Africa, the Gacaca courts in Rwanda, and Indaba in Nguni cultures, all reflect an important African communal emphasis.  So too, I would argue, is the Christian tradition, drawing in part on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10), but also the notion of Christ as a servant king (Luke 22), that places emphasis primarily on service.  Christ’s two fundamental requests (Mark 12) are that we should love God, and love others as ourselves.  There is nothing here about human rights, but rather an emphasis on our communal responsibilities. We have choices – to be individualistic and greedy, overly concerned with some presumed rights, or to serve others.  Indeed, in Hobbes’ and Locke’s original formulations, it was to try to resolve this conflict between greed and peace, that the notion of giving up certain assumed rights was born.  Perhaps if we placed greater emphasis on responsibilities, we might draw nearer to crafting a world which actually better helped achieve the objectives for which the human rights agenda has sought but failed to deliver.
3. Responsibilities of states.  Simply to say that individuals have rights, and therefore that states have a duty to ensure that these rights are delivered on is not enough.  I assert that we must ensure that we embed in legislation the fundamental responsibilities of states to deliver certain things for their citizens, accepting that these might well differ between cultures and contexts.  The richness and diversity of humanity is one of our strengths, and we should not seek always to identify universals, which as I state above seem to me primarily to be ways through which the rich and powerful impose their view of the world on others.  The private sector’s unending pursuit of profit can never benefit the poorest and most marginalised; capitalism is built fundamentally on inequality.  Hence, the role of states is primarily to mediate these excesses, and ensure that the poor can also live at peace without fear for their lives and livelihoods (in line with 17th century social contract arguments).  It is only states that can achieve this. States therefore have fundamental responsibilities to their citizens, and if rulers fail to deliver on these they should be overthrown.
4. And the responsibilities of individuals.  Not only are states made up of individuals, but it is as individuals that we communicate and interact with each other.  I can say to a person: “You have rights.  Jolly good.  The state will deliver on your rights. I need do nothing”.  Or, I can think, “I have a responsibility to that person.  I should therefore act in certain ways to them”.  Responsibility is about action; rights are about inaction.  The human rights agenda has been a way that we can be absolved of our responsibilities to each other.  I am seeking to reverse this so that we do indeed take action as individuals for each other.  It may only appear to be a subtle difference, but to me it requires an entirely different emphasis and way of thinking.  The responsibilities agenda means quite simply that states have responsibilities to their citizens, and as individuals we have responsibilities to each other.
5. Who pays for human rights and responsibilities? I have long been challenged about the disconnect between human rights, and payment for delivery of those rights.  Many argue that “the right to education” is a human right, but that it is fine for this to be delivered by the private sector.  This seems to imply that someone might have a right to education, but that they would have to pay for it.  I find this logic unsatisfactory.  It is akin to saying you have a “right to life”, but you have to pay for it, which would seem to be a licence for highway robbers to take lives!  It seems to me that if you have to pay for a right it is not actually a right.  Poor people are highly likely to be disadvantaged, for example, in a society where health and education have to be paid for.  Again, this would seem to reinforce the arguments in (6) above, which suggest that some of the most powerful advocates of human rights are those who seek to exploit them for monetary gain.  This would certainly seem to be the case for those who want to make access to the Internet a human right!  If we replace such a logic, though, by one that says that states have responsibilities to ensure that all of their citizens have, for example, free housing, health and education, this would require societies to find ways to deliver on this, through mechanisms such as taxation.  Once again, the responsibilities agenda ia about the common good, rather than the individual greed and selfishness of the human rights agenda.

It is difficult to summarise complex arguments drawn from many sources in just a few lines, and this post is already overly long!  However, I would love to hear back from anyone who would like to point out the flaws in my outline argument, so that I can incorporate responses in my more formal, rigorous and detailed argument.  Who knows, it might evolve into one of my next books!

My  aim is to persuade people that we must balance any universal human rights agenda by a human responsibilities agenda.  This will require a radical rethink of all those reductionist arguments, especially by those in the UN system, that simply see human rights as the fundamental grounding for so much of their work.  I hope that, at the very least, my arguments here challenge such a supposition, and go some way to persuading others that the human rights agenda is part of a capitalist conspiracy that claims to make people free, but actually enslaves and dehumanises them.

 

Reflections on Geography at Bedford College (and then Royal Holloway) in the 1980s

The Geography Department at Royal Holloway, University of London, is hosting an alumni event focusing on the 1980s to be held on 16th July.  As one of the last ‘surviving’ members of staff to have worked at Bedford College, I was asked by Klaus Dodds to write a few words about my recollections, so that they could be included on a poster in the Department.  Just thought that it might be interesting also to post them here, together with some imagery from 20-30 years ago!

“The Department 30 years ago was so much smaller than today – fewer staff, fewer undergraduates, and fewer postgraduates.  It was a world largely without computers.  No e-mails!  One could think, and write, and teach students who were genuinely interested in learning.  It was brilliant!

