Estratégia de conservação da biodiversidade na índia

Biodiversidade & amp; Bem-estar humano.

6. Que ações podem ser tomadas para conservar a biodiversidade?

6.1 Como as áreas protegidas beneficiam a biodiversidade e os seres humanos? 6.2 Os incentivos econômicos podem beneficiar a biodiversidade e as comunidades locais? 6.3 Como as espécies invasoras podem ser abordadas? 6.4 Como as áreas protegidas beneficiam a biodiversidade e os seres humanos? 6.4.1 Estratégias para integrar questões de biodiversidade nos setores de produção 6.4.2 Contribuições do setor privado para os objetivos de biodiversidade 6.5 Que abordagens de governança podem promover a conservação da biodiversidade? 6.6 Quais são os principais fatores de sucesso das ações de conservação? 6.7 Como poderiam ser direcionados importantes fatores de perda de biodiversidade?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

A perda de biodiversidade é impulsionada por fatores locais, regionais e globais, portanto, as respostas também são necessárias em todas as escalas. As respostas precisam reconhecer várias partes interessadas com necessidades diferentes. Em determinadas condições, muitas respostas eficazes estão disponíveis para tratar dos problemas identificados. As respostas concebidas para lidar com a perda de biodiversidade não serão sustentáveis ​​ou suficientes, a menos que os direcionadores de mudança diretos e indiretos relevantes sejam abordados. Um maior progresso na redução da perda de biodiversidade virá de uma maior coerência e sinergias entre as respostas setoriais e através de uma consideração mais sistemática dos trade-offs entre os serviços ecossistêmicos ou entre a conservação da biodiversidade e outras necessidades da sociedade.

Alguns drivers de perda de biodiversidade são localizados, como a superexploração. Outros são globais, como as mudanças climáticas, enquanto muitos operam em uma variedade de escalas, como os impactos locais de espécies invasoras através do comércio global. A maioria das respostas aqui avaliadas foi projetada para abordar os direcionadores diretos da perda de biodiversidade. No entanto, esses fatores são melhor vistos como sintomas dos fatores indiretos, como padrões insustentáveis ​​de consumo, mudanças demográficas e globalização.

Em escala local e regional, as respostas aos condutores podem promover a biodiversidade local e o bem-estar humano, atuando nas sinergias entre a manutenção da biodiversidade local e a prestação de serviços ecossistêmicos essenciais. As respostas que promovem a gestão local para os valores globais da biodiversidade dependem da “captação” local dos valores globais, proporcionando incentivos contínuos para o manejo e apoio ao bem-estar local (R5).

Na escala global, as respostas eficazes estabelecem prioridades para os esforços de conservação e desenvolvimento em diferentes regiões e criam metas ou programas compartilhados, como as convenções relacionadas à biodiversidade e os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milênio. Negociações e sinergias efetivas serão promovidas quando diferentes estratégias ou instrumentos forem utilizados de forma integrada e coordenada (R5).

A avaliação de MA das respostas da biodiversidade coloca o bem-estar humano como foco central de avaliação, reconhecendo que as pessoas tomam decisões sobre ecossistemas com base em uma gama de valores relacionados ao bem-estar, incluindo os valores de uso e não uso da biodiversidade e ecossistemas. A avaliação, portanto, considerou as respostas da biodiversidade como tratando de valores em diferentes escalas, com fortes ligações com valores de serviços ecossistêmicos e bem-estar que surgem em cada uma dessas escalas. O bem-estar da população local domina a avaliação de muitas respostas, incluindo aquelas relacionadas a áreas protegidas, governança, manejo de espécies silvestres e várias respostas relacionadas à captura local de benefícios.

Concentrar-se exclusivamente em valores em apenas um nível muitas vezes dificulta respostas que possam promover valores em todos os níveis ou reconciliar conflitos entre os níveis. As respostas eficazes funcionam em diferentes escalas, abordando os valores globais da biodiversidade, identificando os custos de oportunidade ou as sinergias com os valores locais. A consideração local da biodiversidade global reconhece o valor do que é único em um lugar (ou o que ainda não é protegido em outro lugar). Os valores dos serviços ecossistêmicos, por outro lado, nem sempre dependem desses elementos únicos. Respostas efetivas da biodiversidade reconhecem ambos os tipos de valores. Essas considerações orientam a avaliação resumida nesta seção de uma gama de estratégias de resposta que, em graus variados, integram valores globais e locais e que buscam compensações e sinergias efetivas para a biodiversidade, serviços ecossistêmicos e bem-estar humano.

Dificuldades na medição da biodiversidade têm avaliações complicadas do impacto das estratégias de resposta. O desenvolvimento de melhores indicadores de biodiversidade aumentaria a integração entre estratégias e instrumentos. Por exemplo, as medidas existentes geralmente se concentram na biodiversidade local e não estimam os ganhos marginais nos valores regionais ou globais da biodiversidade. Da mesma forma, os ganhos de biodiversidade da agricultura orgânica são tipicamente expressos apenas como riqueza localizada de espécies, sem considerar o grau de contribuição para a biodiversidade regional ou global ou as compensações com a agricultura industrial de alta produtividade.

6.1 Como as áreas protegidas beneficiam a biodiversidade e os seres humanos?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

As áreas protegidas são uma parte extremamente importante dos programas para conservar a biodiversidade e os ecossistemas, especialmente para habitats sensíveis (R5). Avaliações recentes mostraram que, nas escalas global e regional, a existência de PAs atuais, embora essenciais, não é suficiente para a conservação de toda a biodiversidade. As áreas protegidas precisam ser melhor localizadas, projetadas e gerenciadas para lidar com problemas como falta de representatividade, impactos do assentamento humano dentro de áreas protegidas, extração ilegal de plantas e animais, turismo insustentável, impactos de espécies exóticas invasoras e vulnerabilidade à mudança global. . Os ecossistemas marinhos e de água doce estão ainda menos protegidos do que os sistemas terrestres, levando a esforços crescentes para expandir as áreas protegidas nesses biomas. Esforços para expandir áreas marinhas protegidas também são estimulados por fortes evidências de sinergias positivas entre a conservação dentro de PAs e o uso sustentável imediatamente fora de seus limites (C18). No entanto, o manejo de áreas marinhas protegidas apresenta desafios especiais, pois a fiscalização é difícil e muitos dos oceanos do mundo estão fora das jurisdições nacionais.

Com base em uma pesquisa sobre a eficácia da gestão de uma amostra de quase 200 áreas protegidas em 34 países, apenas 12% implementaram um plano de manejo aprovado. A avaliação concluiu que o projeto de PA, o estabelecimento legal, a demarcação de limites, o inventário de recursos e a definição de objetivos foram relativamente bem abordados. Mas o planejamento de gestão, monitoramento e avaliação, e orçamentos para segurança e aplicação da lei foram geralmente fracos entre as áreas pesquisadas. Além disso, o problema do “parque de papel” permanece, por meio do qual as áreas geográficas podem ser rotuladas como alguma categoria de área protegida, mas não conseguem a forma prometida de manejo (R5).

As áreas protegidas podem contribuir para a pobreza, onde as populações rurais são excluídas dos recursos que tradicionalmente apoiaram o seu bem-estar. No entanto, as APs podem contribuir para melhorar os meios de subsistência quando elas são gerenciadas para beneficiar a população local (R5). As relações com a população local devem ser abordadas de maneira mais eficaz por meio de consulta e planejamento participativos. Uma estratégia possível é promover o uso mais amplo das categorias de gestão de áreas protegidas da IUCN. O sucesso depende de uma abordagem de gestão colaborativa entre o governo e as partes interessadas, uma abordagem adaptativa que testa opções no campo, monitoramento abrangente que fornece informações sobre o sucesso ou fracasso da administração e o empoderamento das comunidades locais por meio de um sistema aberto e transparente que esclarece o acesso e a propriedade de Recursos.

O sucesso de áreas protegidas como resposta à perda de biodiversidade requer uma melhor seleção de locais e incorporação de compensações regionais para evitar que alguns ecossistemas sejam mal representados, enquanto outros estão super-representados. O sucesso das PAs depende de legislação e gestão adequadas, recursos suficientes, melhor integração com a região mais ampla em torno das áreas protegidas e maior envolvimento das partes interessadas (R5). Além disso, as metas de representação e gestão e os indicadores de desempenho funcionam melhor quando vão além da medição da área total aparentemente protegida. Os indicadores de cobertura de área por área de PAs, associados aos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milênio e outras metas, por exemplo, fornecem apenas uma indicação ampla da extensão real da proteção oferecida pelos sistemas de PA, mas o planejamento em nível regional e nacional requer metas que conta compensações e sinergias com outros serviços ecossistêmicos.

O projeto e a gestão da área protegida precisarão levar em conta os impactos das mudanças climáticas. Os impactos das mudanças climáticas aumentarão o risco de extinção de certas espécies e mudarão a natureza dos ecossistemas. Mudanças na distribuição de espécies como resultado da mudança climática estão bem documentadas (C4, C19, C25). Os planos de conservação de espécies de hoje podem incorporar aspectos de adaptação e mitigação para esta ameaça, com base nas ferramentas existentes para ajudar a avaliar a vulnerabilidade das espécies à mudança climática. Corredores e outros aspectos de design de habitat para dar flexibilidade às áreas protegidas são estratégias de precaução eficazes. O melhor gerenciamento de corredores de habitat e ecossistemas de produção entre áreas protegidas ajudará a biodiversidade a se adaptar às condições de mudança (R5).

6.2 Os incentivos econômicos podem beneficiar a biodiversidade e as comunidades locais?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

O impacto dos instrumentos de mercado no incentivo e na conservação da biodiversidade não é claro (R5). Embora os direitos de desenvolvimento negociáveis ​​ofereçam o potencial para atingir um objetivo de conservação a baixo custo, oferecendo flexibilidade para alcançar os objetivos, eles foram alvo de algumas críticas - notadamente por serem complexos e envolverem altos custos de transação e o estabelecimento de novas instituições de apoio. Por exemplo, pode surgir uma situação em que a terra mais ecologicamente sensível, mas também a menos custosa de se desenvolver, não seja protegida. Até hoje, o TDR não foi projetado para atingir tipos e propriedades de habitat específicos.

A transferência de direitos de propriedade e gerenciamento de serviços ecossistêmicos para indivíduos privados lhes confere uma importância na conservação dos níveis de suporte institucional. Por exemplo, na África do Sul, as mudanças na legislação de proteção da vida silvestre permitiram uma mudança na posse da terra e uma conversão da criação de gado bovino e ovino para uma agricultura de caça lucrativa, permitindo a conservação da vida selvagem indígena. Por outro lado, o programa CAMPFIRE no Zimbábue, baseado no uso sustentável da vida selvagem administrado pela comunidade, tornou-se um exemplo de como o sucesso pode se transformar em fracasso, com o Estado readquirindo as áreas dadas aos indivíduos e quebrando os níveis de confiança e confiança. transparência - uma forma de liberdade instrumental - que é criticamente necessária para que essas respostas econômicas funcionem de forma eficiente e equitativa (R17).

Os pagamentos aos proprietários de terras locais por serviços ecossistêmicos prometem melhorar a alocação de serviços ecossistêmicos e são aplicáveis ​​à conservação da biodiversidade. Entretanto, mecanismos de compensação que abordem os aspectos distributivos e eqüitativos desses instrumentos econômicos podem precisar ser planejados para apoiar tais esforços. Em 2001, mais de 280.000 hectares de florestas foram incorporados na Costa Rica dentro das reservas, a um custo de cerca de US $ 30 milhões por ano, com pagamentos anuais típicos variando de US $ 35 a US $ 45 por hectare para conservação florestal (R5 Box 5.3). No entanto, a existência de iniciativas de pagamento direto não garante sucesso na consecução de objetivos de conservação e desenvolvimento ou benefícios para o bem-estar humano. Análises empíricas sobre os impactos distributivos em diferentes grupos sociais são raras.

