Poor want biomass, not biodiversity, finds study
Sian Lewis and Naomi Antony
30 April 2010 |
EN
|
中文
Does he need biodiversity ... or biomass?
Flickr/angela7dreams
[LONDON] Preserving biodiversity may be the goal of conservationists and environmental activists, but preserving biomass is a more important priority for the poor, says a literature review.
The finding, which researchers said was unexpected, was the result of one of three reviews presented to a symposium this week (28-29 April).
"People just don't care about biodiversity," Craig Leisher, of the US-based Nature Conservancy, told SciDev.Net at the meeting, 'Linking biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction: what, why and how?' which was held at the UK's Zoological Society of London.
Leisher, who conducted the research with Neil Larsen, also from the Nature Conservancy, gave the example of a poor fisherman, for whom the route out of poverty is to catch more fish — not more kinds of fish.
The findings were presented on the same day as a study was published in Science magazine, showing that the world has failed in its bid to halt the decline in biodiversity by 2010.
The Convention on Biological Diversity was agreed in 2002. Yet almost every species and every ecosystem in the world is in decline, according to the study, led by Stuart Butchart from the UN Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UK, and BirdLife International.
Leisher told SciDev.Net that his organisation has switched from publicising 'biodiversity' to talking about 'nature' because "biodiversity does not resonate as a term".
It now focuses on regenerating areas that are already degraded rather than conserving pristine ones.
"If you restore degraded lands, you will increase biomass and restore nature," Leisher said, adding that the result was a direct impact on poverty reduction.
Jayant Sarnaik — deputy director of the Applied Environmental Research Foundation, India, said that a problem dogging studies of biodiversity and poverty is that the former is defined in various ways.
"The biggest financial institutes like the World Bank ... say that biodiversity is non-renewable biomass. So how can we expect that communities will not [use up resources]? They need biomass for a number of reasons.
"We are always trying to understand things from our perspective, we are not trying to look at how [local communities] perceive biodiversity."
But Matt Walpole, head of the UN Environment Programme's Ecosystem Assessment Programme, and an author of the Science study, warned that the finding that biomass was more important than biodiversity was context-specific.
"If one thinks in terms of consumptive use then amount is important," he said. But in agriculture, for example, biodiversity is important.
"Variability allows adaptability to variations in the ecosystem ... if you've got variation then you are more resistant to shocks."
Link to full report in Science [2.1MB]
Do you feel that it is more important to focus on the preservation of biomass or biodiversity?
If you are a registered user of SciDev.Net, send us your comment below. If not, you can either register here and then comment, or send us your views as an email.
Comments (17)
ironjustice
(
Canada
)
30 April 2010
The only way the scientists and farmers are going to 'see eye to eye' is if the scientists are able to convince the farmers that there is going to be MORE FOOD produced as opposed to more 'different foods' for unknown reasons. The scientist MUST convince the farmers the alternating of crops PRESERVES the farmland and allows FOR higher YIELDS of different crops. Trying to convince a farmer that he is going to 'save Afica' isn't going to work when he can hardly feed himself. The farmer will be RIGHTLY suspicious of the work done by scientists who 'may seem' to be trying to 'make work' for THEMSELVES / more scientists. The farmer MUST trust the scientist to be ON 'his side' as opposed to being out to create more 'jobs for scientists'.
Imho ..
mundializacion
(
Peru
)
1 May 2010
Biodiversity is the key and sustainable word. Of course it must also involve a full amount of science and tecnological innovation.
arasheedyassin
(
Yemen
)
2 May 2010
Biomass and diversity are interrelated. Living beings including humans require biomass but biomass itself depends on biodiversity for its generation or regeneration. Thus preserving biodiversity means insuring prolonged biomass production for living beings. Microorganisms and humans and including all other species in between require biomass and millions of these exist in "nature". It is well recorded that millions of organisms vanish before these are discovered and studies. Several of these depend on biodiversity and must be benificial to support life on earth and existence. Hence, preserve biodiversity to produce biomass to support life. Humans are the terminators and excavators of biodiversity. But humans must learn and understand that their existence depend on preserving biodiversity regardless of what type and how much biomass is produced and consumed.
collery
(
United Kingdom
)
4 May 2010
I don't believe preserving or increasing biomass is the answer. Here in Kenya, there is a huge dependence on a handful of non-essential cash crops, such as sisal, tea, coffee, sugar, flowers and a few others. Food growing is dominated by maize, kale and a few other things. Even woodlands are dominated by non-indigenous pine and eucalyptus. Most of what is grown is destructive and unreliable, Kenya needs to diversify in many ways to reduce the country's many vulnerabilities.