I distinctly remember being appointed, and joining in 1981.  There were but a handful of jobs advertised in human geography that year.  I had been interviewed for a job at Exeter, but couldn’t hear properly what the panel chair was mumbling!  Needless to say I did not get that job!  My girlfriend was working in London, while I was still living in Durham and working at the Geography Department there.  Then this job came up at Bedford – amazingly the College where my mother had studied mathematics many years previously!  I remember being asked at the interview what it would mean for my personal life if I got the job, and responding that of course it would mean that Pam and I could get married. Imagine being asked such a thing in interviews today!

I was appointed to teach historical geography – and loved it!  I diligently used to write out my lecture notes in full – and read them to my students!!  Scarcely something that new lecturers would do now, in a world of PowerPoint!  But I did use slides on the old projector. I was very little older than the students were, and they forgave me for my nervousness.  I think my enthusiasm must have made up for a lot – medieval taxation documents, field systems, and prehistoric monuments!

One highlight was when the new electronic typewriter with a memory arrived; the precursor for word processors and personal computers.  One day, I was using it when the Departmental Secretary came in and threw me off, saying that she had something important to write.  Suppressing my fury, I left the dark room where it lived, and hit the wall outside with my fist.  My hand crumpled….  I then spent all afternoon running “The Green Revolution Game” with my students; my hand bent in pain.  Only in the early evening did I go to St Thomas’s – and of course they diagnosed a broken hand!

Then there were the great students doing the Master’s course in Third World development.  The course was led by Alan Mountjoy, and attracted bright people from all over the world – some of my favourite teaching ever; if only I was still in touch with some of them – particularly the Egyptian journalist who gave me a photograph of Jürgen Habermas.

And there was the IRA bombing in 1982.  I heard the first blast in Hyde Park whilst I was working at the RGS, and then got back to Bedford to see the debris remaining from the other blast that had taken place at the bandstand just nearby in Regent’s Park.  A sad day.

But the early 1980s was the time of mergers across London.  I became deeply involved in planning for the merger with King’s, and remember being saddened when it was announced that this had fallen through.  Going to Egham did, though, have one advantage in that we did not have to negotiate with another Geography Department already there; we could instead build our own identity from within.  On a personal level, we also decided to move from our rented flat in Kennington out to a newly built house in Englefield Green, on the Larksfield estate.  I remember this being a huge risk, since I had not been made permanent and we bought before it had definitely been confirmed that the merger would go through.

The move meant that we could reorganise our courses, and I recall working with Chris Green and others on a new teaching structure that would mean that our third year courses would become much more research oriented and also applied.  This provided the opportunity for me to launch my new course on the historical geography of viticulture and the wine trade.  At first, this was rejected by the University Geography board as being far too esoteric – but I resubmitted it again pointing out that if there was a course at SOAS on the geography of oil, surely we could teach about viticulture and wine.  After all, the wine trade has been in existence for millennia.  This course also provided an opportunity to work more closely with those in the wine trade, and highlights definitely included the wine tastings and the field trips to Burgundy and Champagne.  Imagine being allowed today to ‘race’ in minibuses across France from vineyard to vineyard and campsite to campsite.  How generous were the winemakers who shared their time and their wines with us!!

But I recall other field trips too: the day excursions to Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire for my second year students, exploring field systems and deserted medieval villages, more often than not in the snow; and then the second year trip to Portugal, again with generous hospitality from friends in the port wine trade.

There were great characters in the Department: Ron Halfhide, who became Departmental Superintendent, and was always the life and soul of the party, helping to arrange wonderful Geographical Society events; David Hilling, the ‘uncle’ figure, who cared for students (and rugby) in ways that we are no longer permitted to do; John Thornes, who as Head of Department told me that I should really make myself the specialist in one area of the discipline, such as the geography of Portugal.  John certainly taught me some lessons!  On his recommendation, I drafted two chapters of ‘the’ book on Portugal, and sent them to a publisher.  The academic referees liked them, but the publisher said that there was no market for a book on agricultural innovation in Portugal.  Never again have I written anything for a book publisher without a contract!

Above all, I remember those days as ones of amazing freedom – when we could craft new knowledge in the innocent ways we believed were right, when we could treat students as friends and not numbers, when collegiality rather than individual selfish career progression mattered.  They were good times”.

Ofsted report on declining Geography in England’s schools

In a press release, Ofsted comment on their report on school geography in the UK published today that ‘A polarised picture of school geography teaching has emerged … While geography was flourishing in a minority of the schools visited by inspectors, it was found to be under pressure in the rest.’   As the press release continues ‘The primary schools visited presented a sharp contrast between inadequate and outstanding practice. Half were characterised by a lack of expertise and awareness of what constituted good geography. In approximately one in 10 of the primary schools visited, geography was more or less disappearing. Just over half the primary and secondary schools visited did not use fieldwork adequately. In some of the secondary schools visited, there was a drop in the numbers studying geography GCSE. Uninspiring teaching and the lack of challenge discouraged many students from choosing geography at GCSE. The quality of provision was declining and the time allocated to the subject in the first critical years of secondary schools was being reduced’.