Os pagamentos diretos costumam ser mais eficazes que os incentivos indiretos. Por exemplo, projetos integrados de conservação-desenvolvimento - um incentivo indireto - destinados a permitir que as populações locais melhorem seu bem-estar capturando a disposição internacional para pagar pela conservação da biodiversidade raramente foram integrados em incentivos contínuos para a conservação. No geral, o sucesso a longo prazo dessas estratégias de resposta depende do atendimento das necessidades econômicas e sociais das comunidades cujo bem-estar já depende, em graus variados, dos produtos da biodiversidade e dos serviços ecossistêmicos que a biodiversidade sustenta (R5).

No entanto, os pagamentos diretos foram criticados por exigir compromissos financeiros contínuos para manter a ligação entre investimento e objetivos de conservação. Além disso, eles levaram, em alguns casos, a conflitos inter e intracomunitários.

No entanto, muitas histórias de sucesso mostram a eficácia dos pagamentos diretos e a transferência de direitos de propriedade ao fornecer incentivos para as comunidades locais para conservar a biodiversidade. A eficácia dos pagamentos na conservação da biodiversidade regional pode ser reforçada por novas abordagens que visam pagamentos com base em ganhos marginais estimados (valores de “complementaridade”) (R5 Quadro 5.3).

Melhorias significativas podem ser feitas para mitigar a perda de biodiversidade e as mudanças nos ecossistemas, removendo ou redirecionando os subsídios econômicos que causam mais danos do que benefícios. Os subsídios agrícolas nos países industrializados reduzem os preços mundiais de muitas commodities produzidas pelos países em desenvolvimento. Os preços mais baixos fornecem incentivos errados, incentivando esses países a adotarem atividades agrícolas insustentáveis ​​que destroem os ecossistemas, além de empurrar muitos agricultores pobres para a pobreza. Portanto, a remoção ou o redirecionamento de subsídios agrícolas é altamente provável por si só para produzir grandes melhorias nos serviços ecossistêmicos e para verificar a taxa de perda de biodiversidade (R5).

A promoção de resultados “ganha-ganha” tem sido politicamente correta na melhor das hipóteses e ingênua na pior das hipóteses. Incentivos econômicos que incentivam a conservação e o uso sustentável da biodiversidade são promissores. No entanto, os trade-offs entre biodiversidade, ganhos econômicos e necessidades sociais precisam ser reconhecidos de forma mais realista. Os benefícios da conservação da biodiversidade costumam ser generalizados, até mesmo globais, no caso de valores de existência ou sequestro de carbono, enquanto os custos de restringir o acesso à biodiversidade estão concentrados em grupos que vivem perto de áreas ricas em biodiversidade (R5).

6.3 Como as espécies invasoras podem ser abordadas?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

O manejo direto de espécies invasoras se tornará uma resposta de conservação da biodiversidade ainda mais importante, tipicamente exigindo uma resposta em nível de ecossistema se a espécie invasora se estabelecer. O controle ou a erradicação de uma espécie invasora, uma vez estabelecida, é muitas vezes extremamente difícil e dispendioso, enquanto a prevenção e a intervenção precoce demonstraram ser mais bem sucedidas e custo-efetivas. Fatores comuns em casos de erradicação incluem características biológicas particulares das espécies alvo (por exemplo, fraca capacidade de dispersão), detecção / resposta precoce, recursos econômicos suficientes dedicados por uma duração suficiente e amplo apoio das agências relevantes e do público. A prevenção bem-sucedida requer maiores esforços no controle e regulação do transporte de espécies invasoras devido ao comércio internacional (R5).

O controlo químico de espécies vegetais invasivas, por vezes combinado com a remoção mecânica, como corte ou poda, tem sido útil para controlar pelo menos algumas plantas invasivas, mas não se revelou particularmente bem sucedido na erradicação. Além de sua baixa eficiência, o controle químico pode ser caro. O controle biológico de espécies invasivas também foi tentado, mas os resultados são mistos (R5). Por exemplo, a introdução de um caracol predador não nativo para controlar o caracol gigante africano no Havaí levou à extinção de muitos caracóis nativos. Cerca de 160 espécies de agentes biológicos, principalmente insetos e fungos, são registradas para controlar espécies invasoras na América do Norte, e muitas delas parecem altamente eficazes. No entanto, pelo menos alguns dos agentes biológicos utilizados são invasores potenciais. A triagem ambiental e a avaliação de risco podem minimizar a probabilidade de impactos negativos em espécies nativas não-alvo.

Aspectos sociais e econômicos do controle de espécies invasoras receberam menos atenção, talvez por causa das dificuldades em estimar esses trade-offs. O Programa Global de Espécies Invasoras é uma resposta internacional para resolver o problema. A CDB adotou Princípios Orientadores sobre Espécies Exóticas Invasoras (Decisão VI / 23) como uma resposta política básica, mas ainda é cedo para avaliar a eficácia da implementação (R5).

O uso sustentável de recursos naturais é parte integrante de qualquer programa de desenvolvimento sustentável, mas sua contribuição para a conservação continua sendo um assunto altamente controverso dentro da comunidade de conservação. A conservação de espécies quando o objetivo da gestão é garantir a disponibilidade de recursos para sustentar a subsistência humana é freqüentemente mal sucedido. Isso ocorre porque o manejo ideal para a extração de recursos naturais freqüentemente causa impactos negativos em espécies destinadas à conservação. Portanto, o cuidado no estabelecimento de incentivos positivos para a conservação e uso sustentável é fundamental para o sucesso da conservação da biodiversidade (R5).

Onde o objetivo é a conservação de espécies, e onde uma população específica tem uma identidade distinta e pode ser gerenciada diretamente, as abordagens de gerenciamento de espécies podem ser eficazes. No entanto, a gestão de uma única espécie raramente é eficaz quando o objetivo é o funcionamento do ecossistema, que está ligado a todo o conjunto de espécies presentes na área. Onde os meios de subsistência humanos dependem de recursos de espécies únicas, o manejo de espécies pode ser efetivo (por exemplo, algumas espécies pesqueiras e de caça), mas onde as pessoas dependem de diferentes recursos silvestres, como é freqüentemente o caso, o manejo de várias espécies é apropriado (R5)

6.4 Como as áreas protegidas beneficiam a biodiversidade e os seres humanos?

6.4.1 Estratégias para integrar questões de biodiversidade nos setores de produção 6.4.2 Contribuições do setor privado para os objetivos de biodiversidade.

6.4.1 Estratégias para integrar questões de biodiversidade nos setores de produção.

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

No nível nacional, a integração das questões de biodiversidade na agricultura, pesca e manejo florestal estimula a colheita sustentável e minimiza os impactos negativos sobre a biodiversidade. A biodiversidade só será conservada e usada de forma sustentável quando se tornar uma preocupação predominante dos setores de produção. A agricultura depende diretamente da biodiversidade, mas as práticas agrícolas nas últimas décadas têm se concentrado em maximizar os rendimentos. A pesquisa e o desenvolvimento concentraram-se em poucas espécies relativamente produtivas, ignorando assim a importância potencial da biodiversidade. Estratégias efetivas de resposta incluem a intensificação sustentável, que minimiza a necessidade de expandir a área total para produção, permitindo assim mais área para a conservação da biodiversidade. Práticas como manejo integrado de pragas, algumas formas de agricultura orgânica e proteção de margens de campo, zonas ribeirinhas e outros habitats não cultivados dentro de fazendas podem promover relações sinérgicas entre agricultura, biodiversidade doméstica e biodiversidade silvestre. No entanto, as avaliações das contribuições da biodiversidade de tal manejo revelam poucos dados sobre as contribuições para a conservação da biodiversidade regional (C26, R5).

Uma revisão de 36 iniciativas para conservar a biodiversidade selvagem e, ao mesmo tempo, melhorar a produção agrícola demonstrou benefícios para a diversidade da paisagem e dos ecossistemas, enquanto os impactos na diversidade de espécies foram muito específicos à situação. A avaliação do impacto dessas abordagens sofre com a falta de pesquisas consistentes e documentadas sobre os sistemas, particularmente em relação às interações entre a produção agrícola e a saúde do ecossistema (R5).

O desmatamento tropical em nível local pode ser controlado de maneira mais eficaz quando as necessidades de subsistência dos habitantes locais são abordadas dentro do contexto da silvicultura sustentável. Os primeiros proponentes da certificação florestal esperavam que fosse uma resposta eficaz ao desmatamento tropical, mas a maioria das florestas certificadas está no norte, administrada por grandes empresas e exportadora para os varejistas do norte (C9, C21). A proliferação de programas de certificação para atender às necessidades de diferentes interessados ​​significou que nenhum programa único emergiu como a única abordagem credível ou dominante internacionalmente (E8.9.9). As políticas de manejo florestal devem centrar-se na propriedade existente da terra e da água no nível da comunidade. Ferramentas legais relevantes incluem redesenhar a propriedade para o controle privado de florestas em pequena escala, parcerias público-privadas, gestão direta de florestas por povos indígenas e parcerias empresa-comunidade. Novos sistemas de posse da terra devem ser relevantes ao contexto e acompanhados pela fiscalização, para que sejam efetivos. Eles precisam incluir elementos de educação, treinamento, saúde e segurança para funcionar efetivamente (R5, R8).

6.4.2 Contribuições do setor privado para os objetivos da biodiversidade.

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

O setor privado pode fazer contribuições significativas para a conservação da biodiversidade. Algumas partes do setor privado estão demonstrando maior disposição para contribuir para a conservação da biodiversidade e o uso sustentável devido à influência de acionistas, clientes e regulamentação governamental. Mostrando uma maior responsabilidade social corporativa, muitas empresas estão preparando seus próprios planos de ação de biodiversidade, gerenciando suas próprias propriedades de maneira mais compatível com a conservação da biodiversidade, apoiando esquemas de certificação que promovam o uso mais sustentável, trabalhando com várias partes interessadas e aceitando sua responsabilidade. abordando questões de biodiversidade em suas operações. A influência de acionistas ou clientes é limitada nos casos em que a empresa não é listada publicamente ou é de propriedade do governo.

Outros desenvolvimentos provavelmente se concentrarão em duas áreas principais. Primeiro, além de avaliar o impacto das empresas na biodiversidade, por mais importante que isso seja, será dada uma ênfase crescente aos serviços ecossistêmicos e à forma como as empresas confiam neles. Isso exigirá o desenvolvimento de mecanismos para que as empresas compreendam sua exposição ao risco e gerenciem esses riscos. Em segundo lugar, é provável que ocorra uma maior colaboração entre ONGs e empresas, a fim de explorar mais completamente as formas de reduzir as compensações prejudiciais e identificar sinergias positivas que possam levar a práticas de manejo sustentável mais eficazes (R5).

6.5 Quais abordagens de governança podem promover a conservação da biodiversidade?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

Abordagens de governança para apoiar a conservação da biodiversidade e o uso sustentável são necessárias em todos os níveis, com leis e políticas de apoio desenvolvidas pelos governos centrais, proporcionando a segurança da posse e autoridade essencial para o manejo sustentável em níveis mais baixos. O princípio de que a biodiversidade deve ser gerenciada no nível mais baixo apropriado levou à descentralização em muitas partes do mundo, com resultados variáveis. A chave para o sucesso são instituições fortes em todos os níveis, com segurança de posse e autoridade nos níveis mais baixos essenciais para fornecer incentivos para o manejo sustentável (R5).

