Think globally and act globally
 Canis domesticus- a species not thought to go extinct anytime soon thanks to the huge amount of global funding spent on it! |
The IUCN recently released the 2006 Red List of Threatened Species. The ongoing decline of global biodiversity is shocking. We know that climate change, habitat destruction and invasive species are the top three causes of biodiversity loss but we are not doing enough in the places that need help the most.
It is impossible to preserve everything and the importance of biodiversity hotspots has been recognised yet many environmentalists tend to focus effort mainly on their own small corners of the world. In Bermuda for example, all of our environmental charities and NGOs are only concerned with the limited amount of local biodiversity here yet we are the third richest country in the world.
Developed countries usually have fairly good conservation laws and habitat protection compared to developing countries. Unfortunately most of the world's species are in the tropics and mainly in countries that can't afford to focus much attention on conservation because they have so many other problems. Additionally, they rely more heavily on their natural resources than developed countries need to.
I think some effort that is currently spent conserving small parts of developed countries in temperate regions (that have less biodiversity and low endemism) should be diverted to countries in the tropics that have greater biodiversity and a greater number of species facing extinction. Thousands of species and entire habitats in South America, South-East Asia and Africa are suffering from lack of efforts to protect them while people in Europe for example are quite happy to fund NGOs that focus on protecting a few native birds.
It is shame that people in developed countries usually spend more money protecting their limited wildlife close to home than they are willing to spend in order to protect a lot more biota further away. Conservation funds need to be prioritised so that biodiversity hot spots receive the most attention. There are many NGOs that spend money on international projects in very important areas but I'm sure if you compare the amount of funds raised by NGOs in Europe you would find that most of the cash goes towards local conservation.
I would like to see a lot more funds spent on initiatives like the the Alliance for Zero Extinction and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) although it is interesting to note that the latter conservation initiative is partly funded by the government of Japan (a government that refuses to cease the "scientific" slaughter of endangered whales and has no qualms about the destruction of blue fin tuna populations) and the World Bank (which, together with the IMF, is mostly responsible for ongoing poverty in Africa).
According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) developing country Parties should be given financial assistance by developed country Parties and I'd like to know just how much the developed countries are meeting these agreed requirements. However, the point I am making here is more about the private funding of environmental conservation and how the average person acts to preserve global biodiversity.
I think we all need to think AND act more globally.
Today's post is based on some thoughts I posted to the Envirolink discussion forum
Comments
National efforts simply aren't going to do it. This so underscores the need for global players and a willingness of national players to go along. What causes me most to despair is the ineffectualism of supra-national players these days. In an era in which the world's sole superpower doesn't care about the planet, the UN has been marginalised and shorn of power, and nationalism is on the rise everywhere (including in many NGOs), the gap between the problem and the remedy is widening.
Cute dog, though. ;-)
--b
Posted by: Brian | May 10, 2006 02:08 AM
Governments, international organizations, and even local town boards can only do so much, Brian; any individuals efforts is what can really make a difference. Here's an example of what I mean:
http://hm.indymedia.org/media/all/display/3687/index.php?limit_start=18
One quality of the process that makes that 4 to 6 times the produce per cultivated area possible is that the planting is done by hand. There is no need to leave bare ground for work to be done by heavy equipment. Where was those corn rows I was just looking at... Oh, it was in a hard copy on soil conservation. Lemme see if I can find another example ...
Ok, here's one - "Plant seeds 1 inch deep and 4 to 6 inches apart in rows 30 to 36 inches apart. Thin to 8- to 12-inch spacings when plants are 3 to 4 inches tall."
http://www.explore.cornell.edu/scene.cfm?scene=home%20gardening&stop=HG%20%2D%20Find%20a%20Vegetable&view=HG%20%2D%20Find%20a%20Vegetable%20Profile&ID=273
I've seen corn broadcast ( seed simply scattered over the field ) and grow into a fine stand at about 1/3 that spacing. The 30 to 36 inches between rows is solely to allow access by powered equipment.
All my garden work is similar, with 2, 3 and more times the produce per cultivated area as seems possible with conventional commercial production that uses heavy equipment.
So it seems that we might quite possibly get by with using ... 1/2, 1/3 the cultivated land that we currently do. But you seem to have a handle on 'the remedy'; have you a different idea ?
You might want to read up on Cuba also. Cuba may be the only nation on Earth that is practicing sustainable agriculture. I hear that they're quite conservative with the islands wildlife also:
http://csanr.wsu.edu/Cuba/index.htm
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm
Posted by: listenin | May 17, 2006 09:32 AM