Juan Fernando Fernandez-Manjarrres
(
France
)
4 May 2010
It is unfortunate that researchers confound these inter-related issues. What if we proposed more biomass and more diverse as an integral strategy. The several types of cassava cultivated by the Amazon tribes -each for a different purpose- is a good example. And example abound. Too bad conclusions are driven from oversimplified cases.
Bhaskar Joshi
(
Gulbarga University |
India
)
4 May 2010
I think both are important. At least Indian farmers traditionally know about the importance of crop diversity and its value in maitaining soil fertility and preserving biomass. We need to focus on both, biodiversity and the importance of biomass.
Jonny
(
Weizmann Inst Sci |
Israel
)
4 May 2010
Crop diversity and rotation is of utmost importance, but poor farmers must feed their families, and have become to depend on a few crops with highest yields that have inherent adaptability to various conditions. Crops that could and should be grown in rotation have gone by the wayside because they lack the inherent genetic diversity to adapt - they have hit a genetic glass ceiling. To increase crop biodiversity, we must provide these lesser grown crops with the genes that do not exist in their own, or their close relatives genomes. They can get the missing genes that would allow their more widespread cultivation by genetic engineering. Industry is interested in 4-5 crops, so this enhancing crop genetic bases of lesser cultivated species can only come from public research efforts, closely coordinated with the farmers that will eventually grow the crops. The farmers must state the problems, and gene jockeys must find the genes and put them in appropriate genetic material. A regulatory regime must be in place that assists getting such genetic biodiversity into the crops need to enhance crop biodiversity.
Thilak Mallawaarachchi
(
Australia
)
5 May 2010
This is a vexed issue that deserves careful thinking. When we look back, most would agree that a major cause for biodiversity loss is land development, primarily for agriculture. The focus was improved output, which is essentially greater biomass. That focus continues to date, and in my opinion, is the primary reason why the society have failed to achieve the targeted level of reduction in biodiversity decline. The problem of feeding the poor is accute and the solution should entail using the available biodiversity more effectively. In adapting to global chnage, bodiversity provides more options rather than less. Less biodiverse land use systems, say tea, sugarcane, pastures etc. that have replaced biodiversity rich natural areas in the past would need to be redeveloped to increase productivity per unit area to reduce further biodiversity loss.
Edgar E. Gutierrez
(
University of Costa Rica |
Costa Rica
)
5 May 2010
Biodiversity is not going to feed the poor but it is going to provide food forever. The planet already produces enough food for all but there is a distribution problem driven by greed and economics. The article wrongly points to restore degraded lands, the question is Restore to what? Instead of talking about restoration we need to talk about rehabilitation of degraded lands for food productions, o for biodiversity conservation. Food production without biodiversity conservation is a short and painful nightmare!
Tamali Amongi
(
MUK |
Uganda
)
5 May 2010
Deliberate elimination of biodiversity in favour of biomass is unsustainable. Down the road we will end up with an "overfed" and an "undernourished" population. By then we shall have totally destroyed all the biodiversity that could have helped us rectify the problem.
minal mhatre
(
India
)
5 May 2010
Both biodiversity as well as biomass is important - for different reasons. Biomass for the survival of the poor especially in the developing countries and biodiversity because variation is what makes everything survive in the face of adversity. It adds to "survival of the fittest" and offers a genepool which forms the backbone of nature.