Ao mesmo tempo em que o gerenciamento de alguns serviços ecossistêmicos está sendo transferido para níveis mais baixos, as abordagens de gerenciamento também estão evoluindo para lidar com processos de larga escala com muitas partes interessadas. Problemas como a escassez regional de água e a conservação de grandes ecossistemas requerem estruturas de gestão em larga escala. Por exemplo, a maioria dos principais rios da África Austral atravessa fronteiras internacionais, por isso as organizações internacionais de co-gestão da água estão a ser concebidas para partilhar a gestão dos recursos ribeirinhos e garantir a segurança da água para todos os membros. No entanto, a instabilidade política em um estado pode afetar negativamente os outros, e o poder entre as partes interessadas é provavelmente desigual.

Nem a centralização nem a descentralização da autoridade resultam sempre numa melhor gestão. Por exemplo, o poder das Agências de Gestão de Captação na África do Sul está restrito à sua captação, mas os impactos podem ser sentidos de fora ou a montante. A melhor estratégia pode ser a multi-subsidiariedade - isto é, funções que as organizações subordinadas desempenham efetivamente pertencem mais apropriadamente a elas (porque possuem as melhores informações) do que a uma organização central dominante, e a organização central funciona como um centro de apoio. , coordenação e comunicação (R5).

Os sistemas legais nos países são multicamadas e, em muitos países, práticas locais ou instituições informais podem ser muito mais fortes do que a lei no papel. Importantes costumes se relacionam com as normas e tradições locais de gerenciamento dos direitos de propriedade e dos ecossistemas ao seu redor. Uma vez que estes estão incorporados nas sociedades locais, mudar estes costumes e direitos consuetudinários através de esquemas externos de incentivo e desincentivo é muito difícil, a menos que os incentivos sejam cuidadosamente desenhados. O conhecimento local, integrado com outros conhecimentos científicos, torna-se absolutamente crítico para abordar formas de gerenciar os ecossistemas locais.

É necessário mais esforço na integração de atividades de conservação e uso sustentável da biodiversidade dentro de estruturas de tomada de decisões macroeconômicas mais amplas. Novas estratégias de redução da pobreza foram desenvolvidas nos últimos anos, cobrindo uma ampla gama de políticas e diferentes escalas e atores. No entanto, a integração ou a integração dos ecossistemas e serviços ecossistêmicos é amplamente ignorada. O foco dessas estratégias é geralmente a estabilidade institucional e macroeconômica, a geração de crescimento setorial e a redução do número de pessoas que vivem com menos de US $ 1 por dia nos países pobres. Está bem documentado que muitos dos programas de ajuste estrutural da metade até o final da década de 1980 causaram deterioração nos serviços ecossistêmicos e um aprofundamento da pobreza em muitos países em desenvolvimento (R17).

A cooperação internacional por meio de acordos ambientais multilaterais exige maior compromisso com a implementação de atividades que efetivamente conservem a biodiversidade e promovam o uso sustentável dos recursos biológicos. Inúmeros acordos ambientais multilaterais já foram estabelecidos e contribuem para a conservação da biodiversidade. A Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica é a mais abrangente, mas numerosas outras também são relevantes, incluindo a Convenção do Patrimônio Mundial, a Convenção sobre o Comércio Internacional de Espécies Ameaçadas da Fauna e Flora Silvestres, a Convenção Ramsar sobre Áreas Úmidas, a Convenção sobre Espécies Migratórias, Convenção das Nações Unidas de Combate à Desertificação, Convenção-Quadro das Nações Unidas sobre Mudança do Clima e inúmeros acordos regionais. Seus impactos nos níveis político e prático dependem da vontade das partes contratantes (R5).

Respostas efetivas podem basear-se em tentativas recentes (como por meio de planos de trabalho conjuntos) para criar sinergias entre as convenções. A falta de jurisdição obrigatória para a resolução de disputas é uma grande fraqueza no direito ambiental internacional. No entanto, os requisitos para informar as convenções pressionam os países a tomar medidas ativas no âmbito desses tratados. Um instrumento eficaz deve incluir incentivos, além de sanções por violações ou procedimentos de descumprimento para ajudar os países a entrar em conformidade. As ligações entre as convenções de biodiversidade e outras instituições jurídicas internacionais que têm impactos significativos sobre a biodiversidade (como a Organização Mundial do Comércio) permanecem fracas (R5).

Os acordos internacionais com maior impacto sobre a biodiversidade não estão no campo ambiental, mas lidam com questões econômicas e políticas. Estes normalmente não levam em conta seu impacto sobre a biodiversidade. Respostas bem-sucedidas exigirão que esses acordos estejam intimamente ligados a outros acordos e que as soluções projetadas para um regime não gerem problemas em outros regimes. Por exemplo, os esforços para seqüestrar carbono sob o Protocolo de Kyoto devem procurar aumentar a biodiversidade, e não prejudicá-la (por exemplo, plantando várias espécies de árvores nativas ao invés de plantações monoespecíficas de espécies exóticas) (R5).

Embora a perda de biodiversidade seja um problema global reconhecido, a maioria das ações diretas para deter ou reduzir perdas precisa ser tomada local ou nacionalmente. Fatores indiretos, como a globalização e as decisões internacionais sobre comércio e economia, freqüentemente têm um efeito negativo sobre a biodiversidade e devem ser abordados em nível internacional, mas a responsabilidade aproximada de detectar e agir diretamente sobre a perda de biodiversidade é em nível local e nacional. Para espécies endêmicas ameaçadas ou ecossistemas limitados a uma área dentro de um único país ou unidade administrativa local, as agências relevantes devem dar alta prioridade a essas espécies ou ecossistemas, com apoio apropriado de sistemas de apoio globais, regionais ou nacionais (R5).

6.6 Quais são os principais fatores de sucesso das ações de conservação?

O documento de origem para este resumo afirma:

Existem inúmeras opções de resposta para melhorar os benefícios dos serviços ecossistêmicos para as sociedades humanas, sem prejudicar a biodiversidade. As mudanças políticas e sociais que ocorrem agora em muitas partes do mundo terão conseqüências de longo alcance para a maneira como os serviços ecossistêmicos e o bem-estar humano serão gerenciados no futuro; É, portanto, imperativo desenvolver uma maior compreensão das condições necessárias para a escolha e implementação de respostas. (Ver caixa 5.1)

As respostas não funcionam no vácuo. Uma variedade de condições capacitadoras - uma combinação de liberdades instrumentais e estruturas institucionais - desempenham papéis críticos na determinação do sucesso ou fracasso de uma estratégia de resposta. O sucesso ou fracasso de muitas respostas é largamente influenciado pelos vários quadros institucionais em vigor num país (CF3, R17).

Os programas de educação e comunicação informaram e modificaram as preferências para a conservação da biodiversidade e melhoraram a implementação das respostas da biodiversidade (R5). Dados e descobertas científicas precisam ser disponibilizados para toda a sociedade. Um grande obstáculo para conhecer (e, portanto, valorizar), preservar, usar de forma sustentável e compartilhar benefícios de maneira equitativa da biodiversidade de uma região é a capacidade humana e institucional de pesquisar a biota de um país. A iniciativa da CONABIO no México e o INBio na Costa Rica oferecem exemplos de modelos nacionais bem-sucedidos para converter informações taxonômicas básicas em conhecimento para políticas de conservação da biodiversidade, bem como para outras políticas relacionadas a ecossistemas e biodiversidade.

Ecosystem restoration activities are now common in many countries and include actions to restore almost all types of ecosystems, including wetlands, forests, grasslands, estuaries, coral reefs, and mangroves. Restoration will become an increasingly important response as more ecosystems become degraded and as demands for their services continue to grow. Ecosystem restoration, however, is generally far more expensive an option than protecting the original ecosystem, and it is rare that all the biodiversity and services of a system can be restored ( R5 ).

Rather than the “win-win” outcomes promoted (or assumed) by many practitioners of integrated conservation and development projects, conflict is more often the norm, and trade-offs between conservation and development need to be acknowledged. Identifying and then negotiating trade-offs is complex, involving different policy options, different priorities for conservation and development, and different stakeholders. In the case of biodiversity conservation, the challenge is in negotiating these trade-offs, determining levels of acceptable biodiversity loss, and encouraging stakeholder participation. Where trade-offs must be made, decision-makers must consider and make explicit the consequences of all options. Better trade-offs from policies that remove perverse incentives or create markets for biodiversity protection can achieve a given level of biodiversity protection (regionally) at lower cost ( R5 ).

The “ecosystem approaches” as developed by the CBD and others provide principles for integration across scales and across different responses. Central to the rationale is that the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems and that integration can be achieved through both spatial and temporal separation across the landscape, as well as through integration within a site. The MA sub-global assessments highlight useful synergies and trade-offs where different responses are integrated into a coherent regional framework ( SG9 ). While some effective approaches will not require quantification of biodiversity gains, quantifying marginal gains and losses from different sources can strengthen such integration and enable one strategy to complement another in a targeted, strategic way ( R17 ).

Society may receive greater net benefits when opportunity costs of conservation in a particular location are adjusted to reflect positive gains from ecosystem services provided and when the setting of biodiversity targets takes all land and water use contributions into account ( C5 Box 5.2, R5, R17 ). Debates about the relative value of formal protected areas versus lands that are more intensely used by people but that conserve at least some components of biodiversity are more constructive when conservation is seen as a continuum of possibilities. Weaknesses of both ends of the spectrum can be overcome by linking them in integrated regional strategies ( R5 ).