The study is based on observations of geography classes in 91 primary schools and 90 secondary schools between 2007 and 2010, and represents a depressing picture of the present state of teaching in the discipline.  Official figures show that the number of people taking GCSE in geography fell from 173,800 in 2008-9 to 169,800 in 2009-10, with the number of state schools not entering pupils for the subject increasing from 97 (out of more than 3000) in 2007 to 137 in 2009.

As a BBC report on the findings commented, ‘”Core knowledge for the majority of the students surveyed, but especially for those in the weaker schools, was poor,” it said. It found all but the best students were “spatially naive” and that they were unable to locate countries, key mountain ranges or other features with any degree of confidence.”For example, they understood about development issues in Kenya but had little or no idea of where Kenya was in Africa.”Many of them had studied Amazonia and could talk with some conviction about the exploitation of resources and environmental degradation but they knew nothing about the rest of South America.”‘

This is hugely damning, not only for those who care about geography as a discipline, but also for the futures of our young people. Geography is one of the most important and exciting subjects of all:

• it explores the place of people in the world – in both a conceptual and a physical sense;
• it is explicitly concerned with the interactions between people and the physical environment – which lie at the heart of so many contemporary global issues such as climate change, the impact of migration, resource allocation and distribution, and international development;
• it provides young people with an understanding of the importance of diversity and tolerance based on a detailed understanding of other cultures and people; and
• it is one of the most enjoyable and exciting subjects to study at school and university – reflected in the importance of field work and a practical understanding of places.

In a response to the Oftsed report, the Geographical Association (GA) notes, amongst other things, that:

• ‘This Report therefore sends a strong message to senior leaders in primary and secondary
  schools: it is unacceptable to tolerate geography that is weak, because this impoverishes the
  curriculum. If geography is weak it “is a key issue to be addressed by the leadership teams in
  these schools” (p5)’;
• ‘The Report shows many examples of schools in which geography has been encouraged and is
  flourishing. These are schools where the geography is driven by challenging questions about the
  contemporary world, where pupils’ knowledge of people, places and environments is extensive
  and where the teaching is lively, topical and well informed. One reason for good geography was
  found to be where “subject specific professional support had been sought out and utilized” (p6)’; and that
• ‘A strong theme is the polarized pattern of provision in terms of the quality of teaching and
  learning and the curriculum between schools. This is linked to the lack of subject specialist
  teachers and/or lack of subject specialist training. It is therefore a worry that training numbers
  are being cut in geography.’

As David Lambert, the GA’s Chief Executive notes, ‘It is a pity that Ofsted’s own press release designed to draw attention to this report is headlined ‘geography declining in schools’. Why? Because the report makes clear that the story is much more complicated than that. In some schools, if you suggested that geography were declining you’d be faced with puzzlement, for the subject is thriving. And yet, the national picture which has been taking shape for many years now, is unsatisfactory. The GA takes this very seriously. The decline in school geography means that there is less geography being taught in school and more children leaving school with an inadequate knowledge and understanding of their existence on planet earth’.

The report nevertheless represents systematic failings across the discipline, and far too much complacency amongst professional academic geographers. Whilst the GA has been valiantly trying to support secondary and primary geography over many years, the number of university academics involved in and willing to give their time to school geography (other than as part of their own selfish recruitment drives) has dwindled dramatically.  We need to provide a vision of the excitement of the discipline that inspires young people to engage in the discipline.  We also need to act much more strategically at a political level with Ministers, senior Civil Servants and leaders of the private sector to advocate for the value of geography.  If we do not, we will not only have failed a generation of school pupils, but will ultimately have helped to create a society with little understanding of the complex relationships that shape interactions between people and the physical environment.

Day 5 – taxi service and the Río de la Miel rally

On the last two days of the field course, students work in groups on their own research projects exploring aspects of the geography of the Nerja region – ranging from studies of Quaternary deposits to the architectural identity of villages transformed by tourism.  So, for much of the day I became a taxi driver, dropping off students measuring river morphology in the Chillar valley and others interviewing tourists and farmers in the picturesque village of Frigiliana.  The day ended, though, with experiencing the unique rally environment of the upper Río de la Miel valley (see video),  and then clambering up into the clouds to see the remains of the old fortress of Los Castillejos.  That was before the night began!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Day 2 Nerja

The second day of our urban exploration of Nerja led by Alasdair Pinkerton and Sara Fregonese – traditional architectures, urban origins, and cultural understandings of place…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Experiencing Nerja – Day 1

The Geography Department at Royal Holloway, University of London, has been taking first year students to the Andalucian town of Nerja and its surroundings since the late 1990s.  Below are just a few photos from the first day exemplifying

• that geography is about understanding the human interactions with the physical environment that shape places, and
• field trips should be about working hard and playing hard!

Video of panorama from Balcon de Europa

This slideshow requires JavaScript.