Johan Haderer
(
United Kingdom
)
18 May 2010
Why do people always think biomass utilization is in contradiction to biodiversity? It's possible to use biomass by simultaneously sustaining or even rising biodiversity. Sometimes this is possible to be done at the exact same place, sometimes you have to split areas. How to be done? Just have a look at Central Europe - people have learned to do so since centuries... Johan Haderer, http://www.forestindustries.eu
Dr Mohammed Ataur Rahman
(
Centre for Global Environmental Culture, IUBAT—International University of Business Agriculture and Technology |
Bangladesh
)
27 July 2010
Many species provide better scope of sustainability. Without biodiversity biomass production it is not sustainable i.e. impossible.
bawalther
(
Germany
)
4 December 2010
The headline is already misleading, as it confuses two issues: the need of poor farmers to make a living, and the concerns of the global community to protect biodiversity as a global heritage. This is a typical conflict of the interest of the individual versus the interest of the community, and there is no easy or straightforward answer. However, if we want to protect the global commons, whether they are climate, ocean fisheries or biodiversity, we will need to curtail the selfish interests of individuals, just as we curtail the selfish interests of individuals by forcing them to abide by traffic rules. Naturally, there will be many different ways to achieve this, all of which are context-dependent: some areas simply need to be protected, and farmers need to be kept out. In other areas, farmers can be financially supported for protecting biodiversity, both by including biodiversity elements such as hedges, ponds, shade trees, etc. into the matrix of their farmlands as well as using crop rotation and multi-species crops to increase the biodiversity of the farmed crops, which may include crops for biomass production. And, as several commentators have pointed out above, planting biodiverse crops may actually enhance farming yields in many cases. We state on our educational video website www.crisisoflife.nethttp://www.crisisoflife.net that we need to protect biodiversity both inside and outside of protected areas, and one of the biggest challenges is how to protect and enhance biodiversity in agricultural and urban areas. This will not work by appealing to the self-interest of the individual, but it needs to come through community, national and international initiatives, which protect biodiversity as a common good, which in turn should put some responsibility on farmers to protect biodiversity but should also support them logistically and financially.
bawalther
(
Germany
)
4 December 2010
Part 2: For example, in some tropical countries, farmers are required to keep a certain percentage of their land as forested land, thus placing the responsibility on the farmer. In the European Union, farmers are paid to enhance biodiversity within their farmlands, placing the financial burden on the government. As Terry Root says in one of our videos, “humans have got to come up with very, very creative ways to try and help species.” There is not one golden solution for this complex problem, but many different solutions for many different problems. However, the overall goal has to be to protect and enhance biodiversity in every ecosystem of the world to preserve the many valuable ecosystem services which we get from functional, healthy biodiversity. Such an integrated approach will not always be in the best selfish interest of the farmer, but it will be for the good of everybody, whereby the interests of the farmer should have their rightful place when finding a consensus. However, too often, farmers, as owners of the land, which is considered private property, are therefore given too many rights and too few responsibilities, as one of the common misconceptions is that private ownership of land somehow entails absolute rights to decide what to do with the land, e.g., clearcut a forest, destroy the local biodiversity, poison and erode the soil, and foul the groundwater and the adjacent rivers. This misconception has to be urgently abandoned, as farmers, as stewards of the land, should not just have rights but also responsibilities towards protecting and enhancing the common good. Therefore, they should be held responsible to protect commons such as local biodiversity, water and soil.
bawalther
(
Germany
)
4 December 2010
Part 3: The sooner we do this, the better off we all will be, including the farmers, because in the long-term, farmers themselves are utterly dependent on biodiversity and healthy ecosystems that provide them with healthy soils, sustained water resources and biocontrol of pest animals (see, for example, the excellent chapter on biodiverse and sustainable farming in Janine Benyus book ‘Biomimicry’). Finally, we need to get away from the myth of continuing economic growth, as too many humans, all wanting to drive large biofuel-powered cars and eating too much meat will surely be the death knell to biodiversity – we have to cherish frugality again, living within the means given by our planet, not wasting it away in an orgy of overconsumption.
Plantstress.com
(
Israel
)
13 January 2011
“A gradual narrowing of the genetic base of the varieties released by breeders could not be observed.” --
A conclusion made by Mark van de Wouw, Theo van Hintum, Chris Kik, Rob van Treuren and Bert Visser . 2010. In- Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta analysis. TAG 120,:1241-1252). -- Evidently, plant breeders will continue to maintain and utilize crop plant diversity with the solid backing of present gene banks and molecular methods. The urgent concern is how to produce more biomass with less inputs, especially in the South.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=spacer}
.jpg){kind=small}
Please wait
26 May 2012