For example, an area converted to agriculture can lead to loss of biodiversity but can still contribute to regional biodiversity if it contributes certain complementary elements of biodiversity to overall regional biodiversity conservation. Formal protected areas are criticized for foreclosing other opportunities for society, but an integrated regional approach can build on the biodiversity protection gains from the surrounding lands, thereby reducing some of the pressure for biodiversity protection in the face of other anticipated uses over the region. Many contributions to overall biodiversity protection are made from production landscapes or other lands outside of protected areas, and integration allows these contributions to be credited at the regional planning scale and to increase regional net benefits. However, the ideal of measurable gains from production lands should not reduce the more general efforts to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors; even without formal estimates of complementarity values, mainstreaming poliВ­cies can be seen as important aspects of integration. ( R5 )

6.7 How could important drivers of biodiversity loss be addressed?

The source document for this Digest states:

Many of the responses designed with the conservation of biodiversity or ecosystem service as the primary goal will not be sustainable or sufficient unless indirect and direct drivers of change are addressed. Numerous responses that address direct and indirect drivers would be particularly important for biodiverВ­sity and ecosystem services:

Elimination of subsidies that promote excessive use of specific ecosystem services. Subsidies paid to the agricultural sectors of OECD countries between 2001 and 2003 averaged over $324 billion annually, or one third the global value of agricultural products in 2000 ( S7 ). These subsidies lead to overproduction, reduce the profitability of agriculture in developing countries, and promote overuse of fertilizers and pesticides. Similar problems are created by fishery subsidies, which amounted to approximately $6.2 billion in OECD countries in 2002, or about 20% of the gross value of production ( S7 ). Although removal of perverse subsidies will produce net benefits, it will not be without costs. Some of the people benefiting from production subsidies (through either the low prices of products that result from the subsidies or as direct recipients of subsidies) are poor and would be harmed by their removal. Compensatory mechanisms may be needed for these groups. Moreover, removal of agricultural subsidies within the OECD would need to be accompanied by actions designed to minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem services in developing countries. But the basic challenge remains that the current economic system relies fundamentally on economic growth that disregards its impact on natural resources. Promotion of sustainable intensification of agriculture ( C4, C26 ). The expansion of agriculture will continue to be one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss well into the twenty-first century. In regions where agricultural expansion continues to be a large threat to biodiversity, the development, assessment, and diffusion of technologies that could increase the production of food per unit area sustainably, without harmful trade-offs related to excessive consumption of water or use of nutrients or pesticides, would significantly lessen pressure on biodiversity. In many cases, appropriate technologies already exist that could be applied more widely, but countries lack the financial resources and intuitional capabilities to gain and use these technologies. Where agriculture already dominates landscapes, the maintenance of biodiversity within these landscapes is an important component of total biodiversity conservation efforts, and, if managed appropriately, can also contribute to agricultural productivity and sustainability through the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides (such as through pest control, pollination, soil fertility, protection of water courses against soil erosion, and the removal of excessive nutrients). Slowing and adapting to climate change ( R13 ). By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and change of ecosystem services globally. Harm to biodiversity will grow with both increasing rates in change in climate and increasing absolute amounts of change. For ecosystem services, some services in some regions may initially benefit from increases in temperature or precipitation expected under climate scenarios, but the balance of evidence indicates that there will be a significant net harmful impact on ecosystem services worldwide if global mean surface temperature increase more than 2В° Celsius above preindustrial levels or faster than 0.2В° Celsius per decade (medium certainty). Given the inertia in the climate system, actions to facilitate the adaptation of biodiversity and ecosystems to climate change will be necessary to mitigate negative impacts. These may include the development of ecological corridors or networks. Slowing the global growth in nutrient loading (even while increasing fertilizer application in regions where crop yields are constrained by the lack of fertilizers, such as parts of sub-Saharan Africa). Technologies already exist for reduction of nutrient pollution at reasonable costs, but new policies are needed for these tools to be applied on a sufficient scale to slow and ultimately reverse the increase in nutrient loading ( R9 ). Correction of market failures and internalization of environmental externalities that lead to the degradation of ecosystem services ( R17, R10, R13 ). Because many ecosystem services are not traded in markets, markets fail to provide appropriate signals that might otherwise contribute to the efficient allocation and sustainable use of the services. In addition, many of the harmful trade-offs and costs associated with the management of one ecosystem service are borne by others and so also do not weigh into decisions regarding the management of that service. In countries with supportive institutions in place, market-based tools can be used to correct some market failures and internalize externalities, particularly with respect to provisioning ecosystem services. Increased transparency and accountability of government and private-sector performance in decisions that affect ecosystems, including through greater involvement of concerned stakeholders in decision-making ( RWG , SG9 ). Laws, policies, institutions, and markets that have been shaped through public participation in decision-making are more likely to be effective and perceived as just. Stakeholder participation also contributes to the decision-making process because it allows for a better understanding of impacts and vulnerability, the distribution of costs and benefits associated with trade-offs, and the identification of a broader range of response options that are available in a specific context. And stakeholder involvement and transparency of decision-making can increase accountability and reduce corruption. Integration of biodiversity conservation strategies and responses within broader development planning frameworks. For example, protected areas, restoration ecology, and markets for ecosystem services will have higher chances of success if these responses are reflected in the national development strategies or in poverty reduction strategies, in the case of many developing countries. In this manner, the costs and benefits of these conservation strateВ­gies and their contribution to human development are explicitly recognized in the Public Expenditure Review and resources for the implementation of the responses can be set aside in national Mid-Term Budgetary Frameworks ( R17 ). Increased coordination among multilateral environmental agreements and between environmental agreements and other international economic and social institutions ( R17 ). International agreements are indispensable for addressing ecosystem-related concerns that span national boundaries, but numerous obstacles weaken their current effectiveness. The limited, focused nature of the goals and mechanisms included in most bilateral and multilateral environmental treaties does not address the broader issue of ecosystem services and human well-being. Steps are now being taken to increase coordination among these treaties, and this could help broaden the focus of the array of instruments. However, coordination is also needed between the multilateral environmental agreements and the more politically powerful international legal institutions, such as economic and trade agreements, to ensure that they are not acting at cross-purposes. Enhancement of human and institutional capacity for assessing the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and acting on such assessments ( RWG ). Technical capacity for agriculture, forestry, and fisheries management is still limited in many countries, but it is vastly greater than the capacity for effective management for ecosystem services not derived from these sectors. Addressing unsustainable consumption patterns ( RWG ). Consumption of ecosystem services and nonrenewable resources affects biodiversity and ecosystems directly and indirectly. Total consumption is a factor of per capita consumption, population, and efficiency of resource use. Slowing biodiversity loss requires that the combined effect of these factors be reduced.

World Bank Supports Mozambique’s Conservation and Biodiversity Efforts to Reduce Poverty.

WASHINGTON, November 18, 2014 — The World Bank Group’s Board of Executive Directors today approved a US$40 million International Development Association (IDA)* grant to support the implementation of the Government of Mozambique’s Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project, known as Mozbio. This program benefits from an additional US$6.3 million grant provided by the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

Mozambique’s Conservation Areas (CAs) are made of diverse habitats that include a coastline with some of the most spectacular coral reefs in the world. The country possesses over 5,500 plant species, 222 mammal and 600 bird species. Despite such a rich biodiversity, poverty rates are extremely high across the population living within and around CAs, and the level of revenues from and investments to conservation related tourism is very low.

The Mozbio Project will strengthen the way CAs are protected and improve the lives of communities in and around the area through activities that establish efficient management and promote tourism, as well as create jobs, business opportunities and other sustainable livelihood efforts that focus on conservation and biodiversity.

“We want to help the country unleash the economic potential of conservation and tourism as means to foster sustainable poverty alleviation,” said Mark Lundell, World Bank Country Director for Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles and Comoros. “Integrated conservation development activities, such as conservation agriculture or sustainable forestry (including harvesting of non-timber forest products), as well as ecotourism create incentives for conservation among local communities and local governments, which in turn reduces the pressure on natural resources.”

The MozBio Project will address some of the most pressing challenges to CAs management, including strengthening institutional and policy framework for conservation, improving CAs management, particularly for marine CAs which has the greatest tourism potential, as well as broadening the livelihood options to communities living in and around the CAs. The project serves as a platform to address threats to conservation of Mozambique’s natural capital, promote nature-based tourism growth, integrated landscape management, and reducing high poverty levels around CAs.

“I’m happy we reached such an important milestone in this project life-cycle,” said Mr. Soto, the head of National Administration of Conservation Areas (ANAC). “This four-year project focuses on reducing rural poverty through improved schemes to share benefits from conservation and nature based-tourism to communities, increase conservation-related job creation and business opportunities in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors; and promote alternative livelihood activities that encourage communities to reduce destructive practices, such as poaching or deforestation”

The project will also promote innovative mechanisms to ensure sustainable financing of CAs, including the design and capitalization of an endowment fund to attract financing from different sectors (public, private, etc.): the so-called Biofund (Foundation for the Conservation of Biodiversity). The project will also bring positive social and environmental benefits at local, national and global levels. It is estimated that over 11,200 households (around 56,000 people) will benefit directly from the project. At the national level, the government will benefit through a stronger institutional framework for conservation and tourism promotion, as well as tax revenues from increased tourism activities around CAs. Protecting large areas of land has environmental benefits at the global level, both in terms of globally-important terrestrial and marine biodiversity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions given CAs’ role in protecting forests and other carbon-rich habitats (such as wetlands and mangroves) from deforestation and degradation.

This project supports the GoM poverty reduction strategy and contributes to the World Bank Country Partnership Strategy for Mozambique (2012-15), which has an overarching goal of promoting broad-based, inclusive, and pro-poor growth, and it is consistent with GEF strategies and policies to promote biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation.

* The World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), established in 1960, helps the world’s poorest countries by providing grants and low to zero-interest loans for projects and programs that boost economic growth, reduce poverty, and improve poor people’s lives. IDA is one of the largest sources of assistance for the world’s 77 poorest countries, 39 of which are in Africa. Resources from IDA bring positive change for 2.8 billion people living on less than $2 a day. Since 1960, IDA has supported development work in 112 countries. Annual commitments have averaged about $18 billion over the last three years, with about 50 percent going to Africa.

Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.

Destaques.

Patterns of meat consumption in tropical Americas, Africa, and Asia are examined.

Rates of meat production of tropical megadiverse countries are increasing.

Some countries may require 30–50% increases in land for meat production in 2050.

Livestock consumption in China and bushmeat in Africa are of special concern.

Solutions include reduction, replacement, and reintegration of livestock production.

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. Bushmeat consumption in Africa and southeastern Asia, as well as the high growth-rate of per capita livestock consumption in China are of special concern. The projected land base required by 2050 to support livestock production in several megadiverse countries exceeds 30–50% of their current agricultural areas. Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population. We suggest that impacts can be remediated through several solutions: (1) reducing demand for animal-based food products and increasing proportions of plant-based foods in diets, the latter ideally to a global average of 90% of food consumed; (2) replacing ecologically-inefficient ruminants (e. g. cattle, goats, sheep) and bushmeat with monogastrics (e. g. poultry, pigs), integrated aquaculture, and other more-efficient protein sources; and (3) reintegrating livestock production away from single-product, intensive, fossil-fuel based systems into diverse, coupled systems designed more closely around the structure and functions of ecosystems that conserve energy and nutrients. Such efforts would also impart positive impacts on human health through reduction of diseases of nutritional extravagance.

Resumo gráfico.

Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:

Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou sua instituição.

Explaining Global Patterns of International Aid for Linked Biodiversity Conservation and Development.

There is little systematic knowledge about the nature, extent, and trends of international aid for projects that link biodiversity conservation and development goals. This study uses a new dataset to analyze spatial and temporal patterns of such aid globally over the past three decades. Results reveal significant donor selectivity in aid allocation, though linked conservation and development aid comprised more than two-thirds of all biodiversity-related assistance. Biodiversity aid generally was directed to biodiversity-rich, well-governed countries, but countries able to exert greater political leverage secured more linked aid than aid targeted to conservation without a stated development objective.

Escolha uma opção para localizar / acessar este artigo:

Verifique se você tem acesso através de suas credenciais de login ou sua instituição.

Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions.

Author and Page information.

by Anup Shah This Page Last Updated Sunday, January 19, 2014 This page: globalissues/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions. To print all information (e. g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links), use the print version: globalissues/print/article/171.

On this page:

Massive Extinctions From Human Activity.

Despite knowing about biodiversity’s importance for a long time, human activity has been causing massive extinctions. As the Environment New Service , reported back in August 1999 (previous link): the current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue [resulting in] a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions. (Emphasis added)

A major report, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, released in March 2005 highlighted a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth, with some 10-30% of the mammal, bird and amphibian species threatened with extinction, due to human actions. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) added that Earth is unable to keep up in the struggle to regenerate from the demands we place on it.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes in a video that many species are threatened with extinction. Além do que, além do mais,

At threat of extinction are 1 out of 8 birds 1 out of 4 mammals 1 out of 4 conifers 1 out of 3 amphibians 6 out of 7 marine turtles 75% of genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost 75% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over exploited Up to 70% of the world’s known species risk extinction if the global temperatures rise by more than 3.5°C 1/3 rd of reef-building corals around the world are threatened with extinction Over 350 million people suffer from severe water scarcity.

Is this the kind of world we want, it asks? After all, the short video concludes, our lives are inextricably linked with biodiversity and ultimately its protection is essential for our very survival:

In different parts of the world, species face different levels and types of threats. But overall patterns show a downward trend in most cases.

Proportion of all assessed species in different threat categories of extinction risk on the IUCN Red List, based on data from 47,677 species. Source: IUCN, pie chart compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010.

As explained in the UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook, the rate of biodiversity loss has not been reduced because the 5 principle pressures on biodiversity are persistent, even intensifying:

Habitat loss and degradation Climate change Excessive nutrient load and other forms of pollution Over-exploitation and unsustainable use Invasive alien species.

Most governments report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity that these pressures are affecting biodiversity in their country (see p. 55 of the report).

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) maintains the Red List to assess the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale.

Extinction risks out pace any conservation successes. Amphibians are the most at risk, while corals have had a dramatic increase in risk of extinction in recent years.

The reasons vary from overuse of resource by humans, climate change, fragmented habitats, habitat destruction, ocean acidification and more.

Research of long term trends in the fossil record suggests that natural speed limits constrain how quickly biodiversity can rebound after waves of extinction. Hence, the rapid extinction rates mean that it could take a long time for nature to recover.

Consider the following observations and conclusions from established experts and institutions summarized by Jaan Suurkula, M. D. and chairman of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), noting the impact that global warming will have on ecosystems and biodiversity:

The world environmental situation is likely to be further aggravated by the increasingly rapid, large scale global extinction of species. It occurred in the 20 th century at a rate that was a thousand times higher than the average rate during the preceding 65 million years. This is likely to destabilize various ecosystems including agricultural systems.

…In a slow extinction, various balancing mechanisms can develop. Noone knows what will be the result of this extremely rapid extinction rate. What is known, for sure, is that the world ecological system has been kept in balance through a very complex and multifaceted interaction between a huge number of species. This rapid extinction is therefore likely to precipitate collapses of ecosystems at a global scale. This is predicted to create large-scale agricultural problems , threatening food supplies to hundreds of millions of people. This ecological prediction does not take into consideration the effects of global warming which will further aggravate the situation.

Industrialized fishing has contributed importantly to mass extinction due to repeatedly failed attempts at limiting the fishing.

A new global study concludes that 90 percent of all large fishes have disappeared from the world’s oceans in the past half century, the devastating result of industrial fishing. The study, which took 10 years to complete and was published in the international journal Nature, paints a grim picture of the Earth’s current populations of such species as sharks, swordfish, tuna and marlin.

…The loss of predatory fishes is likely to cause multiple complex imbalances in marine ecology.

Another cause for extensive fish extinction is the destruction of coral reefs . This is caused by a combination of causes, including warming of oceans, damage from fishing tools and a harmful infection of coral organisms promoted by ocean pollution. It will take hundreds of thousands of years to restore what is now being destroyed in a few decades .

…According to the most comprehensive study done so far in this field, over a million species will be lost in the coming 50 years . The most important cause was found to be climate change.

…NOTE: The above presentation encompasses only the most important and burning global environmental problems. There are several additional ones, especially in the field of chemical pollution that contribute to harm the environment or upset the ecological balance.

Jaan Suurkula, World-wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis; Part one — the problem, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology, February 6, 2004 [Emphasis is original]

Additionally, as reported by UC Berkeley, using DNA comparisons, scientists have discovered what they have termed as an evolutionary concept called parallelism, a situation where two organisms independently come up with the same adaptation to a particular environment. This has an additional ramification when it comes to protecting biodiversity and endangered species. This is because in the past what we may have considered to be one species could actually be many. But, as pointed out by scientists, by putting them all in one group, it under-represents biodiversity, and these different evolutionarily species would not be getting the protection otherwise needed.

Declining amphibian populations.

Amphibians are particularly sensitive to changes in the environment. Amphibians have been described as a marker species or the equivalent of canaries of the coal mines meaning they provide an important signal to the health of biodiversity; when they are stressed and struggling, biodiversity may be under pressure. When they are doing well, biodiversity is probably healthy.

Unfortunately, as has been feared for many years now, amphibian species are declining at an alarming rate.

The Golden Toad of Monteverde, Costa Rica was among the first casualties of amphibian declines. Formerly abundant, it was last seen in 1989. (Source: Wikipedia)

He added that If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon. (Emphasis added)

Reptiles threatened by climate change, deforestation, habitat loss, trade.

The BBC reported on a global-scale study published in the journal Science that found climate change could wipe out 20% of the world's lizard species by 2080.

Global projection models used by the scientists suggested that lizards have already crossed a threshold for extinctions caused by climate change .

The fear of lowland species moving to higher elevations has long been predicted as an effect of climate change. This has been observed with lizard populations too, as the leader of the research team told the BBC .

Why are lizards so sensitive to climate change? The BBC summarizes:

Lizards, the researchers say, are far more susceptible to climate-warming extinction than previously thought. Many species live right at the edge of their thermal limits .

Rising temperatures, they explained, leave lizards unable to spend sufficient time foraging for food, as they have to rest and regulate their body temperature.

Victoria Gill, Climate change link to lizard extinction, BBC, May 14, 2010 Green vine snake amongst the reptiles facing extinction. (Image credit: © Ruchira Somaweera/IUCN)

More generally, 19% of the world’s reptiles are estimated to be threatened with extinction, according to a study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Zoological Society of London.

Reptiles include species such as snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles and tortoises.

The study noted that the extinction risk is not evenly spread. For example, the study estimated 30% of freshwater reptiles to be close to extinction. Freshwater turtles alone are at a 50% risk of extinction, as they are also affected by national and international trade.

Why are reptiles so sensitive to environmental conditions? The lead author on the paper summarizes:

Reptiles are often associated with extreme habitats and tough environmental conditions, so it is easy to assume that they will be fine in our changing world. However, many species are very highly specialized in terms of habitat use and the climatic conditions they require for day to day functioning. This makes them particularly sensitive to environmental changes.

Dwindling fish stocks.

The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, notes that,

About 80 percent of the world marine fish stocks for which assessment information is available are fully exploited or overexploited.

Fish stocks assessed since 1977 have experienced an 11% decline in total biomass globally, with considerable regional variation. The average maximum size of fish caught declined by 22% since 1959 globally for all assessed communities. There is also an increasing trend of stock collapses over time, with 14% of assessed stocks collapsed in 2007.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.48.

IPS reports that fish catches are expected to decline dramatically in the world’s tropical regions because of climate change. Furthermore, in 2006, aquaculture consumed 57 percent of fish meal and 87 percent of fish oil as industrial fisheries operating in tropical regions have been scooping up enormous amounts of fish anchovies, herring, mackerel and other small pelagic forage fish to feed to farmed salmon or turn into animal feed or pet food. This has resulted in higher prices for fish, hitting the poorest the most.

As Suurkula mentioned above, mass extinctions of marine life due to industrialized fishing has been a concern for many years. Yet, it rarely makes mainstream headlines. However, a report warning of marine species loss becoming a threat to the entire global fishing industry did gain media attention.

As also explained on this site’s biodiversity importance section, ecosystems are incredibly productive and efficient—when there is sufficient biodiversity. Each form of life works together with the surrounding environment to help recycle waste, maintain the ecosystem, and provide services that others—including humans—use and benefit from.

For example, as Steve Palumbi of Stamford University (and one of the authors of the paper) noted, the ocean ecosystems can.

Take sewage and recycle it into nutrients; Scrub toxins out of the water; Produce food for many species, including humans Turns carbon dioxide into food and oxygen.

With massive species loss, the report warns, at current rates, in less than 50 years, the ecosystems could reach the point of no return, where they would not be able to regenerate themselves.

Dr. Boris Worm, one of the paper’s authors, and a world leader in ocean research, commented that:

Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world’s ocean, we saw the same picture emerging. In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems. I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are—beyond anything we suspected.

Dr. Boris Worm, Losing species, Dalhousie University, November 3, 2006.

Current is an important word, implying that while things look dire, there are solutions and it is not too late yet. The above report and the IPS article noted that protected areas show that biodiversity can be restored quickly. Unfortunately, less than 1% of the global ocean is effectively protected right now and where [recovery has been observed] we see immediate economic benefits, says Dr. Worm. Time is therefore of the essence.

In an update to the above story, 3 years later, 2009, Dr. Worm was a bit more optimistic that some fish stocks can rebound, if managed properly. But it is a tough challenge since 80 percent of global fisheries are already fully or over-exploited.

An example of overfishing that has a ripple-effect on the whole fish-food chain is shark hunting.

The Great White Shark is the largest predatory fish. (Fonte: Wikipedia)

An estimated 100 million sharks are being killed each year according to the journal, Marine Policy which published a report in 2013 representing the most accurate assessment to date (although the challenge in obtaining the data was reflected in their estimate range: 63 – 270 million, of which 100 million is the median estimate.

Millions are killed from overfishing and trade. Many die accidentally in fishing nets set for tuna and swordfish, while others are caught for their meat or just for their fins.

A demand for shark-fin soup in places like China and Taiwan is decimating shark populations. Shark fin soup is considered a delicacy (not even a necessity) and can be extremely lucrative. So much money can be obtained just from the fin that fishermen hunting sharks will simply catch sharks and cut off their fins while they are alive, tossing the wriggling shark back into the ocean (to die, as it cannot swim without its fin). This saves a lot of room on fishing boats. Some video footage shown on documentaries such as National Geographic reveal how barbaric and wasteful this practice is.

Sharks are known as the apex predator of the seas. That is because in general sharks are at the top of the food chain. Without sufficient shark numbers the balance they provide to the ecosystem is threatened because nature evolved this balance through many millennia.

As WWF, the global conservation organization notes, Contrary to popular belief, shark fins have little nutritional value and may even be harmful to your health over the long term as fins have been found to contain high levels of mercury.

The additional concern is that many of the most threatened species are slow to reproduce, so their populations cannot keep up with the rate they are being needlessly killed.

Another effect of overfishing has been the rise in illegal fishing. But even legal, high-tech fishing has caused other social problems. Poor fishermen in Somalia have found themselves without livelihoods as international fishing ships have come into their area destroying their livelihoods. Some of them have then resorted to piracy in desperation. Clearly not all blame should be laid at the international fishing system as it is also individual choice, but the desperation and other geopolitical issues in the region can turn people to do things they normally would not.

Declining Ocean Biodiversity.

It is not just fish in the oceans that may be struggling, but most life in the seas. This includes mammals (e. g. whales, dolphins, polar bears), birds (e. g. penguins), and other creatures (e. g. krill).

Ocean degradation has been feared to be faster than previously thought.

The health of the ocean is spiraling downwards far more rapidly than we had thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.

Professor Alex Rogers of Somerville College, Oxford, and Scientific Director of IPSO, Latest Review of Science Reveals Ocean in Critical State From Cumulative Impacts , The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), October 3, 2013.

The factors affecting the ocean’s health includes:

These impacts will have cascading consequences for marine biology, including altered food web dynamics and the expansion of pathogens, the IPSO also notes. These factors are also looked at in further detail on this site’s article on climate change and biodiversity as well as covered in more depth by IPSO’s report, State of the Ocean.

The Census of Marine Life is a global network of researchers and scientists. They’ve been involved in a decade-long initiative to assess diversity, distribution and abundance of life in the oceans. A better understanding of these complex systems is clearly important given our dependence on the marine ecosystem in various ways.

This first Census of Marine Life (CoML) hopes to act as a baseline of how human activity is affecting previously unexplored marine ecosystems. A database of global marine life has also published as well as numerous videos (also on YouTube) and images.

Although it is a large project (in terms of cost, scope and duration), there are still many unknowns that will need further research. For example, the current number of known marine species is estimated at 250,000. However, scientists believe that there as many as three times this number are yet to be discovered and named. (See page 3 of their main 2010 report.)

The Census was able to determine, however, that over-fishing was reported to be the greatest threat to marine biodiversity in all regions followed by habitat loss and pollution. One of the summary reports also added that the fact that these threats were reported in all regions indicates their global nature. A collection of regional and overview reports were also published on the Public Library of Science web site.

In the past century, commercial whaling has decimated numerous whale populations, many of which have struggled to recover.

Whaling stations like this one in the Faroe Islands is also used to hold hunted dolphins and other animals. (Image source: Wikipedia)

Commercial whaling in the past was for whale oil. With no reason to use whale oil today, commercial whaling is mainly for food, while there is also some hunting for scientific research purposes.

Large scale commercialized whaling was so destructive that in 1986 a moratorium on whaling was set up by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). As early as the mid-1930s, there were international attempts to recognize the impact of whaling and try and make it more sustainable, resulting in the actual set up of the IWC in 1946. Many commercial whaling nations have been part of this moratorium but have various objections and other pressures to try and resume whaling.

Japan often claims its whale-hunting is for scientific research; the general population are often quite skeptical of such claims. (Image source: © Greenpeace)

Japan is the prime example of hunting whales for the stated aim of scientific research while a lot of skepticism says it is for food. Greenpeace and other organizations often release findings that argue Japan’s whaling to be excessive or primarily for food, and for research as secondary.

General public negativity of commercial whaling has also led to a difference between traditional whaling communities in the arctic region and conservationists. Traditional indigenous communities have typically hunted whale in far smaller numbers commercially, mostly for local food consumption, but the impacts of large-scale commercial whaling has meant even their hunting is under pressure.

Some have argued for whale hunting as a way to sustain other marine populations. National Geographic Wild aired a program called, A Life Among Whales (broadcast June 14, 2008). It noted how a few decades ago, some fishermen campaigned for killing whales because they were apparently threatening the fish supply. A chain of events eventually came full circle and led to a loss of jobs:

The massive reduction in the local whale population meant the killer whales in that region (that usually preyed on the younger whales) moved to other animals such as seals As seal numbers declined, the killer whales targeted otters As otter numbers were decimated, the urchins and other targets of otters flourished These decimated the kelp forests where many fish larvae grew in relative protection The exposed fish larvae were easy pickings for a variety of sea life Fishermen’s livelihoods were destroyed.

This may be a vivid example of humans interfering and altering the balance of ecosystems and misunderstanding the importance of biodiversity.

Dr. Sylvia Earle, described as a Living Legend by the US Library of Congress, is a world-renowned oceanographer, explorer, author, and lecturer. In the early 1990s she was the Chief Scientist of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the US. In 2009 she won the prestigious TED prize. As part of the prize, she was able to share a wish, which captured some major concerns about dwindling ocean biodiversity and its importance to all life on earth:

Increasing rapid ocean acidification, caused by the oceans absorbing more carbon dioxide than usual (because it is emitted by humans more than it should) also affects marine ecosystems, as explained on this site’s climate change and biodiversity page.

Inland water ecosystems.

We use water for a variety of purposes from agricultural, domestic and industrial uses. This has involved activities that alter surrounding ecosystems, such as drainage, diversion of water for irrigation, industrial and domestic use, contaminating water with excess nutrient run-off (e. g. from fertilizers) and industrial waste, building damns, etc.

The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report also mentioned earlier notes that shallow-water wetlands such as marshes, swamps and shallow lakes have declined significantly in many parts of the world. (p.42).

The report also notes that water quality in freshwater ecosystems is an important biodiversity indicator, yet global data is quite lacking. But there are numerous examples that are known. Quoting a number of examples from the report,

Between 56% and 65% of inland water systems suitable for use in intensive agriculture in Europe and North America had been drained by 1985. The respective figures for Asia and South America were 27% and 6%. 73% of marshes in northern Greece have been drained since 1930. 60% of the original wetland area of Spain has been lost. The Mesopotamian marshes of Iraq lost more than 90% of their original extent between the 1970s and 2002, following a massive and systematic drainage project. Following the fall of the former Iraqi regime in 2003 many drainage structures have been dismantled, and the marshes were reflooded to approximately 58% of their former extent by the end of 2006, with a significant recovery of marsh vegetation. More than 40% of the global river discharge is now intercepted by large dams and one-third of sediment destined for the coastal zones no longer arrives. These large-scale disruptions have had a major impact on fish migration, freshwater biodiversity more generally and the services it provides. They also have a significant influence on biodiversity in terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems.

The report also notes that The number of observed dead zones , coastal sea areas where water oxygen levels have dropped too low to support most marine life, has roughly doubled each decade since the 1960s. Many are concentrated near the estuaries of major rivers, and result from the buildup of nutrients, largely carried from inland agricultural areas where fertilizers are washed into watercourses. The nutrients promote the growth of algae that die and decompose on the seabed, depleting the water of oxygen and threatening fisheries, livelihoods and tourism. (p. 60)

We can be optimistic and believe human ingenuity will solve these kind of problems. Por exemplo,

The report does add that combating nutrient pollution can work and overtime reverse the pressure on ecosystems. A number of European nations have been doing this recently. Additionally, an estimated 12% of the area of the world’s inland waters are included within protected areas. Governments of 159 countries have ratified the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, currently committed to conserving 1,880 wetlands of international importance, covering over 1.8 million square km, and to the sustainable use of wetland resources generally. In many countries, steps are being taken to restore wetlands, often reversing previous, sometimes recent land-use policies as there is increased recognition of the multiple benefits such as purification of water, protection from natural disasters, food and materials for local livelihoods and income from tourism.

However, it is not all rosy. As the report also notes. For example, despite the Ramsar Convention, conditions of those protected areas continue to deteriorate. Além disso,

In some areas, depletion and pollution of economically important water resources have gone beyond the point of no return, and coping with a future without reliable water resources systems is now a real prospect in parts of the world. UNESCO’s Third World Water Development Report predicts that nearly half of humanity will be living in areas of high water stress by 2030.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.43.

This site’s section on water and development looks into water related issues in more depth.

Loss of forests equates to a loss of many species.

A 20-year study has shown that deforestation and introduction of non-native species has led to about 12.5% of the world’s plant species to become critically rare. (In fact, as an example, a study suggests that the Amazon damage is worse than previously thought, due to previously undetected types of selective logging and deforestation.)

A report from the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development suggests that the forests of the world have been exploited to the point of crisis and that major changes in global forest management strategies would be needed to avoid the devastation.

What also makes this a problem is that many of the endangered species are only found in small areas of land, often within the borders of a single country.

New species of animals and plants are still being discovered. In Papua New Guinea, 44 new species of animals were discovered recently in the forests. Logging may affect these animals’ habitats, though. The loss of rainforests around the world, where many species of life are found will mean that potential knowledge, whether medicinal, sustenance sources, or evolutionary and scientific information etc. could be lost.

Brazil, which is estimated to have around 55,000 species of flora, amounting to some 22% of the world’s total and India for example, which has about 46,000 and some 81,000 animal species (amounting to some 8% of the world’s biodiversity), are also under various pressures, from corporate globalization, deforrestation, etc. So too are many other biodiverse regions, such as Indonesia, parts of Africa, and other tropical regions.

The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, also notes the extent to which deforestation is occurring as well as measures to address associated concerns.

The report notes (p.32) that forests.

Are approximately 31% of the Earth’s land surface, Contain more than half of all terrestrial animal and plant species (mostly in the tropics), and Account for more than two-thirds of net primary production on land – the conversion of solar energy into plant matter.

Deforestation, however, continues at an alarming rate , despite recent decreases in several tropical countries.

Comparing actual area of Brazilian portion of the Amazon deforested each year between 1990 and 2009 including the projected rate based on Brazilian government targets to reduce deforestation by 80% by 2020, and cumulative total deforestation as a percentage of the estimated original extent of the Brazilian Amazon (4.1 million km2). Source: Brazilian National Space Research Agency (INPE), graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.33.

The significant decline noted in the Brazilian Amazon is not enough to prevent the World Bank worrying about the future. The Global Biodiversity Outlook report notes that According to a recent study co-ordinated by the World Bank, 20% Amazon deforestation would be sufficient to trigger significant dieback of forest in some parts of the biome by 2025, when coupled with other pressures such as climate change and forest fires.

Furthermore, some of the reversals in deforestation is because of re forestation, but the report raises the same concerns as also noted further below. Namely, Since newly-planted forests often have low biodiversity value and may only include a single tree species, a slowing of net forest loss does not necessarily imply a slowing in the loss of global forest biodiversity. Between 2000 and 2010, the global extent of primary forest (that is, substantially undisturbed) declined by more than 400,000 square km, an area larger than Zimbabwe. (p. 32)

Sustainable Forests or Sustainable Profits?

The overly corporate-led form of globalization that we see today also affects how natural resources are used and what priorities they are used for.

It is true that cutting down forests or converting natural forests into monocultures of pine and eucalyptus for industrial raw material generates revenues and growth. But this growth is based on robbing the forest of its biodiversity and its capacity to conserve soil and water. This growth is based on robbing forest communities of their sources of food, fodder, fuel, fiber, medicine, and security from floods and drought.

Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), p.1 (Image source: Wikipedia)

We hear more about sustainable forestry practices by the large logging multinationals. However, what does that really mean? Who is it sustainable for? Society and the environment, or for the logging companies? By replanting trees that will grow quickly and allow them to be felled for sustained logging sounds like a good strategy. However, the trees that are favored for this (eucalyptus) require a lot of water to grow so quickly. As John Madeley points out:

[T]he [eucalyptus] trees achieve this rapid growth by tapping large quantities of groundwater, impoverishing surrounding vegetation and threatening to dry up local water courses.

John Madeley, Big Business Poor Peoples; The Impact of Transnational Corporations on the World’s Poor, (Zed Books, 1999) p.76.

Madeley continues by describing the impact that the use of chemicals to treat woodpulp from the eucalyptus has on local fisheries and on food production. This has had terrible effects on indigenous people within such regions.

10 years on from the above, Inter Press Service notes similar things, as activists around the Amazon complain about tree plantations.

Illegal Timber Trade on a Large Scale.

Some government institutions even buy illegal timber from pristine forests. For example, it is claimed that UK buys all of its Mahogany from pristine forests in Brazil where 80% of all timber is traded illegally. Even though Brazil has now tried to introduce a moratorium on Mahogany logging for two years, this has been slammed by some as too little, too late.

Legal Timber Trade on a Large Scale.

Under much secrecy, there is a push from USA and Asian economies to reduce tariffs for wood and paper products. Also at the WTO Ministerial meeting in November 1999, opening more markets for easier access was the agenda, which included forests.

People and Forests.

Quite often we make blanket statements or generalized conclusions that people are the cause of deforestation. While that is true, unfortunately all people around the world are not equal, and it also also follows that some are more responsible for deforestation than others. Often, in forests of the Amazon, Africa, or Asia, forest protection schemes have been promoted that go against indigenous peoples and cultures, rather than work with them.

As Indian activist and scientist Vandana Shiva and others have shown in countless work, indigenous people often have their cultures and lifestyle structured in a way that works with nature and would not undermine their own resource base. For example, in her book Stolen Harvests (South End Press, 2000) she describes how their traditional knowledge has been beneficial to the environment and has been developed and geared towards this understanding and respect of the ecosystems around them.

Hopetoun falls, Australia; an example of trying to preserve nature while allowing tourism. (Fonte: Wikipedia)

Yet because of blanket conclusions that humankind is responsible for deforestation, we risk assuming all types of societies are equally responsible for deforestation that is damaging to the environment. (This hints then, that for sustainable development projects, a more participatory approach can be accepted by local people, reducing the chance for conflict and distrust and therefore be more likely to succeed as well.)

As the cartoon, further above, from the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment notes, logging companies and others can often have a larger impact on deforestation. Industrial agriculture and beef production for example, is a major cause of deforestation in the Amazon, to raise cattle. This is not even for local needs, but to meet fast food restaurant demands in the Northern countries. A combination of geopolitics and economic agreements foster a scenario for such results to occur.

The UN’s 3rd Global Biodiversity Outlook report, mentioned earlier, also notes how indigenous communities can benefit their local environments and is quoted at length:

Indigenous and local communities play a significant role in conserving very substantial areas of high biodiversity and cultural value.

In addition to officially-designated protected areas, there are many thousand Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) across the world, including sacred forests, wetlands, and landscapes, village lakes, catchment forests, river and coastal stretches and marine areas. These are natural and/or modified ecosystems of significant value in terms of their biodiversity, cultural significance and ecological services. They are voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local communities, through customary laws or other effective means, and are not usually included in official protected area statistics.

Globally, 4 to 8 million square km (the larger estimate is an area bigger than Australia) are owned or administered by communities. In 18 developing countries with the largest forest cover, over 22% of forests are owned by or reserved for communities. In some of these countries (for example Mexico and Papua New Guinea) the community forests cover 80% of the total. By no means all areas under community control effectively conserved, but a substantial portion are. In fact, some studies show that levels of protection are actually higher under community or indigenous management than under government management alone.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, pp.40 – 41.

For more on this aspect of people and biodiversity, you can see also the following:

Centre for Science and Environment have a lot of resources on such issues. As an example, you can see: Forest campaign Pining for More, an article from their Down to Earth magazine (Vol 10, No 18 February 15, 2001). This article describes how Pine-based sustainable forests are not sustainable at all, and that Pine trees even make forest fires spread rapidly, while degrading local ecology, but grow fast, which is good for business. Participatory Forest Management—Restoring Ecological Health and Enhancing Economic Opportunity in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Todd Beer, Grassroots Globalization Network, Summer 2002. This is a report looking at how local communities in Sub-Saharan Africa can be beneficial to sustainable forest management. Vandana Shiva web site On this web site’s population and environmental stress section, there is in-depth discussion on flawed and missed out assumption regarding ecological limits and factors that affect environmental degradation. These errors lead to often blaming the wrong groups of people for the problems and therefore lead to the promotion of inappropriate policies to deal with the issues. Beef from this web site describes many aspects of deforestation and provides links and sources to other information. Ogiek web site. This web site is about the Ogiek indigenous people of Kenya’s Mau Forest, and highlights an example of how they are being denied to live on their lands, for fears of deforestation issues. Yet, logging companies have an interest in this forest as well. Saving forests: an inspiring success story from India from ID21 provides a summary of findings in India.

Mais Informações.

Some possible starting points for additional information include the following:

The World Resources Institute: Forest Frontiers Initiative. Forests section. Climate, Biodiversity, and Forests report, which looks at the link between forests, land-use and global warming. World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development This article titled Forests and Deforestation. This is a good article which also points out that humans are not inherently harmful to forest, and have in some cases positively contributed to forest evolution. It has a good look at various factors involved. ActivistNet deforestation resources. The Forests section from the Global Warming part of this web site, describes some of the relations between things like deforestation, carbon sinks and climate change.

Misuse of land and resources.

How land is used to produce food can have enormous impacts on the environment and its sustainability. And this often has nothing to do with populations. Take the following as an example:

Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil. The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to use in one day, if it gets water at all.

… Overall, animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world’s total grain production. In the United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock.

… In Indian Agriculture, women use up to 150 different species of plants (which the biotech industry would call weeds) as medicine, food, or fodder. For the poorest, this biodiversity is the most important resource for survival. … What is a weed for Monsanto is a medicinal plant or food for rural people.

Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71, 104-105.

Because industrial agriculture promotes the use of monocultures, rather than a diversity of crops, the loss of biodiversity is leading to more resource usage, as described above. This as well as other political situations such as the motives for dumping surplus food on to developing countries to undersell the local farmers, leads to further hunger around the world.

For more information on land and hunger issues, this web site provides sections on:

Long Term Costs.

If ecosystems deteriorates to an unsustainable level, then the problems resulting can be very expensive, economically, to reverse.

In Bangladesh and India, for example, logging of trees and forests means that the floods during the monsoon seasons can be very deadly. Similarly, many avalanches, and mud slides in many regions around the world that have claimed many lives, may have been made worse by the clearing of so many forests, which provide a natural barrier, that can take the brunt of such forces.

As the Centre for Science and Environment mentions, factors such as climate change and environmental degradation can impact regions more so, and make the impacts of severe weather systems even worse than they already are. As they further point out, for poor regions, such as Orissa in India, this is even more of a problem.

Vanishing coral reefs, forests and other ecosystems can all take their toll and even make the effects of some natural events even worse.

The cost of the effects together with the related problems that can arise (like disease, and other illness, or rebuilding and so on) is much more costly than the maintenance and sustainable development practices that could be used instead.

As an example, and assuming a somewhat alarmist scenario, if enough trees and forests and related ecosystems vanish or deteriorate sufficiently:

Then the oxygen-producing benefits from such ecosystems is threatened. The atmosphere would suffer from more pollution. The cost to tackle this and the related illnesses, problems and other cascading effects would be enormous (as it can be assumed that industrial pollution could increase, with less natural ecosystems to soak it up) Furthermore, other species in that ecosystem that would depend on this would be further at risk as well, which would lead to a downward spiral for that ecosystem.

Compare those costs to taking precautionary measures such as protecting forests and promoting more sustainable forms of development. Of course, people will argue that these situations will not occur for whatever reasons. Only when it is too late can others say told you so — a perhaps very nasty Catch 22.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an organization — backed by the UN and various European governments — attempting to compile, build and make a compelling economics case for the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity.

It has also attempted to put a value on the ecological services provided to humanity. It found, for example, implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help.

Halve deforestation by 2030, and Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO2 per year.

From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that.

It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 33 billion per year The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion.

In addition, they cited another study that estimated that 3,000 listed companies around the world were responsible for over $2 trillion in environmental externalities (i. e. costs that have to be borne by society from ignored factors, or social costs ). This is equivalent to 7% of their combined revenues and up to a third of their combined profits.

The benefits of these silent parts of our economy is also summarized in these videos by TEEB’s Pavan Sukhdev:

Social costs to some segments of society can also be high. Take for example the various indigenous Indians of Latin America. Throughout the region, as aspects of corporate globalization spread, there is growing conflict between land and resources of the indigenous communities, and those required to meet globalization related needs. The following quote from a report on this issue captures this quite well:

Many of the natural resources found on Indian lands have become more valuable in the context of the modern global economy. Several factors have spurred renewed interest in natural resources on Indian lands in Latin America, among them the mobility of capital, ecological limits to growth in developed countries, lax environmental restrictions in underdeveloped nations, lower transportation costs, advances in biotechnology, cheap third world labor, and national privatization policies. Limits to logging in developed countries have led timber transnationals overseas. Increased demand and higher prices for minerals have generated the reopening of mines and the proliferation of small-scale mining operations. Rivers are coveted for their hydroelectric potential, and bioprospecting has put a price tag on biodiversity. Originally considered lands unsuitable for productive activities, the resources on Indian lands are currently the resources of the future.

Indian land rights and decisionmaking authority regarding natural resource use on territories to which they hold claim threaten the mobility of capital and access to resources—key elements of the transnational-led globalization model. Accordingly, increased globalization has generally sharpened national conservative opposition to indigenous rights in the Americas and elsewhere in the name of making the world safe for investment. The World Trade Organization (WTO), free trade agreements, and transnational corporations are openly hostile to any legislation that might create barriers to investment or the unlimited exploitation of natural resources on Indian lands. The result has been a growing number of conflicts between indigenous communities and governments and transnational corporations over control of natural resources.

The Military and the Environment.

Many military forces of the world also have an effect on the environment. Sometimes, the scale of problems they leave when they move out of a training area or conflict is considerable. In some nations, such as the United States, the military can be exempt from many environmental regulations.

By no means a complete set of examples, the following illustrate some of the issues:

In the Gulf War and Kosovo crisis, the US and UK used depleted Uranium which have environmental consequences as well. In the Vietnam war, the US used Agent Orange to defoliate the entire Vietnamese rainforest ecosystem. The effects are still being felt. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, various forces often kill gorillas and other animals as they encroach upon their land. In Okinawa, the large US military bases also affect the environment for the local population. Vieques, Puerto Rico, the US use live rounds in bombing ranges, and low altitude flying for training. This also has had an effect on the environment. A report prepared by the Institute for Policy Studies, April 2000, called The International Grassroots Summit on Military Base Cleanup provides a lot of details and many more examples.

Attempts to promote biodiversity outweighed by activities against it.

At the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit ), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was born. 192 countries, plus the EU, are now Parties to that convention. In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention committed to significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity loss by 2010.

Perhaps predictably, that did not happen. As the Global Biodiversity Outlook report summarizes, despite numerous successful conservations measures supporting biodiversity,

The 2010 biodiversity target has not been met at the global level. None of the twenty-one sub-targets accompanying the overall target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 can be said definitively to have been achieved globally, although some have been partially or locally achieved. Despite an increase in conservation efforts, the state of biodiversity continues to decline, according to most indicators, largely because the pressures on biodiversity continue to increase. There is no indication of a significant reduction in the rate of decline in biodiversity, nor of a significant reduction in pressures upon it.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.17.

Action to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity has not been taken on a sufficient scale to address the pressures on biodiversity in most places. There has been insufficient integration of biodiversity issues into broader policies, strategies and programmes, and the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss have not been addressed significantly. Actions to promote … biodiversity receive a tiny fraction of funding compared to … infrastructure and industrial developments. Moreover, biodiversity considerations are often ignored when such developments…. Actions to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, including demographic, economic, technological, socio-political and cultural pressures, in meaningful ways, have also been limited.

Most future scenarios project continuing high levels of extinctions and loss of habitats throughout this century, with associated decline of some ecosystem services important to human well-being.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, pp.9–10.

Most indicators of the state of biodiversity show negative trends, with no significant reduction in the rate of decline:

An example of the positive efforts has been the growth in protected areas in recent years, including more protected marine areas:

The extent of nationally designated protected areas, 1970 to 2008 has generally increased. Source: UNEP-WCMC, graph compiled by Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May 2010, p.36.

However, the level of protection in protected areas is mostly basic:

Despite more than 12 per cent of land now being covered by protected areas, nearly half (44%) of terrestrial eco-regions fall below 10 per cent protection, and many of the most critical sites for biodiversity lie outside protected areas. Of those protected areas where effectiveness of management has been assessed, 13% were judged to be clearly inadequate, while more than one fifth demonstrated sound management, and the remainder were classed as basic .

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, May, 2010, p.35.

Although some dislike the thought of trying to put an economic value on biodiversity (some things are just priceless), there have been attempts to do so in order for people to understand the magnitude of the issue: how important the environment is to humanity and what costs and benefits there can be in doing (or not doing) something.

Implementing REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) could help.

Halve deforestation by 2030, and Cut emissions by 1.5 Gt of CO 2 per year.

From a cost perspective (p.18), it is estimated that.

It would cost from US$ 17.2 – 33 billion per year The estimated benefit in reduced climate change is US$ 3.2 trillion The above would be a good return on the initial investment. By contrast, waiting 10 more years could reduce the net benefit of halving deforestation by US$ 500 billion.

(The BBC puts that saving in a range, of $2 - 5 trillion, dwarfing costs of the banking crisis .)

The G8 nations, together with 5 major emerging economies — China, India, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico — use almost three-quarters of the Earth’s biocapacity An estimated 40% of world trade is based on biological products or processes.

Regardless of what one thinks about trying to put a monetary value on parts of the environment, the above numbers add to the case that taking care of the environment is important. (This particular issue is explored a bit further on this site’s page on why biodiversity is important.)

Other Related Global Issues and Causes.

Why is it that these problems seem to be in developing countries? Don’t they know how to take care of their environment? That is what many ask in the industrialized nations. What people in the richer countries often fail to realize is that often their very own lending hand has been the one that takes most of what the environment has to offer, often in an unsustainable way. The debt that the poor countries are in has led to the stripping of resources in order to pay back what is owed. Aprender mais:

This web site’s look at Consumption and consumerism provides a deeper look at the enormous costs to society and to the environment by certain consumption habits. Given that the culture of consumption is so central to most societies today, it is often the system itself that is very wasteful. This web site’s page on Debt and the Environment has more about the effects of debt on poverty and the environment. this web site’s page on structural adjustment has more details of how debt has occurred and the structural adjustment policies that have led to governments stripping their environmental resources, reducing the cost of labor, exporting more to the industrialized countries, often without feeding their own people first, repaying more debt than spending on health or education, and so on. We have seen a glimpse of how the environment is related to global policies that have caused poverty and how poverty can affect the environment. Slowly, projects are helping at the local level for people to take ownership of their environment and help foster a sustainable development cycle. However, globalization, in its current form may have additional effects on the environment too. To learn more about how trade and poverty in general are related, go to this web site’s section on Trade, Economy, & Related Issues. The Genetically Engineered Food section in this web site also discusses issues to do with patenting foods and seeds and introduces issues to do with the importance of agricultural diversity and other issues related to patents on genetic resources. Priscila Néri, from the social justice organization, Witness, posts an informative video asking if environmental rights are human rights. The point made is that for many communities, the environment provides a means for them to live. Environmental degradation jeopardizes that and as such, threaten their human rights too; the two are interwoven:

Onde vem a seguir?

Compartilhar isso.

Bookmark or share this with others using some popular social bookmarking web sites:

Link to this page from your site/blog.

Copy/paste the following HTML code to your page:

… to produce this:

Anup Shah, Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions, Global Issues , Updated: January 19, 2014.

Alternatively, copy/paste the following MLA citation format for this page:

Author and Page Information.

by Anup Shah Created: Monday, July 20, 1998 Last Updated: Sunday, January 19, 2014.

Navegação.

Compartilhar isso.

Page-related navigation.

Page Options.

Related Issues.

Vídeos relacionados.

Related News.

Navegação do site.

Most Popular Pages.

Recently Updated.

Useful Resources.

Anúncios.

Outras opções.

“Give a man a fish; Você o alimentou hoje. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.” — Old Chinese Saying.

Document Revision History.

Alternatives for broken links.

Sometimes links to other sites may break beyond my control. Where possible, alternative links are provided to backups or reposted versions here.

Conservation in Hong Kong: citizen scientists enlisted to record and safeguard city’s amazing biodiversity.

More coral species than the Caribbean, more bird species than New York or London, over a quarter of China’s marine species – nature is bountiful in Hong Kong, and citizens of all ages are being encouraged to record and safeguard it.

Marianne Bray UPDATED : Thursday, 14 Dec 2017, 4:02PM.

Jonathan Lee wandered through a forest in Tai Tam on the south side of Hong Kong Island.

In his bag, the 11-year-old budding ant expert had a camera and some boxes, hoping to add to his collection of six colonies as well as the 20 videos he has uploaded on his YouTube channel, “AntsHongKong”.

Nearby, genetic biologist Gert Grobler mixed wine with strawberries in one trap and nail polish with alcohol in another, in a bid to attract beetles – one of the world’s most diverse family of insects. Meanwhile, beyond the fence, wild boar crashed through the trees and bats whizzed overhead.

Create your own lab with BioHack Academy’s DIY biology course.

Welcome to Tai Tam Tuk BioBlitz, a 24-hour event held last month that attracted more than 350 people aged between three and 80, all eager to record as many species of plants and animals as possible.

Organised by the Tai Tam Tuk Foundation and funded by the Hong Kong government’s Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department as part of its biodiversity festival, it is the latest in a series of “citizen science” eventos. Its aim is to encourage Hongkongers to step beyond the covered walkways and subway tunnels of urban Hong Kong to document what’s in the sea and on land around them.

The guest of honour was a pioneer of citizen science, bird expert Jim Flegg.

Flegg was born in Hong Kong and once called Tai Tam Tuk home. Between 1968 and 1976, he was director of the British Trust for Ornithology, helping connect volunteers with scientists to gather information on birds.

Standing among the puffer fish, fiddler crabs and praying mantises on display, Flegg, now 80, was back to champion Hong Kong’s cause. He is still amazed by its biodiversity – and what remains undiscovered in the city.

“Survival of the world in general depends on knowing why areas such as this are as good as they are,” says the former BBC broadcaster.

Despite Hong Kong boasting the most skyscrapers of any city in the world and squeezing its 7.3 million people into 1,104 square kilometres of land, much of it unsuitable for construction, it also hosts more coral species than the Caribbean Sea, more bird species than New York or London, and more than one quarter of all the marine species recorded in Chinese waters, studies show.

“In a day [in Hong Kong] you can record 250 species of birds,” says Flegg. “It would take half a lifetime to do that in England.”

Fertile ecosystems such as corals and mangroves thrive in Hong Kong’s warm tropical air, and they nourish many plants and animals, according to Kevin K. Y. Ho, post-doctoral research fellow at HKU’s Swire Institute of Marine Science.

“In winter, babies like snails and barnacles come from Japan and Korea,” says Ho. “In summer we get tropical animals like crabs,” ele diz.

However, a study released by think tank Civic Exchange in July showed only one in six Hongkongers is aware of and concerned about conservation or biodiversity.

Hong Kong bamboo climbing frame project aims to change how children play.

To raise awareness, the government last year released a Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP), urging communities to “connect with nature” and encouraging educators to be more dynamic in the ways they teach biodiversity.

BioBlitzes have followed on from this. They are a fantastic platform to celebrate this diversity, says Jenna Ho Marris, co-founder of the Tai Tam Tuk Foundation. “Wetlands are disappearing faster than any other habitat, including forests,” ela diz. “But in Hong Kong, a wetland is only 20 minutes away from most people.”

The foundation hosted its first BioBlitz in 2015 and since then three Hong Kong universities have carried out their own “blitzes”. In 2019, an Eco-Learn Institute is also set to open in Sheung Shui, using a BioBlitz programme to cater for 16,000 people a year.

MakerBay, a co-working space for inventors, held the city’s first “Citizen Science Fair” in August, including its own Urban BioBlitz, and hosted workshops to make devices to measure water and air quality. Its director, Cesar Jung-Harada, believes that Hong Kong’s shift from fishing village to post-industrial world city now poses real challenges.

“We cannot rely only on government and universities,” Jung-Harada says. “Hong Kong people can contribute to the understanding and improvement of our environment, through data and direct action as citizen scientists.”

The recent Tai Tam Tuk BioBlitz was a success and recorded more than 500 different kinds of species, including a sea horse and a blue spider nicknamed “Tiffany Blue”.

To attract young citizen scientists, the latest BioBlitz included a session for children aged seven and under, in which participants pressed leaves and hunted for insects and plants. For older kids, Grobler was on hand to show them how to extract DNA from insects.

At a weekly community lab in the city, he encourages people to come up with their own DIY experiments, and one of his main projects is bar coding bird and animal species to demonstrate Hong Kong’s biodiversity.

One of the youngest and most dedicated DIY citizen scientists in Hong Kong is ant expert Lee, and he joins others in wanting to “get more people to like this stuff”.

On his many excursions he scoops up ant colonies with his hands and takes them home for closer observation. He posts videos entitled “Mass Ant Escape – Black crazy ants” and “Mistake of a careless cricket” to show how “ants are much more intelligent than you think”. He goes on “ant walks” outside his school and plans to map the different colonies around Stanley during the holidays.

Biohackers: the DIY biologists out to barcode all Hong Kong’s plants, insects and animals.

“I want to show people how fascinating they are,” says Lee. “They are capable of constructing amazing homes, [while] they do good for the environment by circulating soil and dispersing seeds. They defend their colony and they tend to eggs and babies. They really are different to what people see.”

To reach children beyond Tai Tam, and to make it more than a one-off event, the foundation has released a guide for teachers, so schools can conduct BioBlitzes in and around their campuses. It hosted a training session for 37 teachers, who were seen holding upturned umbrellas under trees and sucking on jars with pipes called pooters to catch insects.

In the Tai Tam Tuk BioBlitz, experts and volunteers uploaded photos to iNaturalist to work out the final species count, doing away with paper records. Volunteers from Hong Kong and Taiwan translated iNaturalist into Chinese, taking a lead from other citizen scientists in the city who localised a global mosquito app so people could add their sightings.

China’s key role in international fight to save one of rarest birds in the world from extinction.

Back at the BioBlitz, Ho Marris hears rustling in a compost bin. It’s a rat. She takes a quick photo and uploads it to iNaturalist. “Every observation counts,” ela diz.

The way forward for conservation.

Dickson Wong Chi-chun, deputy head of biology at the Ho Koon Nature Education Cum Astronomical Centre, in Tsuen Wan, who led a spider survey in the Tai Tam Tuk BioBlitz, says there are now 15,464 documented plant and animal species in the city.

Many are understudied, however, and he predicts that there are more than 20,000 species of bird, plant, insect and animal in Hong Kong, meaning there is much more work to be done.

Around 70 per cent of Hong Kong’s land is countryside, and 40 per cent is included in country parks. The city’s uplands – there are 47 peaks more than 500 metres high – and its streams, woodlands, shrub lands and grasslands provide many different habitats for all kinds of life, Wong says.

Thousands of animals face eviction as Chengdu wildlife shelter told to close.

To engage the public more in conservation, the Tai Tam Tuk Foundation is joining forces with NGOs to enter Hong Kong as one of 75 places involved in the global City Nature Challenge in 2018.

In April cities will vie to post the most observations of local wildlife on iNaturalist. Last year’s contest focused mainly on American cities, but this year’s included Tokyo, Sydney and Mumbai.

Tai Tam Tuk Foundation co-founder Ho Marris also plans to take data from last month’s BioBlitz to inform local conservation policy, while encouraging people to find out what is in their own backyard.

Ao se registrar, você concorda com nossos Termos & Privacidade e Política de Privacidade.

Você está inscrito. Achamos que você também gostaria.

Ao se registrar, você concorda com nossos Termos & Privacidade e Política de Privacidade.